Federer's recent comments once again illustrate why Nadal owned him on clay.....

[DarthFed]

I don't think that matters. How old was Federer when Nadal started dominating their H2H? Also, Rafa was coming back from injury when Novak started dominating and no one was beating Novak. What a scenario to step into where everyone was looking for someone who had an answer to Novak. Who knows what would've happened had that break not occurred? There are many things that go into what happens on a tennis court, it's not just age, physical, or mental; it's a combination of factors and I don't think that anyone has the "supreme answer." There are many things that we are not privy to.

I never said he was a nobody, but in relation to Rafa and Roger he did very little. That's a fact. If I recall correctly, Rafa beat Federer as a teenager, does that mean that Roger isn't a great player? No. It means nothing.

The way I see it, everyone has their time in the sun and nothing lasts forever. People thought Roger would easily win 20 majors and beyond. It didn't happen. They also thought that Rafa would cakewalk into RG finals and win until he hung up his racket, that hasn't happened either. I think have a problem thinking that life remains constant. It doesn't, for anybody.

Novak has always been a great player without the accolades pre-2011. I never said that, I said he didn't do much, and he didn't. He's getting his time in the sun just like everybody else. All of the other "predictions" have failed; they always do.

Rafa hadn't been injured since 2009. In 2011 he was coming off his best ever season and made 3 GS finals just like the year before. There is no argument where a 24 year old Nadal coming off his best season ever and had no health concerns was not in his prime. That's just being a fanboy/fangirl.

 

[Federberg]

Not that Novak isn't a great player now, he is, but it is on the back of the two warriors who upheld the sport for all of those years. Novak should've been a part of that rivalry if he is so "otherworldly," but he wasn't. Instead he put those years to good use to work on his game, and he's the victor of the spoils, but IMO, he will never be on their level, because you can't sit out the war and then come in after the good fight has been fought.

I'm a Fed fan, but I simply can't understand the need to try to diminish Novak. As things stand he's very much in their league. I don't know why the fact that his career has evolved in the way it has, and he wasn't able to truly challenge Fedal during Federer's peak should be relevant. That's like saying that Sampras was a nobody when Becker/Lendl/Edberg were dominating. What does that have to do with anything? He had his time and he was an all time great. Novak is having his time now, and it's not his problem that Fedal aren't what they used to be. That's sport.. and life

 

[Tennis Fan]

Rafa hadn't been injured since 2009. In 2011 he was coming off his best ever season and made 3 GS finals just like the year before. There is no argument where a 24 year old Nadal coming off his best season ever and had no health concerns was not in his prime. That's just being a fanboy/fangirl.

Not that Novak isn't a great player now, he is, but it is on the back of the two warriors who upheld the sport for all of those years. Novak should've been a part of that rivalry if he is so "otherworldly," but he wasn't. Instead he put those years to good use to work on his game, and he's the victor of the spoils, but IMO, he will never be on their level, because you can't sit out the war and then come in after the good fight has been fought.

I'm a Fed fan, but I simply can't understand the need to try to diminish Novak. As things stand he's very much in their league. I don't know why the fact that his career has evolved in the way it has, and he wasn't able to truly challenge Fedal during Federer's peak should be relevant. That's like saying that Sampras was a nobody when Becker/Lendl/Edberg were dominating. What does that have to do with anything? He had his time and he was an all time great. Novak is having his time now, and it's not his problem that Fedal aren't what they used to be. That's sport.. and life

I don't think it's diminishing Novak to state that he was not in the major mix until age and injuries played a part for Roger and Rafa. I think that's a fact. I think it's very relevant as it relates to competition and the playing field. Sometimes people get breaks depending on their timing, a good example of this is Martina Hingis, would she have won five majors in today's power game? Probably not, that's not diminishing what she achieved, it just shows that timing matters. Similarly, some players like Murray have suffered as a result of timing. That's life as well.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Rafa hadn't been injured since 2009. In 2011 he was coming off his best ever season and made 3 GS finals just like the year before. There is no argument where a 24 year old Nadal coming off his best season ever and had no health concerns was not in his prime. That's just being a fanboy/fangirl.

That's not what I remember. Call it what you want.

 

[ClayDeath]

memo to the mods:

drag this thread outside and toss it in the city sewer.

 

[Billie]

That's not what I remember. Call it what you want.

