2012: Bad Year for Nadal

[Deleted member 60695]

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.

Ah, I see your point. Very wise of you.

 

[aphex]

Ah, I see your point. Very wise of you.

Maybe the fact that he recently started playing tennis (albeit with noobs) also helped in his enlightenment...

 

[zagor]

I call it like I see it, it could be wrong, could be right, it's subjective.

Most things are subjective, some however aren't.

Using the belief that Nadal should have lost to Murray in slam SFs as your argument while neglecting the fact that Fed was much closer (as in played tight five setters, being 0-2 down etc.) to losing very early in 2008 AO, USO and 2009 AO is not being subjective, it's being blind.

What is worse, losing (even if he was never close to losing, for the sake of argument) a SF to a fellow top player or bombing out in R16-R32 ? Who was closer to winning in slams, Murray against Nadal this year or Tipsarevis, Andreev and Berdych in 2008 AO, 2008 USO and 2009 AO respectively ?

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.

And Nadal has reache 6 out of 7 last slam finals, reached the record # of slam+masters finals in a given year, had problem with only one player and no one else, DECLINE? I don't think so.

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.

Yes winning 4 slams over 3 years is such a massive feat for Fed's standards that it has to prove he wasn't in decline LOL.

This is the guy that won 11 slams in the span of 4 years so yes for his standards that is a decline (never said about major decline but decline).

 

[kaleidoskope]

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

I'll take Classic Coke over any other zero/light crap anytime. Hell, I'll take water over any zero/light crap...

 

[namelessone]

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

Did Nadal make a final in AO in the last 2 seasons that I am not aware of?

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

You compare being taken to five by servebot Isner on CLAY to being taken to five by Berdych on slow HC? Which one is better on their respective surface?

And Andreev is like a righty Nadal with a game that manages to annoy Federer. He scared Fed in AO as well if I remember it right.

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.

Not in slams he wasn't.

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.

It is a VERY HIGH standard he kept for a long time over many surfaces. It was natural that it could not stay that way. From 2008 onwards the man won 4 and was one set away from winning 7 in total. Sure, I guess it is not 11 but that's still amazing, considering that his main competitors(djoko/nadal) improved in some areas of their game as well.

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.

He could have but... Isner? I hope I dont have to bring up his clay resume, do I?

Almost breadsticked by Andujar? A guy with 2 clay finals by age 26?

I can also point out Nadal stinkfests before he met Djoko on clay as well.

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.

True.

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.

Nadal has massively declined on clay and has stayed about the same on grass and HC, with the exception of a few shots in his arsenal. But the general level is still there on these surfaces unlike clay. Best Nadal matches this year have been on HC(Miami SF and F) and grass(delpo match).

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.

On HC in non-slams I can agree with you.

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).

Correct.

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

Not when you put it like that. I'm talking about things that are more close to each other, that can be more easily compared.

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.

Fed did decline since 2008 but in non-slam events. There was no massive decline in his GS game until mid 2010 IMHO. Obviously, some parts of your game will go as you get older, some will actually improve but I can't sit here after watching Fed in the 2008-2010 and say "Yup, definite decline there" when he is pushing guys that are 4-5 years younger(some even younger like delpo) to five sets and even defeating them.

I'm not the only one saying those things about Nadal, think about that.

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

Convincing for me would mean trying to hit solid of both sides instead of pushing the ball on the BH side, try to control the point(especially on clay) and have a pro-active attitude on the court all the time(I realize this is harder for him now). I don't want to see crawling wins like RG 2011 because this is not the tennis I saw in Nadal when I became a fan.

Some of my favorite matches this year from Nadal were ones in which he lost but in which he played some goddam tennis.

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

Nadal reached 3 finals because his opponents couldn't take advantage of his bad form and here I am talking of course about Murray, who was Rafa's SF partner in RG,WB and USO. I wish I could say that Rafa played extraordinary to get past Andy but in RG there was no contest because Andy isn't that as good on clay, in WB Andy gave up in the second set on ONE BALL after thrashing Rafa in the first and in USO he came out VERY passive only to realize that he could attack but it was too late by then and Rafa won.

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.

I heard they named a peak after him once 2011 was done.

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

Isner is actually decent on HC, which is more than I can say for his clay form.

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.

Everything declines with time but yeah the major decline was only on ONE SURFACE.

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.

Standard for Nadal is reaching RG and WB(did it 4 times before 2011) for example, not WB and USO combo. And why pick IW-Miami?

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?

Perhaps we have different standards but in my world:

5 AO finals trumps 1.
6 USO finals trumps 2.

And I already said that Nadal declined massively only on clay. On HC and grass he improved since 2008 and has stayed at roughly the same level since.

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.

Yup, if Nadal(peaking lest we forget) goes double break down to a kid whose only quality is that he can play some good junkball(though he has improved since) then something is up. Think Djokovic losing to Nishikori the way he did.
Might have been Nadal's flu though.Andreev is not that easy of a matchup for Fed since he already caused some troubles in 2 slams despite him being a consistent player.

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.

Nadal never goes to town on any field. Tell me one year when Nadal DOMINATED the field outside of grass and clay. That's where Nadal's domination lies and we all saw what happened on clay this year, how "terrific" Nadal played there.

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.

He did but in non-slams.

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.

