Now will people finally STOP claiming that Nadal would have beaten Fed at the USOpen?

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
All the *********s that claimed that Nadal would have definitely beaten Federer in this year's US Open final now need to keep quiet and go hide under a rock. :oops: :)

It's just a shame that Djokovic got so lucky on those two wild swings that landed in on those two match points in the semis or else Nadal will still be without the US Open trophy and his career Slam, and Federer would still own Nadal on hardcourts. :(
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
All the *********s that claimed that Nadal would have definitely beaten Federer in this year's US Open final now need to keep quiet and go hide under a rock. :oops: :)

It's just a shame that Djokovic got so lucky on those two wild swings that landed in on those two match points in the semis or else Nadal will still be without the US Open trophy and his career Slam, and Federer would still own Nadal on hardcourts. :(
We can't really say that today proves Federer would have won back in August.

What we CAN say, however, is that the claims that Federer wouldn't have had a chance to win and that he was lucky to have lost in the semi (so as to avoid a devastating loss) were false.
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
All the *********s that claimed that Nadal would have definitely beaten Federer in this year's US Open final now need to keep quiet and go hide under a rock. :oops: :)

It's just a shame that Djokovic got so lucky on those two wild swings that landed in on those two match points in the semis or else Nadal will still be without the US Open trophy and his career Slam, and Federer would still own Nadal on hardcourts. :(
How is USOPEN result connected with ATP final ?. Different surfaces, different times, different countries , different weather,.....
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
How is USOPEN result connected with ATP final ?. Different surfaces, different times, different countries , different weather,.....
Because Federer has won the US Open 5 times and has won the WTF 5 times, while Nadal had never won the US Open until this year and still has never won the WTF. That's why! Very, very lucky for Nadal that he didn't have to face Federer at the US Open this year.
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
Because Federer has won the US Open 5 times and has won the WTF 5 times, while Nadal had never won the US Open until this year and still has never won the WTF. That's why! Very, very lucky for Nadal that he didn't have to face Federer at the US Open this year.
So why didnt Nadal face Federer at USO final this year?. Could it be because Federer wasnt good enough (at this USO) to make it to final?


Federer has Won AUS open 3 times (now 4) before Nadal beat him (and Nadal hasnt won before). Per your logic Federer should have beat Nadal ??
 

MrFlip

Semi-Pro
Nadal still would have won only because Federer was in a sort-of rut. Dismissed Soderling in straight sets but wasnt playing inspiring tennis like he did back in Jan. Nadal had it very, very easy mind you. Would have been a tight 4 or 5 setter. (Fed fan by the way)
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
All the *********s that claimed that Nadal would have definitely beaten Federer in this year's US Open final now need to keep quiet and go hide under a rock. :oops: :)

It's just a shame that Djokovic got so lucky on those two wild swings that landed in on those two match points in the semis or else Nadal will still be without the US Open trophy and his career Slam, and Federer would still own Nadal on hardcourts. :(
And you know this how? Have you stepped into an alternate dimension where Federer beat Djokovic at this year's US Open?

It's irrelevant anyway. Djokovic beat Federer, Nadal beat Djokovic. End of :razz:
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
We can't really say that today proves Federer would have won back in August.

What we CAN say, however, is that the claims that Federer wouldn't have had a chance to win and that he was lucky to have lost in the semi (so as to avoid a devastating loss) were false.
^^

this

10 chars
 

Defcon

Hall of Fame
It is obvious that on a HC, Fed goes as heavy favorite. On clay, Nadal is the favorite. On grass (which is to all intents and purposes clay) its anyones game.
 

JoelDali

G.O.A.T.
Because Federer has won the US Open 5 times and has won the WTF 5 times, while Nadal had never won the US Open until this year and still has never won the WTF. That's why! Very, very lucky for Nadal that he didn't have to face Federer at the US Open this year.
The light of truth knows Fed is the true USO 2010 champion had Joker missed the crazy swinging arse volleys. Joker has casually insinuated many times those shots were really lucky.

 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
So why didnt Nadal face Federer at USO final this year?. Could it be because Federer wasnt good enough (at this USO) to make it to final?
Federer was good enough to make the final. Unfortunately, luck was not on his side and Djkovic's two wild swings on two match points both landed in. Now why didn't Nadal make the US finals in '04? or '05? or '06? or '07 or '08 or '09? Oh yeah, because he isn't good enough! Now guess who is good enough to have made the finals in ALL 6 of those years?

