What are the implications of Federer's slam count advantage if he meets Rafa at AO?

N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke, and back in 2004 Nadal did lose to players like Roddick or Hewitt - it doesn't make me a fan of either of them. It's relevant because if Nadal stayed a clay courter, like say, Ferrero or Moya, he might not have had as much success as he has. It's a tribute to Nadal for improving himself over time to be consistent on all surfaces. He's a great all surface player, but I feel the time is near where he will lose to "no names" AKA the Roddick's and Hewitt's of this generation.

So 3 of the last 5 Wimbledon winners were flukes you were saying, LOL! The best players at Wimbledon all those years won. Nadal in 2008 and 2010 at Wimbledon was playing better than anyone else and would have beaten anyone else in the draw those years. Federer in 2012 at Wimbledon was playing better than anyone else in the draw and fully deserved to win. How are those flukes. A fluke might be Pat Cash in 1987 for instance, as his win would have never happened had Becker not had that fluke loss to Doohan. A guy who has won 7 Wimbledons or been in 5 Wimbledon finals is never a fluke winner.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke, and back in 2004 Nadal did lose to players like Roddick or Hewitt - it doesn't make me a fan of either of them. It's relevant because if Nadal stayed a clay courter, like say, Ferrero or Moya, he might not have had as much success as he has. It's a tribute to Nadal for improving himself over time to be consistent on all surfaces. He's a great all surface player, but I feel the time is near where he will lose to "no names" AKA the Roddick's and Hewitt's of this generation.

Nobody flukes a major ok. Least of all Federer's win this year. It's a disgrace that you throw around these excuses and say people "fluke" into majors. You have no idea how hard it is a win a major, (I don't either) so I think you should stop saying so.
 

Def

Semi-Pro
Talking about matches involving Nadal in 2004 as relevant, ROTFL!!! You really are beyond desperate. Hewitt and Roddick would not stop Nadal from winning any slam, if Nadal is in slam winning form he always will beat such players, and if he were in the form to lose to either they arent events he was in the form to win anyway.

Nadal has reached the finals of 5 of the last 6 Wimbledons he played but won it twice by fluke, whatever. He is if anything unlucky to not have 3 or 4 Wimbledons, probably would have won in 2009 had he been able to play, and was a bit unlucky to lose that 2007 final. If anyone has been lucky at Wimbledon, make that super lucky, it is Federer with the rain delay in 2004 quite possibly being what saved his ass vs Roddick, Nadal blowing so many chances in that 2007 match and somehow scraping through despite losing about 80% of the baseline rallies, Nadal not playing in 2009 and that final which Roddick should have won. The last thing a **** should be speaking of is other players being lucky at Wimbledon.

On another note you should also be reminded that a Hewitt fanboy is also the last one who should talk about anyone else being lucky. The same player who had he peaked in anything than the transition era before Federer entered his prime and after the whole Sampras generation had hit the rocks (other than an already 32 year old Agassi) would today likely have 0 slams, 0 weeks at #1, 0 WTF, zero anything that makes him anymore relevant than say Tommy Haas.

Lastly who was going to beat Nadal in the 2010 Wimbledon final, Federer who nearly went out to Falla and got powered off court by Berdych, Djokovic, go ahead and give an answer, whoever it is will be a funny one. Nadal played the 2nd best player of that Wimbledon which was Murray in the semis and won in straight sets, and the 3rd (or 2nd) best player of that Wimbledon which was Berdych in the final and again won in straight sets. I am sure he would have loved to feed Federer or Djokovic both in mediocre form (and Djokovic in anything other than his 2011 form mediocre on grass to begin with) some bakery products rather than facing the more in form opponents like Murray and Berdych, but that is how it went, but hey he dealt with the tougher opponents easily anyway. By your logic we could say Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke and it would be even more true, the guy hadnt been to a Wimbledon semi in 3 years, and faced Murray who was 0-9 in sets in slam finals, but I wouldnt do that since even that would sound stupid, but it is what one would say by your ridiculous logic.

