2012: Bad Year for Nadal

[sunny_cali]

What happens if Rafa fights hard in 2012 and the challenge is too big(it is a scenario that could happen) for him and loses?

What then?

No credit to him, right?

He just gave up, amirite?

You don't give Fed any credit either for hanging in despite a clear decline in his skills from 2008. His resurrection in 2009 has asterixes because Rafa wasn't around (according to you). Fed gets zero credit for coming back from 2 sets down and taking it to 9-7 in the fifth in Wimby, gets zero credit for playing well in AO09, [despite losing he won more points than Rafa]

Likewise, expect the board to give no credit to Rafa for fighting, if at the end of it all he has are 6 losses to Djoker next year. To the victor go the spoils....

 

[sunny_cali]

There are plenty examples of one tennis player dominating another (hello... Fed v Rafa). Just go out and compete. You don't talk about losing passion for the game to the press. Tell that to your family and/or therapist. Don't talk about wanting a 2 year ranking system. I think that talk is all related to his drop of mental strength. Roddick gets his butt beat against Fed every time but I don't think that anyone thinks that Roddick just gives up. Fed is always the underdog against Rafa and no one thinks that Fed just gives up. Just go out and fight. You are either going to win or lose.

+1.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[namelessone]

You don't give Fed any credit either for hanging in despite a clear decline in his skills from 2008. His resurrection in 2009 has asterixes because Rafa wasn't around (according to you). Fed gets zero credit for coming back from 2 sets down and taking it to 9-7 in the fifth in Wimby, gets zero credit for playing well in AO09, [despite losing he won more points than Rafa]

Likewise, expect the board to give no credit to Rafa for fighting, if at the end of it all he has are 6 losses to Djoker next year. To the victor go the spoils....

Look, I am not giving RG and WB 09 automatically to Nadal if he arrived in them healthy, if he scheduled properly. I was just saying that it upped Fed's chances for those two slams. You don't think Nadal would love it if Djoko were not there in RG and WB?

I am not asterisking anyone.

 

[sunny_cali]

Look, I am not giving RG and WB 09 automatically to Nadal if he arrived in them healthy, if he scheduled properly. I was just saying that it upped Fed's chances for those two slams. You don't think Nadal would love it if Djoko were not there in RG and WB?

I am not asterisking anyone.

Well - you brought it up, and it did sound like an asterix

As for RG - Rafa should be the odds-on favorite even if Djoker spanked him on clay last year. WB perhaps. For this year it will be more interesting to see how Murray, Tsonga and even Delpo (if he gets back to peak form) perform. Djoker might not be the only one Rafa needs to worry about.

 

[namelessone]

You dont talk about losing passion for the game to the press.Tell that to your family and/or therapist

Why not, if that's how the guy feels, let him talk. Who does he hurt by saying this?

Don't talk about wanting a 2 year ranking system.

Nadal talked about this system before 2011 as well, this is nothing new. I think it'a dumb proposal myself.

I think that talk is all related to his drop of mental strength.

Mental strength that would drop in anyone who has lost 6 finals, 4 in MS, 2 in GS against one guy in one season. Nadal is not a robot. I know some like to portray his mental strength as being in neverending supply but that scenario is only true in delusional minds.

Roddick gets his butt beat against Fed every time but I don't think that anyone thinks that Roddick just gives up.

Roddick has zero expectations when he meets Fed. He fights so he won't lose too badly against Roger because he is horribly matched with him, only won once in 20 matches or so. Fed dominates him badly even when Andy is fighting for dear life on court, imagine how it would be if he didn' fight.

Fed is always the underdog against Rafa and no one thinks that Fed just gives up. Just go out and fight. You are either going to win or lose.

How is Federer the underdog indoors against Rafa?

I don't think Rafa has given up now, he is clearly not in any decent shape to win AO so he has REALISTIC expectations, he even said that he wants to beat Borg's record this season and that he wants to play into form around the time clay season comes along. This means that he is focused on the clay season for 2012, hardly the sign of a guy that is giving up. Surely even Rafa knows that this is basically his last season with a shot at slams so he will want to make the most of it.

And if we are talking about 2011, tell me that when you watched Nadal in WB and USO finals he was lacking motivation or drive. He was maybe nervous at times, in some key moments Djokovic played better, in others Nadal withered not only mentally but physically(see USO towards the end). But I can't honestly sit here and say that Rafa wasn't trying in those matches, not fighting.

 

[tennis_pro]

Why not, if that's how the guy feels, let him talk. Who does he hurt by saying this?

hes hurting himself cause hes sending a signal to the rest of the tour "hey im vulnerable, you can beat me!"

 

[namelessone]

hes hurting himself cause hes sending a signal to the rest of the tour "hey im vulnerable, you can beat me!"

But you don't like Nadal, wouldn't this pessimistic/realistic attitude of his be good for you(since it sends that message to the tour)?

 

[Deleted member 60695]

No such thing as a weak era and Nadal played his highest level of tennis ever in 2011. There was just someone better. How people don't see this is beyond me.

Absolutely not. Nadal's quality of play was far lower in 2011. At the Australian, his fitness was poor and his bodyfat % was up at least 5%. He looked out of shape, and (as we bodybuilder types say) he was very smooth.
As the year went on, it was clear his game had dropped a notch. His footspeed seemed as if he had lost a step. He forehands were landing shorter. His backhand because almost a push. And where was that 2010 US Open serve? Nowhere to be seen.
Of course, his game was good enough to be the 2nd best player in the world. It isn't as if he dropped precipitously. But he did drop in quality.
Is this drop permanently? No idea. But his level of tennis in '11 was FAR lower than in '10.

 

[Tcbtennis]

And if we are talking about 2011, tell me that when you watched Nadal in WB and USO finals he was lacking motivation or drive. He was maybe nervous at times, in some key moments Djokovic played better, in others Nadal withered not only mentally but physically(see USO towards the end). But I can't honestly sit here and say that Rafa wasn't trying in those matches, not fighting.

In my earlier post I stated that I believe that Nadal was in beast form when he was playing against Djokovic in all their 2011 matches. I think he was giving it all that he had, fighting to win. Djokovic was just too good and not affect by Nadal's strategy of heavy topspin to the backhand.

Nadal states that his shoulder is not in good form. But I believe mentally is where he suffers the most. And when you tell the world that you don't have that passion for the sport it just gives the journeymen or the young up and comers that he will meet in the early rounds of the majors who do have the passion an extra edge when they compete against him.

I think Nadal has been one of the great ambassadors for tennis in this era. I have young tennis playing kids who love him but for me personally, I don't like whiny. I'm a Fed fan but was totally disappointed about the way he broke down when he lost to Nadal in the Aussie Open. He took away from Nadal's glory. Murray is too mopey for me. Rafa appears to be heading to that whiny, mopey camp. Just go out, do your job to the best of your ability. His ability is such that he is going to win a lot more than he will lose. But he will lose. Everybody does eventually.

 

[Mike Sams]

Absolutely not. Nadal's quality of play was far lower in 2011. At the Australian, his fitness was poor and his bodyfat % was up at least 5%. He looked out of shape, and (as we bodybuilder types say) he was very smooth.
As the year went on, it was clear his game had dropped a notch. His footspeed seemed as if he had lost a step. He forehands were landing shorter. His backhand because almost a push. And where was that 2010 US Open serve? Nowhere to be seen.
Of course, his game was good enough to be the 2nd best player in the world. It isn't as if he dropped precipitously. But he did drop in quality.
Is this drop permanently? No idea. But his level of tennis in '11 was FAR lower than in '10.

His 2010 was overrated. Everybody around him was playing like crap. He had no rival to push him. Now he's got one. It's a whole different ball game.

 

[Sentinel]

Absolutely not. Nadal's quality of play was far lower in 2011. At the Australian, his fitness was poor and his bodyfat % was up at least 5%. He looked out of shape, and (as we bodybuilder types say) he was very smooth.
As the year went on, it was clear his game had dropped a notch. His footspeed seemed as if he had lost a step. He forehands were landing shorter. His backhand because almost a push. And where was that 2010 US Open serve? Nowhere to be seen.
Of course, his game was good enough to be the 2nd best player in the world. It isn't as if he dropped precipitously. But he did drop in quality.
Is this drop permanently? No idea. But his level of tennis in '11 was FAR lower than in '10.

