Can we all agree that Rafa on clay is the scariest thing in tennis, bar none?

[Tennis_Hands]

This is part of your statement that I did not agree with.

No one comparable on any surface

I state Nadal is greatest single surface champion, so I am already agreeing that beating Nadal on clay is an all mighty hard task and the biggest challenge in tennis. I just don't agree he is so far ahead on it compared to other legends at their peaks on their surfaces. But these players you speak about, how many of them crossed swords with Sampras on fast grass at Wimbledon? Honest question.

As for the rest of your post. Yes, Nadal is an icon on clay, that goes without saying and no one is disputing that at all. And we know his career is not over, just like Federer's, Djokovic's or Murray's isn't over either, but we are talking about the here and now, what happens in the future is left to be seen. In sports things change in a heartbeat.

Even the bolded is difficult to be said due to the difficulty of comparing eras.

With certainty could be said that it is a mighty task for the modern player to defeat Nadal on slow high bouncing clay in hot weather.

Maybe the mightiest, but that is debatable, because noone beat Federer at Wimbledon or USO at his peak as well.

 

[EdSWright]

I wouldn't call moonballing scary.

 

[Gazelle]

Hahahaa! Soderling was well enought to crush Fed in QFs.

Yes, but he was fit when he beat Federer. Unfortunately, he injured himself during the warm-up of the final.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

USO 2011 was Nole's lucky slam.

2015 he just completely outplayed gramperer,

who had no baseline game.

A "lucky slam" for a guy who's racked up 12 Grand Slam titles vs. a 5-time French Open finalist with "no baseline game?"

Got it.​

KINGROGER: . where short bus meets emo​

 

[Surfer Rosa Rack]

USO 2011 was Nole's lucky slam.

2015 he just completely outplayed granperer,who had no baseline game.

A "lucky slam" for a guy who's racked up 12 Grand Slam titles vs. a 5-time French Open finalist with "no baseline game?"

​

Got it.

KINGROGER: . where short bus meets emo

ouch!

 

[Deon Sanders]

Fed at his peak is unbeaten on grass, while peak Nadal lost to Soderling so Fed >>> Nadal

Also grass > clay so Rafa would need 16 RG to equal 8 Wimbledons.

We already did the math

Clay titles are worth 1/3 of hard, grass, and carpet titles

Nadal would need 24 titles at Roland Garros to equal Federer's Wimbledon 8

 

[Deleted member 743561]

My frustrations finally reached a boiling point this year when Federer was dominating. I was really embarrassed by my fellow Fed fans in here, acting like hot **** after a couple good months. Everyone was acting like Fed winning 5 straight games in January had completely re-written the past. The amount of disrespect a lot of them were showing towards Rafa (and Novak) was pathetic.

It made me want to finally contribute and try to make this place a little more even-keel. Obviously that's subjective, so I can't tell if i'm actually doing the right thing. But I'm trying my best. The more posters not making over-the-top bashing statements the better imo. I thought it might help drown out the noise.

Understandable. Gets rather tense in here at times.

In over a decade of lurking, though, surely it reached a higher crescendo than this...? I can imagine a few time periods that must have been off the charts.

I'm just fascinated by the sideline stuff. I dove right in.

 

[KINGROGER]

We already did the math

Clay titles are worth 1/3 of hard, grass, and carpet titles

Nadal would need 24 titles at Roland Garros to equal Federer's Wimbledon 8

I stand corrected.

 

[MeatTornado]

Understandable. Gets rather tense in here at times.

In over a decade of lurking, though, surely it reached a higher crescendo than this...? I can imagine a few time periods that must have been off the charts.

I'm just fascinated by the sideline stuff. I dove right in.

There were plenty of times I just walked away. I'd go over a year w/o checking in here.

 

[vex]

Nope, I really couldn't disagree with you more (sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who actually watched that '15 USO final). I'll never understand how a player can win a match in 4 sets and anyone say he was lucky to win it afterwards. And don't give me all this "Fed got a ridiculous number of BP opportunities" nonsense. How on earth does failing to convert so many break point chances make him the more deserving winner?! That just sounds totally whack to me.

Ok, so amongst Djoker's slam which ones would you rate higher as "he probably shouldn't have won that, that was kind of a fluke."

I've watched the full match twice. Djokers serve was subpar. He was grinding out serve holds, none of them were easy. Fed was often holding quite easily. Just looking at the stats of the match And removing the names and the BPs converted I'd have thought Fed would have won in 4.

Listen I defend the win, ND earned it by rising to the big points and being mentally tougher than Fed while Fed chocked in big moments, repeatedly. I'm just behind honest that that's a bit of a fluke.

 

[vex]

I get that some fans were disappointed by that loss but Djokovic was up 5-2 in the 4th before a late resurgence by Federer, regardless of the break point opportunities missed earlier. He really should have ended it there and served it out. Not to mention he had the whole stadium against him in that match and it took enormous mental strength to win that one. When you have the whole crowd cheering for you and against your opponent and you still don't win, then all you can say is well done and walk away. That win was absolutely deserved.

