Federer, Sampras, and dealing with decline

[abmk]

Your logic: I say this opponent played crap, so the whole argument is crap. Got it.

What context? What the hell are you blabbering about? You haven't disproven absolutely anything that I said - Nadal has faced his share of tough draws and he has 3 USO titles to show for it. Is it too hard to digest drama queen?

nadal has faced his share of tough draws outside of the USO, none of them at the USO.

I could pull up articles and stats backing up what I said about those opponents not playing well. Do you want me to to add to the ownage ?

and yes, the opponent playing cr*p does have an effect on how tough the draw is - its common sense.
which you find it free to ignore to push through your agenda of faking to be an objective fed fan.

you were wrong, utterly wrong. Your BS will be called out again and again. If not by me, then by someone else

 

[fedfan39]

1. its no guareentee Nadal wins Wimbledon without Djokovic. Tsonga would have his shot, even if Nadal was favored.

2. USO after 2011 is irrelevant to this discussion. what is relevant is the USOs before that and that USO. Fed was in better form in USO 11. was playing well in the years at the USO before that (apart from the one below par match vs djoko in USO 10 SF)

3. Federer did get wins over prime Nadal at Wim 07 and arguably Wim 06 (Nadal's prime on grass was from 06-11)

4. If I was applying the transitive property as is, I'd have said Federer would be massively favoured over Nadal. I didn't. I said I'd give the slight edge to Federer. That is accounting for the matchup. the matchup would be quite lesser at the USO than at RG or the slow as molasses AO surface in 12. (11&12 were the slowest AO has been). Both RG and AO matches were competitive and the USO surface favoring Federer more than RG/AO would be enough to tilt the balance IMO. But I could see people giving a slight edge to Nadal or calling it 50-50. To say Nadal definitely wins that without a shadow of doubt however is just pathetic and is just your pretense of being an "objective" fed fan.

5. As far as this goes "The alleged slam where it is said Fed has an edge, it is Nadal who has performed better and he has faced tough draws.", I have no idea what it means.

Your arguments:

1. I say Nadal's opponent (who never has won a slam) has just as much shot. But hey, Federer was 100% a lock to win AO 2011 and AO 2016 against a member of big 4 nonetheless.

2. I say Fed was in a better form.

3. I say Nadal's prime was when he was 20 and 21 years old and not when he was 24 and 25.

4. I am giving Federer a slight edge to discount the transtivity property but I won't give that slight edge to Nadal because I am a massive Fed homer.

5. I simply refuse to believe Nadal would have ever been favored to win against Fed at the USO. No, Fed at all times always had the edge because I say no.

Really nice. Got it.

 

[fedfan39]

nadal has faced his share of tough draws outside of the USO, none of them at the USO.

I could pull up articles and stats backing up what I said about the opponents not playing well. Do you want me to to add to the ownage ?

and yes, the opponent playing cr*p does have an effect on how tough the draw is - its common sense.
which you find it free to ignore to push through your agenda of faking to be an objective fed fan.

you were wrong, utterly wrong. Your BS will be called out again and again. If not by me, then by someone else

Then pull up articles and stats. Don't just blabber.

I care not one whit about your ownage. This is a freaking fan forum. I am voicing an opinion. Get a life troll. Are you on Federer's payroll? You better be.

 

[fedfan39]

No, my logic is that Federer wasn’t in any of those finals, so simply saying Nadal is better than Federer ("there, and that is why I will give it to him"), because he has more titles doesn't say anything about how an eventual match between the two there would have ended.

However, what we do know is how the nearest match in similar conditions turned out (note, I am not saying that Federer would have destroyed Nadal WTF style either, just that the match result is relevant).

I find your "analysis" of the draws laughable, but that is neither here nor there.

2017 is considered the weakest path to the title in a Major in the Open Era (if not of all time), and, of course, in 2010 Djokovic was not half the player he became after his DC win with Serbia.

More of the 2010 draw, which featured two of his favourite spanish armada opponents (one of which played an exhausting 5 setter against Ferrer in a jam packed with spaniards quarter) and Youzny, who was busy playing (and losing from) players in the second half of top 100 most of the year.

Of course, Murray, who was, well, the better of the two options.

I will just note that both Roddick and Nalbandian were before retirement.

That is all that needs to be said about them, but cudos to Nadal for beating them.

Data is your friend when you know what it says.

Why waste so many words? What about my *analysis* of the draws is laughable?

I didn't analyze anything. I copy-pasted, and those draws - while not super tough - don't look like cakewalks to me.

It was you who asserted they were cakewalks...so it is you who needs to analyze and get back to me.

Finally, no matter how much you want to believe, WTF is not *similar* to the USO. You can keep repeating the same lie only so long.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

That's due to bad scheduling, not playing

Both

 

[abmk]

Your arguments:

1. I say Nadal's opponent (who never has won a slam) has just as much shot. But hey, Federer was 100% a lock to win AO 2011 and AO 2016 against a member of big 4 nonetheless.

I didn't say 100% lock anywhere, just said Federer would be favored in AO 11/16.
I said Tsonga would have his shot and Nadal would be favored in Wim 11. pathetic attempt at manipulation. Even a 10 year old kid would laugh at that.

Your2. I say Fed was in a better form.

yes, he was. The semi and final matches do show that.

3. I say Nadal's prime was when he was 20 and 21 years old and not when he was 24 and 25.

on grass, it was. His prime years on grass were from 2006-11 (age 20 to 25). At 26-29, Nadal was busy getting beaten by 100+ ranked players at Wimbledon.

4. I am giving Federer a slight edge to discount the transtivity property but I won't give that slight edge to Nadal because I am a massive Fed homer.

5. I simply refuse to believe Nadal would have ever been favored to win against Fed at the USO. No, Fed at all times always had the edge because I say no.

Really nice. Got it.

I said I could see Nadal being given the slight edge in USO 11. or did that completely go over your thick head, oh wait, no, its just your pathetic way of trying ot manipulate after getting owned.
I'd give Nadal the edge in USO 10 had they met.

You are a pathetic loser who is pretending to be an objective fed fan. you got owned left, right, top and bottom.
Apply some burnol and deal with it.

 

[fedfan39]

I didn't say 100% lock, just said he's be clearly favored.
I said Tsonga would have his shot and Nadal would be favored in Wim 11. pathetic attempt at manipulation. Even a 10 year old kid would laugh at that.



yes, he was. The semi and final matches do show that.



on grass, it was. His prime years on grass were from 2006-11 (age 20 to 25). At 26-29, Nadal was busy getting beaten by 100+ ranked players at Wimbledon.