Hmm, so far it seems to be working. I wonder why. Probably because Nadal is peaking.

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?

But I am discussing Fed's decline on its own standards, not when compared to Nadal's, for Fed it's slam season, for Nadal it's clay season. Fed went from winning 3 per year to nearly winning 2 in a year where he suffered from mono at the beginning. The very next year he made 4 out of 4 finals in GS. He inclined his decline I presume .

Nadal went from dominating clay to playing like s**t on this surface in 2011, losing twice to one guy(didn't happen since 2005 I think) on clay, being pushed to five by Isner, one point away from being breadsticked by Andujar, losing a set to nr.150 in the world or something and BARELY managing a win over a 30 year old favorable matchup. As I said, a Murray with more stones and a more decisive Fed and Rafa ends up with 0 slams and one slam final.

Anyway, these are my last words on the subject. I feel we are kinda off topic here and going around in circles.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

LOL, so when Nadal wins FO2011 he has declined massively on clay. Yet when Fed wins W2009 he's bounced back and back to his normal self. LOLLLLLL, the ****ism never ends. The truth of the matter is Fed declined massively in 2008 whereas Nadal has not declined one iota in 2011, even on clay. In fact he is better than ever. So what if Isner took him to 5 sets, just because you are the best on clay does not guarantee you win ever match with triple bagels. This is tennis, it's a match, Isner played amazing that day and would have taken Nadal to 5 sets even from 2005 to 2008. Deal with it.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

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.

This post is the closest to the truth.

 

[CDestroyer]

I think Rafa will have a bad year in 2012 as well. He is deeply scarred from the multiple beatdowns from Djokovic last year and now he is losing everyday Joes. If he gets beat at the French and at most of the clay tourneys he will really be hurting mentally.

 

[dudeski]

-zagor in black shorts
-shameless in white shorts

Heavyweight TT argument title fight:

That was awesome!

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

-zagor in black shorts
-shameless in white shorts

Heavyweight TT argument title fight:

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, classic and so fitting!

 

[dudeski]

LOL, so when Nadal wins FO2011 he has declined massively on clay. Yet when Fed wins W2009 he's bounced back and back to his normal self. LOLLLLLL, the ****ism never ends. The truth of the matter is Fed declined massively in 2008 whereas Nadal has not declined one iota in 2011, even on clay. In fact he is better than ever. So what if Isner took him to 5 sets, just because you are the best on clay does not guarantee you win ever match with triple bagels. This is tennis, it's a match, Isner played amazing that day and would have taken Nadal to 5 sets even from 2005 to 2008. Deal with it.

I agree. shamelessone conveniently forgets all the 4 or 5 setters Fed had to go through to win 2009 FO and 2009 W. He barely won both of those slams. Not to mention that he had to come back from 2 sets down to Berdych in 2009 R16 AO. Fed prime was over in 2008 when he was the same age Nadal will be in 2013.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=gs#

 

[namelessone]

I agree. shamelessone conveniently forgets all the 4 or 5 setters Fed had to go through to win 2009 FO and 2009 W. He barely won both of those slams. Not to mention that he had to come back from 2 sets down to Berdych in 2009 R16 AO. Fed prime was over in 2008 when he was the same age Nadal will be in 2013.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=gs#

You seem to forget that Fed is a late bloomer while Nadal is a prodigy.

 

[namelessone]

LOL, so when Nadal wins FO2011 he has declined massively on clay. Yet when Fed wins W2009 he's bounced back and back to his normal self. LOLLLLLL, the ****ism never ends. The truth of the matter is Fed declined massively in 2008 whereas Nadal has not declined one iota in 2011, even on clay. In fact he is better than ever. So what if Isner took him to 5 sets, just because you are the best on clay does not guarantee you win ever match with triple bagels. This is tennis, it's a match, Isner played amazing that day and would have taken Nadal to 5 sets even from 2005 to 2008. Deal with it.

Ah yes, the objective troll, I forgot about you.

Yes, Nadal is just as good as ever on clay, that's why he lost as many sets on clay as he did back in 2005, only then he actually entered 3 more tournies than this year. Statistically speaking, this is Rafa's worse year on clay and he barely won RG. Get a clue.

The penultimate sentence on your post is...wow... I can't even comment it. Isner is clearly a underrated threat on clay(despite making one clay final in his whole singles career) to Nadal, Rafa is lucky that he did not meet him before 2011.

I maintain my thoughts about Fed's 2008-mid 2010. The very next year, he barely lost to his nemesis in five, won RG(with HUGE pressure I might add, this is the explanation for some of those five setters, unless you believe that guys like haas and acasuso can take sets off Fed on clay), won WB(relatively smooth sailing until final where a rejuvenated Roddick-took out Hewitt,Murray- almost surprised him), should have won USO(lost it cause he toyed with delpo in the second instead of finishing him off) and then he won AO in 2010. Federer didn't get blown away by anyone, a couple of sets here and there and he could have won 4 or 5 in a row, which he never did before.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Ah yes, the objective troll, I forgot about you.

Yes, Nadal is just as good as ever on clay, that's why he lost as many sets on clay as he did back in 2005, only then he actually entered 3 more tournies than this year. Statistically speaking, this is Rafa's worse year on clay and he barely won RG. Get a clue.

