Some surreal Nadal vs Fedovic numbers

[DSH]

Good to know.

Is there anything you have to say that's relevant to the point of discussion in this thread?

I am answering you with data, pure and hard, without the need for exaggerations or, on the contrary, demerits.
There is nothing irrelevant with the information that I have exposed to you.
Instead of being defensive, you should know that in any discussion in which there are constant exchanges of points of view, there is no need of hot flashes, exacerbations of moods or disrespect that hinder the end of these debate forums between a community with common interests.

 

[The Fedfather]

I am answering you with data, pure and hard, without the need for exaggerations or, on the contrary, demerits.
There is nothing irrelevant with the information that I have exposed to you.
Instead of being defensive, you should know that in any discussion in which there are constant exchanges of points of view, there is no need of hot flashes, exacerbations of moods or disrespect that hinder the end of these debate forums between a community with common interests.

And I acknowleged the data you presented. It just had liitle to do with the discussion in this thread, that is the RG skew in the Nadal vs Fedovic matches. I asked if you have anything relevant to say because in your reply to me there wasn't anything that touched on the subject. Sorry that it exacerbated your mood.

 

[DSH]

And I acknowleged the data you presented. It just had liitle to do with the discussion in this thread, that is the RG skew in the Nadal vs Fedovic matches. I asked if you have anything relevant to say because in your reply to me there wasn't anything that touched on the subject. Sorry that it exacerbated your mood.

Nah, all good.

 

[Nadal - GOAT]

In the end Federer and Djokovic payed the price for their ridiculous consistency on their worst surface

They paid the price also because of Rafa's insane domination on his best surface.

Rafa has reached 6 AO finals and met Novak only twice. Rest 4 times Novak couldn't make it.
Rafa has reached 5 USO finals and met Fed 0 times. Fed couldn't make it in any of those 5 times.

Whereas whenever they made it deep in FO, Rafa was almost always there.

 

[Kralingen]

We should have gotten far more Fedal/Djokodal Wimbledon matches.

 

[DSH]

We should have gotten far more Fedal/Djokodal Wimbledon matches.

Perhaps we will see that match in a potential final if the draw allows it.
Fingers crossed!

 

[ForehandRF]

They paid the price also because of Rafa's insane domination on his best surface.

Rafa has reached 6 AO finals and met Novak only twice. Rest 4 times Novak couldn't make it.
Rafa has reached 5 USO finals and met Fed 0 times. Fed couldn't make it in any of those 5 times.

Whereas whenever they made it deep in FO, Rafa was almost always there.

Fed has also reached 6 finals in a row at the USO and 8 SF in a row yet they still didn't met.In the same time frame, Fed played Djokovic 5 times

 

[mike danny]

We should have gotten far more Fedal/Djokodal Wimbledon matches.

Fed had the misfortune of playing most of his Wimb matches vs Djokodal after he turned 30.

 

[DSH]

Fed had the misfortune of playing most of his Wimb matches vs Djokodal after he turned 30.

Nadal and Federer met 6 times at RG and 4 times at Wimbledon.
4 Finals in Paris and 3 finals at the All England Club.
The difference, although it exists, is not as significant as it seems.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal and Federer met 6 times at RG and 4 times at Wimbledon.
4 Finals in Paris and 3 finals at the All England Club.
The difference, although it exists, is not as significant as it seems.

That's not what I was saying. The difference still exists anyway.

 

[ghostofMecir]

The lack of USO matches is on Fed. Once Nadal fully matured on HC (2010), Fed has been pretty dissappointing at USO, only making finals once.

“Once Nadal fully matured” lol. He was #2 in the world from 2005 (#1 in most years if not for Fed’s crazy year), was #1 in 2008. Before 2010, Nadal had played in 16 hardcourt finals, so he was plenty good enough, but didn’t play well at the USO.

 

[mike danny]

“Once Nadal fully matured” lol. He was #2 in the world from 2005 (#1 in most years if not for Fed’s crazy year), was #1 in 2008. Before 2010, Nadal had played in 16 hardcourt finals, so he was plenty good enough, but didn’t play well at the USO.

That's not really the problem. The problem is that the blame is pinned on Federer who reached 6 straight finals and 8 straight semifinals. Nadal isn't that consistent at any slams.

