Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
philcric

Why is CSK such a MI's bunny ?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Laaloo said:

Lower order batting and lack of trundlers that thala can feast on. There’s a reason why thala has done so poorly against :mi:. I remember him in the 2013 IPL final I think promoting jadeja ahead of him in a chase.

thala even used to suck against :mi: when chuskis were banned. 

Dhoni vs MI 23 innings 576 runs Strike rate 145.82 average 34.95 3 fifties.

Raina vs MI 26 innings 699 runs Strike rate 147.16 average 34.81 6 fifties

Rohit vs CSK 18 innings 560 runs Strike rate 116.72 average 34.19 6 fifties

 

How is Dhoni poor against MI or worse than Rohit vs CSK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CSK is Bugs Bunny. You think you have a hold on them and they will trick you with a mindblowing piece of skulduggery. Best heel ever. In contrast MI is so boring, pakka crooks but no charisma. Srini Mama is like Vince McMahon, Ambani is that boring asshole RAW GM who the fans don't care about...we all wanna know what the villain Vince is up to. 

Image result for n srinivasan temple

Image result for meiyappan

vince mcmahon wwe GIFvince mcmahon smile GIF

Edited by Gollum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Dhoni vs MI 23 innings 576 runs Strike rate 145.82 average 34.95 3 fifties.

Raina vs MI 26 innings 699 runs Strike rate 147.16 average 34.81 6 fifties

Rohit vs CSK 18 innings 560 runs Strike rate 116.72 average 34.19 6 fifties

 

How is Dhoni poor against MI or worse than Rohit vs CSK?

Most of those runs by thala are hollow runs.  Made no impact on the outcome of the match. Just look at this shameful final.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8048/scorecard/598073/chennai-super-kings-vs-mumbai-indians-final-indian-premier-league-2013

 

Badrinath, bravo, jadeja batted before him and he came when the game was out of reach and scored some meaningless runs at the end. 

 

Why don't you show me last knock of thala against :mi: which had some impact?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Laaloo said:

Most of those runs by thala are hollow runs.  Made no impact on the outcome of the match. Just look at this shameful final.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8048/scorecard/598073/chennai-super-kings-vs-mumbai-indians-final-indian-premier-league-2013

 

Badrinath, bravo, jadeja batted before him and he came when the game was out of reach and scored some meaningless runs at the end. 

 

Why don't you show me last knock of thala against :mi: which had some impact?

 

Nope not hollow runs. 50 runs in 20 balls in playoffs how is that hollow?  He obliterated Malinga their best fast bowler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Nope not hollow runs. 50 runs in 20 balls in playoffs how is that hollow?  He obliterated Malinga their best fast bowler.

What's the use when match is already over, coming below jaddu, master stroke to boost his stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vvvslaxman said:

Hard court almost even 9-10 Fedex

Outdoor hard court 8-5 Nadal

indoor hard court 5-1 Fedex

 

Clay 13-2  Nadal

Grass 2-1 Fedex

 

 

Overall tally matters. That is 23-15. Same way, in cricket we have home and away and neutral venues. But usually overall H2H is counted.

Edited by rkt.india

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Nope not hollow runs. 50 runs in 20 balls in playoffs how is that hollow?  He obliterated Malinga their best fast bowler.

Oh come on. The game was over before he came to the crease. 

 

P.s even Rohit has been crap against csk so not saying he's some sort of great batsmen against csk. The true nemesis for csk is Pollard. He singlehandedly won 3 IPLs for :mi: against thalas team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Nope not hollow runs. 50 runs in 20 balls in playoffs how is that hollow?  He obliterated Malinga their best fast bowler.

We have seen even tailenders score big once match is lost and no pressure 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

Oh come on. The game was over before he came to the crease. 

 

P.s even Rohit has been crap against csk so not saying he's some sort of great batsmen against csk. The true nemesis for csk is Pollard. He singlehandedly won 3 IPLs for :mi: against thalas team.

I gave you raw stats.  He is still their best batsman after Raina who himself blew hot and cold. Hayden and Badri were two other guys played well against MI.  Bhajji played a crucial role for MI in the past, especially at Chennai.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gollum said:

3-9 where it matters, woh bhi ghar mein ghus kar mara :p:

Fed will always be Nadal's bunny. How about Fed chickening out during clay swing for 2 consecutive years?

Nadal isn't Nole's bunny....9-6 where it counts and positive H2H in 2 majors.

