Raghav_12 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I am not too sure about that. I have never seen him play as bad as yesterday' date=' not on a hard court anyway. The blister and the bandage is really bothering him. On the other hand Federer is playing his best in over one year. I am not confident of a Nadal win here. He is not timing any of his shots and there in no weight behind his shots. Federer would be very tough to beat.[/quote'] Yes. Not in the best of the forms. It's his tenacity that saw him through today otherwise he was way below par. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 what 5 years. Nadal has been defeating him from the time he (Nadal) turned 22. At that time Federer was 26-17. When you start losing to some player at the age of 26-27, then it is not because you are over the hill, but because you are not as good as. On the other hand, didn't you see Dimitrov hitting 16 Aces and so many service winners? You are kidding right? Nadal has been beating Federer since 2004, when he was only 18 years old and Federer was at his absolute best. Just to put that in perspective, do you see any 18-19 year old beating Novak and Nadal now? This age excuse of Fedtards is hilarious. He was mere 26 when Nadal beat him at Wimbledon and 25 when Nadal took him to 5 sets in 2007 and even had multiple break points in the 5th set then. Would you consider Novak who is 26 and Nadal who is 27 now as old? If anything Federer was lucky that Nadal wasn't the same age as he is. Otherwise he wouldn't have had that dream run of 2004-07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 You are absolutely right. I have never tried to belittle any of Fed's achievements. I don't believe in the concept of GOAT' date=' just like I don't believe in comparing batsmen from different eras. But when people compare a 13 time GS champion with a one time flukey like Chang, what can you do. lol[/quote'] Realize that stats are contextual ? nadal in the 80s/90s would've won 7-8 slams. Chang in the 2000s would've won 4-5 slams. You are too young to've seen Chang but those who have, would get the comparison. Nadal is Michael Chang plus 10% more,fast forwarded 20 years. He is 10% taller, 10% harder hitting and 10% more resilient. But his gamestyle, is all Michael Chang. Federer is what you get when you combine Pete Sampras, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 You are kidding right? Nadal has been beating Federer since 2004' date=' when he was only 18 years old and Federer was at his absolute best. Just to put that in perspective, do you see any 18-19 year old beating Novak and Nadal now? This age excuse of Fedtards is hilarious. He was mere 26 when Nadal beat him at Wimbledon and 25 when Nadal took him to 5 sets in 2007 and even had multiple break points in the 5th set then. Would you consider Novak who is 26 and Nadal who is 27 now as old? If anything Federer was lucky that Nadal wasn't the same age as he is. Otherwise he wouldn't have had that dream run of 2004-07.[/quote'] For the first 3-4 years, Nadal mostly beat Federer at clay. Remember, Nadal is the best claycourter ever and clay is Roger's statistically worst surface. Their head2head is 22-10 in Nadal's favour but most of that 'dominance' is due to clay, where Nadal holds a 13-2 lead. Take away clay and its 9-8 in Nadal's favor. One big reason the stats are so lopsided is because Federer was unbeaten on grass for like a 6 year period (where he won every single grass tournament he entered- Halle, Queens Park, Wimbledon, Gerry Webber,etc) and Nadal wasnt good enough to face Fed. Its only in Wimbledon, the slowest grass court (due to the grass transplant) where Nadal has managed to go deep enough to face Federer at his peak. If Nadal was the same age as Fed, it would've been a lot closer record because Nadal was nowhere good enough a hard court/grass player till 2009 or so, so Federer would've chewed him up on all but clay. He also wouldn't have had nearly as many slams because if Nadal was 5-6 years older, he'd have to face hall of famer claycourters like Guga Kuerten, Tomas Muster or Albert Costa. Those guys would've ensured that Nadal, despite being the best claycourter ever, would've lost atleast 2-3 more French Opens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 For the first 3-4 years, Nadal mostly beat Federer at clay. Remember, Nadal is the best claycourter ever and clay is Roger's statistically worst surface. Their head2head is 22-10 in Nadal's favour but most of that 'dominance' is due to clay, where Nadal holds a 13-2 lead. Take away