Cahill just became a ********* with one stupid statement

asafi2

asafi2

Rookie
"I don't count the world tour finals to be a part of Roger and Rafa's (or Rafer as he calls him) head-to-head because it's the worst possible court for Rafa. I do count the exhibition this year as it is a lead up to the Australian Open."

He was saying this during the commentary of the Lack vs Federer match...
 
M

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
he's an idiot...

and a nad-****

can't they be at least as open-minded as the Nad-****s here? Seriously, they make Drakulie look like a Fed-****...
 
S

Seany

Banned
Yeah I was kind of shocked when Cahill said that....I thought he had some brains.

He also said "However I do count the exo in Abu Dhabi, which Nadal won".....wtf lol
 
Last edited:
nadal_slam_king

nadal_slam_king

Banned
Anyone just joining this thread, save some time and read this first:

TennisFan3 said:
Did people even HEAR what Cahill said? He did NOT ask anyone to discount the WTF match. He said the following clearly on ESPN2 talking to Chris Fowler-

- He just said that the WTF Fedal match is probably NOT very important while talking about the potential AO clash between Fed and Nadal.

- According to him this was because the WTF London O2 surface was DEAD and low bouncing. And it hurt Nadal's game most because he got NOTHING from the court in terms of spin.

- Cahill said that the London O2 arena was probably the worst court for Nadal to play on (even worse than faster indoor courts). Cahill was surprised that Nadal reached the final because he was had failed to EVEN win a set in 2009.

- Cahill said Nadal should be considered favorite because he won the last three slams, but this is also the best he's seen Federer play for a long time.

-Finally he said that the H2H, and the psychological edge thereof, between the two men would be crucial in a big slam final match.
_____________

Cahill is an excellent tennis analyst. He doesn't BS and he is FAR from a *********. In fact, he's more biased towards Federer, it at all..
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
How can Cahill be a nartard? All the guy has done was offer advice to Federer on how to beat Nadal. Perhaps its a strange opinion, but maybe he was just saying in terms of the AO their last match is closer to the conditions than something like the WTF.
 
S

Scientist

Rookie
I just heard that too OP and it made absolutely zero sense. I'm still confused by it. I like how Fowler immediately took him to task for such a stupid comment.

Hey Darren,

World Tour Final=officially sanctioned 1500 point year-ending ATP Tournament w/ top 8 players

Exo=Exo
 
Last edited:
nadal_slam_king

nadal_slam_king

Banned
TennisandMusic said:
How can Cahill be a nartard? All the guy has done was offer advice to Federer on how to beat Nadal. Perhaps its a strange opinion, but maybe he was just saying in terms of the AO their last match is closer to the conditions than something like the WTF.
Click to expand...

True, the facts remain Rafa leads Federer 3-1 on outdoor hardcourts and 1-0 at the Australian Open. And Federer double-bagelled Del Potro at that Australian Open.
 
Clay lover

Clay lover

Legend
So Fed's matches vs Nadal on clay doesn't count as well...it's the worst possible surface (not like he's bad on it) for him...great logic cahill..
 
S

Seany

Banned
Clay lover said:
So Fed's matches vs Nadal on clay doesn't count as well...it's the worst possible surface (not like he's bad on it) for him...great logic cahill..
Click to expand...

Exactly, and according to cahill you can't hit through the court, which is a disadvantage to Nadal... apart from the ton of winner that Federer hit in the tournament.
 
I

InsideIn

New User
You people on these boards care what American television commentators are saying? Everyone knows they're just for show, who takes them seriously?
 
namelessone

namelessone

Legend
TennisandMusic said:
How can Cahill be a nartard? All the guy has done was offer advice to Federer on how to beat Nadal. Perhaps its a strange opinion, but maybe he was just saying in terms of the AO their last match is closer to the conditions than something like the WTF.
Click to expand...

+1.

Most people don't realize that these commentators are bandwagoners, not really fans of any particular player.
 
Nadalfan89

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.
 
S

Seany

Banned
nadal_slam_king said:
Obviously only outdoor hardcourts matter when talking about the Australian Open, that's what Cahill was implying.
Click to expand...

He was talking very specifically about their head to head, and how it gives Nadal a psychological advantage, which is very true, but the what he was saying about the final at the WTF was gibberish.
 
S

Seany

Banned
Nadalfan89 said:
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.
Click to expand...
Fast? London?

Lol, you have just demonstrated how stupid you really are, and how lacking you are in basic tennis knowledge, if you don't have a clue just stay out of the debate, it's less embarrassing for you.
 
nadal_slam_king

nadal_slam_king

Banned
asafi2 said:
Cahill wasn't talking about the Australian Open. He was talking about their head-to-head.
Click to expand...

