Cilic : “Nadal is not here, so that opened the gate a little bit for everybody else”

[tennisaddict]

The Masters are a huge part of the tour, nine mandatory, sometimes they come in bunches. You don't think that takes a toll on the players' bodies?

You also don't know how Pete would've fared with an extra day of rest between the SF and the Final had he been gifted with such a luxury as he aged.

So, I disagree with your assessment as it encompasses the changes in the tour and then proceeds to make a judgment, without all factors being the same.

The discussion was based on 90's clay suggesting Sampras overall clay achievements were bad because he was only serious about slams.

So , masters didnt matter.

Again the comparison was with Fed, who won his USO titles playing back to back days, except one where there was a rain delay.

 

[AssaultJoker]

Sabratha desperately convincing everybody that Hewitt was a beast.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Those late '90s/early '00s days must've been heaven for you what with Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Agassi and Federer all competing at the same time!

It was a joy to watch, especially because the field was so diverse at the time.

 

[AssaultJoker]

Peak Sampras vs peak Hewitt.

1st round KO.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

A seven time Wimbledon and five time US Open champion will narrowly lead in five matches in H2H. This is crazy stuff

You know very well that Pete Sampras played back to back in the SF and Final of the 2000 and 2001 US Opens. Pete was on his last legs and the super saturday scheduling gave an unfair advantage to his younger opponents. Taking that wins of Safin and Hewitt and extrapolating like this is not fair.

Have you seen Pete v Agassi 1999 Wimbledon final? Pete was walking on water like Jesus. And are you saying that peak to peak Hewitt will be 3-2 against THAT Pete Sampras on Wimbledon? Sounds to me like a fairy tale

18 year old Hewitt nearly beat that "walking on water like Jesus" Sampras at Queens a couple of weeks beforehand. Now, I don't think Sampras was playing at the level he was at Wimbledon in '99 but Hewitt wasn't playing at his best either being only 18 at the time. That is what I meant by switching absolute peak Hewitt against that Sampras, and with that I believe Hewitt would beat him a couple of times. It's better to do it on an out of 10 scale than an out of 5 scale.

Wimbledon.
Sampras - 7
Hewitt - 3

FO.
Sampras - 5
Hewitt - 5

AO.
Sampras - 7
Hewitt - 3

USO.
Sampras - 6
Hewitt - 4

I think this explains it a bit better.

 

[tennisaddict]

AssaultJoker: do you remember Novak lost to washed up Safin and that too on grass not too long ago ?

I am not sure from when you have been following Novak and hence checking.

Btw, what do you think of Robredo and Haas ?

 

[Djokovic2011]

18 year old Hewitt nearly beat that "walking on water like Jesus" Sampras at Queens a couple of weeks beforehand. Now, I don't think Sampras was playing at the level he was at Wimbledon in '99 but Hewitt wasn't playing at his best either being only 18 at the time. That is what I meant by switching absolute peak Hewitt against that Sampras, and with that I believe Hewitt would beat him a couple of times. It's better to do it on an out of 10 scale than an out of 5 scale.

Wimbledon.
Sampras - 7
Hewitt - 3

FO.
Sampras - 5
Hewitt - 5

AO.
Sampras - 7
Hewitt - 3

USO
Sampras- 6
Hewitt- 4

I think this explains it a bit better.

Sorry mate but I just don't see it. More like 7-3 imo and even that's probably being generous to Lleyton.

 

[TheTruth]

The discussion was based on 90's clay suggesting Sampras overall clay achievements were bad because he was only serious about slams.

So , masters didnt matter.

Again the comparison was with Fed, who won his USO titles playing back to back days, except one where there was a rain delay.

My response was to the post that you made to me. So deal with what I posted in response to you. I don't go around trying to drag others into my debates, or keeping score within a thread.

 

[The_Order]

This is the most stupid post I've seen in quite a few years. This guy must be one hard Hewitt fan.

The most stupid post you've ever seen is in my sig.

 

[The_Order]

18 year old Hewitt nearly beat that "walking on water like Jesus" Sampras at Queens a couple of weeks beforehand. Now, I don't think Sampras was playing at the level he was at Wimbledon in '99 but Hewitt wasn't playing at his best either being only 18 at the time. That is what I meant by switching absolute peak Hewitt against that Sampras, and with that I believe Hewitt would beat him a couple of times. It's better to do it on an out of 10 scale than an out of 5 scale.

Wimbledon.
Sampras - 7
Hewitt - 3

FO.
Sampras - 5
Hewitt - 5

AO.
Sampras - 7
Hewitt - 3

USO.
Sampras - 6
Hewitt - 4

I think this explains it a bit better.

I'm confused because now you've really changed your opinion.

How did you go from 4-1 Hewitt at RG to 5-5?

When Hewitt was #1 in the world he really didn't perform well in majors.

Why would you give Hewitt 3 wins at the AO? I think Pete was vastly superior to Hewitt there, I'd go 8-2 for Pete.

Pete was also vastly superior to Hewitt at Wimbledon so I'd give that an 8-2 as well.

US would be a bit closer, I'd go with either 7-3 or 6-4 again in favor of Pete.

 

[Feather]

I'm confused because now you've really changed your opinion.

How did you go from 4-1 Hewitt at RG to 5-5?

