If you could change the outcome of any point in tennis history..

[Sysyphus]

It's not mental, if it was, Federer would have problems with a lot more guys than Nadal. Rafa's game is just way too physical for Fed over long matches. It may have become mental after a while, but that's not why it's hard for him to beat Nadal. The same way Djokovic is really the only guy that can get in Nadal's head... at the end of the day it's because his game itself is the only one that can cause Nadal to get out of his comfort zone on a regular basis. The same is true for Nadal with Federer, his style doesn't let Fed do what he wants.

While I agree that match-up dynamics and game style is what affects this the most, the bolded is a completely unfounded inference. That people can have mental blocks or fears connected to very specific things but not to other similar things, is psychology abc. I find it hard to deny that the mental aspect plays a slight part in the match-up, even though it is not the dominating factor, especially given the extent of the game that sits between the ears.

 

[Sirius Black]

It's not mental, if it was, Federer would have problems with a lot more guys than Nadal. Rafa's game is just way too physical for Fed over long matches. It may have become mental after a while, but that's not why it's hard for him to beat Nadal. The same way Djokovic is really the only guy that can get in Nadal's head... at the end of the day it's because his game itself is the only one that can cause Nadal to get out of his comfort zone on a regular basis. The same is true for Nadal with Federer, his style doesn't let Fed do what he wants.

It's all mental. If you can't figure that out then you've never played the game.

 

[Sysyphus]

Fed's mental weakness again highlighted in US Open semi when Djokovic hit his lucky winner on match point. If that happened to Nadal, Nadal's brain would say, "I still have a match point. You had to have incredible luck to save the first one. That won't happen again." Whereas Fed's brain says: "That was lucky. This match should be over. I should have won. This is not fair. There is no justice. I don't even want to be out here anymore. I give up."

I loled hard. This exactly how I would imagine it. He probably thought something along these lines: "It's an disgrace, a outrage, an scandal!"

 

[Sysyphus]

It's all mental. If you can't figure that out then you've never played the game.

While I wouldn't take it that far, you've certainly got a point. Every match-up at a high level (heck, even at low levels too) includes mental dynamics that will have an effect in some way. To deny that this is the case with Fed-Nads would be absurd.

 

[Sirius Black]

While I wouldn't take it that far, you've certainly got a point. Every match-up at a high level (heck, even at low levels too) includes mental dynamics that will have an effect in some way. To deny that this is the case with Fed-Nads would be absurd.

Federer definitely has the game to go toe to toe with Nadal; if you can't see that, get out.

 

[Sysyphus]

Federer definitely has the game to go toe to toe with Nadal; if you can't see that, get out.

For sure. But wouldn't you agree that their game-styles play a big part too? I mean, it must surely – Nads troubled Fed from the very beginning.

 

[Sirius Black]

For sure. But wouldn't you agree that their game-styles play a big part too? I mean, it must surely – Nads troubled Fed from the very beginning.

Yes, and at the beginning Federer faired better, right? The matches were very competitive. Today, not so much, and I think it's a mental block more than anything else. Probably a little late for some sports psychology, eh?

 

[beast of mallorca]

O

Fed also has shown mental weakness against Murray and Djokovic. He rarely wins close matches against these main rivals. He needs to beat them handily, so nerves don't come as much into play.

Fed's mental weakness again highlighted in US Open semi when Djokovic hit his lucky winner on match point. If that happened to Nadal, Nadal's brain would say, "I still have a match point. You had to have incredible luck to save the first one. That won't happen again." Whereas Fed's brain says: "That was lucky. This match should be over. I should have won. This is not fair. There is no justice. I don't even want to be out here anymore. I give up." Again, Fed didn't suddenly get tired. He just choked.

Best post in this thread........

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Rafa being healthy for AO 2014 final..

