Is Nadal's grass peak a myth?

[JRAJ1988]

Like Tennis Sensation said, Nadal's grass court peak was 2007-2011

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Ignored and Reported.

10char

Careful what you wish for amigo.

 

[mike danny]

Rafa has almost always been in top form at Wimbledon when he has not been injured, like he was in 2012, 2013. 2007 was unfortunate with the twisted knee while he was dominating Fed in the final.

Look for another Rafa onslaught on the title now that Rafa appears healthier.

Rafael Nadal Says He Feels In Top Form Heading Into Wimbledon

"If you are going to play well on grass, the first thing you have to do is be in good condition physically, and I have not been in recent years

The Spanish star said his knee, which contributed to his early exits in London in 2012 and 2013, was better.

Nadal lost in the first round last year to Belgium's Steve Darcis.

"This year it hurts less than last year. I am feeling more positive when it comes to moving, bending and hitting the backhand," Nadal said.

Excuses and excuses for Nadal. He was fine in 2007. Otherwise he wouldn't have gotten 4 different break opportunities vs Fed. But Fed saved them all with brillian serving and never looked back after that

 

[mike danny]

Nadals 2013 USO Draw was better than alot of Feds draws:twisted:

That's a very good joke

 

[puiacalin91]

Have I gone back in time?

Nadal's injury excuses haven't held any clout in years. They have actually become a black mark on his sportsmanship and character.

do you think nadal makes up excuses because he can't stand to lose in good form?

 

[Federer20042006]

Kendrick
Youzhny
Soderling
Haase
Petzschner

 

[ultradr]

Last a few years, French was so important for him to cling to top echelon
of tennis, fighting with injuries.

Now that he has something like 9 French Open's, I have a feeling that he can
afford to focus more energy to Wimbledon.

I think he has a few more finals before the end of his career.

 

[BringBackSV]

IMO, it looks like Nadal was nothing more than a non-clay transitional champ.

By 2008, Federer was 27. That's a perfectly normal age to be declining.

But Nadal fans like to pick and choose his various 'surface peaks' by when he actually managed to win or look dominant.

2008-2010 (age 22-24) = grass peak
2005-2012 (age 19-26) = clay peak
2008 (or is it 2009?)-present (age 22-28 ) = HC peak

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And I bet you anything that, had Nadal lost to Djokovic at last year's USO final, his HC peak would be abbreviated to 2008 (2009?) -2010, the years he managed to win instead of lose in finals.

So is this what Fed fans are reduced to, arguing about whether or not Nadal had "peak years" at non clay court Grand Slams? The argument is not only pointless but it also reeks of desperation. He made 5 of 6 grass court finals, yes, you are right, he must not have had a "real peak". As we all know, Roger was facing much better opposition in his Wimby titles. I mean, beating a young and raw Rafa (a clay court specialist) for two titles is somehow more impressive. Then there was the completely one dimensional Roddick, or how about the win against a Murray who hadn't even developed the confidence to win Grand Slams. Yeah, that's an absolute murders row of finals opponents. I think it's safe to say that there is a myth of Roger Federer having a grass court peak. He really just benefited from frighteningly pathetic opposition.

Novak is a better HC player than Rafa, yet Rafa beat him twice on the surface in a GS. Fed is a better HC and grass player than Rafa yet Rafa beat him twice on those surfaces. Whocares if he had a 5 year peak at the USO?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

So is this what Fed fans are reduced to, arguing about whether or not Nadal had "peak years" at non clay court Grand Slams? The argument is not only pointless but it also reeks of desperation. He made 5 of 6 grass court finals, yes, you are right, he must not have had a "real peak". As we all know, Roger was facing much better opposition in his Wimby titles. I mean, beating a young and raw Rafa (a clay court specialist) for two titles is somehow more impressive. Then there was the completely one dimensional Roddick, or how about the win against a Murray who hadn't even developed the confidence to win Grand Slams. Yeah, that's an absolute murders row of finals opponents. I think it's safe to say that there is a myth of Roger Federer having a grass court peak. He really just benefited from frighteningly pathetic opposition.

Novak is a better HC player than Rafa, yet Rafa beat him twice on the surface in a GS. Fed is a better HC and grass player than Rafa yet Rafa beat him twice on those surfaces. Whocares if he had a 5 year peak at the USO?

I am arguing against the notion that his supposed grass peak was 2008-2010. He was just as good on grass in 2006, 2007, and 2011 as he was in 2008 and 2010. He just coincidentally won the finals between Federer's and Novak's primes.

Your and namelessone's lack of comprehension is embarrassing.