When Hewitt was #1 in the world he really didn't perform well in majors.

Why would you give Hewitt 3 wins at the AO? I think Pete was vastly superior to Hewitt there, I'd go 8-2 for Pete.

Pete was also vastly superior to Hewitt at Wimbledon so I'd give that an 8-2 as well.

US would be a bit closer, I'd go with either 7-3 or 6-4 again in favor of Pete.

I was also confused at that. From 4-1 to 5-5 means equal!

 

[clayqueen]

nadal is always the player to beat in any tournament he plays. he is the toughest player on the tour to take out when he is healthy. best athlete, strongest mentally and you have to take chances to beat him. Hes just tough. Yes him not being at the open was huge. would it have effected cilic...far to many variables to consider. Cilic won because Goran the genius was somehow able to get Marin to commit to playing aggressive and taking chances at pivotal times in big matches. Not necessarily because nadal did not play. He is just one player in a huge draw.

I agree with 90% of what you say but we will never know if this Cilic would have beaten Nadal; let's not forget that he had difficulty beating Simon so it wasn't such a straight forward path for him.

People who can't see that Nadal is the toughest player on tour currently are in denial. Federer, Nole and Murray all admit to that.

 

[clayqueen]

the same would be said if it was djokovic

But Djokovic was there and Cilic beat the man who beat him. Djokovic himself says he was not motivated because his toughest opponent, Nadal, was not playing. Knowing what he has to do to beat Nadal puts the fire in his belly.

 

[clayqueen]

I like Nadal and I can honestly say I don't think that statement is true. I think "this" Cilic could have defeated any of the Big Four players at the USO. Too good.

Cilic was nearly defeated by Simon.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I'm confused because now you've really changed your opinion.

How did you go from 4-1 Hewitt at RG to 5-5?

When Hewitt was #1 in the world he really didn't perform well in majors.

Why would you give Hewitt 3 wins at the AO? I think Pete was vastly superior to Hewitt there, I'd go 8-2 for Pete.

Pete was also vastly superior to Hewitt at Wimbledon so I'd give that an 8-2 as well.

US would be a bit closer, I'd go with either 7-3 or 6-4 again in favor of Pete.

I changed my opinion based on the fact that Sampras won a clay Masters. I forgot about that, but as I'd iterated before I think the clay field was stronger in the 70s and 80s. It still puts him above Hewitt on the surface though, but I'd put them at about even odds due to the matchup advantage Hewitt had/has over Sampras.

When Hewitt was #1 he wasn't consistent in the majors but he did perform well by winning 2 of them. He was much better between 2004-2005 for sure. I gave Hewitt 3 wins due to his marathon 2005 road to the final and the fact that he took out good opposition (prime Nalbandian, prime Roddick) and took a set off peak Safin. I think that he could score 3 wins over Sampras and he's only won 2 AOs with super weak draws anyway. Sampras still has the clear advantage though.

Hewitt taking Pete down at 2000 Queens comes to mind when thinking about grass, and this is Pete a year after he supposedly played his "best tennis ever" at Wimbledon the year prior. He beat Pete 6-4, 6-4 in the final and I think if they had met at Wimbledon peak for peak he'd take more than 2 matches IMO. 3 seems reasonable to me.

Agreed about the USO.

 

[clayqueen]

What does Nadal's hardcourt form from last year have to do with anything? :? It's this year's USO we're talking about here.

And that's what Cilic is talking about as well, and he, Cilic, the Champion, who beat Federer and the man who beat Djokovic, says everyone had a chance because Nadal wasn't there.

 

[clayqueen]

nadal would have struggled against cilic if they in fact they met during this tournament.. cilic crushed all.. Nadal struggles against this type of player.. big serve..super flat power tennis.. but i think nadal would not have made it so easy on him.. fed didn't not change strategies..even within the match.. he did things that worked but didn't stick with them..in fact he repeated over and over again a losing strategy..while ignoring the few areas where he was able to gain ground... odd..

Do you actually know the stats?

Nadal vs

Karlovic : 4:0
Isner.....: 4:0
Raonic...: 5:0
Berdych.: 18:3
Delpo......:8:4

 

[furryballs]

Do you actually know the stats?

Nadal vs

Karlovic : 4:0
Isner.....: 4:0
Raonic...: 5:0
Berdych.: 18:3
Delpo......:8:4

what about Kyrgios,Rosol and Brown? H2H means nothing in the next match.

 

[furryballs]

And that's what Cilic is talking about as well, and he, Cilic, the Champion, who beat Federer and the man who beat Djokovic, says everyone had a chance because Nadal wasn't there.

read it again.......he didnt say that at all.

 

[The_Order]

I changed my opinion based on the fact that Sampras won a clay Masters. I forgot about that, but as I'd iterated before I think the clay field was stronger in the 70s and 80s. It still puts him above Hewitt on the surface though, but I'd put them at about even odds due to the matchup advantage Hewitt had/has over Sampras.

Fair enough, though I'd still give Hewitt the slight edge here. Clay really wasn't a surface where Pete's best weapons would hurt Hewitt. I'd put it 6-4 Hewitt's way, if not 7-3.