 

[Nadal - GOAT]

Fed has also reached 6 finals in a row at the USO and 8 SF in a row yet they still didn't met.In the same time frame, Fed played Djokovic 5 times

Yes. Partly because of being on the opposite sides of the draw as well. Also Feds peak at USO and Rafa's good level in HC didn't coincide for too long.

With regards to the clay skew, it is mainly because Rafa has been consistently going deep in RG from 2005-2021. So he was there during Federer's peak as well as Novak's peak.

 

[DSH]

“Once Nadal fully matured” lol. He was #2 in the world from 2005 (#1 in most years if not for Fed’s crazy year), was #1 in 2008. Before 2010, Nadal had played in 16 hardcourt finals, so he was plenty good enough, but didn’t play well at the USO.

Nadal is only to blame in 2008 and 2009.
The fact that he has been seeded second since the age of 19 only speaks to his excellence on clay and to a lesser extent, obviously, on grass, but it was clear that the Spaniard lacked years of development on hard courts to maximize his potential and thus fight for the Majors on that surface.

 

[Forgive Me Father]

Wasn't that the tournament right after Fed busted his ankle?

Of course, the fact that he still made the final speaks to that tournament's poor competition (look at how few of the actual top guys there were -- Nadal, Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin, the other five best players of the year after Fed, all missed the tournament due to injury. I think it's been pretty well established at this point that the 2005 YEC (and the indoor season as a whole) reflects a fairly significant outlier in what was otherwise a great 2005 season.

a great 2005 season?

In which Agassi in need of cortisone shots made the USO F? While Robby Ginepri was in the SF who took Agassi to 5 sets? Coria and Nieminen in the QF? Wimbledon was a dumpster fire.

We must have different definitions of great.

 

[Third Serve]

a great 2005 season?

In which Agassi in need of cortisone shots made the USO F? While Robby Ginepri was in the SF who took Agassi to 5 sets? Coria and Nieminen in the QF? Wimbledon was a dumpster fire.

We must have different definitions of great.

This reads like someone checking the wiki pages and not the matches.

 

[Gt86]

LOL. nadal couldn't even beat Murray with his USO 08 level , but he's gonna beat fed with that level? it too him his all at a much higher level to barely beat fed at Wim.
your post is an insult to both fed and nadal.
thinking nadal was sleepwalking on his way to Wim 08 final win.

USO 10 - yes, nadal would've beaten fed
USO 11 would be close to tossup considering fed was in significantly better form, but nadal had the mental edge in their matchup at that time.

Nadal in 2008 had beatFederer at FO and W. Thete was no way Federer was beatimg Nadal at the USO had they met. At that time Nadal was in his head more than at any time in their rivalry

 

[Gt86]

Don't think he beats Fed if he couldn't even get past Murray.

He was spent against Murray. But had he got past Murray i feel he would have beat Fed becaudr at that time Federer had a mental block v Nadal. I felt that ended at the WTF in 2010.

 

[Gt86]

Don't think he beats Fed if he couldn't even get past Murray.

He was spent against Murray. But had he got past Murray i feel he would have beat Fed becaudr at that time Federer had a mental block v Nadal. I felt that ended at the WTF in 2010.

 

[The_Order]

Yeah, barring injuries, cuz skipping a tournament is better than losing early.

2008, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2021 at AO with the cavaet Djokovic was winning in 2014 as well, but lost to Wawrinka
2005, 2010, 2011, 2017, 2018, 2019 at RG, 2009 doesn't matter because both lost early, though if I am being honest Nadal would have been favourite

Well duh.... you can't fault a player if they're not even in the tournament... what kind of stupid brain dead logic calls for that?

And what are you trying to say here anyway? You've only basically backed up my point to begin with.... they've failed to reach each other at pet slam about equal amount of times... the only real caveat is that Novak isn't as good at AO as Nadal is at RG which should be blatantly obvious even to a troll like yourself...

Nadal was nowhere to be found in 2007, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018.

You can play the injury/skip card all you want, but Nadal would be way behind in H2H if they played more. Nvm Djokovic was clear favourite in 2008 and 2009 as well.

Would he? Really? And you know this how? Based on their 3 US Open encounters (you know actual matches not BS hypotheticals or Novak's HC record v Nadal in Bo3 events) Nadal has beat him 2/3...