Federer has Won AUS open 3 times (now 4) before Nadal beat him (and Nadal hasnt won before). Per your logic Federer should have beat Nadal ??
Yes, he should have. Nadal can thank Federer's back injury that it didn't happen.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Nadal still would have won only because Federer was in a sort-of rut. Dismissed Soderling in straight sets but wasnt playing inspiring tennis like he did back in Jan. Nadal had it very, very easy mind you. Would have been a tight 4 or 5 setter. (Fed fan by the way)
Nope. Federer played awesome incredible tennis at this year's US Open until the semis. He had one bad match. Had Djokovic missed on those two match points, I'm sure Federer would have brought out his best again in the final against Nadal. :)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
And you know this how? Have you stepped into an alternate dimension where Federer beat Djokovic at this year's US Open?

It's irrelevant anyway. Djokovic beat Federer, Nadal beat Djokovic. End of :razz:
The same way scientists can calculate the results of an experiment before even conducting the experiment. :)
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
And you know this how? Have you stepped into an alternate dimension where Federer beat Djokovic at this year's US Open?

It's irrelevant anyway. Djokovic beat Federer, Nadal beat Djokovic. End of :razz:


Only such logic applies when you want it to. When it comes to Federer's FO 2008 victory though, it still has an astrix because he never had to beat Nadal.
 

powerangle

Legend
We'll never know what would have happened if Federer played Nadal in this year's US Open final. If Federer played his best hard court tennis it would probably be too much for Nadal, but we all know that Fed can unleash the very best mental midgetry when he has to play Humbalito :)

Hopefully this can be laid to rest next year when they face off in the US Open final!
 
Plus, poor things must keep in mind that US Open surface MUCH more suits Fed than this WTF. Would have been a beatdown had they met in the final of the USO. Thank Roger that your boy won (is there a verb of "luck", lucked?) that title.
 

cork_screw

Hall of Fame
I love how ******** these hypotheticals are. You know what's more ******** than hypotheticals? People trying to rationalize what they "want" for what already happened. There's your philosophy for the day, NOW SHUT THE F*** UP.
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
All the *********s that claimed that Nadal would have definitely beaten Federer in this year's US Open final now need to keep quiet and go hide under a rock. :oops: :)

It's just a shame that Djokovic got so lucky on those two wild swings that landed in on those two match points in the semis or else Nadal will still be without the US Open trophy and his career Slam, and Federer would still own Nadal on hardcourts. :(
This is all moot. Roger didn't play well enough to make the final - that's the only fact.
 

Xemi666

Professional
No. Nadal would have beaten Federer at the USO. Not like it matters because Federer didn't get to the final, so he didn't deserve to be there.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Xemi666;5224350[B said:
]No. Nadal would have beaten Federer at the USO. Not like it matters because Federer didn't get to the final, so he didn't deserve to be there.[/B]


How do you know?
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
Federer could have beaten Nadal at the USO 2010, but it would have been more difficult.

First of all, the fitness factor would have favored Nadal (after Federer's grueling 5-setter against Djokovic).
Second, Federer's form - specifically approaches, returns, volleys and backhand - has improved since the USO. He has worked on it (according to him), and it shows.
Third, Nadal looked less sharp yesterday than he did during the USO. His serve and his movement were nowhere near that level.

Having said that, I do agree that Federer > Nadal on hard courts. However, that particular match could have gone either way.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
No. Nadal would have beaten Federer at the USO. Not like it matters because Federer didn't get to the final, so he didn't deserve to be there.
Um...because faster courts favor Nadal more than slower courts do? :???:

If Nadal can't even beat Federer on a slow hard court like at the WTF, how in the world is Nadal going to beat Federer on a fast hard court like at the US Open?

The courts at Cincinnati are the same speed as at the US Open. How many times as Nadal won Cincy? Zero! How many times has Federer won? Four. :oops:
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Federer was good enough to make the final. Unfortunately, luck was not on his side and Djkovic's two wild swings on two match points both landed in. Now why didn't Nadal make the US finals in '04? or '05? or '06? or '07 or '08 or '09? Oh yeah, because he isn't good enough! Now guess who is good enough to have made the finals in ALL 6 of those years?


Yes, he should have. Nadal can thank Federer's back injury that it didn't happen.
You are the single biggest troll on this board. I hope, I REALLY hope your stupidity is intentional.
 