When Hewitt was #1 he wasn't consistent in the majors but he did perform well by winning 2 of them. He was much better between 2004-2005 for sure. I gave Hewitt 3 wins due to his marathon 2005 road to the final and the fact that he took out good opposition (prime Nalbandian, prime Roddick) and took a set off peak Safin. I think that he could score 3 wins over Sampras and he's only won 2 AOs with super weak draws anyway. Sampras still has the clear advantage though.

Was he #1 before USO01? It's been that long I can't remember but yeah he did perform more consistently from 04-05. Still though to me, 1 decent AO run isn't enough to suggest a 7-3 ratio.

Hewitt taking Pete down at 2000 Queens comes to mind when thinking about grass, and this is Pete a year after he supposedly played his "best tennis ever" at Wimbledon the year prior. He beat Pete 6-4, 6-4 in the final and I think if they had met at Wimbledon peak for peak he'd take more than 2 matches IMO. 3 seems reasonable to me.

I'm not sure Pete took Queens as seriously as Wimbledon. The guy's not like Federer to take every tournament seriously. Also Queens is different to Wimbledon just like Madrid, Rome and MC are different to RG. Look how close Ferrer has pushed Nadal at Madrid and Rome the last couple years, even beating him. But then in RG he gets owned.

I also think the only reason Hewitt won Wimbledon was because of a really soft draw. His only other chance would've been 2005, but imo he wasn't playing his best that tournament either.

 

[The_Order]

what about Kyrgios,Rosol and Brown? H2H means nothing in the next match.

Yeah on grass but not on clay or HC. He hasn't been blasted off the court in any HC slam since 2010.

 

[furryballs]

Yeah on grass but not on clay or HC. He hasn't been blasted off the court in any HC slam since 2010.

hasnt played many has he? AO final was a pasting.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Fair enough, though I'd still give Hewitt the slight edge here. Clay really wasn't a surface where Pete's best weapons would hurt Hewitt. I'd put it 6-4 Hewitt's way, if not 7-3.

I could agree with that, plus the fact that Hewitt has pushed Nadal on the surface says something too. I doubt Pete takes a set off peak Rafa. No way.

Was he #1 before USO01? It's been that long I can't remember but yeah he did perform more consistently from 04-05. Still though to me, 1 decent AO run isn't enough to suggest a 7-3 ratio.

He became #1 after he won the WTF in Sydney in 2001. His consistency was almost as good as Federer's from 2004-2005; until the end of 2005 where unfortunately he had to have surgery, much like Murray and also had a rather weak 2006 season to follow on like Murray has now in 2014.

I'm not sure Pete took Queens as seriously as Wimbledon. The guy's not like Federer to take every tournament seriously. Also Queens is different to Wimbledon just like Madrid, Rome and MC are different to RG. Look how close Ferrer has pushed Nadal at Madrid and Rome the last couple years, even beating him. But then in RG he gets owned.

Yeah, but come on now. It was the final of Queens and Hewitt also had a chance to lead Pete 2 sets to 1 in their 2000 USO match too. Pete is/was just a really good tiebreak player and Hewitt let the nerves get to him. I'm of the opinion that he wouldn't let that happen at his peak.

I also think the only reason Hewitt won Wimbledon was because of a really soft draw. His only other chance would've been 2005, but imo he wasn't playing his best that tournament either.

If Hewitt played as well as he did in 2002 in 2003, he'd have a shot at the title (rather unlikely given Federer was in pretty good form, but he'd still have a shot) and he's won many grass titles and beaten Federer, Nadal and Sampras on grass. I think that's enough to validate him as a legitimate threat on grass.

 

[Chanwan]

I think 4-1 at both Wim and USO would be more realistic Saby. I understand you really like Lleyton but you simply can't compare his career to that of Sampras', no matter how much you dislike Pete. Hewitt was an excellent player and I respect his career achievements but Sampras was in a completely different stratosphere and I think deep down you probably know that.

I don't quite agree with Sabratha on the specific numbers (the first ones he posted), but I think Hewitt would play Sampras a whole lot closer at both Wimbledon and US Open than the rest of you allude to.

Hewitt at his best was close to the perfect antidote to Sampras.
Krajicek's career also can't be compared to Sampras, yet - as Lleyton - he also leads him in the h2h (6-5 rather than 5-4).
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=S402&oId=H432

 

[NadalFed]

Except win a slam while beating his main rival doing it.. :shock:

Remind me.. Whens the last time Fed beat his main rival in a slam? Oh yea.. 7 years ago when he was 25? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH

A barely out of his teens Federer beat a then 13 time GS Champion and 7 time Wimbledon Champion at Wimbledon. Sampras is lucky he didn't play alongside Federer or Nadal.

Nadal would have bagelled Sampras on clay (In R1 or R2 as Pete would never have made the later stages of the RG) over and over and over again.

 

[NadalFed]

If Nadal resembled any smidgeon of his hardcourt North American form last year he wins in 4 anyways.

Sampras is lucky he didn't play that Nadal.

 

[Revenant]

They trouble everybody.

They trouble Nadal more, relatively speaking.

Federer lost to Soderling, Safin, Berdych, Del Potro, Tsonga, Gulbis, Cilic etc.

So has Nadal. In a much shorter career.

Djokovic had massive battle against Del Potro at WIM last year, Tsonga in RG12, Wawrinka at AO 2 years in a row and USO13, Roddick, Safin etc.