No doubt. I'm not attacking it. Djoker persevered over Fed playing at a pretty high level and that unbelievably hostile crowd. Fed should have won that match but Djoker was the mentally tougher player when it truly mattered. I'm just saying it was an uncommon match.

Hey, a wins a win. Djoker won. He should have won RG'13. A fluke blocked him. flukes happen. Fed won a fluke slam just this year at AO'17 down a break to his younger personal demon in the 5th set.

That's all I'm saying

 

[octobrina10]

Having to shake his hand after 3 hours of butt picking is the scariest thing in tennis

The comment above is yet another confirmation of a well known fact that Rafa haters' world is revolving around his lower body.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I wouldn't call moonballing scary.

Well it's sure created a lot of zombies.

 

[octobrina10]

Yes, but he was fit when he beat Federer. Unfortunately, he injured himself during the warm-up of the final.

Rafa wasn't fit when he lost to Soderling in 2009.
http://www.espn.com/sports/tennis/french10/news/story?id=5257268

 

[octobrina10]

We already did the math

Clay titles are worth 1/3 of hard, grass, and carpet titles

Nadal would need 24 titles at Roland Garros to equal Federer's Wimbledon 8

Only in the imaginary world of Fed worshippers, not in the pro tennis circuit.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The comment above is yet another confirmation of a well known fact that Rafa haters' world is revolving around his lower body.

The Nadal fanatics have low standards for. ... everything.

That is the only reason why despicable actions of their idol get a pass and the decent people that make an effort to point those out are trolled from the Bamos a la playa Brigade.

Sad reality and a reason to contemplate about how in the developed world so many people are in the gutter, because the society is too good to them instead of damming their resources for their own good.

 

[octobrina10]

The Nadal fanatics have low standards for. ... everything.
That is the only reason why despicable actions of their idol get a pass and the decent people that make an effort to point those out are trolled from the Bamos a la playa Brigade.
Sad reality and a reason to contemplate about how in the developed world so many people are in the gutter, because the society is too good to them instead of damming their resources for their own good.

I wonder what's the connection between the posters who are trolling Rafa 24/7 and decency ?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I wonder what's the connection between the posters who are trolling Rafa 24/7 and decency ?

You wonder, because you have no moral compass to speak of and fall in the described group, but since you didn't look yourself in the mirror this morning and see anything other than a thing that will troll all day, here is something that you admire :

 

[cronus]

Clay is as important to tennis as zac efron is to acting.

 

[hipolymer]

Rafa fans trying to slavage whatever is left of his legacy

 

[NoleFam]

No doubt. I'm not attacking it. Djoker persevered over Fed playing at a pretty high level and that unbelievably hostile crowd. Fed should have won that match but Djoker was the mentally tougher player when it truly mattered. I'm just saying it was an uncommon match.

Hey, a wins a win. Djoker won. He should have won RG'13. A fluke blocked him. flukes happen. Fed won a fluke slam just this year at AO'17 down a break to his younger personal demon in the 5th set.

That's all I'm saying

I just don't see how Fed should have won that match though because he was never in the position to win it. Djokovic had 13 breakpoint opportunities and Federer had 23 but Djokovic converted more often that Federer, and maintained a scoreboard lead for the majority of the match. Like I said he was up 5-2 in the 4th and Federer was not able to push it to a 5th set so I don't agree that he should have won it. I also wouldn't call RG '13 and AO '17 flukes either. RG '13 was unfortunate but Djokovic can only blame himself for that and Federer fought hard to win AO '17.

 

[Tennease]

Can we all agree that op is nadalfan2013?

 

[vex]

I just don't see how Fed should have won that match though because he was never in the position to win it. Djokovic had 13 breakpoint opportunities and Federer had 23 but Djokovic converted more often that Federer, and maintained a scoreboard lead for the majority of the match. Like I said he was up 5-2 in the 4th and Federer was not able to push it to a 5th set so I don't agree that he should have won it. I also wouldn't call RG '13 and AO '17 flukes either. RG '13 was unfortunate but Djokovic can only blame himself for that and Federer fought hard to win AO '17.

Guess we just have different views. I'm looking broadly at the level of play in those matches and saying the outcome was bizarre. The player that statistically should have won if you replayed those matches with the same level of play and replaced Fed's break point oddity and Novak's horrific net collision... then Fed usually wins USO 15 and Djoker usually wins Rg13. Just like if you replayed set 5 of AO'17 again Rafa would almost always finish Fed off.

 

[HAMPER7777777]

Rafa may not be the most versatile tennis player ever (which in itself is a bit of a laugh, since he did manage to win Slams on 3 surfaces in a calendar year), but if Earth had to challenge aliens at a sport, we would choose Rafa Nadal on clay in a best of 5 match. Discuss.

Yes agreed.

 

[NoleFam]

Guess we just have different views. I'm looking broadly at the level of play in those matches and saying the outcome was bizarre. The player that statistically should have won if you replayed those matches with the same level of play and replaced Fed's break point oddity and Novak's horrific net collision... then Fed usually wins USO 15 and Djoker usually wins Rg13. Just like if you replayed set 5 of AO'17 again Rafa would almost always finish Fed off.

