tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Which loss is worse ?
Please share your thoughts.
Please share your thoughts.
Which loss is worse
- Thread starter tennisaddict
- Start date
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
nadal's loss to rosol is in a league if it's own...
rofl_copter3
Professional
The Sampras loss was worse, he had no business losing to that joker, at least Rosol overpowered Nadal and it didn't happen on clay...
Fugazi
Professional
The poll results amaze me... Of course Pete's loss was worse. While it's true that he was old at the time, he was still the king of grass. But more important: Rafa didn't play that bad in his loss, it's Rosol who stepped it up big time with amazing power tennis, being especially impressive in the 5th.
AnotherTennisProdigy
Professional
Sampras, at least Rosol was playing out if his mind.
tennisplayer1993
Professional
sampras was 30 and probably slower. sampras wasn't that great in 2002 from what I remember. besides winning the us open he was losing on clay to the like of a pre-prime roddick and seemed slower than he was in his 20s. for him the 30s, took a toll on his game. his last great year was 2002.
nadal lost against an on fire rosol. pretty sure rosol would have beaten anyone that day
nadal lost against an on fire rosol. pretty sure rosol would have beaten anyone that day
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
On paper, Nadal's. Watching the matches, Sampras's.
SwankPeRFection
Hall of Fame
Nadal's loss because he bumped into Ross at changeover and Ross laughed it off and won the match. Total ***** slap move. lol
forzamilan90
Legend
it's a pretty special upset....Nadal was the favorite going into that tournament.
Federer in straights over that rosol.
tennisplayer1993
Professional
i really doubt that. i think rosol will at least take a set of federer. he was playing very well but his return of serve was pathetic. federer's serve is much more lethal than nadal's so i wouldn't say a straight set victory but an intense 4-setter.
forzamilan90
Legend
prime fed or current level fed in regards to the 4 setter with Rosol?
Cormorant
Professional
Federer faced his own Rosol when #152 Ilija Bozoljac put on a serving masterclass against him at Wimbledon in 2010. Despite the onslaught of aces and a bad back, Roger weathered the storm in four.
Nadal/Rosol was thrilling entertainment, easily qualifying as one of the matches of the season, whereas Pete's game was a series of damp squibs in that bloodless encounter with Bastl. Anyone looking for an interesting Sampras defeat would be better off seeing his USO contest with Yzaga in 1994, or his perplexing collapse against Corretja on grass in a 2002 Davis Cup match.
Nadal/Rosol was thrilling entertainment, easily qualifying as one of the matches of the season, whereas Pete's game was a series of damp squibs in that bloodless encounter with Bastl. Anyone looking for an interesting Sampras defeat would be better off seeing his USO contest with Yzaga in 1994, or his perplexing collapse against Corretja on grass in a 2002 Davis Cup match.
No Coincidence that Sampras lost Wimbledon in 2002
2002 was the first year of the dreaded slowdown. They had re-seeded the Wimbledon grass late in 2001 (After the 2001 years championships were over). 2002 represents new Wimbledon. It really wasn't the same tournament anymore. Remember how Henman commented that year that it was one of the slowest surfaces he had played on all year.
So even though Sampras had ruled Wimbledon it was a different Wimbledon from 2002 onwards. It was a medium court speed event rather than a fast court event and has remained as such ever since.
(Jolly if I was right about this you would expect the 2002 finalists to serve and volley a lot less .....ummmm oh .....no serve and volley points at all which was the case).
2002 was the first year of the dreaded slowdown. They had re-seeded the Wimbledon grass late in 2001 (After the 2001 years championships were over). 2002 represents new Wimbledon. It really wasn't the same tournament anymore. Remember how Henman commented that year that it was one of the slowest surfaces he had played on all year.
So even though Sampras had ruled Wimbledon it was a different Wimbledon from 2002 onwards. It was a medium court speed event rather than a fast court event and has remained as such ever since.
(Jolly if I was right about this you would expect the 2002 finalists to serve and volley a lot less .....ummmm oh .....no serve and volley points at all which was the case).
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
In the scheme of things they're about even. Nadal was injured (just going by his word, and he hasn't played since) and not 100% in his match, and his opponent was possessed by Jesus.
Let's not forget Bennetau. What ballbashing. :shock:
Fugazi
Professional
I did specify almost anyone...