I said I could see Nadal being given the slight edge in USO 11. or did that completely go over your thick head, oh wait, no, its just your pathetic way of trying ot manipulate after getting owned.
I'd give Nadal the edge in USO 10 had they met.

You are a pathetic loser who is pretending to be an objective fed fan. you got owned left, right, top and bottom.
Apply some burnol and deal with it.

I am sorry. You say Tsonga has a shot at Nadal and Murray has no shot at Federer. It is hard to take you seriously. I am wasting time over a juvenile loser.

 

[abmk]

Then pull up articles and stats. Don't just blabber.

I care not one whit about your ownage. This is a freaking fan forum. I am voicing an opinion. Get a life troll. Are you on Federer's payroll? You better be.

no, you are not just voicing an honest opinion.
You are voicing stuff to further an agenda. hence the ownage.

 

[abmk]

I am sorry. You say Tsonga has a shot at Nadal and Murray has no shot at Federer. It is hard to take you seriously. I am wasting time over a juvenile loser.

Saying Federer would clearly favored over Murray in AO 11 and AO 16 is not equivalent to saying Murray has no shot at Federer. Murray would have a shot in those 2 AOs, but its not that big. But then again, you don't even bother to read, Jus BS and manipulate.

The loser who got owned big time is now calling someone else as a loser.

Edit : That's like fake news stuff.

 

[fedfan39]

no, you are not just voicing an honest opinion.
You are voicing stuff to further an agenda. hence the ownage.

Did you put your stats here?

 

[fedfan39]

Saying Federer would clearly favored over Murray in AO 11 and AO 16 is not equivalent to saying Murray has no shot at Federer. Murray would have a shot in those 2 AOs, but its not that big. But then again, you don't even bother to read, Jus BS and manipulate.

The loser who got owned big time is now calling someone else as a loser.

That's like Donald Trump with his fake news stuff.

If Federer was *clearly* favored over Murray, was Nadal *clearly* favored over Tsonga?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Bigger FH? Really now? I can probably find a trillion threads on this very board that talk about how Nadal made Federer's FH irrelevant by giving him all those high bouncing topspin laden moonballs. Jesus. This is the only thing that stands out in the Fedal rivalry.

Better movement? LMAO. *Nadal had a vastly better movement too*. In fact, Nadal has also lost his movement at age 32, and his loss is more pronounced because he plays so physical.

Entering good form? Yes, at WTF, indoor tournaments, Wimbledon and Cincy (he did win IW 2012). All the places where he has always performed well. We are talking about the USO, where he was last a threat to win a title in 2009 (correction: I will say 2012 to be fair).

If you don't like 2013 stats in the analysis, why not look around and use AO 2012 as a datapoint? The only outdoor HC win Fed had on him is 2012 IW. Otherwise, it's Nadal everywhere. Doesn't matter if you don't like outdoor HC stats singled out. They are kept separately in fact because the outdoor conditions are vastly different.

1. Oh, wow, you can find a trillion of threads about how Nadal made Federer's FH irrelevant?

Even at a TTW, where Vamos. Brigade drones make absurd threads about Federer all the time that would have been interesing.

Please, post 5 such threads, so that I have a bit more fun.

2. If you don't follow the conversation it will be difficult to argue about anything.

Let me explain it to you: you are arguing about the differences in Federer's game then and afterwards, not making a comparison between Federer and Nadal, although I will be interested to read about Nadal's superior movement on medium/medium fast/fast HC.

Also, yet another misplaced argument, trying to use the outdoor-indoor analogy.

You dismiss a match that is closer as conditions to the USO, and use one that is all but irrelevant, and not because it is outdoors, but because the speed and the bounce of the court are vastly different.

Basically you refuse to use more relevant data, simply because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[abmk]

Did you put your stats here?

Yeah, because it doesn't take a couple of minutes to actually pull them out.

Here, let me start off with the Simon match in 10 :

17 winners to 41 UEs from Simon.
44 winners+errors forced from Rafa to 41 UEs from Simon. A ratio of 1.07. (that is clearly below par on a medium fast surface like the USO)

https://web.archive.org/web/2010090...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day13/1301ms.html

 

[fedfan39]

Yeah, because it doesn't take a couple of minutes to actually pull them out.

Here, let me start off with the Simon match in 10 :

17 winners to 41 UEs from Simon.
44 winners+errors forced from Rafa to 41 UEs from Simon. A ratio of 1.07. (that is clearly below par on a medium fast surface like the USO)

https://web.archive.org/web/2010090...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day13/1301ms.html

Irrelevant.

You said you will put stats to prove Nadal had cakewalk draws and that's how he won the USOs.

I am waiting.

You also haven't answered this question.

*If Federer was clearly favored over Murray, was Nadal clearly favored over Tsonga*?

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

It's possible Fed could be a total fluke...but what about Nadal, and in fact, what about even Djokovic? Why is Nadal going so hard at age 32, and why is Djokovic attempting a comeback at age 31 after having won everything there is to win?

It's very clear that there is a slam count race going on. Djokovic is possibly gearing up for another run to see if he has any slams left in him.

Yes, Djokovic has denied Fed lots of slams, and I have engaged in a bit of the unpopular opinion before that he "helped" Fed. The simple nature of "helping" simply boils down to Djokovic being a third dominant player splitting and taking slams away from Nadal. Without Djokovic, Nadal follows his dominant 2010 with 3 slams in 2011, 2 slams in 2012 and 2 more in 2013. That is the *minimum* he would have. In truth, he probably peaks for additional AO and/or Wimby. Nadal basically has a Federer like dominant 4 year stretch, possibly equal or even lead in slam count (with him being 5 years younger!!!) and by 2013, Fed would be written off as being the GOAT.

Understand that Fed's GOATness still very heavily comes from his peak years from 2004-07. If Nadal had his own 4 year stretch of 10 or 11 slams, it would be over for Fed given also his bragging H2H rights over Fed.

So Djokovic took away 4 slams from Fed...so what? It still wasn't Nadal. Nadal is closest in slam counts. Suppose Zverev becomes very dominant tomorrow and starts winning, what of it? No one will question Fed's GOATness. No one seems to really get or understand the significance of Djokovic rise in 2011 and how it eventually shaped the GOAT battle.

100% agreed

 

[abmk]

Lopez match in 10 :

27 winners to 41 UEs from Lopez.
61 winners+errors forced from Rafa to 41 UEs from Lopez. A ratio of 1.49. a slightly below par ratio, even more so on medium-fast surface. barely passable performance.

https://web.archive.org/web/2010091...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day15/1401ms.html

 

[zagor]

Fed would have had a legit shot against Nadal in 2011 USO, no question about it in my mind. I wouldn't favour him by any means but definitely not a gimmie title for Nadal, say 60-40 in Nadal's favour.