 

Ok back to cricket...

Fed skipping clay was more due to his age and fitness. Facing nadal on Clay was secondary. In 2016, he played Monte Carlo and Rome not feeling well, and coming off a knee injury. He wasn't bad in 2016 when u consider his injury. Obviously his clay game has decline this decade due to his age. But the racket change and his improved neo backhand has helped in overturning the rivalry against Nadal. He is in Nadals head now. Had federer considered that racket change earlier, he might've had success against Nadal earlier. Even now considering Nadals clay form this season, and the signs of decline last season, a prime Federer would've feasted on Claydal. 

 

Plus that lopsided 23-10 before 2017, was due to Federer's 2013 season where he injured his back. Still choosing to play, he lost around 5-6 straight matches against Nadal. Making the H2H more lopsided. The rivalry was always in phases, Nadal dominating at a stretch , then federer coming back with a series of victories, then Nadal again notching up victories, followed by federer with a series of wins, etc. Had federer managed to convert the MPs in Rome 06, the clay h2h might be different now with a confident Fed even pulling of a few of those wins in RG against nadal like 06, 11, maybe even 07(his best of the RG finals against Nadal)

 

Where it really took off was 2008(Fed's Mono season) he was ill, he still played the season well, but not even close to his 2007 form, losing atrociously to Nadal at RG. Damaging his confidence, he lost his hold over Wimbledon, then the mental scars carried over to 2009 AO. But , in the end , he finally managed to overturn the rivalry in 17, thus cementing his status as GOAT, finally managing to overcome this greatest rival. Which frankly, not many in history have managed to do.

 

As for Nadal not being in Djokovic's head. He most definitely is! Since 2009 Madrid, the clay h2h is 7-7 if I'm not wrong. He has been the most competitive against Nadal on Clay, even beating him in RG. Nadal has not beaten Nole in HCs since 2013 USO. His last win against Nole on grass was 2010 Wimbledon. He couldn't even beat a subpar Nole in 2018 W. Nole was extemely low on confidence, an atrocious season up till the grass season. While Nadal, had a very good Clay season, came into Wimbledon with confidence, easy draw, the tournament was there for his taking. He still couldn't get thru .  Not to mention , getting destroyed by Nole in this year's AO, which was Nadals best HC form in a slam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gollum said:

3-9 where it matters, woh bhi ghar mein ghus kar mara :p:

Fed will always be Nadal's bunny. How about Fed chickening out during clay swing for 2 consecutive years?

Nadal isn't Nole's bunny....9-6 where it counts and positive H2H in 2 majors.

 

Ok back to cricket...

Fed skipping clay was more due to his age and fitness. Facing nadal on Clay was secondary. In 2016, he played Monte Carlo and Rome not feeling well, and coming off a knee injury. He wasn't bad in 2016 when u consider his injury. Obviously his clay game has decline this decade due to his age. But the racket change and his improved neo backhand has helped in overturning the rivalry against Nadal. He is in Nadals head now. Had federer considered that racket change earlier, he might've had success against Nadal earlier. Even now considering Nadals clay form this season, and the signs of decline last season, a prime Federer would've feasted on Claydal. 

 

Plus that lopsided 23-10 before 2017, was due to Federer's 2013 season where he injured his back. Still choosing to play, he lost around 5-6 straight matches against Nadal. Making the H2H more lopsided. The rivalry was always in phases, Nadal dominating at a stretch , then federer coming back with a series of victories, then Nadal again notching up victories, followed by federer with a series of wins, etc. Had federer managed to convert the MPs in Rome 06, the clay h2h might be different now with a confident Fed even pulling of a few of those wins in RG against nadal like 06, 11, maybe even 07(his best of the RG finals against Nadal)

 

Where it really took off was 2008(Fed's Mono season) he was ill, he still played the season well, but not even close to his 2007 form, losing atrociously to Nadal at RG. Damaging his confidence, he lost his hold over Wimbledon, then the mental scars carried over to 2009 AO. But , in the end , he finally managed to overturn the rivalry in 17, thus cementing his status as GOAT, finally managing to overcome this greatest rival. Which frankly, not many in history have managed to do.

