tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Which loss is worse ?
Please share your thoughts.
Please share your thoughts.
it's a pretty special upset....Nadal was the favorite going into that tournament.nadal's loss to rosol is in a league if it's own...
Federer in straights over that rosol.2012 Rosol would have destroyed 2002 Bastl (actually he would have destroyed almost anyone on that day), so draw your own conclusions...
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.Federer in straights over that rosol.
prime fed or current level fed in regards to the 4 setter with Rosol?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.
Let's not forget Bennetau. What ballbashing. :shock: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.
I did specify almost anyone...Federer in straights over that rosol.
This is a smart point I feel many people ignore, or just are unaware.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).
If we had a radio button, someone would say , we need an option to check both.You know what's really worst? THe poll consisting of 2 checkboxes instead of radio-button control. That really pisses me off!
No they wouldn't. :lol:If we had a radio button, someone would say , we need an option to check both.
It's a useless poll. The question is which loss is worse so it doesn't make sense to check both options.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.
You see why no one likes Nadal's fans?Nadal was injured and not 100% in his match, and his opponent was possessed by Jesus.
Didn't expect that from you. It has nowhere been said nor was there any indication that Nadal was injured in that match.Nadal was injured (just going by his word, and he hasn't played since) and not 100% in his match
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.Didn't expect that from you. It has nowhere been said nor was there any indication that Nadal was injured in that match.
You're an idiot if you think that.federer loss to nadal at wimbledon 2008 final
well, it depends what you mean with "worse".Which loss is worse ?
Please share your thoughts.
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 reallyMan, 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.
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.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
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.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
: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?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?
Didn't you say that it is all about match ups in one of your other posts? :lol::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?