Ha I think you might have a memory loss. Anyway Nole got to his first USO final 3 year before Rafa managed to do so. Won his first AO before Rafa, even though Nole was a "nobody at the time". He still remains the youngest player ever to reach all 4 major semi finals. That he had physical issues and couldn't cope with the success of winning a major at the age of 20, had off court issues is his issue, and I would say only 2009 and 2010 were his poorest years.

Rafa never had 7 wins in a row over Nole, even when Rafa was at his peak, even when Nole was a frail thing, he used to give Rafa his sternest tests in almost every match they played. All you have to do is listen to uncle Tony and Rafa himself when talking about Nole.

Rafa even said that he is lucky and unlucky at the same time for playing at the same time as Nole. That after his loss to Nole 2 days ago. The players are always more realistic because they have to play against each other and they know what kind of challenges they present to each other.

Additionally Nole started playing professionally in 2003, never missed a major (and only a few masters 1000) events since forever. That is playing non stop even when he wasn't %100, but he kept going. He has a lot of miles in his legs as well, but he manages to stay motivated and fresh and injury free, which is a skill as much as anything else. It took him a little to find his way but he did, luckily for his fans, and unluckily for his detractors.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Ha I think you might have a memory loss. Anyway Nole got to his first USO final 3 year before Rafa managed to do so. Won his first AO before Rafa, even though Nole was a "nobody at the time". He still remains the youngest player ever to reach all 4 major semi finals. That he had physical issues and couldn't cope with the success of winning a major at the age of 20, had off court issues is his issue, and I would say only 2009 and 2010 were his poorest years.

Rafa never had 7 wins in a row over Nole, even when Rafa was at his peak, even when Nole was a frail thing, he used to give Rafa his sternest tests in almost every match they played. All you have to do is listen to uncle Tony and Rafa himself when talking about Nole.

Rafa even said that he is lucky and unlucky at the same time for playing at the same time as Nole. That after his loss to Nole 2 days ago. The players are always more realistic because they have to play against each other and they know what kind of challenges they present to each other.

Additionally Nole started playing professionally in 2003, never missed a major (and only a few masters 1000) events since forever. That is playing non stop even when he wasn't %100, but he kept going. He has a lot of miles in his legs as well, but he manages to stay motivated and fresh and injury free, which is a skill as much as anything else. It took him a little to find his way but he did, luckily for his fans, and unluckily for his detractors.

I don't think so about the memory loss, but it's not a big deal.

However, the rest of this post doesn't make much sense to me. If you're going to pull out comparisons, all you have to do is pull out the things that your player did that the other player didn't do. So, that would be like me saying Novak didn't win his first major at 19, he hasn't won a specific major nine times, he didn't win a major a year for nine years, he didn't challenge Fedal in his prime, and on and on. But what is the point of that? Achievements are achievements and everyone has their own reasons for glory.

That's a silly game to play IMO.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think so about the memory loss, but it's not a big deal.

However, the rest of this post doesn't make much sense to me. If you're going to pull out comparisons, all you have to do is pull out the things that your player did that the other player didn't do. So, that would be like me saying Novak didn't win his first major at 19, he hasn't won a specific major nine times, he didn't win a major a year for nine years, he didn't challenge Fedal in his prime, and on and on. But what is the point of that? Achievements are achievements and everyone has their own reasons for glory.

That's a silly game to play IMO.

It is memory loss or selective memory. Flat out Nadal was not injured in 2011 or coming off an injury from 2010. He was dominated at age 24 by Novak, then turned it around a bit for a couple years mostly on clay and now is being dominated again.

 

[Tennis Fan]

It is memory loss or selective memory. Flat out Nadal was not injured in 2011 or coming off an injury from 2010. He was dominated at age 24 by Novak, then turned it around a bit for a couple years mostly on clay and now is being dominated again.

I remember a back injury at the AO in 2011 when he lost to Ferrer because he could barely move and people gave him credit for not retiring and letting David get the win. He also took a month off before Wimbledon, 2011 due to a foot injury.

in 2012 he withdrew from the Olympics, Cincinnati, and the Rogers Cup.

In 2013 he withdrew from the AO with a stomach virus. After that he got back on track but 2014 brought more injuries. 2014 he suffers a back injury in the AO final against Stan. Withdrew from the American swing due to a wrist injury. Shanghai, appendicitis, after the Swiss Indoors he skipped the rest of the season to have surgery on his appendix.

Throughout all of this time Nadal has had stops and starts during each season since 2010. I guess that's why I don't look at the numbers only, but I look at the factors as well. This is why I don't call it "domination" as so many are prone to do. I factor in what's going on, just like I did when Federer had that horrific (by his standards) season due to the back injury.