Novak did almost single-handedly stop Nadal's momentum in 2011 and changed the tennis landscape considerably but he also beat Fed in several AOs and Wimbledons (and one USO, 2015) where the latter would have been a solid favourite for the title.

Without Novak's 2nd peak under Becker in 2015-2016 (where he played much, much better than 2013 for example, comparable to his 2011 level in which he destroyed Nadal) the Fedal slam gap would have very likely been even worse for Nadal right now.

 

[fedfan39]

1. Oh, wow, you can find a trillion of threads about how Nadal made Federer's FH irrelevant?

Even at a TTW, where Vamos. Brigade drones make absurd threads about Federer all the time that would have been interesing.

Please, post 5 such threads, so that I have a bit more fun.

2. If you don't follow the conversation it will be difficult to argue about anything.

Let me explain it to you: you are arguing about the differences in Federer's game then and afterwards, not making a comparison between Federer and Nadal, although I will be interested to read about Nadal's superior movement on medium/medium fast/fast HC.

Also, yet another misplaced argument, trying to use the outdoor-indoor analogy.

You dismiss a match that is closer as conditions to the USO, and use one that is all but irrelevant, and not because it is outdoors, but because the speed and the bounce of the court are vastly different.

Basically you refuse to use more relevant data, simply because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Do you really need me to tell you who Jesus was after explaining to you the whole Bible?

Federer's forehand didn't save him from defeats at Nadal's hands pretty much anywhere except the indoor fast courts from 2008 onwards. You said Fed had a better forehand in 2011 and hence he would win. That's an incorrect cause --> effect assertion. I said Federer had a better backhand in 2017 and hence he won. That's the correct cause --> effect assertion. Get it?

Your second sentence makes no sense. Again: You said Federer had better movement in 2011 and hence he would win over Nadal. I pointed out even Nadal had a better movement in 2011, so at best, that aspect should neutralize.

Finally, you keep saying WTF is similar to the USO and AO is not. I am saying otherwise. Since you will never agree and keep repeating *flat Earth*, there is nothing to be said on that any further.

 

[abmk]

Irrelevant.

You said you will put stats to prove Nadal had cakewalk draws and that's how he won the USOs.

I am waiting.

You also haven't answered this question.

*If Federer was clearly favored over Murray, was Nadal clearly favored over Tsonga*?

well those stats with below par performances from Nadal's opponents are what will prove Nadal had cakewalk draws to the finals in 10 and 13.

As far as the other part goes, jeez, is the ownage getting so intense for you that you can't even wait for a couple of minutes. Masochism much?

To answer your question, its not a similar case. I see tsonga having a better chance vs Nadal in Wim 11 than Murray vs Fed in AO 11 and AO 16.
from 2008, when Tsonga hit his stride, they played a slam only once , which was a blowout for Tsonga - AO 08.
Also Tsonga beat Nadal at Queens in 2011.

I could see a potential Wimbledon encounter going either way , with Nadal as the favorite , but not the overwhelming one, unlike Fed vs Murray in AO 11&16.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Do you really need me to tell you who Jesus was after explaining to you the whole Bible?

Federer's forehand didn't save him from defeats at Nadal's hands pretty much anywhere except the indoor fast courts from 2008 onwards. You said Fed had a better forehand in 2011 and hence he would win. That's an incorrect cause --> effect assertion. I said Federer had a better backhand in 2017 and hence he won. That's the correct cause --> effect assertion. Get it?

Your second sentence makes no sense. Again: You said Federer had better movement in 2011 and hence he would win over Nadal. I pointed out even Nadal had a better movement in 2011, so at best, that aspect should neutralize.

Finally, you keep saying WTF is similar to the USO and AO is not. I am saying otherwise. Since you will never agree and keep repeating *flat Earth*, there is nothing to be said on that any further.

1. So, you refuse to post those threads?

2. The conversation clearly was about the differences in Federer's game then and now.

Do you dispute this?

Also, waiting on the threads talking about Nadal's superior movement.

3. It is the other way around: you keep saying that

1) AO is more similar to USO than WTF

2) matches that happened much earlier/later are better indicator than matches that were played closer to the match in question

Basically, you ignore proximity to the match in question and similarity between the playing characteristics of the surfaces (hence your laughable efforts to pull stats about clay, slow high bouncing HC, and the indoor - outdoor analogy, that you didn't even bother to qualify).

 

[abmk]

@fedfan39 :

Verdasco vs Nadal USO 10 :

25 winners to 41 UEs
59 winners+errors forced from Rafa to 41 UEs

a ratio of 1.44. even cutting him some slack for the stats in the earlier part of the match where it was windy, that's still a below par performance


https://web.archive.org/web/2010091...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day17/1501ms.html

Youzhny vs Nadal USO 10 :

21 winners to 33 UEs
45 winners+errors forced from Rafa to 33 UEs

a ratio of 1.36. clearly below par

https://web.archive.org/web/2010091...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day19/1601ms.html

so that and the posts above about performances of Simon and Lopez complete your schooling of how all of them were below par (varying from slightly to clearly below par)

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ling-with-decline.475672/page-4#post-12084710

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ling-with-decline.475672/page-4#post-12084723

Hence the cakewalk draw of Nadal till the final in USO 10.

 

[fedfan39]

well those stats with below par performances from Nadal's opponents are what will prove Nadal had cakewalk draws to the finals in 10 and 13.

As far as the other part goes, jeez, is the ownage getting so intense for you that you can't even wait for a couple of minutes. Masochism much?

To answer your question, its not a similar case. I see tsonga having a better chance vs Nadal in Wim 11 than Murray vs Fed in AO 11 and AO 16.
from 2008, when Tsonga hit his stride, they played a slam only once , which was a blowout for Tsonga - AO 08.
Also Tsonga beat Nadal at Queens in 2011.

I could see a potential Wimbledon encounter going either way , with Nadal as the favorite , but not the overwhelming one, unlike Fed vs Murray in AO 11&16.

You clearly are not a Stats major, are you?

If you are going to put 2 random performances from Nadal's opponents, could you also put 2 random performances from Fed's opponents? This is so juvenile, it is absolutely hilarious.

Below par performance don't prove anything in any case. What matters is the ranking of Nadal's opponents. They are all properly seeded and I don't see cakewalk draws. That some of his opponents played bad is irrelevant - the same could have been true in Federer's case as well.

