TheLoneWolf
Banned
Thank you, abmk. That goes to show you that you can be a Federer fan without relinquishing even the faintest attachment to reality.
Prime Federer vs Prime Nadal
- Thread starter TheLoneWolf
- Start date
NonP
Legend
Thank you, NonP. The last thing I want to do is irk reasonable people like you.
Thanks, TheLoneWolf, but you give me too much credit. I'd reserve the term "reasonable" for posters like krosero or pc1. My patience has its limits, unfortunately.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
And you are humble too!
Having a bottomless reservoir of undeserved patience is completely unreasonable, no doubt about that.
The comments which I have bolded in your reply indicate that you are a *******, sorry. I can't argue with blind fanaticism.
Nadal prime in 2006? LMFAO. And yes, you are right. Nothing has changed in Nadal's game. 2008 was simply a giant fluke.
That you think I'm a ******* indicates you're a Nadal ****, sorry. I can't argue with blind fanaticism either. Nadal's game hasn't changed much since 2006. 2008 was as fluke as 2009 was for Roger. You can't have it both ways *********.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
Of course I'm a *********. But even a **** can keep some semblance of impartiality, unlike you. The fact that you say that Nadal on 2006 was prime disqualifies you immediately.
A *********'s self declaration of impartiality is hardly credible. LOL. Do you even listen to the stupidities you are spewing? The fact that you don't agree 2006 was prime Nadal disqualifies you immediately.
Nadal beat Federer in Dubai in 2006. That's peak Fed. On one of the fastest outdoor hardcourts on tour (behind cinci and us open only, maybe similar speed to us open).
Nadal was injured for the '06 AO
One thing I agree with you in is that 2006 Nadal definitely was prime Nadal. Saying that he wasn't in his prime in '06 purely on the basis of his play being better in '08 is just like saying Federer wasn't in his prime when Safin beat him at the AO '05 because Federer didn't play as well as he did against Roddick at AO '07.
There's a difference between prime and absolute best, hell, there's even a difference between prime and peak. Nadal's been in his prime since '05, but his peak thus far has been April '08 to April '09. Just like Federer was in his prime '04 to '07 but his peak was either late 04 to mid/late 05 or mid '06 to early 07.
I also agree that the changes Nadal has made to his game since '06 are quite small in terms of being visible when watching him play, but they've had a huge positive effect on his success on tour, so in another sense they're very big changes.
gold soundz
Professional
Nadal was not prime in 2006. I'd say 2008.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
Sorry but you are not making sense anymore (not that you made a lot to begin with.)
TheLoneWolf
Banned
Now we are getting into semantic distinctions which are meaningless for the purpose of this thread. When I say "prime" I mean in best form. If Nadal was playing better in 08 than in 06, he couldn't be prime in 06. It's that simple.
NonP
Legend
And you are humble too!
Having a bottomless reservoir of undeserved patience is completely unreasonable, no doubt about that.
LOL, thanks. And I agree, an immoderate virtue can be a vice. Let's just say there are nicer guys than me.
abmk
Bionic Poster
We can ride that kind of reasoning on a slippery slope all the way down.
Observe: Nadal was better in the Middle of '08 than later '08, so he wasn't in his prime in later '08. Nadal was better in the first half of the middle of '08 than the second, so the second half of the middle of '08 wasn't his prime. Nadal was better in the finals of Roland garros '08 than in the other 6 matches, so the first 6 matches of RG he wasn't in his prime. Nadal was better in the 3rd set of the RG '08 final than he was in the first two, so nadal wasn't in his prime in the first two sets of RG '08. Nadal was better in the 2nd point of the 3rd game of the 3rd set......etc.
If you wan't to define prime as best year or best match that's fine with me, but don't tell me that semantic distinctions are meaningless and then go on in the very next sentence to make a semantic distinction that is crucial to your argument.
Last edited:
TheLoneWolf
Banned
Thank you, that's exactly what I meant to say, but you put it much better.