 

[Egoista]

nadal has faked everyone
was always a capable grass player

especially on the slower than hardcourt grass that is around these days

 

[BringBackSV]

You are entitled to make whatever argument you want on the matter but that doesn't make it credible. You are honestly going to argue that Rafa was as good on grass at 20 on grass as he was a few years later in 2008? You give zero evidence for your position and then laughably pretend that you are making a legitimate point. Logic would tell you that it is unlikely that Rafa was his best on grass at 20. How many Wimby titles did Roger win by 20? Logic would dictate that he would have still had room for improvement, which he did. The fact is that he beat a prime and peak Fed on grass in 2008. Fed was a lot closer to his best on grass in 2008 than Rafa was in 2006 on grass.

What does Novak have to do with this anyway? Is Novak a grass court monster because he beat Rafa there in 2011? Rafa was lucky to escape the incredible play of Novak on grass before 2011? Give me a break. Rafa was his best from 2007-2011 on grass but that doesn't mean that he was unbeatable there, obviously. The fact that he lost to Fed in 07 and to Novak in 11 doesn't prove your "point" at all. It's a reach at best and there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, however there is clearly something wrong with your ability to reason.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

You are entitled to make whatever argument you want on the matter but that doesn't make it credible. You are honestly going to argue that Rafa was as good on grass at 20 on grass as he was a few years later in 2008? You give zero evidence for your position and then laughably pretend that you are making a legitimate point. Logic would tell you that it is unlikely that Rafa was his best on grass at 20. How many Wimby titles did Roger win by 20? Logic would dictate that he would have still had room for improvement, which he did. The fact is that he beat a prime and peak Fed on grass in 2008. Fed was a lot closer to his best on grass in 2008 than Rafa was in 2006 on grass.

What does Novak have to do with this anyway? Is Novak a grass court monster because he beat Rafa there in 2011? Rafa was lucky to escape the incredible play of Novak on grass before 2011? Give me a break. Rafa was his best from 2007-2011 on grass but that doesn't mean that he was unbeatable there, obviously. The fact that he lost to Fed in 07 and to Novak in 11 doesn't prove your "point" at all. It's a reach at best and there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, however there is clearly something wrong with your ability to reason.

Explain why Nadal won 4/5 of his non-clay slams from 2008-2010 conveniently in the vacuum period between Federer an Djokovic

Because he only had declining Federer and Berdych to deal with. That's why.

Nadal is a defensive pusher whose defensive skills peaked early so the age of his peak compared to an aggressive shotmaker is irrelevant.

According to Nadal fans, Nadal was out of his grass peak by age 24

 

[Federer20042006]

You are entitled to make whatever argument you want on the matter but that doesn't make it credible. You are honestly going to argue that Rafa was as good on grass at 20 on grass as he was a few years later in 2008? You give zero evidence for your position and then laughably pretend that you are making a legitimate point. Logic would tell you that it is unlikely that Rafa was his best on grass at 20. How many Wimby titles did Roger win by 20? Logic would dictate that he would have still had room for improvement, which he did. The fact is that he beat a prime and peak Fed on grass in 2008. Fed was a lot closer to his best on grass in 2008 than Rafa was in 2006 on grass.

What does Novak have to do with this anyway? Is Novak a grass court monster because he beat Rafa there in 2011? Rafa was lucky to escape the incredible play of Novak on grass before 2011? Give me a break. Rafa was his best from 2007-2011 on grass but that doesn't mean that he was unbeatable there, obviously. The fact that he lost to Fed in 07 and to Novak in 11 doesn't prove your "point" at all. It's a reach at best and there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, however there is clearly something wrong with your ability to reason.

Federer was inconsistent on all surfaces prior to winning 2003 Wimbledon. It had nothing to do with "developing on grass." Players don't develop on grass - they play on it 1 month out of the season and then when they're done, it's 11 months of practicing and playing on HC and clay.

When Federer learned how to play consistent quality tennis at the pro level, that's when he was able to win on grass and every other surface.

 

[BringBackSV]

Explain why Roger won the majority of his majors before Rafa became more of an all court player and before Novak emerged? This notion by Fed fans that he was past his peak at 27 is ridiculous, even 28 is a pretty big stretch. The fact of the matter is, the end of Roger's "peak" seemed to coincide with the opposition level improving.

There is no doubt that Novak is a serious problem for Nadal and a better HC player. What exactly is your point though? Rafa has still beaten him twice on HC in GS finals. Roger had 3-4 year vaccuum without a great player on any other surface besides clay and you want to make a big deal because Roger was supposedly slightly declined and Novak was not quite at his peak yet for one to two years?

So because Rafa is defensive minded he must have peaked at 20 huh? Where do you come up with these empty arguments? Your logic is completely absent. Even if you wanted to argue that his movement was no better at 22 than at 20, certainly any honest observer can see that he added things to his game to make himself a more complete player. Murray is a pusher, I guess he's no better now than at 20. Novak must have peaked at 20 also, according to your brilliant logic about defensive players. You want to argue that Rafa didn't improve his offense and shot making since 20 go ahead but I hope you understand that you aren't actually being objective or reasonable.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Explain why Roger won the majority of his majors before Rafa became more of an all court player and before Novak emerged? This notion by Fed fans that he was past his peak at 27 is ridiculous, even 28 is a pretty big stretch. The fact of the matter is, the end of Roger's "peak" seemed to coincide with the opposition level improving.