clay and its 9-8 in Nadal's favor. One big reason the stats are so lopsided is because Federer was unbeaten on grass for like a 6 year period (where he won every single grass tournament he entered- Halle, Queens Park, Wimbledon, Gerry Webber,etc) and Nadal wasnt good enough to face Fed. Its only in Wimbledon, the slowest grass court (due to the grass transplant) where Nadal has managed to go deep enough to face Federer at his peak. If Nadal was the same age as Fed, it would've been a lot closer record because Nadal was nowhere good enough a hard court/grass player till 2009 or so, so Federer would've chewed him up on all but clay. He also wouldn't have had nearly as many slams because if Nadal was 5-6 years older, he'd have to face hall of famer claycourters like Guga Kuerten, Tomas Muster or Albert Costa. Those guys would've ensured that Nadal, despite being the best claycourter ever, would've lost atleast 2-3 more French Opens. You are wasting your time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Realize that stats are contextual ? nadal in the 80s/90s would've won 7-8 slams. Chang in the 2000s would've won 4-5 slams. You are too young to've seen Chang but those who have, would get the comparison. Nadal is Michael Chang plus 10% more,fast forwarded 20 years. He is 10% taller, 10% harder hitting and 10% more resilient. But his gamestyle, is all Michael Chang. Federer is what you get when you combine Pete Sampras, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi. It doesn't matter how many slams Nadal would have won in 80s/90s. How is that even relevant? I mean who cares? A great in one era is a great. Everything evolves with time and it's not specific to tennis. PS. Michael Chang can at best be compared with someone like Hewitt or Ferrer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 For the first 3-4 years, Nadal mostly beat Federer at clay. Remember, Nadal is the best claycourter ever and clay is Roger's statistically worst surface. Their head2head is 22-10 in Nadal's favour but most of that 'dominance' is due to clay, where Nadal holds a 13-2 lead. Take away clay and its 9-8 in Nadal's favor. One big reason the stats are so lopsided is because Federer was unbeaten on grass for like a 6 year period (where he won every single grass tournament he entered- Halle, Queens Park, Wimbledon, Gerry Webber,etc) and Nadal wasnt good enough to face Fed. Its only in Wimbledon, the slowest grass court (due to the grass transplant) where Nadal has managed to go deep enough to face Federer at his peak. If Nadal was the same age as Fed, it would've been a lot closer record because Nadal was nowhere good enough a hard court/grass player till 2009 or so, so Federer would've chewed him up on all but clay. He also wouldn't have had nearly as many slams because if Nadal was 5-6 years older, he'd have to face hall of famer claycourters like Guga Kuerten, Tomas Muster or Albert Costa. Those guys would've ensured that Nadal, despite being the best claycourter ever, would've lost atleast 2-3 more French Opens. Excuses excuses and more excuses. Heard em all before. :cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 what 5 years. Nadal has been defeating him from the time he (Nadal) turned 22. At that time Federer was 26-17. When you start losing to some player at the age of 26-27, then it is not because you are over the hill, but because you are not as good as. On the other hand, didn't you see Dimitrov hitting 16 Aces and so many service winners? 26-27 is over the hill by tennis standards, where historically most ATG form comes between the age of 21 and 25. Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams by the age of 26. Becker won 5 of his six slams by the age of 24. Borg retired at the age of 24 or 25 with 11 slams John McEnroe won all 8 of his slams by the age of 25 Courier never won a slam after the age of 24. You kids simply havnt been watching tennis for long enough to compare or contrast between the eras. Which is why you guys are 'stats men'- a persuit of those too inexperienced or too ignorant to form an actual opinion from observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I have been hearing excuses all along. First Nadal won't last after 2 years, then he won't win outside French, he won't win Wimbledon, then he won't win on hard, then he won't win US open, he won't last after 26. Every time he has been pawning his haters. Now after he proved everyone wrong it's about class, elegance and beauty. Not to mention every court becomes slower after Nadal wins on it. And clay wins don't count, somehow