The penultimate sentence on your post is...wow... I can't even comment it. Isner is clearly a underrated threat on clay(despite making one clay final in his whole singles career) to Nadal, Rafa is lucky that he did not meet him before 2011.

I maintain my thoughts about Fed's 2008-mid 2010. The very next year, he barely lost to his nemesis in five, won RG(with HUGE pressure I might add, this is the explanation for some of those five setters), won WB(relatively smooth sailing until final where a rejuvenated Roddick-took out Hewitt,Murray- almost surprised him), should have won USO(lost it cause he toyed with delpo in the second) and then he won AO in 2010. Federer didn't get blown away by anyone, a couple of sets here and there and he could have won 4 or 5 in a row, which he never did before.

You said Fed had not declined in slams in 2008 because he made so many finals and SF. Yet Nadal has declined on clay slams in 2011 because he won it. LOL, do you ever listen to yourself? You're a joke.

 

[zagor]

Did Nadal make a final in AO in the last 2 seasons that I am not aware of?

In the last 7 slams he reached 6 finals.

You compare being taken to five by servebot Isner on CLAY to being taken to five by Berdych on slow HC? Which one is better on their respective surface?

Not just Berdych, Tipsarevic and Andreev as well.

But regardless you claim Nadal's decline because he lost a set to Murray on two occasions(ie should have lost), well given that Fed was down 0-2 against Berdman, tell me is Berdman more accomplished at AO than Murray is at Wimbledon or USO?

And Andreev is like a righty Nadal with a game that manages to annoy Federer. He scared Fed in AO as well if I remember it right.

Andreev has a game to annoy massively declined Federer, a lot of players have that. He's a journeyman that would get spanked by Fed in his best years regardless of the surface or format.

Not in slams he wasn't.

And Nadal struggled with Lacko in slams? Stop bringing him up then.

It is a VERY HIGH standard he kept for a long time over many surfaces. It was natural that it could not stay that way.

Same for Nadal on clay, you seem to imply that just because he isn't completely destroying everyone on that surface anymore that he has declined, I could make the same argument from Fed.

From 2008 onwards the man won 4 and was one set away from winning 7 in total.

Ehm, what? You can't win additional 3 slams by winning one additional set.

Sure, I guess it is not 11 but that's still amazing, considering that his main competitors(djoko/nadal) improved in some areas of their game as well.

Of course it's still amazing, Nadal's 2011 would have been a career amazing year for most players, not to mentione the CC season in which he won FO and reached the F of every CC tourney he played, you stilll claim he declined.

Regardless of coulda/woulda/he was xy sets away Fed went from winning 11 slams in 4 years to winning 4 slams in 3 years, so yes that's a noticeable drop in results.

He could have but... Isner? I hope I dont have to bring up his clay resume, do I?

And what the hell has Andreev achieved on HC? The faster new balls played into Isner's and many big servers/hitters hands at FO last year.

Almost breadsticked by Andujar? A guy with 2 clay finals by age 26?

So much of your argument seems to rest on "almost" arguments. Bottom line is Nadal reached the final of every CC tourney he played in 2011 and won FO.

Nadal has massively declined on clay..

Oh for Pete's sake.

On HC in non-slams I can agree with you.

Problem is I didn't say he declined on HC in non-slams, now did I? If I meant non slams I would specify it like that.

If you can make an argument Nadal declined massively in 2011 on clay I can just as easily(actually more easily) make an argument Fed has massively declined on HC by then as well.

Not when you put it like that. I'm talking about things that are more close to each other, that can be more easily compared.

Losing a set in SF to a fellow top player compared to going 5 sets multiple times in early rounds is not even remotely close to each other.

Fed did decline since 2008 but in non-slam events.

But of course Nadal did, despite the fact that he reached 3 slam finals in 2011, something he didn't do in any of his years in his career save for 2010, right?

What a load of BS.

There was no massive decline in his GS game until mid 2010 IMHO.

I disregard your opinion due to your massive bias.

Obviously, some parts of your game will go as you get older, some will actually improve but I can't sit here after watching Fed in the 2008-2010 and say "Yup, definite decline there" when he is pushing guys that are 4-5 years younger(some even younger like delpo) to five sets and even defeating them.

But you can sit down after watching Nadal reach the final in every CC tourney he played this year, win FO and still say "Yup, definite MASSIVE decline there" ?

I wonder why.

I'm not the only one saying those things about Nadal, think about that.

And I'm not the only one saying Fed declined (in slams before you add your non-slams nonsense) in 2008, think about that.

Convincing for me would mean trying to hit solid of both sides instead of pushing the ball on the BH side, try to control the point(especially on clay) and have a pro-active attitude on the court all the time(I realize this is harder for him now). I don't want to see crawling wins like RG 2011 because this is not the tennis I saw in Nadal when I became a fan.

Right, Nadal should play like he did in 2008 RG all the time otherwise he's in decline.

Fed can go to 5 sets with journeyman in early rounds of HC slams but he's at his best.

Got it, understand your viewpoint.

Nadal reached 3 finals because his opponents couldn't take advantage of his bad form and here I am talking of course about Murray, who was Rafa's SF partner in RG,WB and USO. I wish I could say that Rafa played extraordinary to get past Andy but ...