 

[aphex]

Absolutely not. Nadal's quality of play was far lower in 2011. At the Australian, his fitness was poor and his bodyfat % was up at least 5%. He looked out of shape, and (as we bodybuilder types say) he was very smooth.
As the year went on, it was clear his game had dropped a notch. His footspeed seemed as if he had lost a step. He forehands were landing shorter. His backhand because almost a push. And where was that 2010 US Open serve? Nowhere to be seen.
Of course, his game was good enough to be the 2nd best player in the world. It isn't as if he dropped precipitously. But he did drop in quality.
Is this drop permanently? No idea. But his level of tennis in '11 was FAR lower than in '10.

Nadal's quality of play was far higher in 2011.

 

[The-Champ]

Why would I have to be here? I'm mocking the OP, not quoting the past. Speaking of quoting, why don't you quote these repeated 'confirmations'? Care to?

Hey man, I'm glad to see you here. Keep posting. I think Nads will take home 3 of the 4 majors this year

 

[Deleted member 60695]

Nadal's quality of play was far higher in 2011.

Is that why his first serve velocity was 15mph lower, and his footspeed markedly slower, and his backhand worse, and his forehand landing shorter? Because he was better?

 

[Mike Sams]

Is that why his first serve velocity was 15mph lower, and his footspeed markedly slower, and his backhand worse, and his forehand landing shorter? Because he was better?

That's only apparent against Djokovic. Against everybody else, he's a killer.
It's all about matchups.

 

[nadalwon2012]

Perhaps I am reading too much into Nadal's losses to Murray/Tsonga/Monfils. Perhaps it's a bit too premature to say if Nadal is mentally unraveling against the rest of the field. To me, more than the losses themselves, its the manner of his losses that suggest that he is losing it mentally, but perhaps it is possible that these losses are aberrations, and I am jumping the gun. Let's wait and watch how the beginning of the season unfolds.

And we don't even have to wait and watch. All we need to do is look at 2011, a year in which Nadal was collective 12-2 vs Federer, Murray and Del Potro. That is career-best h2h dominance.

Nadal has made 6 of the last 7 slam finals. He is owning the field like never before, and in 2011 he beat Murray in 3 straight slams, on 3 different surfaces.

2011 is the greatest Nadal has ever been vs 'the rest of the field'. 4-1 vs Federer in 2011. 4-1 vs Murray in 2011. And 4-0 vs Del Potro in 2011.

 

[Tcbtennis]

I am at this very moment watching the rebroadcast of Nadal and Djokovic's very first final of 2011 at Indian Wells. Nadal has won the first set and is on serve in the 2nd. His movement is top notch, his foot speed is phenomenal and he has depth of his groundstrokes, including his backhand which he is hitting flatter. As we all know Djokovic wins this match and he wins against an in form, high level Nadal. The small subset of Nadal fanatics who think that he played poorly are deluded!

Turn on Tennis Channel now and keep your blinders off!

 

[Lsmkenpo]

And we know what happened between these two when Nadal was in a healthy state(when they met in RG the following 2 years and WB 2010)

Oh my bad, I forgot that Sod carried a injury in those matches...

Mark this date down on your calendar Jan. 30 2012

 

[OddJack]

I am watching the Miami final now too.

The most important part of Djoker dominance over Rafa is that he is winning the longer rallies. This is supposed to be Nadal's advantage, why is it not?
If you ask me its because of Nadal physical decline. I have said it before, and say again, Djoker version 2011 has no chance against Nadal, on clay. This is also why Nadal lost even easier on clay against him in the two masters.

Longer rallies, is the key.

If it wasnt for Rodge we would be looking at a Grand Slam winner for 2011.

And guess what, that's exactly what he has in mind for 2012

 

[Mike Sams]

I am watching the Miami final now too.

The most important part of Djoker dominance over Rafa is that he is winning the longer rallies. This is supposed to be Nadal's advantage, why is it not?
If you ask me its because of Nadal physical decline. I have said it before, and say again, Djoker version 2011 has no chance against Nadal, on clay. This is also why Nadal lost even easier on clay against him in the two masters.

Longer rallies, is the key.

If it wasnt for Rodge we would be looking at a Grand Slam winner for 2011.

And guess what, that's exactly what he has in mind for 2012

Djokovic was a major problem for Nadal on clay during Nadal's best years. Remember Hamburg 2008? Madrid 2009? Djokovic was getting closer and closer to Nadal. It was Nadal's superior fitness which made the difference.
Baby Djokovic was a nightmare for prime Nadal. Now Djokovic is in HIS prime. Now things are getting interesting...

 

[Tcbtennis]

I am watching the Miami final now too.

The most important part of Djoker dominance over Rafa is that he is winning the longer rallies. This is supposed to be Nadal's advantage, why is it not?
If you ask me its because of Nadal physical decline. I have said it before, and say again, Djoker version 2011 has no chance against Nadal, on clay. This is also why Nadal lost even easier on clay against him in the two masters.

Longer rallies, is the key.

If it wasnt for Rodge we would be looking at a Grand Slam winner for 2011.

And guess what, that's exactly what he has in mind for 2012

I agree with everything you said except for Nadal being in physical decline. I believe that Nadal is the same and it was Djokovic who improved his stamina. I think that Nadal's decline is mental and it stems from his disbelief that Djokovic is staying with him and is winning the longer rallies. By the time they got to the clay tournaments, Djokovic was brimming with confidence and Nadal's tried and true method of heavy topspin to the backhand on clay did not faze Djokovic at all. In fact he loved that ball to his backhand. Nadal seemed to lose confidence as each match progressed but it has nothing to do with anything physical.

It's interesting that early during the Indian Wells match Robbie Koenig states that Djokovic's strategy of going after Nadal's backhand wasn't working too well because he wasn't being consistent, making too many errors. Well we all know how it turns out. Djokovic literally "breaks down" Nadal's backhand to the point of Nadal not being able to hit through the ball. It's all mental ( in my opinion).

 

[Mike Sams]

I agree with everything you said except for Nadal being in physical decline. I believe that Nadal is the same and it was Djokovic who improved his stamina. I think that Nadal's decline is mental and it stems from his disbelief that Djokovic is staying with him and is winning the longer rallies. By the time they got to the clay tournaments, Djokovic was brimming with confidence and Nadal's tried and true method of heavy topspin to the backhand on clay did not faze Djokovic at all. In fact he loved that ball to his backhand. Nadal seemed to lose confidence as each match progressed but it has nothing to do with anything physical.

It's interesting that early during the Indian Wells match Robbie Koenig states that Djokovic's strategy of going after Nadal's backhand wasn't working too well because he wasn't being consistent, making too many errors. Well we all know how it turns out. Djokovic literally "breaks down" Nadal's backhand to the point of Nadal not being able to hit through the ball. It's all mental ( in my opinion).

Nadal can't believe that his reign at the top was so short. That's what's bothering him.
Also, what excuse could anybody possibly have for Rome? Nadal was extremely well rested, watching Murray/Djokovic kill eachother while sitting with his feet up in his hotel room.
Djokovic is expected to be dead tired and yet in the final, it's Nadal who's getting ragdolled all over the place, not having a clue how to tame Djokovic.
IMO, it was Djokovic who improved moreso than Nadal declining.
Nadal declining is just a feeble attempt by the *******s to save face. :lol: Nobody gets old at age 24. Stupid *******s!

 

[intrepidish]

Nadal declining is just a feeble attempt by the *******s to save face. :lol: Nobody gets old at age 24. Stupid *******s!

If this is true, then what you say here: "Baby Djokovic was a nightmare for prime Nadal. Now Djokovic is in HIS prime" is even more ridiculous.

Nadal and Djokovic played in each others' primes since they are nearly the same age.

Brilliant reasoning dude.

 

[Mike Sams]

If this is true, then what you say here: "Baby Djokovic was a nightmare for prime Nadal. Now Djokovic is in HIS prime" is even more ridiculous.

Nadal and Djokovic played in each others' primes since they are nearly the same age.

Brilliant reasoning dude.