2012 and 2014 in particular had Nadal entered those events, he would have been a very strong chance of beating Novak...

The facts are Nadal is a much better player at US Open and Canada than other HC events. Novak was pretty much given a free ride to the 2016 final and got thumped by Nishikori in 2014... Lost to Murray in 2012 but Nadal is going to lose to him? Hahahaha yeah right pal....

2009 - Nadal would have won
2014 - lost to the guy who won the whole thing, Nadal would have lost the final to Djokovic as well
2017 - Nadal would have won
2022 - ahahahha, ahahaha,

Spoiler

ahahahahahaha

biggest vulture win in the 21st century in the absence of Djokovic

It's Djokovic's fault Nadal is always injured around USO time too when he has like twice the finals there.

2009 - Agreed
2014 - If Nadal doesn't get injured, he's a good chance. Besides, it's on Novak for losing earlier and not making it to him...
2017 - Agreed
2022 - Babhahdsbhahsahfahahsadhahhsaashhdhsd

Spoiler

ahahahahahaha

safsdgblighrg - Djokovic lost to Vesely hahahahahaha

Of course it's not Djokovic's fault Nadal got injured for those US Open events, but it's not Nadal's either...

 

[The_Order]

There was no reference either to your first reply to me or the year you were starting the comparison from. From my end it looked like you pretty much equated Federer and Nadal being consistent on HC. BTW, in your initial reply you take the players' ages as the basis for a more fair comparison. And if we do use age brackets (going by age only is not the best approach in general, since players and their games can develop quite differently age-wise, despite similar trends), it would mean starting from the end of 2003 for Roger when comparing his results to Nadal's from 2008. So again, the 2008 thing came out of the blue for me.

Their consistency on HC from 2008 till present was overall pretty close indeed. It's just not relevant to the point I was making in my post when replying to a poster specifically saying that Federer being consistent from 2010 to 2017 is fantasy.

I've said in this thread that the RG skew in Nadal vs Fedovic Slam matches is not Rafa's fault, it isn't something he could or had an obligation to control. It happened the way it did, and I genuinely don't have a big problem with how the H2H played out. The only time it brings me great frustration is when particular conclusions are being argued while people omit and, more frustratingly, refuse to consider any context behind the numbers. Similarly, it is frustrating to see the ridiculous pointing at Federer as not being consistent enough outside of RG to justify the imbalance in the Slam rivalry.

2010-2017 Fed was pretty consistent. You'll get no argument from me there.

Nadal's numerous RG encounters in a way are his fault... because he's that damn good at his pet slam. Not sure what the logic is to say otherwise. Nadal at RG has been a constant there through Federer's prime and Novak's prime. Since 2005 he's made the final 13 times... many of his early RG runs involved facing both to win the title... 06,07,08. So he got prime Fed from 05-08 and again in 2011. He got pre prime Novak in 06&07, prime Novak from 08, 12-15. Then he's got one of post prime Fed and Novak in 19-21.

 

[abmk]

Nadal in 2008 had beatFederer at FO and W. Thete was no way Federer was beatimg Nadal at the USO had they met. At that time Nadal was in his head more than at any time in their rivalry

only a nadal fanatic or certified moron can ignore significant difference in form of nadal at Wimbledon and USO.

nadal thrashed Murray at Wimbledon and beat him comfortably at Canada.
Murray beat him comfortably at the USO.

He was spent against Murray. But had he got past Murray i feel he would have beat Fed becaudr at that time Federer had a mental block v Nadal. I felt that ended at the WTF in 2010.

"yeah, nadal just had to say mental block and voila and he was going to win. needn't play great at all."
--- Certified moron

meanwhile in reality, nadal had to play great for mental stuff to come into the picture anywhere near enough. else he'd get beaten clearly.

oh and federer beat nadal at madrid 09 converting 2/2 BPs while Nadal went 0/4 on BPs.

 

[ebar86]

Interesting. So Federer doesn't lead the h2h against Novak in any of the slams.

People might be nostalgic..but in reality, they need to accept that Federer is at the 3rd place.

 

[Nadal - GOAT]

People might be nostalgic..but in reality, they need to accept that Federer is at the 3rd place.