Thanks for the great laughs your posts in this thread gave me though. Great comedy.

The same can be said about Fed at RG, if Nadal wasn't there Fed may have won it from 2005-2012 subtracting a couple years for loses to people like Sodeling
 
Yes my prediction Federer would win Wimbledon this year 10 days before it happened (something most Federer fans werent doing even at that point, so as usual I was far more right than nearly everyone else like I always am). As for predicting he probably wouldnt win another Wimbledon before this year, that was the general consensus even amongst Federer fans who almost all agreed the U.S Open was his best shot at another slam with the Australian second based on his performances on the respective surfaces in recent years. Your attempts to mock me for that are on par with the desperation and stupidity of TMF's mocking my prediction that Djokovic probably wouldnt win Wimbledon, which is something 99.9% of people predicted before 2011. You of all people talking of anything stupid is rich, virtually every post you make it is the epitome of stupid. Lastly anyone saying a player who at 19 had won 8 of the last 9 slams she played was "maybe" not going to take a single of Graf's 11 post stabbing slams away had she not been stabbed already looks incredibly stupid to the highest degree. Even the all time Graf freak Hoffenheim/Gunther Parche didnt go that far.

Ah, such vitriol, such butthurt :) Federer put your butt flat down, admit it. I'm saying there's a chance Graf would still have 22 Slams, not necessarily that she'd win all of the 22 she happened to win but perhaps, possibly, others in their place. There's a chance. Any mathematical mind would acknowledge that or they're simply stupid. No one can predict the future with certainty, no matter how clear or obvious it may look. You of all people, who made that stupid prediction about Federer never winning another Wimbledon, should have learnt that the hard way.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Nobody flukes a major ok. Least of all Federer's win this year. It's a disgrace that you throw around these excuses and say people "fluke" into majors. You have no idea how hard it is a win a major, (I don't either) so I think you should stop saying so.
Nobody really thought Federer had a hope this year, therefore his win was a fluke. Irrespective of my ability to play tennis or knowing how to win a major, that's a fact. Your statement isn't relevant.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody really thought Federer had a hope this year, therefore his win was a fluke. Irrespective of my ability to play tennis or knowing how to win a major, that's a fact. Your statement isn't relevant.

Please tell me you're not serious because if you are then god help us all.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree with TMF though. It is hugely ironic that a Nadal fan would complain about someone trying to denigrate Nadal's accomplishments with at best flimsy excuses. As if they haven't been trying to do it to Federer for years.

It's hypocrisy. They always have excuses for Roger's success on clay, grass hard court.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Have you been to kindergarten?
Have you learned how to project rational thoughts in your posts? I can't find anything thought provoking in that statement, just an attack on my intellectual capabilities which should not be in question, as Federer had not made it past the quarterfinals of the last two Wimbledon's beforehand, therefore, nobody could predict his win this year.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Ah, such vitriol, such butthurt :)

Stop talking to yourself in the mirror, then posting about it on a public forum. It is distrubing (even for your standards).

I'm saying there's a chance Graf would still have 22 Slams

Which in itself is one of the most stupidest things anyone can ever say. It would also make a great sig along with the classic one you already gave me.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Have you learned how to project rational thoughts in your posts? I can't find anything thought provoking in that statement, just an attack on my intellectual capabilities which should not be in question, as Federer had not made it past the quarterfinals of the last two Wimbledon's beforehand, therefore, nobody could predict his win this year.

Wrong. John McEnroe did.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
It's hypocrisy. They always have excuses for Roger's success on clay, grass hard court.

Actually there are more excuses for Federer's lack of success on clay than anything. The constant Roger is really a 5 time Roland Garros, take away Nadal....BS.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody flukes a major ok. Least of all Federer's win this year. It's a disgrace that you throw around these excuses and say people "fluke" into majors. You have no idea how hard it is a win a major, (I don't either) so I think you should stop saying so.

According to Sabratha, any player who's isn't a pick to win a slam is a fluke if he managed to win it. He doesn't realize in history of tennis, many times a heavy favourite player doesn't win a slam.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody, as in the general population. Not former players.