What it means is excuses aren't valid anymore. Nadal deserves credit for his 16 victories against Djokovic much the same way Djokovic deserves credit for his 13 wins against Nadal.
Nobody gets old at 24. Djokovic began beating Nadal consistently in 2011 when Nadal was 24 and in the absolute prime of his career.
Tennis Channel is replaying their Indian Wells match. Nadal looks perfectly fine in it. He got stomped by Djokovic much the same way he got stomped by Djokovic at Indian Wells in 2008 and in Miami in 2007. Was Nadal declining in those matches too? :lol:
Nadal is also one year older than Djokovic. One year age difference isn't the same age last I checked. In one year, a kid can grow in many ways both mentally and physically. And Nadal began his pro career 2 years before Djokovic did.

 

[tusharlovesrafa]

So it's a little like this:

I think sentinel has a point there.Why don't you take a rough copy and write your long post and then on next page *consise* your post.It will take time but it will eventually come to you..Just make a synopsis of it..simple!!!

 

[namelessone]

Is that why his first serve velocity was 15mph lower, and his footspeed markedly slower, and his backhand worse, and his forehand landing shorter? Because he was better?

Nah, you're just seeing things, Rafa is clearly better this year and I say this because people on TW have made me see the truth. F**k what I see on court, the writings on TW have made me a wiser man.

 

[borg number one]

I have this hunch that 2012 will be a rather bad year for Nadal.

It seems like with all those losses to Djokovic last year, his spirit is broken. Nadal's will to win has been severely diminished. He seems much more vulnerable than previously.

I even suspect that he will not win the FO--he seems that much of a "lesser player."

Hoodjem, you are a great poster. I've enjoyed your posts here for years, but I have to disagree here. I think Nadal will have a better 2012 than 2011. Thanks.

 

[Sentinel]

So it's a little like this:

Is that Djokers victory celeb at Rome or WO ? He really should tone it down, no ?

 

[Sentinel]

I think Nadal will have a better 2012 than 2011. .

God forbid....

 

[zagor]

I presume the OP meant bad post AO year?

I mean it's obvious Nadal is a lock for AO.

Let's examine the data, what happened the last time Nadal lost in straights to Monfils in Doha SF ? Exactly.

 

[namelessone]

I presume the OP meant bad post AO year?

I mean it's obvious Nadal is a lock for AO.

Let's examine the data, what happened the last time Nadal lost in straights to Monfils in Doha SF ? Exactly.

Using the nadalwonwhatever theorem.

A new low.

 

[zagor]

Nah, you're just seeing things, Rafa is clearly better this year and I say this because people on TW have made me see the truth. F**k what I see on court, the writings on TW have made me a wiser man.

So yet again Namelessone you agree (albeit sarcastically this time) with a fellow Nadal fan that Nadal has declined and of course we know you yourself posted extensively on the subject as well (short balls, moonball BH, bla bla bla).

But looking at your stance a few years ago it's interesting how much it has changed. Recently I stumbled upon a very interesting thread from 2009 and your posts in it:

QUOTE=namelessone;4135866]Are you people blind? 2004 Rafa was better than this washed up version of today. He is not only losing left and right to top10 players but is having problems with almost every player he encounters nowadays. This IS NOT normal rafa,everyone in the tennis world can see this,except the haters that is.

People who says that Rafa has always been like this are blind haters who are glad that a champion like Rafa is in a slump and some of them are certainly traumatized *******s who can now gloat.[/QUOTE]

When you are losing to almost anyone,you are in terrible shape. Federer wasn't losing to everybody in his off year,he made 3 out of 4 finals and he didn't make the fourth because he was sick in AO. He was fine the rest of the year,just had mental problems against Rafa in the big matches.He have up in the second set at RG that year,went to the final of WB without losing a set and taking it to 5 sets and won USO. Are we supposed to believe that a person who was VERY ILL as some here put it can reach so many big finals?

Nadal on the other hand has had injuries that took him out(literally took him out of WB) in his favourite part of the season and then he had to take a breather after USO as well because of an abdominal rupture. He had a on and off season while Fed kept playing for most of 2008.

@zagor, the Slams brother,it's all about the slams. Fed had been pretty much crap in non-slams in 08' but he reached 3 out of 4 finals in Slams. I already said that I though he had some health problems in AO,he didn't play bad at all in RG until the final(he had more problems this year on his way to RG final that in 08') where he just gave up in the middle of the second and he got to the final at WB,not losing one set on his way there. Not to mention that he almost overtook Rafa by coming back from 2 sets down.

At USO he had problems but Federer is human after all. If he had missed USO he would have gone slamless,something which had not happened since 2002,a big drama for Roger. That's why he struggled more,the pressure was getting to him but he managed to pull through. He struggled more in this RG as well,cause the pressure was on him once Rafa was out.
Federer is declining somewhat nowadays from his 2004-2007 form but in this USO he made what,his 22nd GS semifinal? It's hard for me to hear that Federer "is declining" when he is raking up GS titles like candy. Sure,he has to fight more for that candy nowadays but at the end of the day he usually comes out on top.

@zagor,
In 2008,he played abysmal tennis out of slams and "bad enough" to reach 3 out of 4 slam finals and win one,losing two to Nadal. In 2009,he played good tennis out of slams from Madrid onwards and made 4 out of 4 slam finals,winning two of them,losing the other two to Nadal and Delpo.

Until Madrid 2009,Fed didn't win a Masters event for about a year and a half. His 2008 year was bad because he was losing Slam events,not because he was struggling outside of them. That was added misery. His real drama came at the slams. Man,I remember the way Federer celebrated his USO 08' win. It was like he was out of the gutter and he could finally relax a bit. Only his RG 09' celebration was harder. Federer isn't losing any sleep when he loses in masters or 500 events. Federer's problem in 08' was that he was losing slams and confidence against his main rival. Yes,it can translate to out-of-slams events for some time,like he did this year after AO(smashing rackets and all) but losing in Slams is what hurts the most.

The same misery principle appliesto Rafa as well. What do you think hurts him more,losing RG-WB or getting beat around on HC every week? Rafa won more masters events in 09' than Fed. He should be on top of the world,right? But he isn't because he failed in Slams.

I'll highlight some interesting bits:

People who says that Rafa has always been like this are blind haters who are glad that a champion like Rafa is in a slump and some of them are certainly traumatized *******s who can now gloat

By the same token people who were saying Fed was always like this back in 2008 and after are blind haters as well ? I guess that mean Nadal beat a lesser declined version of Fed in 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO ? And people who use that victories to claim Nadal would have prevailed over peak Fed in HC & grass slams are blind haters, no?

When you are losing to almost anyone,you are in terrible shape. Federer wasn't losing to everybody in his off year,he made 3 out of 4 finals and he didn't make the fourth because he was sick in AO. He was fine the rest of the year,just had mental problems against Rafa in the big matches.

So by that logic Nadal sure as hell wasn't losing to everyone this year and therefore was not in terrible shape.

In 2011 Nadal made 3 out of 4 slam finals and didn't make the 4th because he was sick in AO. He was fine the rest of the year, just had mental problems against Novak in the big matches.

It's hard for me to hear that Federer "is declining" when he is raking up GS titles like candy. Sure,he has to fight more for that candy nowadays but at the end of the day he usually comes out on top.

So I guess It's hard for me to hear that Nadal "is declining" when he is raking up GS titles like candy. Sure,he has to fight more for that candy nowadays but at the end of the day he usually comes out on top.

Not to mention that he also reached 7 finals in a row this year, Fed did that feat in 2006 not 2008.

@zagor, the Slams brother,it's all about the slams. Fed had been pretty much crap in non-slams in 08' but he reached 3 out of 4 finals in Slams.

Yet again you repeated this Fed reached 3 out of 4 slam finals. Why doesn't that apply to oh so declining Rafa in 2011 ? Is it because Nadal is a better player so he can be in bad form and still reach 3 slam finals while Fed has to play his best to do so? If that's the case then why was 2011 only the 2nd time Nadal ever reached 3 slam finals while for Fed in 2008 it was the 4th?

"It's all about the slams, brother" I gotta remember this one next time you complain of decline when Nadal loses to someone like Dodig in some masters tourney or something.

Federer's problem in 08' was that he was losing slams and confidence against his main rival

So by the same token Nadal's problem in 2011 was that he was losing slams and confidence against his main rival?


