Li Ching Yuen
Legend
Or hitting half-lobs on every point like Nadal and Ferrer. But I like that, so anyway, it's irrelevant.
Tell that to Roger Federer's backhand and he won't call them half lobs.
More like back-breakers.
Or hitting half-lobs on every point like Nadal and Ferrer. But I like that, so anyway, it's irrelevant.
Or hitting half-lobs on every point like Nadal and Ferrer.
LOL. Me too.
Hmmm. Interesting.
Is he back to 100% or not? He had stated he was 100% earlier this year, then after losing, said he wasn't. He also stated he wouldn't play a tournament (wimbledon) if he wasn't 100%, yet played several lower level tournaments right after, even though he had stated he wasn't 100%.
and what would "100% tennis form" look like in Nadal's case? When he is winning? or whenever convenient?
Nadal is a poor match-up for Fed. Point, you.
I could have sworn you were a Nadal fan? You don't ALWAYS have to be an ass.
Just pointing out the facts. Since nadal's life is the one that lead to these facts, I suppose you think he is an "ass". Nice. real nice.
Whatever you say. I just wish you would say something when you have something useful to contribute. 80% of your post count is juvenile nonsense.
Some of you may not speak Fedfanese.
From Websters FedFanese Dictionary:
Nadal is a poor matchup for Federer
def:
Nadal is better than Federer
...
This is nonsense. Look at career earnings, look at ranking trends, look at the records federer has broken-- all indicate that Federer is the superior player. The only argument I've heard for Nadal is the head-to-head between the two.
Nadal leads their overall head-to-head series 13-7 (Nadal leads 9-2 on clay, Federer leads 2-1 on grass, they are tied (3-3) on hard courts).
If anything it just indicates that Nadal hasn't been consistent enough to meet Federer anywhere but in finals of clay tournaments, therefore the lopsided h2h.
Whatever you say. I just wish you would say something when you have something useful to contribute. 80% of your post count is juvenile nonsense.
Those pictures are gorgeous. Now we just have to hope he'll play as great as he looks. Vamos!
You don't have to. There are plenty of us doing the liking for you, so feel free to just be your jealous self (I know you're jealous, don't deny it :twisted
He and his game is interesting to watch. There is no one like him!
Nope.
Grinder = reaching and putting into play balls that are being left and are unreachable for most other guys. Ex: Nadal, Ferrer.
Pusher = hitting dead balls from the middle of the baseline.
Ex: Murray, Simon.
I think it's 13-7 in grand slams on all surfaces eberything else is bs. But I forgot....I'm speaking English rather than Fedfanese so you can't understand me.
Luckily I speak Federese...... :
simple : Nadal was #1 , Federer #2......oh crap that's plain English again ....and not Fedfanese
Simon - yes, Murray - sometimes. But I remember at least 2 matches where no pushing was involved: USO-2008 semifinal and AO-2010 semifinal. Murray played very aggressive and very intelligent tennis. Such a pity that both times in the finals his game changed drastically and became sheer pushing.
So, Nadal plays DC again? Good news for the Federer camp!
Nadal decides to go for 'most DC wins of all time', rather than win some more Slams.
Here I'll try simple math to see if you can get it:
16>6 & 5>1
Now if Rafito is a better player as you claim he should have no trouble exceeding or atleast matching those numbers,when he does be sure to notify me,thanks.
I think it's 13-7 in grand slams on all surfaces eberything else is bs. But I forgot....I'm speaking English rather than Fedfanese so you can't understand me.
Luckily I speak Federese...... :
simple : Nadal was #1 , Federer #2......oh crap that's plain English again ....and not Fedfanese
Rafito is young enough to outlast and outplay Rogelito, and comparisons should be done when Rafa is 28 rather than inthe middle of his career.
Set-score of the last two slam encounters: 6-1 Murray.
No I don't, and never said that. I think Nadal is the second best player of this era, and since Federer is the best that must be good for Roger's chances of the no.1 ranking as well as his chances to win Slams. Doesn't mean he'll win them all with Rafa overplaying. I actually still favour Rafa at RG.You think Nadal is the only player that can beat Fed at a slam? Wrong. Del Potro showed it can be done.
Every player should play the DC. It's the only moment in the year where a player has to think "Us" and not "Me", the only moment where he has to take a non selfish decision. Giving one's country a chance to win the DC when one is healthy enough to play is a moral obligation for a player who respects his country. Look at what Nalbandian did recently and you will understand what the DC means for some players.
Murray leads the recent head to head 3 - 2.
Set-score of the last two slam encounters: 6-1 Murray.
:lol::lol:..............
:lol::lol:..............
How's that funny?
Nadal had one of the best records against top10 players a few years ago, now he has lost like 10 matches in a row against them. I don't think it's currently relevent that Nadal beat Murray in 2007.
But it goes both ways, the fact that Murray won the last two slam encounters doesn't mean that Nadal won't ever beat him again in a slam.
It's true. Nadal hasn't beaten anyone ranked in the top 10 for ages now.
You have omitted a very important inequation from your conjecture:
28>23 ... in a year of two it will transform to 25>0..
Rafito is young enough to outlast and outplay Rogelito, and comparisons should be done when Rafa is 28 rather than inthe middle of his career.
Set-score of the last two slam encounters: 6-1 Murray.
Slam score is 6:0 Nadal, masters score 15:4 Nadal, career titles score 36:14 Nadal, age difference is less than a year.
Who is the loser?
How does the head-to-head help Nadal when he plays Murray?Who decides what's recent and what's not? 2008 is recent but 2007 isn't, right?
The head to head says 7-3 and that's it.
Everyone except Nadal is a loser, Nadal is the greatest (despite having beat only losers).Slam score is 6:0 Nadal, masters score 15:4 Nadal, career titles score 36:14 Nadal, age difference is less than a year.
Who is the loser?
Slam score is 6:0 Nadal, masters score 15:4 Nadal, career titles score 36:14 Nadal, age difference is less than a year.
Who is the loser?
How does the head-to-head help Nadal when he plays Murray?
From what I've seen Murray has learned a lot from his past defeats to Nadal.
On hardcourt he has found the perfect balance between defending and attacking. He can enter hardcourt encounters against Nadal with a lot of confidence, knowing that Nadal needs to play very well to beat him, and even then it might not be enough.
Obviously on clay and grass Nadal's still clear favorite.
Nadal is the greatest (despite having beat only losers).
And I hope that Nadal will learn from his defeats too.
I don't know what are we arguing about.
The fact that Murray beat Nadal in the last meetings doesn't mean that Murray is a better player, just like Nadal having a positive head to head with Federer doesn't make him a better player.
Are you saying that Federer is a loser?
He beat Tsonga in Paris.
And despite this fact, Murray is still behind him in the rankings.
Whatever you say. I just wish you would say something when you have something useful to contribute.
Abu-Dhabi is an exho so that win counts as much (nothing) as Tomic's over Djokovic in Kooyong.He also beat Soderling in Aby-Dabi.
I think Drak has always been very clever in pointing out what an utter sham the whole on/off Nadal injury soap opera has been. I challenge you to refute anything he's posted. Of course, you're just upset that he isn't posting "juvenile nonsense" that kisses your idol's ass. Like this:
I wasn't serious.
If Nadal doesn't win this tournament, it will be because he is injured, or not 100% form.
Neither was I . All these my players better than your player conversations do become a bit tiresome.