Yes.. that will most likely be the general consensus in the next 2-3 years as the gap increases.
I would rather have Novak as 3rd but that's not a possibility now.

 

[InsideOut900]

Would he? Really? And you know this how? Based on their 3 US Open encounters (you know actual matches not BS hypotheticals or Novak's HC record v Nadal in Bo3 events) Nadal has beat him 2/3...

2012 and 2014 in particular had Nadal entered those events, he would have been a very strong chance of beating Novak...

The facts are Nadal is a much better player at US Open and Canada than other HC events. Novak was pretty much given a free ride to the 2016 final and got thumped by Nishikori in 2014... Lost to Murray in 2012 but Nadal is going to lose to him? Hahahaha yeah right

I will just address this because the rest of the post is not even worth the time.

Laughable that Nadal was beating Djokovic at AO 14 and 22 and it's Djokovic who avoided him because he wasn't allowed to play.

Anyway, to the point, why should I believe that Djokovic meeting Nadal in his best 3 USO runs to date is an indicative of him losing in other years when Djokovic is the clearly better HC player. This is specifically why H2H as a stat messes with people's heads, because it only takes a subset of matches to see the full picture.

In 2007-2009 Nadal lost to Ferrer and Murray and got obliterated by Del Potro. In two of those years he was semi-injured, in 2008 he was tired. Djokovic was playing just fine, but bumped into Federer each time and lost competitive matches. Also had a great record vs. Nadal on HCs during those years, including Canada and Cincy.

In 2012 when he won Canada, Cincy final and only lost USO because of the wind (his most dominant USO pre-final).

In 2014 he wasn't great, but it's more so that Nadal was losing to everyone at that point, he played tennis after USO and lost to Klizan, Coric, Lopez

2015 and 2016, duh, Djokovic was owning Nadal in those two years.

2018, again, Djokovic was on a rampage and had a dominant USO win.

2012 is the only one I am conceeding. Healthy, peaky Nadal could have won. The rest, you have to have a seriously twisted perspective to think Nadal was winning any of them. Difference in form at those times was massive.

Am I supposed to believe Djokovic is 3 times better than Nadal at Wimbledon too based on results when he clearly isn't and timing made all the difference?

 

[Gt86]

only a nadal fanatic or certified moron can ignore significant difference in form of nadal at Wimbledon and USO.

nadal thrashed Murray at Wimbledon and beat him comfortably at Canada.
Murray beat him comfortably at the USO.



"yeah, nadal just had to say mental block and voila and he was going to win. needn't play great at all."
--- Certified moron

meanwhile in reality, nadal had to play great for mental stuff to come into the picture anywhere near enough. else he'd get beaten clearly.

oh and federer beat nadal at madrid 09 converting 2/2 BPs while Nadal went 0/4 on BPs.

Murray saved Federer from a carpeting at USO 2008. Even a few months later he collpased against an exhuasted Nadal at AO 2009 in the final in the last set. And that on a court much more suited to Federer over Nadal than Ashe is.
Do not hate me. Hate the facts above.

 

[abmk]

No offence bur that is all utter nonsense and indicative of someone who has never played an individual sport.
Murray saved Federer from a carpeting at USO 2008. Even a few months later he collpased against an exhuasted Nadal at AO 2009 in the final in the last set. And that on a court much more suited to Federer over Nadal than Ashe is.
Do not hate me. Hate the facts above.

nadal was perfectly fine in AO 09 final.
that AO plexi court is less suited to fed in their matchup than USO is
and nadal played MUCH better at Wim 08/AO09 than in USO 08.
only a clueless fellow or someone intent on nonsense propaganda will ignore that.

and I've played (&still do) in multiple individual sports. stop projecting your deficiencies.

 

[Gt86]

nadal was perfectly fine in AO 09 final.
that court is less suited to fed in their matchup than USO is
and nadal played MUCH better at Wim 08/AO09 than in USO 08.
only a clueless fellow or someone intent on nonsense propaganda will ignore that.

and I've played in multiple individual sports. stop projecting your deficiencies.