 

As for Nadal not being in Djokovic's head. He most definitely is! Since 2009 Madrid, the clay h2h is 7-7 if I'm not wrong. He has been the most competitive against Nadal on Clay, even beating him in RG. Nadal has not beaten Nole in HCs since 2013 USO. His last win against Nole on grass was 2010 Wimbledon. He couldn't even beat a subpar Nole in 2018 W. Nole was extemely low on confidence, an atrocious season up till the grass season. While Nadal, had a very good Clay season, came into Wimbledon with confidence, easy draw, the tournament was there for his taking. He still couldn't get thru .  Not to mention , getting destroyed by Nole in this year's AO, which was Nadals best HC form in a slam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

Fed skipping clay was more due to his age and fitness. Facing nadal on Clay was secondary. In 2016, he played Monte Carlo and Rome not feeling well, and coming off a knee injury. He wasn't bad in 2016 when u consider his injury. Obviously his clay game has decline this decade due to his age. But the racket change and his improved neo backhand has helped in overturning the rivalry against Nadal. He is in Nadals head now. Had federer considered that racket change earlier, he might've had success against Nadal earlier. Even now considering Nadals clay form this season, and the signs of decline last season, a prime Federer would've feasted on Claydal. 

 

Plus that lopsided 23-10 before 2017, was due to Federer's 2013 season where he injured his back. Still choosing to play, he lost around 5-6 straight matches against Nadal. Making the H2H more lopsided. The rivalry was always in phases, Nadal dominating at a stretch , then federer coming back with a series of victories, then Nadal again notching up victories, followed by federer with a series of wins, etc. Had federer managed to convert the MPs in Rome 06, the clay h2h might be different now with a confident Fed even pulling of a few of those wins in RG against nadal like 06, 11, maybe even 07(his best of the RG finals against Nadal)

 

Where it really took off was 2008(Fed's Mono season) he was ill, he still played the season well, but not even close to his 2007 form, losing atrociously to Nadal at RG. Damaging his confidence, he lost his hold over Wimbledon, then the mental scars carried over to 2009 AO. But , in the end , he finally managed to overturn the rivalry in 17, thus cementing his status as GOAT, finally managing to overcome this greatest rival. Which frankly, not many in history have managed to do.

 

As for Nadal not being in Djokovic's head. He most definitely is! Since 2009 Madrid, the clay h2h is 7-7 if I'm not wrong. He has been the most competitive against Nadal on Clay, even beating him in RG. Nadal has not beaten Nole in HCs since 2013 USO. His last win against Nole on grass was 2010 Wimbledon. He couldn't even beat a subpar Nole in 2018 W. Nole was extemely low on confidence, an atrocious season up till the grass season. While Nadal, had a very good Clay season, came into Wimbledon with confidence, easy draw, the tournament was there for his taking. He still couldn't get thru .  Not to mention , getting destroyed by Nole in this year's AO, which was Nadals best HC form in a slam.

Nothing makes me sicker

than liquor

and candy

its too expandy

 

Ogden Nash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Dhoni has been irrelevant in CSK MI matches for the last 6 years or so. Now dont come to me with one off matches or so. His last good knock was in 2012. Plus tactically Rohit sharma has been beating dhoni since 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

Fed skipping clay was more due to his age and fitness. Facing nadal on Clay was secondary. In 2016, he played Monte Carlo and Rome not feeling well, and coming off a knee injury. He wasn't bad in 2016 when u consider his injury. Obviously his clay game has decline this decade due to his age. But the racket change and his improved neo backhand has helped in overturning the rivalry against Nadal. He is in Nadals head now. Had federer considered that racket change earlier, he might've had success against Nadal earlier. Even now considering Nadals clay form this season, and the signs of decline last season, a prime Federer would've feasted on Claydal. 

Ifs and buts, esp too many what ifs....if he didn't change his racket head earlier clearly his fault. 

FACT: Nadal ragdolled Fed on clay

Fed's excuse of skipping clay in 2017/18 was the surface's adverse effect on his knees. But clay is the softest surface for knees, if I had weak knees I would be more bothered about HCs. That sounded like an excuse on his part because his days of winning on clay were long past. No way was Fed competing with 2017/18 Claydal.

Fed's neo-backhand lasted till 2017 IW, whilst it is still decent enough it can't be called an offensive weapon anymore, at least not on a consistent basis. The decline in his FH more than makes up for whatever little gains he made in his BH. BTW his BH was shambolic last year post AO, this year slightly better. 