If he was talking about the h2h in relation to their chances at this Australian Open then only the outdoor hardcourt h2h would matter. Federer defeated Rafa twice on indoor hardcourts before the 2009 AO for example, so those indoor meetings were irrelevant to that AO.
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Cahill obviously rates Federer as a great clay-court player if he didn't bother to rule out all of Fed's losses to Rafa on that surface.

I also still wonder why people still bother with h2h talk. The only time the h2h matters at all in the larger scheme of history is if players are equal or near equal in overall accomplishments. At this stage Nadal couldn't even be considered 2nd or 3rd best on the overall accomplishment list (of the open era alone).
 
Last edited:
nadal_slam_king

nadal_slam_king

Banned
Bobby Jr said:
I wonder why people still bother with h2h talk. The only time the h2h matters at all in the larger scheme of history is if players are equal or near equal in overall accomplishments. At this stage Nadal couldn't even be considered 2nd or 3rd best on the overall accomplishment list (of the open era alone) by the most commonly accepted standard: slam wins.
Click to expand...

He's not supposed to be, he's 24. You can't blame people for looking ahead, given that he's in his prime and so young. And this is a free society, people are allowed to have thoughts on matters and express them.

Anyway, the h2h talk is relevant because its believed that they'll meet at the AO Final, so to know that Rafa has the edge on outdoor hardcourts is relevant.
 
Blade0324

Blade0324

Hall of Fame
Seany said:
Fast? London?

Lol, you have just demonstrated how stupid you really are, and how lacking you are in basic tennis knowledge, if you don't have a clue just stay out of the debate, it's less embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...

The YEC in London courts are indeed quite fast. How do you figure that they aren't. They might be the fastest courts played on throughout the entire ATP season.
 
AM95

AM95

Hall of Fame
Nadalfan89 said:
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.
Click to expand...

nadal got to the final (when he couldnt win a set in 2009) and beat an on-fire murray..thats good enough.
 
asafi2

asafi2

Rookie
Blade0324 said:
The YEC in London courts are indeed quite fast. How do you figure that they aren't. They might be the fastest courts played on throughout the entire ATP season.
Click to expand...

When asked about the court speed at the WTF.

Q. Can you explain the difference between Basel, Paris and here?

ROGER FEDERER: I thought Basel was medium fast kind of court speed. Paris was really fast, considering we haven't played on a surface like this in years. So the transition to Paris was quite difficult to make for all the players. But it was nice to be on a court like that again.

Then this now seems really slow. Hardly any aces. I think in Basel and Paris, I was serving an average of 15 aces a match. Here I'm going on an average of five. It's going to be quite a different week.

You have to adjust mentally to tougher rallies. When you do come in, you're going to get passed sometimes, which is not so easy to do on a quicker court.
 
AM95

AM95

Hall of Fame
lidoazndiabloboi said:
i think Cahill is just jealous that Roger picked Paul Annacone for a coach and not him.
Click to expand...

^^ this. dont think he is happy that annacone is getting the glory in instilling an agressive mindset into federer, especially when Cahill decided to not commit to federer's team back in 09.
 
J

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
Cahill is still pissed off he's not coaching Federer.

I do not count every claycourt match they ever played because it's Federer's worst surface..
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
nadal_slam_king said:
He's not supposed to be, he's 24. You can't blame people for looking ahead, given that he's in his prime and so young. And this is a free society, people are allowed to have thoughts on matters and express them.

Anyway, the h2h talk is relevant because its believed that they'll meet at the AO Final, so to know that Rafa has the edge on outdoor hardcourts is relevant.
Click to expand...
Thinking ahead in terms of slam projections more often turns out way wrong than it does right. Chang, Courier, Muster etc etc etc all turned out to be fizzers in terms of slam wins. In fact early 'potential' is rarely reflected in accomplishments at the end of a player's career. Federer is a case where it did work out (and still in progress maybe even) but there is no surety in Nadal keeping his last few year's rate of slam wins. In fact the odds are stacked heavily against it. People who look at him and say he'll overtake Federer often omit to do basic maths which shows to pass Federer he'll need to win 2 slams per year for the next five years. Yet in the past 5 years he's only done more than 1 slam in a season twice. (I hear cries of 'pre-prime' about to get bashed into your keyboard nadal_slam_king). So nothing is a given.

So far as the h2h is concerned. It's irrelevant unless you either ignore surface factors or accept all of them. You can't accept only the ones which suit your argument. So either they don't matter or you have to discount all fast/indoor results and the clay court ones. Picking and choosing in a manner convenient to your argument is the sign of a low IQ kook or someone who simply hasn't learnt the concept of even moderate impartiality.

