abmk
Bionic Poster
Because Nadal was better in USO 10 than in dubai 06 1st set?
secondly fed would be able to do it for a set vs Nadal, but not for 2 sets like he did vs Roddick.
Federer highlights from his five-year dominance at the US Open
- Thread starter Third Serve
- Start date
Because Nadal was better in USO 10 than in dubai 06 1st set?
secondly fed would be able to do it for a set vs Nadal, but not for 2 sets like he did vs Roddick.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
ROFLMAO is that another Gravinboginagis or Kokutitas?
jk those do seem to be pretty entertaining highlights.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, even when we do say he played well in certain close matches, other people say instead thst he was bad, so not much we can do.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Disagree, but fine.
I consider 2010 Nadal his very best more than any of his other USO versions. The way he played that year is so up my alley.
abmk
Bionic Poster
USO 2010 nadal was the best Nadal at the USO.
but the way he served, he'd get pushed back and rushed by fast block returns from fed unlike his normal serve. You could see some of that vs Djokovic.
Nadal's USO 2010 serve is far less of an advantage vs fed than vs most other players.
One thing is for sure, no way is any version of Nadal beating fed of USO 2004 final.
USO 06 final - slim chance IMO - no weakness in BH to exploit. fed's BH was solid as hell in that phase - 2nd half of 2006 to 2007 end. even held up well at RG 2007 vs nadal.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Was he? It's not like he faced anyone playing remotely as well as Federer in that set which was one of his absolute peak sets, is it?
well Federer zoned in like that for one set namely the fourth. The first was as much about Roddick being poor (so much that Federer even gave up a careless break since it didn't matter). Kinda similar to Hewitt 04 WB QF that way: one dominant set by virtue of peak play; another, equal parts good play and poor opponent level; two competitive sets split.
basically nothing stops us for pencilling peak Nadal to lose to peak Federer by about the same scoreline as said peakdal beat 2010vic, so then the difference between Fedr and Nadl USO peaks is as much as between Nadl peak and Djokr like 5th best, ROFLMAO!
RS
Bionic Poster
How am i messing it up? Other topics always get into a thread.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
RS
Bionic Poster
What trolls?
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes
Federer was zoned in in the 1st set of USO 06 final even if Roddick was clearly below par.
Djoko didn't take nadal to a TB in the sets he lost. Nadal probably would vs fed.
Considering I rate djokovic's best at the USO - 11 semi/12 QF etc, higher than Nadal USO 10 ....
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
He needed one more USO for winning 4 of the 5 biggest events in tennis at least 6 times.
RS
Bionic Poster
I was actually asking not baiting.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Can anyone even take sets against Federer playing at 100% of his peak, rather than be reduced to snatching an odd set when his level drops somewhat? Only on clay I guess? Oh and miamovic. LOL
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Rate Nadal's competition on clay out of 10.
RS
Bionic Poster
I just pick at random but in this thread i did direct towards Federer because i wanted to know what Federer fans were thinking about those matchups.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Not relevant to the points I mentioned. Obviously ATGs can take sets off fed playing close to his best. Throw in someone like Safin too.
How many sets do you get at 100% vs 100% b/w 2 ATGs anyways?
You are wasting your time baiting, FYI, instead of indulging in a fruitful conversation. Don't complain about anything I say later on after you start it.
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
I can't tell if you're serious here
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I think he's taking a jab at abmk
abmk
Bionic Poster
Sephiroth
Hall of Fame
2015 and 2017 USOs prolly the ones that got away from him, 2017 was strange, even if he was injured after Canada still should have no business having 5 set matches vs Tiafoe and Youzhny given he was having straight set matches after
altho the Tiafoe match wasn#t that much looking at all the 6-1, 6-2 sets
altho the Tiafoe match wasn#t that much looking at all the 6-1, 6-2 sets
RS
Bionic Poster
Harsh.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
CYGS
Legend
Another proof of weak era for Federer.Also, pretty incredible how neither Nadal nor Djokovic have ever defended a single USO title and they have 7 titles between them.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
RS
Bionic Poster
Okay on this thread i will not post any more of that sort of stuff.