About your second point, LMAO. You are going to use Queens?

Here is Haas beating Fed in 2012 Halle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Gerry_Weber_Open_–_Singles

About the sticky matter of Tsonga beating Nadal in 2008 (!!!) (notice here you have no qualms of using a 2008 result to make a 2011 projection, but you will not use a 2009 or 2012 result to make a 2011 projection...because, because...BETTER FORM...I say so!), here is how Fed-Murray rivalry went in the beginning:

1. 2005 Thailand Open Hard (i) Final Federer 6–3, 7–5 1:26 1 0 2/3
2. 2006 Cincinnati Masters Hard Round of 32 Murray 7–5, 6–4 1:37 1 1 2/3
3. 2008 Dubai Tennis Championships Hard Round of 32 Murray 6–7(6–8), 6–3, 6–4 1:55 1 2 3/3
4. 2008 US Open Hard Final Federer 6–2, 7–5, 6–2 1:51 2 2 3/5
5. 2008 Madrid Masters Hard (i) Semifinal Murray 3–6, 6–3, 7–5 1:57 2 3 3/3
6. 2008 Tennis Masters Cup Hard (i) Round Robin Murray 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 7–5 3:01 2 4 3/3
7. 2009 Qatar Open Hard Semifinal Murray 6–7(6–8), 6–2, 6–2 2:05 2 5 3/3
8. 2009 Indian Wells Masters Hard Semifinal Murray 6–3, 4–6, 6–1 1:48 2 6 3/3
9. 2009 Cincinnati Masters Hard Semifinal Federer 6–2, 7–6(10–8) 1:30 3 6 2/3
10. 2009 ATP World Tour Finals Hard (i) Round Robin Federer 3–6, 6–3, 6–1 1:58 4 6 3/3
11. 2010 Australian Open Hard Final Federer 6–3, 6–4, 7–6(13–11) 2:41 5 6 3/5
12. 2010 Canadian Open Hard Final Murray 7–5, 7–5 2:05 5 7 2/3
13. 2010 Shanghai Masters Hard Final Murray 6–3, 6–2 1:25 5 8 2/3
14. 2010 ATP World Tour Finals Hard (i) Round Robin Federer 6–4, 6–2 1:17 6 8 2/3

Murray more than held his own and had wins over Federer at Rogers cup and Shanghai. I am not like you though and claiming Murray was still a favorite, but it is rather hilarious you have Fed a *clear* favorite over Murray and Nadal not a *clear* favorite over Tsonga.

 

[fedfan39]

1. So, you refuse to post those threads?

2. The conversation clearly was about the differences in Federer's game then and now.

Do you dispute this?

Also, waiting on the threads talking about Nadal's superior movement.

3. It is the other way around: you keep saying that

1) AO is more similar to USO than WTF

2) matches that happened much earlier/later are better indicator than matches that were played closer to the match in question

Basically, you ignore proximity to the match in question and similarity between the playing characteristics of the surfaces (hence your laughable efforts to pull stats about clay, slow high bouncing HC, and the indoor - outdoor analogy, that you didn't even bother to qualify).

1. What do you want me to post? That Nadal attacked Federer's backhand? Have you heard of Google?

2. What?!?!?! Are you saying Nadal's movement hasn't declined since 2011?

3. What do you want me to qualify? Indoor = roof, outdoor = no roof? That Fed has a massive edge in indoor, but that Nadal at least used to have a massive edge in outdoor hard courts prior to 2017? This is from the wikipedia page on the rivalry:

Head-to-head tallies[edit]
The following is a breakdown of their head-to-head results:

• All matches: Nadal, 23–15
  • Clay courts: Nadal, 13–2
  • Grass courts: Federer, 2–1
  • Hard courts: Federer, 11–9
    • Outdoor: Nadal, 8–6* (This used to be 8-2 prior to 2017)
    • Indoor: Federer, 5–1

 

[abmk]

You clearly are not a Stats major, are you?

If you are going to put 2 random performances from Nadal's opponents, could you also put 2 random performances from Fed's opponents? This is so juvenile, it is absolutely hilarious.

About your second point, LMAO. You are going to use Queens?

Here is Haas beating Fed in 2012 Halle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Gerry_Weber_Open_–_Singles

About the sticky matter of Tsonga beating Nadal in 2008 (!!!) (notice here you have no qualms of using a 2008 result to make a 2011 projection, but you will not use a 2009 or 2012 result to make a 2011 projection...because, because...BETTER FORM...I say so!), here is how Fed-Murray rivalry went in the beginning:

1. 2005 Thailand Open Hard (i) Final Federer 6–3, 7–5 1:26 1 0 2/3
2. 2006 Cincinnati Masters Hard Round of 32 Murray 7–5, 6–4 1:37 1 1 2/3
3. 2008 Dubai Tennis Championships Hard Round of 32 Murray 6–7(6–8), 6–3, 6–4 1:55 1 2 3/3
4. 2008 US Open Hard Final Federer 6–2, 7–5, 6–2 1:51 2 2 3/5
5. 2008 Madrid Masters Hard (i) Semifinal Murray 3–6, 6–3, 7–5 1:57 2 3 3/3
6. 2008 Tennis Masters Cup Hard (i) Round Robin Murray 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 7–5 3:01 2 4 3/3
7. 2009 Qatar Open Hard Semifinal Murray 6–7(6–8), 6–2, 6–2 2:05 2 5 3/3
8. 2009 Indian Wells Masters Hard Semifinal Murray 6–3, 4–6, 6–1 1:48 2 6 3/3
9. 2009 Cincinnati Masters Hard Semifinal Federer 6–2, 7–6(10–8) 1:30 3 6 2/3
10. 2009 ATP World Tour Finals Hard (i) Round Robin Federer 3–6, 6–3, 6–1 1:58 4 6 3/3
11. 2010 Australian Open Hard Final Federer 6–3, 6–4, 7–6(13–11) 2:41 5 6 3/5
12. 2010 Canadian Open Hard Final Murray 7–5, 7–5 2:05 5 7 2/3
13. 2010 Shanghai Masters Hard Final Murray 6–3, 6–2 1:25 5 8 2/3
14. 2010 ATP World Tour Finals Hard (i) Round Robin Federer 6–4, 6–2 1:17 6 8 2/3

Murray more than held his own and had wins over Federer at Rogers cup and Shanghai. I am not like you though and claiming Murray was still a favorite, but it is rather hilarious you have Fed a *clear* favorite over Murray and Nadal not a *clear* favorite over Tsonga.