Last edited:
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Hard to say. Pete was way past his prime, and Nadal was not in anyway near the same way. Nadal was favored by alot of people to win Wimbledon this year too, which Pete really was not in 2002. However Rosol did play some incredible tennis to beat Nadal, probably will always be the match of his life. Bastl didnt do anything special to beat Pete, he played probably his normal level match and still won over a really sluggish and lethargic Pete Sampras. Wimbledon is also Sampras's home, the way Roland Garros is Nadal's. So overall a toss up.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
If we had a radio button, someone would say , we need an option to check both.
At least this way, the guy who can choose can still do the way they want, as the results evidence.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Voted for Nadal just because Nadal is in his prime.
Basically even.
That year was the end of an era at Wimbledon.
They slowed the court and put him on court 2.
Total humiliation loss.
Basically even.
That year was the end of an era at Wimbledon.
They slowed the court and put him on court 2.
Total humiliation loss.
No they wouldn't. :lol:
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
It's a useless poll. The question is which loss is worse so it doesn't make sense to check both options.
augustobt
Legend
You see why no one likes Nadal's fans?
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Didn't expect that from you. It has nowhere been said nor was there any indication that Nadal was injured in that match.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I didn't see any indication either and I'm not making excuses for him as he was fit enough to play the match. All I'm saying is that with what we know now, his word is that he wasnt 100% and says he shouldn't have played. Nothing wrong with me saying that. A fully fit Nadal could have still lost that match the way Rosol played possessed.
underground
G.O.A.T.
Nadal because he will never win a slam again and it's the start of the end of his career. Sampras however still managed to win the USO right after that loss.
NatF
Bionic Poster
You're an idiot if you think that.
Tough as a nadal fan to say it but I guess its the rosol loss, I had high hopes for nadal at wimbledon this year but looking at his past history in the first week I had a feeling he could get upset after seeing how he was playing in halle (and the first few games in the match against bellucci although he pulled out of that) and that feeling came early in the match when he just about won the first set. However rosol played unbelievably i was shocked at what I was seeing he fully deserved the win.
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
Man, this thread is really ********. Who cares who loses to who. You have your good and bad days. And rosol had a good day, nadal had a so-so day. Get over it. You hang this over him like he played really bad and nadal played even worse. If rosol played fed the way he was hitting, he would have beaten him or even djokovic.
kimbahpnam
Hall of Fame
Which Nadal loss was worse: Rosol or Soderling
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
well, it depends what you mean with "worse".
the rosol one is better in the sense that it was a delight to see him denadalize the draw in the 2nd round, whereas i was really disappointed to see the great pete ousted so early in 2002...
90's Clay
Banned
Thats very true as well.. Rasol was in Godmode at least for that match.. Nadal played well enough still in the match to probably beat any of the other top 3 guys really
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Yeah, I'm sure Rosol would have beaten anyone. :roll: He played well and deserves credit but would have had a tougher time versus someone with a better serve and more offensive mind set.
I trust that even you wouldn't try and say the same thing about Bastl, or would you?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nadal served well but he wasn't on top form. Definately not good enough to beat Djokovic, Murray or Federer if they were on form that's for sure.
90's Clay
Banned
:shock: Righht.. Like Nadal needs to be in offensive mindset mode to beat Freakin Federer. And didn't Fed need 5 sets to beat some bum at wimbledon? Benneateau or whatever the hell his name is?
Wuppy
Professional
This is my favorite point from the Rosol/Nadal match:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cjKxPPaMSc&t=6m0s
Rosol basically said "Watch this, I'm going to destroy your forehand with my backhand." Amazing point, utterly demoralized Nadal. If there was any hope of Nadal coming back by then, that point ended it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cjKxPPaMSc&t=6m0s
Rosol basically said "Watch this, I'm going to destroy your forehand with my backhand." Amazing point, utterly demoralized Nadal. If there was any hope of Nadal coming back by then, that point ended it.
Last edited:
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Didn't you say that it is all about match ups in one of your other posts? :lol:
Some bum who is ranked much higher than Rosol? He also actually won the match (and the tournament), of course.
Fortunately, Kohlschreiber saved the rest of the tournament from The Rosol!
Last edited by a moderator: