Olympics 2012 Men's Singles Final: [1] Roger Federer vs [3] Andy Murray
- Thread starter kishnabe
- Start date
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Sorry but that is simply not true. The first time Nadal beat Fed was in 2004 when Fed was as much in his peak as he could possibly be and Rafa was still very "green" (and on hard no less). Teenage Murray beat Fed for the first time in 2006, which is Fed's absolute peak year and that's also a year when Rafa beat Fed in 4 finals (including Dubai on hard...). Djoko beat Fed in Canada 2007 when Fed was not 26 yet. That is not old for a late bloomer like Fed and anyway 2007 (look at the stats) very much belongs to Fed's prime years. + Djoko and Nadal were rather precocious, so they would have made minced meat of Fed for years since Fed didn't really hit his stride until close to 22.
Last edited:
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Roger Federer: "Andy was much better than I was today in many aspects of the game. For me, it’s been a great month. I won Wimbledon, became World No. 1 again, and I got silver. Don’t feel too bad for me. I am very, very proud honestly to have won a silver [medal].
"Murray’s an amazing player already. I thought he played a very, very good Wimbledon championship. So for me what I was happy to see is that he didn’t have a let-down after the Wimbledon final. It’s easy to come back, best-of-three, go out third round maybe. You just feel more horrible. But he didn’t do that. He came, he won gold. I think this is how champions react."
On whether he will compete at the 2016 Rio Olympics: "I hope so. I said it before the tournament that it's not impossible that I could take part in Rio. It’s not front and centre in my mind. But, of course, I’d love an Olympic gold in singles.”
"Murray’s an amazing player already. I thought he played a very, very good Wimbledon championship. So for me what I was happy to see is that he didn’t have a let-down after the Wimbledon final. It’s easy to come back, best-of-three, go out third round maybe. You just feel more horrible. But he didn’t do that. He came, he won gold. I think this is how champions react."
On whether he will compete at the 2016 Rio Olympics: "I hope so. I said it before the tournament that it's not impossible that I could take part in Rio. It’s not front and centre in my mind. But, of course, I’d love an Olympic gold in singles.”
Murrayfan31
Hall of Fame
WIth the sun out and roof open, it's like a totally surface compared to how the Wimbledon final was like. Way easier to break and the ball jumping up. These are the conditions that allowed Nadal to beat Federer at Wimbledon. Now Murray did it as well.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Nalbandian was an incredibly formidable player who historically has had more scalps against Federer than Murray, especially in big matches. The guy beat prime Federer many times. Safin beat Federer in a slam when Fed was at the peak of his powers. I'm not saying they'd be a stiffer challenge, but you're clearly not giving them enough credit. Also, sure Federer is 5-9 in best of three vs Murray but Federer has quite clearly declined in best of 3 since 2007, and has lost to unheralded players many times, something he wouldn't do in 2004-2006, so to say he would "dominate" Fed in BO3 is very naive.
But I repeat, where is the logic? How can you possibly argue that Federer is the one thats lucky when Murray is facing a Fed whose best days are clearly behind him? I'm pretty sure Murray would hate to face young Fed more than young Fed would **shudder** to face Murray, so Murray is luckier.
Last edited:
Crisstti
Legend
Yep. I think it's blatantly obvious that Fed would have won less had he faced these guys (especially Nadal) at his prime, rather than the ones he faced (many of whom I like a lot, not trying to put them down).
Good points about Murray. This will depend on how much Murray manages to win in his career, I'd say.
Last edited:
mightyrick
Legend
Absolutely. When you look at the player archetypes who Federer historically has had to work hard to beat, it is players with decent serves who attack his backhand, have a consistently strong baseline game, and a decent backhand (or are lefty).
The problem is, the only such players who match that archetype that he met in their primes was Nadal and Roddick.