Those aren't random performances. that is the only slam they've faced off once tsonga hit his stride and the nearest encounter on the same surface (grass). you'd get that if you actually bothered to use your head (or would you ? )

If I was basing it on Queens alone, I'd have said Tsonga was favored. I didn't. I said Nadal would be favored.
I am not a stats major, but I am good at stats.

Tsonga beat Federer in a GOATing perf. in the QF of Wim 11. Form did taper off in the semi , but then he had to face a Djokovic who was returning so well. Nadal wouldn't be able put him under that sort of pressure. Also if Tsonga had faced an easier opponent in the semi (compared to Djokovic), he'd have had a breather there and be ready for the final vs Nadal.

As far as AO 11 goes, Fed had beaten Murray twice easily in slams before - AO 10 and USO 11. Murray was struggling vs dolgo and ferrer and that AO. No wonder he got bulldozed by Djoko in the final. The Fed-djoko semi was much closer.

As far as AO 16 goes, Fed had a 5-1 record in slams before that vs Murray, with 4 of those being comfortable wins. He had a 5-0 streak going on vs Murray. Plus was in better form at that AO. Raonic was up 2 sets to 1 vs Murray and would've had more than a decent chance of winning if he had not got injured in the 4th set.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

I should not have bumped this thread

 

[Tennisanity]

Wow, Fed leads the H2H on two of the 3 surfaces. Amazing.

 

[fedfan39]

Those aren't random performances. that is the only slam they've faced off once tsonga hit his stride and the nearest encounter on the same surface (grass)

If I was basing it on Queens alone, I'd have said Tsonga was favored. I didn't. I said Nadal would be favored.
I am not a stats major, but I am good at stats.

Tsonga beat Federer in a GOATing perf. in the QF of Wim 11. Form did taper off in the semi , but then he had to face a Djokovic who was returning so well. Nadal wouldn't be able put him under that sort of pressure. Also if Tsonga had faced an easier opponent in the semi (compared to Djokovic), he'd have had a breather there and be ready for the final vs Nadal.

As far as AO 11 goes, Fed had beaten Murray twice easily in slams before - AO 10 and USO 11. Murray was struggling vs dolgo and ferrer and that AO. No wonder he got bulldozed by Djoko in the final. The Fed-djoko semi was much closer.

As far as AO 16 goes, Fed had a 5-1 record in slams before that vs Murray, with 4 of those being comfortable wins. He had a 5-0 streak going on vs Murray. Plus was in better form at that AO. Raonic was up 2 sets to 1 vs Murray and would've had more than a decent chance of winning if he had not got injured in the 4th set.

1. You aren't good at stats neither logic. Bad performance from an opponent does not mean a cakewalk draw. And if you are going to attack Nadal's slams by pointing out UEs from his opponents, please do a real data analysis project, go back to all of Federer's slams, his opponents, their UEs/winners and make a problem statement and prove or disprove. Simply throwing a couple of results is asinine.

2. Wow...we are getting somewhere here!!! So you say Fed has a *thick matchup edge* over Murray because he's comprehensively owned Murray at slams (true). Then, pray tell me, why doesn't Nadal get to have a thick match edge over Federer because Nadal had comprehensively owned Federer in slams up until 2014? Your projection: Fed wins over Murray in a hypothetical matchup because in real life, they are 5-1 (I agree). True. But then, Nadal doesn't win over Federer in a hypothetical matchup when in real life, they were 9-2 up until 2014 (huh?).

 

[abmk]

3. What do you want me to qualify? Indoor = roof, outdoor = no roof? That Fed has a massive edge in indoor, but that Nadal at least used to have a massive edge in outdoor hard courts prior to 2017? This is from the wikipedia page on the rivalry:

Head-to-head tallies[edit]
The following is a breakdown of their head-to-head results:

• All matches: Nadal, 23–15
  • Clay courts: Nadal, 13–2
  • Grass courts: Federer, 2–1
  • Hard courts: Federer, 11–9
    • Outdoor: Nadal, 8–6* (This used to be 8-2 prior to 2017)
    • Indoor: Federer, 5–1

That outdoor HC h2h before 2017 is a gross misrepresentation of how their matches would've gone if were both playing well.

1. Fed was sick around the time of Miami 04.

Q. You played a lot of tennis this year already. Do you feel more tired physically or mentally?

ROGER FEDERER: My fatigue right now has got nothing to do with all the matches I've played this year. I've been sick, and this was my problem for the imperfect preparation for this tournament.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=21455

2. He had back injury in IW 13. should've really pulled out of the match vs Nadal.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/10/federer-reflects-mistakes-playing-injured/49518/

Ahead of his hometown Swiss Indoors tournament, Federer said he regretted playing matches with back problems at Indian Wells in March, and Hamburg and Gstaad in July.

''With hindsight, I shouldn't have done. They were errors,'' said the now seventh-ranked Federer, who has been one of the most durable players on tour throughout his career.

3. Miami 11 and AO 14 - fed out of his prime AND playing cr*p. (I'm taking both into consideration, not just one factor, mind you)

Cincy 13 was an ok performance considering his 13, but still nothing great.

the highly relevant matches are :
Miami 05, IW 12, Dubai 06, AO 09, AO 12

Even though Nadal was young in Miami 05, he played a pretty good match.

 

[Tornes]

1. You aren't good at stats neither logic. Bad performance from an opponent does not mean a cakewalk draw. And if you are going to attack Nadal's slams by pointing out UEs from his opponents, please do a real data analysis project, go back to all of Federer's slams, his opponents, their UEs/winners and make a problem statement and prove or disprove. Simply throwing a couple of results is asinine.

2. Wow...we are getting somewhere here!!! So you say Fed has a *thick matchup edge* over Murray because he's comprehensively owned Murray at slams (true). Then, pray tell me, why doesn't Nadal get to have a thick match edge over Federer because Nadal had comprehensively owned Federer in slams up until 2014? Your projection: Fed wins over Murray in a hypothetical matchup because in real life, they are 5-1 (I agree). True. But then, Nadal doesn't win over Federer in a hypothetical matchup when in real life, they were 9-2 up until 2014 (huh?).

1) When opponent played a bad match it is bad opponent and therefore bad draw.

