What is all this bad talk about Nole?

[Dilettante]

What is all this bad talk about Nole?

Funny thread coming from a well known player basher.

 

[Towser83]

This is pure conjecture. On what basis do you say this? Fed is much better vs the hard court field than Nadal. We know that because there is enough evidence of that. Fed is 3x the hard courter Nadal will ever be. But how Fed would do in his matchup against Nadal is purely speculation. Their hard court H2H is 4-4. Perhaps you could break that into slow and fast hard courts and say that Fed won the matches on fast HC. But then that means Nadal is better on slow HC and if he had met Fed during his prime at the AO, he would have beaten him there.

I think Fed fans should be happy Nadal did not bloom as a HC player early. Here's why.

Current:

Slam record : 16-10
H2H: 8-17

If Rafa had been a great hard courter during Feds prime and had made it to the finals to meet Fed say 3 times at USO and 3 times at AO , I imagine Rafa might have taken at least 2 of those 6 slams.

So the hypothetical scenario would have been

Slam Record : 14-12 ( 2 of Fed's slams go to Rafa)
H2H: 12-19

Do you really prefer scenario 2 (an improved H2h at the cost of a decreased slam count)? I highly doubt it.

Well you're right it is speculation, this is just my opinion. Nadal didn't ever play Federer in a hardcourt slam until 2009 when Federer had won 8 of his current 9 hardcourt majors, so we can say without a doubt that Federer was at the end of his hardcourt slam winning days. Now it's one thing beating Federer in Miami in the first round where Federer is probabaly hoping to take things easy after winning Indian Wells the week before, the dubai final where federer easily took the first set and then lost despite winning more points, and a slam final. I mean the only time they played a 5 set match on hard when Federer was in the midst of his prime was Miami where Federer won and Nadal seemed to tire - maybe in part because his pre-serving routines were not as long as they soon became. Even so, the difference between a masters final and a slam is huge to Federer, look at the way he often got beaten by Murray but upped his game massively for the slam meetings against him.

Nadal played great at the AO 2009, I think only the us open last year betters that level of play on a hardcourt, i think he's playing about that level this year - yet he still went 5 sets with a declining Federer, who really threw the match away in the 3rd set when he failed to take so many breakpoints.

And the thing with primes is say they were the same age, Nadal would probabaly have won wimbledon before federer, maybe even a hardcourt slam and beaten federer in a hardcourt slam too, but I believe the way nadal played the french open this year, he'd have lost to the 25 year old federer who played very well in rome 2006 and even the french open that year - he lost against a nadal playing much better than this year, so the loss of a couple of hardcourt slams might be balanced out a little bit.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Neither Federer or Nadal is the best ever. It is silly how media always want to crown someone current as the best ever.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

This is pure conjecture. On what basis do you say this? Fed is much better vs the hard court field than Nadal. We know that because there is enough evidence of that. Fed is 3x the hard courter Nadal will ever be. But how Fed would do in his matchup against Nadal is purely speculation. Their hard court H2H is 4-4. Perhaps you could break that into slow and fast hard courts and say that Fed won the matches on fast HC. But then that means Nadal is better on slow HC and if he had met Fed during his prime at the AO, he would have beaten him there.

I think Fed fans should be happy Nadal did not bloom as a HC player early. Here's why.

Current:

Slam record : 16-10
H2H: 8-17

If Rafa had been a great hard courter during Feds prime and had made it to the finals to meet Fed say 3 times at USO and 3 times at AO , I imagine Rafa might have taken at least 2 of those 6 slams.

So the hypothetical scenario would have been

Slam Record : 14-12 ( 2 of Fed's slams go to Rafa)
H2H: 12-19

Do you really prefer scenario 2 (an improved H2h at the cost of a decreased slam count)? I highly doubt it.

