<cite>
@MikeOne said:</cite>
you are a master at turning arguments into retarded, over simplistic points where you generalize and twist other's views. I feel i have to lower my IQ about 80 points to stay at your level, whether you do it because you yourself lack IQ or just are so biased that it gets in the way of sound logic, i'm not sure.
Your fist retarded statement is when you claim i somehow stated 'it's impossible for federer to overcome Nadal'. When did i say this? I simply stated he has been dominated by Nadal but that doesn't mean it has been impossible for federer to overcome him. I mean, Federer has beaten Nadal over 10 times hasn't he? He has given Nadal tough battles on clay as-well. He still has an underwhelming record vs Nadal and he has being dominated by him. It doesn't mean Federer hasn't at times been able to beat him. Also, i have argued Fed's bh has been a weakness but difficult to exploit by most NOT that it's such a weakness that he never had a chance, stop twisting other's arguments.
Then you claim Federer hasn't been smart enough, lol. Federer has been one of the most intelligent players of all time, a master tactician who has always been able to figure out different types of players, from defensive wizards like Hewitt to big servers like Roddick. He has been a genius at creativity and finding ways to win by adjusting to opponents. To argue he has been dumb vs Nadal is just wishful thinking. Once again, Nadal is unique, a lefty with amazing spin, accuracy, speed and mental fortitude. It never mattered what Federer did, Nadal was always able to find his bh. I hear people claim 'He should've hit more down the line FHs, more down the line bhp's, run around his bh when returning more, come to net more' lol, guess what, he always tried different things. To argue that Federer never tried different things against Nadal is utterly disgustingly and grotesquely caveman retarded. He HAS but no matter what he did, Nadal's patterns were difficult to overcome. When Federer tried running around his bh to return Nadal's serve, Nadal served to his forehand, surprising him. It's also difficult to run around Nadal's slice serve, BTW. When Federer tried covering up his bh from the baseline, Nadal hit his down the line and inside out fh extremely well, into the open court. When Federer hit down the line backhands and forehands, Nadal ran them down and was able to find Federer's bh. When Federer tried coming to net, Nadal would hit those difficult topspin passing shots that would dip fast. Name the tactic, Nadal just could always find Fed's bh.
Of course Federer was able tot trouble Nadal and beat him many times, who the f is arguing against this? Federer is greatest of all time and always had a chance against Nadal, on any surface. What i argue is that the H2H was always going to be a problem for Federer, outside of indoors and very fast surfaces. On grass, clay and slow-medium paced courts, no Federer tactic would've ever worked effectively when Nadal's game simply matched up so well against him.
Â
Mike, do you know what an inference is? Let me explain it to you with an example based on your first quote in this thread:
"Federer couldn’t hit enough forehands, aces and other things you mentioned to cover up his backhand enough to
avoid losing."
When you say that Federer couldn't hit enough of any shot to avoid losing, you are saying that it was impossible for Federer to overcome Nadal.
"Sorry, Nadal simply broke his bh down with frightening consistency and there is little Federer could do unless the court aided Federer, like a very fast or indoor court. When the court didn’t favor him, he was at Nadal’s mercy, on grass, clay and outdoor medium fast surfaces."
When you say that Federer on most courts was at Nadal's mercy, you are reinforcing your prior statement that there was really nothing Federer could do to avoid losing to Nadal. My re-phrasing of your words to say that you believe it was impossible for Federer to overcome Nadal was 100% accurate, even if when I say it you feel like an idiot because in your heart of hearts you know are you so biased against Federer and in favor of Nadal that you are just trying to make Nadal look better than he is.
As for Federer's head-to-head against Nadal. On clay Federer was 2-13 against him. His only two victories (Hamburg 2007 and Madrid 2009) mostly happened due to Nadal's fatigue in those matches. The only loss Federer had to Nadal on clay where he was, statistically speaking, very close to winning was the 2006 Rome final, which came down to the end of the 5th set. So, for all intents and purposes, Federer was basically an 0-15 player against Nadal; I am willing to concede that Fed's two wins mostly came because of Nadal's physical condition.
So the position of people such as yourself, broken_shoelace, and Kieran is basically this: Federer was an 0-15 player against Nadal on clay and there was nothing he could do about it. That, my internet interlocutor friend, is simply moronic. I can point to numerous stretches of their clay-court matches to objectively demonstrate that Federer possessed, in terms of tennis skill, more than enough to have a .500 record or even a plus-.500 record against Nadal on clay. The weapons and the tools were there.
And yes, I do stand by my position that Federer has been very far from the most shrewd tactician the game has ever seen. You are being a complete dolt for asserting that he beat the likes of Hewitt and Roddick because of his superior tactics. Are you freaking kidding me? He was so superior athletically and talent-wise to each of those guys that to act like he was tested and had to figure something out against them is a joke. Aside from Roddick's serve at Wimbledon, there was absolutely nothing challenging for Federer in playing those two. Did you watch the 2004 US Open final? Lol. Federer double-bageled Hewitt in a final. He was taller, longer, faster, stronger, and a smoother player. There was no competition between Hewitt and Federer once Federer hit age 22/23. Tactics, lmao.
It is necessary for you to make the argument that Federer was an excellent tactician so that you can make Nadal's shotmaking-challenged game sound better than it is. Unfortunately, you can't change the reality of what Del Potro or Fognini have done to Nadal at the US Open.
Also, regarding Federer's tactics, I will say this: when it comes to the main challenges of his career, he is at best a .500 player. He is slightly above .500 against Murray, he is .500 against Djokovic, and he is well below .500 against Nadal. The main strategic/tactical challenge of his career was solving the Nadal match-up challenges and he never even got close to doing it. In fact, he hardly made any progress. Moreover, Murray got the better of most of their MS matches and Djokovic has won pretty much all of their slow HC matches in recent years. Some people might say this owes to the age difference (which is only partially true), but if we are going to say this, then we also have to point out that Federer picked on young Djokovic and young Murray before they hit their primes. So it evens out.
Federer is very talented and a smart instinctual player. But as far as a creative and radical strategizer, he has never been one. He has never done anything akin to what Uncle Toni and Nadal did in radically adjusting Nadal's hardcourt game after Tsonga pancaked him in the 2008 Australian Open final. In Federer's defense, he is naturally more talented a shotmaker than Nadal, so he never had to make these kinds of adjustments, but in the small handful of match-ups where some radical adjustments have been needed, he has never made them.
Also, I would like to bring up the 2011 French Open final. Federer showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that in terms of shots and rallying ability, he had more than enough to beat Nadal on clay. It was plain as day. What was also clear is that he was not coming close to maximizing his advantages in rallies, and that leads to my final point.
Nadal is much better at absorbing pace and flat offensive shots off of his backhand wing than his forehand wing. If you look at the 2012 Australian Open semifinal, for instance, Nadal was gobbling up Fed's crosscourt forehands and returning them with interest. But players have repeatedly had success hitting flat and wide to Nadal's forehand wing. When players do this, he more often than not does his scoop-shovel moonball forehand to try to keep the ball in play. He is generally very vulnerable in those situations. You saw this in both the Nishikori and Fognini matches. Nadal does not like players pounding flat offensive shots to his forehand wing. Federer has never fully exploited this weakness, and that is why he has a peachy 10-23 record against Nadal.
Â