It's still complete BS to say he fluked Wimbledon just because nobody could have predicted it. It's Federer, and it's grass. He had at the very least, the third best chance of winning it at the time.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Who cares if anyone could predict it? By your ******** logic, every win since the first Tennis match ever played is a fluke because "no one predicted" the others would win it. Federer's win over Sampras in 2001 was a fluke, Ivansivec's championship was a fluke, Murray's career is a fluke because his parents thought he was "talentless", Del Potro's 2009 US Open was a fluke, Ivan Lendl's win over McEnroe in that French Open was a fluke, Rosol's win over Nadal is a fluke, Soderling's wins over Nadal/Federer are flukes, most every first-time-championship win of all Tennis players is a fluke. I mean, that's just ******** logic. Are you for real? I'm surprised you even know how to switch ON a computer.
Uh, no. Every win isn't a "fluke" by that logic, every surprise win is. That's where predictions come into play, and if you weren't projecting so much with your "********" remarks in your post, perhaps you would see that?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Actually there are more excuses for Federer's lack of success on clay than anything. The constant Roger is really a 5 time Roland Garros, take away Nadal....BS.

You mean he isn't that good of a cc because he only won 1 RG; he had weak competition; he can't beat Nadal(and who could have). While Nadal is praised as the greatest cc(he deserve it) but Fed is just another good cc who's ranked really low in the al-time greatest cc.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Uh, no. Every win isn't a "fluke" by that logic, every surprise win is. That's where predictions come into play, and if you weren't projecting so much with your "********" remarks in your post, perhaps you would see that?

Ah see. There's the problem. Every "surprise" win is not a fluke. You need to check your definitions my friend.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
It's still complete BS to say he fluked Wimbledon just because nobody could have predicted it. It's Federer, and it's grass. He had at the very least, the third best chance of winning it at the time.
What about Berdych and Tsonga?
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
You mean he isn't that good of a cc because he only won 1 RG; he had weak competition; he can't beat Nadal(and who could have). While Nadal is praised as the greatest cc(he deserve it) but Fed is just another good cc who's ranked really low in the al-time greatest cc.

A player doesnt get awarded fantasy slams because of who they lost to. Do you regard Nadal a 4 time Wimbledon Champion and argue he is a top 5 grass courter all time just because he lost to Federer in 2 finals. The best clay courter Federer ever beat at RG is Djokovic (once). If we make Federer a 5 time RG Champ in some fantasy World lets give everyone else a RG title for every year they lost to anyone better on clay than Djokovic and see how many end up with more than 5 (eg- alot).
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Ah see. There's the problem. Every "surprise" win is not a fluke. You need to check your definitions my friend.
The Rosol win was a fluke, Federer winning Wimbledon was a surprise win.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
What about Berdych and Tsonga?

Yeah, and your point? What about Berdych and Tsonga? They earned their victories because they played well to beat Federer at Wimbledon. I'm not going to go around making up excuses and saying those were "flukes" just because they weren't supposed to beat Federer.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I said Graf might have. I don't think she would have but even if I had said Graf would have, I wouldn't have looked stupid because I wasn't going to be proven wrong. You, on the other hand, fell flat on your butt with your stupid declarative prediction :)

That's why I hate prediction. Especially coming forward by saying "he would never win, or he/she would this x number of slam blah blah blah". You'll likely to get burned.

Few years ago JBF made thread about Sharapova would never win another slam. A few people believe him, but Sharapova proved them wrong.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
The Rosol win was a fluke, Federer winning Wimbledon was a surprise win.

That's better. Rosol was on fire in that match, and he deserved that win, but, in general yes it was a fluke in a certain sense of the word, when you consider he'll probably never beat Nadal again, and he may very well never play that well again. Although I would be interested to see if Rosol could beat him again soon, and we may have to say it wasn't really a fluke, although as I said there is a very good chance the next time they play (if ever again) that Nadal clobbers him.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The Rosol win was a fluke, Federer winning Wimbledon was a surprise win.