Big servers trouble Djokovic. But he has the kind of game that can neutralize big hitters.

Cilic would've troubled Nadal as well, but let's not get carried away here, he only beat Federer and Nishikori, both of which are nothing like Nadal at US Open these days.

What do you mean, these days? Last year was different, with Nadal showing some of his best Hardcourt form. This year he has lost to people he would have never lost at his best. This Cilic would handle him pretty easily.

But when these guys are bombing shots and are switched on the only thing you can do is try to hang in there and wait for their level to drop a bit. Problem is these days it doesn't happen like it used to. Players to me, are becoming more mentally tough when it comes to closing out these matches against big 4.

Or, you know, you could return their bombs with interest, as Djokovic sometimes can, or nuetralize them by slicing and dicing, which Federer can. These two players are better equipped to handle bombs, unlike Nadal who comes up with short balls that just sit up waiting to be pounded.

 

[The_Order]

They trouble Nadal more, relatively speaking.

Really? So why does Berdych beat Fed at majors but not Nadal?

So has Nadal. In a much shorter career.

Nadal has never lost to Berdych in a major. He has never lost to Cilic in a major, he has never lost to Gulbis in a major, he's never lost to Safin in a major. So how can you say in a much shorter career he has?

His only flaw the last few years has been Wimbledon. Fed has had his flaws at Wimbledon too though, he's been out in the first round 3 times and once in the 2nd round.

Big servers trouble Djokovic. But he has the kind of game that can neutralize big hitters.

Big servers trouble everyone. Federer and Djokovic have lost to Isner and Karlovic, Nadal hasn't.

What do you mean, these days? Last year was different, with Nadal showing some of his best Hardcourt form. This year he has lost to people he would have never lost at his best. This Cilic would handle him pretty easily.

Well what I mean by these days is in 3 of the last 5 US Opens he's made the final and won it twice.

Or, you know, you could return their bombs with interest, as Djokovic sometimes can, or nuetralize them by slicing and dicing, which Federer can. These two players are better equipped to handle bombs, unlike Nadal who comes up with short balls that just sit up waiting to be pounded.

So why couldn't Federer do this on the many occasions when they were playing lights out against him?

I haven't done this yet, but I will now. I'll analyse all of Fed's slam losses from 04-10 and Nadal's from 08-14.

Federer:

RG04 - lost to Kuerten
AO05 - lost to Safin (a guy serving and hitting big)
RG05 - lost to Nadal
RG06 - lost to Nadal
RG07 - lost to Nadal
AO08 - lost to Djokovic
RG08 - lost to Nadal
WIM08 - lost to Nadal
AO09 - lost to Nadal
USO09 - lost to Del potro (a guy serving and hitting big)
RG10 - lost to Soderling (a guy serving and hitting big)
WIM10 - lost to Berdych (a guy serving and hitting big)
USO10 - lost to Djokovic

That's 4 losses to big hitters having a good day.

Nadal:

AO08 - lost to Tsonga (a guy serving and hitting big)
USO08 - lost to Murray
RG09 - lost to Soderling (a guy serving and hitting big)
USO09 - lost to Del Potro (a guy serving and hitting big)
AO10 - lost to Murray
AO11 - lost to Ferrer
WIM11 - lost to Novak
USO11 - lost to Novak
AO12 - lost to Novak
WIM12 - lost to Rosol (a guy serving and hitting big)
WIM13 lost to Darcis
AO14 lost to Wawrinka (mainly due to injury he never lost a set to him prior)
WIM14 lost to Kyrgios (a guy serving and hitting big)

Ok so that's 5 (I refuse to count Stan loss since Nadal was clearly injured) therefore, it's happened to Nadal one more time than Federer in a 7 year span.

 

[Revenant]

Really? So why does Berdych beat Fed at majors but not Nadal?

I could easily counter that with Rosol.

Nadal has never lost to Berdych in a major. He has never lost to Cilic in a major, he has never lost to Gulbis in a major, he's never lost to Safin in a major. So how can you say in a much shorter career he has?

He has lost to other big hitters at Majors. You know, like Blake.

His only flaw the last few years has been Wimbledon. Fed has had his flaws at Wimbledon too though, he's been out in the first round 3 times and once in the 2nd round.

We're talking about big servers and big hitters here. Not early career woes.

Big servers trouble everyone. Federer and Djokovic have lost to Isner and Karlovic, Nadal hasn't.

Federer eats them up for breakfast and dinner. Look at Federer's record against Isner/Karlovic/Roddick/Raonic. Djokovic does struggle against them, not sure why you mentioned him.

Well what I mean by these days is in 3 of the last 5 US Opens he's made the final and won it twice.

Nadal's Hardcourt form this year is a shadow of what it was last year.

So why couldn't Federer do this on the many occasions when they were playing lights out against him?

Except he did. Look at his records against all these guys in his prime.

I haven't done this yet, but I will now. I'll analyse all of Fed's slam losses from 04-10 and Nadal's from 08-14.