There is no doubt that Novak is a serious problem for Nadal and a better HC player. What exactly is your point though? Rafa has still beaten him twice on HC in GS finals. Roger had 3-4 year vaccuum without a great player on any other surface besides clay and you want to make a big deal because Roger was supposedly slightly declined and Novak was not quite at his peak yet for one to two years?

So because Rafa is defensive minded he must have peaked at 20 huh? Where do you come up with these empty arguments? Your logic is completely absent. Even if you wanted to argue that his movement was no better at 22 than at 20, certainly any honest observer can see that he added things to his game to make himself a more complete player. Murray is a pusher, I guess he's no better now than at 20. Novak must have peaked at 20 also, according to your brilliant logic about defensive players. You want to argue that Rafa didn't improve his offense and shot making since 20 go ahead but I hope you understand that you aren't actually being objective or reasonable.

The difference is that Federer's peak (2003 Wimbledon to end of 2007) lasted 4.5 years. And 27 is historically the most common age to be declining.

Nadal's alleged grass peak spanned a total of 2 seasons

when he got to play declining Federer and Berdych. And was supposedly out of it by 24.

 

[BringBackSV]

Federer was inconsistent on all surfaces prior to winning 2003 Wimbledon. It had nothing to do with "developing on grass." Players don't develop on grass - they play on it 1 month out of the season and then when they're done, it's 11 months of practicing and playing on HC and clay.

When Federer learned how to play consistent quality tennis at the pro level, that's when he was able to win on grass and every other surface.

Fed's style is naturally more suited to grass and HC than Rafa yet even he needed to get better at 20. Rafa also need to get better at 20, which is to be expected. Certainly most people seem to acknowledge that he was more of a clay court specialist early on and that his tactics needed to be somewhat altered. The point though which is seemingly being lost on a few here is that it's ridiculous to expect a finished product from a 20 year old. Just because Rafa made a final in 2006 and 2007, does not mean that he didn't get better after that. The entire argument is silly and really just reeks of somebody wanting to defend Fed and put down his nemesis.

 

[oberyn]

I think both sides pretty much shift their definition of “peak” and “prime” to suit whatever argument they’re trying to make at that moment. I applaud you guys, because I’m just not capable of the mental gymnastics involved.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Fed's style is naturally more suited to grass and HC than Rafa yet even he needed to get better at 20. Rafa also need to get better at 20, which is to be expected. Certainly most people seem to acknowledge that he was more of a clay court specialist early on and that his tactics needed to be somewhat altered. The point though which is seemingly being lost on a few here is that it's ridiculous to expect a finished product from a 20 year old. Just because Rafa made a final in 2006 and 2007, does not mean that he didn't get better after that. The entire argument is silly and really just reeks of somebody wanting to defend Fed and put down his nemesis.

At least Federer's improvement was noticeable. He went from losing in the 1st round to winning it. Nadal went from losing in 5 to peak Federer to winning in 5 against post-prime Fed. No noticeable improvement whatsoever.

And what happened in 2011? He ran into the better player. Again.

I am willing to concede that 2006 was pre-prime, but 2007 and 2011 he was the same player.

 

[eliars]

Is it a myth that myths are reactualized through rituals? Why we all be drinkin' dat Blood of Lil' Baby Jesus? Why god, why

 

[BringBackSV]

The difference is that Federer's peak (2003 Wimbledon to end of 2007) lasted 4.5 years. And 27 is historically the most common age to be declining.

Nadal's alleged grass peak spanned a total of 2 seasons

when he got to play declining Federer and Berdych. And was supposedly out of it by 24.

Who was Roger beating in Wimby finals though during his "peak" ? A very young Rafa twice and Andy Roddick.If you don't think that's fortunate timing, I don't know what to tell you. He was certainly the beneficiary of a transitional period.

Every player is different but Roger was still a great player in his prime at 27. If you want to argue post 2009 that he was starting to decline, I'll buy it but arguing that Roger was just too far removed from his best at 27 is ridiculous.

Rafa's peak on grass is a lot more impressive than Roger's peak on clay, btw.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Who was Roger beating in Wimby finals though during his "peak" ? A very young Rafa twice and Andy Roddick.If you don't think that's fortunate timing, I don't know what to tell you. He was certainly the beneficiary of a transitional period.

Every player is different but Roger was still a great player in his prime at 27. If you want to argue post 2009 that he was starting to decline, I'll buy it but arguing that Roger was just too far removed from his best at 27 is ridiculous.

Rafa's peak on grass is a lot more impressive than Roger's peak on clay, btw.

No one cares about clay though. Either way, Federer managed to win RG during Nadal's prime when Nadal was 23. Not his fault Nadal couldn't beat Soderling that year like he did.