No you didn't say that. You said Fed's '12 Wimbledon was a fluke. Which is a joke.

Nobody really thought Federer had a hope this year, therefore his win was a fluke. Irrespective of my ability to play tennis or knowing how to win a major, that's a fact. Your statement isn't relevant.

Rosol's win is a very rare occasion, but it's part of the sport. Upset will happen, and nothing you can prevent it(that's why they play the game). Any underdog who comes in play lights out tennis and upset the champion, it's a great win, not a fluke.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
In general Sabratha is more right than wrong with the last post though. Federer's win was a bit of a surprise, and Rosol's win, while totally deserved, could be termed a fluke even though upsets are a part of any sport. Rosol's win is as close to a fluke as you can get even though I hate calling it that because he played ridiculous tennis.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
In general Sabratha is more right than wrong with the last post though. Federer's win was a bit of a surprise, and Rosol's win, while totally deserved, could be termed a fluke even though upsets are a part of any sport. Rosol's win is as close to a fluke as you can get even though I hate calling it that because he played ridiculous tennis.

I see a fluke win is like when a player totally dominate his opponent and is about to finish him off. Then all of the sudden he injured himself(eg sprain his angle) and could finish the match.

When both players are healthy, it doesn't matter if one is a defending champion and the other is an unseeded player, an underdog can rise to an occasion and play great tennis, despite it's rare. We saw it to Soderling in '09, Fed in '01, Ashe in '75. I just don't see it as a fluke, because great champion are human too....they can't win them all.
 

Clarky21

Banned
In general Sabratha is more right than wrong with the last post though. Federer's win was a bit of a surprise, and Rosol's win, while totally deserved, could be termed a fluke even though upsets are a part of any sport. Rosol's win is as close to a fluke as you can get even though I hate calling it that because he played ridiculous tennis.


It was a fluke. He has never before or after that win produced anything like he showed in that match again. That is the very definition of a fluke.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
I see a fluke win is like when a player totally dominate his opponent and is about to finish him off. Then all of the sudden he injured himself(eg sprain his angle) and could finish the match.

When both players are healthy, it doesn't matter if one is a defending champion and the other is an unseeded player, an underdog can rise to an occasion and play great tennis, despite it's rare. We saw it to Soderling in '09, Fed in '01, Ashe in '75. I just don't see it as a fluke, because great champion are human too....they can't win them all.

Yes I agree with all of that. What I'm saying is Rosol's win wasn't a fluke in a sense because he played really well, but it was a fluke in the sense that there's a 99.9% chance he'll never play that well again, and there's a high chance he'll never beat Nadal again. However, I could also say that Nadal has to prove to everyone that it was a fluke by beating Rosol handily for the rest of their careers, but that of course depends on how many more times they play. That's another way to look at it.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I can see the stupidity in my posts today, I apologise. Let's move on. I believe Federer has a better shot at Nadal now that he has been out of the game for a while, and his return is an uncertainty. (Nobody knows if he will even regain the same form he had prior to his loss to Rosol).
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
It was a fluke. He has never before or after that win produced anything like he showed in that match again. That is the very definition of a fluke.

And that is exactly what I said it was. Just because I said I hated calling it that doesn't mean I don't think it was a fluke.
 

Clarky21

Banned
Yes I agree with all of that. What I'm saying is Rosol's win wasn't a fluke in a sense because he played really well, but it was a fluke in the sense that there's a 99.9% chance he'll never play that well again, and there's a high chance he'll never beat Nadal again. However, I could also say that Nadal has to prove to everyone that it was a fluke by beating Rosol handily for the rest of their careers, but that of course depends on how many more times they play. That's another way to look at it.



An 11 time slam winner has to prove that he can beat an arrogant mug like Rosol over the rest of their careers to prove it wasn't a fluke? :lol: Give me a break,will ya? Rosol needs to prove that HE can beat a healthy Nadal over 5 sets again,and considering that he can barely make it out of qualies,I doubt he will even get the chance. I also can't wait for the "Rosol has a winning record against Nadal" threads to pop up when it's all said and done. Lol.


