Tennis_Hands
Banned
The Nadal plays his faithfuls in the Spanish armada so much more than the other top players.
Boris Becker: Rafael Nadal Is The Favorite To Win The French Open
- Thread starter clayqueen
- Start date
The Nadal plays his faithfuls in the Spanish armada so much more than the other top players.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Another ignorant remark.
Federer reached number 1 in the world after a super strong US Open/post US open campaign in 2011.
Oh, and Nadal played in the half of the season where Federer was gaining his points to reach the #1 .....
Please, stay a bit more.
This thread is quickly turning into this for the Vamos a la playa Brigade:
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Ferrer never beat Federer?
ROFLMAO!
ROFLMAO!
Tennis_Hands
Banned
The conditions are not skewed against Nadal, lol, WTF is an indoor HC event since way before Nadal started to play tennis (except for the Houston stop, which was a mistake). Stop crying about it like it's some kind of conspiracy against Nadal...
Could you imagine some Lendl fan saying "you condemn him for not winning Wimbledon, yet you don't aknowledge that the conditions were skewed against him as it's always on his least favourite environment. They should move the surface around" Or a Sampras fan sying the same thing about RG.
Nadal and other players knew what the conditions were before playing. It's up to players to adapt, not to tournaments to help them win.
And about Nadal being the best since he was the best between 20 and 22... cherrypicking maybe?
Just for reference, since it's not being updated anymore:
By titles and GS titles standard, Federer is a late bloomer compared to Nadal, but his sucess between 21,5yo to 26,5yo is far more impressive imo.
This graphic should chase the Nadalettes in their sleep.
Nadal had HUGE advantage over Federer from day one in the Majors titles department and still managed to screw that up.
Thanks, Tio!
uliks
Banned
But you can say the same about Federer really that he stopped winning big titles with the same regularity the moment Nadal and Djokovic arrived at the biggest scene. It's all about perspective really!!!I'm sorry, but Nole isn't tier 1 alongside Federer, Nadal and Sampras. Completely wrong. Look at when Nole started collecting titles; when Nadal and Federer were no longer in their respective
Mind you Djokovic since he entered in his prime in 2011 is like 10-2 in important Slam+WTF final matches against the so called GOAT who as we can see is still capable of owning the Tour in his 36. That means that either Djokovic's level those years was really high ATG level, or Federer isn't as great as the majority is claiming here... Tennis_Hands
Banned
But you can say the same about Federer really that he stopped winning big titles with the same regularity the moment Nadal and Djokovic arrived at the biggest scene. It's all about perspective really!!!
Nadal "arrived at the biggest scene" in 2005.
Djokovic in 2007/8.
uliks
Banned
The same as Federer's arriving at the biggest scene in 2001.Nadal "arrived at the biggest scene" in 2005.
Djokovic in 2007/8.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm a lady of leisure when I'm no lunching I have the time.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
These are the sort of hypothetical questions Fedfans come up with when they don't want the facts to get in the way.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Cloud Cuckoo Land most be overpopulated with Fedfans.Mate, you've just come across the head RaFanatic, the leader of the ************* (VB) on this forum, so there is no reason for wasting common sense on her. She more or less repeats the following while at the same time ignoring everything you say or just digressing from the topic completely:
-Rafa has never lost a match unless he was injured/coming off an injury/tired/lacked confidence
-Rafa would have won any tournament he was unable to participate in
-Rafa has never cheated or exploited the MTO rule
-Every Rafa's loss is a moral win for Rafa
All of these are backed up with an inordinate amount of questionable photographic/image material from the VB's own private "This is real evidence" storage.
And her famous quotes in the past year and only by memory:
-Rafa doesn't look a day older than 25
-Rafa wasn't match fit in 2015 (the whole year)
-ATP most popular player is a rigged award (don't even mention the Stefan Edberg award. No, I really mean it. Don't mention it.)
-Rafa is just as popular as Roger, but a lot of his fans are on Social networks (which is why Roger gets bigger crowds, awards, recognition and marketing contracts)
-It was not a weak era for Nadal (2004-2007) because he was 5-6 years younger than Federer
Her posts are pure gold, really, you just have to keep in mind she's ... well, you fill in the blanks
Last edited:
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
This is why I showed the stats. Rafa was naturally particularly gifted on clay so dominated on it even before he turned 20. Do you guys not know that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer? Of course he wasn't at his best on other surfaces as a teenager or in his early 20s. After all Federer didn't win anything on any surface before he turned 21/22.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Nobody said he had to be great on other surfaces in his early 20s (though there are plenty of players who are, so you shouldn't act like it's unprecedented).
But that's what makes the H2H argument worse, because it's not an equal opportunity argument. Like I said, it's not like it was a round-robin league format where they played H2H at various tournaments and different surfaces a representative amount of times.
I've already said this, so please read the post before replying. I shouldn't have to repeat what I said in the post you're quoting.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
You seem to have a tunnel vision of reality. Just name me the "plenty" of players who were good on all surfaces at age 20.
TheFifthSet
Legend
You brought up performance anxiety derailing an entire year for Nadal. That's certainly not based on facts (and pretty implausible).