 

[Beacon Hill]

Why should he have not lost to Murray in any major finals? In the 2 he lost to him, Djokovic was ranked #2 and #1 respectively to Murray's #3 and #2 so there was only ever one ranking place between them! Murray was a top player with a good hardcourt and grasscourt record against Djokovic and was always threatening to break through on the biggest stages. It was certainly no shame for Djokovic to lose to Murray. He wasn't exactly playing some scrub from the lower ends of the rankings, was he?

No shame in it. I just believe Djokovic was the better player and should not have lost. Yes, only one or two spots different in the rankings, but that does not tell the story. Chang was one spot below Sampras.

 

[Beacon Hill]

How exactly "should" Djokovic have 2 or 3 French Opens by now? :lol: terrible quote.

Terrible quote? Bit unnecessary in an otherwise civil exchange. Also, not really a quote.

Yes, two or three. The year he was a god and lost to Fed in the semis and had owned Nadal on clay in recent previous tournaments is one. Touching the net on a sitter overhead. That's two. He didn't bring his A game this year. That could have been three. If, earlier in his career, he had discovered the incapacitating properties of gluten, it could have been more.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No shame in it. I just believe Djokovic was the better player and should not have lost. Yes, only one or two spots different in the rankings, but that does not tell the story. Chang was one spot below Sampras.

Yeah but Murray > Chang. Also, Chang barely ever beat Sampras on the big stage.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Lol, you really don't wanna see Novak win that tournament do you MN?! :lol:

He can win it if he wants to. I just don't see how he "should have" had 2-3 right now, hilarious.

For sure. But wouldn't you agree that their game-styles play a big part too? I mean, it must surely – Nads troubled Fed from the very beginning.

Exactly, that's all I'm saying. Nadal's GAME is the main problem for Federer. He's been beaten by plenty of guys. How many are in his head? Why just Rafa? Because Nadal's GAME takes him out of his comfort zone every match. It ain't the pirate pants and sleeveless shirt that allowed Nadal into Federer's head.

 

[The_Order]

He can win it if he wants to. I just don't see how he "should have" had 2-3 right now, hilarious.

Novak's only chances were 2009 and 2013. He blew both of them.

Exactly, that's all I'm saying. Nadal's GAME is the main problem for Federer. He's been beaten by plenty of guys. How many are in his head? Why just Rafa? Because Nadal's GAME takes him out of his comfort zone every match. It ain't the pirate pants and sleeveless shirt that allowed Nadal into Federer's head.

They can't give Nadal's game any credit. To them, that's sacrilegious to Federer. How can the GOAT Federer's game be taken apart by the same guy so many times in majors? Well, it must be a mental thing, can't be that his perfect game has not been able to adapt to the opponent.

Nadal had a mental block against Novak for a year. But, Nadal found a way to overcome it, he changed his game up, improved the areas that Novak could exploit by changing his patterns of play and taking more risk with the FH utl and refining his bh and also, I think a big factor is patience. In 2011, it seemed that during the longer rallies, Nadal would run out of patience and make unforced errors, especially off the bh wing. Since AO12, that's changed as well.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Novak's only chances were 2009 and 2013. He blew both of them.




They can't give Nadal's game any credit. To them, that's sacrilegious to Federer. How can the GOAT Federer's game be taken apart by the same guy so many times in majors? Well, it must be a mental thing, can't be that his perfect game has not been able to adapt to the opponent.

Nadal had a mental block against Novak for a year. But, Nadal found a way to overcome it, he changed his game up, improved the areas that Novak could exploit by changing his patterns of play and taking more risk with the FH utl and refining his bh and also, I think a big factor is patience. In 2011, it seemed that during the longer rallies, Nadal would run out of patience and make unforced errors, especially off the bh wing. Since AO12, that's changed as well.

 

[Mainad]

No shame in it. I just believe Djokovic was the better player and should not have lost. Yes, only one or two spots different in the rankings, but that does not tell the story. Chang was one spot below Sampras.

