Nadal's 2010 season Vs. Fed's 2007 season....
- Thread starter GasquetGOAT
- Start date
DragonBlaze
Hall of Fame
so you're saying rafa cannot have it as bad as fed at RG unless he faces himself
also Lopez played better than Roddick in US Open 2007. He was pretty much zoning for a while (not vs Nadal though)
Man that Lopez match had some SICK games (and I mean that in a good way!). I still remember the two backhand passing shots Fed did in one of Lopez's service games in particular.
I dont know if he played better than Roddick though, for the first two sets, Roddick was on fire, just didnt have luck on his side. I think when Federer had set point in the tiebreak he tried to get the crowd pumped up and behind him and then
Federer served an ace. :lol:
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
so you're saying rafa cannot have it as bad as fed at RG unless he faces himself
well unless someone is zoned in like sod in FO 2009 4r/QF or sod in 2010 QF or delpo in 2009 SF or fed himself in FO 2009 final
well , lopez played darn well, but roddick played better IMO.
Remember fed did not have a single BP for two whole sets vs a-rod
Last edited:
M
meg0529
Guest
so you're saying rafa cannot have it as bad as fed at RG unless he faces himself
also Lopez played better than Roddick in US Open 2007. He was pretty much zoning for a while (not vs Nadal though)
LOL! love sexy rafa true class!
Not watching tennis show how much clueless your are. Anyone know this year MC was a joke. The competition was equivalent to a atp 250, Nadal never faced a top tenner. It wasn't even mandatory event and players chose to skip it. The tennis quality can't hold a candle to the like of Shanghai !
illkhiboy
Hall of Fame
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but finalists and semi finalists get less points relative to the winner's points now than they did back in 2006/2007. Of course that also means that Federer made more points for every final he lost in compared to Nadal this year.
J
Jchurch
Guest
AGREED! I never could figure out why those Brits would let grass grow in their clay... always perplexed me
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Yea, so really that should count as master title, so really you need to go back and re-calculate the number of master title Roger has.
What other numbers can we make up for Roger?
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
So then we need somone to convert the points so that we can see the truth.
volleynets
Hall of Fame
You also forgot that Slams were worth only 1000 points and Masters only 500 back then. Now Slams are 2000 and Masters 1000 points, can you recalculate the 06 and 07 numbers with this ATP inflation hahha?
OrangePower
Legend
You're right, but that's why I'm not comparing total points. I'm just looking at how many points #1 has in relation to how many points #2-#8 have. So the fact that the number of point has doubled overall makes no difference.
Another poster pointed out that the proportion of points for winning versus losing in finals has changed a bit, which is true, and that does impact the accuracy of the comparison. But I think the effect of this is minor and this is still the best objective measure of dominance in a year.
they have the same winning %......:roll:
aphex
Banned
can u post w/l records?
aphex
Banned
thanx...is this for fed's whole season or up till the same time in the year?
big bang
Hall of Fame
Atleast get your facts straight big bang.
What facts did I miss?[/QUOTE]
tell us genius, who's done 4 slam finals in a season after laver in 69 ?
federer has done it not once, not twice, but thrice btw, 2k6,2k7 and 2k9
yes Fed did that, all I said was that it has been done before. 3 slams on different surfaces has never been done. Im not trying to take anything from Fed at all but IMO the records Nadal set this year are more impressive thats it.
all your posts about rafa point towards the same "worshiping"
You call that worship? Im impressed by Nadal, but thats it. He doesnt play my type of tennis, end of story. MC has been my favorite Masters since childhood.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5146526#post5146526
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=350664&page=9
I dont see why you guys bring stuff like that, I got the facts right the first time. What Fed did has been done before (even better) by Laver.
What Nadal did this year has never been done before. Thats the cold facts and thats all I said.
You’re wrong again. Fed made 4 finals in one year on 3 difference surfaces...something Laver hasn’t done. Funny how you only claimed Rafa did what Laver have NEVER done when in fact it holds the same for Roger. Get your fact straight !
big bang
Hall of Fame
Look drop that 1 final, Laver won all 4 on 2 different surfaces. Fed won 3 on 2 different surfaces, so unless you think that making that FO final beats winning all four(on grass and HC) I really dont see your point!