it's an inferior surface. :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 It doesn't matter how many slams Nadal would have won in 80s/90s. How is that even relevant? I mean who cares? A great in one era is a great. Everything evolves with time and it's not specific to tennis. PS. Michael Chang can at best be compared with someone like Hewitt or Ferrer. Again, you are probably too young to've seen Chang play for any periods of time to know his game. not everything evolves with time, tennis had far bigger servers in the 90s than it does today. Today, there are 1-3 players who can consistently crank out 130mph+ serves. in the 90s, there were 10. Nadal's style is very reminiscent of Chang, he is just a slightly bigger Chang with slightly more oomph to his serve & groundstrokes. David Ferrer is very similar to Sergei Bruguera. amazing return of serve, amazing consistency, no power. Hewitt is very similar to Mats Wilander- had a couple of amazing years, is a solid & tenacious counterpuncher who had motivation issues and no single aspect of his game stands out as 'elite', except ofcourse, court coverage and counterpunching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I have been hearing excuses all along. First Nadal won't last after 2 years' date=' then he won't win outside French, he won't win Wimbledon, then he won't win on hard, then he won't win US open, he won't last after 26. Every time he has been pawning his haters. Now after he proved everyone wrong it's about class, elegance and beauty. Not to mention every court becomes slower after Nadal wins on it. And clay wins don't count, somehow it's an inferior surface. :hysterical:[/quote'] It is a fact that the courts are much slower now than they were 10 years ago or more, which is why you have a claycourt ATG like Nadal win 6 slams outside of clay. This fact is further demonstrated by the fact that David Ferrer, a classic claycourter, is a consistent QF/SF guy at all the slams, something that was unheard of for claycourt specialists since the advent of carbon-fibre rackets. Clay is an inferior surface because skills requires to be an ATG on clay does not translate well to other surfaces, whereas a hard court specialist or a grass specialist can do very well on either, as well as carpet or wood courts (something that is out of favour these days). This is why there are very few players who've won majors or slams at clay and any other surface(Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Nadal, Federer, Wilander, Courier, Kafelnikov. thats it!) while virtually every top level grass guy has won on hard and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Excuses excuses and more excuses. Heard em all before. :cantstop: Standard response of a kid who is too young to've seen much tennis and is a fanboy. Nothing else. :giggle: You wanna make excuses like 'Federer had no competition/if nadal was older he'd have dominated more' type BS but when i deconstruct those ignorant views, you got nothing to say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 19 year old clay courter Nadal beating all court specialist Federer in his best year (2006) on a fast hard court. h3BgTGHBZzk 17 year old clay courter Nadal beating Federer on a hard court in 2004. He was streamrolling everyone else. NEJJpfcxHAM 18 year old clay courter taking Federer to 5 sets on a hard court. 2Jur1hp7Xng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 You are kidding right? Nadal has been beating Federer since 2004' date=' when he was only 18 years old and Federer was at his absolute best. [b']Just to put that in perspective, do you see any 18-19 year old beating Novak and Nadal now? This age excuse of Fedtards is hilarious. He was mere 26 when Nadal beat him at Wimbledon and 25 when Nadal took him to 5 sets in 2007 and even had multiple break points in the 5th set then. Would you consider Novak who is 26 and Nadal who is 27 now as old? If anything Federer was lucky that Nadal wasn't the same age as he is. Otherwise he wouldn't have had that dream run of 2004-07. Are there any good emerging lefties in tennis ? Nadal's amazing success as a first time pro in his teens is due to standard 'lefties advantage'. Almost all lefties have had excellent starts to their careers due to this advantage and the time it requires the field to figure out a leftie. Johnny Mac beat Wimbledon Champ Arthur Ashe in his debut year and won 5 titles. Connors won 3 titles straightaway after turning pro, including beating Arthur Ashe, then considered #1 or #2 player of his time. Very few righties have