I also don't remember Federer having a bunch of 5 setters in the early rounds of Roland Garros during his prime. Nadal needed fake MTOs and other forms of gamesmanship to get through his early rounds of 2010 Wimbledon. And other years as well.

Federer was definitely beating better players than Berdych :lol:. And even old Federer didn't lose to prime Novak at Wimbledon in 2012 like Nadal did.

Not sure who you think would beat prime Federer at Wimbledon? Rosol?

 

[BringBackSV]

No one cares about clay though. Either way, Federer managed to win RG during Nadal's prime when he was 23. Not his fault Nadal couldn't beat Soderling that year like he did.

I also don't remember Federer having a bunch of 5 setters in the early rounds of Roland Garros. Nadal needed fake MTOs and other forms of gamesmanship to get through his early rounds of 2010 Wimbledon. And other years as well.

Federer was beating better players than Berdych :lol:. And he didn't lose to prime Novak at Wimbledon in 2012 like Nadal did.

I think Rafa was better in 2011 on grass than he was in 2007. Is somebody on here arguing that he was unbeatable on grass or something at his peak? I don't think that Novak was actually playing better than Rafa in 2011 in that tournament but Rafa's confidence was clearly shaken and Novak beat him handily as a result. 2011 Rafa would have beaten 2007 Fed though.

Novak cares about clay and so did Fed, so nice try. It's not Fed's fault that Rafa lost to Soderling but it was certainly greatly to his benefit because Roger could not touch Rafa on clay, unlike Rafa with Roger on grass. Roger didn't play a prime Novak in a GS final ever and that's not to his credit. When you play high quality opposition you are more likely to lose, Fed was lucky enough to avoid that throughout much of his career. Roddick was pretty decent but certainly not what you are making him out to be. Also, Berdych handily beat Roger and its not Rafa's fault that Roger wasn't good enough to beat Berdych that year.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I think Rafa was better in 2011 on grass than he was in 2007. Is somebody on here arguing that he was unbeatable on grass or something at his peak? I don't think that Novak was actually playing better than Rafa in 2011 in that tournament but Rafa's confidence was clearly shaken and Novak beat him handily as a result. 2011 Rafa would have beaten 2007 Fed though.

Novak cares about clay and so did Fed, so nice try. It's not Fed's fault that Rafa lost to Soderling but it was certainly greatly to his benefit because Roger could not touch Rafa on clay, unlike Rafa with Roger on grass. Roger didn't play a prime Novak in a GS final ever and that's not to his credit. When you play high quality opposition you are more likely to lose, Fed was lucky enough to avoid that throughout much of his career. Roddick was pretty decent but certainly not what you are making him out to be. Also, Berdych handily beat Roger and its not Rafa's fault that Roger wasn't good enough to beat Berdych that year.

Berdych beat Federer and gifted Nadal the 2010 Wimbledon trophy during a transition period. Federer did not win RG during a clay transition period. Unless you consider the tough transition that poor Rafa, dealing with the heart break of his parent's separation, had to go through :lol:

2011 was another year that Nadal needed fake MTOs to make the final. He took one to disrupt Del Potro's rhythm in the 1st set of their 4th round match.

More evidence that Nadal was never that good on grass. Unlike Wimbledon, the surface at RG doesn't change between the 1st and Final rounds. If only RG got quicker toward the end like Wimbledon gets slower :razz: So lets not talk about luck buddy boy.

 

[BringBackSV]

You can spin it whatever way you would like but at the end of the day, Roger benefited from a lack quality players on grass and HC during his "peak". Rafa is not the HC player that Novak is and he's not the HC or grass player that Roger is but he's beaten them both on those surfaces in Grand Slams, while the other two could not do it to him on his best surface. Certainly though, Roger's title count benefited a lot more from questionable opposition than Novak or Rafa and it's really not close.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

You can spin it whatever way you would like but at the end of the day, Roger benefited from a lack quality players on grass and HC during his "peak". Rafa is not the HC player that Novak is and he's not the HC or grass player that Roger is but he's beaten them both on those surfaces in Grand Slams, while the other two could not do it to him on his best surface. Certainly though, Roger's title count benefited a lot more from questionable opposition than Novak or Rafa and it's really not close.

What is Nadal's non-clay title count outside of 2008-2010 vacuum period?

Nadal benefits from weak opposition unlike any other. His lone significant non-clay title out of that period was 2013 USO, when he got to play Richard "0-18 in sets against the big 3 in slams" Gasquet in the Semis and geriatric Robredo in the quarters.

Nadal has also never won the WTF, because he isn't capable of winning more than a couple matches in a row off of clay against good opposition.

 

[BringBackSV]

Berdych beat Federer and gifted Nadal the 2010 Wimbledon trophy during a transition period. Federer did not win RG during a clay transition period. Unless you consider the tough transition that poor Rafa, dealing with the heart break of his parent's separation, had to go through :lol:

2011 was another year that Nadal needed fake MTOs to make the final. He took one to disrupt Del Potro's rhythm in the 1st set of their 4th round match.