I agree with you that Djokovic is the overall better player than Murray, his ranking and titles prove that. But on the occasions he lost to Murray, Murray was the better player. Murray has a good record against Djokovic on every surface but clay. He is 4-4 v Djokovic in HC finals and 1-0 in grasscourt finals (2-0 in overall H2H) so Murray already had a good record of beating Djokovic on hardcourt and grass prior to the 2 Slams he beat him in. So I disagree with you that Djokovic should not have lost to him because he was just up against the better player on the day.

 

[kandamrgam]

While I agree that match-up dynamics and game style is what affects this the most, the bolded is a completely unfounded inference. That people can have mental blocks or fears connected to very specific things but not to other similar things, is psychology abc. I find it hard to deny that the mental aspect plays a slight part in the match-up, even though it is not the dominating factor, especially given the extent of the game that sits between the ears.

It's all mental. If you can't figure that out then you've never played the game.

I dont think MN meant there is no mental part. He was emphasizing the relevance of match-up. Federer developed a mental block not merely being a mental midget but after repeatedly failing to Nadal. It was the game first, then the mental part. And from there it affects his game even more. It acts like a vicious circle from that point.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I dont think MN meant there is no mental part. He was emphasizing the relevance of match-up. Federer developed a mental block not merely being a mental midget but after repeatedly failing to Nadal. It was the game first, then the mental part. And from there it affects his game even more. It acts like a vicious circle from that point.

This exactly. I think it became mental especially when Federer did try different things, like net-rushing and S&V and did even worse (FO 2008 ) There's nothing wrong with them admitting that Nadal's game is what really laid the base for Federer's problems with him, the guy is a beast in BO5's and I've always maintained that his game is just much too physical for Fed. Look at the 2014/2012 AO's. Almost brutal.

 

[Sysyphus]

Exactly, that's all I'm saying. Nadal's GAME is the main problem for Federer. He's been beaten by plenty of guys. How many are in his head? Why just Rafa? Because Nadal's GAME takes him out of his comfort zone every match. It ain't the pirate pants and sleeveless shirt that allowed Nadal into Federer's head.

I dont think MN meant there is no mental part. He was emphasizing the relevance of match-up. Federer developed a mental block not merely being a mental midget but after repeatedly failing to Nadal. It was the game first, then the mental part. And from there it affects his game even more. It acts like a vicious circle from that point.

This exactly. I think it became mental especially when Federer did try different things, like net-rushing and S&V and did even worse (FO 2008 ) There's nothing wrong with them admitting that Nadal's game is what really laid the base for Federer's problems with him, the guy is a beast in BO5's and I've always maintained that his game is just much too physical for Fed. Look at the 2014/2012 AO's. Almost brutal.

Nah guys, this is what I responded to and refuted.

It's not mental, if it was, Federer would have problems with a lot more guys than Nadal. Rafa's game is just way too physical for Fed over long matches. It may have become mental after a while, but that's not why it's hard for him to beat Nadal.

Of course it was the game at first. I haven't denied it. But the fact that it started out with purely game-related problems doesn't negate the fact that mental problems that have an effect beyond what is purely explained by game have developed from there. And there is every reason to assume that this has happened to some degree.
To make blanket statements like "it's not mental, if it was then blabla" and "it may have gotten mental, but that's not why it's hard for him" is just silly and uninformed. Mentality plays a part in every tennis match, some way or another, and it clearly does in this match-up too.

An as an aside, I disagree that it is just because Rafa is "too physical" or whatever. At best, that is a generic oversimplification. It's mostly an issue of Rafa taking Roger out of his comfort-zone on his strokes more than anyone, and the effect this plays is obvious when you look at how different their matches pan out on different surfaces.

 

[kandamrgam]

Nah guys, this is what I responded to and refuted.



Of course it was the game at first. I haven't denied it. But the fact that it started out with purely game-related problems doesn't negate the fact that mental problems that have an effect beyond what is purely explained by game have developed from there. And there is every reason to assume that this has happened to some degree.
To make blanket statements like "it's not mental, if it was then blabla" and "it may have gotten mental, but that's not why it's hard for him" is just silly and uninformed. Mentality plays a part in every tennis match, some way or another, and it clearly does in this match-up too.