Was it a break point oddity though? In the 2015 Wimbledon final, Federer converted 1 of 7 or 14% whereas Djokovic converted 4 of 10 or 40%. In the 2015 USO final, Federer converted 4 of 23 or 17% and Djokovic converted 6 of 13 or 46%. So even though Federer had more opportunities than Djokovic in that USO match, he still converted at about the same rate as he did in the Wimbledon final. So when you look at these two matches which happened two months of each other, it wasn't really odd at all and this had something to do with Djokovic preventing Federer from breaking him too often. Even if you fast forward to AO 2016, Federer converted 1 of 4 or 25% and Djokovic converted 5 of 9 or 56%. I'm seeing a pattern here.

Also, RG '13 was a huge mistake on Djokovic's part but he is solely to blame. He could have won that match even after that mistake if he didn't let it affect him but he did. Also, Nadal played very well to take that so no excuses for that loss in the grand scheme of things. AO '17 was one break and maybe Rafa of 2009 would have finished that match off but this was the 2017 version, and he's not as confident or as athletic anymore on those surfaces. Federer could have always come back and it wasn't surprising at all to see him wrestle that one from Nadal. I wouldn't call either a fluke and just an example of it being wrestled from the other player when they were so close.

 

[abmk]

Guess we just have different views. I'm looking broadly at the level of play in those matches and saying the outcome was bizarre. The player that statistically should have won if you replayed those matches with the same level of play and replaced Fed's break point oddity and Novak's horrific net collision... then Fed usually wins USO 15 and Djoker usually wins Rg13. Just like if you replayed set 5 of AO'17 again Rafa would almost always finish Fed off.

not really.
Djoko was more clutch and deserved USO 15 final even though Federer choked that one.

As far as RG 2013 SF is concerned, Nadal was clearly the better player ( won about 20 more points) , was serving for the match in the 4th set, had breadsticked Nole in the 3rd set.

 

[Rago]

Rafa wasn't fit when he lost to Soderling in 2009.

 

[octobrina10]

You wonder, because you have no moral compass to speak of and fall in the described group, but since you didn't look yourself in the mirror this morning and see anything other than a thing that will troll all day, here is something that you admire :

The post above is yet another confirmation of a well known fact that Rafa haters' world is revolving around his lower body.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...n-tennis-bar-none.597386/page-4#post-11532219

 

[King No1e]

What is with this bulls**t about Nadal not being versatile? He has reached 5 consecutive finals at Wimbledon, done the French-Wimbledon double twice (second to only Borg) something that Federer and Djokovic never manage to do, and he went undefeated on hard courts in 2013 up till Beijing (which is in OCTOBER).
I think that Nadal on hard courts some years is a the best in the world. Nadal on grass (until Rosol broke his spirit) is underrated and is second to only Roger Federer (especially his form in 2010).
And for extra value, Nadal on clay in 2012. Probably the scariest thing any tennis player will ever have to face. Period.

 

[King No1e]

What is with this bulls**t about Nadal not being versatile? He has reached 5 consecutive finals at Wimbledon, done the French-Wimbledon double twice (second to only Borg) something that Federer and Djokovic never manage to do, and he went undefeated on hard courts in 2013 up till Beijing (which is in OCTOBER).
I think that Nadal on hard courts some years is a the best in the world. Nadal on grass (until Rosol broke his spirit) is underrated and is second to only Roger Federer (especially his form in 2010).
And for extra value, Nadal on clay in 2012. Probably the scariest thing any tennis player will ever have to face. Period.

correction: Nadal's form in 2010. Federer was on his way out by then.

 

[cataclysm]

Safin was a slightly more accomplished David Nalbandian.

Yeah, just slightly

 

[kabob]

Yeah, just slightly

Sure, why not. Safin with 15 titles vs Nalbandian with 11, the difference being Marat fluked two Grand Slams. Both hit similar strokes and had a nearly identical play style, massively underachieved versus their respective talent levels, and both were constantly injured.

 

[cataclysm]

Sure, why not. Safin with 15 titles vs Nalbandian with 11, the difference being Marat fluked two Grand Slams. Both hit similar strokes and had a nearly identical play style, massively underachieved versus their respective talent levels, and both were constantly injured.

2 slams
2 Davis Cup wins
Made #1
Victories in slams over Federer, Sampras, Djokovic, Kuerten, Agassi. (pretty much everyone other than Nadal)
5 MS titles.
4 slam finals

The only thing Nalbandian has over Safin is he has a couple of nice wins over Nadal, and a WTF in which no one even competed.


Don't really understand how one flukes slams beating Martin, Sampras, Federer and Hewitt as their SF and F opponents. So please, how does one fluke two slams?

 

[kabob]

Oh, you're one of those. How bout I say Safin is a more than slightly better version of Nalbandian? Does that soothe your offended sensibilities?