More evidence that Nadal was never that good on grass. Unlike Wimbledon, the surface at RG doesn't change between the 1st and Final rounds. If only RG got quicker toward the end like Wimbledon gets slower :razz: So lets not talk about luck buddy boy.

Actually, Berdych did Fed a favor by beating him and taking the loss to Rafa that surely would have awaited Roger. Fed lucked out when Rafa lost to Soderling, it was his lucky year. Rafa proved he could beat Roger on grass in GS final, Fed never came close on clay and you better believe that he cared. To argue otherwise is completely deluded and suggests that you place way too much personal involvement in Roger's career. Yeah good point, Rafa looked as good as ever when Soderling beat him. I don't care about the "fake MTOs" I care about wins. The fact of the matter is that Rafa did what Fed never could, beat his best opposition on their favorite surfaces. I'm getting tired of your attempts to live in an alternate reality, which though it's your prerogative, doesn't ultimately make a difference in terms of how these guys will be viewed.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Actually, Berdych did Fed a favor by beating him and taking the loss to Rafa that surely would have awaited Roger. Fed lucked out when Rafa lost to Soderling, it was his lucky year. Rafa proved he could beat Roger on grass in GS final, Fed never came close on clay and you better believe that he cared. To argue otherwise is completely deluded and suggests that you place way too much personal involvement in Roger's career. Yeah good point, Rafa looked as good as ever when Soderling beat him. I don't care about the "fake MTOs" I care about wins. The fact of the matter is that Rafa did what Fed never could, beat his best opposition on their favorite surfaces. I'm getting tired of your attempts to live in an alternate reality, which though it's your prerogative, doesn't ultimately make a difference in terms of how these guys will be viewed.

Not my fault you can't face the facts buddy boy. Nadal was at his PEAK at 2007 and 2011 Wimbledon's. He lost to the only good opposition he faced in their respective primes.

He has never been more than a 1 slam wonder and non-clay vulture.

 

[BringBackSV]

What is Nadal's non-clay title count outside of 2008-2010 vacuum period?

Nadal benefits from weak opposition unlike any other. His lone significant non-clay title out of that period was 2013 USO, when he got to play Richard "0-18 in sets against the big 3 in slams" Gasquet in the Semis and geriatric Robredo in the quarters.

Nadal has also never won the WTF, because he isn't capable of winning more than a couple matches in a row off of clay against good opposition.

You people make me laugh. Ok, lets first ignore his success on clay, then lets ignore 2008-2010. Yeah, that sounds like a position completely grounded in reality. How about we deal with what did happen, whether you want to accept/like it or not. Another fact is that Rafa's final opposition in GS' was infinitely better than Roger's.

Rafa hasn't won a WTF and Roger has a 2-9 record against Rafa in GS finals. Once again, suggesting that Roger benefited from poor GS opponents.

 

[BringBackSV]

Not my fault you can't face the facts buddy boy. Nadal was at his PEAK at 2007 and 2011 Wimbledon's. He lost to the only good opposition he faced in their respective primes.

He has never been more than a 1 slam wonder and non-clay vulture.

That's not a fact, it's an opinion. Are you 12 years old? You know the most pathetic part about this is that I easily identified that you were a sore Roger fan from the deluded nature of your posts in regards to Rafa. Your lack of objectivity is so blatantly obvious that it's not funny. If Roger's career is so important to you that you want to disparage the great career of Rafa to make you feel better about the one sided nature of their "rivalry", then so be it. Roger was still a great player and he's got nothing to be ashamed of, Rafa is just better than him.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

You people make me laugh. Ok, lets first ignore his success on clay, then lets ignore 2008-2010. Yeah, that sounds like a position completely grounded in reality. How about we deal with what did happen, whether you want to accept/like it or not. Another fact is that Rafa's final opposition in GS' was infinitely better than Roger's.

Rafa hasn't won a WTF and Roger has a 2-9 record against Rafa in GS finals. Once again, suggesting that Roger benefited from poor GS opponents.

I didn't ignore his success on clay. I already agreed he is the best clay courter of this era when he isn't crying about his parent's separation.

What I did bring light to is Nadal's fake "peak" in the 2008-2010 period, which was actually and more realistically from 2007-2011. Peak Nadal never beat a good player in their prime in a Wimbledon final. And he never did it on HC either, unless you count the exhausted Djokovic from last year's USO after his 5 set SF. When Nadal got to play Gasquet

in the semis.

That's why he has 9 RG titles and only 5 at the other 3 slams

Transition periods can only last so long.

 

[Lips]

I didn't ignore his success on clay. I already agreed he is the best clay courter of this era when he isn't crying about his parent's separation.

What I did bring light to is Nadal's fake "peak" in the 2008-2010 period, which was actually and more realistically from 2007-2011. Peak Nadal never beat a good player in their prime in a Wimbledon final. And he never did it on HC either, unless you count the exhausted Djokovic from last year's USO after his 5 set SF. When Nadal got to play Gasquet

in the semis.