What facts are you referring to? Do the facts not support that Federer is better on grass and hard courts? Do you dispute that he is? I'm genuinely curious if you feel Nadal is better on those two surfaces. I envisioned an ideal world where Nadal is healthy his entire career because you mention his injuries all the time. That makes the comparison fairer, no?
Alright, all adjustments (which would favour Nadal) aside, who do you feel is better on the non-clay surfaces?
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
What is the fixation about non-clay surfaces about. All you guys want to do is deny that clay is tennis because you don't want to accept Nadal's superiority on the surface. Just live and let live and give praise where praise is due. You can't change the facts. Federer is nowhere as dominant on grass and h/c as Nadal has been on clay between the two of them. Fed v Rafa head to head, Grass 2:1; H/C 8/9; Clay 13:2.
Of course his performance anxiety in 2015 is a fact:
Rafael Nadal has said he is struggling with nerves and self-confidence issues after he was beaten in the third round by his fellow Spaniard Fernando Verdasco at the Miami Open on Sunday.
“It is not a question of tennis. The thing is the question of being relaxed enough to play well on court,” he said after the 6-4, 2-6, 6-3 loss at Key Biscayne.
“A month and a half ago I didn’t have the game. My game has improved but … I am still playing with too much nerves for a lot of moments, important moments, still a little anxious on those moments.”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-lost-confidence-miami-open-fernando-verdasco
Last edited:
chut
Professional
I see that you came back, even though you said you wouldn't, especially after being proved wrong again and again (thanks BTW to those who pointed out you counted Hamburg 2007 as a Nadal win... LOL!). Yes, Nadal owns Federer on clay and they have a balanced record out of clay. So, what does it prove exactly?
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Borg won 3 clay and grass majors by the time he turned 23.
You seem a bit lost, here.
You were using the fact that Nadal isn't "good" on other surfaces as justification for not playing Federer.
The fact that Nadal wasn't good enough to play Federer across all surfaces is exactly why the H2H is not an representative sample. A representative H2H would be if they played round robin on courts that represented the actual court makeup of the ATP tour. So you would have hardcourt H2H, clay H2H, grass H2H, and Indoor H2H all included every year. But this didn't happen.
Feel free to google "representative sample" if you are unable to understand what I'm saying. I do not feel the need to educate you.
Let me put it this way, imagine if Nadal and Federer played 15 matchups on Indoor Carpet and 15 matchups on every other surface. Do you think their H2H would still look the same?
Nobody is denying that Nadal is better on clay. What reality are you living in?
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Oh so we're using player quotes now?
I guess the Federer quote about how he struggled with Nadal because his losses to Nadal early in his career on clay affected his game when he played Nadal is a "fact" then too. So if they played a balanced H2H slate he wouldn't have been as affected.
You played yourself, buddy.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
If Nadal hadn't climbed up the rankings at age 19 where he was #2 to Federer for something like 6 years and could only meet Federer in finals, he would have knocked Federer out in many tournaments on any surface much sooner in the draw and Federer would never have even made the finals let alone win them.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
He would have knocked out Federer but he couldn't beat the worse players that prevented him from playing him.
Makes sense. Not.
And again, you don't address any of the points made. Keep trying.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
You did say "PLENTY" of players, then you name one!
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Those players were big daddies to Rafa. Rafa was a child prodigy.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Again, this doesn't change the fact that the H2H is not a representative sample.
Try to keep up with the points being made.
Urkezi
Semi-Pro
HAHAAHAHAHA. So which one of my statements about you was from Cloud Cockoo Land? Because you are more than obviously the President there
chut
Professional
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Your initial argument is a complete non-sequitur to the point to begin with. You clearly made this in desperation to draw me out on a tangent.
But okay...
Jimmy Connors won the AO, Wimbledon, and USO in the year he turned 23.
Pete Sampras won Wimbledon and USO by age 22. He won his second USO shortly after turning 23.
McEnroe had won 3 USOs and a Wimbledon (plus a final where he lost to Borg) shortly after he turned 23.
Mats Wilander won AO and the FO multiple times each before he turned 22.
Edberg won AO and Wimbledon before he turned 23.
Are you a masochist or what?
Again, how does this tangent about being young have anything to do with the fact that the H2H is not representative?
Hello?
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
DreddyTennis45
Hall of Fame
How come he didn't have "performance anxiety" in 2013, when he came back from a longer time out (and Won 2 slams no less), but suddenly had one in 2015?
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Why Nadal himself didn't reach the finals though? He played in the same weak era Roger did, no?
TheFifthSet
Legend
So, you believe a few matches where he got tight would indicate that the woes he faced all year, which was his worst since 2004, are entirely attributable to anxiety? Not poor play, declining foot speed etc? Again, implausible. Players get tight or go through negative emotional spells fairly often. You don't think Federer, for all his posturing, didn't have some of these same issues over the years?
Follow the progression of this conversation. You claimed that Federer wasn't all that good on grass and HC as a younger player, which is true but essentially irrelevant. When somebody retorted that it makes his status as the most accomplished player of the open era all the more impressive (being a late bloomer), you brought up him playing in a weak era.