Quote

 

Plus that lopsided 23-10 before 2017, was due to Federer's 2013 season where he injured his back. Still choosing to play, he lost around 5-6 straight matches against Nadal. Making the H2H more lopsided. The rivalry was always in phases, Nadal dominating at a stretch , then federer coming back with a series of victories, then Nadal again notching up victories, followed by federer with a series of wins, etc. Had federer managed to convert the MPs in Rome 06, the clay h2h might be different now with a confident Fed even pulling of a few of those wins in RG against nadal like 06, 11, maybe even 07(his best of the RG finals against Nadal)

Anyway Nadal in 2013 US HC swing was playing at a different level, a level Fed hasn't come close to equaling this whole decade. 

Again too many ifs and buts. What if Nadal hadn't shanked that easy BH in 2012 AO F 4-2 up in 5th set? What if Nole hadn't touched the net in 2013 RG SF?

Fed lost most of those RG finals in the mental department, like most of his matches against Nadal. That 2011 final was unforgivable, conditions were so fast with light balls and the way he choked 1st set :facepalm:

Quote

 

Where it really took off was 2008(Fed's Mono season) he was ill, he still played the season well, but not even close to his 2007 form, losing atrociously to Nadal at RG. Damaging his confidence, he lost his hold over Wimbledon, then the mental scars carried over to 2009 AO. But , in the end , he finally managed to overturn the rivalry in 17, thus cementing his status as GOAT, finally managing to overcome this greatest rival. Which frankly, not many in history have managed to do.

Agree about 2008 RG effect, that cost him SW19 and AO next year, 2 very painful losses for a Fed fan.

Too early to call him GOAT with Nole around. Nostalgia aside I think we can make a pretty good case for Nole as his greatest rival and not Nadal. I am a Fed fan but I enjoy Djokodal and Djokerer clashes more than Fedal ones. 

Quote

 

As for Nadal not being in Djokovic's head. He most definitely is! Since 2009 Madrid, the clay h2h is 7-7 if I'm not wrong. He has been the most competitive against Nadal on Clay, even beating him in RG. Nadal has not beaten Nole in HCs since 2013 USO. His last win against Nole on grass was 2010 Wimbledon.

I agree with you, the tide has turned on HC post USO 2013 and even on clay apart from RG Nole has held his own. That is why I believe Nole is slowly making a case for GOAT tag. I won't call Nadal a bunny of Nole over their careers but certainly the toughest opponent as far as playing style is concerned. Still Nadal stole more slams from Nole than the other way around. The ones Nole won he deserved but Nadal beat him in 2 USO finals and then 2012-14 RG when he wasn't demonstrably playing better.

Quote

He couldn't even beat a subpar Nole in 2018 W. Nole was extemely low on confidence, an atrocious season up till the grass season. While Nadal, had a very good Clay season, came into Wimbledon with confidence, easy draw, the tournament was there for his taking. He still couldn't get thru .  Not to mention , getting destroyed by Nole in this year's AO, which was Nadals best HC form in a slam.

You have got to admit that was a brilliant match, a clash for the ages. Still with open roof the result could have swung the other way. 

AO was a foregone conclusion, not only is that arena cursed for the Spaniard, he can't compete with Nole/Fed on quick surfaces anymore. He can try to be aggressive and that may fluster others but against his 2 great rivals, that's the wrong approach. His days of winning in AO/SW19 are done just like Fed's in RG/USO. Only Nole can realistically target all 4 majors.

Nadal's best HC form in a slam (recent times) came in 2017 USO, and that surface suited him as opposed to RLA. 

Edited by Gollum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Ifs and buts, esp too many what ifs....if he didn't change his racket head earlier clearly his fault. 

FACT: Nadal ragdolled Fed on clay

Fed's excuse of skipping clay in 2017/18 was the surface's adverse effect on his knees. But clay is the softest surface for knees, if I had weak knees I would be more bothered about HCs. That sounded like an excuse on his part because his days of winning on clay were long past. No way was Fed competing with 2017/18 Claydal.

Fed's neo-backhand lasted till 2017 IW, whilst it is still decent enough it can't be called an offensive weapon anymore, at least not on a consistent basis. The decline in his FH more than makes up for whatever little gains he made in his BH. BTW his BH was shambolic last year post AO, this year slightly better. 

Anyway Nadal in 2013 US HC swing was playing at a different level, a level Fed hasn't come close to equaling this whole decade. 

Again too many ifs and buts. What if Nadal hadn't shanked that easy BH in 2012 AO F 4-2 up in 5th set? What if Nole hadn't touched the net in 2013 RG SF?