That's why he has 9 RG titles and only 5 at the other 3 slams

Transition periods can only last so long.

Dude, you are getting owned in this thread....fake peak? Are you kidding?

 

[BringBackSV]

I didn't ignore his success on clay. I already agreed he is the best clay courter of this era when he isn't crying about his parent's separation.

What I did bring light to is Nadal's fake "peak" in the 2008-2010 period, which was actually and more realistically from 2007-2011. Peak Nadal never beat a good player in their prime in a Wimbledon final.

That's why he has 9 RG titles and only 5 at the other 3 slams

Transition periods can only last so long.

Your entire premise is that we ignore the clay success and the 2008-2010 period and then evaluate what he's done to somehow see how that compared to Fed. I don't care about the entire peak discussion, it really doesn't matter.

Roger was certainly in his prime in 2008, even though he lost. Berdych would certainly qualify as a good player too. I agree that transition periods only last so long, that's why Roger's fake "peak" suddenly vanished in 2008, when opposition started to get better. Can you honestly not even enjoy tennis because Rafa is better than Fed? I don't get why this bothers you so much. Roger was a great player in a weaker era, Rafa was also a great player in a tougher era and handed Roger his lunch.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Your entire premise is that we ignore the clay success and the 2008-2010 period and then evaluate what he's done to somehow see how that compared to Fed. I don't care about the entire peak discussion, it really doesn't matter.

Roger was certainly in his prime in 2008, even though he lost. Berdych would certainly qualify as a good player too. I agree that transition periods only last so long, that's why Roger's fake "peak" suddenly vanished in 2008, when opposition started to get better. Can you honestly not even enjoy tennis because Rafa is better than Fed? I don't get why this bothers you so much. Roger was a great player in a weaker era, Rafa was also a great player in a tougher era and handed Roger his lunch.

I am talking only about his grass (and to some extent, HC) prowess. You're the one who brought up his clay results to make yourself feel better about his lacklustre abilities and results on the more important surfaces.

Federer was also losing to Roddick, etc. in 2008. Sorry buddy, but you lose. Even Roddick was beating post-prime Federer that year

 

[Finesse4sum]

Your entire premise is that we ignore the clay success and the 2008-2010 period and then evaluate what he's done to somehow see how that compared to Fed. I don't care about the entire peak discussion, it really doesn't matter.

Roger was certainly in his prime in 2008, even though he lost. Berdych would certainly qualify as a good player too. I agree that transition periods only last so long, that's why Roger's fake "peak" suddenly vanished in 2008, when opposition started to get better. Can you honestly not even enjoy tennis because Rafa is better than Fed? I don't get why this bothers you so much. Roger was a great player in a weaker era, Rafa was also a great player in a tougher era and handed Roger his lunch.

The tougher era thing is laughable at best. Same era with a few new sprouts and a few less vets contesting.

 

[BringBackSV]

Anyway, this is my last post on the subject. In all honesty Roger has been great to watch I'd argue that his era was not as bad as some today are saying. With that said, he certainly won a lot of tournaments when there wasn't another great player outside of clay between 2004-2007. I really don't see a way around that point. I can still appreciate his dominance though, the beauty of his game, etc.

Rafa's career has also been fantastic. You are really going way overboard and laughably so when you try to discredit his GS titles, either on or off of clay. You don't need to like the guy or his style but you shouldn't have such difficulty giving credit where it's due.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Dude, you are getting owned in this thread....fake peak? Are you kidding?

Yeah, him referring to Berdych as a worthy Wimbledon final opponent while trashing the likes of Roddick is total ownage.

The Nadal-****ism on that guy is more transparent than his username.

Nadal's grass peak wasn't conveniently just the 2 years he won in the final. And Nadal fan boys like you are livid about it.

 

[BringBackSV]

The tougher era thing is laughable at best. Same era with a few new sprouts and a few less vets contesting.

That's not exactly true. I agree that there is not a huge difference in the eras past the top handful of players but I find it inarguable that Rafa played tougher opposition in finals. If you want to talk about rounds 1-6, I won't make much of an argument there.

 

[BringBackSV]

Yeah, him referring to Berdych as a worthy Wimbledon final opponent while trashing the likes of Roddick is total ownage.

The Nadal-****ism on that guy is more transparent than his username.

You do realize that I'm using the same type of hyperbole that you use in your arguments right? I didn't trash Roddick either so give me a break. He's a decent/good player but he wasn't a great player, obviously. Berdych is also a good player, he's very talented but mentally did not quite have what it takes.

I'm a Rafa fan but unlike you I'm willing to be objective. The complete pathetic nature of your posts though, has lead me to toy with your sadly overly involved emotions when it comes to your idol. Why is it that some many Fed fans are so upset by Rafa? It seems like a pretty clear defense mechanism.

