Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tusharlovesrafa, Dec 25, 2012.
Quality post. Must be the holiday spirits
How would 2005-2007 Nadal stand a better chance vs Sampras when he couldn't even beat Federer?
Anyway we have to say that 2003, 2004 and 2012 Federer would stand a chance vs Sampras and that Sampras would stand no chance in 2005-2010. Beacuse Federer won in 2003, 2004 and 2012 but his wins in the 2005-2010 period invalidate his 2003, 2004 and 2012 wins (according to your logic) hence Sampras winning in 2005-2010 would invalidate all his other wins too.
Remember you said nothing about FORM. You only said players that won in 2005-2010 would not have won in the 80s/90s.
Also funny that you say Nadal is the GOAT but now say he wouldn't have won on grass in the 80s/90s. Laver could win on every surface.
Fair play Vero on behalf of Federer fans, a thumbs up!
Tryig to buy crediility amogst the Federer fans with posts, that do not in any way, touch her beloved.
Fed’s easy draws just need to be pointed out when some people have the face to complain about Nadal having easy draws…
Sorry, but while players like Bagdhatis and González deserve credit for what they did, they just made for easier opponents and therefore easier draws than if a more experienced player was the one to make the final (not to mention when comparing playing that final against an all time great).
I agree Federer has had them too, I'm just saying easy draws don't equal a title you wouldn't have won otherwise. That goes for everyone.
With your second point, i'm not sure. I mean if someone lower ranked had knocked out Federer at RG in 2008, they might have actually given Nadal a better match (the right player in form) not much better, but it couldn't have been much worse! Tsonga knocked out murray and Nadal in the 2008 AO, Nadal might have done better than winning a set in the final but Murray probably wouldn't have, in fact he probably would have been straight setted. Likewise Murray probably would have lost the 2009 US Open final in straight sets, yet a less fancied player like Delpo actually won.
Less experienced is not always easier.
All of Baghs, Gonzo and Sod were easy (inexperienced) slam finalists. Not Fed's fault of course but it's obvious anyone would pick them over the big names. Same could be said for Berd in the final of Wimbledon or Tsonga in the final of AO or Stich in the USO final for Agassi. Much better than Sampras, don't you think? It's not fair but given the way tennis works, it will happen again and yes some players get more luck than others throughout their careers and some eras are much weaker than others and what can we do about this? Nothing. Still, I have a right to admire (more) every time a player does it the (sometimes very) hard way. Like beating #1, 2 and 3 in a row. Same result but I'll be a bit more impressed. So I understand what Crisstti is saying here.
I agree with you here. Del Potro who had never beaten Roger before their US Open 2009, also was playing his first slam, and this is a guy that has not even won a masters event. Federer should have won on paper, but the actual result was very different...
While Bhagdatis I might question, Gonzo was in supreme form at that event. He was blazing everyone everywhere, exactly the same way Federer was. He burned Nadal, and played what he described his most perfect match against Haas, and even had a set point against Roger. His only problem was that Roger himself played his greatest ever slam at the same time, but Gonzo was a formidable player that event, no one could touch him.
I think Nalbandian was more of a threat than Baghdatis against Roger in 06 AO final. But since it was Baghdatis, I was relief. However, it doesn't necessary mean it was easier for Roger. Had it was Nalbandian instead, I think Roger would be more focus because he knows Nalbandian is a dangerous player, and possibly beat him straight sets rather than having an unknown Baghdatis who took the 1st set off him.
I do too. I mean sure, beating the top guys is always a great bonus, but if you're beating the top guys it also means they're playing well enough to reach the latter stages. Sometimes they're not and might actually get destroyed if they reached the final. Like I said, there are players who could have probably won a few more games than Federer did in the 2008 RG final. If someone had knocked Federer out and gone down 6-2 6-3 6-1 people would have said Nadal was gifted the final and Federer would have made it harder. We know the truth...
I'm just saying it's not ALWAYS easier against a less experienced opponent, sometimes they are the best.
Yeah I agree about Gonzo, he played some inspired tennis.
