2020 Predictions and Speculations

[Jelenafan]

Funny how the 10* years that Nadal more than held his own against Federer iñ

So you think Nadal doesn't need a lucky draw to win outside of RG? Do yo think Nadal would have beaten Djokovic if they had met at the US Open this year? I think it would have been a demolition, not very different from what happened at the AO.

By that same criteria, Federer needed a lucky draw to win his solitary French Open in 09. If he had faced Nadal, it would have been a demolition.

 

[atttomole]

Funny how the 10* years that Nadal more than held his own against Federer iñ


By that same criteria, Federer needed a lucky draw to win his solitary French Open in 09. If he had faced Nadal, it would have been a demolition.

Not only did he hold his own against Federer, he ran rings around him. Nadal had a tactical advantage over Federer.

His draw was wasn’t a lucky draw as such, but Nadal was eliminated, which I agree, helped him. 2008 was a demolition, but I doubt 2009 would have been a demolition if they met in the final.

 

[Moxie]

Not only did he hold his own against Federer, he ran rings around him. Nadal had a tactical advantage over Federer.

His draw was wasn’t a lucky draw as such, but Nadal was eliminated, which I agree, helped him. 2008 was a demolition, but I doubt 2009 would have been a demolition if they met in the final.

"A tactical advantage?" That's rather a jarring euphemism. You can doubt whether 2009 would have been a demolition, if you like...the match was never played, but there's nothing to suggest that it wouldn't have been, given the year prior, and had Nadal been fit. But he wasn't.

To that point, when players go out, it isn't a "lucky draw," it's the draw opening up. You can't randomly say that Nadal gets "lucky" in draws, as if it were some sort of general rule, and then insist that Federer's wasn't "lucky," it was merely that Nadal went out in the '09 RG. (Of note, Djokovic also went out early, and he was in Roger's half.) Either you consider the top contender(s) going out "luck," or you don't. Roger's '19 USO first quarter was the best one to have, better than Nadal's. You could say that Nadal was "lucky" that Roger landed in Novak's half in that tournament, but in the end it didn't make one bit of difference. Novak and Roger didn't even play each other, much less get to Rafa. If they couldn't get past the 4th round/QF, then neither one was going to beat Nadal. Same with the '17 USO, which a lot of Fed fans like to call him "lucky" in. The top half of the draw, Nadal's half, was the dangerous one, with Roger and del Potro in it. Roger failed to make the date. That's not on Nadal. Perhaps Nadal has also been "lucky" that he's been 1 or 2 in the world during a lot of his career. This helps with the draw, as it has helped Roger and Novak. But keeping your ranking up isn't luck, now, is it? We could all make arguments for when the Big 3 have been "lucky," but that's really mostly bullshit, isn't it? As in, the harder I work/the more talented I am, the "luckier" I get, (to paraphrase whichever golfer really gets the credit for the aphorism.)

 

[atttomole]

"A tactical advantage?" That's rather a jarring euphemism. You can doubt whether 2009 would have been a demolition, if you like...the match was never played, but there's nothing to suggest that it wouldn't have been, given the year prior, and had Nadal been fit. But he wasn't.

To that point, when players go out, it isn't a "lucky draw," it's the draw opening up. You can't randomly say that Nadal gets "lucky" in draws, as if it were some sort of general rule, and then insist that Federer's wasn't "lucky," it was merely that Nadal went out in the '09 RG. (Of note, Djokovic also went out early, and he was in Roger's half.) Either you consider the top contender(s) going out "luck," or you don't. Roger's '19 USO first quarter was the best one to have, better than Nadal's. You could say that Nadal was "lucky" that Roger landed in Novak's half in that tournament, but in the end it didn't make one bit of difference. Novak and Roger didn't even play each other, much less get to Rafa. If they couldn't get past the 4th round/QF, then neither one was going to beat Nadal. Same with the '17 USO, which a lot of Fed fans like to call him "lucky" in. The top half of the draw, Nadal's half, was the dangerous one, with Roger and del Potro in it. Roger failed to make the date. That's not on Nadal. Perhaps Nadal has also been "lucky" that he's been 1 or 2 in the world during a lot of his career. This helps with the draw, as it has helped Roger and Novak. But keeping your ranking up isn't luck, now, is it? We could all make arguments for when the Big 3 have been "lucky," but that's really mostly bullshit, isn't it? As in, the harder I work/the more talented I am, the "luckier" I get, (to paraphrase whichever golfer really gets the credit for the aphorism.)