No you have not judging by your ridiclulously off base comments. To say the AO suits Nadal more than the UsO is embarrassing.
Nadal if you recall played a gruelling 5 setter with Verdasco in the semis. He was on fumes. Again anyone having played an individual sport would understand this.
Only the deluded can somehow come up with a reversal of a result when at the FO W and AO Nadal won yet at the USO which is Nadals 2nd best Major appareny he finds a way to lose. Laughable.

 

[abmk]

No you have not judging by your ridiclulously off base comments. To say the AO suits Nadal more than the UsO is embarrassing.
Nadal if you recall played a gruelling 5 setter with Verdasco in the semis. He was on fumes. Again anyone having played an individual sport would understand this.
Only the deluded can somehow come up with a reversal of a result when at the FO W and AO Nadal won yet at the USO which is Nadals 2nd best Major appareny he finds a way to lose. Laughable.

I didn't even say that part in bold. your comprehension is embarassing .

prime to prime:
Nadal is marginally better at USO than AO.
but fed is even more better at USO than AO.
so matchup is better for nadal at AO

Nadal wasn't on fumes in AO 09 final after AO 09 semi vs dasco
djoko wasn't in AO 12 final after AO 12 semi vs Murray
fed wasn't in Rome 06 final (after b2b 3-setter vs almagro/nalby over previous 2 days)
murray wasn't in YEC 16 final after 3.5 hr match previous day vs Raonic etc.

that you are running around like a headless chicken trying to avoid the reality that nadal was in much worse form in USO 08 than in Wim 08 and AO 09 is embarassingly hilarious. (embarassing for you, hilarious for me)

 

[InsideOut900]

Nadal if you recall played a gruelling 5 setter with Verdasco in the semis. He was on fumes. Again anyone having played an individual sport would understand this..

Wait, someone on fumes plays with even more intensity then he did in the semi? Interesting

 

[Gt86]

I didn't even say that part of bold. your comprehension is embarassing .

prime to prime:
Nadal is a little better at USO than AO.
but fed is even more better at USO than AO.
so matchup is better for nadal at AO

Nadal wasn't on fumes in AO 09 final.
djoko wasn't in AO 12 final.
fed wasn't in Rome 06 final (after b2b 3-setter vs almagro/nalby over previous 2 days)
murray wasn't in YEC 16 final after 3.5 hr match previous day vs Raonic etc.

that you are running around like a headless chicken trying to avoid the reality that nadal was in much worse form in USO 08 than in Wim 08 and AO 09 is embarassingly hilarious. (embarassing for you, hilarious for me)

Federer has 6 AOs and 5 USOs. Federer was still competitve and winning Australia right up until 2018 during the peaks of Nadal and Djokovic. He never won the Uso after Nadal and Djokovic hit their peaks. Federer is a vastly superior player at the AO than USO. I mean literally look at his records lol.
Clearly this is not hilarious for you. Read your messages.
I am only statimg the reality. No issue if you want to disagree. It is your democratic right. However i am right.
At that point of their careers over 5 sets nadal owned Federer. It was a match up thing. Again people who have played tennis unserstand that nuance. It is not even a criticism of Federer. At that time over 5 sets he had no answers to Rafa.

 

[Gt86]

Wait, someone on fumes plays with even more intensity then he did in the semi? Interesting

Nafdal.was far quicker and intense v Verdasco. He was a step.slow in the final understandably.

 

[InsideOut900]

Nafdal.was far quicker and intense v Verdasco. He was a step.slow in the final understandably.

He was hitting bigger in the final.

How was he a step slower given some of the ridiculous defensive points as late as set 4?

 

[abmk]

Federer has 6 AOs and 5 USOs. Federer was still competitve and winning Australia right up until 2018 during the peaks of Nadal and Djokovic. He never won the Uso after Nadal and Djokovic hit their peaks. Federer is a vastly superior player at the AO than USO. I mean literally look at his records lol.
Clearly this is not hilarious for you. Read your messages.
I am only statimg the reality. No issue if you want to disagree. It is your democratic right. However i am right.
At that point of their careers over 5 sets nadal owned Federer. It was a match up thing. Again people who have played tennis unserstand that nuance. It is not even a criticism of Federer. At that time over 5 sets he had no answers to Rafa.

