SLD76
G.O.A.T.
yeah, there used to be two wendy's near me, both of them were replaced. the closest one now is 45 min away, le sigh.
Federer USO 04 final V Nadal USO 10 final - Who wins?
yeah, there used to be two wendy's near me, both of them were replaced. the closest one now is 45 min away, le sigh.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Why would anybody in their sane mind serve faster than they need to?
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Yeah I don't think Wendy's is doing too well now honestly. Hardees is one of my fav too but none close to me
Yeah might as well, Fed fans see it one way, Nadal fans the other, so it's kind of pointless lol.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
My point is people are putting huge stock on Nadal's defeat as if it means something, when Fed almost lost to a player who didn't play as well as Rosol.
Just bringing a different point of view.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Gay bacon strips.
It's not about lucky but that's how the system works. When Fed and Nadal were ranked #1 and #2, the only way they can meet is in the final. However, since Nole is a problemic for Nadal, most of the time he was in Fed's half. So it's Nadal that benefitted out of this situation.
So Fed isn't allow to past his prime but other players are allowed to?
JMac was in his prime at 31. That's why he only won 1 titles that year.:lol:
Yes, unless he told us he fould the fountain of youth.
And how many times had Nadal narrowly escape from losing in the early round against the big hitters/servers at Wimbledon? This time he wasn't fortunate and Rosol beat him fair and square.
Grass is still much difference from clay. Had Rosol/Nadal was playing on clay, there wouldn't be an upset.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
2004 US Open Hewitt would probably beat this Nadal, Federer is just overkill.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Wait a minute there, sure 30-31 Fed might have lost to Rosol if he played him instead of Nadal (though I personally don't think so) but we're talking about 25-26 year old Nadal here, 25-26 Fed would have beaten the crap out of Rosol or any other journeyman in the early rounds of Wimbledon, unlike Nadal, during Fed's prime he wasn't vulnerable to such an opponent in early Wimbledon rounds.
Interesting that you never pass the opportunity to point out that 29 year old Sampras is "way" out of his prime but don't seem to extend the same courtesy to 30 year old Fed? Those are double standards.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes, It's getting tiring seeing you claim Sampras was "way" past his prime when he got beat at his own game on Centre Court as a defending champion by a teenage Fed who wasn't even top 10 yet and would take another nearly 3 years to reach slam QF again.
Not to mention, you claiming 24-25 year old Nadal is past his prime as well.
Oh I doubt that (especially peak for peak I'd favour Fed at Wimbledon and USO over any version of Nadal), though you'd first have to point out what prime Nadal is, you seem to think he's past it at the age of 24-25.
Of course not, he'll turn 31 this year, he's "way" past his prime.
If winning % was that much of a factor then we'd have to conclude Nadal played the best tennis of his life in 2005 or that at the very least he was in his prime.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
That's because once again it was 26 year old Nadal who lost to Rosol while Fed is 30-31.
2003-2009 Fed reached Wimbledon final by losing one single set on the way or none (in 2008 ).
We have to see how 31 year old Nadal will do in early Wimbledon rounds to compare.
One that is incredibly flawed.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes, that's one logic that continues to astound me on this forum, everyone ages but Fed it seems.
Oh I doubt he was even born during JMac's time, my guess is he's yet another double account from some Nadal fan/Fed hater, it's getting pretty clear now that I've seen more of his posts.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
i can't take posts like this seriously.......plexicushion has less bounce compared to decoturf, just check any highlights if you are still in doubt.......
who are we to decide what was federer's prime when he won a slam very recently and lost slams only to nadal and djokovic over the last two years?
World Beater
Hall of Fame
ucantbeserious = 380pistol..or whatever.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Continue with the conspiracy theory, won't you?
The fact that Djokovic was in Fed's half when Djokovic was #3 more often was irrelevant. Why? Look at the results. Djokovic prior to 2011 was no more problematic to Nadal than Murray. Retirements by Djoker were routine.
And, regardless, Rafa hadn't matured by then in hardcourt and he normally wouldn't make it to the final. AO 2009 Nadal and Verdasco played the true Final in their SF. Murray has eliminated Nadal a few times in hardcourt slams.
Like I said, continue with the conspiracy theory, but in reality Nadal has never profited from the "arrangement".
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Fed is out of his prime, obviously. He was out of his prime 2 1/2 years ago. That's why this is the first slam he won in 2 1/2 years, he got lucky (roof, Nadal out, amongst other factors). He played great, don't take me wrong. Sometimes luck makes things a little easier though.
Nadal is out of his peak as well, and has been for almost 2 years. He only got to those finals last year because nobody got in his way before the final.
You look at the 5 year difference, but if you look at the years on tour and the mileage Nadal has due to his playing style, you easily realize he's very close to being at the same level of Fed as far as "being out of his prime".
No double standards.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Alright. But Sampras was past his prime. I mean, he wasn't even in the Top 10 back then, was he? If that's not the definition of being past his prime for a guy who until very recently had the record of Weeks as #1 I don't know what is.
Nadal? Nadal is clearly past his prime. For nothing else than his tendonitis. Some players go out of their prime because they become sluggish, they lose their drive to win, or because they lose speed, serve, or whatever. Nadal is past his prime only because of his physical troubles. I suppose that's better than being out of your prime because of natural decline, in the sense that if you manage the tendonitis you still have a chance of playing at or near peak form.
Fair enough. For me, after 2008, I've always gotten the feeling that Nadal could win against RoFed everywhere. That's the point at which Nadal broke into prime form (second half 08 up to first quarter 09). Then his knees doomed him again. Such a pity.