This is incorrect. Because you're assuming that if Nadal had matured earlier on HC his clay court ability would have remained the same. In fact, according to the ardent Nadal followers, while Nadal's ability on HC improved his clay ability went down. Hence if as you say his HC maturity happened earlier, then so would his clay decline at an earlier time and a declined Nadal would perhaps have lost a couple of clay slams to prime Federer, hence reverting the slam record back to 16-10.

 

[DRII]

i dont like him at all. he comes across as fake to me. hes trying to please people and the crowd by playing to the crowd too much and it comes off as desperate. Hes very immature too and arrogant. the other thing is when he was losing he was not very good about it. hed have every excuse in the book and even during his match he would make it painfully obvious what his injury was (match at us open against roddick). his family seem very rude to me as well. i know friends of mine who sat near his box at the aus open say they talk about the other opponent and say horrible things

You can tell a leopard by his spots (especially white spots)! LOL!

Actually i don't have much of a problem with Nole, except for some of the company he keeps and that he needs to mature a little - especially since he's #1...

 

[BobFL]

Some people are very naive if they think that our favorite players are honest all the time. They are actually very diplomatic and tactical.

 

[Fate Archer]

Rafa owned Fed on clay before his prime, since he was teenager... Roger never owned Rafa on HC, not even when he was on his prime and Rafa wasn't.

Just saying.

You're absolutely right... Nadal wasn't good enough to even make some more of the many hardcourt finals that happened in what some crtitics claim to be a so called "weak era", spanning from 2004 to 2007.

Yeah... Just saying.

 

[BULLZ1LLA]

You're absolutely right... Nadal wasn't good enough to even make some more of the many hardcourt finals that happened in what some crtitics claim to be a so called "weak era", spanning from 2004 to 2007.

Yeah... Just saying.

(Yep because Nadal has only just hit his peak on hardcourts last year/this year/next year. Nadal is a late-bloomer on hardcourts, in terms of slams. Even as recently as 2008, Nadal was losing to Murray at the US Open)

 

[TopFH]

LOL yeah of course Murray's opinion is above Djokovic's.

The thing is both Djokovic and Murray have said Nadal is the best of all time, which is hugely premature, but you have to factor in 2 things.

1. They like Nadal and don't like Federer.
2. They are roughly the same age as Nadal, makes me laugh at how many times they both deny that Federer has lost any of his ability from when he was dominating years ago, they put it down to players getting better, which they have to some extent but Federer is 30, he has of course passed his prime a while ago. But they don't want to admit that.

What's funnier though, is Murray calls Nadal the best ever probably on the basis of what Nadal looks like he can acheive in slam wins, plus his H2H over Roger. Now though, if Djokovic keeps beating Nadal he can't be the best anymore. Let's be honest, Nadal only started owning Federer on surfaces other than clay after Federer began declining in 2008 - at the end of 2007 their H2H was a fairly even 8-6 to Nadal and that's a one match swing, so if Federer had just taken the match point in Rome 2006 it would have been 7-7. And no, just because Nadal beat Federer on hardcourt in 2004, he didn't own him, he still would have lost the majority of hardcourt slam meetings in Federer's prime. But now Novak is beating a 25 year old Nadal on every surface, a guy who started playing better than ever last year. If he loses to him again at the US Open then can Djokovic seriously and honestly say that Nadal is the best ever when it's an old Federer who stopped Djokovic having a shot at a calendar slam and by all rights should have dethroned him here? If he sweeps past Nadal again and with more ease than the semi final against Federer, how can he honestly say that?

Likewise Murray has defeated Nadal in hardcourt slams twice and taken him to 5 sets as a 19 year old, yet both times he beat Nadal he failed to take a set off Federer. Really Novak and Andy like to call Nadal the greatest because they don't like Federer - because at this point the shift towards Nadal becoming the greatest which looked likely last year has not only stopped but gone the other way. I wonder what Navratilova will have to say if Nadal loses the US Open final, she was saying Nadal would overtake 16 majors and was the greatest, but you really never can tell what's going to happen, you can only judge what's currently true.

Best post I have ever read. Nicely done.