And even if Nadal beats Rosol a hundred times(if he can even make it into the main draw,that is)people like you will STILL be insisting that Rosol will get him next time. They still do the same exact thing when it comes to Soderling on clay.
 
It was a fluke. He has never before or after that win produced anything like he showed in that match again. That is the very definition of a fluke.

So if you play the best match of your life... it's a fluke? That's an insult to Rosol. He may never be a top player but to call the biggest (and well deserved) moment of his career a fluke is so insulting and cruel.
 

Clarky21

Banned
So if you play the best match of your life... it's a fluke? That's an insult to Rosol. He may never be a top player but to call the biggest (and well deserved) moment of his career a fluke is so insulting and cruel.



It was a fluke. And the fact that he can't produce that type of tennis on the regular,or even make it out of qualies 99% of the time more than proves it. I don't give a crap how "cruel" you think it is to say so.
 
It was a fluke. And the fact that he can't produce that type of tennis on the regular,or even make it out of qualies 99% of the time more than proves it. I don't give a crap how "cruel" you think it is to say so.

You win a point? That's a fluke. You hold your serve? Yes, still a fluke. You break a service game? Okay, sure, fluke. You win a set? All right, okay, let's say that's a fluke. You win 2 sets? Eh, surely that can't be a fluke, but okay, a fluke it is. You win 3 sets. Still a fluke? Really? Really? I'd like to see any of you win a game off Nadal by "fluke".
 

Crisstti

Legend
It was a fluke. And the fact that he can't produce that type of tennis on the regular,or even make it out of qualies 99% of the time more than proves it. I don't give a crap how "cruel" you think it is to say so.

He needed to play the best match of his life, for Rafa to be injured, and the roof delay. And he still only won by like 3 points.
 

Clarky21

Banned
He needed to play the best match of his life, for Rafa to be injured, and the roof delay. And he still only won by like 3 points.



Yep. It was a fluke,and I also think if they hadn't stopped play to close the roof Rosol would have been history. Not sure what there is to argue about considering Rosol's career has not been anything to write home about. I guess the people who are insisting this wasn't a fluke also think that Bastl's win over Sampras at Wimby wasn't one either.
 

90's Clay

Banned
The only way Fed could have a legitimate advantage over Nadal at the AO is if Nadal just does not have enough matches under his belt for his return. Other then that Roger has NO CHANCE. One or two warmup tournaments for Nadal and he should be ok though.. I think he only had 1-2 tournaments under his belt before the AO in 2009 and he managed to win it that year.

Nadal probably wont even make it to the SF in Australia this year however. He probably won't make any real waves until the clay season starts up again
 
Last edited:
Yep. It was a fluke,and I also think if they hadn't stopped play to close the roof Rosol would have been history. Not sure what there is to argue about considering Rosol's career has not been anything to write home about. I guess the people who are insisting this wasn't a fluke also think that Bastl's win over Sampras at Wimby wasn't one either.

That wasn't a fluke either. Sampras played a terrible match by his standards.
 

Clarky21

Banned
That wasn't a fluke either. Sampras played a terrible match by his standards.



And Nadal didn't play well when he lost to Mugsol,either. He was barely moving out there,and had struggled with the great grass courter Granoller's in the round before. Here is the very definition of Mugsol's win over Nadal at Wimby this year:



fluke/flo͞ok/
Noun:

Unlikely chance occurrence, esp. a surprising piece of luck:.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Well I dunno if you'd call the Rosol win a fluke exactly, but the stars were aligned and he has zero chance of beating Rafa again, much less in a slam.
 

Crisstti

Legend
Yep. It was a fluke,and I also think if they hadn't stopped play to close the roof Rosol would have been history. Not sure what there is to argue about considering Rosol's career has not been anything to write home about. I guess the people who are insisting this wasn't a fluke also think that Bastl's win over Sampras at Wimby wasn't one either.

Most likely, but who knows what would have been of Rafa if he kept on playing injured like that.
 