Federer:

RG04 - lost to Kuerten
AO05 - lost to Safin (a guy serving and hitting big)
RG05 - lost to Nadal
RG06 - lost to Nadal
RG07 - lost to Nadal
AO08 - lost to Djokovic
RG08 - lost to Nadal
WIM08 - lost to Nadal
AO09 - lost to Nadal
USO09 - lost to Del potro (a guy serving and hitting big)
RG10 - lost to Soderling (a guy serving and hitting big)
WIM10 - lost to Berdych (a guy serving and hitting big)
USO10 - lost to Djokovic

That's 4 losses to big hitters having a good day.

Nadal:

AO08 - lost to Tsonga (a guy serving and hitting big)
USO08 - lost to Murray
RG09 - lost to Soderling (a guy serving and hitting big)
USO09 - lost to Del Potro (a guy serving and hitting big)
AO10 - lost to Murray
AO11 - lost to Ferrer
WIM11 - lost to Novak
USO11 - lost to Novak
AO12 - lost to Novak
WIM12 - lost to Rosol (a guy serving and hitting big)
WIM13 lost to Darcis
AO14 lost to Wawrinka (mainly due to injury he never lost a set to him prior)
WIM14 lost to Kyrgios (a guy serving and hitting big)

Ok so that's 5 (I refuse to count Stan loss since Nadal was clearly injured) therefore, it's happened to Nadal one more time than Federer in a 7 year span.

Federer has played every single Slam, while Nadal chickened out of playing a lot of them when he wasn't feeling good about his chances. So Federer has had fewer losses to big hitters than Nadal despite playing more Slams.

 

[Djokovic2011]

LOL at The_Order not counting Nadal's loss to Wawrinka. So who actually won the AO this year according to him? Honestly some posters on here are so ****ing arrogant it really does beggar belief at times.

 

[TMF]

Cilic is wrong.

It doesn't open the gate a little bit due to Nadal's absence because Nadal never defend a non-clay title anyway. Nadal isn't going to win the USO since history is not on his side.

Cilic probably never aware that Nadal never defend a title off clay.

 

[The_Order]

I could easily counter that with Rosol.

No you can't. Rosol has never played Federer in a major. Nadal has played him twice and they split the wins.

He has lost to other big hitters at Majors. You know, like Blake.

Oh so you want to count matches before hitting peak? Ok well let's take a look at Fed's earlier losses then...

We're talking about big servers and big hitters here. Not early career woes.

Yeah I know. And what I am trying to tell you is Nadal has only lost in 2 of the last 3 Wimbledons to guys serving and hitting big.

Federer eats them up for breakfast and dinner. Look at Federer's record against Isner/Karlovic/Roddick/Raonic. Djokovic does struggle against them, not sure why you mentioned him.

Fed's record against those guys includes losses. Roddick wasn't a big hitter after 2004 he played pusher style. He still was serving big though.

Nadal has not lost to Isner, Raonic or Karlovic. Ever.

Nadal's Hardcourt form this year is a shadow of what it was last year.

How so? He made AO final and Miami final. He only lost in IW to Dolgopolov. He could have had a good chance to clean sweep American HC season again with Novak's crap form.

Except he did. Look at his records against all these guys in his prime.

Oh so now we are using prime to judge the performances? So why mention James Blake beating Nadal? I guess the prime thing only applies to Federer...

Federer has played every single Slam, while Nadal chickened out of playing a lot of them when he wasn't feeling good about his chances. So Federer has had fewer losses to big hitters than Nadal despite playing more Slams.

Nadal chickened out? LOL why would he need to do that, there's no one on tour he can't beat. The only time there was, was in 2011-AO12, yet he still turned up to face that guy every single time.

Federer plays them but the real chickening out is when he loses to Robredo or Djokovic 2 years in a row having match points because he doesn't want Nadal to beat him at US Open :lol:

 

[The_Order]

LOL at The_Order not counting Nadal's loss to Wawrinka. So who actually won the AO this year according to him? Honestly some posters on here are so ****ing arrogant it really does beggar belief at times.

Stan won the title. But it wasn't a case where Nadal couldn't handle his hitting and serving, he was clearly injured.

And I'm arrogant giving my opinion am I? Well, it's ok I hope you sleep well...

 

[The_Order]

Cilic is wrong.

It doesn't open the gate a little bit due to Nadal's absence because Nadal never defend a non-clay title anyway. Nadal isn't going to win the USO since history is not on his side.

Cilic probably never aware that Nadal never defend a title off clay.

Just like Nadal never won Wimbledon and Federer never lost a final there so history wasn't on Rafa's side in 08, but he still won anyway :lol:

Rafa's been defying history his whole career, you should know that by now...

 

[Djokovic2011]

Stan won the title. But it wasn't a case where Nadal couldn't handle his hitting and serving, he was clearly injured.

And I'm arrogant giving my opinion am I? Well, it's ok I hope you sleep well...

On that day it was a case of Nadal not being able to handle his hitting irrespective of his fitness issues so you have to include it as one of his defeats to a big hitter. Can't believe I even have to explain this.

 

[abmk]

^^

not just that , its hilarious how he mentions nadal never lost to cilic in a major
...

well newsflash, federer hadn't lost even one match to cilic before this USO whereas nadal had got drubbed black and blue , left and right in their match in 09 ...pretty sure, cilic in his QF-F form would've blasted nadal off court.