Fed reached 3 slam finals in 2008 because his opponents couldn't take advantage of his bad form and here I'm talking of course about Tipsarevic and Andreev who allowed Fed to get past R32 and R16 respectively in HC slams, I wish I could say Fed played extraordinary to get past them but reality is he was in such massive decline that he had to rely on them choking to get through...

Everything declines with time but yeah the major decline was only on ONE SURFACE..

Just as Fed massively declined on one surface(HC), got it.

Standard for Nadal is reaching RG and WB(did it 4 times before 2011) for example, not WB and USO combo. And why pick IW-Miami?

So given that Nadal's standard is reaching just RG and WB finals, how come in a year he reached RG+WB+USO(not the norm for him as you admitted) he's supposedly in such massive decline ?

IW-Miami final I used as an example of Nadal's form on HC in 2011 compared to last year when he lost to weak era clowns like Roddick and Ljubicic.

Yup, if Nadal(peaking lest we forget) goes double break down to a kid whose only quality is that he can play some good junkball(though he has improved since) then something is up. Think Djokovic losing to Nishikori the way he did.Might have been Nadal's flu though.

Eh, Djokovic lost the set to Nishikori and the match afterwards, Nadal came back to that set and won the match after in straights, you have no point here, sorry.

Andreev is not that easy of a matchup for Fed since he already caused some troubles in 2 slams despite him being a consistent player.

Few players are easy match-ups for masively declined Fed on HC. Peak Fed though? I doubt Andreev takes a set, especially in slams.

Nadal never goes to town on any field. Tell me one year when Nadal DOMINATED the field outside of grass and clay. That's where Nadal's domination lies and we all saw what happened on clay this year, how "terrific" Nadal played there.

Aside from Novak and indoor season Nadal dominated the field this year on every surface. He had problems with one player and no one else.

Also don't forget, 3 out of 4 slams, he may have declined in non-slams but in slams he's better than ever!

He did but in non-slams.

No, in slams as well, it's very obvious. Massive decline.

Hmm, so far it seems to be working. I wonder why. Probably because Nadal is peaking.

What seems to be working? You were saying 2011 and 2012 were Nadal last good years in which he could win slams, that's a preposterous prediction. Fed declined much more in 2008 than Nadal did in 2011 yet still managed to grab 4 more slams, Nadal will likely do the same.

But I am discussing Fed's decline on its own standards .

Given the fact that you claim Fed hasn't decline in slams since 2008 no, it is painfully obvious that you don't

for Fed it's slam season, for Nadal it's clay season..

Right and Fed failed to continue averaging 2+ slams a year while Nadal won RG in 2011 and reached the final of every CC tourney that year so thanks for making my point for me.

 

[zagor]

Continued...

Fed went from winning 3 per year to nearly winning 2 in a year where he suffered from mono at the beginning. The very next year he made 4 out of 4 finals in GS. He inclined his decline I presume.

Without almost and was xy sets away hypothetical scenarios we can conclude Fed went from averaging almost 3 slams a year to winning barely scraping to one or maximum two.

Nadal went from dominating clay to playing like s**t on this surface in 2011

So Nadal went from dominating clay to eh dominating clay in 2011 ?

As I said, a Murray with more stones and a more decisive Fed and Rafa ends up with 0 slams and one slam final.

Right and Tipsarevic, Andreev and Berdych with more stones and Fed doesn't get past R32/R16 in every HC slam since 2008 AO to 2009 AO.

Need I mentione once again that those guys were much closer to beating peak non declined(according to you of course) Fed in slams than Murray/Fed were in 2011 against Nadal?

Anyway, these are my last words on the subject. I feel we are kinda off topic here.

It's fine by me. If you reply to this I will reply again though, sorry but Nadal fanboy double standards push my button.

 

[namelessone]

You said Fed had not declined in slams in 2008 because he made so many finals and SF. Yet Nadal has declined on clay slams in 2011 because he won it. LOL, do you ever listen to yourself? You're a joke.

What clay slams genius, there is only one(RG), one in which Nadal, at his best ever mind you:

-was taken to five by claygod Isner, a guy with ONE CLAY final in his career. The very fact that Nadal had trouble moving a 2m guy around on clay should spell everything out for you.

-was one point away from being breadsticked by a guy with 2 CLAY FINALS to his name by 26, so another clay god in the making.

-had trouble putting away a past his prime 30 year old favorable matchup.

With his draw, Nadal should have played much better and breezed through the competition. As it stands, Isner could have taken him out in R1 and a guy that failed to beat him in his peak/prime take him out once he was post prime.

Ask any journalist out there what was Nadal's worst RG win and most will say that this is it. I wonder why, with Nadal peaking and everything.

 

[zagor]

Ah yes, the objective troll, I forgot about you.

Yes, Nadal is just as good as ever on clay, that's why he lost as many sets on clay as he did back in 2005, only then he actually entered 3 more tournies than this year. Statistically speaking, this is Rafa's worse year on clay and he barely won RG. Get a clue.

And statistically speaking 2008 year was Fed's worst year on HC since 2003 yet you claim he didn't decline, yes?

So in your own words, get a clue.

The penultimate sentence on your post is...wow... I can't even comment it. Isner is clearly a underrated threat on clay(despite making one clay final in his whole singles career) to Nadal, Rafa is lucky that he did not meet him before 2011.