To sum it up Nameless, why was it hard for you to hear that Fed was declining in 2008 yet you have no problem stating multiple times and agreeing with people who claim Nadal has declined in 2011 despite the fact that:

-They both reached 3 slam finals in their respective years

-Nadal reached 5 masters finals compared to Fed's two.

-They both bombed out of WTF but given that Nadal never won there and Fed was a 3 time winner at the time that's more of an indication of Fed's decline than it is so for Nadal.

-2011 was the 2nd time Nadal reached 3 slam finals while 2008 was Fed's 4th yet you seem to presume Nadal can do it not playing to his full capabilities unlike Fed.

 

[aphex]

^^^^

 

[zagor]

^^^^

Now you understand why it is hard for me to hear that Nadal is"declining"...

 

[Blinkism]

Man, Nadal fans are so dumb they'd probably try to minimize a 12 variable function to the minimal sum of products expression by using a Karnaugh map instead of a Quine-McCluskey algorithm.

 

[aphex]

Now you understand why it is hard for me to hear that Nadal is"declining"...

What I don't understand is why shamelessone hates nadal so much.
It almost seems personal...

 

[namelessone]

Zagor,

When analyzing Nadal and Federer in their 2011 and 2008 you have to look at the different standards because their best surface differs, for Federer it's HC, for Nadal it's clay.

I already said in 2011 that I feel Nadal has declined this year on clay(and I said so before he met Djoko on it) but has mostly kept his level on grass and HC from 2010, with the exception of a minor things in his game. I never denied that Nadal had mental problems with Djoko just that for him it is more difficult to assess which out of clay losses are due to mental scars and which are due to him purely sucking on this surface. I did say however that it's not just Djokovic being better or leaving a mark on Nadal, but also because Nadal has decline on you know what surface. By saying that Nadal is mostly the same on HC and grass I am not taking anything away from Djoko.

I said that for Fed those Nadal losses, combined with mono in the first half of the year, carried into his fav surface(HC) because he did have some unusual losses on it in 2008. I don't think I said that he didn't decline one bit, just how much it was exaggerated by the mono crew.

The minute his main rival was out of the picture, Federer won another 2 slams and was within a set of winning(USO 2009) of winning 4 slams in a row(RG-WB 09, AO 2010). That's my problem with the major decline theory. In non-slam events, yes, Fed did decline cause it's hard to keep that up and his fav surface has a wide spread on the tour(unlike Nadal's) so it's hard to dominate forever. But in slams Fed didn't majorly decline until say mid 2010. That's my opinion, take it or leave it.

When I talk about Nadal losses I talk about the slam losses, who cares what happened in the other ones. What do you think hurts Nadal most, losing to Djoko in Miami or in WB? Likewise, RG and WB hurt Fed, not the minor tournaments.

Nadal declined in 2011 for me when I saw his performance in RG(a tourney he freaking won). At least in WB and USO there were some glimmers of vintage Nadal but in the clay season Nadal's performance was mediocre. The clay season is what I judge Nadal by. I imagine for Fed fans, it would be WB or USO. Rafa would have exited in SF in both WB and USO in 2011 if Murray kept his head on straight cause he didn't play impressive tennis in these matches but Murray lost it. Early in the year he was bageled by Lacko(who?) and had problems with freaking Tomic.

But still, I should wait for 2012 to complete before an analysis.

The basis for my "Fed 2008 didn't decline that much and that he had some health and Nadal issues" was that he bounced back immediately in 2009 when his main rival was out of the picture and continued strong in slams(won the next 3 out of 4, and it should have been 4 out of 4 if he didn't toy with Delpo). For Nadal, the equivalent would be to see his play level if Djokovic would be out early in the next 2 slams. If Nadal suddenly plays like his old self(on clay at least) in 2012, then I was wrong about his decline in 2011 and it was all Djokovic.

So to conclude:

Nadal did decline in 2011, because he declined on clay(only lost more sets back in 2005, while playing an extra 3 clay tournies), the surface on which his season is based on.

Federer apparently declined in 2008, yet he was losing to no one in slams when healthy outside of Nadal(and he lost to him again in AO 09) and when Nadal was out he was back to winning. I can say that Fed declined in non-slams from 2008 onwards but in slams(when healthy) he didn't reach that mark till mid 2010.

But anyway, I am subjective so I can't assess Nadal's 2011. And yet, when I look online or see what most tennis pundits say, most don't think he was as good as in 2010, despite reaching so many finals. I wonder why that is. I would complement that and say that, outside of WB(in which he had about the same level), he played worse in every slam and slams count.

 

[JustinTime]

2012 will be a split between Nadal & Djokovic.

3-1 in slams to the Joker or 2-2 apiece.

Or just maybe Murray comes of age and knocks out Rafa and Fed gets one.

I am a believer that once Rafa starts beating the Joker, he will be back to his best.

On the other hand,if he doesn't manage to do this in 2012 then it could be curtains.

 

[zagor]

Zagor,

When analyzing Nadal and Federer in their 2011 and 2008 you have to look at the different standards because their best surface differs, for Federer it's HC, for Nadal it's clay.

If I look at a different standards both of them set your theory is even more full of holes. Comparison adjusted for their respective standards of domination Fed's 2008 was a large drop off in form while 2011 was sort of astandard year for Nadal.

Talking about best surfaces, Fed entered USO that year without a single HC final let alone a title while Nadal reached final in every CC tourney he played this year.

I already said in 2011 that I feel Nadal has declined this year on clay(and I said so before he met Djoko on it) but has mostly kept his level on grass and HC from 2010, with the exception of a minor things in his game.

"Mostly kept his level with the exception of minor things" sounds to me like it's supposedly a norm for Nadal to reach IW+Miami finals and USO+Wimbledon finals in a same year, it isn't.

Furthemore, many times you're complaining about various aspects of Nadal's game not just narrowing down his decline to one surface(clay).

I never denied that Nadal had mental problems with Djoko just that for him it is more difficult to assess which out of clay losses are due to mental scars and which are due to him purely sucking on this surface.

Yeah and it's hard to assess which one of Fed's losses to Nadal outside FO at slams was due to mental scars and which are due to sucking and decline on his best surfaces(HC and grass).

I did say however that it's not just Djokovic being better or leaving a mark on Nadal, but also because Nadal has decline on you know what surface. By saying that Nadal is mostly the same on HC and grass I am not taking anything away from Djoko.

Excellent so we can also say Fed's loss to Nadal in 2009 AO was due to his decline on HC and not just due to Nadal being better on that occassion and leaving a mark on Fed, got it.

I said that for Fed those Nadal losses, combined with mono in the first half of the year, carried into his fav surface(HC) because he did have some unusual losses on it in 2008. I don't think I said that he didn't decline one bit, just how much it was exaggerated by the mono crew.

Sorry, you don't get to talk about exaggerated decline to me, not after the way you and your Nadal fan buddies whined about Nadal's performance this year.

The minute his main rival was out of the picture, Federer won another 2 slams and was within a set of winning(USO 2009) of winning 4 slams in a row(RG-WB 09, AO 2010).

Yes and without Novak's improvement 2011 would have been Nadal's best season. Furthemore if Novak drops off this year I'm sure Nadal would win atleast 2 slams if not more.

That's my problem with the major decline theory

You mean the major decline theory when it comes to Fed, you certainly have no qualms about accepting that theory when it comes to Nadal.

In non-slam events, yes, Fed did decline cause it's hard to keep that up and his fav surface has a wide spread on the tour(unlike Nadal's) so it's hard to dominate forever. But in slams Fed didn't majorly decline until say mid 2010. That's my opinion, take it or leave it.

Yeah I think I'll leave it.

When I talk about Nadal losses I talk about the slam losses, who cares what happened in the other ones. What do you think hurts Nadal most, losing to Djoko in Miami or in WB? Likewise, RG and WB hurt Fed, not the minor tournaments.

So you whining after Nadal lost to Fish this year was a figment of my imagination ?

Nadal declined in 2011 for me when I saw his performance in RG(a tourney he freaking won).

Yeah, as you said a tourney he won.

At least in WB and USO there were some glimmers of vintage Nadal

Now hold for one second there, I thought you said Nadal didn't decline on HC and grass? Some "glimmers" of vintage Nadal ?

but in the clay season Nadal's performance was mediocre.