It should also be mentioned that Cahill is a moron if he thinks London was a lightning fast court. This was mentioned by many, players included. What was peculiar about them, as asafi2 mentions above, was they had a low bounce. So, if height of bounce is such a factor in Federer's win over Nadal then, again, fairness would dictate that not only should Nadal's clay wins not count in the h2h but neither should his AO win since Melbourne has a higher than average bounce. It's toooooo unfair on Roger man... :lol:
 
Last edited:
nadal_slam_king

nadal_slam_king

Banned
Bobby Jr said:
Thinking ahead in terms of slam projections more often turns out way wrong than it does right. Chang, Courier, Muster etc etc etc all turned out to be fizzers in terms of slam wins.
Click to expand...

Well, Rafa sure didn't turn out to be a fizzer, that is for sure. A lot of people were talking about him adapting to all surfaces and winning many slams back in 2006 when he made the Wimbledon Final with only 4 matches of grasscourt experience prior to that year. I think that was an obvious enough sign.

Those guys, Chang, Courier, Muster were just grinders, clear limitations.
 
IvanAndreevich

IvanAndreevich

Legend
Nadalfan89 said:
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.
Click to expand...

London is not a fast court by any means. It's kind of slow. Probably the slowest indoor court around, and slower than the AO.
 
S

Scientist

Rookie
IvanAndreevich said:
London is not a fast court by any means. It's kind of slow. Probably the slowest indoor court around, and slower than the AO.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is it's not even the point. This just in, tennis matches are played on a variety of surfaces. To discount any just because it doesn't suit you (or one's player of interest ahem) makes absolutely zero sense. They're officially sanctioned matches whether grass/clay/hard/underwater/etc. And if the WTF isn't an "official" venue then what is? That guy is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Yeah that particular comment is pretty stupid. I dont pay much attention to ESPN anyway though. They are just the clown crew and are the laughing stock of the tennis community. People wonder why no Americans watch tennis. Well for one thing ESPN owns the rights to all tennis events in the U.S and hire such a pathetic team of dufuses that it is unbearable for anyone to watch.
 
B

BigServer1

Legend
If that's the actual comment, that's ridiculous. Regardless of the disparity of surfaces, anyone that counts an exo result over a WTF result is crazy.

Interesting to hear that fowler jumped on him immediately.
 
D

DMan

Professional
nadal_slam_king said:
Cahill knows that a statement like that won't sit well with Federer's fans, but he has no reason to care about Federer's fans. He's commentating because its his job, and he's just doing his job, giving his honest thoughts on tennis. His job isn't to make Federer fans happy.
Click to expand...

His job is to make Nadal fans happy, right?

And for those who weren't aware of it already, Cahill has been sleeping with Rafa for a long time.

Still, the most ridiculous statement to claim the WTF doesn't count, simply because, in his opinion, the court surface doesn't suit Nadal.

Could we counter with wiping out all the clay matches between those two, since the clay surface doesn't suit Roger's game? LOL!!!!
 
nadal_slam_king

nadal_slam_king

Banned
DMan said:
His job is to make Nadal fans happy, right?

And for those who weren't aware of it already, Cahill has been sleeping with Rafa for a long time.

Still, the most ridiculous statement to claim the WTF doesn't count, simply because, in his opinion, the court surface doesn't suit Nadal.

Could we counter with wiping out all the clay matches between those two, since the clay surface doesn't suit Roger's game? LOL!!!!
Click to expand...

No, not make Rafa fans happy, just speak his mind. He means that only outdoor hardcourts count if we are discussing how they matchup at the AO. And he's correct. 3-1 Rafa leads on outdoor hardcourts. Yeah wipe out clay, grass and indoor hardcourts.
 
sonicare

sonicare

Hall of Fame
nadal_slam_king said:
No, not make Rafa fans happy, just speak his mind. He means that only outdoor hardcourts count if we are discussing how they matchup at the AO. And he's correct. 3-1 Rafa leads on outdoor hardcourts. Yeah wipe out clay, grass and indoor hardcourts.
Click to expand...

TBH thats how I took it too.

he might be using the phrase h2h to mean in terms of matchup, not the number 14-8
 
nadal_slam_king

nadal_slam_king

Banned
sonicare said:
TBH thats how I took it too.

he might be using the phrase h2h to mean in terms of matchup, not the number 14-8
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how I see it. It's like in 2009 after Rafa beat Verdasco in the SF, they would have been talking about the AO Final Fedal matchup and analyzing, and they'd focus on their outdoor hardcourt meetings because they know if focusing on hardcourts overall it might be misleading to include the then 2-0 lead (now 3-0) Federer had on indoor meetings.
 