I hear Fed is so nice that he lets Nadal win 2 times out of every 3 to not make him feel too bad.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
No, sorry. Everybody knows that *******s are always reasonable, no matter what. It's a fact.that applies to fan of any player
TheLoneWolf
Banned
OK, fair enough. Let's say best 1 year period then.
abmk
Bionic Poster
No, sorry. Everybody knows that *******s are always reasonable, no matter what. It's a fact.
ah, you ought to read more of nadal_freak( and his laws of physics ) , veroniquem ( ah, the hypocrisy and nadal was injured everytime he loses ) and TheTruth ( what an irony the name is )
In that case I pretty much agree with JeMar's percentages. What the h2h will look like is going to depend on the relative number of matches on each surface. Would it be more reasonable to weight each surface in accord with its frequency on the tour, or just say equal number of matches on each surface? (and do we split indoor and outdoor hardcourts??)
TheLoneWolf
Banned
What about them? They are all awesome.ah, you ought to read more of nadal_freak( and his laws of physics ) , veroniquem ( ah, the hypocrisy and nadal was injured everytime he loses ) and TheTruth ( what an irony the name is )
Come to think of it, I think I've seen some stuff by Nadal_Freak, and even I thought that was a little extreme. LOL.
You have your share of goons however, Sphintex (aka Aphex) being the latest one. The guy always comes out in defense of other *******s when I'm having an argument with them. LOL.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
I think I wasn't anticipating this thread being taken so seriously. I think if you want to be fair, you would have to have a surface distribution similar to the current tour. I suppose you could split indoor and outdoor hardcourts too, if you want to have a finer level of detail.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
nadal owns federer on clay
federer has the edge on hardcourts and grass.
so it depends on how many matches they play on each surface.
federer has the edge on hardcourts and grass.
so it depends on how many matches they play on each surface.
abmk
Bionic Poster
What about them? They are all awesome.
Come to think of it, I think I've seen some stuff by Nadal_Freak, and even I thought that was a little extreme. LOL.
You have your share of goons however, Sphintex (aka Aphex) being the latest one. The guy always comes out in defense of other *******s when I'm having an argument with them. LOL.
oh there are quite a few more , but conquistador easily tops them all !
TheLoneWolf
Banned
I'm not familiar with him, but I'll take your word for it. I just remembered that Cyan was just accussing me of being Nadal_Freak. LOL. At first I didn't know if she was kidding or not, but apparently she wasn't.
NonP
Legend
Thank you, that's exactly what I meant to say, but you put it much better.
I hear Fed is so nice that he lets Nadal win 2 times out of every 3 to not make him feel too bad.
No problem. And I see you're feeling a little funky tonight.
Also, I normally don't like to waste my time in this forum, but since you're involved in this "discussion" I'll add a few words. You're right that Nadal wasn't in his prime in '06, though you didn't use the best terms possible when you said "in best form." What you could've said was that Nadal wasn't an all-round player yet in '06. His serve was still a weakness, his volley not as well developed as in '08 or even '07, and he was still playing a de facto clay-court game on all surfaces. Just revisit a few old Nadal matches and compare his game on non-clay surfaces in '06 vs. '08. By '08 he was standing closer to the baseline and flattening out his shots more, and his backhand had become almost as reliable as his forehand. And unsurprisingly his results over the years reflect these improvements of his game.
But I'll add a small caveat and say Nadal's prime on clay did start in '05 when he began to dominate his competition on the surface. That's because the serve isn't as important on clay as on other surfaces, few could (and can) exploit Rafa's backhand on the surface, he was moving as well as ever, and he always has had pretty good hands and good put-away volleys. And of course similar caveats can be made about Borg and Sampras on grass, JMac on clay, etc.
This should be obvious to anyone with a functional central nervous system, but you know what they say about common sense. :wink:
TheLoneWolf
Banned
The forums are missing a lot by not having you here. Simply the explanation that you have given about Nadal's evolution just now is proof enough of that. I understand why you don't post much however, and I can't blame you.No problem. And I see you're feeling a little funky tonight.