---
its just as hilarious that he mentions nadal has never lost to safin in a major , I mean , LOL ...


and berdych ? LOL ...how is berdych going to beat nadal in a slam when he cheerleads for him ....berdych only beat a well below par federer in wim 10 and USO 12. at his prime, federer hardly lost sets to him ... he lost only something like 5 sets in their first 9 to 10 matches and handled him rather easily ...he had no problem whatsoever with berdych's power until AO 09 ( that was the first time I ever noticed federer having problem with a big hitter

the only losses federer had in slams in his prime to big hitters in majors was 05 AO safin and 09 delpo.

nadal has AO 08 tsonga, delpo in USO 09, rosol in wim 12, wawrinka in AO 14, kyrgios in wim 14 ... this is with skipping AO 13, USO 12 and USO 14.

federer at the peak of his powers was just far better at handling big hitters and servers than nadal ( apart from on clay of course ), its *not even close ** but the delusional The_Order just can't accept the reality ....

so many instances - wimbledon 2003 - roddick and scud, wimbledon 2004 roddick, wimbledon 2006 ancic, AO 2007 gonzalez, USO 2007 roddick, RG 2009 soderling, USO 09 soderling, wimbledon 2009 roddick , blake USO 06, safin YEC 04 ( yes, not a major I know ) etc etc ....

(he even held off tsonga in AO 13 and delpo in Olympics in 12)

 

[NadalFed]

Nadal outside of clay is more vulnerable IMO. In his best year 2010 he lost to Roddick and Davydenko.

And Order, you are a better poster than Djo fans man. Federer is arguably GOAT, Nadal is as well. Rise above hate.

Not counting Stan's win is doing him a disservice IMO. He was playing lights out and was up a set and a half before Nadal started showing discomfort.

 

[The_Order]

On that day it was a case of Nadal not being able to handle his hitting irrespective of his fitness issues so you have to include it as one of his defeats to a big hitter. Can't believe I even have to explain this.

Really? Because of the first set we have to assume that Wawrinka would've kept that level and/or Nadal wouldn't have raised his? No, you can do that if you want, but I won't.

It'll be 3 years come AO15 since Novak has beat Nadal in a major. Long time :lol:

 

[TMF]

Just like Nadal never won Wimbledon and Federer never lost a final there so history wasn't on Rafa's side in 08, but he still won anyway :lol:

Rafa's been defying history his whole career, you should know that by now...

Nadal won 2008 Wimbledon but he wasn't a defending champion.

The point is Nadal never repeat as champion on non-clay event in his entire career, so even if he play this year USO he's not going to win.

 

[Chanwan]

LOL at The_Order not counting Nadal's loss to Wawrinka. So who actually won the AO this year according to him? Honestly some posters on here are so ****ing arrogant it really does beggar belief at times.

+1.
10chars

 

[Djokovic2011]

Really? Because of the first set we have to assume that Wawrinka would've kept that level and/or Nadal wouldn't have raised his? No, you can do that if you want, but I won't.

It'll be 3 years come AO15 since Novak has beat Nadal in a major. Long time :lol:

It still counts as a loss whichever way you choose to paint it.

And what does that last line have to do with what we're discussing here?
How can Nole expect to beat Nadal when he keeps skipping HC majors?

 

[Chanwan]

Cilic is wrong.

It doesn't open the gate a little bit due to Nadal's absence because Nadal never defend a non-clay title anyway. Nadal isn't going to win the USO since history is not on his side.

Cilic probably never aware that Nadal never defend a title off clay.

Cilic ain't wrong, but OP is - whether it was intentional or not, I don't know:

Not to try and get the thread back on topic, but just to let everyone know, the quote from the OP (from Rafafans) is grossly misleading.
Here's what Cilic actually said - not singling out Rafa in any way:

"Q. For so many years, just a few players dominated the majors. What do you think this US Open will mean not just for your future but for men's tennis' future?

MARIN CILIC: In one way, I mean, a lot of guys are saying people would like to watch top four guys much more to extend their streak at the top and to extend their run at the Grand Slams, because, I mean, they attract the most, the fans and the TV, and everybody else. But sort of one day definitely they gonna go out and there's gonna be a need for somebody else. I feel this time, this year -- I mean, I think the guys from second line were a bit lucky because Andy Murray was also having trouble with his back; Wawrinka was up and down with his tennis after Australia; few other players were not playing at the best all the time. And Rafa is not here. So that (i.e. all of that) opened a little bit the gate for everybody else. I feel it's gonna definitely be much bigger competition from next year. I feel the guys at the top are gonna pull the other guys, too. I think the game of tennis is definitely going to evolve much more."

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2014-09-08/201409081410226553928.html

 

[NadalFed]

How can Nole expect to beat Nadal when he keeps skipping HC majors?

Nadal skipping majors is a blot on his resume sure but not like they haven't met since 2012 AO....

 

[TMF]

Cilic ain't wrong, but OP is - whether it was intentional or not, I don't know:

Thank you.

If the OP doesn't address his nonsense then we can conclude that he/she is being dishonest.

 

[Revenant]

No you can't. Rosol has never played Federer in a major. Nadal has played him twice and they split the wins.

Yes, I can. Federer has faced Rosol, Slams or not, and has never lost to him. Nadal has.

Oh so you want to count matches before hitting peak? Ok well let's take a look at Fed's earlier losses then...

Didn't you mention the Gulbis loss for Federer?

