How can Nadal be considered the man to beat after two rounds in the Australian Open?

[AM95]

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/blogs/2011-01-21/201101211295565890172.html

Does this make sense?

Sure Nadal is playing great at the moment, he's lost only five games I believe. But seriously, compare the quality of players Fed and Nadal faced. Lacko and Daniel are in the same class, although Lacko managed to bagel Nadal (sick or not sick we dont know). Simon is several classes above Sweeting though. In all honesty I dont think anyone can debate against that. He takes Fed to five, and all of a sudden nadal is a favorite because he beat a guy ranked outside the top 100. What now? he beats Bernard Tomic and is suddenly the best guy in the tourney?

For the record: I dont feel that either Nadal or Federer are the top guys at this tourney. Murray is a contended like it or not, and guys like Soderling and Berdych are dangerous.

My point: To early to tell who's the man to beat, and I certainly would not put my cards on Nadal who is beating guys barely if not outside of the top 100.

 

[Max G.]

I think it's not so much that Nadal put up such an impressive showing (he's been flawless, but that's to be expected) but that Federer didn't.

The "guy to beat" coming in was going to be either Nadal or Federer. And now Federer has shown weakness - he took 5 sets to beat Simon, who he could have beaten in straights. So that makes Nadal the guy to beat.

Don't read too much into it. The tournament goes on and there's still a bunch of matches to play, who the reporters are calling "The guy to beat" doesn't really affect anything.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

lol. 14-8. Nadal owns Federer.

 

[veroniquem]

Well, he's #1 for a start and he won the last 3 slams for seconds. Of course there are other very strong contenders but it's not like Nadal's name is popping out of the blue.

 

[AM95]

lol. 14-8. Nadal owns Federer.

i wont feed the troll. but...

16-9. Federer owns Nadal LOL

Well, he's #1 for a start and he won the last 3 slams for seconds. Of course there are other very strong contenders but it's not like Nadal's name is popping out of the blue.

im not saying it is. but i going into the tournament the bookies placed nadal and federer at equal odds. after the simon match federer's odds dipped. i find that stupid because simon is a former top 10 player, and as of late he has been. meanwhile nadal has gone up because hes dominated top 100 opponents confused.

 

[Messarger]

Who considers the favourite after 2 rounds? Federer has been tested and pass the test. Let's reserve our judgement until Nadal is tested. I wouldn read too much into the bookie odds tbh.

 

[ollinger]

Trust your own eyes. Having seen all their matches thus far, my eyes tell me Nadal looks unbeatable. And 16-9 means nothing when one guy's been around five years longer than the other; Nadal is presently ahead of Fed's slam pace age-adjusted.

 

[The-Champ]

It's hard to judge how Nadal is playing right now. 1st round, a cripple. 2nd round, a player who was just happy to be on the same court.


I think Djokovic and Murray are playing better followed by Federer. Federer showed mental fortitude in defeating an inspired Simon.

 

[bolo]

Trust your own eyes. Having seen all their matches thus far, my eyes tell me Nadal looks unbeatable. And 16-9 means nothing when one guy's been around five years longer than the other; Nadal is presently ahead of Fed's slam pace age-adjusted.

"age-adjusted" - That's blashphemy! You are flying close to the sun here my friend. :shock:

 

[DownTheLine]

lol. 14-8. Nadal owns Federer.

So by that you're saying the Simon is better then Federer? Murray is better then Federer? This record crap needs to stop.

16>0 16>0 16>9

 

[Messarger]

Trust your own eyes. Having seen all their matches thus far, my eyes tell me Nadal looks unbeatable. And 16-9 means nothing when one guy's been around five years longer than the other; Nadal is presently ahead of Fed's slam pace age-adjusted.

It's easy to look unbeatable against an injured Daniel and Ryan freakin' Sweeting. Some of Nadal's backhands were dropping short in the Sweeting match...

 

[DownTheLine]

lol. 14-8. Nadal owns Federer.

Also Davydenko leads Nadal 6-4


Federer leads Davydenko 15-2

 

[Manus Domini]

I think it's not so much that Nadal put up such an impressive showing (he's been flawless, but that's to be expected) but that Federer didn't.

The "guy to beat" coming in was going to be either Nadal or Federer. And now Federer has shown weakness - he took 5 sets to beat Simon, who he could have beaten in straights. So that makes Nadal the guy to beat.

Don't read too much into it. The tournament goes on and there's still a bunch of matches to play, who the reporters are calling "The guy to beat" doesn't really affect anything.

actually, Federer has never beaten Simon, see here

Fed expected it to be long against Simon. Sweeting isn't even close to Simon's level

There is a huge difference between #34 and someone outside top 50 when it comes to playing them slam mentality (for most part)

 

[cc0509]

Well, unless one lives under a rock, one would know that Nadal is the man to beat(whether you are a Nadal fan or not.) He is number 1 in the world. Enough said.

 

[JustBob]

Nadal might very well be "the man to beat", but basing that prediction solely on the 2 matches played so far, like that article does, is just silly:

Nevertheless Rafa has had the perfect start to his Australian Open campaign and based on the opening round matches he is definitely the one to beat.

Yeah he demolished two crappy opponents, but what does that tell us about his current form? Not much until he faces a tougher opponent.

And since that article was written by a "fan blogger", I'm going to take a wild guess... he's really a "Rafa fan blogger".

 

[Ronaldo]

To be the Man, you must beat the Man. Rafa is da Man.

 

[MichaelNadal]

To be the Man, you must beat the Man. Rafa is da Man.

 

[drakulie]

Well, he's #1 for a start and he won the last 3 slams for seconds. Of course there are other very strong contenders but it's not like Nadal's name is popping out of the blue.

agree!!!!!!!!!

vamos!

 

[cknobman]

Depends on the context its being spoken.

If someone says that in context of how everyone has played in this tournament so far then I would say that the comment is premature. Saying the comment based of the last year then yes you could say that.

 

[iriraz]

I don`t think if a top player goes to 5 sets in first week changes if he is favourite or not.As long as he goes through then everything is ok. Nadal played two 5 setters last year at Wimbledon and still managed to win it in the end.So as long as Federer or Nadal win they are still favourites regardless of how they won their match.

 

[billnepill]

Of course, the first 2 matches are not telling, since Daniel only showed up to cash the 20 K. And Sweeting is .. well, I don't know what he is.

So to base your conclusion solely on those matches is a bit ********.

Fact remains though:

Nadal is the big favorite to win the AO. In the next couple of years at least, he will be the man to beat at every GS.

 

[amaze]

Rafa will defeat Tomic and that would mean he's unstoppable. Mark my words.

 

[Manus Domini]

Of course, the first 2 matches are not telling, since Daniel only showed up to cash the 20 K. And Sweeting is .. well, I don't know what he is.

So to base your conclusion solely on those matches is a bit ********.

Fact remains though:

Nadal is the big favorite to win the AO. In the next couple of years at least, he will be the man to beat at every GS.

My favorite was from the Star Ledger last sunday. I think it said something like Nadal was the fav to win, and Fed was barely a contender

 

[Ronaldo]

Ty, pity Ric Flair did not become Mayor of the Queen City.