Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by nikdom, Jan 16, 2013.
He didn't have to beat Roger who won there so many times. :twisted:
No - because Nadal was never blocked by Federer from winning US Opens.
Yes, it feels empty because he won against Novak 1.0 and have the weakest draw ever.
Oh come on guys, as long as we are entertaining stupid threads, please support this one too. Let's aim for 10 pages.
No one cares about your thread anyway..:twisted:
Thanks. Now can you make a few more non sensical posts here in your awesome English? It'll really help the "discussion" we seem to be having on this forum these days.
Who cares about English on these threads.It's just about posting some meaningful facts and telling the world that Fed played in a weak era.
Right, right. Can you please elaborate on the weak Fed era theory? Haven't heard that one before.
How can Fed era be weak when he had to play a doped up Nadal? I thought the whole point of doping was to get strong, no?
Right there,do you have any conclusive evidence to prove that Rafa doped?
Neither does any other FO, coz as we have come to know Fed is a mug compared to Nadal. He is 2-8 in GS and 10-18 total which means Nadal hasnt faced anyone good enough in FO. Isnt that hollow too. (sorry couldnt resist )
Why is he serving a ban then?
Do u have any evidence to prove that he is serving a silent ban?
Do you have any conclusive evidence that he is injured?
Absolutley. Nadal had the weakest draw to the final I've ever seen. He basically played one match and that was the final.
"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us..."
Innocent until proven guilty..If you go by that logic,how do u have know fed has won 17 grand slams? What if aliens from outer space used nano technology to give us an illusion of fed winning so many titles?
I asked how you are sure he's injured? What's that got to do with innocence and guilt, unless you're admitting he is lying.
No one saw him get injured. In fact he played well against Rosol and lost, running around until the very end. Since then he has been enjoying life, fishing, golfing, even practicing tennis, but somehow pulls out of AO with a 'stomach bug' 4 weeks prior?
I admire your persistence; continuing a conversation with someone whose idea of debating is "Roger Federer is GOAT because aliens are hypnotising us".
Let it die, nikdom. The AO's on now, we don't need this stuff any more.
Thanks MDL, but I can't sleep and they're showing a boring Venus match on TV. Waiting for the Djoko Harrison match. Tushar is keeping me entertained.
How do you *see* someone getting injured? I accept he lost to Rosol face and square,but that doesn't change the face that nadal was injured.
PS:Just ate my lunch,Lentils,chapatis and Rice,nothing better than that..
Like this - http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/injury-plagued-american-has-another-setback/
A real injury would be when someone has to be literally wheeled off the court. You don't run around like a monkey all day, win slams and then claim injury after a loss.
Yes as empty as RG 2009
Here's my contribution to the cause..
It would have been sweeter if he beat Fed in the final, but it wasn't an 'empty' victory.
Nadal was playing lights out tennis, and his serve was the best it's ever been.
If Fed's 2012 Wimbledon feels hollow, then for sure Nadal's 2010 US Open feel empty. TIT for TAT:-O
im not supporting troll threads..but the del potro vs federer semi..
federer was 1-2 down in sets.
Nikdom is such a pathetic troll.
The draw was awful, but you do have to give Rafa credit for serving so out of his mind that tournament.
It didn't feel empty to Nadal. It meant he had now completed the career Grand Slam, something only Laver, Agassi and Federer had ever managed to achieve in the Open Era!
Mind you, I think his 2010 USO win was a little hollow compared to Del Potro's 2009 win and even Murray's 2012 win:
In 2009, Del Potro had to beat both him and Federer, the defending champion, back to back.
In 2012, Murray had to beat Djokovic 2.0 or at least 1.5, the defending champion who was a 5 times Slam winner and had already won the AO earlier that year.
In 2010, Nadal only had to beat Djokovic 1.0 whose last Slam final had been 2 and a half years earlier at 2008 AO where he beat unseeded Tsonga. At that stage, Djokovic was still Nadal's pigeon.
fair and square.
Just telling, nothing else.
I am glad you finally stopped pretending being Federer's fan.
Have you heard of Jimmy Savile?
I can f anything until proven guilty...
Fed back in 2010 could have beaten Djokovic. He choose not to because he would lose Nadal in Us Open and become the center of big tease yet again.
Most of Nadals titles are tainted. Majority of the guys bar Novak, give up as soon as they see their name paired with Nadal.
Are all Fed fans this pathetic or is it just the tt bunch?
Nadal basically got his USO the same way Fed got his FO. Just hang in there long enough until the perennial champ finally falters. The difference being Federer was actually the 2nd best clay player since 2005. You can't say the same for Nadal on hardcourts.....and Federer's draw at the 09' FO was not cupcake at all.
Cmon Tushy, how can you say that and give nadal the benefit of the doubt, and NOT assume that Federer hasn't in fact won every major for the last decade, but to keep fans more interested they had a huge coverup to pretend that Nadal and Djokovic won majors?
Can you prove my theory wrong? I don't think you can.
You are mostly right although one could also argue that the 'harder draw' for Federer is nullified by the fact that Fed scraped through RG 09 while Nadal cruised through USO 2010.
Also Nadal reached the finals of AO 2012 and USO 2011 so it must be said that it's not that USO 2010 was the only time Nadal made a HC slam final. In fact one could argue that based on slams, since 2005, Nadal has been at least the 3rd best HC player .