Of course Laver didnt win on 3 different surfaces because they only were played on 2 back then.
3 slams a piece. (even)
2 1000's < 3 1000's. (nadal)
1 YEC > 0 YEC (federer)
1 YEC > 1 Master 1000 (YEC next biggest tournament behind GS)
Fed had the better season so far. Of course this can change if Nadal wins the YEC or Paris or both.
You are underselling Fed here. He has one more GS final. Complete 52 wks at #1.
I know big bang will ignore all of this b/c he think 3 straight slams is a be-all and end-all discussion. (dry)
M
meg0529
Guest
3 slams a piece. (even)
2 1000's < 3 1000's. (nadal)
1 YEC > 0 YEC (federer)
1 YEC > 1 Master 1000 (YEC next biggest tournament behind GS)
Fed had the better season so far. Of course this can change if Nadal wins the YEC or Paris or both.
Which is why it would make more sense to argue in december, no?
Rogi Rafa Love, sexclass
Since you claimed what Roger did had done before since Laver(you were wrong), I’m just pointing out Fed’s 4 straight finals was never done by Roger, the same thing you keep harping on Rafa’s 3 straight was never done before. Roger’s final is no equal to Laver winning, but the same hold truth for Final > QF.
You keep on seeing what you want to see but ignore the other side. LOL
stop bringing in #1!! that would be taking the 2006 season into account which is not the point of the thread
and he also has forgotten Nadal did the Channel Slam in 2010!
Yes #1 does count. If we start from scratch at the beginning of the year with every players has zero points, Roger won the AO open, so he’s #1. In contrast, Rafa was the QF at the AO, so he wasn’t #1 at that point. So Roger would gain more weeks at #1 at the exact same time of the year. See my point?
And the degree of difficulty in winning those 3 slams are subjective.
Last edited:
Semi-Pro
Hall of Fame
there are 5 tournaments before the Australian Open. Federer didnt win any of those. He became number 1 only after the Australian Open.
OK...so you dont think that winning majors on clay, grass, and hard back to back to back is more challenging than winning on hard, losing, and then winning on grass and hard?
Again, this is all strictly base on opinion. I think hc is more competitive than clay since on average, players are more adept to play on hc.
aphex
Banned
P_Agony
Banned
I agree with you. The field was just stronger in 2007. Not quite as solid this year.
big bang
Hall of Fame
it was a reply to TMF stating that 4 slam final in a row has been done before, but 3 slams won in a row on different surfaces has never been done!.
powerangle
Legend
You're right, it has never been done. Rafa did it.
But, Federer also made 4 straight finals on 3 different surfaces, which had never been done. Federer did it.
powerangle
Legend
Too early to be doing comparisons. Wait until their careers are over to compare their best years.
As for comparing 2010 to some other year: Too early. 2010 is not over yet.
As for comparing 2010 to some other year: Too early. 2010 is not over yet.
Why drop the 1 final? I think making the final of a major is a pretty important factor to take into account when assessing how good a year was, don't you?
And when you belittle Fed's record (reaching all major finals in one year on 3 different surfaces) by excusing Laver for not having achieved it first because he only had 2 GS surfaces to play on, shouldn't you be consistent and apply this reasoning to Nadal's record as well: "Of course Laver didn't win 3 consecutive majors on 3 different surfaces because they were only played on 2 surfaces back then!" ??
abmk
Bionic Poster
ah the irony of it all : that's what the samprastards and *******s logic was all these years and half the threads here used to be about how weak fed's era was. LOL ! :lol:
I just broke it down and stated what had happened in those respective years. Because you couldn't argue logically, you came up with this ?
nadal had better competition in 2008 than in 2010 - he had to overcome an in-form fed @ wimby , djoker was strong almost throughout the year as well ...
fed's competition in 2006 was weaker than what it was in 2007 as well - an improved nadal on grass, the rise of djoker etc . I'm just stating what I observed and supporting it with logic.