Just as Fed is lucky he didn't meet Andreev and Tipsarevic in HC slams in 2004-2007 period, they would have obviously pushed him to a five set thriller each time, the HC juggernauts that they are.

 

[zagor]

As it stands, Isner could have taken him out in R1 and a guy that failed to beat him in his peak/prime take him out once he was post prime.

Yes and Tipsarevic and Andreev could have taken Fed out in AO and USO in R32 and R16, how is that a different situation exactly?

I mean it must be such a different scenario in your head given that you claimed Fed hasn't declined at all(in HC slams) while Nadal has massively declined. There's a lot of space inbetween no decline at all and massive decline.

 

[namelessone]

Yes and Tipsarevic and Andreev could have taken Fed out in AO and USO in R32 and R16, how is that a different situation exactly?

I mean it must be such a different scenario in your head given that you claimed Fed hasn't declined at all(in HC slams) while Nadal has massively declined. There's a lot of space inbetween no decline at all and massive decline.

They are better HC players than Isner is on clay.

 

[dudeski]

Nadal's massive decline on clay was clearly visible late last year when he lost 1 set in 4 best of 5 matches in DC semi and final. Nadal has only baked four 6-1 and two 6-0 sets in those 4 matches.

 

[zagor]

They are better HC players than Isner is on clay.

Not with the balls FO used this year, it aided the best servers(Fed included) tremendously.

Regardless, Fed was much closer to losing to Andreev and Tipsarevic than Nadal was to Isner so again why it such a humongously different scenario? What makes it so different to justify deriving such polar opposite conclusions?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

What clay slams genius, there is only one(RG), one in which Nadal, at his best ever mind you:

-was taken to five by claygod Isner, a guy with ONE CLAY final in his career. The very fact that Nadal had trouble moving a 2m guy around on clay should spell everything out for you.

-was one point away from being breadsticked by a guy with 2 CLAY FINALS to his name by 26, so another clay god in the making.

-had trouble putting away a past his prime 30 year old favorable matchup.

With his draw, Nadal should have played much better and breezed through the competition. As it stands, Isner could have taken him out in R1 and a guy that failed to beat him in his peak/prime take him out once he was post prime.

Ask any journalist out there what was Nadal's worst RG win and most will say that this is it. I wonder why, with Nadal peaking and everything.

Federer in his best year at his peakiest peak did not triple bagel everyone. Tennis is not a mathematical formula. Even at your best people can take you to 5 sets. You have no clear understanding of how life works.

 

[namelessone]

And statistically speaking 2008 year was Fed's worst year on HC since 2003 yet you claim he didn't decline, yes?

Don't twist my words, I did admit that he did decline outside of slams and since non-slams make up the bulk of the season of course it will affect overall HC results. Let's compare HC GS results in those years: In 2003, he had 4R,4R, in 2008 it was SF and W.

After his horrendeous, first post prime year, in 2008, Nadal takes Fed to five in AO(something that happened before, in WB 2007,Fed's prime) then once Rafa is audi, Fed wins the next two slams, makes final in USO(which honestly, he should have won). And in his third post prime year, he wins AO again.

I would like to correct a bit from a post above, when I said a set away I meant a set away in each of the five setters he lost in the 2008-mid 2010(WB 08', AO 09', USO 09'), that would have made him win 7 slams in that particular period instead of 4.

 

[namelessone]

Not with the balls FO used this year, it aided the best servers(Fed included) tremendously.

Regardless, Fed was much closer to losing to Andreev and Tipsarevic than Nadal was to Isner so again why it such a humongously different scenario? What makes it so different to justify deriving such polar opposite conclusions?

It's not humongously different scenario but it is more embarrassing to be taken to five by Isner on clay(he is even worse than Roddick on this surface, if that is possible) than Tipsy or Andreev on HC and I think it shows more about Nadal's decline than about Fed's.

The balls are one factor but it can't explain why Nadal couldn't move a 2.08 guy ON CLAY. Or why he is almost breadsticked by a guy who can barely get by in 250's on clay.

My 2 cents.

 

[namelessone]

]Federer in his best year at his peakiest peak did not triple bagel everyone.[/B] Tennis is not a mathematical formula. Even at your best people can take you to 5 sets. You have no clear understanding of how life works.

So you go from me complaining that Nadal, the CGOAT supposedly, got taken to five by a clay noob to me saying that I wish Nadal would triple bagel everyone(so I can finally be content with his game,amirite?).

You shouldn't talk about life. How the hell do you have almost 3300 posts in a couple of months here, while I have 7500 in 2 and a half years?

 

[zagor]

Don't twist my words, I did admit that he did decline outside of slams and since non-slams make up the bulk of the season of course it will affect overall HC results. Let's compare HC GS results in those years: In 2003, he had 4R,4R, in 2008 it was SF and W..

Let's compare Fed's results in 2008 on HC to 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 shall we?

Let's compare the number of times he got pushed in early rounds in HC slams by journeymen in 2008 compared to 2004-2007.

If anything Fed lost in 2003 in both HC slams to Nalbandian, if Janko and Andreev had more stones Fed wouln't have gotten past R16 in HC slams in 2008 as well.

After his horrendeous, first post prime year, in 2008, Nadal takes Fed to five in AO(something that happened before, in WB 2007,Fed's prime) then once Rafa is audi, Fed wins the next two slams, makes final in USO(which honestly, he should have won). And in his third post prime year, he wins AO again.