That is basically what I was saying. Jelenafan is the one who said that Federer needed a lucky draw to win RG. And I replied that Nadal got eliminated, which helped Federer. You can also say the draw opened up, which would be the same thing.

 

[atttomole]

"A tactical advantage?" That's rather a jarring euphemism. You can doubt whether 2009 would have been a demolition, if you like...the match was never played, but there's nothing to suggest that it wouldn't have been, given the year prior, and had Nadal been fit. But he wasn't.

To that point, when players go out, it isn't a "lucky draw," it's the draw opening up. You can't randomly say that Nadal gets "lucky" in draws, as if it were some sort of general rule, and then insist that Federer's wasn't "lucky," it was merely that Nadal went out in the '09 RG. (Of note, Djokovic also went out early, and he was in Roger's half.) Either you consider the top contender(s) going out "luck," or you don't. Roger's '19 USO first quarter was the best one to have, better than Nadal's. You could say that Nadal was "lucky" that Roger landed in Novak's half in that tournament, but in the end it didn't make one bit of difference. Novak and Roger didn't even play each other, much less get to Rafa. If they couldn't get past the 4th round/QF, then neither one was going to beat Nadal. Same with the '17 USO, which a lot of Fed fans like to call him "lucky" in. The top half of the draw, Nadal's half, was the dangerous one, with Roger and del Potro in it. Roger failed to make the date. That's not on Nadal. Perhaps Nadal has also been "lucky" that he's been 1 or 2 in the world during a lot of his career. This helps with the draw, as it has helped Roger and Novak. But keeping your ranking up isn't luck, now, is it? We could all make arguments for when the Big 3 have been "lucky," but that's really mostly bullshit, isn't it? As in, the harder I work/the more talented I am, the "luckier" I get, (to paraphrase whichever golfer really gets the credit for the aphorism.)

Where is the euphemism in saying that he had a tactical advantage?

 

[Jelenafan]

Not only did he hold his own against Federer, he ran rings around him. Nadal had a tactical advantage over Federer.

His draw was wasn’t a lucky draw as such, but Nadal was eliminated, which I agree, helped him. 2008 was a demolition, but I doubt 2009 would have been a demolition if they met in the final.

Why suddenly quibble? You certainly didn’t hesitate to qualify “lucky draw” for Nadal.

Nadal who had beaten him in 4 consecutive Roland Garos matches (2005-08) was not there for him to play. That is the definition of needing a lucky draw for Federer’s Lone French Open.

2008 was a demolition, but I doubt 2009 would have been a demolition if they met in the final.

I see, so you are saying in that case the Rafa who lost to Soderling it might not be a demolition because it wasn’t the same Nadal the next year.

Ah the irony.

 

[Moxie]

That is basically what I was saying. Jelenafan is the one who said that Federer needed a lucky draw to win RG. And I replied that Nadal got eliminated, which helped Federer. You can also say the draw opened up, which would be the same thing.

I don't think anyone said anything about lucky draws before you said: "So you think Nadal doesn't need a lucky draw to win outside of RG? Do yo think Nadal would have beaten Djokovic if they had met at the US Open this year? I think it would have been a demolition, not very different from what happened at the AO." So you did kind of open that can of worms.

 

[Moxie]

Where is the euphemism in saying that he had a tactical advantage?

Well, what was the "tactical advantage," then, being left-handed? Even you said he was running rings around Roger. On clay, please tell me what is the tactical advantage, or is that Rafa is just mountains better?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Ever since Nadal won #19 at the USO Federer fans have completely lost their mind

 

[atttomole]

I don't think anyone said anything about lucky draws before you said: "So you think Nadal doesn't need a lucky draw to win outside of RG? Do yo think Nadal would have beaten Djokovic if they had met at the US Open this year? I think it would have been a demolition, not very different from what happened at the AO." So you did kind of open that can of worms.

Clearly you were not following the discussion. Nadalfan initially said that Federer is still #3 and with a bit of luck he can still win, to which I replied if she/he thinks Nadal doesn’t need a lucky draw to win slams. You and Jelenafan subsequently chipped in.

 

[atttomole]

Well, what was the "tactical advantage," then, being left-handed? Even you said he was running rings around Roger. On clay, please tell me what is the tactical advantage, or is that Rafa is just mountains better?