So, that led me to ask if this so-called weak era (and the injuries you constantly bring up) is the reason Federer has had a better career than Nadal on grass and HC. Not fixating on anything. Asked an extraordinarily simple question: who, in your judgment, is the better player on those two surfaces? Not denying Nadal's superiority on clay, nor am I devaluing his accomplishments. You're reading quite a lot into what I'm asking. Of course Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on grass or HC. I just find your borderline obsessive aversion to admitting that Federer is flat-out better at anything, even the things he patently is better at, fascinating. It reminds me of ol' Clarky21 refusing to say Djokovic's name, instead circumventing the issue by having a nickname Rolodex that she could refer to when 'Cvac' was getting over-used. Just bizarre. The fact that you are avoiding answering a simple question seems to confirm that you'll go to the most elaborate lengths to not give Federer any credit for the advantages he holds over Nadal, the very thing you accuse other Federer fans of doing.
Last edited:
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Rafa had clay and grass titles at 22. Most of the players above did not win titles on all surfaces at the age of 22 either. Certainly not Federer.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
No majors outside of clay. Sorry.
And most of those players did it in an era where you actually have to play differently on different surfaces. Not this era of homogeneity where you can play the same power baseline game with trampoline raquets and synthetic strings.
Also, since you're just trolling now by ignoring the point, I'll spell this out for you one more time, in big bold letters:
How does this tangent about being young have anything to do with the fact that the H2H is not representative?
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
It's impossible to hold a discussion with someone who cherry-picks and twist things because the facts don't suit them.
Hitman's Gurl
Professional
What do you mean by this?
Roger won Hamburg in 2002. He was 20.
He won Halle and Wimbledon at 21.
He won Milan his first HC title when he was even younger.
I am sorry but I am not quite sure what you mean by saying certainly not Roger.
Do you refer to only slams?
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
On that occasion I was talking only about slams.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Out of Rafa’s 69 career titles, 20 have come on hard courts. In contrast, out of Roger Federer’s 89 — only 11 have been on clay.
No single player has been as dominant on an individual surface as Rafa
No player in our lifetime will duplicate Rafa’s 49 titles on clay — including 9 in Paris. There was a stretch of YEARS where if you played Rafa on clay, there was a near 100 percent probability you would lose. It took him YEARS to lose his first match in Paris — to the now-retired Robin Soderling.
Rafa also won Olympic Gold as a SINGLES Player. [On hardcourt].
https://medium.com/@subes01/rafael-...is-player-of-all-time-b387c43c9808#.1lv2w34yc
No single player has been as dominant on an individual surface as Rafa
No player in our lifetime will duplicate Rafa’s 49 titles on clay — including 9 in Paris. There was a stretch of YEARS where if you played Rafa on clay, there was a near 100 percent probability you would lose. It took him YEARS to lose his first match in Paris — to the now-retired Robin Soderling.
Rafa also won Olympic Gold as a SINGLES Player. [On hardcourt].
https://medium.com/@subes01/rafael-...is-player-of-all-time-b387c43c9808#.1lv2w34yc
Hitman's Gurl
Professional
Thank you for clarifying.
Bukmeikara
Legend
The same as Federer's arriving at the biggest scene in 2001.
Federer rank at the end of 2001 - 13
Djokovic rank at the end of 2007 - 3
Nadal rank at the end of 2005 - 2
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Slay.
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
Coo. Now do slams at 30.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Yes, like you cherry picking H2H instead of overall resumes.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Weak era, right?
Proves that Nadal is 5 years younger than Fed and scored quite a few wins once Fed was well past his best and during his crappy years
LOL what? During this time Federer led 5-1 outside of clay. Now suddenly Nadal, who at the time was losing to the likes of Blake, Hewitt, Ferrer, youzny etc would suddenly be knocking out Federer in any HC tournament despite the actual fact showing he didn't?
Nadal fans should be glad he didn't play Fed at either AO between 06-07 or USO between 05-08 he'd have lost every time and the h2h would be a more accurate representation of their respective abilities (rather than the skewed mess it is now, 3 matches on grass vs 15 on clay)
Also worth noting had their been a grass masters or two or had Nadal played Halle, Fed would've dominated that surface over the years and would likely have 35+ masters with 7+ at each grass masters.
F
Fedfan34
Guest
He hasn't. It's just common sense. You don't bet against a 9 time slam-King who just made a slam final at the slam before he heads to his turf. If Rafa is playing well, no sane person is going to pick someone else as the favorite.
Tennisanity
Legend
IFF Djokovic makes 0 UEs he will win FO.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
All I'm saying is, Becker would not have said that if he was still in Djoker's camp even if that's what he believed. Toni, on the other hand, is always objective on this sort of thing.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
There were no grass masters, so stop day dreaming.
So Fed is at a slight disadvantage, no? Hardly any tournaments on his best surface compared to Nadal having 3 clay masters and multiple 500s.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
I might as well say it's a shame tennis is not only played on clay.
Similar threads
- Poll