 

[Lips]

Yeah, him referring to Berdych as a worthy Wimbledon final opponent while trashing the likes of Roddick is total ownage.

The Nadal-****ism on that guy is more transparent than his username.

Nadal's grass peak wasn't conveniently just the 2 years he won in the final. And Nadal fan boys like you are livid about it.

I could care less....YOU are the one who comes off as livid...and a bit delusional

 

[WhiskeyEE]

You do realize that I'm using the same type of hyperbole that you use in your arguments right? I didn't trash Roddick either so give me a break. He's a decent/good player but he wasn't a great player, obviously. Berdych is also a good player, he's very talented but mentally did not quite have what it takes.

I'm a Rafa fan but unlike you I'm willing to be objective. The complete pathetic nature of your posts though, has lead me to toy with your sadly overly involved emotions when it comes to your idol. Why is it that some many Fed fans are so upset by Rafa? It seems like a pretty clear defense mechanism.

You refer to Roddick, a 3 time Wimbledon finalist and 4 time Queen's winner as "pretty decent" and proceed to call Berdych "good." Berdych is one of the few 1-time slam finalists the big 3 have played in slam finals. And is arguably the mentally weakest player of the last 10 years.

You are doing nothing but showing your ridiculous and pathetic Nadal-****ism. Objective my ***. "BringBackSV" lol... Give me a break, Nadal fan boy :lol: Must suck to think that your idol was pretty much finished winning non-clay slams by age 24.

 

[beast of mallorca]

You refer to Roddick, a 3 time Wimbledon finalist and 4 time Queen's winner as "pretty decent" and proceed to call Berdych "good." Berdych is one of the few 1-time slam finalists the big 3 have played in slam finals. And is arguably the mentally weakest player of the last 10 years.

You are doing nothing but showing your ridiculous and pathetic Nadal-****ism. Objective my ***. "BringBackSV" LMAO, give me a break, Nadal fan boy :lol: Must suck to think that your idol was pretty much finished winning non-clay slams by age 24.

You mad ? ...........:twisted:

 

[BringBackSV]

Roddick made the Wimbledon final twice during the same suspicious era that Fed was racking up wins. If you are really trying to argue that Roddick was in a different league than Berdych so be it but I think you might be in danger of Fed Kool-aid overdose.

Again little guy, you are the one who started this ridiculous thread and you did it just because you are having trouble dealing with the fact that Nadal has owned Fed. I enjoy watching Nadal play but I actually like the sport more than any player and I don't really care about the same kind of trivial things that you do. Fed is easily the 2nd best player since the great Sampras retired and he should feel proud of that.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Roddick made the Wimbledon final twice during the same suspicious era that Fed was racking up wins. If you are really trying to argue that Roddick was in a different league than Berdych so be it but I think you might be in danger of Fed Kool-aid overdose.

Again little guy, you are the one who started this ridiculous thread and you did it just because you are having trouble dealing with the fact that Nadal has owned Fed. I enjoy watching Nadal play but I actually like the sport more than any player and I don't really care about the same kind of trivial things that you do. Fed is easily the 2nd best player since the great Sampras retired and he should feel proud of that.

I started a thread about something that is true. You created an account (with the moniker "BringBackSV" to draw attention away from how much of a Nadal turd you are) just to defend your non-clay transitional era chump.

One of us is definitely struggling with reality buddy boy :lol: And it isn't me.

 

[Mayonnaise]

You mad ? ...........:twisted:

No. He right

 

[WhiskeyEE]

You mad ? ...........:twisted:

Nadal's fans getting lippy after his first grass court win in 2 years. Sounds like you're ripe for another Rosol spanking.

 

[BringBackSV]

For one, you've mentioned by SN several times now, why do you even care? Can't you stick to the discussion at hand. You aren't making a good point in this regard, just a desperate one and quite frankly I'm starting to feel bad for you. It's pretty sad that Fed has been owned by a chump, all your lame excuses and rationalizations aside.

Hilarious that you are trying to claim you didn't actually start this thread because of how raw you are that a clay court specialist beat Roger down at every stop save indoor hard courts. Best players since 1990. Sampras, Rafa, Roger. Best player since 2004, Rafa, Roger. We all know why Roger cried in AO9, he was forced to come to grips with the same thing that tears at your very core, Rafa owns Fed and will go down as the greater player.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

For one, you've mentioned by SN several times now, why do you even care? Can't you stick to the discussion at hand. You aren't making a good point in this regard, just a desperate one and quite frankly I'm starting to feel bad for you. It's pretty sad that Fed has been owned by a chump, all your lame excuses and rationalizations aside.

Hilarious that you are trying to claim you didn't actually start this thread because of how raw you are that a clay court specialist beat Roger down at every stop save indoor hard courts. Best players since 1990. Sampras, Rafa, Roger. Best player since 2004, Rafa, Roger. We all know why Roger cried in AO9, he was forced to come to grips with the same thing that tears at your very core, Rafa owns Fed and will go down as the greater player.