An as an aside, I disagree that it is just because Rafa is "too physical" or whatever. At best, that is a generic oversimplification. It's mostly an issue of Rafa taking Roger out of his comfort-zone on his strokes more than anyone, and the effect this plays is obvious when you look at how different their matches pan out on different surfaces.

1. Tbh MN didnt make any blanket statements, at best he jumbled the order of his sentences. It's amazing you could read them all and still attack his 'not mental' part of his comment. You really ought to beef up comprehension skills.

2. While I can see quite a blanket statement from you but I will reserve my judgment till you give your clarification. So if Federer's mental frailty is not only about the game then what is it? You allude something but dont explain at all.

3. How exactly is Nadal's game different on different surfaces? On faster surfaces he tries to attack more but other than I dont see big differences.

 

[addictedtotopspin]

LOL

You compare stabbing Monica Seles with one mistake made by Pascal Maria? I'm speechless.

You really think that Novak would have 10 slams if he won that day, and Nadal wouldn't win any in two years? You are really deluded.

Never seen bigger troll than him.
Just putting shame on all Novak fans cus of him...cant belive what he is talking.

Level of Nadal tennis in 5th set was smth Novak will never reach, on any surface.No chanse Rafa could lost it, altough he should finish it in 4 sets.
Live with that!

 

[addictedtotopspin]

Terrible quote? Bit unnecessary in an otherwise civil exchange. Also, not really a quote.

Yes, two or three. The year he was a god and lost to Fed in the semis and had owned Nadal on clay in recent previous tournaments is one. Touching the net on a sitter overhead. That's two. He didn't bring his A game this year. That could have been three. If, earlier in his career, he had discovered the incapacitating properties of gluten, it could have been more.

He didint bring his "A game" to a GS final?? He doesnt deserve it then.
2011...He lost to Fed? He didint even reach the final.Not even worth discusing.

other are not also worth discusing at all, clear victories.

 

[Sysyphus]

1. Tbh MN didnt make any blanket statements, at best he jumbled the order of his sentences. It's amazing you could read them all and still attack his 'not mental' part of his comment. You really ought to beef up comprehension skills.

Ha, the foolishness runs high. In the quote I presented, he said twice that mental problems haven't had an effect. If he says otherwise afterwards, then that's just logical inconsistency. What I "attacked" was legitimately faulty statements, and I have already pointed it out sufficiently, so if anyone needs to improve on comprehension, I'm afraid it is you.

2. While I can see quite a blanket statement from you but I will reserve my judgment till you give your clarification. So if Federer's mental frailty is not only about the game then what is it? You allude something but dont explain at all.

Well, as I wrote, it is very possible to start having problems with a game style, and then develop mental issues regarding these problems which in the end amount to an effect that goes beyond what can be accounted for just by the difficulties with game-style. There are also SEVERAL other possible reasons for developing mental blocks/problems with a specific players. I can't know definitively the cause or structure of these, and neither can you. But it is irrelevant anyway, to observe the function of the problems is what's relevant, not discerning the cause or structure of them. So you haven't refuted anything I said, or added anything relevant :-?

3. How exactly is Nadal's game different on different surfaces? On faster surfaces he tries to attack more but other than I dont see big differences.

For one, bounce of surface significantly affects the effect Nadal's game has on Federer.

 

[kandamrgam]

Ha, the foolishness runs high. In the quote I presented, he said twice that mental problems haven't had an effect. If he says otherwise afterwards, then that's just logical inconsistency. What I "attacked" was legitimately faulty statements, and I have already pointed it out sufficiently, so if anyone needs to improve on comprehension, I'm afraid it is you.