Yes and in 2008 Fed's performance on HC was even more mediocre.

The clay season is what I judge Nadal by. I imagine for Fed fans, it would be WB or USO.

Both of them are excellent players on all surfaces so I don't agree with that way of thinking.

Rafa would have exited in SF in both WB and USO in 2011 if Murray kept his head on straight cause he didn't play impressive tennis in these matches but Murray lost it.

OK this is just an incredibly stupid argument.

If Janko, Andreev and Berdych kept their heads Fed would have been out at freaking R16 (32 at 2008AO) in 2008 AO, USO and 2009 AO yet supposedly Fed didn't decline in slams while Nadal this year did?

Murray didn't even push Nadal to 5 sets and was overall nowhere near as close as winning as above mentioned players were against Fed, seriiously, don't act like a clown Nameless.

Early in the year he was bageled by Lacko(who?) and had problems with freaking Tomic.

It's all about the slams brother. Lacko, who? Tomic he beat in straights at AO so...

But still, I should wait for 2012 to complete before an analysis.

Except that you didn't wait to see how 2012 will transpire, you made your verdict far earlier.

The basis for my "Fed 2008 didn't decline that much and that he had some health and Nadal issues" was that he bounced back immediately in 2009 when his main rival was out of the picture and continued strong in slams(won the next 3 out of 4, and it should have been 4 out of 4 if he didn't toy with Delpo). For Nadal, the equivalent would be to see his play level if Djokovic would be out early in the next 2 slams. If Nadal suddenly plays like his old self(on clay at least) in 2012, then I was wrong about his decline in 2011.

Yeah and my basis for " 2011 Nadal didn't decline that much and had some health and non-baby Novak issues" is that without Novak in the picture 2011 would have been Nadal's best career year, you can't claim the same for Fed's 2008.

Nadal did decline in 2011, because he declined on clay(only lost more sets back in 2005, while playing another 3 clay tournies), the surface on which his season is based on.

Federer apparently declined in 2008, yet he was losing to no one in slams when healthy outside of Nadal(and he lost to him again in AO 09) and when Nadal was out he was back to winning. I can say that Fed declined in non-slams from 2008 onwards but in slams(when healthy) he didn't reach that mark till mid 2010.

So to conclude, Nadal declines while Fed "apparently" declines ? Very objective and fair minded indeed.

BTW Nadal lost to no one in slams when healthy outside of Novak either, think about it for a moment it will come to you.

But anyway, I am subjective so I can't assess Nadal's 2011. And yet, when I look online or see what most tennis pundits say, most don't think he was as good as in 2010, despite reaching so many finals.

Yeah and most pundits agreed Fed wasn't as good as in 2008 as he was in 2007 let alone 2006. Courier and Cahill repeteadly made excuses regarding Fed's mono and how it screwed up his whole year etc.

 

[borg number one]

God forbid....

Sentinel, I just see Nadal basically resetting a bit. He still understands knows the ebbs and flows of a winning career better than Djokovic. Advantage Nadal there (and Federer too). Yet Djokovic did do some major damage in 2011, no doubt about that. He has now been able to have a chance to reflect on the fact that Djokovic has made himself into a big threat at majors, each and every one. That is a new dynamic. I'm by no means saying that Nadal will somehow get 3 majors for example. I still think that Nadal, Djokovic and Federer will be in the running for majors in 2012.

 

[Blinkism]

In conclusion, Federer is like Coca Cola classic and Nadal is like Pepsi Zero.

 

[namelessone]

If I look at a different standards both of them set your theory is even more full of holes. Comparison adjusted for their respective standards of domination Fed's 2008 was a large drop off in form while 2011 was sort of astandard year for Nadal.

2008 Fed had a LARGE dropoff only in non-slams. While he was sick he made SF in AO, then eh made F in RG, F in WB and W in USO. Then his next results for the slams were F,W,W,F,W. Granted, it's not W-F-W-W like he normally does but it's damn close. If Roger wins the fifth with Nadal and Delpo, he basically makes 5 in a row(assuming that the same results would hold)

2011 Nadal lost more sets on clay than any other season(based on cc tourneys entered), struggled against guys like Isner,Andujar,Lorenzi to name but a few and lost TWICE on clay to one guy. Standard for Nadal is to dominate the clay season and win RG is a somewhat dominant fashion. Nadal was like a engine trying to start this whole clay season.

Talking about best surfaces, Fed entered USO that year without a single HC final let alone a title while Nadal reached final in every CC tourney he played this year.

Federer had some health problems in the beginning of the year so it was expected that he couldn't do much. And then he came in the NA circuit after 2 GS losses in a short period of time, probably with some mental scars. After AO 2009, Roger said something like "I liked it better when I didn't have a rival". In 2009, his non-slam level was still pretty bad for his standards but his slam results were better.

"Mostly kept his level with the exception of minor things" sounds to me like it's supposedly a norm for Nadal to reach IW+Miami finals and USO+Wimbledon finals in a same year, it isn't.

I was talking about certain shots, not tournaments.

Furthemore, many times you're complaining about various aspects of Nadal's game not just narrowing down his decline to one surface(clay).

I can hardly complain about his clay game when he is playing on HC and grass, now can I? I just point out a couple of things that he could do better(even much better) on these surfaces(his BH sucks on all surfaces) but what bothered me most was his performance on clay. I barely congratulated the guy after winning RG(look it up) cause the final left such a bad taste in my mouth.

Yeah and it's hard to assess which one of Fed's losses to Nadal outside FO at slams was due to mental scars and which are due to sucking and decline on his best surfaces(HC and grass).

True. I was saying it from my POV as you are doing from yours. As I was joking, my subjectivity is better than your subjectivity.

Excellent so we can also say Fed's loss to Nadal in 2009 AO was due to his decline on HC and not just due to Nadal being better on that occassion and leaving a mark on Fed, got it.

LOL. This was a slam back in 2009, Fed didn't decline there. And we all know Fed lost that final because of a bad back anyway.

Sorry, you don't get to talk about exaggerated decline to me, not after the way you and your Nadal fan buddies whined about Nadal's performance this year.

Sure I can, it's a forum. Nadal's perfomance sucked this year IMO overall and without Fed it would have been his first slamless year since 2004. Fed fans are free to say the whatever they want about his 2008 as well. We don't need consensus, it's a back and forth.

Yes and without Novak's improvement 2011 would have been Nadal's best season. Furthemore if Novak drops off this year I'm sure Nadal would win atleast 2 slams if not more.

I said it, if Nadal plays better this year and wins a slam convincingly, with or without Djoko around I'll admit I was wrong about his 2011.

You mean the major decline theory when it comes to Fed, you certainly have no qualms about accepting that theory when it comes to Nadal.

I accept the major decline theory for Roger when it comes to non-slams since 2008. I can't accept that in the 2008-mid 2010 Roger declined in a big way in slams, in fact the guy was saving himself up for them.

So you whining after Nadal lost to Fish this year was a figment of my imagination ?

Hey what do you expect, Nadal played one of his worst matches of the year there, only worse one was the one with Verdasco. He did literally nothing in that match to prevent defeat. A very uncharacteristic meh attitude. But these kind of Nadal matches don't phase me anymore, I've gotten used to the pattern.

Yeah, as you said a tourney he won.

Being pushed to five by claygod Isner and led 5-1,40-0 by a guy who had made 2 clay finals by age 26, Andujar. Oh and let's not forget being pounded into the ground and later blowing a set by a 30 year old favorable matchup. No diss to Fed but a peaking/priming/whatever you wanna call him Nadal wouldn't have struggled as much.

Now hold for one second there, I thought you said Nadal didn't decline on HC and grass? Some "glimmers" of vintage Nadal ?

The decline on HC and grass is negligible when compared to clay but certain aspects of his game did suffer. However, the game overall was pretty solid, especially on grass. On HC it's tougher to discern because Rafa has always been just above average on HC. Those glimmers I am talking about are like the delpo wb match, 1st set WB, 3rd set USO, stuff like that.

Both of them are excellent players on all surfaces so I don't agree with that way of thinking.

Wrong, Fed is excellent everywhere while Rafa is only excellent of clay and grass.

It's all about the slams brother. Lacko, who? Tomic he beat in straights at AO so...