Also, I normally don't like to waste my time in this forum, but since you're involved in this "discussion" I'll add a few words. You're right that Nadal wasn't in his prime in '06, though you didn't use the best terms possible when you said "in best form." What you could've said was that Nadal wasn't an all-round player yet in '06. His serve was still a weakness, his volley not as well developed as in '08 or even '07, and he was still playing a de facto clay-court game on all surfaces. Just revisit a few old Nadal matches and compare his game on non-clay surfaces in '06 vs. '08. By '08 he was standing closer to the baseline and flattening out his shots more, and his backhand had become almost as reliable as his forehand. And unsurprisingly his results over the years reflect these improvements of his game.
But I'll add a small caveat and say Nadal's prime on clay did start in '05 when he began to dominate his competition on the surface. That's because the serve isn't as important on clay as on other surfaces, few could (and can) exploit Rafa's backhand on the surface, he was moving as well as ever, and he always has had pretty good hands and good put-away volleys. And of course similar caveats can be made about Borg and Sampras on grass, JMac on clay, etc.
This should be obvious to anyone with a functional central nervous system, but you know what they say about common sense. :wink:
I am still waiting to see what Nadal does next. That's the thing that baffles me the most: That some people accuse him of being a one-dimensional moonballer that has never adapted but for marginal improvements in one or two shots. But I get the feeling that uncle Toni's brain is always busy with new stuff. I don't know if the rumors about them looking into Murray's serve are correct, but it will be interesting to see what Nadal does with his serve. I really don't think his serve is bad at all, except for lacking some power. Maybe by copying Murray's technique they expect to add some mph to Nadal's serve?
Yeah, I'm feeling funky tonight alright. LOL. I'm on my 3rd beer, and I usually don't drink.
J
Jchurch
Guest
Nadal obviously won 5 USOs and 5 AOs..... Oh wait.... he only has one AO. A match where he beat Federer the first time he played him after Federer had just gotten over the flu is not an indication of Nadal's hard court prowess.
NonP
Legend
Oh no, I mean just this General Pro Player forum. I read only a small number of threads here. I do enjoy Former Player and occasionally Odds & Ends, depending on the subject.
The current Federer-Sampras thread and its ilk are good for a few laughs--you see the usual kiddie talk about old vs. new grass, the return of serve, "nostalgia," etc.--but they're all same old ignorant and logic-deficient fluff. Kinda like junk food. I like to be entertained and learn at the same time.
Frankly I doubt that at this point Nadal can improve his serve all that much. He hardly bends his knees to begin with (which BTW is probably right for him, given his recurring knee tendinitis), and if he has yet to add more mph to his serve by now I don't see him gaining much more heat. And serving with his left rather than his natural right hand doens't help him, either.
But Nadal, like Borg before him, works as hard on his game as anybody. That's why he's a class apart from the typical clay-court specialists, even those who had the talent and potential to become an all-surface threat. One of 'em was Bruguera. He's probably the only one who could match Nadal in topspin and court coverage on clay, and he also had an excellent return of serve that was perfect for faster surfaces, where he'd approach the service line to attack 2nd serves. But he was also very lazy, and it showed: unlike his fellow clay-courters he had questionable fitness. Really, I can only think of Philippoussis when I try to name the one person from the '90s who squandered his gifts like no other. Which is a shame, for both Bruguera and Philippoussis.
Yeah, I'm feeling funky tonight alright. LOL. I'm on my 3rd beer, and I usually don't drink.
Good for ya. Just try not to drink yourself silly.
NonP
Legend
abmk, I'm guessing you were referring to that part where I talk about those from the '90s who could've achieved more. Stich was indeed one hell of a talent and also one of my personal faves, but I don't think he underachieved due to lack of effort on his part (though you could say he did retire prematurely). I think that had more to do with his mood swings and especially his short temper. Sure, he wasn't quite as crazy as Goran or Safin, but I've seen him go off and self-destruct in more than a match or two. (One of 'em was against Agassi, can't remember exactly which.)
NonP
Legend
Well, that's true, but I was talking in terms of effort. And while he may not have had the work ethic of Borg or Nadal, he sure worked harder than Bruguera or Flipper.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, that's true ....