Talk about desperation. You have convinced yourself that anyone who challenges Nadal's transitional (and extremely brief) non-clay results only does so out of h2h spite. This might be hard for a Nadal turd like you to swallow, but I've actually disliked Nadal far longer than I've been a fan of Federer.

Pathetic deluded Nadal worshipper can't even walk away hours after you said you would. And you call me emotionally involved

Do yourself a favour and actually leave this time and quit embarrassing yourself.

 

[BringBackSV]

Talk about desperation. You have convinced yourself that anyone who challenges Nadal transitional (albeit extremely brief) non-clay results only does so out of h2h spite. This might be hard for a Nadal turd like you to swallow, but I've actually disliked Nadal far longer than I've been a fan of Federer.

Pathetic deluded Nadal worshipper can't even walk away hours after you said you would. And you say I'm emotionally involved

Anyone? No but it was painfully obvious that you were. If you were actually interested in the topic like you had claimed, you would have been able to stick to it without feeling the need to vehemently defend Fed's career.

Rafa has 5 GS titles off of clay, two he won against a great HC and grass player, and 2 he won against a great HC player. Lets take a look at who Roger beat in ANY of his GS titles, a very young Rafa twice on grass and nary a sniff of another great player in a GS final. So whether you want to call it a transitional weak era for Roger or just a weak era, the fact remains, Roger benefited significantly by winning the majority of his GS titles in the absence of other greats.

Also, of course it made it easier for Rafa that Novak wasn't playing as well in 2009 but if you go down the line Rafa has won 11 Finals against great players while Roger has really only done it at best once (Rafa 2007, though according to you he's just a chump off of clay so perhaps not even then).

It's also even further evidence of how pathetically weak Roger's era was that a clay court specialist went to 3 finals in a row, took Roger to five in 07 and beat him in 08. Clearly, Roger wasn't playing anything resembling great players on grass and his stats are grossly inflated.

You are clearly emotionally invested. Could I "walk" away? Sure but your pathetic desire to disparage a great player to prop up your hero made it amusing enough for me to return. I'm sorry that you are so sorry.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Anyone? No but it was painfully obvious that you were. If you were actually interested in the topic like you had claimed, you would have been able to stick to it without feeling the need to vehemently defend Fed's career.

Rafa has 5 GS titles off of clay, two he won against a great HC and grass player, and 2 he won against a great HC player. Lets take a look at who Roger beat in ANY of his GS titles, a very young Rafa twice on grass and nary a sniff of another great player in a GS final. So whether you want to call it a transitional weak era for Roger or just a weak era, the fact remains, Roger benefited significantly by winning the majority of his GS titles in the absence of other greats.

Also, of course it made it easier for Rafa that Novak wasn't playing as well in 2009 but if you go down the line Rafa has won 11 Finals against great players while Roger has really only done it at best once (Rafa 2007, though according to you he's just a chump off of clay so perhaps not even then).

It's also even further evidence of how pathetically weak Roger's era was that a clay court specialist went to 3 finals in a row, took Roger to five in 07 and beat him in 08. Clearly, Roger wasn't playing anything resembling great players on grass and his stats are grossly inflated.

You are clearly emotionally invested. Could I "walk" away? Sure but your pathetic desire to disparage a great player to prop up your hero made it amusing enough for me to return. I'm sorry that you are so sorry.

You were the one who brought up Federer's career and his h2h with Nadal. That's all Nadal fans have to resort to once their beloved a.ss picker is criticized.

Behind your claims of being "objective" and "amused" you are absolutely fuming :lol: You're not fooling anyone. I don't go to other forums and create accounts just to defend Federer. That's an extremely desperate and butt hurt thing to do.

Get your estrogen levels checked. Buddy boy.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You do realize that I'm using the same type of hyperbole that you use in your arguments right? I didn't trash Roddick either so give me a break. He's a decent/good player but he wasn't a great player, obviously. Berdych is also a good player, he's very talented but mentally did not quite have what it takes.

I'm a Rafa fan but unlike you I'm willing to be objective. The complete pathetic nature of your posts though, has lead me to toy with your sadly overly involved emotions when it comes to your idol. Why is it that some many Fed fans are so upset by Rafa? It seems like a pretty clear defense mechanism.

Roddick was a much better player than Berdych is, and it isn't even close. I'm wondering how you define "objectivity".. because demeaning Roddick like that shows nothing but contempt and disdain for Federer's era and that crop of players..

Roddick made slam finals on two surfaces and was stopped by one player, Berdych is stopped by countless players. Let's see Berdych get past 2009 Murray in a Wimbledon SF. :lol:

Berdych just hits big and that isn't enough to beat Roddick.. Roddick would serve bombs and paint the lines with his forehand.. Berdych would just keep hitting deep and powerful strokes, giving Roddick ammunition to keep launching his tirade of attacking tennis on Berdych..