Wimby’19 QF: (3) R Nadal vs Sam “I Am The Destroyer” Querrey

Sam or Rafa


  • Total voters
    127

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
There's careful and then there's your version of careful. When I read your comments and lock out everything else, it seems a miracle he is able to win sets, let alone matches and slams.
Well, he hasn't won this tournament for many years and he is 33 after all.
Anyway, Federer is the favorite in the semifinal, right? This is my point after all, and I think you agree with it. It's still better than to be overconfident IMO.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Nadal has a Serena like draw. Player ranking he played 274, 43, 72, 69, 65. Not even a top forty player and he is in the Semi's. What a setup, much like the French.
Pro tennis is more like the WWF.
Even Federer the number 2 seed played to top 20 players.
Solution: Seed all 128 players, make it equal.
Fed had the toughest draw for sure: round 1 to 5
Fed: 86- 169- 28- 20- 7
Djoko: 57- 111- 48- 66- 23
Nadal: 274- 43- 72- 69- 65

Green = lowest ranked
Bold = highest ranked


Nadal had the cupcake (probably to compensate getting Kyrgios in 2nd round ha ha)
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Nadal has a Serena like draw. Player ranking he played 274, 43, 72, 69, 65. Not even a top forty player and he is in the Semi's. What a setup, much like the French.
Unsubstantiated nonsense. The problem is the entire men's tour: three players dominate 2+ generations of talentless losers, and Querrey is a member of the so-called "future" or "next generation" of players who continue to pay full membership in the ATP's Can't Win A Major Legion. The same story with Federer demolishing never-had-a-chance Nishikori. Truly the "same old, same old" for so many years.
 

zaph

Professional
Unsubstantiated nonsense. The problem is the entire men's tour: three players dominate 2+ generations of talentless losers, and Querrey is a member of the so-called "future" or "next generation" of players who continue to pay full membership in the ATP's Can't Win A Major Legion. The same story with Federer demolishing never-had-a-chance Nishikori. Truly the "same old, same old" for so many years.
Stop hating on Nishikori, he is 5' 10" and 74 kg, playing Federer who is 10Kg heavier and has 3 inch height advantage. Nishikori is a middle weight trying to live with heavy weights, especially when it comes to his serve. To hold serve when he was under that much relentless pressure was no mean feat. Give Nishikori a half decent serve and he would win a slam.
 

ACE of Hearts

Talk Tennis Guru
Stop hating on Nishikori, he is 5' 10" and 74 kg, playing Federer who is 10Kg heavier and has 3 inch height advantage. Nishikori is a middle weight trying to live with heavy weights, especially when it comes to his serve. To hold serve when he was under that much relentless pressure was no mean feat. Give Nishikori a half decent serve and he would win a slam.
Yup. Nishikori was not gonna keep that high level of play.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Stop hating on Nishikori, he is 5' 10" and 74 kg, playing Federer who is 10Kg heavier and has 3 inch height advantage. Nishikori is a middle weight trying to live with heavy weights, especially when it comes to his serve. To hold serve when he was under that much relentless pressure was no mean feat. Give Nishikori a half decent serve and he would win a slam.
That's an excuse for a professional tennis player? It is not. His height has nothing to do with his lack of majors, as history has witnessed players his height and shorter win majors. That, and as long as he's been a professional tennis player, he--and his team--knew the tennis landscape, and height was not an issue...or acknowledging the need to work on a better serve long ago. As of this date, he's still a member of that aforementioned Can't Win A Major Legion, and its all on his shoulders--the same as Querrey and the rest of that generation who were "so strong" (according to certain people on this board) and were set to take over from three men years ago.
 