Yeah I know. And what I am trying to tell you is Nadal has only lost in 2 of the last 3 Wimbledons to guys serving and hitting big.

Yeah, because he wasn't good enough to make it to a big hitter on that other occasion.

Fed's record against those guys includes losses. Roddick wasn't a big hitter after 2004 he played pusher style. He still was serving big though.

Look at the win-loss record. Nadal has lost to Roddick, too.

Nadal has not lost to Isner, Raonic or Karlovic. Ever.

We're talking about Big Servers and Hitters. Isner, Karlovic, and Raonic are not exactly big hitters.

How so? He made AO final and Miami final. He only lost in IW to Dolgopolov. He could have had a good chance to clean sweep American HC season again with Novak's crap form.

He got destroyed by Djokovic and Wawrinka. And a loss to Dolgopolov is bad.

Oh so now we are using prime to judge the performances? So why mention James Blake beating Nadal? I guess the prime thing only applies to Federer...

Um, you mentioned Gulbis for Federer. And when I mention Blake, you cry foul.

Nadal chickened out? LOL why would he need to do that, there's no one on tour he can't beat. The only time there was, was in 2011-AO12, yet he still turned up to face that guy every single time.

Allow me to refer you to one of your own posts to answer that:

However, he would not feel very confident of his chances of winning having not played the lead up tournaments. If he feels he can't win the slam, he doesn't enter, refer to his own comments regarding AO13 for the proof of that.

Federer plays them but the real chickening out is when he loses to Robredo or Djokovic 2 years in a row having match points because he doesn't want Nadal to beat him at US Open :lol:

Why would he chicken out at the US Open in 2010 and then decide to face Nadal at the 2011 French Open of all places? Are you trolling? Because this is beyond stupid.

 

[The_Order]

^^

not just that , its hilarious how he mentions nadal never lost to cilic in a major
...

well newsflash, federer hadn't lost even one match to cilic before this USO whereas nadal had got drubbed black and blue , left and right in their match in 09 ...pretty sure, cilic in his QF-F form would've blasted nadal off court.

---
its just as hilarious that he mentions nadal has never lost to safin in a major , I mean , LOL ...


and berdych ? LOL ...how is berdych going to beat nadal in a slam when he cheerleads for him ....berdych only beat a well below par federer in wim 10 and USO 12. at his prime, federer hardly lost sets to him ... he lost only something like 5 sets in their first 9 to 10 matches and handled him rather easily ...he had no problem whatsoever with berdych's power until AO 09 ( that was the first time I ever noticed federer having problem with a big hitter

So let's get this right. The fact that Nadal owned Wawrinka before AO means nothing, but the fact Federer was "rather easily" handling Berdych means he would've had no problem with him in majors? :lol:

Peak Federer lost to teenage pubeless Berdych in 04 Olympics you tool don't forget that!

Cilic drubbed Nadal in 09 WOW so that means he would own him in 2014 US Open? LMFAO where do you come up with this crap? Fed's lucky Rafter retired...

the only losses federer had in slams in his prime to big hitters in majors was 05 AO safin and 09 delpo.

nadal has AO 08 tsonga, delpo in USO 09, rosol in wim 12, wawrinka in AO 14, kyrgios in wim 14 ... this is with skipping AO 13, USO 12 and USO 14.

federer at the peak of his powers was just far better at handling big hitters and servers than nadal ( apart from on clay of course ), its *not even close ** but the delusional The_Order just can't accept the reality ....

Federer at the peak of his powers? What does he have super powers now?

Was Nadal at the peak of his powers in AO14? or WIM12+? I guess Federer was at the peak of his powers in 2009 AO then when Nadal wiped the floor with him in the 5th set! You can't hide behind your bs excuses now can you :lol:

Also when Berdych and Sod thumped him in RG and WIM 10. You have to count those as well if you're going to count Nadal's later losses you brainless troll.

so many instances - wimbledon 2003 - roddick and scud, wimbledon 2004 roddick, wimbledon 2006 ancic, AO 2007 gonzalez, USO 2007 roddick, RG 2009 soderling, USO 09 soderling, wimbledon 2009 roddick , blake USO 06, safin YEC 04 ( yes, not a major I know ) etc etc ....

(he even held off tsonga in AO 13 and delpo in Olympics in 12)

2006 Ancic please stop embarrassing yourself. Don't act like half these guys were even on when they played Fed. Soderling played like a tool in the 09RG final. Blake has been a weak performer at majors his whole career.

I can list plenty of "instances" like these:

Soderling RG06, RG10, RG11
Del Potro WIM 11
Verdasco AO09
Gonzalez AO09, US09
Berdych WIM 07, WIM 10, AO12
Gulbis WIM08
Cilic AO11 (heck why not since you want to bring up 09 loss in p*ss fart tournament)

Tsonga in Davis Cup, Del Potro in IW, Gonzalez in Olympics...

 

[The_Order]

It still counts as a loss whichever way you choose to paint it.

And what does that last line have to do with what we're discussing here?
How can Nole expect to beat Nadal when he keeps skipping HC majors?

Did I say it doesn't count as a loss? No, I said it doesn't count as an occasion where Nadal couldn't handle a big hitter. No one would handle Stan in the condition Nadal was in.