2007 and 2008 were on par IMO ....
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
its pretty simple : the reason why nadal's 3 slams this year is that impressive is because he did them on 3 surfaces. Similarly the reason why fed's 4 slams finals is impressive because they were done on 3 surfaces - no one else had done this before , he's done it thrice btw !
unbelievable that you can't even notice/won't even notice this simple fact !
the only thing nadal did that laver didn't was win on that extra surface
ditto for federer - he made 4 slams finals on 3 different surfaces , laver on 2 only
why the double standards ?
Last edited:
The-Champ
Legend
ah the irony of it all : that's what the samprastards and *******s logic was all these years and half the threads here used to be about how weak fed's era was. LOL ! :lol:
I just broke it down and stated what had happened in those respective years. Because you couldn't argue logically, you came up with this ?
nadal had better competition in 2008 than in 2010 - he had to overcome an in-form fed @ wimby , djoker was strong almost throughout the year as well ...
fed's competition in 2006 was weaker than what it was in 2007 as well - an improved nadal on grass, the rise of djoker etc . I'm just stating what I observed and supporting it with logic.
2007 and 2008 were on par IMO ....
so what you're trying to say is that 2007 and 2008 were equally strong, but only proves that Federer is better than Nadal because Fed won 3 majors in 2007, while Nadal only managed 2 in 2008. Nadal's competion in 2010 is not that strong because he won 3 majors, had the competition been stronger he never would have won 3? Yeah...you have been pretty clear!
abmk
Bionic Poster
Incorrect, you didn't even read it properly. that bold part is your own assumption, which you only pulled out because of your own insecurity.
Its not as simple as just considering only the competition. There are various factors .
I think fed's 2007 and rafa's 2010 are pretty close - I'd give it to nadal if he wins YEC ! ( or maybe if he wins paris but then monte carlo was not mandatory - probably depend on how he plays and whom he faces @ paris )
Oh and btw fed's 2007 was better than rafa's 2008 , taking all factors into consideration
Last edited:
big bang
Hall of Fame
its pretty simple : the reason why nadal's 3 slams this year is that impressive is because he did them on 3 surfaces. Similarly the reason why fed's 4 slams finals is impressive because they were done on 3 surfaces - no one else had done this before , he's done it thrice btw !
unbelievable that you can't even notice/won't even notice this simple fact !
the only thing nadal did that laver didn't was win on that extra surface
ditto for federer - he made 4 slams finals on 3 different surfaces , laver on 2 only
why the double standards ?
who will remember finalists? winners go down in history, losers dont. Thats why I dont count that FO final in. Fed made 4 - Laver won 4, see the difference?
Maybe history won't remember someone who made a major final in isolation but it'll sure as sh*t be remembered that Federer made all 4 finals in one year on 3 different surfaces (3 separate times, mind you) - something that no other player in the history of the game has achieved, not once. When his appearance in the final of the FO (which you "don't count") contributes to a record of that magnitude it has much greater import than when it is considered in isolation.
And anyway, who in their right mind deliberately ignores a player reaching a major final when evaluating how good that player's year was?
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
abmk
Bionic Poster
so the FO final has no significance at all ? LOL !!!! whether finalists are remembered are not is a different issue. But fact is, it is an important part of the record for that year and while evaluating the year, it counts for a lot !
as piece put it:
And anyway, who in their right mind deliberately ignores a player reaching a major final when evaluating how good that player's year was?
abmk
Bionic Poster
that is soooo convincing !
Last edited:
DragonBlaze
Hall of Fame
You're right, it's the titles that count.
Last time I checked
12>7
8>7
(Mind you I think Fed's 2007 and Nadal's 2010 are on par if not Nadal in the lead. But Im just replying because you keep on insisting that somehow Nadal's 2010 is greater than even Fed's 2006 just on the basis of 3 slams on 3 different surfaces)
my argument has no flaws :twisted:
Similar threads