Fed lost most of those RG finals in the mental department, like most of his matches against Nadal. That 2011 final was unforgivable, conditions were so fast with light balls and the way he choked 1st set :facepalm:

Agree about 2008 RG effect, that cost him SW19 and AO next year, 2 very painful losses for a Fed fan.

Too early to call him GOAT with Nole around. Nostalgia aside I think we can make a pretty good case for Nole as his greatest rival and not Nadal. I am a Fed fan but I enjoy Djokodal and Djokerer clashes more than Fedal ones. 

I agree with you, the tide has turned on HC post USO 2013 and even on clay apart from RG Nole has held his own. That is why I believe Nole is slowly making a case for GOAT tag. I won't call Nadal a bunny of Nole over their careers but certainly the toughest opponent as far as playing style is concerned. Still Nadal stole more slams from Nole than the other way around. The ones Nole won he deserved but Nadal beat him in 2 USO finals, 2012-14 RG when he wasn't demonstrably playing better. 

You have got to admit that was a brilliant match, a clash for the ages. Still with open roof the result could have swung the other way. 

AO was a foregone conclusion, not only is that arena cursed for the Spaniard, he can't compete with Nole/Fed on quick surfaces anymore. He can try to be aggressive and that may fluster others but against his 2 great rivals, that's the wrong approach. His days of winning in AO/SW19 are done just like Fed's in RG/USO. Only Nole can realistically target all 4 majors.

Nadal's best HC form in a slam (recent times) came in 2017 USO, and that surface suited him as opposed to RLA. 

2017 USO was also the easiest slam draw for a player in quite some time. Not a single top 20 player faced in his path to the title. 

 

I agree the FH is no longer the glorious shot it once was, especially after the racket change, but it still did him more good than bad. 

The backhand has declined in 2018, but his entire form after IW was atrocious. I guess the reports of a hand injure seems not far fetched. It could be the reason why he's playing better now than last year.

 

As for Federer skipping clay, I agree at his age he has no real chance to succeed on the surface. The oldest RG winner in open era history winner was 34 years. So Federer was keeping himself fresh for Wimbledon, a move that worked in 2017, but backfired in 2018.

 

Still, I think Federer would've had a chance in 2017, with Murray, Djokovic's decline, and Federer's Renaissance and confidence coming from the sunshine double, along with Nadals lack of confidence on clay(got injured on the surface the prev year, started badly in 17 dropping sets to Edmund, and Fognini(ok maybe not bad but..). There was no competition that year, aside from Thiem . Had Federer played he wouldve had  a better chance than anyone . He was in Nadals head. 3 straight HC victories, one coming from a break down in the final set etc. But, I guess Fed didn't want to lose the mental hold he had over Nadal then. 

 

I agree Fed-Djokovic rivalry deserves more credit than the Fedal or Djokodal rivalries. Djokodal was mainly too baseline, and Fedal as great as it was, mainly occurred in phases with both of them dominating each other from time to time. It wasn't consistently competitive. 

 

Federer was Noles most competitive rival in both of Noles best seasons(2011 and 2015). They had some good matches, one thing lacking is the historically significant matches like Wim 08 of Fedal, AO17,  or the Wim 18 of Djokodal etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stan AF said:

Basically Federer was on the wrong side of age when it comes to rivalry with both nadal and djokovic.

Exactly, Simply put. 

I doubt Nadal and Djokovic would be playing as well as Federer was in their mid-to-late 30s.

Already their decline is evident, while Fed seems to be able to play competitively until his 40s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stan AF said:

Basically Federer was on the wrong side of age when it comes to rivalry with both nadal and djokovic.

Fed was a late bloomer unlike the other 2. Had all started as 18 year olds at the same time Fed's confidence would have been shattered beyond repair in the 1st 5-6 odd years. 

Fed accumulated many majors in 2003-07 period and built an aura by the time Nole knocked on the door. Against Nadal, huge match up and mental issue cos teenager Nadal gave him hell including on HC. I don't buy the age excuse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, I6MTW said:

Exactly, Simply put. 

I doubt Nadal and Djokovic would be playing as well as Federer was in their mid-to-late 30s.

Already their decline is evident, while Fed seems to be able to play competitively until his 40s.