Well, as I wrote, it is very possible to start having problems with a game style, and then develop mental issues regarding these problems which in the end amount to an effect that goes beyond what can be accounted for just by the difficulties with game-style. There are also SEVERAL other possible reasons for developing mental blocks/problems with a specific players. I can't know definitively the cause or structure of these, and neither can you. But it is irrelevant anyway, to observe the function of the problems is what's relevant, not discerning the cause or structure of them. So you haven't refuted anything I said, or added anything relevant :-?



For one, bounce of surface significantly affects the effect Nadal's game has on Federer.

1. Haha.. What a nutcase. You merely attacked a guy for getting two sentences in wrong order. Not surprising from a guy who checks for dictionary than context.

2. Epic choking. What are the possible ones eh? Big butt allergy? Left-bicepophobia?

Funny is that a guy can play out the "possible" several causes for Federer's mental frailty to be true. But yet one shot apiece at WC decides the speed of the turf.

3. I see. I thought you meant Nadal approaches differently.

 

[Backspin1183]

Federer to convert one of his 2 MPs of USO 2011 semi final. Had that happened, today either Nadal would have 15 Slams or Federer would have 18. And at the start of each season Djokovic would be like "RG and US Open are my top goals for this year"

 

[Sysyphus]

1. Haha.. What a nutcase. You merely attacked a guy for getting two sentences in wrong order. Not surprising from a guy who checks for dictionary than context.

Attack? I simply stated a disagreement with a passage that I thought was plainly wrong. And regarding your ad hominems, I've got nothing against a bit of snark, but when you can't actually refute anything I write, they just seem a bit dull
Btw, I like the irony in attacking someone for supposedly attacking someone ;-)

2. Epic choking. What are the possible ones eh? Big butt allergy? Left-bicepophobia? .

Ramble on.

Funny is that a guy can play out the "possible" several causes for Federer's mental frailty to be true. But yet decides one shot a piece at WC decides the outcome of .

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Federer to convert one of his 2 MPs of USO 2011 semi final. Had that happened, today either Nadal would have 15 Slams or Federer would have 18. And at the start of each season Djokovic would be like "RG and US Open are my top goals for this year"

Thank God Novak crashed the Fedal party once more. 2011 belonged to him, it would have been an injustice if he'd finished that season with only 2 majors.

 

[Backspin1183]

Thank God Novak crashed the Fedal party once more. 2011 belonged to him, it would have been an injustice if he'd finished that season with only 2 majors.

I still can't believe Nadal let his former pigeon beat him everywhere. That was the most mentally fragile Nadal I ever saw. I don't think Federer would let any pigeon of his beat him in such big finals.

 

[Beacon Hill]

He can win it if he wants to. I just don't see how he "should have" had 2-3 right now, hilarious.



Exactly, that's all I'm saying. Nadal's GAME is the main problem for Federer. He's been beaten by plenty of guys. How many are in his head? Why just Rafa? Because Nadal's GAME takes him out of his comfort zone every match. It ain't the pirate pants and sleeveless shirt that allowed Nadal into Federer's head.

Really, it's hilarious?

Novak has been a top player for many years and has repeatedly shown he can beat Nadal on clay. A horrendous error touching the net cost him a match against Nadal, and likely the title. A year where he played some of the best tennis in the history of the sport he was flat for a match against Federer or he had an excellent chance of winning the title.

And you claim it's hilarious to suggest Novak should have some FO titles? No, hilarious is if someone suggested Karlovic should have some FO titles. When one suggests that a No. 1 player who is an excellent player on clay and who has beaten all the best clay court players of his time should have FO titles, it's actually reasonable rather than hilarious. If that suggestion is hilarious, what's left for you when you want to describe a truly unreasonable suggestion? You've used up all your hyperbole.

 

[Beacon Hill]

Novak's only chances were 2009 and 2013. He blew both of them.




They can't give Nadal's game any credit. To them, that's sacrilegious to Federer. How can the GOAT Federer's game be taken apart by the same guy so many times in majors? Well, it must be a mental thing, can't be that his perfect game has not been able to adapt to the opponent.