S

Sharpshooter

Banned
DMan said:
His job is to make Nadal fans happy, right?

And for those who weren't aware of it already, Cahill has been sleeping with Rafa for a long time.

Still, the most ridiculous statement to claim the WTF doesn't count, simply because, in his opinion, the court surface doesn't suit Nadal.

Could we counter with wiping out all the clay matches between those two, since the clay surface doesn't suit Roger's game? LOL!!!!
Click to expand...

Don't worry, all your fellow ****s have been on to that one already...

Funny how all you ****s get your panties in a bundle when someone tries to discount a Fed win because of a surface, yet you guys have been trying to discount all of Rafa's clay victories for ages.

LOL what a bunch of tossers!!!
 
D

DMan

Professional
Sharpshooter said:
Don't worry, all your fellow ****s have been on to that one already...

Funny how all you ****s get your panties in a bundle when someone tries to discount a Fed win because of a surface, yet you guys have been trying to discount all of Rafa's clay victories for ages.

LOL what a bunch of tossers!!!
Click to expand...

Just who has been discounting any victories, other than Cahill? (A well known Nadal ****, BTW!)

The very obvious fact is that more than half of the H2H matches between Nadal and Federer have been on clay, a surface that obviously suits Nadal. Now if more than half were on grass or indoors, what do you think the H2H would be?
 
namelessone

namelessone

Legend
DMan said:
Just who has been discounting any victories, other than Cahill? (A well known Nadal ****, BTW!)

The very obvious fact is that more than half of the H2H matches between Nadal and Federer have been on clay, a surface that obviously suits Nadal. Now if more than half were on grass or indoors, what do you think the H2H would be?
Click to expand...

Are you high?

Cahill has been "advising" Roger on Tv for years on how to beat Nadal. I can still remember his bit before AO 09' final where he said that Rafa seems a bit tired and that he would come in more, be more aggressive on the BH and stuff like that. He even said that Nadal's WB withdrawal in 2010 might have to do more with the emotional side(after losing RG) than with tendonitis and all the Nadal fans, including me, disagreed with him strongly on that one.

Maybe he's changed tone but he was certainly not a Nadal fan before.
 
skip1969

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
i had the tv on mute almost exclusively today, but somehow i did manage to catch that little gem from cahill. it made me chuckle.
 
S

Sharpshooter

Banned
DMan said:
Just who has been discounting any victories, other than Cahill? (A well known Nadal ****, BTW!)

The very obvious fact is that more than half of the H2H matches between Nadal and Federer have been on clay, a surface that obviously suits Nadal. Now if more than half were on grass or indoors, what do you think the H2H would be?
Click to expand...

I like how you conveniently leave out outdoor HC since Rafa owns him on that too and that is the most common surface behind clay. So from the 2 most common surfaces, Rafa owns him 13-3 - (Fed had 2 clay victories and 1 on outdoor HC ).

Oh and BTW, I think these days Rafa would have Fed's number on a grass court too. However that is hard to tell, just because Fed has a 2-1 lead doesn't mean he would own him on it, don't forget how close those Wim finals were, Fed never belted Rafa on grass apart from the first set in 06Wim final and that was mainly due to Rafa's nerves. Since that first set, Fed has won 7 sets(2 more in 06, 3 in 07 and 2 in 08 ) against Rafa on grass compared to Rafa's 6 (1 in 06, 2 in 07 and 3 in 08 ), so it is very close.

So to answer your question, if they had met on grass 11 times, Fed might just hold the lead at 6-5 but you cannot categorically say that Fed would have that lead, it could just as easily be 6-5 in favor of Rafa IMO.
 
Last edited:
fedfan08

fedfan08

Professional
Nadalfan89 said:
Indoor fast hardcourt is literally the worst case scenario for Nadal. It's not biased to say that. Roger is very good on clay, so that's why the clay matches are never looked at as biased.
Click to expand...
where do we have indoor fast hard courts? They don't exist anymore. The court in London might have been lower bouncing, but it certainly wasn't fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sixone90
Cahill confirmed with Federer
Replies
24
Views
2K
veroniquem
veroniquem
RalphNYC
Cahill dream team
Replies
1
Views
643
Puma
P
marc45
Cahill Interview with NYT
Replies
4
Views
595
every7
every7
Lozo1016
A Bit of Insight On The Djokovic-Sinner Match From Coach Darren Cahill
Replies
39
Views
1K
Soul_of_Slicehand
S
N
Roger played Olympics with a heavy heart
Replies
14
Views
2K
Towser83
Towser83
Top