Yeah, it is about the slams and Tomic, a teen with barely any power in his strokes, on a very slow surface, had a double break up on Nadal

Except that you didn't wait to see how 2012 will transpire, you made your verdict far earlier.

Well logic goes like this for Fed:

2004-2007(good years) - 2008(year affected by rival) - 2009(year without rival)

And then we judge accordingly for Nadal.

For Nadal it would be 2010(good year) - 2011(year affected by rival) - 2012(?)

But I factored in the fact that Nadal was in his seventh year as a top player and isn't as talented as Roger so the decline will hit him harder and it showed on the most physical surface, clay.

2011-2012 would be Nadal's last decent years since a player with a easier style and more talented found it very hard to keep winning big after his 8th slam winning season. Reason says that Rafa will try to save face in 2012 since it will probably be his last decent season. Grinders like Rafa don't tend to hang around and play their best 8 years after their rise. I am pessimistic about his 2012 but I would love to be wrong.

Yeah and my basis for " 2011 Nadal didn't decline that much and had some health and non-baby Novak issues" is that without Novak in the picture 2011 would have been Nadal's best career year, you can't claim the same for Fed's 2008.

That's only because Federer's standard is incredibly high, to win 3 GS + TMC + a couple of masters. Even without Nadal, he has probably 3 GS in 2008 but less wins overall than in other, better seasons.
It would have been pretty sad if Rafa won 3 GS this year the way he won in RG. Let me put it this way, if I had to choose between 2010 Nadal with 3 slams and 2011 with 3 slams the choice is very easy to make. Even with the one slam he did win, there is no comparison between the way he played in 2010 RG and 2011 RG.

BTW Nadal lost to no one in slams when healthy outside of Novak either, think about it for a moment it will come to you.

Should've lost to Fed in RG and Murray in WB and USO but Fed was too old and it's clay and Murray wasn't that good this year except for the first and very last part of the year(post USO). Yeah, Murray made all SF in slams but I thought that his performances in AO and WB were better in 2010. I wish I could say that Rafa played some stunning tennis to win these matches with Murray and Fed but I can't view any of these matches as classics.

 

[aphex]

If I look at a different standards both of them set your theory is even more full of holes. Comparison adjusted for their respective standards of domination Fed's 2008 was a large drop off in form while 2011 was sort of astandard year for Nadal.

Talking about best surfaces, Fed entered USO that year without a single HC final let alone a title while Nadal reached final in every CC tourney he played this year.



"Mostly kept his level with the exception of minor things" sounds to me like it's supposedly a norm for Nadal to reach IW+Miami finals and USO+Wimbledon finals in a same year, it isn't.

Furthemore, many times you're complaining about various aspects of Nadal's game not just narrowing down his decline to one surface(clay).



Yeah and it's hard to assess which one of Fed's losses to Nadal outside FO at slams was due to mental scars and which are due to sucking and decline on his best surfaces(HC and grass).




Excellent so we can also say Fed's loss to Nadal in 2009 AO was due to his decline on HC and not just due to Nadal being better on that occassion and leaving a mark on Fed, got it.



Sorry, you don't get to talk about exaggerated decline to me, not after the way you and your Nadal fan buddies whined about Nadal's performance this year.



Yes and without Novak's improvement 2011 would have been Nadal's best season. Furthemore if Novak drops off this year I'm sure Nadal would win atleast 2 slams if not more.



You mean the major decline theory when it comes to Fed, you certainly have no qualms about accepting that theory when it comes to Nadal.



Yeah I think I'll leave it.



So you whining after Nadal lost to Fish this year was a figment of my imagination ?



Yeah, as you said a tourney he won.



Now hold for one second there, I thought you said Nadal didn't decline on HC and grass? Some "glimmers" of vintage Nadal ?




Yes and in 2008 Fed's performance on HC was even more mediocre.



Both of them are excellent players on all surfaces so I don't agree with that way of thinking.



OK this is just an incredibly stupid argument.

If Janko, Andreev and Berdych kept their heads Fed would have been out at freaking R16 (32 at 2008AO) in 2008 AO, USO and 2009 AO yet supposedly Fed didn't decline in slams while Nadal this year did?

Murray didn't even push Nadal to 5 sets and was overall nowhere near as close as winning as above mentioned players were against Fed, seriiously, don't act like a clown Nameless.



It's all about the slams brother. Lacko, who? Tomic he beat in straights at AO so...



Except that you didn't wait to see how 2012 will transpire, you made your verdict far earlier.



Yeah and my basis for " 2011 Nadal didn't decline that much and had some health and non-baby Novak issues" is that without Novak in the picture 2011 would have been Nadal's best career year, you can't claim the same for Fed's 2008.





So to conclude, Nadal declines while Fed "apparently" declines ? Very objective and fair minded indeed.

BTW Nadal lost to no one in slams when healthy outside of Novak either, think about it for a moment it will come to you.



Yeah and most pundits agreed Fed wasn't as good as in 2008 as he was in 2007 let alone 2006. Courier and Cahill repeteadly made excuses regarding Fed's mono and how it screwed up his whole year etc.

2008 Fed had a LARGE dropoff only in non-slams. While he was sick he made SF in AO, then eh made F in RG, F in WB and W in USO. Then his next results for the slams were F,W,W,F,W. Granted, it's not W-F-W-W like he normally does but it's damn close. If Roger wins the fifth with Nadal and Delpo, he basically makes 5 in a row(assuming that the same results would hold)

2011 Nadal lost more sets on clay than any other season(based on cc tourneys entered), struggled against guys like Isner,Andujar,Lorenzi to name but a few and lost TWICE on clay to one guy. Standard for Nadal is to dominate the clay season and win RG is a somewhat dominant fashion. Nadal was like a engine trying to start this whole clay season.




Federer had some health problems in the beginning of the year so it was expected that he couldn't do much. And then he came in the NA circuit after 2 GS losses in a short period of time, probably with some mental scars. After AO 2009, Roger said something like "I liked it better when I didn't have a rival". In 2009, his non-slam level was still pretty bad for his standards but his slam results were better.




I was talking about certain shots, not tournaments.




I can hardly complain about his clay game when he is playing on HC and grass, now can I? I just point out a couple of things that he could do better(even much better) on these surfaces(his BH sucks on all surfaces) but what bothered me most was his performance on clay. I barely congratulated the guy after winning RG(look it up) cause the final left such a bad taste in my mouth.



True. I was saying it from my POV as you are doing from yours. As I was joking, my subjectivity is better than your subjectivity.




LOL. This was a slam back in 2009, Fed didn't decline there. And we all know Fed lost that final because of a bad back anyway.





Sure I can, it's a forum. Nadal's perfomance sucked this year IMO overall and without Fed it would have been his first slamless year since 2004. Fed fans are free to say the whatever they want about his 2008 as well. We don't need consensus, it's a back and forth.



I said it, if Nadal plays better this year and wins a slam convincingly, with or without Djoko around I'll admit I was wrong about his 2011.



I accept the major decline theory for Roger when it comes to non-slams since 2008. I can't accept that in the 2008-mid 2010 Roger declined in a big way in slams, in fact the guy was saving himself up for them.




Hey what do you expect, Nadal played one of his worst matches of the year there, only worse one was the one with Verdasco. He did literally nothing in that match to prevent defeat. A very uncharacteristic meh attitude. But these kind of Nadal matches don't phase me anymore, I've gotten used to the pattern.




Being pushed to five by claygod Isner and led 5-1,40-0 by a guy who had made 2 clay finals by age 26, Andujar. Oh and let's not forget being pounded into the ground and later blowing a set by a 30 year old favorable matchup. No diss to Fed but a peaking/priming/whatever you wanna call him Nadal wouldn't have struggled as much.





The decline on HC and grass is negligible when compared to clay but certain aspects of his game did suffer. However, the game overall was pretty solid, especially on grass. On HC it's tougher to discern because Rafa has always been just above average on HC. Those glimmers I am talking about are like the delpo wb match, 1st set WB, 3rd set USO, stuff like that.




Wrong, Fed is excellent everywhere while Rafa is only excellent of clay and grass.




Yeah, it is about the slams and Tomic, a teen with barely any power in his strokes, on a very slow surface, had a double break up on Nadal



Well logic goes like this for Fed:

2004-2007(good years) - 2008(year affected by rival) - 2009(year without rival)

And then we judge accordingly for Nadal.