And Nadal didn't play well when he lost to Mugsol,either. He was barely moving out there,and had struggled with the great grass courter Granoller's in the round before. Here is the very definition of Mugsol's win over Nadal at Wimby this year:



fluke/flo͞ok/
Noun:

Unlikely chance occurrence, esp. a surprising piece of luck:.

Except Rosol beat Nadal fair and square. They didn't flip a coin and choose who'd win. No "chance" or "luck" involved.
 

sonicare

Hall of Fame
Rosol has already proven that he can beat Nadal on the biggest stage in 5 sets.

Its NADAL who HAS to prove that he can beat Rosol.

The only thing we know is that everytime Nadal plays Rosol, Rosol beats him

Rosol has a 100% winning percentage against Nadal.

Get over it. I will however add that it is a matchup issue. Nadal cannot handle the heat against Rosol.

And as the saying goes "if you cant handle the heat, dont come in the kitchen" and thats why Nadal hasn't since step foot in a tennis court again.
 

Clarky21

Banned
Rosol has already proven that he can beat Nadal on the biggest stage in 5 sets.

Its NADAL who HAS to prove that he can beat Rosol.

The only thing we know is that everytime Nadal plays Rosol, Rosol beats him

Rosol has a 100% winning percentage against Nadal.

Get over it. I will however add that it is a matchup issue. Nadal cannot handle the heat against Rosol.

And as the saying goes "if you cant handle the heat, dont come in the kitchen" and thats why Nadal hasn't since step foot in a tennis court again.



What a load of rubbish. Some of you people are beyond hope when it comes to anything related to Nadal.
 

sonicare

Hall of Fame
What a load of rubbish. Some of you people are beyond hope when it comes to anything related to Nadal.

Resorting to name calling in the face of coherent arguments is a sign of surrender. I will give you another chance. Try again. No rush. I have plenty of time.
 

Clarky21

Banned
Resorting to name calling in the face of coherent arguments is a sign of surrender. I will give you another chance. Try again. No rush. I have plenty of time.



Just where did I namecall in my post? And your arguments are far from coherent,and reek of Nadalhateritis. I'll break it down for you:


Nadal - 11 slams
21 masters titles
More than a 100 weeks at #1
50 career titles
Future HOF,and megastar

Rosol - Zero slams
Zero weeks at #1
Zero masters titles
Zero titles anywhere
Zero fans(except gleeful Nadal haters)

Now,who do you think has to prove themselves more? The Mug who can barely make it out of qualies,or a legend of the sport with many slams/titles on his resume? I know what your answer will be,but I will just laugh at it because you're not the most rational poster around here,and cannot see the forest for your hatred for anything and everything Rafael Nadal.
 
Last edited:

sonicare

Hall of Fame
Just where did I namecall in my post? And your arguments are far from coherent,and reek of Nadalhateritis. I'll break it down for you:


Nadal - 11 slams
21 masters titles
More than a 100 weeks at #1
50 career titles
Future HOF,and megastar

Rosol - Zero slams
Zero weeks at #1
Zero masters titles
Zero titles anywhere
Zero fans(accept gleeful Nadal haters)

Now,who do you think has to prove themselves more? The Mug who can barely make it out of qualies,or a legend of the sport with many slams/titles on his resume? I know what your answer will be,but I will just laugh at it because you're not the most rational poster around here,and cannot see the forest for your hatred for anything and everything Rafael Nadal.

The above is a red herring. Tennis is about matchups and Rosol matches up well against Nadal as he has proven since Nadal has never been able to beat him.

He is in Nadal's head to the point that the normally calm Nadal resorted to almost head butting Rosol to distract him but alas, it wasn't to be.
 

Clarky21

Banned
The above is a red herring. Tennis is about matchups and Rosol matches up well against Nadal as he has proven since Nadal has never been able to beat him.

He is in Nadal's head to the point that the normally calm Nadal resorted to almost head butting Rosol to distract him but alas, it wasn't to be.


Well,if Mugsol can ever make it out of qualies to play Nadal again that will change I assure you.


Lol! :lol:
 
Top