 

[TopFH]

This is pure conjecture. On what basis do you say this? Fed is much better vs the hard court field than Nadal. We know that because there is enough evidence of that. Fed is 3x the hard courter Nadal will ever be. But how Fed would do in his matchup against Nadal is purely speculation. Their hard court H2H is 4-4. Perhaps you could break that into slow and fast hard courts and say that Fed won the matches on fast HC. But then that means Nadal is better on slow HC and if he had met Fed during his prime at the AO, he would have beaten him there.

I think Fed fans should be happy Nadal did not bloom as a HC player early. Here's why.

Current:

Slam record : 16-10
H2H: 8-17

If Rafa had been a great hard courter during Feds prime and had made it to the finals to meet Fed say 3 times at USO and 3 times at AO , I imagine Rafa might have taken at least 2 of those 6 slams.

So the hypothetical scenario would have been

Slam Record : 14-12 ( 2 of Fed's slams go to Rafa)
H2H: 12-19

Do you really prefer scenario 2 (an improved H2h at the cost of a decreased slam count)? I highly doubt it.

The Aussie was fairly fast before the court and color change, so no.

 

[asafi2]

The Aussie was fairly fast before the court and color change, so no.

From what either Cahill or Pat Mac said earlier this year. Rebound Ace had the same bounce, but it was a better court for flat shots. If you hit flat shots on RA, they really skid and went through the court. That type of shot no longer works at the AO.

 

[octogon]

My point is that although Nadal has a winning H2H overall, he's currently being dominated by Djokovic more than Nadal dominated Federer, and considering Nadal really started dominating Federer on all surfaces when Federer was past his best, it's more impressive that Djokovic is dominating Nadal on all surfaces when he's still 25 and just had his most dominant year last year.

With the hardcourt H2H Federer should have dominated more, should have won the Dubai final, but in his prime he only lost 2 matches on hard to nadal and they only played 5 times, only one was in a 5 set match and federer won. That's still nothing compared to a slam meeting and Nadal only beat federer in a hardcourt slam in 2009 when federer had already won 8 of the 9 hardcourt majors he currently has. We can't really know what would have happened but as Federer is a completely different player in majors and already won the only 5 set match in a much less important masters final, I feel Federer would have won most if not all hardcourt slam finals up til 2008. You only have to look at the way Federer gets beaten by Murray on hardcourt but won't lose a set to him in a major to see how much more determined he is in majors.

So to sum up, Federer was dominated in his prime by Nadal on clay, but on hardcourt and grass he had the edge with not enough meetings on hardcourt to really judge things properly.

By contrast, Nadal still in his prime is being dominated by Djokovic on all surfaces so if that continues it derails his chances of eclipsing Federer's slam numbers which he looked like having a very good shot last year - he still might do it, but it depends if Djokovic continues to own him. What's on Nadal's side which wasn't on Federer's, is they are close in age, so Nadal should not naturally decline with age much faster than Djokovic does.

This ignores the fact that the legitimacy of Djokovic's remarkable year is now being seriously called into question, thanks to Nole's evasive behavior regarding his so called "egg" machine, which now seem to grant him remarkable powers of stamina and recovery, that previously eluded him. It's effectively a form a legalised doping. There's every chance that Djokovic is going to end up with an "asterix" by his year, like a Tennis version of Sammy Sosa, Mark Mcgwire and Barry Bonds. His wins willl still be there, but seen by many as illegitimate.

Djokovic is looking shifty and untrustworthy, and the media are on his case and digging for more dirt. People within tennis are playing down the egg chamber thing (because it'll irreperably damage the sport if Nole is widely seen as a cheat), but I think a huge scandal is going to break out in regards to Djokovic and the methods he used to improve himself. It's never been very believable that Nole turned from an asthmatic with limited stamina to a super-athlete with more endurance than Nadal, virtually overnight, because of a diet change.