For Nadal it would be 2010(good year) - 2011(year affected by rival) - 2012(?)

But I factored in the fact that Nadal was in his seventh year as a top player and isn't as talented as Roger so the decline will hit him harder and it showed on the most physical surface, clay.

2011-2012 would be Nadal's last decent years since a player with a easier style and more talented found it very hard to keep winning big after his 8th slam winning season. Reason says that Rafa will try to save face in 2012 since it will probably be his last decent season. Grinders like Rafa don't tend to hang around and play their best 8 years after their rise. I am pessimistic about his 2012 but I would love to be wrong.




That's only because Federer's standard is incredibly high, to win 3 GS + TMC + a couple of masters. Even without Nadal, he has probably 3 GS in 2008 but less wins overall than in other, better seasons.
It would have been pretty sad if Rafa won 3 GS this year the way he won in RG. Let me put it this way, if I had to choose between 2010 Nadal with 3 slams and 2011 with 3 slams the choice is very easy to make. Even with the one slam he did win, there is no comparison between the way he played in 2010 RG and 2011 RG.




Should've lost to Fed in RG and Murray in WB and USO but Fed was too old and it's clay and Murray wasn't that good this year except for the first and very last part of the year(post USO). Yeah, Murray made all SF in slams but I thought that his performances in AO and WB were better in 2010. I wish I could say that Rafa played some stunning tennis to win these matches with Murray and Fed but I can't view any of these matches as classics.

-zagor in black shorts
-shameless in white shorts

Heavyweight TT argument title fight:

 

[niff]

Good GOD.
I hope both of you are in jobs which require more concentration than is considered humanly possible. It's your duty to the world.

 

[namelessone]

Good GOD.
I hope both of you are in jobs which require more concentration than is considered humanly possible. It's your duty to the world.

Nah, we are bored until AO.

 

[joeri888]

In my opinion, what namelessone does here, is perfectly natural. You see your own favourite player losing more, he is declining. You see his rival losing more? He's not declining, your player has improved. Both Federer and Nadal declined and 2008 for Fed and 2011 for Nadal were pretty similar. if anything, Nadal dipped less. Both Federer and Nadal started with a disappointing AO because of injuries, but Nadal after that only lost to one man, while Federer started losing out to guys like Fish and even Roddick at his favourite surface. If anything, Federer declined more than Nadal did. And while both dipped a little, there's more down to Djokovic upping his level when it comes to Nadal. Federer only lost 1 big match to Nadal in 2008, cause RG was sort of a given (although the way he lost hurt).

Anyways, I think it's normal that namelessone saw the world differently when he was in it in 2008, however, I would expect a knowledgable poster like him to in retrospect be able to see that Federer of 2008 was far from his godly best.

To be quite honest, I would make a case for Nadal's 2011 being more like Federer's 2007 when it comes to declining. Federer was just THAT much ahead on everything but clay. Nadal is that far ahead on clay.

I am very interested by the way to see how Nadal bounces back. A lot of Federer's legacy as a true champ AND a fighter is down to him being able to take hits in that period (losing to Nadal numerous times, losing best match ever, losing to Nadal on his own favourite surface while winning more points, losing his worst match ever against Djokovic in Miami, THAN fighting back to win RG 2009). However, Nadal might not get as lucky as Federer, who might have stopped believing had Nadal not gone out, or a little later in that 09 RG tournament.

 

[zagor]

2008 Fed had a LARGE dropoff only in non-slams. While he was sick he made SF in AO, then eh made F in RG, F in WB and W in USO. Then his next results for the slams were F,W,W,F,W. Granted, it's not W-F-W-W like he normally does but it's damn close. If Roger wins the fifth with Nadal and Delpo, he basically makes 5 in a row(assuming that the same results would hold) .

Going by that logic Nadal had no dropoff in slams either, he reached 6 of the last slam finals.

2011 Nadal lost more sets on clay than any other season(based on cc tourneys entered)

And Fed was extremely close to losing in early round in both HC slams in 2008 and in 2009 AO.

struggled against guys like Isner,Andujar,Lorenzi to name but a few and lost TWICE on clay to one guy.

In 2008 on HC Fed got destroyed by Fish, lost matches( as opposed to Nadal "struggling" ) to Roddick, Karlovic, Blake etc. yet according to you he was not in decline.

Standard for Nadal is to dominate the clay season and win RG is a somewhat dominant fashion. Nadal was like a engine trying to start this whole clay season.

Yeah and the standard for Fed is to win 2-3 slams a season and breeze through the early rounds in HC slams. The whole 2008 Fed was like an engine tryint to start.

Federer had some health problems in the beginning of the year so it was expected that he couldn't do much. And then he came in the NA circuit after 2 GS losses in a short period of time, probably with some mental scars.

And Nadal didn't receive some mental scars after his losses to Novak this year? Heck the FO match with Isner you constantly bring up was likely a consequence of Novak ownage.

After AO 2009, Roger said something like "I liked it better when I didn't have a rival". In 2009, his non-slam level was still pretty bad for his standards but his slam results were better.

Yeah and Nadal and Toni were rooting for Fed when he played Novak, said how Nadal feels 100 years old, asked for a 2 year ranking system and less tourneys on HC, how Novak is better than us etc.

I can hardly complain about his clay game when he is playing on HC and grass, now can I? I just point out a couple of things that he could do better(even much better) on these surfaces(his BH sucks on all surfaces) but what bothered me most was his performance on clay. I barely congratulated the guy after winning RG(look it up) cause the final left such a bad taste in my mouth.

My point stands, you along with the rest of Nadal fans have too often talked about decline in general terms this year for me to buy it that now you suddenly only meant clay.

True. I was saying it from my POV as you are doing from yours. As I was joking, my subjectivity is better than your subjectivity.

Only thing I can agree with.

LOL. This was a slam back in 2009,Fed didn't decline there.

Yes according to your extremely biased opinion(I won't call you a blind hater though, I leave that to you) he didn't. However if you can claim Nadal declined in 2011 I sure as hell can claim Fed started declining on HC since 2008.

And we all know Fed lost that final because of a bad back anyway.

Yeah, just like Nadal lost Miami this year because of a heat stroke, Wimbledon final because of a broken foot, AO because of virus/abdominal strain and USO+WTF because of shoulder issues and too much rest/too much fatigue( can switch depending on the situation).

Sure I can, it's a forum. Nadal's perfomance sucked this year IMO overall and without Fed it would have been his first slamless year since 2004. Fed fans are free to say the whatever they want about his 2008 as well. We don't need consensus, it's a back and forth.

Well going by that logic I can claim Dementieva has a better serve than Karlovic then, now can't I?

The fact remains that you claimed Fed didn't decline in 2008 yet now when Nadal is in the same situation you can't stop whining about how his tennis sucks, his balls are short, his BH is crap, WTA serve etc.

I said it, if Nadal plays better this year and wins a slam convincingly, with or without Djoko around I'll admit I was wrong about his 2011.

Convincing for you probably means Nadal has to lose zero sets and no more than 3 games a set otherwise he's in terrible form, decline bla bla bla bla bla

I accept the major decline theory for Roger when it comes to non-slams since 2008. I can't accept that in the 2008-mid 2010 Roger declined in a big way in slams, in fact the guy was saving himself up for them.

But you can accept that Nadal in 2011 declined in slams and overall theory despite the fact that he reached 3 slam finals?

This is rich.

Hey what do you expect, Nadal played one of his worst matches of the year there, only worse one was the one with Verdasco. He did literally nothing in that match to prevent defeat. A very uncharacteristic meh attitude. But these kind of Nadal matches don't phase me anymore, I've gotten used to the pattern..

It's all about the slams bro, don't whine about it next time, Nadal reached 3 out of 4 slam finals which means he's in his peakest of peaks.

Being pushed to five by claygod Isner and led 5-1,40-0 by a guy who had made 2 clay finals by age 26, Andujar. Oh and let's not forget being pounded into the ground and later blowing a set by a 30 year old favorable matchup. No diss to Fed but a peaking/priming/whatever you wanna call him Nadal wouldn't have struggled as much.

Whatever dude, Fed was on the brink of losing to Janko and Andreev, are they some HC Gods?