Fed had the toughest draw for sure: round 1 to 5
Fed: 86- 169- 28- 20- 7
Djoko: 57- 111- 48- 66- 23
Nadal: 274- 43- 72- 69- 65

Green = lowest ranked
Bold = highest ranked


Nadal had the cupcake (probably to compensate getting Kyrgios in 2nd round ha ha)
Rank taken in isolation doesn't say anything, really. It's clear Querrey was one of the Top 4 toughest players this Wimbledon, and having Kyrgios in R2 added an additional difficulty to the draw. Nadal's draw has been the toughest so far simply based on those two players.
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
Rank taken in isolation doesn't say anything, really. It's clear Querrey was one of the Top 4 toughest players this Wimbledon, and having Kyrgios in R2 added an additional difficulty to the draw. Nadal's draw has been the toughest so far simply based on those two players.
Disagree completely. Even taking into account Kyrgios (who was actually nothing special, but admittedly tougher than your average 2nd round) Nadals draw can be described as “comfortable.”
 

Ajosin

Rookie
Well, Sam had only been broken once until Nadal came a long. Also, to win the championship Nadal may need to go through players that combine for 12 Wimbledons which would be unprecedented in history I believe.

So Nadal has his work cut out for him.
 

Vamos Rafa Nadal

Professional
Re-watching the Nadal-Querrey match without the stress! :) Once he settled down after winning the first set he played awesome tennis! :) Hope he can calm himself down quickly on Friday and Sunday! :)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Because he was extremely clutch at seving BPs and faced baseliners even worse than he is. None of the other big servers even made it deep. Querrey has these hot sreak periods where his groundies are working really well.
Thiem/Millman/Sandgren are atleast as good as Querrey, if not better than him from the baseline - even on grass. agreed regarding the hot streaks part.
Point is there is no excuse for him to be broken 6 friggin' times in 3 sets if he was playing well or anywhere near it.

That's because Fed is great at backing up his serve in a variety of ways. He was a point away from starting the match with two breaks down, on freaking grass.
that's true, but once fed got into rhythm on serve, Nishikori found it clearly more difficult to return than at the start.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
In tie breaks it is easier, you don't have to return for a full game, just for a few points.
Lol, I'm surprised you use the operator "!=" for non equal on this forum.
who said it was tougher in TBs ? Point is you refused to acknowledge/state that part - about Nadal returning well in the TBs ...because it didn't fit your dreary narrative/view point.
As far as the != is concerned, well this isn't a basic math illiterate forum, is it ?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Rank taken in isolation doesn't say anything, really. It's clear Querrey was one of the Top 4 toughest players this Wimbledon, and having Kyrgios in R2 added an additional difficulty to the draw. Nadal's draw has been the toughest so far simply based on those two players.
kyrgios ? yes.
querrey ? no. he didn't play well in the QF.

nishikori played significantly better.

fed/nadal draws about even, even if Nadal faced the toughest - kyrgios
djokovic quite clearly the easiest.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
Rank taken in isolation doesn't say anything, really. It's clear Querrey was one of the Top 4 toughest players this Wimbledon, and having Kyrgios in R2 added an additional difficulty to the draw. Nadal's draw has been the toughest so far simply based on those two players.
Sam must have a curly head of hair if it grew out, being either really really good or very very horrid. That break to get back even in the first set drained him and sticking a fork in him was an act of kindness by The Nadal. From serving 25 aces per match, today he dropped just a little to 22 but Nadal got quite a few of would-be other bombs back in play and Sam wasn’t ready to hit outright winners on his next shot. Time and again he was passed. A bridge too far in just his 10th match since returning from an abdominal injury that took him off court after a fairly poor start of 2019...9-7 before Eastbourne.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
who said it was tougher in TBs ? Point is you refused to acknowledge/state that part - about Nadal returning well in the TBs ...because it didn't fit your dreary narrative/view point.
As far as the != is concerned, well this isn't a basic math illiterate forum, is it ?
I'm a mathematician and I have some knowledge in computer science. So sure, I know what this symbol means, but the first time I saw it was in a special course in high school. That's why I was surprised you use it here.
 

mightyrick

Legend
who said it was tougher in TBs ? Point is you refused to acknowledge/state that part - about Nadal returning well in the TBs ...because it didn't fit your dreary narrative/view point.
As far as the != is concerned, well this isn't a basic math illiterate forum, is it ?
Your statement is telling. At least about basic math literacy.