But young Nadal/Nole would have smashed Fed beyond repair. And all the time in his 20s Fed would have to go through them to win his majors, not the joke competition we saw in the weak era he plundered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gollum said:

Fed was a late bloomer unlike the other 2. Had all started as 18 year olds at the same time Fed's confidence would have been shattered beyond repair in the 1st 5-6 odd years. 

Fed accumulated many majors in 2003-07 period and built an aura by the time Nole knocked on the door. Against Nadal, huge match up and mental issue cos teenager Nadal gave him hell including on HC. I don't buy the age excuse. 

Federer's late blooming was due to his mental issues. He was a teenage brat at that age. Quite similar to Kyrgios, and Tonic. But what makes his rise even greater is his ability to overcome that attitude of his, to a player with one of the greatest mental toughness of all time.(Ok, his mental toughness may not be as great as Nole or Nadal(I actually find his a tad overrated, or Borg). But still, he has the most comebacks from two sets down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

But young Nadal/Nole would have smashed Fed beyond repair. And all the time in his 20s Fed would have to go through them to win his majors, not the joke competition we saw in the weak era he plundered. 

Nahh, Federer even in his 30s still managed to give peak Nole a run for his money. Fed at his peak and prime would destroy Nole. Even federer at His worst last year in Paris managed to take Nole to 3 seats nearly beating.His versatility ,all court ability, rallying skils, and even his ROS was a weapon that time. So Nole would not have been an issue.

 

It was Nadal who troubled federer, so it wouldve been even if fed had sustained peak and not encountered the 2008 and 2013 years. The rivalry wouldve been very competitive. H2H wouldve been similar to the Djokodal one if Federer was Nadals age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

2017 USO was also the easiest slam draw for a player in quite some time. Not a single top 20 player faced in his path to the title.

Agree, just like 2018 AO. But they deserve a bit of luck here and there after all they've been through. Can't believe we haven't had a Fedal clash in USO all these years, came within a round of each other so many times. 

Quote

I agree the FH is no longer the glorious shot it once was, especially after the racket change, but it still did him more good than bad.

Good against Nadal whose FH/speed has declined. Not sure about Nole, Fed needs a much better FH to beat Nole cos he ain't winning too many BH battles against the Serb. 

Quote

As for Federer skipping clay, I agree at his age he has no real chance to succeed on the surface. The oldest RG winner in open era history winner was 34 years. So Federer was keeping himself fresh for Wimbledon, a move that worked in 2017, but backfired in 2018.

Agree.

Quote

Still, I think Federer would've had a chance in 2017, with Murray, Djokovic's decline, and Federer's Renaissance and confidence coming from the sunshine double, along with Nadals lack of confidence on clay(got injured on the surface the prev year, started badly in 17 dropping sets to Edmund, and Fognini(ok maybe not bad but..). There was no competition that year, aside from Thiem . Had Federer played he wouldve had  a better chance than anyone . He was in Nadals head. 3 straight HC victories, one coming from a break down in the final set etc. But, I guess Fed didn't want to lose the mental hold he had over Nadal then. 

Nadal was imperious on clay in 2017. Plus on PC he gets an extra boost with the option to stand so deep behind the baseline cos of court geometry. Don't forget even Fed has scars in PC with Nadal at the other end. I believe Fed could have beaten him in Madrid that year, maybe even Rome but not MC/RG.

I think Fed had a bigger mental edge in 2007 RG after those last 2 sets in Hamburg final a fortnight before, even fed Nadal a bagel on clay !!!! But Nadal on PC is a different beast as we keep finding out. In 2007 his BH too was brilliant, remember the match against Blake in Shanghai towards the end of 2006 season? 

Fed skipping RG was a purely tactical decision as you said, he wanted to maintain the mental hold. Same reason why he didn't play on the slow as molasses Monte Carlo pit this year. Only in Madrid does he have a realistic shot at beating Nadal. 

Quote

I agree Fed-Djokovic rivalry deserves more credit than the Fedal or Djokodal rivalries. Djokodal was mainly too baseline, and Fedal as great as it was, mainly occurred in phases with both of them dominating each other from time to time. It wasn't consistently competitive. 

Glad that you agree. 

Quote

Federer was Noles most competitive rival in both of Noles best seasons(2011 and 2015). They had some good matches, one thing lacking is the historically significant matches like Wim 08 of Fedal, AO17,  or the Wim 18 of Djokodal etc.

I enjoyed the 2010-11 USO semis, 2011 RG SF, 2012 SW19 SF, 2014 SW19 F.....unluckily for them at their peaks they mostly found themselves in the same half especially in majors outside RG. I'll say they had many epics but not in summit clashes. 

Edited by Gollum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

Federer's late blooming was due to his mental issues. He was a teenage brat at that age. Quite similar to Kyrgios, and Tonic. But what makes his rise even greater is his ability to overcome that attitude of his, to a player with one of the greatest mental toughness of all time.(Ok, his mental toughness may not be as great as Nole or Nadal(I actually find his a tad overrated, or Borg). But still, he has the most comebacks from two sets down. 

All changed after his coach Peter Carter's death.

He does have most comebacks from 2 sets down (the one against Haas in 2009 RG stands out) but also blown too many matches. His mental toughness is obviously great but not at the level of other GOAT contenders. 

21 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

Nahh, Federer even in his 30s still managed to give peak Nole a run for his money. Fed at his peak and prime would destroy Nole. Even federer at His worst last year in Paris managed to take Nole to 3 seats nearly beating.His versatility ,all court ability, rallying skils, and even his ROS was a weapon that time. So Nole would not have been an issue.

Nole has stopped caring about non-major tourneys the way I see it. In my mind Nole would challenge Fed in any situation, so let us agree to disagree here. 

Quote

It was Nadal who troubled federer, so it wouldve been even if fed had sustained peak and not encountered the 2008 and 2013 years. The rivalry wouldve been very competitive. H2H wouldve been similar to the Djokodal one if Federer was Nadals age.

16-23 year old Nadal would have ended same age Fed's confidence, here the assumption being all start at same age together. 

Edited by Gollum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Sorry. @I6MTW we can discuss this later in the sports sub-forum. Let us leave this thread to IPL fans. 

Okay! Let's just agree all 3 of them are perhaps the greatest of all time. The Trinity of men's tennis. We might never see a tennis player of their caliber after they retire. ATP might even become like the WTA with random winners here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 12:01 AM, Gollum said:

Fed was a late bloomer unlike the other 2. Had all started as 18 year olds at the same time Fed's confidence would have been shattered beyond repair in the 1st 5-6 odd years. 

Fed accumulated many majors in 2003-07 period and built an aura by the time Nole knocked on the door. Against Nadal, huge match up and mental issue cos teenager Nadal gave him hell including on HC. I don't buy the age excuse. 

Not an excuse, it is a fact of life. The young replaces the old. In an athletic sport like Tennis 5-6 years difference is huge. Speed/reflexes/skills/ power all wane down with age. Credit to Federer he somehow still managed to win 3 slams after he turned 35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a tongue in cheek remark turned into such a fierce debate of Fed and Nadal.  i just wanted to say that the greatest T20 team CSK is bunny of MI, like the greatest Tennis player Fed is bunny of Nadal.  or the greatest cricketer SRT bunny of Anderson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 12:45 PM, rkt.india said:

Just a tongue in cheek remark turned into such a fierce debate of Fed and Nadal.  i just wanted to say that the greatest T20 team CSK is bunny of MI, like the greatest Tennis player Fed is bunny of Nadal.  or the greatest cricketer SRT bunny of Anderson.

CSK is not the greatest t20 team. It's :mi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

CSK also has 100% playoffs record in IPL.

LOL. back to sqaure one. 

100% playoffs records means more failure to win the actual thing. Nobody remembers or appreciates how many times SA or England have reached semis or finals. Winning the cup is the real greatness of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pollack said:

LOL. back to sqaure one. 

100% playoffs records means more failure to win the actual thing. Nobody remembers or appreciates how many times SA or England have reached semis or finals. Winning the cup is the real greatness of the team.

but if you take in all of these records, it makes CSK the most successful IPL team.  3 IPL titles, 2 CL titles, 100% play off records.  100% record does not show the failure.  It shows how good they have been.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

but if you take in all of these records, it makes CSK the most successful IPL team.  3 IPL titles, 2 CL titles, 100% play off records.  100% record does not show the failure.  It shows how good they have been.  

3 ipl titles and 2 cl titles have been achieved by MI too without having 100% playoff records.

 

In terms of actual results that matters Mumbai Indians are equal.

 

3/7 finals is choking compared to 3/4 finals by Mumbai Indians.

Not saying CSK isn't a consistent team but if CSK is greatest t20 team then so should be MI too with equal trophy counts. Trophy count matters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×