Xemi666

Professional
How do you know?
Nadal was playing much better, it's 5 set matches (if you hadn't noticed Federer didn't do very well in 5 set matches tournament this year after AO), and the proof is in the pudding, Federer wasn't good enough to get to the finals, everything else is just speculation, and this thread is a clear troll attempt by the biggest troll on this boards.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
FO 2008? When Nadal beat Federer 6-1, 6-3, 6-0? :oops:


Woops, meant 2009. You know what I mean though. Still doesn't ignore the fact that Nadal fans will continue to say that Federer's 2009 victory at the FO is undeserved.


Nadal was playing much better, it's 5 set matches (if you hadn't noticed Federer didn't do very well in 5 set matches tournament this year after AO), and the proof is in the pudding, Federer wasn't good enough to get to the finals, everything else is just speculation, and this thread is a clear troll attempt by the biggest troll on this boards.


Nadal was playing much better because he faced weak opponents all the way up until the final. That's a fact. And two, Federer owns Nadal on fast uniform bouncing surfaces. Nadal has managed to scrape ONE win, in a match that Federer clearly should have won but choked.
 
Last edited:

ksbh

Banned
Tough luck for Nadal at the U.S Open. He would have beaten Federer at all 4 slam finals if giant nose hadn't tanked against Djokovic! Now that would have been a crowning glory.
 

FTS

Banned
Tough luck for Nadal at the U.S Open. He would have beaten Federer at all 4 slam finals if giant nose hadn't tanked against Djokovic! Now that would have been a crowning glory.
yeah just like his year end "crowning glory" :mrgreen:
 

ksbh

Banned
LOL, true! But let's not get too far ahead ... it's an important event but it ain't anywhere close to the importance of a slam. We'll see what happens when they play each other at a slam. If I had a lot of money, there's no question who my money will be on :)

yeah just like his year end "crowning glory" :mrgreen:
 

big bang

Hall of Fame
Nope. Federer played awesome incredible tennis at this year's US Open until the semis. He had one bad match. Had Djokovic missed on those two match points, I'm sure Federer would have brought out his best again in the final against Nadal. :)
sure, like he allways do at slam finals right?:). Only person thats lucky is Fed, how would he look having lost to Nadal in the final at all 4 majors?. Not very good for his legacy right?:)
 

FTS

Banned
who you lose to on a day, that's not legacy. he could be 0-22 with nadal, it's how many slams are tucked in the bag that counts. any pro would rather be a in F than SF. see my avatar that's a slam graph for Fed, Nad, and Samps. to just keep up with Fed he has to win at least 2 slams next year.
 

ksbh

Banned
Tough luck for Nadal. He must have been lickin his chops waiting for Federer in the final, only to find a Serbian :(

There's always next year though ... as long as there's no bad light or a disease that saps energy out of Swiss people with big noses! ROFL!

sure, like he allways do at slam finals right?:). Only person thats lucky is Fed, how would he look having lost to Nadal in the final at all 4 majors?. Not very good for his legacy right?:)
 

niff

Legend
who you lose to on a day, that's not legacy. he could be 0-22 with nadal, it's how many slams are tucked in the bag that counts. any pro would rather be a in F than SF. see my avatar that's a slam graph for Fed, Nad, and Samps. to just keep up with Fed he has to win at least 2 slams next year.
Ha, I've been wondering what your avvie was...
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
who you lose to on a day, that's not legacy. he could be 0-22 with nadal, it's how many slams are tucked in the bag that counts. any pro would rather be a in F than SF. see my avatar that's a slam graph for Fed, Nad, and Samps. to just keep up with Fed he has to win at least 2 slams next year.
Sampras has a lot of Clay legacy to add to the discussion.

Sampras is completely out of the race now dude. Roger and Rafa showed that if one is a good enough player they can win on all surfaces. Ofcourse he has 14 slams to hang on (5 more than Rafa) for a lil bit of time. Assuming that you considered that and hence put Sampras in discussion.
 

FTS

Banned
Sampras has a lot of Clay legacy to add to the discussion.

Sampras is completely out of the race now dude. Roger and Rafa showed that if one is a good enough player they can win on all surfaces. Ofcourse he has 14 slams to hang on (5 more than Rafa) for a lil bit of time. Assuming that you considered that and hence put Sampras in discussion.
he's just there for reference as the next best after fedal
 
Top