We don't know, Nadal and his family are the only people knows the truth. But remember, the same question was addressed for Armstrong few years ago.
Overall 3rd best since 2005, sure. But Federer was 2nd best on clay by tournament format by virtue of making the final every year before he actually won the French. The same cannot be said for Nadal on HC.
More like the difference is Nadal on hard courts always had a fighting chance vs anyone, including Federer, and happened to capatilize on one of his 3 very good chances to win the event- 2008, 2010, 2011, and would have defended in 2011 if a certain player didnt happen to hit his all time peak that very year. While Federer has one player he had no chance in hell of ever beating at RG, and was able to capatilize on the year he didnt have to face him, his one and only ever chance ever of winning RG and he eked it out after surviving a number of scares.
Federer was never Nadal's problem in winning U.S Opens or any other slam. Nadal's problem was always other players. Federer is pretty much irrelevant to Nadal's career, unlike the reverse where Nadal has a tremendous impact on Federer's. Nadal has lost what, probably 1 slam (2007 Wimbledon) due to Federer, and that is all, lol! In the event Nadal was playing well enough to win the U.S Open Federer, especialy a past his prime Federer, would his be his last worry. Federer is the one who probably thought about having to face an in form Nadal in the final when he had match point in the semis vs Djokovic and went oh sh1t and lost.
Federer's draw at the 2009 French was quite easy btw, even easier than Nadal's at the 2010 U.S Open. Atleast Djokovic in a slam final on hard courts is way better than anyone Federer faced at the 2009 French, which alone makes his draw tougher even if the rest is roughly the same. Soderling while he was playing very well that event, will never be a tough opponent in a slam final, like the other second tier players of this era doesnt have a champions mentality at all; Del Potro the hard court specialist on clay, and who even at his peak was generally below the caliber of players people like even Djokovic 1.0 version were, an old Haas on his worst surface, journeyman clay court specialist Acasuso, etc...
Sorry but, no. More like Nadal had the ability to LOSE to anyone on hardcourts for many years while barely gutting out wins. Just look at his record. Losses to Blake, Youzney, Ferrer at the USO. He was just finally able to survive enough abuse on his body to claim a couple hardcourt slams.
All the while Federer was making every FO final. And his 2009 there was certainly tough, having to get through Monfils, Delpo, and then Soderling who took out Nadal and ended up making the final again.
Nadal's form was great at the 2011 USO, but his draw was incredibly lucky. Getting Novak after he had played a 5 setter with Fed along with a 5 setter early in the tourney was the icing on the cake.
I wouldn't say empty he played well and served great! But on those fast courts he certainly dodged a bullet in not facing Isner! The follow g year Isner became the only man to ever take Nadal to 5 sets at the French Open! So just imagine the damage he could have done to Rafa in NYC in 2010 had he not played a shocker in R3
Agree with all these points.
Where was that serve before and after? Nadal didn't win any of the lead up tournaments to the USO and that powerful serve disappeared just as soon as it became a factor at the USO. Nobody learns to serve bombs overnight. Even if we give credit for somehow doing that, which I did initially, how does it simply go away?
This is a gross exaggeration. Since 2006, here's who Nadal has lost to at hard court slams:
Yes he is more vulnerable on hard courts than Federer is on clay but its hardly the case that he is vulnerable to anyone and everyone. He consistently makes the quarters or semis of every HC slam and post 2009 has made the finals/won in 4 of 7 HC slam attempts.
At the end of the day people are measured by their accomplishments. And on accomplishments Djokovic+ Murray+ Post prime Fed is far greater competition than Hewitt+Safin+Nalbo +Baggy. Not to mention that it's much easier to win a slam final against a first time slam finalist vs a player who has been in multiple slam finals. You can argue subjectively that Soderling was red hot blah blah but at the end of the day Djokovic >>>>>>>>>>>Soderling. Unless you're into this 1.0/2.0 business but last I checked on the ATP website, there was only one record for Djokovic. Side note - In this regard Murray has always had the worst end of the deal, having to face multi-slam winners in all his finals.
Look we can stop being hypocritical and say each player benefited from an opportunity that they deserved in form or another, or we can nitpick at who had an easier draws until the night is long.
Yes losing to those players at the same ages the so called hard court Federer was losing to Mirnyi, Nalbandian, Haas, and Nalbandian in the round of 16 stager or earlier at the U.S Open, not making his first U.S Open quarterfinal until he was 23 (Nadal made his at 20). Thanks for playing.
Not forgetting, of course, the final of AO 2009 which he won!
I am starting to realize that Rafa has not been injured so much as he has not been able to maintain his very higest level of play for periods in matches as long as he used to be able to. So, to me this means that he can impose his will, usually off of the ground--but increasingly with his serve believe it or not--in winning four or five points consecutively just about whenever he wants or needs to; but he cannot sustain that level for longer than a few games at most nowadays. And so, off of clay it means that guys like Novak and Roger have only to weather those drastic bursts or jumps in the level of Rafa's play before they reassert themselves. Rafa still plays the highest level of tennis out there, I believe--a level that (when he turns it on) absolutely nobody can match...but he cannot keep it firing as long as before and this is why he will not win another major off of clay IMO.
Separate names with a comma.