Nadal pushed Fed to 5 on grass, not in a HC slam. As far as HC goes they mostly played in Miami.

But of course 2009 AO Fed was playing as great as 2007 AO Fed, silly me.

I would like to correct a bit from a post above, when I said a set away I meant a set away in each of the five setters he lost in the 2008-mid 2010(WB 08', AO 09', USO 09'), that would have made him win 7 slams in that particular period instead of 4.

It doesn't matter what would have happened if he won more sets.

Facts remain, he won 11 slams in 2004-2007 period, 4 slams in 2008-2010 period which makes your claim that he hasn't declined in slams at all a bit suspect to say the least.

Especially when you claim Nadal has declined in 2011.

 

[zagor]

It's not humongously different scenario but it is more embarrassing to be taken to five by Isner on clay(he is even worse than Roddick on this surface, if that is possible) than Tipsy or Andreev on HC and I think it shows more about Nadal's decline than about Fed's.

The balls are one factor but it can't explain why Nadal couldn't move a 2.08 guy ON CLAY. Or why he is almost breadsticked by a guy who can barely get by in 250's on clay.

My 2 cents.

According to you, it is.

In one scenario you draw the conclusion that xy player hasn't declined at all(in slams before you say anything).

In the other one xy player has declined massively.

It's not even a difference between non decline and decline, it's a difference between non decline and massive decline.

Get it?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

So you go from me complaining that Nadal, the CGOAT supposedly, got taken to five by a clay noob to me saying that I wish Nadal would triple bagel everyone(so I can finally be content with his game,amirite?).

You shouldn't talk about life. How the hell do you have almost 3300 posts in a couple of months here, while I have 7500 in 2 and a half years?

Ummmm, what you're essentially saying by complaining about ISner taking Nadal to 5 sets is that if Nadal is at his peak, there is no way Isner can take him to 5 sets. And that is incredibly stupid and undermines every other player except your favourite. If you can't comprehend that then you really do need some life lessons.

There are people who have been on this forum for 5 years and only have 150 posts. Compare that to you. How do you explain that? Can you really be this obtuse? Or is it just an act?

 

[monfed]

What clay slams genius, there is only one(RG), one in which Nadal, at his best ever mind you:

-was taken to five by claygod Isner, a guy with ONE CLAY final in his career. The very fact that Nadal had trouble moving a 2m guy around on clay should spell everything out for you.

RG used lighter balls which majorly aided Isner's serve(thats his whole game anyway), but he was losing most of the long rallies. The lighter balls also explain why Nadal didn't fare as well as he did in the previous editions of RG. In the end he won RG which is what counts. No decline here.

-was one point away from being breadsticked by a guy with 2 CLAY FINALS to his name by 26, so another clay god in the making.

Pablo Andujar is infact a clay court specialist. So it was hardly a surprise why he gave Nadal a tough match. What was surprising though is that he couldn't close out that third set being 40-0 up due to some epic choking. Still Nadal fought back and in the end won quite comfortably. I think Andujar is a man to look out for in 2012 RG.

-had trouble putting away a past his prime 30 year old favorable matchup.

Again, the lighter balls majorly aided Federer's serve. Uptil 5-2 in that first set, Fed had a high % first serve. The moment it dropped, Nadal dished out a mid-match bagel,some decline that.
Some credit has to be given to Federer as well for serving to keep the encounter alive. You seem to imply that Federer should've lost like in 2008. Hilarious.

With his draw, Nadal should have played much better and breezed through the competition. As it stands, Isner could have taken him out in R1 and a guy that failed to beat him in his peak/prime take him out once he was post prime.

Ask any journalist out there what was Nadal's worst RG win and most will say that this is it. I wonder why, with Nadal peaking and everything.

The lighter balls didn't suit Nadal at all.

 

[MichaelNadal]

So you go from me complaining that Nadal, the CGOAT supposedly, got taken to five by a clay noob to me saying that I wish Nadal would triple bagel everyone(so I can finally be content with his game,amirite?).

You shouldn't talk about life. How the hell do you have almost 3300 posts in a couple of months here, while I have 7500 in 2 and a half years?

You seem to love feeding the trolls man, just stop.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

You seem to love feeding the trolls man, just stop.

LOL, anyone who has an opposing view to your own is a troll by your standards. How objective.

 

[namelessone]

But of course 2009 AO Fed was playing as great as 2007 AO Fed, silly me..

If we are talking about finals, the only difference in my opinion is that in the last set Federer served like ass in AO(which was weird considering the good fourth set). Nadal had shots to break in the fifth in WB 07 but Fed served them out. Anyway, this is all speculation.

Facts remain, he won 11 slams in 2004-2007 period, 4 slams in 2008-2010 period which makes your claim that he hasn't declined in slams at all a bit suspect to say the least.

4 yes, but he was a hair away from it being 5,6,7 and the guys that took those slams away were a bad matchup that improved parts of his game and a guy that Fed let slip by him(not to mention that he can hit the ball like crazy). Also, from 2008 onwards, other guys started to rise, Nadal was getting better on slow HC(and let's face it wasn't Fed that was stopping him from doing so in 05-07), Djokovic had started to make his mark on the tour(even had SP against Fed in USO 07 final and yet post post prime Fed nearly beats a much better Djoker twice his year) and Murray was about to make his first GS final.