2) Not every ownage is the same.
The matches you talked about would have happened in 2010/11, not 2014. At 2010 the it was 2:6 (that alone being better than 5:1), at 2011 2:7.
More importantly, all matches between Federer/Murray happened in similar condition, faster condition and moreover even both players prefer similar condition (so the chances on any given surface would be roughly similar), so all the matches would be relevant for both AO 11 and AO 16. Not so for Rafa/Fed. Each player prefer different condition and half of the matches happened on surface one player was strongest and other the least strong. Odds of Fed winning would be totally different on clay or on grass.
If we count only faster surfaces (most similar one to USO 2010 and 2011) the picture is totally different again - from your "9:2" it is 2:2 for both (granted, two more recent for Rafa). So in most comparable condition at that time the H2H was 2:2. Yeas, absolute ownage.

 

[fedfan39]

That outdoor HC h2h before 2017 is a gross misrepresentation of how their matches would've gone if were both playing well.

1. Fed was sick around the time of Miami 04.

Q. You played a lot of tennis this year already. Do you feel more tired physically or mentally?

ROGER FEDERER: My fatigue right now has got nothing to do with all the matches I've played this year. I've been sick, and this was my problem for the imperfect preparation for this tournament.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=21455

2. He had back injury in IW 13. should've really pulled out of the match vs Nadal.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/10/federer-reflects-mistakes-playing-injured/49518/

Ahead of his hometown Swiss Indoors tournament, Federer said he regretted playing matches with back problems at Indian Wells in March, and Hamburg and Gstaad in July.

''With hindsight, I shouldn't have done. They were errors,'' said the now seventh-ranked Federer, who has been one of the most durable players on tour throughout his career.

3. Miami 11 and AO 14 - fed out of his prime AND playing cr*p. (I'm taking both into consideration, not just one factor, mind you)

Cincy 13 was an ok performance considering his 13, but still nothing great.

the highly relevant matches are :
Miami 05, IW 12, Dubai 06, AO 09, AO 12

Even though Nadal was young in Miami 05, he played a pretty good match.

My oh my...I never thought Fed fans would resort to *Fed was sick when he lost* tactics that they so vehemently accuse Nadal fans of.

Gross misrepresentation? 8-2 is gross misrepresentation when you are talking about the GOAT?

Is 5-1 a gross misrepresentation too? What about 4-0 of last year?

 

[abmk]

1. You aren't good at stats neither logic. Bad performance from an opponent does not mean a cakewalk draw. And if you are going to attack Nadal's slams by pointing out UEs from his opponents, please do a real data analysis project, go back to all of Federer's slams, his opponents, their UEs/winners and make a problem statement and prove or disprove. Simply throwing a couple of results is asinine.

yes, it does make it a cakewalk draw.
I have checked those stats for many of federer's opponents (I'd say majority of them in slam QFs to finals) and referenced them plenty of times over here at TTW.
Which USO do you want to me to pull out for Federer , tell me !
If I show that for a or couple of USOs for federer where he made the semi or final, will you accept you were wrong ?

2. Wow...we are getting somewhere here!!! So you say Fed has a *thick matchup edge* over Murray because he's comprehensively owned Murray at slams (true). Then, pray tell me, why doesn't Nadal get to have a thick match edge over Federer because Nadal had comprehensively owned Federer in slams up until 2014? Your projection: Fed wins over Murray in a hypothetical matchup because in real life, they are 5-1 (I agree). True. But then, Nadal doesn't win over Federer in a hypothetical matchup when in real life, they were 9-2 up until 2014 (huh?).

Because majority of those GS matches were on clay+ 1 match where fed played cr*p (AO 14). that accounts for 6 of those 11 matches.

their Wim 08 and AO 09 were classic 5-setters and AO 12 was a well-contested match -- somewhat in the vein of Murray's Wim 12 final loss vs Fed.

Fed had beat Nadal convincingly in Wim 06 and beat him at one of his best grass court matches (if not the best) in Wim 07 final.

Fed beat Murray everywhere - AO, USO, Wim everywhere, didn't matter and most of those were convincing wins. 4 of the 5.

the only one win for Murray was a 5-setter in AO 13 with Murray playing real well and Federer spent to extent after a 5-setter vs Tsonga in the round before.

 

[abmk]

My oh my...I never thought Fed fans would resort to *Fed was sick when he lost* tactics that they so vehemently accuse Nadal fans of.

Gross misrepresentation? 8-2 is gross misrepresentation when you are talking about the GOAT?

Is 5-1 a gross misrepresentation too? What about 4-0 of last year?

It was a fact, not a list of crappy excuses made up by the ************* even when he was fine.
Nadal has had his share of legit injuries due to which he was affected in matches (Rotterdam 09 F, AO 11 QF, AO 14 final, AO 18 QF). Its fine to state them when it is true.
But not making up stuff.

This is before the Fed-Nadal match in Miami 2004 :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...has-a-great-chance-vs-fed.2107/#post-11647461

There are clear mentions of Fed looking off due to the sickness before the Nadal match.

....

re : gross misrepresentation.

I said "That outdoor HC h2h before 2017 is a gross misrepresentation of how their matches would've gone if were both playing well. "

Learn to read,

Again, your pathetic fake BS has exposed badly. Quit while you can.

 

[fedfan39]

yes, it does make it a cakewalk draw.
I have checked those stats for many of federer's opponents (I'd say majority of them in slam QFs to finals) and referenced them plenty of times over here at TTW.
Which USO do you want to me to pull out for Federer , tell me !
If I show that for a or couple of USOs for federer where he made the semi or final, will you accept you were wrong ?



Because majority of those GS matches were on clay+ 1 match where fed played cr*p (AO 14). that accounts for 6 of those 11 matches.

their Wim 08 and AO 09 were classic 5-setters and AO 12 was a close match -- somewhat in the vein of Murray's Wim 12 final loss vs Fed.

Fed had beat Nadal convincingly in Wim 06 and beat him at one of his best grass court matches (if not the best) in Wim 07 final.

Fed beat Murray everywhere - AO, USO, Wim everywhere, didn't matter and most of those were convincing wins. 4 of the 5.

the only one win for Murray was a 5-setter in AO 13 with Murray playing real well and Federer spent to extent after a 5-setter vs Tsonga in the round before.

1. Ok fine. Do data analysis on Fed's USO 2004 and Nadal's USO 2010. Tell me which metrics you are using and how they measure up.
2. I see a lot of excuses. Fed played like crap, but Murray didn't? Fed was out of form, but Murray wasn't? 5 setters don't count (never mind Nadal was ahead both times)? I don't know who you are trying to convince. As I said, you better be on Fed's PR payroll because that's a lot of bull to put through.

 

[fedfan39]

It was a fact, not a list of crappy excuses made up by the ************* even when he was fine.
Nadal has had his share of legit injuries due to which he was affected in matches (Rotterdam 09 F, AO 11 QF, AO 14 final, AO 18 QF). Its fine to state them when it is true.
But not making up stuff.