abmk
Bionic Poster
2015 and 2017 USOs prolly the ones that got away from him, 2017 was strange, even if he was injured after Canada still should have no business having 5 set matches vs Tiafoe and Youzhny given he was having straight set matches after
altho the Tiafoe match wasn#t that much looking at all the 6-1, 6-2 sets
Fed was recovering from and finding his form after injury in Montreal 2017 final. Found better form and groove in the Lopez and Kohly matches (I saw the kohly match live)
2009 obviously got away from Fed as well (2 points from winning as well as losing that 2nd set)
Arguably 2011 as well (would have a small edge vs Nadal IMO)
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
@Sudacafan Murphy's TTW Law strikes again!
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
btw it's quite early in the vid so many of you might have seen this already but I really like the point at 1:51. Fed's defending against those really hard-hit groundies is top-notch. Point before that is great as well.
RS
Bionic Poster
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Are you are talking about the Nole War Criminal thread, or just another one?
By the way, I think that shortly afterwards I formulated the law, that thread went down.
ForehandRF
Legend
You liked more the 2004 forehand ?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
This is hardly particularly fruitless by the standrds of around here, is it really? You make statements, I question them. I make statements, you question them. What else? Objective analysis extraordinaire?
Just say it already: inferior vulturing djokodal are hopeless in the face of Peak GOATerer! Come on, that's what your rhetoric ultimately leads to, being that a) both Djokovic and Nadal are clearly inferior to Federer as tennis players, to the point that if you consider their peaks in a hypothetical scenario where all three peak approximately in the same timeframe, Federer comes out easily ahead by a good margin (Nadal second due to his superiority on clay, and Djokovic dead last as he has no safe haven to dominate peak to peak except maybe Miami ROFL); and b) both Djokovic and Nadal considerably overachieved due to weak opposition, significantly moreso than Federer at any rate. So let's not mince words but have your belief expressed outright.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Well, whatever else is true, the K Factor was a damn fine racket. Best Fed racket by FAR
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
The War Criminal thread
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Man, that Andreev match was so good from the perspective of seeing Fed fired up like you rarely do.
He clearly wanted to prove himself at that USO after the year he had had so badly. Rarely does he show that much emotion.
He clearly wanted to prove himself at that USO after the year he had had so badly. Rarely does he show that much emotion.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Not a fan of quoting myself, but just wanted to add this:
USO 2008 gave you so much hope for the next year and then 2009 begins and....welp, we know how that part ended. Hope crushed instantly.
abmk
Bionic Poster
except its bait stuff here.
When I said nadal was clearly better in USO 10 than in Dubai 06 1st set, your response was to bait:
"Was he? It's not like he faced anyone playing remotely as well as Federer in that set which was one of his absolute peak sets, is it? "
I do think Federer is the better player. That I think that is obvious .
Secondly, I do think that as of now, Nadal&Djokovic have had inferior competition to fed, but the difference isn't big. I do think prime to prime at the same time, it would be: 1. Fed 2. Nadal 3. Djokovic. Fed at Wim/USO, Nadal at RG and Djoko at AO.
Yes, I do think Nadal/Djokovic have overachieved. Fed did win those 2 easier slams in 17-early 18, but that was more like compensation for winning only 1 slam in 11-12 and no slam in 14-early 16.
I point out more about the weaker aspects of competition that Nadal/Djokovic have faced because of some of the ridiculous stuff I've heard and still hear about fed's competition from 04-07 and it seems downright outrageous considering 2016-current.
I also think Nadal's longevity at RG is downright amazing, just as fed's at Wimbledon. Djoko is also doing pretty well at his age.
Another bait part from you:
"Just say it already: inferior vulturing djokodal are hopeless in the face of Peak GOATerer! "
So let me spell out my belief about this outright: you think you are smart trying to mind read me. Except you don't read properly what I say on many occasions and end up making a bunch of crappy assumptions. not once, not twice, but multiple times. You are obviously a fairly intelligent guy , but not as smart as you think you are. You should focus on actually reading what I write and ask if something is not clear. Not focus on baiting or making smartass statements about me. I've been fairly patient/calm with you after I came back after the COVID break. Don't test me till my patience starts going off.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
go away lol the adults are talkingmore likely overachieved since he never played a true driving force there (i.e. nadal and djoko)
you're factually incorrect even just with your silly post. but what else is new around here
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
It's a bit baity, but hardly much imo. Yes Nadal was better (lol), but still not so good to actually take the set against Federer playing like that, as I said it was one of Federer's absolute peak sets don't you agree? So what if he loses 4-6 instead of 2-6, not a big deal.