Again, age is only a factor. Winning % is also deceiving because you need to account for other reasons besides playing level (injuries, opponents, luck, etc). Yes, luck also counts (ask Djokovic, because as awesome as he was in 2011 he got lucky a couple of times).
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Yes, Fed was a beast in Wimbledon, although not as much of a beast as Nadal was/is in Roland Garros.
I don't expect Nadal to do well at age 31 in Wimbledon because of many reasons. It's a long time off to engage in any meaningful predictions also.
OK, I respect your opinion. I, obviously, respectfully disagree.
Given that "prime" Nadal how often struggled in the early rounds at Wimbledon, I'd venture to say that old Nadal isn't going to do well at that age.
Federererer
Banned
Nadal is very overrated at Wimbledon. Yeah he got to a bunch of finals but he was on the verge of going out in the first week a couple of times. He has been very lucky at Wimbledon and Rosol proved it. Yes Nadal may have dominated at FO more than Fed at Wimby, but I would say Fed has done better at FO than Nadal at Wimby, despite Nadal having 2 Wimby's to Fed's 1 FO.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Prime or old, I'd take Nadal in Wimbledon or anywhere else against a scared GOAT.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Fed better at FO? Please. He was better at getting to the final, and that's it. With Nadal at the other side of the net he will never win in RG.
As for Nadal being overrated in Wimbledon, first I'd need to know how he is rated to see if he is overrated. He's a 5 time finalist, 2 time winner as of 2012. How is that being overrated? Overrated is better applied to people like Soderling.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
10is
Professional
Yep! Has too much of an over-zealous axe grinding agenda against Federer's success to be otherwise. I'[m guessing it's actually a Sampras **** guised as a McEnroe fan.
Federer has just as many finals appearances at RG as Nadal does at Wimbledon, and more semis and quarters appearances. It's certainly debatable.
Regardless, Federer has dominated 3 majors, and was excellent in the other one. Nadal has dominated 1. Been very good at one other, and simply good at the other two.
Regardless, Federer has dominated 3 majors, and was excellent in the other one. Nadal has dominated 1. Been very good at one other, and simply good at the other two.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Not really because Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon. As for Nadal struggling early at Wimbledons, that must make Borg and Laver "lucky" as well then, because they would often struggle early on at Wimbledon.
Federererer
Banned
If someone has 10 Wimb titles then someone who has 3 Wimb titles and is constantly called amazing is overrated at Wimb despite having 3 titles. It's all relative.
Fed may not have beaten Nadal at FO, but likewise the only way Nadal can beat Fed at Wimby is when he's not in peak form, and even then he can barely win.
JustBob
Hall of Fame
Nadal can't even get through the grind of an entire tennis season at 26, you think he'll still be playing tennis at 31? I wouldn't be surprised at all if he retired before 30.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
I missed zagor's concern somehow.
Let me address it: No, I am very respectful of Federer's success. It's an amazing feat what he has done, and we are lucky to live in this age (not just because of RoFed but also because of Nadal, and Djokovic left his imprint firmly planted in history due to last year).
I am a skeptic though. And I like to approach problems with a creative perspective. Add to that the fact that I consider most Federer radical supporters have unfairly dismissed and disrespected Nadal far too long.
But no, I'm not a hater, far from it. There's plenty of haters around though. Unless only "Fed haters" annoy you, you have plenty of them to choose from for you to preach to, if "hating" as an attitude in the abstract, regardless of its object, annoys you so much.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
My point is Federer under normal conditions stands no chance against Nadal in RG. Rafa does always stand a chance in Wimbledon (or elsewhere unless proven wrong) against Federer. You may choose to ignore this fact or consider it irrelevant since it doesn't suit your agenda, but it is a very real phenomenon.
Borg won a Wimbledon title without dropping a set. He was far more dominant at Wimbledon than Nadal. In fact, you can't even call Nadal ever dominant at Wimbledon, despite 2 titles and 5 finals.
Federererer
Banned
2011 was normal conditions with Fed past prime. Fed stood a chance if you watched that match. Anyone who says he didn't is completely ignorant about tennis.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Enjoy "The Matrix" or choose to open your eyes to reality. It's up to you.
Rafa was barely 21 in 2006. He played his first final against one of the two most accomplished players in Wimbledon ever in 2006. In 2007 he took Fed to 5 sets. In 2008 he won. It's too bad Fed didn't make it to the final in 2010 or 2011, and that Nadal had a fluke elimination this past year, but you can guess easily how things would have gone. Federer was lucky to not make it in 2010 and 2011, and that Nadal didn't make it this year.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
He might very well do so. I certainly would if I were to reach 18 slams and surpass Fed's record. The kid has too much fight in him though.
Federererer
Banned
It wasn't a fluke elimination, it could have easily happened in previous Wimbledons. IT finally caught up with him. Nadal was lucky he didn't face a healthy Fed in 2008.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Dominant? You mean as in "Boss"? Well, nothing like he does in RG, no. But then again, not many players do though.
How is 2008? I think he only dropped 1 set before getting to the final. That's pretty dominant for a 22 year old kid that doesn't know how to play in grass, huh?
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Getting close and standing a chance are completely different things. At any point in the match (you choose which point that is), would you bet money on Federer? I certainly wouldn't, I'm not that rich.
Federererer
Banned
So why didn't you put your life savings on Nadal winning if Fed had zero chance?
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Yes, right. And Federer is doubly lucky that Nadal dropped out of RG and Wimby in 2009. He didn't even have to face him. If he had, he would have just won his 15th slam, and wouldn't even be in contention for the GOAT title because he wouldn't even have a career GS.
Enjoy "The Matrix".