But when people see past-prime Agassi against prime Federer in their US Open meetings, I don't think anyone would argue that prime Agassi (also that same archetype) against prime Federer would probably split H2H with him. Agassi didn't have Roddick's GOATish serve, but he had a better ground game, moved better, had one of the top two returns of serve ever, and had arguably one of the top 3 backhands in history. In Federer's era, if you removed Fed and substituted Agassi, then Agassi would probably have equally as many slams.
It isn't to take anything away from Federer. No matter what happens, Federer stands shoulder to shoulder with the greatest players ever and deserves everything he has won.
I only wish Federer could have come out 10 years earlier. Prime Fed/Agassi/Sampras and so many others playing at the same time. Awesome.
Feather
Legend
Why is it that Rafa was not able to win only one AO and US open? Who prevented Rafa from winning?
Warmaster
Hall of Fame
Needs more people being subjective about the strength of one era compared to another...
nadal2012uso2013ao
Banned
You are talking about a 26-year-old, not a soon to be 31-year-old. And the 26-year-old has been in 3 of the last 4 hardcourt slam finals. So just be patient. Or does Federer really need 5 years more than Nadal to be compared properly? Maybe he does, considering Nadal already has more masters shields than Federer.
At least Nadal didn't lose in the 1st Round of Wimbledon 3 times (Federer 1999, 2000, 2002), and the 1st Round of Roland Garros 3 times (Federer 1999, 2002, 2003).
6-1 6-3 6-0
Banned
It's definitely a testament to how fast a learner Nadal is. Nadal didn't need to experience those first-round losses to make progress. A 5-set 2nd round loss is hardly bad either; people seem to forget that Federer lost in straight sets in the 1st round of Wimbledon 2002, a year before he would win it (so very close to when he was capable of winning the tournament). Nadal in 2012 was also capable of winning the tournament but didn't, so the situations are very similar.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Fed faced Nadal, Novak and Murray the total of 23 times, how many times do you think Fed should have to face them actually? Heck, Fed faced Novak in slams more than Nadal did.
Not to mention that it's blatantly obvious (to use the term) that those guys (Nadal, Murray, Novak) would have won less often against Fed in 2004-2007 as well by the sole virtue of Fed being a beter player/harder to beat in those days.
It also remains to be seen whether other member of the top 4 will age anywhere near as "gracefully" as Fed did, would 30 year old Nadal, Murray and Novak be a match for 30 year old Fed? Cause I definitely don't see the likes of Dimitrov, Raonic and Tomic stopping him from piling up slams even at that age.
There are far too many factors involved to simplify it like that, not to mention that we don't even have enough data.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
She is unable to think.
zagor
Bionic Poster
No, I disagree with that, Crisstti's OK.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
All evidence to the contrary.
I think the easy score of the first 2 sets made Murray realize that he was winning. He was playing with that feeling for the entire 3rd set, so, when it was over, it was not as dramatic as it could have been had this been an epic 5-set thriller. His celebration was quite muted.
So, once again, Federer robbed Murray of good emotions. This time, by losing in a very unremarkable fashion.
So, once again, Federer robbed Murray of good emotions. This time, by losing in a very unremarkable fashion.
Al Czervik
Hall of Fame
Muzza's mutts!
batz
G.O.A.T.
Crisstti
Legend
Crisstti
Legend
He barely had to face them on their prime when he was on his prime (except arguably Rafa on clay).
One just has too look at who Fed faced on slam finals and who Nadal, Novak and Murray have faced.
It isn't obvious at all when it comes to Nadal.
It remains to be seen, yeah. But a lot comes to play into that, not just how good a player is.
AWWWW!!!! Best picture I've seen.Muzza's mutts!
TheFifthSet
Legend
That's a pretty bold statemment. Federer won 7 wimbledons and 5 us opems, agassi 1 and 2. Where would all these slams come from? Agassi surely wouldn't win 7 wimbys, and many years at the open he lost to unseeded or journymen players so 5 opens isn't a given either. How many frenches with nadal there? What about australian opens? Given djokovic, nadal and murray I don't know how many he ends up with.