Not to mention that Fed also struggled with Isner in 2007 USO, OMG decline!!!

The decline on HC and grass is negligible when compared to clay but certain aspects of his game did suffer.

What decline? I thought you said decline was only on clay? The decline has to exist first and foremost before we dismiss it as negligible.

However, the game overall was pretty solid, especially on grass.

Solid? Meaning standard, right? How many years Nadal had in which he reached both Wimbledon and USO finals? How many in which he reached finals of both IW and Miami.

Wrong, Fed is excellent everywhere while Rafa is only excellent of clay and grass.

Nope, they're both excellent everywhere. Heck a declined Nadal can reach Wimbledon and USO finals and you don't think he's excellent on those surfaces?

Yeah, it is about the slams and Tomic, a teen with barely any power in his strokes, on a very slow surface, had a double break up on Nadal

You're using a match in which Nadal didn't lose a set to prove a decline? Honestly, this is hilarious. Of course Fed almost losing to Andreev at USO is no sign of decline though but Nadal almost losing a set is.

Well logic goes like this for Fed:

2004-2007(good years) - 2008(year affected by rival) - 2009(year without rival)

And then we judge accordingly for Nadal.

For Nadal it would be 2010(good year) - 2011(year affected by rival) - 2012(?)

Except Nadal's 2011 was more affected by rival than Fed's 2008, Nadal went to town on field in 2011, can't say the same for Fed in 2008 especially when he was on the brink of losing in early rounds in both HC slams that year.

But I factored in the fact that Nadal was in his seventh year as a top player and isn't as talented as Roger so the decline will hit him harder and it showed on the most physical surface, clay.

The decline will hit him harder yet his 2011 is much better overall than Fed's 2008 was and you even claim that Fed didn't decline in 2008 ? Can't have it both ways Nameless.

2011-2012 would be Nadal's last decent years since a player with a easier style and more talented found it very hard to keep winning big after his 8th slam winning season. Reason says that Rafa will try to save face in 2012 since it will probably be his last decent season. Grinders like Rafa don't tend to hang around and play their best 8 years after their rise. I am pessimistic about his 2012 but I would love to be wrong.

Bla bla bla, keep polishing your crystal ball and singing doom and gloom for Nadal. The guy had problem with one guy in 2011, one single player.

That's only because Federer's standard is incredibly high

His standard is incredibly high yet according to you he didn't decline in 2008+ but Nadal did this year despite the fact that:

a)his standard is lower

b) Nadal's 2011 was a better year for him than 2008 was for Fed

You do realize the contradiction, don't you?

Even without Nadal, he has probably 3 GS in 2008 but less wins overall than in other, better seasons.

Yes and without Novak Nadal would have won 5 masters and 3 slams in 2011 thus making it his best career year. Without Nadal Fed's 2008 would have still only been his 4th best year at most.

 

[zagor]

Continued...

It would have been pretty sad if Rafa won 3 GS this year the way he won in RG. Let me put it this way, if I had to choose between 2010 Nadal with 3 slams and 2011 with 3 slams the choice is very easy to make. Even with the one slam he did win, there is no comparison between the way he played in 2010 RG and 2011 RG.

Whole year Nameless, whole year. Nadal's season is not defined solely by his CC results.

Never forget, 3 out of 4 slams, your own words you used very often when Fed's 2008 was brought up.

Should've lost to Fed in RG and Murray in WB and USO but Fed was too old and it's clay and Murray wasn't that good this year except for the first and very last part of the year(post USO).

Again this crap.

Fed should have lost to Janko in 2008 AO, Andreev in 2008 USO and Berdych in 2009 AO. Keeping in mind that:

a)All of those players were much closer to beating Fed than Murray/ Fed were at any point against Nadal this year regarding slams.

b)You claim Fed didn't decline(in slams atleast) in 2008-2009 period.

You wanna bring that argument again so I can shoot it down(again)?

 

[zagor]

In my opinion, what namelessone does here, is perfectly natural. You see your own favourite player losing more, he is declining. You see his rival losing more? He's not declining, your player has improved. Both Federer and Nadal declined and 2008 for Fed and 2011 for Nadal were pretty similar. if anything, Nadal dipped less. Both Federer and Nadal started with a disappointing AO because of injuries, but Nadal after that only lost to one man, while Federer started losing out to guys like Fish and even Roddick at his favourite surface. If anything, Federer declined more than Nadal did. And while both dipped a little, there's more down to Djokovic upping his level when it comes to Nadal. Federer only lost 1 big match to Nadal in 2008, cause RG was sort of a given (although the way he lost hurt).

Anyways, I think it's normal that namelessone saw the world differently when he was in it in 2008, however, I would expect a knowledgable poster like him to in retrospect be able to see that Federer of 2008 was far from his godly best.

To be quite honest, I would make a case for Nadal's 2011 being more like Federer's 2007 when it comes to declining. Federer was just THAT much ahead on everything but clay. Nadal is that far ahead on clay.

I am very interested by the way to see how Nadal bounces back. A lot of Federer's legacy as a true champ AND a fighter is down to him being able to take hits in that period (losing to Nadal numerous times, losing best match ever, losing to Nadal on his own favourite surface while winning more points, losing his worst match ever against Djokovic in Miami, THAN fighting back to win RG 2009). However, Nadal might not get as lucky as Federer, who might have stopped believing had Nadal not gone out, or a little later in that 09 RG tournament.

No it isn't normal/natural, it's biased to an absolutely ridiculous degree.

To claim that Fed didn't decline in slams in 2008 and 2009 period while Nadal did in 2011 and to use "Nadal should have lost to Murray in 2011 Wimbledon and USO" as an argument while overlooking that Fed was on the brink of losing in early rounds in both HC slams in 2008 is completely delusional.

Sure I can accept Nadal's game declined in some areas, especially regarding clay but no way will I do that when Namelessone won't accept the same for Fed in 2008 and is resorting to hilariously biased BS arguments.

 

[namelessone]

In my opinion, what namelessone does here, is perfectly natural. You see your own favourite player losing more, he is declining. You see his rival losing more? He's not declining, your player has improved. Both Federer and Nadal declined and 2008 for Fed and 2011 for Nadal were pretty similar. if anything, Nadal dipped less. Both Federer and Nadal started with a disappointing AO because of injuries, but Nadal after that only lost to one man, while Federer started losing out to guys like Fish and even Roddick at his favourite surface. If anything, Federer declined more than Nadal did. And while both dipped a little, there's more down to Djokovic upping his level when it comes to Nadal. Federer only lost 1 big match to Nadal in 2008, cause RG was sort of a given (although the way he lost hurt).

Anyways, I think it's normal that namelessone saw the world differently when he was in it in 2008, however, I would expect a knowledgable poster like him to in retrospect be able to see that Federer of 2008 was far from his godly best.

To be quite honest, I would make a case for Nadal's 2011 being more like Federer's 2007 when it comes to declining. Federer was just THAT much ahead on everything but clay. Nadal is that far ahead on clay.

I am very interested by the way to see how Nadal bounces back. A lot of Federer's legacy as a true champ AND a fighter is down to him being able to take hits in that period (losing to Nadal numerous times, losing best match ever, losing to Nadal on his own favourite surface while winning more points, losing his worst match ever against Djokovic in Miami, THAN fighting back to win RG 2009). However, Nadal might not get as lucky as Federer, who might have stopped believing had Nadal not gone out, or a little later in that 09 RG tournament.

Come on joeri, I'm not knowledgeable, I'm just a Nadal fanboy.

I call it like I see it, it could be wrong, could be right, it's subjective. IMO,Federer declined massively in non-slams since 2008 and since that point till like mid 2010 focused mostly on slams.

His standard was godly as you say, both in game and results but his dip in slams was small IMO. His results in slams since 2008-mid 2010 were SF(with mono),F,F(5 sets),W,F(5 sets),W,W,F(5 sets),W until his 23 SF streak was finally cut in RG 2010. From this point on Roger found it harder to make GS finals but in that period I wrote about he literally made only finals in GS with the lone mono SF exception.

In that period the man won 4 slams and was one set away from winning another 3(2 being lost to a bad matchup, one because he was messing about with Juan, should have won there). MAJOR decline in slams? I don't think so.