This is before the Fed-Nadal match in Miami 2004 :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...has-a-great-chance-vs-fed.2107/#post-11647461

There are clear mentions of Fed looking off due to the sickness before the Nadal match.

....

re : gross misrepresentation.

I said "That outdoor HC h2h before 2017 is a gross misrepresentation of how their matches would've gone if were both playing well. "

Learn to read,

Again, your pathetic fake BS has exposed badly. Quit while you can.

LOL. Ok. Because you say *Earth is flat*, that exposed me. Because you say 8-2 doesn't predict Nadal was a favorite at USO 2011, *it is I who got exposed and owned for saying otherwise*. Got it. I will definitely quit this thread when I truly get bored of being amused.

 

[abmk]

LOL. Ok. Because you say *Earth is flat*, that exposed me. Because you say 8-2 doesn't predict Nadal was a favorite at USO 2011, *it is I who got exposed and owned for saying otherwise*. Got it. I will definitely quit this thread when I truly get bored of being amused.

I exposed you because I've shown you deliberately misrepresentating statements after getting owned badly.

and yes, because you are a pathetic manipulator trying to use performances after 2011 while we're talking about USO 11, just because it suits your case. you got calld out on your BS..

I already said I have no problem with saying Nadal was a slight favorite in USO 11. My problem is with you saying he'd have definitely won vs Fed.
but then you can't pretend you read that, because that would go against your pathetic little agenda.

"Earth is flat". accusation coming from you ?
Edit : yeah, you sure sound like someone with fake news accusing others of fake news

 

[Gizo]

Love of the game, quite simply? Not even trolling here, everyone agrees that Fed is a total fluke in that respect, the absolute outlier. All the past champs will tell you how life on tour became unbearable after a while. Fed still loves it at 36+.

Yes that it very clear. Past the age of 25, many tennis players seem to fall out of love with tennis and it becomes more of a grind and a job for them than a passion. Individual sports are just physically draining.

And many great players love winning a lot more than they love the sport itself.

But Federer is pretty unique in that has continued to love tennis (and not just the winning) way into his late 20s, and now even his late 30s. I have no doubt that his love for tennis wasn't diminished one bit during that a 4 and a half year grand slam title drought. I doubt a 29-30 year old Sampras for instance loved tennis anywhere near as much as Federer did even when he was struggling in 2013 for instance. Now he definitely loves winning more than he hates losing, and that approach is serving him very well indeed.

 

[abmk]

1. Ok fine. Do data analysis on Fed's USO 2004 and Nadal's USO 2010. Tell me which metrics you are using and how they measure up.

I already gave you one key metric.

Winners+errors forced from opponent to UEs.

I look at the whole context, including first serve %, service points won%, return points won%, BP conversion, DFs etc.

You can look at those yourself with the links I posted. I'm not going to explain every single detail.

I will point out the one key metric I already showed in USO 10 for USO 04.


Henman in USO 04 semi :

55 winners+errors forced from Federer to 22 UEs. That;s a ratio of 2.5. Much better ratio than anyone Nadal faced before the final.

https://web.archive.org/web/2004091...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day19/1601ms.html


Agassi in USO 04 QF :

96 winners+errors forced from Federer to 39 UEs. That's a ratio of 2.46. This with the last 2 sets being played in almost unseen heavy windy conditions. Otherwise, would've been higher.

https://web.archive.org/web/2004091...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day17/1501ms.html

Hewitt in USO 04 F :

38 winners+errors forced from Federer to 23 UEs. That's a ratio of 1.65. It was a below par perf. from Hewitt (although federer GOATing in arguably the best HC performance ever was a big factor in that).
But still a better ratio than those 4 guys I pointed out for Nadal in USO 10 - Simon, Lopez, Verdasco, Youzhny.

https://web.archive.org/web/2004091...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day20/1701ms.html

-------------

Now, lets look at the only guy with a decent/good perf. vs Rafa in USO 10 , Djokovic.

88 winners+errors forced from Rafa to 47 errors (a ratio of 1.87)

https://web.archive.org/web/2010091...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html

Now, Djokovic was better than Henman , even though ratio is lesser (I know because I've watched both those matches). But Agassi in the USO 04 QF vs Fed was quite clearly better.


Istomin in USO 10 was the only one who actually played somewhat decent tennis vs Nadal before the final(sets 2 and 3)

https://web.archive.org/web/2010090...open.org/en_US/scores/stats/day11/1201ms.html

he had 63 winners+errors forced from Nadal to 40 UEs. a ratio of 1.57.

So to sum it, Agassi in USO 04 > Djokovic in USO 10, quite clearly.
Henman in USO 04 SF clearly tougher than anyone else Nadal faced in USO 10
Even with Hewitt's below par perf. in the USO 04 final, he was still tougher than anyone else Nadal faced in USO 10.

when I say anyone else, I mean apart from Djokovic in the final.

Basically , its a no contest as far as the toughness of the draws go.

2. I see a lot of excuses. Fed played like crap, but Murray didn't? Fed was out of form, but Murray wasn't? 5 setters don't count (never mind Nadal was ahead both times)? I don't know who you are trying to convince. As I said, you better be on Fed's PR payroll because that's a lot of bull to put through.

that's because Murray wasn't in very good form in AO 11 or AO 16, unlike Fed in USO 11.

Are you that clueless that all that stuff has to be explained to you ?

I'm not on Fed's PR payroll. I'm just stating the reality and exposing your BS.
And I seriously hope you are not employed by someone who matters a lot because you are so clueless/dishonest.

 

[JackGates]

Fed won 3 majors, 3 masters and is number 1, plus he is 4-0 versus Nadal, can we really talk about any significant decline?

 

[Neil_Fedfan]

If Djokovic returns anywhere near to his form, he should obliterate Nadal. Nadal's USO are vultured;

I am sorry, but Nadal has feasted on USOs like a vulture feasts on a dead carcass.

And today:

Edit: Nadal's 2017 draw was weak, but was 2010 and 2013 draw weak too? He beat Djokovic for both titles. Cupcake draw?

How to contradict and deceive 101 *thumbs up*

This post has nothing to do with Nadal's draws but your hypocrisy changing your tone when it suits your favourite player Novak Djokovic. Atleast stop pretending to be fanboy of a player you are clearly not a fan of like others in the past did (RF-18, Checkmate). There are quite a few others as well who are posting absolute garbage since Fed's 2017 resurgence posing as "Federer fans".