Serena was ranked really low since she was out of action for a long time due to injury. But who would want to play her in the early round? I'm sure all the top 4 players wouldn't want her to fall into their quarter draw.
Nadal needs confidence and momentum to pull off his best work. He's very beatable in the early rounds of Slams. Even USO 2010, he was struggling in his first round match against Gabashvilli.
WTA is a joke tour. You can't miss 7 months on the ATP Tour and not be left behind. The ATP Tour is always evolving at the razor's end of the rankings. The guys are all getting better every month.
The funny thing is Baghdatis came much closer to beating Fed than Gonzalez did. Which I think had to do with the fact that Fed played ridiculously well at the 07 AO coming in on a huge winning streak, and not so good at the 06 one. In fact he was still wearing an ankle brace at the 2006 AO, and was struggling by his standards. Went 5 sets with Haas and had a brutal match with Davydenko in the QF. Also lost sets to Keifer and Baghdatis in the SF and F. He (Baghdatis) was actually up 7-5 2-0 with a breakpoint to go up 3-0 (double break) which happened to be a fairly long rally. Just some observations.
As far as the draws go, I stand by what I said, however it is not always the case, but more of a general thing IMO although I can understand what Cristti is saying.
Yup at 7-5 2-0 and break point down Fed hit a ridiculous FH winner up the line that the commentator said "this well could be the turning point in this final" and he was dead right. It was *all* Fed from that winner.
Like whom? Which guys are getting better than even Nadal at 70%? Berdych and Tipsarevic, don't make me laugh.
Yup even they are getting better by being on tour.
Nope, don't agree. The ATP is not different than the WTA and the situation with Serena, TMF is correct. Nadal could be out for a year and still come back as long as he is healthy and be in the top five easily. There are a lot of mugs in the top ten of the ATP.
No there aren't any mugs on the ATP Tour, but if that IDEA comforts you go ahead.
Yes there are and it is not just an idea. Nadal > Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro, Tsonga, Tipsarevic and Gasquet. Those mugs don't hold a candle to Nadal and if he comes back and is healthy mentally and physically, those guys have no chance.
Nadal being better then Ferrer doesn't make Ferrer a "mug". But go ahead, be a mental midget like that.
In comparison to Federer and Nadal, Ferrer is a mug. Everything is relative.
No he isn't. He doesn't posses their raw talent for shotmaking but that doesn't make him this "mug" thing that you idiots obsess about.
I said in relation to Federer and Nadal he is a nobody. That is my opinion. I am not saying Ferrer is not a great tennis player, but compare him to a Federer or Nadal and he is a minute particle.
Oh god you're dumb.
Because I don't agree with you? You the hell are you?
You are trying to say that the ATP is different than the WTA in that some of the top ten guys would take the place of Nadal easily if Nadal came back now and I am saying it is no different. Nadal would come back and easily beat those players below the top five just as Serena was able to do in the WTA. There is no difference, both Nadal and Serena are many notches above the rest below them.
Don't know if this has already been posted:
Neil Harman Neil Harman @NeilHarmanTimes
Nadal told me in Majorca last week his knees not 100%, would use Abu Dhabi as practice and if felt bad would not play AO. Then virus struck
No he wouldn't. The fact that you think women's tennis has any bearing on the ATP proves your idiocy.
Yes, he will. Just watch him and I will bump this thread on you when it happens.
I think the ATP is even worse than the WTA below the top four. In the ATP from rank number 5-10 you have one slam winner (Del Potro) and in the WTA from rank 5-10, you have three slam winners (Li Na, Stosur and Kvitova.) Now go away with your inaccurate view.
Playing an inexperienced player in a slam final might not always be easier, but most of the time for sure. Delpo in USO 2009 was an exception. Still, Fed was no doubt the favourite and with good reason, and I always see Fed fans claiming he lost due to carelessness.
González was playing great, particularly against Haas, but his level wasn't the same in the final and that was to be expected also...
As for Federer in RG 2008, the other players Rafa played had pretty similar scorelines for the most part. And Fed should have done better imo.
Separate names with a comma.