Nadal's lossses to Djokovic will likely just end up being ascribed to Djokovic using technology (or worse) to gain an unfair advantadge over the other players. The moment the egg stuff came out, Nole was tarnished. I don't think Nole's 2011 dominance over Nadal will have much bearing in future consideration (regarding GOAT or any of that stuff) because the the things we are now finding out.

 

[Turning Pro]

LOL yeah of course Murray's opinion is above Djokovic's.

The thing is both Djokovic and Murray have said Nadal is the best of all time, which is hugely premature, but you have to factor in 2 things.

1. They like Nadal and don't like Federer.
2. They are roughly the same age as Nadal, makes me laugh at how many times they both deny that Federer has lost any of his ability from when he was dominating years ago, they put it down to players getting better, which they have to some extent but Federer is 30, he has of course passed his prime a while ago. But they don't want to admit that.

What's funnier though, is Murray calls Nadal the best ever probably on the basis of what Nadal looks like he can acheive in slam wins, plus his H2H over Roger. Now though, if Djokovic keeps beating Nadal he can't be the best anymore. Let's be honest, Nadal only started owning Federer on surfaces other than clay after Federer began declining in 2008 - at the end of 2007 their H2H was a fairly even 8-6 to Nadal and that's a one match swing, so if Federer had just taken the match point in Rome 2006 it would have been 7-7. And no, just because Nadal beat Federer on hardcourt in 2004, he didn't own him, he still would have lost the majority of hardcourt slam meetings in Federer's prime. But now Novak is beating a 25 year old Nadal on every surface, a guy who started playing better than ever last year. If he loses to him again at the US Open then can Djokovic seriously and honestly say that Nadal is the best ever when it's an old Federer who stopped Djokovic having a shot at a calendar slam and by all rights should have dethroned him here? If he sweeps past Nadal again and with more ease than the semi final against Federer, how can he honestly say that?

Likewise Murray has defeated Nadal in hardcourt slams twice and taken him to 5 sets as a 19 year old, yet both times he beat Nadal he failed to take a set off Federer. Really Novak and Andy like to call Nadal the greatest because they don't like Federer - because at this point the shift towards Nadal becoming the greatest which looked likely last year has not only stopped but gone the other way. I wonder what Navratilova will have to say if Nadal loses the US Open final, she was saying Nadal would overtake 16 majors and was the greatest, but you really never can tell what's going to happen, you can only judge what's currently true.

You conveniently left out Nadal is 5-1 vs djoker in slams across ALL surfaces and 7-2 vs fed across ALL surfaces

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

You conveniently left out Nadal is 5-1 vs djoker 1.0 in slams across ALL surfaces and 7-2 vs fed across ALL surfaces

There, fixed it for ya

 

[Crisstti]

You're absolutely right... Nadal wasn't good enough to even make some more of the many hardcourt finals that happened in what some crtitics claim to be a so called "weak era", spanning from 2004 to 2007.

Yeah... Just saying.

Which goes on to show it was a rather weak era.

I don't see the relevance anyway. He wasn't good enough on HC to make many finals, and yet Roger couldn't come close to dominating him like Rafa did on clay, before his prime and on Roger's prime...

You conveniently left out Nadal is 5-1 vs djoker in slams across ALL surfaces and 7-2 vs fed across ALL surfaces

+1

 

[Deleted member 77403]

LOL yeah of course Murray's opinion is above Djokovic's.

The thing is both Djokovic and Murray have said Nadal is the best of all time, which is hugely premature, but you have to factor in 2 things.

1. They like Nadal and don't like Federer.
2. They are roughly the same age as Nadal, makes me laugh at how many times they both deny that Federer has lost any of his ability from when he was dominating years ago, they put it down to players getting better, which they have to some extent but Federer is 30, he has of course passed his prime a while ago. But they don't want to admit that.