Nadal had a mental block against Novak for a year. But, Nadal found a way to overcome it, he changed his game up, improved the areas that Novak could exploit by changing his patterns of play and taking more risk with the FH utl and refining his bh and also, I think a big factor is patience. In 2011, it seemed that during the longer rallies, Nadal would run out of patience and make unforced errors, especially off the bh wing. Since AO12, that's changed as well.

I haven't read anyone on this thread not give Nadal's game credit. I've only heard applause for Nadal's mental game, and comments that Fed's menatl game is weaker than it should be. So you've created something that doesn't exist, and then argued against it.

 

[E La Banana]

I explained 100 times what Pascal Maria did and how he robbed Novak on that sad day for tennis history and that is not that net call. You would know if you even watched the match. If you didn't search function of this nice forum is your friend.

REPEATING MANY TIMES THE SAME BULLSH*T DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE

now, if you reached a 100 times, it may affect your mental health

or vice versa

 

[Deleted member 21996]

This is the second thing I would do. Just stop Pascal Maria from showing up on Chartrier that day. Novak would have 10 slams, while Nadal would be at 11 now if Pascal Maria's robbery was stopped on that day.

However, before that, I would stop Gunther Parche from attacking and stabbing Monica Seles. It would be Seles 16 slams, Graf 15 slams now and no one would ever consider Graf as GOAT.

These are the two most terrible things that ever happened in tennis history on tennis court. The world would be a much better place if these two things were prevented.

 

[Beacon Hill]

This exactly. I think it became mental especially when Federer did try different things, like net-rushing and S&V and did even worse (FO 2008 ) There's nothing wrong with them admitting that Nadal's game is what really laid the base for Federer's problems with him, the guy is a beast in BO5's and I've always maintained that his game is just much too physical for Fed. Look at the 2014/2012 AO's. Almost brutal.

For a long time, many people criticized Fed for not doing anything different to counteract Nadal's game, so it's interesting you are saying the opposite. For years I mostly watched Fed not run around his backhand (especially on return of serve when 100% of Nadal's serves went to exactly the same location), not get to the net, not vary his game at all. I watched him have a defeatist attitude, and play many levels below is normal level. Yes, the high backhands are tough. But I watched him serve poorly, continually miss forehands he doesn't usually miss, etc. Sounds like a little bit of matchup problems and a whole lot of mental problems to me.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

oh look WOLFIE is back with yet another nickname...

 

[Beacon Hill]

He didint bring his "A game" to a GS final?? He doesnt deserve it then.
2011...He lost to Fed? He didint even reach the final.Not even worth discusing.

other are not also worth discusing at all, clear victories.

Thank you for informing us all what is worth and not worth discussing. I think we all have benefited tremendously from your decree.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

REPEATING MANY TIMES THE SAME BULLSH*T DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE

now, if you reached a 100 times, it may affect your mental health

or vice versa

I do agree here.. pascal didnt have a ny big impact of the match outcome.. its just that djokovic isnt a big match player outside 2011 early 2012, but chico cant cope with that..


If anything

Roger Choked in USO sf 2011
Rafa Choked in AO 2012 Final

Nole could very well have only 5 slams at this moment

 

[Mustard]

I still can't believe Nadal let his former pigeon beat him everywhere. That was the most mentally fragile Nadal I ever saw. I don't think Federer would let any pigeon of his beat him in such big finals.

Nadal eventually found the answer, and has now won his last 4 matches in majors against Djokovic.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I still can't believe Nadal let his former pigeon beat him everywhere. That was the most mentally fragile Nadal I ever saw. I don't think Federer would let any pigeon of his beat him in such big finals.

Was Djokovic Nadal's pigeon back then? I can't even recall what the H2H was before 2011.

 

[Sysyphus]

Was Djokovic Nadal's pigeon back then? I can't even recall what the H2H was before 2011.

No, he's wrong on that one I'd say. Novak led him by 7-5 on hards before 2011. Nadal won everything on grass and clay though, and of course, they met A LOT on clay. So one could make a case for Novak being his "pigeon" on those surfaces I guess.