Clay lover
Legend
I don't think prime Nadal stands a chance against prime Federer on hardcourts. Wimby maybe Fed wins 6 out of 10 times. On Clay Fed is no match.
gold soundz
Professional
Didn't Nadal win in Dubai when Federer was in his prime?
zasr4325
Professional
if you're gonna go by that, then murray also beat federer in 2006 in cincy, which is a fairly similar surface to dubai. so what does that mean, still developing murray better on fast hc than prime fed?
gold soundz
Professional
Clay lover posted "I don't think prime Nadal stands a chance against prime Federer on hardcourts". I disagree with this because it's completely false. Nadal has beaten prime Federer on hardcourts (Dubai) so how can you argue against facts? Of course Fed is way better overall on hardcourts, but his post is clearly incorrect.
Federer's rectified that blip against Murray to some extent (at least in the important matches) on outdoor hardcourts. But Federer's record on outdoor hardcourts against Nadal has only gotten worse (albeit by only one loss) since Dubai '06.
That was a terrible match for Federer to lose, by the way. The first set was probably in the top 3 best sets he's ever played against Nadal, and then he just fell apart. Nadal wasn't even playing that well, just retrieving everything.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Clay-big edge Nadal
Modern grass-Tie
Old grass-edge Fed
Slow outdoor HC-edge Nadal
Fast outdoor HC-edge Fed
Indoors-big edge Fed
Overall I think Fed was always gonna end up with losing H2H against Nadal but if they played a bit more on surfaces that favoured Fed I think H2H would be closer.
Modern grass-Tie
Old grass-edge Fed
Slow outdoor HC-edge Nadal
Fast outdoor HC-edge Fed
Indoors-big edge Fed
Overall I think Fed was always gonna end up with losing H2H against Nadal but if they played a bit more on surfaces that favoured Fed I think H2H would be closer.
zasr4325
Professional
i watched some highlights of the dubai match, but spoke to someone after who said fed didn't really find much game at important times in the next two sets. i think its too harsh to say that fed's gotten worse, as it was only the ao 09 and that match was pretty close throughout, apart from the final set. but as they haven't really played that many times on outdoor hc, you've got to look at how they've performed at other events. for example, nadal may have beaten fed in dubai 06, but nadal lost to youzhny there in 07, with fed winning the title. but you could also say that fed has a mental block against nadal, which means that he often doesn't, or isn't allowed to play his best tennis against rafa. so its a bit complicated on hc, but grass would have to got to fed, in the same way that clay would easily go to nadal
I meant Federer's h2h record against Nadal on outdoor hardcourts has gotten worse since then because he's lost 1 match and won none since dubai 2006. And you're right that if you want to see who's the better player you have to look at much much more than just the h2h, but the thread's about the h2h specifically.
Likewise I'm sure.
Dubai is quite a bit slower than cincy or USO. In fact, I might even put it as medium fast HC. And Dubai is not a slam. We all know how Federer transforms in slams. I don't think Dubai is a good barometer for how Nadal would do against Federer in a USO final.
Well I remember in 2007 it was playing very fast, looked comparable to the us open to me. In 2006 Federer won 12 titles, only 3 were slams. He made the final of all but one of the tournaments he played That year he didn't ever want to lose. So the argument that he only cares about slams doesn't apply to dubai 2006 loss to nadal.
Edit: But I agree that it's not necessarily a good indicator of how Federer would do in a USO final with Nadal. You'd expect he'd play more like the first set of dubai, less like the other two sets. But then again when Federer plays Nadal you never know
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Um was Nadal NOT beating Federer's ass in his prime? What a b.s poll.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
The voice of reason again.
gold soundz
Professional
Nadal had 8 victories against Federer between 2004 and 2007. And 2 of those included hard court victories!
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Just goes to show you that the ****s live in complete delusion. LOL
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Federer edge in everything and everyone overall but with Nadal 2 close 2 call. However if a gun held against my head had 2 choose one Federer slight edge surface dependent.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