Federer won 5 USOs in a row and made 6th USO final in a row.
nothing like that at AO at his prime. He was better prime to prime at USO. he won 4 AOs at his prime btw. (2004,06-07,10)
even if more consistent post prime at AO.

nadal got fed in RG 08/Wim 08/AO 09 by playing really great.
he was nowhere near that in USO 08
you are insulting nadal's efforts in RG 08/Wim 08/AO 09 by comparing his USO 08 level with that
without playing great, nadal loses vs prime fed off clay. simple.
again, you are acting like a headless chicken running around avoiding nadal's actual level in USO 08 (keep in mind nadal had dominated Murray in Wim 08 and beat him easily in Canada 08). that's why its hilarious.

federer did have answers to nadal in Wim 08/AO 08. it went 5 sets in both. he just fell short.
not having answers is like nadal getting his a** kicked by djoko in Wim 11/USO 11 finals.

 

[Beulah Jesus]

I did say I didn't want this to turn into a Nadal bashing contest.

You did say you did not intend for it to be a bashing thread,, but you are a 'Bionic poster' and have been here long enough to know that was exactly what was going to happen.

 

[Gt86]

Federer won 5 USOs in a row and made 6th USO final in a row.
nothing like that at AO at his prime. He was better prime to prime at USO.
even if more consistent post prime at AO.

nadal got fed in RG 08/Wim 08/AO 09 by playing really great.
he was nowhere near that in USO 08
you are insulting nadal's efforts in RG 08/Wim 08/AO 09 by comparing his USO 08 level with that
without playing great, nadal loses vs prime fed off clay. simple.
again, you are acting like a headless chicken running around avoiding nadal's actual level in USO 08 (keep in mind nadal had dominated Murray in Wim 08 and beat him easily in Canada 08). that's why its hilarious.

federer did have answers to nadal in Wim 08/AO 08. it went 5 sets in both. he just fell short.
not having answers is like nadal getting his a** kicked by djoko in Wim 11/USO 11 finals.

No. Federer did not have answers thats why he lost FO W AO in a row. Not sure what Djokovic has to do with it which of course revealed your real issue. Which is Nadal is the Slam leader and that period we are referring to was pivotal in ensuring Nadal got that mantle
Federer is clearly better at AO than USO. His record clearly shows that. A tiny example being he got humiliated by Cilic at Uso but beat him at AO.
If federer is 1-3 v Nadal at AO on a lower bouncing court it is likely that h2h would be a lot worse for Federer at the USO v Nadal as the ball bounces higher which makes his BH that more vulnerable.
Anyway you are free to disagree. My points are as stated. You may refer back to them at your leisure as i have said all that is needed on this hypithetical argument. I am more interested in Monre Carlo ans boarding the Alcaraz train for the week.

 

[Gt86]

He was hitting bigger in the final.

How was he a step slower given some of the ridiculous defensive points as late as set 4?

Because he was hitting bigger MPHs in the semis off both wings and Verdasco was hitting bigger off the ground than Federer which meqnt Nadal had to be moving quicker to chase balls down. Not really rockrt science tbh

 

[abmk]

No. Federer did not have answers thats why he lost FO W AO in a row. Not sure what Djokovic has to do with it which of course revealed your real issue. Which is Nadal is the Slam leader and that period we are referring to was pivotal in ensuring Nadal got that mantle
Federer is clearly better at AO than USO. His record clearly shows that. A tiny example being he got humiliated by Cilic at Uso but beat him at AO.
If federer is 1-3 v Nadal at AO on a lower bouncing court it is likely that h2h would be a lot worse for Federer at the USO v Nadal as the ball bounces higher which makes his BH that more vulnerable.
Anyway you are free to disagree. My points are as stated. You may refer back to them at your leisure as i have said all that is needed on this hypithetical argument. I am more interested in Monre Carlo ans boarding the Alcaraz train for the week.

that nadal djoko example was to show what having no answers means. too hurt?
having great 5-setters with peak ATG is not an example of not having answers. Its just falling short,

Cilic played clearly better at USO 14 than in AO 18 and vice versa for fed.
I already said fed was better post-prime at AO than at USO.

its prime to prime we're talking about here when fed USO 08 is mentioned.
AO is clearly slower than USO. more shots would be flying past nadal at USO.

 

[InsideOut900]

Federer won 5 USOs in a row and made 6th USO final in a row.
nothing like that at AO at his prime. He was better prime to prime at USO. he won 4 AOs at his prime btw. (2004,06-07,10)
even if more consistent post prime at AO.