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

@abmk How did Fed's opponents perform in USO '10 & '11?

 

[abmk]

And today:


How to contradict and deceive 101 *thumbs up*

This post has nothing to do with Nadal's draws but your hypocrisy changing your tone when it suits your favourite player Novak Djokovic. Atleast stop pretending to be fanboy of a player you are clearly not a fan of like others in the past did (RF-18, Checkmate). There are quite a few others as well who are posting absolute garbage since Fed's AO posing as "Federer fans".

ha ha ha.

that's massive ownage.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

1. What do you want me to post? That Nadal attacked Federer's backhand? Have you heard of Google?

2. What?!?!?! Are you saying Nadal's movement hasn't declined since 2011?

3. What do you want me to qualify? Indoor = roof, outdoor = no roof? That Fed has a massive edge in indoor, but that Nadal at least used to have a massive edge in outdoor hard courts prior to 2017? This is from the wikipedia page on the rivalry:

Head-to-head tallies[edit]
The following is a breakdown of their head-to-head results:

• All matches: Nadal, 23–15
  • Clay courts: Nadal, 13–2
  • Grass courts: Federer, 2–1
  • Hard courts: Federer, 11–9
    • Outdoor: Nadal, 8–6* (This used to be 8-2 prior to 2017)
    • Indoor: Federer, 5–1

1. Talking about not knowing what you are writing.

You wrote "Federer's backhand", when you previously wrote about Federer's forehand.

I bolded extra this statement the second time I asked you about it, just to make sure that you have no frecking idea.

2. I am not saying this and that has not been a point of contention until you mentioned it just now.

Again, you have no idea what is being said and written, including from yourself.

3. Third time, you don't understand that the indoor - outdoor debate is irrelevant, without specifying the conditions that you are comparing.

Three strikes, and you continue to deliver.

 

[abmk]

@abmk How did Fed's opponents perform in USO '10 & '11?

Note that 2011 surface+conditions were slower than usual.

Djoko in the USO 11 semi :

https://web.archive.org/web/2011092...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day19/1601ms.html

102 winners+errors forced from Federer to 35 UEs, a ratio of 2.91. A top notch performance obviously.

Tsonga slightly below par :

45 winners+forced errors to 34 UEs (a ratio of 1.32, would be more if not for the slowness of the USO 11 in comparision to other years)

https://web.archive.org/web/2011092...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day17/1502ms.html

On a subjective note, this was a very Sampras like performance from fed with 1-2 punches. didnt give tsonga much rhythm/breathing space. Learnt from his mistake at Wim 11.

Cilic put in a good enough performance :

80 winners+forced errors to 44 UEs (a ratio of 1.81)

https://web.archive.org/web/2011093...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day12/1305ms.html

in USO 2010 :

Djokovic :

97 winners+forced errors to 38 UEs (a ratio of 2.55). A pretty good performance.

https://web.archive.org/web/2010091...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day19/1602ms.html

Soderling :

49 winners+forced errors to 32 UEs (a ratio of 1.53). I'd say this was a decent performance considering match was played under quite windy conditions.

https://web.archive.org/web/2010091...n.org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day16/1504ms.html


Don't think there are any other matches worth mentioning as far as difficulty goes (either name or form-wise)

 

[TheFifthSet]

Nadal is 10-22 in non-clay finals against top 10 players. Yet, here we are blissfully awarding him three non-clay slams in a row, and just assuming he would beat the likes of Murray/Federer on slow/fast hc and also Tsonga/Federer on grass.

 

[fedfan39]

And today:


How to contradict and deceive 101 *thumbs up*

This post has nothing to do with Nadal's draws but your hypocrisy changing your tone when it suits your favourite player Novak Djokovic. Atleast stop pretending to be fanboy of a player you are clearly not a fan of like others in the past did (RF-18, Checkmate). There are quite a few others as well who are posting absolute garbage since Fed's 2017 resurgence posing as "Federer fans".

Granted, those were hyperboles and if someone had taken me to task, I would have retracted after looking at the data in plain sight.

I am basically a 39 year old professional. If you expect me to be a typical “fanboy” that I am not. It is clear that arguing against juveniles whose harmones are raging and do not find a suitable “landing place” is a massive waste of time.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Granted, those were hyperboles and if someone had taken me to task, I would have retracted after looking at the data in plain sight.

I am basically a 39 year old professional. If you expect me to be a typical “fanboy” that I am not. It is clear that arguing against juveniles whose harmones are raging and do not find a suitable “landing place” is a massive waste of time.

You should have exited while you are behind:

 

[Neil_Fedfan]

Granted, those were hyperboles and if someone had taken me to task, I would have retracted after looking at the data in plain sight.

Your posts comes across as fanboying Djokovic to a great extent which is clear to anyone not wearing a rose tinted glass. We are all biased (to some degree) fans in this tennis forum arguing for our favourite player but not all of us pretenders trying to pose as a player's fan we don't have any liking to.

It is clear that arguing against juveniles whose harmones are raging and do not find a suitable “landing place” is a massive waste of time.

Clearly the sentiment is mutual

 

[JackGates]

Nadal is 10-22 in non-clay finals against top 10 players. Yet, here we are blissfully awarding him three non-clay slams in a row, and just assuming he would beat the likes of Murray/Federer on slow/fast hc and also Tsonga/Federer on grass.

Damn, that's bad. Because non clay is like 75% of the tour.
I bet even Fed on clay has a lot better stats in clay finals.
Proably 14-10 or something and probably nine of those losses are versus Nadal, I bet Fed is 15-2 on clay finals versus the rest of the field.

 

[rushhr]

this is like worrying that bill gates not being the richest person in the world anymore (even though he actually still is, stocks and karma combined).

this i why we're still poor (me at least)

 

[fedfan39]

Your posts comes across as fanboying Djokovic to a great extent which is clear to anyone not wearing a rose tinted glass. We are all biased (to some degree) fans in this tennis forum arguing for our favourite player but not all of us pretenders trying to pose as a player's fan we don't have any liking to.


Clearly the sentiment is mutual

So, humor me.

I said: Djokovic's defeats of Nadal were more impactful than his defeats of Federer.

Where is the fanboy bit?

I have said nowhere Djokovic is greater than either Fedal.

I am comparing 2 different rivalries. In fact the position that Djokovic hurt Federer "more" lessens Federer's achievements. I am saying Djokovic beat an old Federer and that's not as impactful as him beating the young bull. This position is consistent for a Fed fan.

Don't feel bad though. 99 percent or more humans fail at interpretation and comprehension. How is that number for another stat?