 

[Revenant]

Did I say it doesn't count as a loss? No, I said it doesn't count as an occasion where Nadal couldn't handle a big hitter. No one would handle Stan in the condition Nadal was in.

And what condition was that? Exactly, we don't know, because never is enough divulged about Nadal's conveniently timed injuries. On the other hand, you do count Safin's win against Federer when Federer wasn't exactly 100%.

 

[The_Order]

Yes, I can. Federer has faced Rosol, Slams or not, and has never lost to him. Nadal has.

Mickey Mouse tournaments mean very little. Best of 5 is where it needs to happen. Murray owned Fed h2h but couldn't get it done in majors...

Didn't you mention the Gulbis loss for Federer?

Yeah when Fed's a former RG champ and has reached multiple finals. Nadal hadn't done anything at US Open when he faced Blake.

Yeah, because he wasn't good enough to make it to a big hitter on that other occasion.

Yeah, so what's your point here? If he's playing that bad that he's losing to Darcis, it doesn't matter he'd lost to just about anyone.

Look at the win-loss record. Nadal has lost to Roddick, too.

So? Roddick is only 1. Anomaly. That's all it is. Federer lost to Roddick, Karlovic & Isner. That is 3.

We're talking about Big Servers and Hitters. Isner, Karlovic, and Raonic are not exactly big hitters.

Yet Fed's lost to 2 of them...

He got destroyed by Djokovic and Wawrinka. And a loss to Dolgopolov is bad.

Once again bringing up the Wawrinka loss like as if Nadal wasn't injured. Obviously you didn't even watch the final.

A bad loss here and there is acceptable, Federer lost to Canas 2 weeks in a row in his peak.

Um, you mentioned Gulbis for Federer. And when I mention Blake, you cry foul.

Yeah and I just explained why.

Allow me to refer you to one of your own posts to answer that:

Yeah that's not chickening out, that not being confident he has a chance to win because of his injury not being fully recovered. LOL why would anybody enter a major tournament when they have an injury issue and they're not confident they can play through it and still win? Should he purposely try and make his injury worse?

Why would he chicken out at the US Open in 2010 and then decide to face Nadal at the 2011 French Open of all places? Are you trolling? Because this is beyond stupid.

No it's not beyond stupid. Federer hates Novak more than Nadal. He wanted to end the streak Novak was on more than anything.

He did chicken out from facing Nadal at US Open. 3 times now :lol:

 

[abmk]

So let's get this right. The fact that Nadal owned Wawrinka before AO means nothing, but the fact Federer was "rather easily" handling Berdych means he would've had no problem with him in majors? :lol:

Peak Federer lost to teenage pubeless Berdych in 04 Olympics you tool don't forget that!

and then federer won 9 matches in a row vs him after that. All you can do is point out that one loss :lol:

when did I say nadal owning wawrinka before AO means nothing ?

Cilic drubbed Nadal in 09 WOW so that means he would own him in 2014 US Open? LMFAO where do you come up with this crap? Fed's lucky Rafter retired...

LOL, 2009 match was clearly in one of rafa's prime years. Cilic was playing even better at this year's USO. Yes, Cilic would've thrashed him

Federer at the peak of his powers? What does he have super powers now?

Was Nadal at the peak of his powers in AO14? or WIM12+? I guess Federer was at the peak of his powers in 2009 AO then when Nadal wiped the floor with him in the 5th set! You can't hide behind your bs excuses now can you :lol:

Also when Berdych and Sod thumped him in RG and WIM 10. You have to count those as well if you're going to count Nadal's later losses you brainless troll.

then I'd count the gonzo loss in AO 07 ...either take 07 AO gonzo or wim 14 loss to kyrgios. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

FTR, I wouldn't mind adding the 2010 RG loss to soderling ...

that makes it 3 losses in 28 majors ( from wimbledon 03 to RG 10 ) : safin AO 05, delpo USO 09, soderling RG 10

for rafa , counting from AO 07 till wim 14, that's 6 losses in 28 majors :

gonzo AO 07, tsonga AO 08, soderling RG 09, delpo USO 09, rosol wim 12, wawrinka AO 14, kyrgios wim 14

2006 Ancic please stop embarrassing yourself. Don't act like half these guys were even on when they played Fed.

Soderling played like a tool in the 09RG final. Blake has been a weak performer at majors his whole career.

I can list plenty of "instances" like these:

Soderling RG06, RG10, RG11
Del Potro WIM 11
Verdasco AO09
Gonzalez AO09, US09
Berdych WIM 07, WIM 10, AO12
Gulbis WIM08
Cilic AO11 (heck why not since you want to bring up 09 loss in p*ss fart tournament)

Tsonga in Davis Cup, Del Potro in IW, Gonzalez in Olympics...[/QUOTE]

soderling played much worse in 10 RG final than he did in RG 09 final. He's the only one you could remotely argue was not in very good form.

you have absolutely no idea how well ancic was playing in wim 06 QF vs fed. But then that's not unexpected from you ...

and blake was in pretty good form in USO 06.

half of your mentions are absolutely laughable - soderling RG 06, 11, berdych wim 07 and 10, tsonga in davis cup, gonzalez AO 09 ...

the 'major' notable ones are verdasco AO 09, delpo wim 11 and berdych AO 12 , but that's it.