If you could leave off reaching into the past with the virtue of hindsight, you'd remember that Djokovic had no titles on grass in 2010. You can pretend all you like that Djokovic "would" have beaten Nadal, had they played, but call me sports-ignorant all you want, the very fact that he couldn't even beat him on HC at the USO a mere 2 months later is the more logical extraction of the outcome.
The grasscourt season is barely one month long, so who cares if Djokovic hadn't yet won a grasscourt title in 2010? In 2011 he hadn't won one yet and he still dusted Nadal up like it was no problem. He had just beaten Nadal 3 times at the end of 2009 and would have had that winning streak on his side going into a match against a player who needed 5 sets to beat Petzschner and Haase.
I know you like to insult my sense of the "flow" of matches, but yours is often based on what didn't happen and also merely on what you feel should have, whereas my arguments with you are what did happen.
Moxie you are someone who thinks that men and women are equal in every way and that the relationship between the male and female sexes has been one of white males "oppressing" females for 45,000 years. Please don't talk to me about being reality-based.
That said, my assessment of many of Nadal's key matches is in fact based on what did happen. Yes, Federer did go up 5-1 in the first set in Hamburg in 2008. Yes, Federer was up 5-2 with a set point in the first set of the 2011 Roland Garros final. Yes, Djokovic was up 2-0 with a break point for a double break in the 3rd set of the 2013 US Open final, while doubling Nadal's forehand winners. All that was needed was for these two to seal the deal in those situations and they didn't.
As for your incompetence in reading the flow of matches, I'll provide this small example: during the US Open, I commented in-match at the end of the first set between Medvedev and Tiafoe that Tiafoe would be lucky to win more than 2 games in the last two sets. Medvedev went on to win those two sets 6-1 and 6-0. This is a small example of something you could never do because you can't read the flow of a match.
Forgive me for being too reality-based for your tastes.
Like Gulbis hitting 59 winners to Nadal's 13 in a Rome match?
Roger isn't really the superior shot-maker on clay of the two. Clearly. You are rewriting those matches. You can insist all you want that Roger could have played them differently, but he is neither stupid, nor a poor strategist. When he tried to be more aggressive, he got passed, regularly. He was just over-matched.
This is beyond stupid and an example of why many people have remarked that you haven't played sports. Go ahead and take the time to watch the first set of the 2011 Roland Garros final and enjoy the tsunami of incredible shotmaking from Federer to get himself to 5-2 with a set point. It's no insult to Nadal or anyone to say they aren't capable of the shotmaking Federer produced in that set. He was incredible. Nadal has never been capable of anything comparable. To say that Federer was "just overmatched" by Nadal given how many shotmaking sprees he has gone on against Nadal on clay defies all logic and empirical evidence. It is utterly ridiculous.
The point about strategy that I made then and continue to make now is that Federer went crosscourt with the forehand into Nadal's backhand far too much, when he could have just finished points with more forehands up the line or inside-out. Nadal handles flattened out pace better with his backhand than he does his forehand. So even though Federer was on fire with his forehand, he was leaving points on the table by going crosscourt too much and playing to Nadal's strength.
I've played and watched sports all of my life.
This doesn't show at all with how you assess matches, especially those involving Nadal.
No, you have absolutely said he has no talent. I asked you once, point blank, when Nadal was into double digits in Major titles, if you were ready to concede that he was actually talented, and you said no.
No, that's how you took it, not what I actually said. My position all along is that Nadal has overachieved against the other top players, not that he has "no talent." The closest thing that you would be able to dig up from me along these lines is a remark to the effect that Nadal sucks compared to Djokovic and Federer that I may have made in the heat of the moment, but I never said he has "no talent" point blank. That is ridiculous.
I know that you believe he has "over-achieved." That really does make you look like a joke, and where your agenda shines through.
No, it's actually a perfectly reasonable position. You can easily look at Nadal's career and say that he won far more of the most coveted titles than his talent warranted vis-a-vis Djokovic, Federer, and some others in the biggest matches.
No one wins 19+ Majors by "over-achieving."
Lol.....why not? That makes no sense. Someone with 19 Majors, most of which have been won on just 1 surface, absolutely is a strong candidate for "over-achieving," especially when you consider how many of Nadal's majors were won. They were often won with Federer having a meltdown and playing well beneath his capability, or Djokovic failing to seize an opportunity.