such a meteoric rise. Becker was the only one to win so early in his career. Almost every rightie - from Borg to Sampras to Federer, Lendl- they all take 1-3 years since turning pro to win their first title, nevermind multiple ones. You do know that being a leftie in tennis offers a slight advantage- both in terms of rules and competetive field, right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yeah Laver is not a great because he was a lefty. Man excuses don't ever stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yeah Laver is not a great because he was a lefty. Man excuses don't ever stop. You got a comprehension problem ? Where did i say Nadal or Laver are not great ? I said lefties have an advantage. Do you know/acknowledge it or not or is anything you dont like, you are going to take the childish 'excuses' approach ? FYI, Laver too, had a meteoric start to his career. Because he was a leftie. Point is, good leftie players get a 'head start' over righties. Laver too, is no exception. Doesnt mean they dont turn into ATGs through their careers or can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 You got a comprehension problem ? Where did i say Nadal or Laver are not great ? I said lefties have an advantage. Do you know/acknowledge it or not or is anything you dont like, you are going to take the childish 'excuses' approach ? FYI, Laver too, had a meteoric start to his career. Because he was a leftie. Point is, good leftie players get a 'head start' over righties. Laver too, is no exception. Doesnt mean they dont turn into ATGs through their careers or can't. Nadal is an all time great and he has stopped being "just a clay court great" from about 2008 when he beat Federer at Wimbledon. That's the bottom line. I have never belittled Federer's achievements, he is without a shadow of doubt one of the greatest players to play the game, so is Nadal. but your insecurity is pretty apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Nadal is an all time great and he has stopped being "just a clay court great" from about 2008 when he beat Federer at Wimbledon. That's the bottom line. I have never belittled Federer's achievements' date=' he is without a shadow of doubt one of the greatest players to play the game, so is Nadal. but your insecurity is pretty apparent.[/quote'] I never said he is just a claycourt great. I said he is the greatest claycourter ever, who's accomplishments are slightly inflated due to the slower courts of his era. Its ironic how you consider my comment to be 'insecure' and 'excuses' but don't apply the same benchmark when you say 'Federer won a lot when nobody else was around/Nadal would've defeated him some more if he was the same age' etc. Again, do you know/acknowledge the lefties advantage in tennis or not ? Interesting how you've avoided this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I never said he is just a claycourt great. I said he is the greatest claycourter ever, who's accomplishments are slightly inflated due to the slower courts of his era. Its ironic how you consider my comment to be 'insecure' and 'excuses' but don't apply the same benchmark when you say 'Federer won a lot when nobody else was around/Nadal would've defeated him some more if he was the same age' etc. I have never said Federer won when noone else was around. I said if Nadal was around in his prime he would have had to share a lot of those slams from 2004-07. It's not Federer's fault that his peak was a weak era. Similarly Nadal doesn't control court speed. It is what it is. It's pointless to discuss what he would have done in the 90s. Players are a product of their era. They adjust the game to win in that era, the way Federer went on to become a baseliner from a serve and volleyer. Nadal's shots were a lot flatter when he first came on tour. He changed his game to gain more advantage. It doesn't matter what he would have done in the 90s. He is an all court great in this era and in the history. That's a fact, the rest is speculation. 1CvCxCnOC7Q Again, do you know/acknowledge the lefties advantage in tennis or not ? Interesting how you've avoided this question. Lefties have an advantage in saving break points to the ad court because of the wide serve to the BH. There is no other advantage. Everything else a right handed player can also replicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Anyways I have said what I have to say on this topic. I don't have any more time to waste on this. Hopefully we will have a good semi final tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now