I just feel it is proper to express harsh sentiments harshly rather than dress them up in feigned politesse. So as you do acknowledge that Djokodal are overall below Federer as players, and their overall competition is inferior also, that makes them: a) inferior (in tennis); b) bigger vultures (in terms of winning thanks to feeble opposition); c) second fiddle against peak Fred since he is better hence in control and a clear favourite overall season-long. Sounds like the way I said it was quite correct, regardless of the apparently inflammatory wording.
Now this goes one round further: Since you hold the above to be true, regardless of whether you choose different words to express it, that means those who disagree fail to see the truth, according to you, or even believe in a falsehood if they rather think one or both of Djokodal are better. Since most Djokodal fans, at least the ones posting here, naturally do not accept that Federer is the superior player no matter how much Djokodal win against meddling opponents, that makes them inferior at understanding tennis, as they reject the truth you see. What does that make them, in your eyes? I guess those who dare oppose this objective truth are like anti-vaxxers who reject objectively proven science, and so invite deserved ridicule and derision, while those who merely follow their delusion are more like fools not enlightened enough to see the light.
Now, indeed, I can't tell what's actually on your mind, so that's what I'm asking: how exactly is it possible for anyone (be that you, le guru, theorder, whoever, anywhere on the net or IRL) to consider others to believe something that is not true, and not look down upon them? This just doesn't make sense, does it? Obviously, if I think someone believes in a certain falsehood, I think at least a little less of their ability to reason/understand/resist bias. So yes, I don't see how you could not look down on the Djokodal fans en masse for not accepting Federer's superiority, even the inoffensive ones would elicit a mental equivalent of nose wrinkling, and of course the heathens that actually argue their falsehood-based cases against your truth-based case, and persist in refusing to accept the reality of Federer>Djokodal, receive harsh reactions and respond in kind, as to them, their case is the one based on truth while yours is a brazen falsehood, and so it continues forever.
Of course, this applies to every argumentative user, oodles of them. I've been singling you out because you're also a Fredfan so couldn't dismiss my motivations as based on fan allegiance. I could say the same to anyone you argue against, just that they are less apt to listen. That's why what a so-called fruitful discussion is typically not worth aiming for around here, because everyone looks down on disagreement, perceiving it as misguided at best and wilfully deluded at worst, either way fallacious; people throw arguments past each other without good faith, and a good-natured dispute is hardly possible.
I realise this has been a rant and you'd want to ask why I should write this at all. I admit I got worked up emotionally, this is obvious isn't it. I don't like it when you talk like you offer plenty fruitful discussion or reasonable debate if only others were willing, because it's false as your attitude is too much. Of course our bunch (regular users, that is) is not well-adjusted for the most part, so this is further exacerbated by others being abrasive in response and not being able to deal with abrasiveness generally. Takes a very diplomatic and good-natured person like krosero to withstand and talk pleasantly even to the likes of, say, BobbyOne (long banned I remember, shame as he was knowledgeable though fiercely fanatic). Actually, in this thread specifically, what incensed me originally was your implication that Nadal may well lose to Federer even in straight sets (...4 sets or less). Even 2011dal spilled his guts to grab a set despite playing deplorably; the idea that peak Nadal loses a BO5 match on any modern surface in stright sets is just super disrespectful, and if you did consider that a possibility worth mentioning it doesn't seem like you hold his off-clay exploits in that much regard. Four sets, yeah sure, peak surface ATGs are damn well difficult to take to five sets and however commendable Nadal's fighting spirit is it can't radically retool his game for that.
...You should probably remind me to stop the next time I'm being bitter again, ha. Sorry in case whatever I said made you feel bad (I don't think it would but anyway).
Similar threads