He was technically better at AO in 05 and 09 compared to USO and if not for ankle nags and mono in 06 and 08, he would have had just as long of a prime at AO

But we have had this discussion before, right?

 

[abmk]

He was technically better at AO in 05 and 09 compared to USO and if not for ankle nags and mono in 06 and 08, he would have had just as long of a prime at AO

But we have had this discussion before, right?

09 AO vs USO is debatable.
better final in 09 AO, but better pre-final in USO (no birdman like scare)

 

[Gt86]

that nadal djoko example was to show what having no answers means. too hurt?
Cilic played clearly better at USO 14 than in AO 18 and vice versa for fed.
I already said fed was better post-prime at AO than at USO.

its prime to prime we're talking about here when fed USO 08 is mentioned.
AO is clearly slower than USO. more shots would be flying past nadal at USO.

I answered you. You have not yet formulated any coherent reply. You are just stating opinions not based on reality. I am just saying how it is. As i said i do not need to explain further as youbcan read my posts back at your leisure. They just represent the actual stats. No opinions by me at all.
As for speed of court as you raise a new point again it just shows a lack of appreciation of the basics of what suits Nadal. Nadal loves a faster court as long as it bounces high. He has said so many times. Federers BH has never dealt with Nadal on a higher bouncing court. It was always his big weakness. Nadal was the only player who could exploit it due to being a lefty with enormous spin.
As players though started to hit with more spin Federer struggled at the USO while still winning multiple titles in Australia. Clearly a better player in Australia than Us Open. As the statistics attest to.

 

[abmk]

I answered you. You have not yet formulated any coherent reply. You are just stating opinions not based on reality. I am just saying how it is. As i said i do not need to exain further as youbcan read my posts back at your leisure. They just represent the actual stats. No opinions by me at all.
As for speed of court as you raise a new point again it just shows a kack of underatanding of the basics of what suits Nadal. Nadal loves a faster court as long as it bounces high. He has said so many times. Federers BH has never dealt with Nadal on a higher bouncing court. It was always his big weakness. Nadal was the only player who coukd exploit it due to being a lefty with enormous spin.
As players tbough started to hit with more spin Federer struggled at the USO while still winjing multiple titles in Australia. Clearly a better player in Australia than Us Open. As the statistics attest to.

fed BH dealt fine with nadal FH in Rome 06 final, RG 07 final for example. both are high bouncing courts.
just goes to show your cluelessness.

nadal doesn't love a fast court. medium-fast yes.
just that he got pretty pretty weak competition at USO (cakwalks to final every single time he's won)
he'd prefer a faster court vs djoko for sure, but not vs fed.

its not like AO 09 was low bouncing anyways, just a little lower than USO. but USO speed difference was more than bounce difference.

federer prime to prime-ish level at USO: 2004-09, 11
federer prime to prime-ish level at AO: 2004-07,09-10 (adding 12 is a big stretch)

the former is clearly better than latter

fed losing more at USO post-prime has zilch to do with more spin.
berdych, cilic are both flat hitters (got him in 12,14)
your theories are hilarious

 

[Gt86]

fed BH dealt fine with nadal FH in Rome 06 final, RG 07 final for example. both are high bouncing courts.
just goes to show your cluelessness.

nadal doesn't love a fast court. medium-fast yes.
just that he got pretty pretty weak competition at USO (cakwalks to final every single time he's won)
he'd prefer a faster court vs djoko for sure, but not vs fed.

its not like AO 09 was low bouncing anyways, just a little lower than USO. but USO speed difference was more than bounce difference.

federer prime to prime-ish level at USO: 2004-09, 11
federer prime to prime-ish level at AO: 2004-07,09-10 (adding 12 is a big stretch)

the former is clearly better than latter

fed losing more at USO post-prime has zilch to do with more spin.
berdych, cilic are both flat hitters (got him in 12,14)
your theories are hilarious

Sropped reading after the first two lines. Federer lost both matches. That is not coping. Tennis is win or lose. There are no draws lol. You just proved me correct while shatterimg your own argument. I have never seen anyone try to use constant losses as a definition for coping against the person or team who keeps beating them. Classic.