And before you go there, no, this is not weak era s**t.

 

[MichaelNadal]

LOL, anyone who has an opposing view to your own is a troll by your standards. How objective.

No, anyone that logs onto this board each and everyday with their ONLY objective being putting down Nadal fans and saying he's never played better when he's clearly not playing 100% is a troll. Every single one of your posts is somehow about Nadal.

 

[zagor]

If we are talking about finals, the only difference in my opinion is that in the last set Federer served like ass in AO(which was weird considering the good fourth set). Nadal had shots to break in the fifth in WB 07 but Fed served them out. Anyway, this is all speculation.

Serve is the most important part of the game. Regardless on the whole Fed played much better in 2007 AO, from start to finish, yes in my opinion.

4 yes, but he was a hair away from it being 5,6,7 and the guys that took those slams away were a bad matchup that improved parts of his game and a guy that Fed let slip by him(not to mention that he can hit the ball like crazy). Also, from 2008 onwards, other guys started to rise, Nadal was getting better on slow HC(and let's face it wasn't Fed that was stopping him from doing so in 05-07), Djokovic had started to make his mark on the tour(even had SP against Fed in USO 07 final and yet post post prime Fed nearly beats a much better Djoker twice his year) and Murray was about to make his first GS final.

And before you go there, no, this is not weak era s**t.

It is very simple:

11 slams in 4 years>>>>>>>4 slams in 3 years.

That's noticable decline in results, for which there can be a lot of factors involved.

Spare me the hair away, coulda/shoulda/woulda nonsense, I don't care for it the slightest.

 

[intrepidish]

No, anyone that logs onto this board each and everyday with their ONLY objective being putting down Nadal fans and saying he's never played better when he's clearly not playing 100% is a troll. Every single one of your posts is somehow about Nadal.

This is all very true. Trolling for the win would be a better username for that troll.

 

[namelessone]

RG used lighter balls which majorly aided Isner's serve(thats his whole game anyway), but he was losing most of the long rallies. The lighter balls also explain why Nadal didn't fare as well as he did in the previous editions of RG. In the end he won RG which is what counts. No decline here.

The manner in which you do it counts tremendously. He would have lost had Fed not taken out joker.

Pablo Andujar is infact a clay court specialist. So it was hardly a surprise why he gave Nadal a tough match. What was surprising though is that he couldn't close out that third set being 40-0 up due to some epic choking. Still Nadal fought back and in the end won quite comfortably. I think Andujar is a man to look out for in 2012 RG.

Let me put it this way. If you make a rating of just claycourters(with mostly a CC pedigree), Andujar wouldn't even be top 20. The guy can only make 250 finals and even though he is spanish, he's only made 4 at this pretty advanced age(someone like Almagro, who would be considered a weak draw for Nadal by many here, made 14 clay finals and is one year older). Don't get me wrong, I like his prospects, I saw him in Bucharest tourney but he's way way way lower than Nadal on the clay skill charts and yet he almost breadsticked a supposedly peak/prime Nadal.

Some credit has to be given to Federer as well for serving to keep the encounter alive. You seem to imply that Federer should've lost like in 2008. Hilarious.

No this is what you imply so it will give you something to talk about.

Look at it logically - Nadal, in his BEST YEAR EVAR on clay, to quote Djokovicfortheloss, met a post post prime favorable matchup that he beat in much tougher conditions,when Fed was at his peakiest peak. And yet Nadal BARELY made it through the first set after being stomped on for a while, won the second with a tiebreak, Fed fought back in the third(after Nadal broke first) only to collapse in the fourth. Easily Nadal's worst RG final in terms of quality. A more focused Fed would have won.

 

[tennis_pro]

If we are talking about finals, the only difference in my opinion is that in the last set Federer served like ass in AO(which was weird considering the good fourth set). Nadal had shots to break in the fifth in WB 07 but Fed served them out. Anyway, this is all speculation.

0-2 down against Berdych in the 4th round and losing the final in the 5th set serving under 50 %, struggles against Seppi and Roddick

compared with

playing flawless GOAT tennis and losing no sets in the entire tournament, victories including Djokovic (losing 9 games), Roddick (losing 6 games) and Gonzalez who himself was in GOAT mode (6-2 6-4 6-3 against Nadal)

I choose 2007.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Nadal's perceived decline in Joker induced. Novak cracked Nadal's confidence in IW-Miami. The after effects were clear in his body language. The Joker losses on clay really hurt him. No one had ever truly toppled him with an in your face attitude that Joker had in four finals. This depression carried onto the start of RG, where he did have that fear of facing Joker in the final. He would wait til W for that to happen.

 

[zagor]

Look at it logically - Nadal, in his BEST YEAR EVAR on clay, to quote Djokovicfortheloss, met a post post prime favorable matchup that he beat in much tougher conditions,when Fed was at his peakiest peak. And yet Nadal BARELY made it through the first set after being stomped on for a while, won the second with a tiebreak, Fed fought back in the third(after Nadal broke first) only to collapse in the fourth. Easily Nadal's worst RG final in terms of quality. A more focused Fed would have won.

And looking at it logically in 2008 Fed who hasn't declined at all in slams(according to you) BARELY made it out of early rounds against journeymen in both HC slams, this is the guy many people consider to be the greatest HC player of all time.