A lot of people have short memories and forget just how great Federer in his prime was. Agassi, as great as he was, was far too inconsistent to emulate his success.
Smasher08
Legend
Lolz, I like how you compare a pre-prime 20 year old Fed with a 26 year old 11x grand slam winning creaky-kneed Nadal. One had yet to ascend, and the other has been wholly unable to win off of clay for the past two calendar years.
To use the logic you routinely apply to everyone but your beloved: Nadal is clearly no longer capable of winning tournaments off of clay.
That's why he's never been able to defend a title off of clay.
Smasher08
Legend
Who, Youngassi? Not a chance. That guy had very little mental toughness and was interested in just about everything but tennis.
Oldgassi? Too many guys in the current era could exploit his declining movement. The current era is just as physical as AA himself during his peak years, so Dre wouldn't have that edge.
As great as he was, if you did substitute Dre for Fed, he'd probably still win about half as much hardware.
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
One of the most half hearted efforts i have ever seen.For a guy with 17 grand slams, he was pathetic!!
Smasher08
Legend
Like ohmigod, there's no way possible that an all-time slam-winning legend could show up to a final with nothing left in the tank.
Fedex
Legend
That's it then.
Bit in bold explains why Olympics the best, crowd rowdiness and why a Scot won the gold.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes, but Fed is not some player who disappeared after his prime or something, he still kept up a high level for the last 3-4 years and was getting deep in the slams often enough to face the top 3 so they still (negatively) affected his slam count (aside from Murray obviously, not yet anyway). Novak for example cannot be used to bolster Nadal's opposition when he faced Fed 11 times in slams (more than he did Nadal for example), he's by far Fed's biggest career rival on HC, I don't think that's even debatable (for reference, Agassi-Sampras met less in HC slams than Fed and Novak did).
One could argue, that had they faced him at his peak he would do the same to them, in short if Fed was the same age as the other top 3 players they would lose on # of big titles as well, not just the other way around and as I said it needs to be seen whether they'll still be able to play so great at Fed's age (say from 29-30+) or whether the current crop of young guns steps it up in any meaningful way (something I sincerely doubt to be honest).
For example, look at how well Fed played in 2011 FO, what if he had to face a 29-30 year old Nadal in the final instead of a 24-25 year old Nadal?
Maybe not but 2004-2007 Fed as a rule displayed a higher level of play in slams (aside from FO atleast, he matured a bit late on clay compared to other surfaces) which in turn made him tougher to beat in that period.
Take his 2007 AO for example, he won it without losing a set(only time he ever won a slam like that), compare that to 2009 AO (in which Nadal beat him in 5 sets) in which he was on the brink of losing in an early round and overall made a career high # of double faults for a single tourney.
There's also 2008 Wimbledon final where Nadal playing the best grasscourt tennis of his life by quite a margin against a well playing but somewhat shaky in confidence Fed and it went to 9-7 in the 5th, there are no guarantees Nadal peak for peak Nadal would be beating Fed at Wimbledon.
Yes, a lot of factors come into play (conditions, opposition etc.) but one player's prowess is still one of the major factors.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
You mean your signature?
I wouldn't really classify Nadal's on court behaviour as outright cheating either, unsportsmanlike? Yes, to a degree, he tries to force his own pace on the opponent far too much for my liking.
However, I view cheating as something done under the radar with an effort to avoid detection, Nadal's not hiding from the umpire, it's up to the umpire to do his job and enforce the rules.
Not to mention that time rule is somewhat loose and not applied nearly enough even on other players (let alone a megastar like Nadal), I don't think I've ever seen a tennis umpire ever go further from giving a warning for time wasting (say deduct a point or something).
zagor
Bionic Poster
Muzza's mutts!
Heh, cute dogs!
Murray messed up on not winning a gold in mixed doubles as well so that one dog doesn't get preferential treatment
.
Feña14
G.O.A.T.