What's funnier though, is Murray calls Nadal the best ever probably on the basis of what Nadal looks like he can acheive in slam wins, plus his H2H over Roger. Now though, if Djokovic keeps beating Nadal he can't be the best anymore. Let's be honest, Nadal only started owning Federer on surfaces other than clay after Federer began declining in 2008 - at the end of 2007 their H2H was a fairly even 8-6 to Nadal and that's a one match swing, so if Federer had just taken the match point in Rome 2006 it would have been 7-7. And no, just because Nadal beat Federer on hardcourt in 2004, he didn't own him, he still would have lost the majority of hardcourt slam meetings in Federer's prime. But now Novak is beating a 25 year old Nadal on every surface, a guy who started playing better than ever last year. If he loses to him again at the US Open then can Djokovic seriously and honestly say that Nadal is the best ever when it's an old Federer who stopped Djokovic having a shot at a calendar slam and by all rights should have dethroned him here? If he sweeps past Nadal again and with more ease than the semi final against Federer, how can he honestly say that?

Likewise Murray has defeated Nadal in hardcourt slams twice and taken him to 5 sets as a 19 year old, yet both times he beat Nadal he failed to take a set off Federer. Really Novak and Andy like to call Nadal the greatest because they don't like Federer - because at this point the shift towards Nadal becoming the greatest which looked likely last year has not only stopped but gone the other way. I wonder what Navratilova will have to say if Nadal loses the US Open final, she was saying Nadal would overtake 16 majors and was the greatest, but you really never can tell what's going to happen, you can only judge what's currently true.

Awesome post!

 

[Fate Archer]

Which goes on to show it was a rather weak era.

I don't see the relevance anyway. He wasn't good enough on HC to make many finals, and yet Roger couldn't come close to dominating him like Rafa did on clay, before his prime and on Roger's prime...

It doesn't in any way or shape. If anyhting, it indicates how poor his hardcourt game was.

You know, people who subscribe to the "weak era" theory, particularly those coming from the Nadal camp, are only shooting on their own foot by backing such ridiculous notion, because (1) last I heard, Nadal played in 2004 - 2007, so he WAS part of the aforementioned era. Actually, he was one of the most proeminent players around that time. So that obviously includes Nadal HIMSELF as one of the weak players that played in such weak era; and (2) the argument is inherently circular, as the same can be proposed about Nadal's claycourt domination that extended from 2005 up till this friggin year. If the only opposition he had to face in all those years was a guy who matches incredibly well with his own game in Federer, then the clay court field should be even more incompetent than the proposed hard court field of 2004 - 2007. In fact, many respectable posters who couldn't careless abut Federer or Nadal actually think the clay court field of the 90's is much more deeper than the pathetic clay court field that has blessed us in this last decade.

So... who lived in the weak era now?

It has been rationally demonstrated with much better ARGUMENTS that such notion is only a bitter remark that comes with the denial of one man being so dominant for so many years. Sorry, Sampras ****s or Nadal ****s can only make a fool of themselves by pressing such concept.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

This ignores the fact that the legitimacy of Djokovic's remarkable year is now being seriously called into question, thanks to Nole's evasive behavior regarding his so called "egg" machine, which now seem to grant him remarkable powers of stamina and recovery, that previously eluded him. It's effectively a form a legalised doping. There's every chance that Djokovic is going to end up with an "asterix" by his year, like a Tennis version of Sammy Sosa, Mark Mcgwire and Barry Bonds. His wins willl still be there, but seen by many as illegitimate.

Djokovic is looking shifty and untrustworthy, and the media are on his case and digging for more dirt. People within tennis are playing down the egg chamber thing (because it'll irreperably damage the sport if Nole is widely seen as a cheat), but I think a huge scandal is going to break out in regards to Djokovic and the methods he used to improve himself. It's never been very believable that Nole turned from an asthmatic with limited stamina to a super-athlete with more endurance than Nadal, virtually overnight, because of a diet change.

Nadal's lossses to Djokovic will likely just end up being ascribed to Djokovic using technology (or worse) to gain an unfair advantadge over the other players. The moment the egg stuff came out, Nole was tarnished. I don't think Nole's 2011 dominance over Nadal will have much bearing in future consideration (regarding GOAT or any of that stuff) because the the things we are now finding out.