 

[cc0509]

No, he's wrong on that one I'd say. Novak led him by 7-5 on hards before 2011. Nadal won everything on grass and clay though, and of course, they met A LOT on clay. So one could make a case for Novak being his "pigeon" on those surfaces I guess.

Was the 2010 USO played on grass or clay? I could have sworn Nadal won that one too.

Prior to 2011 Nadal had never lost to Djokovic in a slam on any surface. He was Nadal's pigeon at the slams prior to 2011.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Was the 2010 USO played on grass or clay? I could have sworn Nadal won that one too.

Prior to 2011 Nadal had never lost to Djokovic in a slam on any surface. He was Nadal's pigeon at the slams prior to 2011.

As you know all too well though, the slams aren't the only tournaments on the ATP.

 

[Sirius Black]

As you know all too well though, the slams aren't the only tournaments on the ATP.

#Majoring in pseudoscience.

 

[Sysyphus]

Was the 2010 USO played on grass or clay? I could have sworn Nadal won that one too.

Prior to 2011 Nadal had never lost to Djokovic in a slam on any surface. He was Nadal's pigeon at the slams prior to 2011.

Lol, please read the prior sentence before you turn on the condecension Novak led 7-5 on hards, which means that Rafa obviously won matches there too. "Rafa won everything on grass and clay" means that he lost no matches there to Novak on those surfaces.

Calling him Rafa's pigeon in slams because he hadn't yet beaten him there at that time is a bit harsh, no?:-? The lone two times they played outside of RG, he won a set. Not exactly sufficient material to label someone a pigeon. Berdych is the example of a pigeon.

 

[Sysyphus]

As you know all too well though, the slams aren't the only tournaments on the ATP.

Actually, the only matches worth anything on the tour are slam finals, and the only players who matter in those finals are the winners.

#Majoring in majors #PTL #RN-4ever







j/k ;-)

 

[Djokovic2011]

Lol, please read the prior sentence before you turn on the condecension Novak led 7-5 on hards, which means that Rafa obviously won matches there too. "Rafa won everything on grass and clay" means that he lost no matches there to Novak on those surfaces.

Calling him Rafa's pigeon in slams because he hadn't yet beaten him there at that time is a bit harsh, no?:-? The lone two times they played outside of RG, he won a set. Not exactly sufficient material to label someone a pigeon. Berdych is the example of a pigeon.

It's a shame Nadal wasn't in Nole's half of the draw at the USO between 07-09. Oh well......

 

[Sirius Black]

Actually, the only matches worth anything on the tour are slam finals, and the only players who matter in those finals are the winners.

#Majoring in majors #PTL #RN-4ever







j/k ;-)

Silly twerkers and their pseudoscience.

 

[cc0509]

As you know all too well though, the slams aren't the only tournaments on the ATP.

And as you surely must know by now despite your baseless protests, they are clearly the most important tournaments and prior to 2011 the slam h2h between Nadal and Djokovic was 5-0 for Nadal. Yes, three of those slams took place at RG, but there was also a W match and a USO match both of which Djokovic lost.

 

[Djokovic2011]

And as you surely must know by now despite your baseless protests, they are clearly the most important tournaments and prior to 2011 the slam h2h between Nadal and Djokovic was 5-0 for Nadal. Yes, three of those slams took place at RG, but there was also a W match and a USO match both of which Djokovic lost.

Just as well 2011 happened then!

 

[Sirius Black]

It's a shame Nadal wasn't in Nole's half of the draw at the USO between 07-09. Oh well......

Unbelievable biased conspirators.

 

[cc0509]

Just as well 2011 happened then!

But what happened after 2011? It all started to revert back to the past in that AO 2012 final where it took Djokovic six hours to beat Nadal on a bloody hc. Then what happened since that 2012 match in their slam rivalry? :twisted:

Was 2011 an anomaly? :?: That is the big question. 2015 will give us some answers.