I like how the one with the gold medal is having a look at the other ones silver
it's like he's saying, "I told you I was the favourite".Tennis_Hands
Banned
Definition of CHEAT
transitive verb
1: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>
intransitive verb
1a: to practice fraud or trickery b: to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>
2: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on <was cheating on his wife>
3: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>
Examples of CHEAT
The players were accused of cheating.
I had to cheat in order to solve the puzzle.
The store cheats its customers through false advertising.
They cheated him out of a fair deal.
a heroin addict who has cheated death many times
(as per Merriam-Webster)
Merriam-Webster doesn't agree with your definition. Neither does any of the reputable sources in the world.
See, I have a problem with people, that think, that they are qualified to pass judgement, just because they exist. Much like with their idol Nadal, the ************* think, that the rules are there for them to interpret, rejecting any and every authority behind them.
The effort of some people to redefine already defined moral values, in order to suit their agenda is a major problem in every society.
Redefinition, if taking place, should be done after careful consideration, which requires both extensive knowledge and substantial experience. Two things, that I feel punks like the likes from the ************* do not possess.
My signature is not a tribute to one particular poster, rather than a tribute to all the said people, that feel free to do things, they are not qualified for. And since ************* are a major contributor to this problem on this board, I choose to point at them (quite often).
To address you other point.
I do not care, if the umpire sanctions one player or not. The thing is, the players should play by the rules. Nadal (and any other, who breaks them) does not. It is unfair to the players, that do, and I believe, that this IS an advantage/disadvantage, when two such players play.
Especially in a sport like tennis, where a lot of things revolve around tradition associated with agreement between gentlemans, this is ruining its integrity.
Last edited:
DragonBlaze
Hall of Fame
Feather
Legend
Firstly, I was comparing 26 year old Rafa versus 26 year old Roger. You know very well that Rafa is trailing Roger in the number of slams won by each. Roger had 12 while Rafa has 11.
Roger had seven hard court slams and five Wimbledon. So despite Roger being out of the equation, Rafa has won only two Grand slams on hard courts. I know very well that you yourself don't believe in the theory of four slams per year for Rafa. Just for argument sake, you can go on and on about Rafa raking up slams. And I am not interested to debate about that either.
Losing in the early stages of the Wimbledon is nothing great. It was how he started. Roger lost twice in the first round in the fast grass of Wimbledon. He took time to adapt. Rafa played in Wimbledon which has been slowed down a lot. So he didn't have much problems. You know very well how many times Rafa played five setters in the first round when grass was fast and that would have given you an idea about what would have happned had the grass been what it was. Lastly, no way Roger would lose to 100 ranked guy in his prime. NO WAY.
Last edited:
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Heh, cute dogs!
Murray messed up on not winning a gold in mixed doubles as well so that one dog doesn't get preferential treatment
Ah. That shows that the singles Gold was a fluke just as was Rafa's in 2008 (who could not win the doubles Gold, while Massu won both).
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
LOL Nice one....Could see Murray disdained face in the picture!Has this been posted already :
LOL Nice one....Could see Murray disdained face in the picture!
LOL that natalia pic could not have been captioned any better
batz
G.O.A.T.
Has this been posted already :
How would either of them know?
Last edited:
6-1 6-3 6-0
Banned
Last edited:
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Good point. And the only active player who would know is Rafael Nadal.
Aww, did you have to bring NSK here?
batz
G.O.A.T.
Amen! I've been looking for a picture of the guys on the medal stand.Has this been posted already :
Anybody got video of the ceremony? NBC showed Walmart commercial then Olga Korbut. Can't find it on Utube as well
Ico
Hall of Fame
If that's true, it shows Rafa's mental status is decaying as quickly as his knees. How is a 6-round BO3 tournament with total home-crowd support possibly harder than a 7-round BO5 Grand Slam? Also, let's not forget how ridiculously easy Rafa's Beijing 2008 draw was. Anyway, it was nice of him to congratulate Andy. I wonder if he'll be as genial the next time he loses to him on the tennis courts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