Being left handed is one advantage. In addition, Rafa can easily outlast him because of his superior stamina, especially on clay. Regardless of what Federer does, Rafa knows that if he prolongs the points he wins the match.
Of course he did run rings around him because of those advantages. There is no contradiction in my statements. Even in his physical prime, Roger could not hang with Rafa on clay.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Being left handed is one advantage. In addition, Rafa can easily outlast him because of his superior stamina, especially on clay. Regardless of what Federer does, Rafa knows that if he prolongs the points he wins the match.
Of course he did run rings around him because of those advantages. There is no contradiction in my statements. Even in his physical prime, Roger could not hang with Rafa on clay.

Yeah cause Federer has problems with all lefty players such as Verdasco and all stamina players such as Ferrer Don’t you get it that Nadal was beating all players not only Federer?

And lucky draws outside of Clay? Don’t you get it that Nadal is the only player besides Federer to have at least 5 finals in each slam? Maybe once Nadal wins 21 slams you will finally show some respect.

When I said that Federer needs a lucky draw right now it’s because he’s 38 and winning many five set matches will be difficult at this age.

 

[herios]

Thanks for leaving Wimbledon for Federer.

W19 will go to Novak.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

W19 will go to Novak.

It did, but W20 will go to Nadal.

 

[Moxie]

It did, but W20 will go to Nadal.

Good one.

 

[Moxie]

Clearly you were not following the discussion. Nadalfan initially said that Federer is still #3 and with a bit of luck he can still win, to which I replied if she/he thinks Nadal doesn’t need a lucky draw to win slams. You and Jelenafan subsequently chipped in.

I have to admit, my eyes sometimes glaze over their posts.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah cause Federer has problems with all lefty players such as Verdasco and all stamina players such as Ferrer Don’t you get it that Nadal was beating all players not only Federer?

And lucky draws outside of Clay? Don’t you get it that Nadal is the only player besides Federer to have at least 5 finals in each slam? Maybe once Nadal wins 21 slams you will finally show some respect.

When I said that Federer needs a lucky draw right now it’s because he’s 38 and winning many five set matches will be difficult at this age.

Good points. Atttomole seems to like to hit on "stamina" rather often. Obviously, that had nothing to do with the '08 final at RG. But basically, like a lot of Fed fans, he is incredibly reductive about Nadal's game and talents. He's a lefty and he's fit. But you're right...so then why don't Verdasco and Ferrer have a better h2h v. Roger?

I also said the same thing about Roger's need for some help in draws at majors, going forward. I'm sure this rubs some of his fans the wrong way, but if Rafa and Novak get knocked out by other players, and Roger doesn't have to work too hard to get to the final, and his level isn't too erratic, he could win another Major. But I think it's unlikely to happen without some kind of an assist.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So you think Nadal doesn't need a lucky draw to win outside of RG?

Remember Nadal's lucky draw at the AO in 2009 when he ran into a red hot Verdasco who had smashed Murray and Federer in the final? Having to play back to back five setters with one day of rest?

Remmeber Nadal's lucky draw when he had to play a bunch of big servers in the first week of Wimbledon in 2010, who took him 5 sets, then had to play Soderling and Murray? Remember Nadal's lucky draw in Wimbledon in 2008, when he had to play Murray and...the greatest player to ever live (and greatest grass courter to ever live) in the final?

Remember Nadal having to beat Djokovic to win his first 2 US Open finals (his path to the final was easy and yet he beat the toughest challenge he could have possibly faced in the final, so who do you think would have beaten him if he had played them on the way there)?

Please, shut the fuck up with this stupid bias.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So you think Nadal doesn't need a lucky draw to win outside of RG? Do yo think Nadal would have beaten Djokovic if they had met at the US Open this year? I think it would have been a demolition, not very different from what happened at the AO.

Nadal is has beaten Djokovic in 2 US Open finals, compared to Novak's sole win over Nadal. So something tells me it would have been closer than the ridiculously stupid post above seems to indicate.

 

[atttomole]

Nadal is has beaten Djokovic in 2 US Open finals, compared to Novak's sole win over Nadal. So something tells me it would have been closer than the ridiculously stupid post above seems to indicate.

Yes Nadal has beaten Djokovoc twice before. However, recently Djokovic has been way better than Nadal on hard courts. I can understand it coming from a fan of Nadal. Nadal’s game has improved over the years, as he became more aggressive. The problem with some Nadal fans is that they are ticked off when they are reminded that important elements of his game include his grit and his stamina.
Djokovic has a bette serve and better return than Nadal, and those two qualities make it very difficult for Nadal to beat Djokovic on hard courts. As I said above, Nadal can still beat Djokovic with his grit. And there is nothing wrong with that.