More focused Tipsarevic and Andreev would have won their HC slam encounters with Fed in 2008.

 

[zagor]

0-2 down against Berdych in the 4th round and losing the final in the 5th set serving under 50 %, struggles against Seppi and Roddick

compared with

playing flawless GOAT tennis and losing no sets in the entire tournament, victories including Djokovic (losing 9 games), Roddick (losing 6 games) and Gonzalez who himself was in GOAT mode (6-2 6-4 6-3 against Nadal)

I choose 2007.

Fed also made the personal record number of double faults as far as slams go in 2009 AO.

Perhaps it makes me a blind fanboy who can't handle the truth but I pick 2007 as well.

 

[namelessone]

0-2 down against Berdych in the 4th round and losing the final in the 5th set serving under 50 %, struggles against Seppi and Roddick

compared with

playing flawless GOAT tennis and losing no sets in the entire tournament, victories including Djokovic (losing 9 games), Roddick (losing 6 games) and Gonzalez who himself was in GOAT mode (6-2 6-4 6-3 against Nadal)

I choose 2007.

I was talking about WB 07, I assume you are talking about AO 2007.

Djokovic was not Djokovic yet, his first breakthroughs would come later in 2007.

The Roddick match was very impressive but Andy is a very favorable matchup for Roger.

Gonzalez was in his first final and was kinda nervous in the big points. Don't give me the Nadal defeat cause Nadal was still mediocre on HC. Still, a very good match by Federer against a very offensive player.

 

[namelessone]

Fed also made the personal record number of double faults as far as slams go in 2009 AO.

Perhaps it makes me a blind fanboy who can't handle the truth but I pick 2007 as well.

Maybe he was going for it more against Nadal? He had 11 in five sets. It would be interesting to see his DF for the rest of the AO.

 

[tennis_pro]

Djokovic was not Djokovic yet, his first breakthroughs would come later in 2007.

But he was pretty darn close, in the AO he lost to Federer, in Dubai he loses to him again, then Federer drops out early in Indian Wells/Miami and suddenly Novak reaches the final of the first tournie and wins the second. Makes you think, if Federer was absent in AO/Dubai, Djokovic would go deeper in both tournaments.

The Roddick match was very impressive but Andy is a very favorable matchup for Roger.

If Roddick is such a favorable matchup for Federer, Fed would have no problems taking him out even after his prime, no wait...
2008 Miami - Roddick beats him
2009 AO - closer match than the scoreline suggets, WAY closer than 2007 AO nevertheless
2009 Miami - Roddick takes a set and chokes the match a bit in the end
2009 Madrid - Roddick takes a set off Federer ON CLAY
2009 Wimbledon - virtual double match point at 8-8 15-40 in the final

For comparison, Federer lost LESS sets in 2004-2007 to Roddick (3 to be exact) even though they played twice as much as in 2008-2009 (10 times in 04-07)

Gonzalez was in his first final and was kinda nervous in the big points. Don't give me the Nadal defeat cause Nadal was still mediocre on HC. Still, a very good match by Federer against a very offensive player.

Yea so nervous that he actually had a double set point on his serve (saved by Fed's brilliant play more than anything) in the first set and was not afraid to go for the big shots. You wanna see a nervous guy in a slam final? Watch Murray - the top cream of today's compeition.

 

[zagor]

Maybe he was going for it more against Nadal? He had 11 in five sets. It would be interesting to see his DF for the rest of the AO.

I was talking about the whole tourney overall, not just against Nadal.

Never saw him(Fed) make so many double faults in a grand slam tourney.

 

[aphex]

2011 Nadal would never lose to one-leg-in-the-coffin Ljubicic...

or the journeyman GGL...

Drop it shameless...2011 Ralph>2010 Ralph

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

No, anyone that logs onto this board each and everyday with their ONLY objective being putting down Nadal fans and saying he's never played better when he's clearly not playing 100% is a troll. Every single one of your posts is somehow about Nadal.

Only in the eyes of the ****. You just don't get it. He's clearly playing 100%, but just because that opposes your view, I'm a troll. LOL.

 

[intrepidish]

Only in the eyes of the ****. You just don't get it. He's clearly playing 100%, but just because that opposes your view, I'm a troll. LOL.

It's not clear at all that he was playing 100%.

Only a troll would say that. He played well enough all things considered for anyone but Djokovic all the same when it mattered but players fluctuate over their careers and Nadal was no exception.

He lacked movement and sting on his shots from early in the year onward and many had commented on it in comparison to his standards.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

It's not clear at all that he was playing 100%.

Only a troll would say that. He played well enough all things considered for anyone but Djokovic all the same when it mattered but players fluctuate over their careers and Nadal was no exception.

He lacked movement and sting on his shots from early in the year onward and many had commented on it in comparison to his standards.

It's clear he's playing 100%. Only a troll would say he's not. He had great movement and had a ton of sting on his shots throughout the year that allowed him to make a record number of finals.

 

[The-Champ]

Only in the eyes of the ****. You just don't get it. He's clearly playing 100%, but just because that opposes your view, I'm a troll. LOL.

hey congrats! You're still using this account, it must be a personal record. How long did you have the "porcupine", "queenseles", "bruce38", "magnetic curls" and other accounts that I can't remember?