Because != is not a symbol for inequality in mathematics -- where the symbol is .

It's a common thing for computer-science grads, software engineers, and script kiddies to confuse and conflate programming and scripting language semantics and operators with real mathematics semantics and operators... which are totally different things... except to the basic math illiterate.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Your statement is telling. At least about basic math literacy.

Because != is not a symbol for inequality in mathematics -- where the symbol is .

It's a common thing for computer-science grads, software engineers, and script kiddies to confuse and conflate programming and scripting language semantics and operators with real mathematics semantics and operators... which are totally different things... except to the basic math illiterate.
both mean the same the same thing in the context where I posted.

I didn't bother searching for the ≠ sign.
 
Last edited:

mightyrick

Legend
both mean the same the same thing in the context where I posted.

I didn't bother search for the ≠ sign.
No. They don't mean the same thing. Yes, people know what you meant. But that isn't the point.

The point is that your justification for using the != operator was the presumption that most people on this board are not math illiterate. The irony of that notion is that != has nothing to do with math literacy and everything to do with computer programming language literacy. The very fact that you do not know the difference makes you yourself math illiterate -- at least in terms of basic math symbols.

It's like saying that most of the people on the board understand what you mean because they all can speak "American".
 
Disagree completely. Even taking into account Kyrgios (who was actually nothing special, but admittedly tougher than your average 2nd round) Nadals draw can be described as “comfortable.”
Comfortable at the level he has played. Here's the thing: Did Nadal's opponents not do better because of some unknown reason, or did Nadal's level contributed somehow to that?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
No. They don't mean the same thing. Yes, people know what you meant. But that isn't the point.

The point is that your justification for using the != operator was the presumption that most people on this board are not math illiterate. The irony of that notion is that != has nothing to do with math literacy and everything to do with computer programming language literacy. The very fact that you do not know the difference makes you yourself math illiterate -- at least in terms of basic math symbols.

It's like saying that most of the people on the board understand what you mean because they all can speak "American".
I've taken math in my engineering as well. But sure I'm illiterate in terms of basic math symbols. :-D
I'm typing on a computer. So != comes to mind.
≠ sign would be what would come to mind if I was writing it on paper.

The bold part just goes to show you making assumptions on just 1 thing - makes your judgement in this case very poor.
 
kyrgios ? yes.
querrey ? no. he didn't play well in the QF.

nishikori played significantly better.

fed/nadal draws about even, even if Nadal faced the toughest - kyrgios
djokovic quite clearly the easiest.
But Querrey was going toe to toe with Nadal in the first set. If they had gone to a tie anything could have happened. Let's give Nadal some credit here. It's not Querrey deciding to play bad out of the blue. To have to play Querrey and Kyrgios in the draw (and then Fed and Djokovic in a row potentially) makes this a nightmare draw. Tsonga did play like crap though.
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
Comfortable at the level he has played. Here's the thing: Did Nadal's opponents not do better because of some unknown reason, or did Nadal's level contributed somehow to that?
Of course it did. Doesn’t mean his draw was anything special.
And Nadals opponents didn’t do better because they are average!
Look, his draw wasn’t the easiest ever, but neither could it be described as hard.
 
Of course it did. Doesn’t mean his draw was anything special.
And Nadals opponents didn’t do better because they are average!
Look, his draw wasn’t the easiest ever, but neither could it be described as hard.
I think that having to play the #1 and #2 seed along with Querrey which is a top performer on grass is a tough draw.
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
I think that having to play the #1 and #2 seed along with Querrey which is a top performer on grass is a tough draw.
Nadals draw is tough from the semis onward. But then, by definition, so is Federer’s. What comes before that was much of a muchness. Stop trying to turn Sam Querrey into a fire breathing dragon. An in form big three kills him in straights every single time.
 
Top