2010 FO QF Almagro vs 2015 FO F Wawrinka?

[ForehandDTL]

Almagro much bigger forehand, backhand about even— maybe slight edge to Stan. Almagro is considerably better on defense.

Stan has the edge in mental conviction— although if he played peakdal at RG probably gets straight setted— Not much better than RG 2017 F. Atleast Almagro goated and took Nadal to two tiebreaks.

I think it’s pretty easily Almagro. Fought tooth and nail with Peakdal for two sets. Played in a tough clay era whereas Stan got to play his slampigeon when Nadal was MIA.

 

[ForehandDTL]

@RS

 

[dapchai]

Stan because Almagro lost to Nadal.

 

[ForehandDTL]

Stan because Almagro lost to Nadal.

God probably loses to Nadal at RG.

What’s your point?

 

[dapchai]

God probably loses to Nadal at RG.

What’s your point?

You should be (very) new here.

The TTW hypothetical rule says that anyone losing to Nadal will definitely lose the hypothetical matchup, and if both players lost to Nadal then noone wins. Obviously, Nadal always loses hypotheticals.

There's actually a (fairly comprehensive) set of rules, for example Federer never loses hypotheticals, and the guys he defeated in corresponding matches were at their absolute peak and thus never lose unless Fed himself is the other player in that hypothetical. For instance:

Bagdatis '06 AO F vs Djokovic '11 AO F who wins? Baggy, because he lost to Federer that match.
Djokovic '07 USO F vs Djokovic '09 USO SF who wins? Both wins because both lost to Federer.
Carreno Busta '13 RG 1R vs Nadal '08 RG F who wins? Busta wins because he lost to Federer while Nadal never wins hypotheticals.

@RS is pretty good at this, you can ask him for more details.

 

[Nadal>>>>>Federer]

Almagro was only just decent on clay. For how hyped he was he only made 1 MS 1000 clay semi, only got to 2 Rome QF, and never made it past the 3rd round at MC. He got absolutely smoked in all three FO qfs. Stan would eat him alive in straight sets 62 62 60

 

[RS]

You should be (very) new here.

The TTW hypothetical rule says that anyone losing to Nadal will definitely lose the hypothetical matchup, and if both players lost to Nadal then noone wins. Obviously, Nadal always loses hypotheticals.

There's actually a (fairly comprehensive) set of rules, for example Federer never loses hypotheticals, and the guys he defeated in corresponding matches were at their absolute peak and thus never lose unless Fed himself is the other player in that hypothetical. For instance:

Bagdatis '06 AO F vs Djokovic '11 AO F who wins? Baggy, because he lost to Federer that match.
Djokovic '07 USO F vs Djokovic '09 USO SF who wins? Both wins because both lost to Federer.
Carreno Busta '13 RG 1R vs Nadal '08 RG F who wins? Busta wins because he lost to Federer while Nadal never wins hypotheticals.

@RS is pretty good at this, you can ask him for more details.

Djokovic in 3
Who knows
Nadal in crushing 3

 

[ForehandDTL]

Almagro was only just decent on clay. For how hyped he was he only made 1 MS 1000 clay semi, only got to 2 Rome QF, and never made it past the 3rd round at MC. He got absolutely smoked in all three FO qfs. Stan would eat him alive in straight sets 62 62 60

Just admit you’ve never watched an ounce of tennis in your life

 

[ForehandDTL]

You people are out of your minds. Stan in 3?

roflmao

 

[RS]

Do a good 10 matches series thread and I will answer.

 

[ForehandDTL]

Do a good 10 matches series thread and I will answer.

Almagro 6-4

 

[RS]

Almagro 6-4

I meant a whole thread lol.

Anyway Stan in 5 here I think.

 

[ForehandDTL]

I meant a whole thread lol.

Anyway Stan in 5 here I think.

I’m not creating a duplicate thread for that.

that can be a sub question.

Stan in 5 is reasonable.

 

[RS]

I’m not creating a duplicate thread for that.

that can be a sub question.

Stan in 5 is reasonable.

I meant a different opponent but nvm sure I will think of something

 

[ForehandDTL]

I meant a different opponent but nvm sure I will think of something

Is 2010 FO a tough draw if Nadal had to play a peak Stan level opponent in merely the QF? Followed by the only guy that was able to beat prime Nadal at RG?

 

[ForehandDTL]

Better peak.

Almagro or Wawrinka?

 

[Hitman]

Wawrinka, no question.

Almagro mentally is weak, Wawrinka's Stanimal form is quite the opposite.

 

[StrongRule]

Wawrinka would have won their match.

That being said, I really think that 2010 Nadal would have beaten Wawrinka much easier than he beat Almagro.

 

[ForehandDTL]

Wawrinka would have won their match.

That being said, I really think that 2010 Nadal would have beaten Wawrinka much easier than he beat Almagro.

This is fair assessment. Almagro has the better forehand and defense peak to peak so Nadal has a harder time to breaking him down.

Once Nadal gets Wawrinka on the run, he’s toast.