 

[Moxie]

Tennis fan, you are not really correct that Nadal was injured in 2011, and Twisted is right that it was just down to the improved Djokovic beating him. At the AO, it was a groin injury not back. (The AO final in 2014 is the first time I remember Rafa having a back issue.) And he did not take a month off with a foot injury before Wimbledon. He won the French Open, played the next week at Queen's, and there was a week break before Wimbledon, that's all. I don't remember a foot injury at all, tbh.

When Djokovic took his game up a level, Nadal was not really prepared, because he had previously done a lot of winning against Nole with his regular game. When pressed, because of Roger, Rafa's instinct was to hit to the BH, which didn't work against Djokovic anymore. Personally, I think Nadal was rattled by the time they got to Wimbledon. He had, at the time, a better grass game and, imo, should have won that final, but Djokovic was in his head. By the AO '12, he had been working on his game plan v. Novak, and it was beginning to work better. He got the benefit in the next 3 matches they played. Since all of his issues since the FO '14, however, it has taken more time to get back into form. He's got a game plan v. Djokovic, but the execution hasn't been there. On Friday, he showed signs that it could be a rivalry again. We can only hope.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Tennis fan, you are not really correct that Nadal was injured in 2011, and Twisted is right that it was just down to the improved Djokovic beating him. At the AO, it was a groin injury not back. (The AO final in 2014 is the first time I remember Rafa having a back issue.) And he did not take a month off with a foot injury before Wimbledon. He won the French Open, played the next week at Queen's, and there was a week break before Wimbledon, that's all. I don't remember a foot injury at all, tbh.

When Djokovic took his game up a level, Nadal was not really prepared, because he had previously done a lot of winning against Nole with his regular game. When pressed, because of Roger, Rafa's instinct was to hit to the BH, which didn't work against Djokovic anymore. Personally, I think Nadal was rattled by the time they got to Wimbledon. He had, at the time, a better grass game and, imo, should have won that final, but Djokovic was in his head. By the AO '12, he had been working on his game plan v. Novak, and it was beginning to work better. He got the benefit in the next 3 matches they played. Since all of his issues since the FO '14, however, it has taken more time to get back into form. He's got a game plan v. Djokovic, but the execution hasn't been there. On Friday, he showed signs that it could be a rivalry again. We can only hope.

I got the information from googling Nadal's injury list. I started to list the articles, but it was really too many to be posting on a thread. But, all of the times and tournaments that he missed are on the internet.

 

[Moxie]

I got the information from googling Nadal's injury list. I started to list the articles, but it was really too many to be posting on a thread. But, all of the times and tournaments that he missed are on the internet.

Dude, you are falling into the trap of being a Nadal excuse-maker, which is a bad look, generally. And on top of it, you're not working from memory, but from Google. Trust me, other folks have been paying attention.

As a fellow Nadal fan, if I can presume to advise you, avoid the injury excuse. When you mention injury/illness, do so advisedly, and with caveats. Go with the strengths. The OP is on about how Nadal owned Federer on clay. He did. And on other surfaces, in several big moments. He also owned Djokovic for ages. But don't try to re-write the script on 2011. Djokovic got into Rafa's head, and it's been a battle for Nadal ever since, even though he's been the better in Majors. A point that isn't often well-taken is that Nadal has had to contend with top Roger and top Novak, while each has rather escaped the prime of each other. The Fedfans and Djokolites are now amusingly trying to debate "weak era" without really talking about it. At the same time, Rafa had no weak era in his best years. Just when he was getting rid of Prime Federer, he ran up against Prime Novak. And in the face of it, and yes, injuries and illness, he has 14 Majors, he's just been trading the top most MS1000 with Novak; he's still in the top 8, I think of weeks at #1. He owns Roger in the H2H, and he owned Novak until last November, or whatever. Djokovic and Federer have both had some breathing room in their careers. Nadal has had none. This is a point worth making.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Dude, you are falling into the trap of being a Nadal excuse-maker, which is a bad look, generally. And on top of it, you're not working from memory, but from Google. Trust me, other folks have been paying attention.

As a fellow Nadal fan, if I can presume to advise you, avoid the injury excuse. When you mention injury/illness, do so advisedly, and with caveats. Go with the strengths. The OP is on about how Nadal owned Federer on clay. He did. And on other surfaces, in several big moments. He also owned Djokovic for ages. But don't try to re-write the script on 2011. Djokovic got into Rafa's head, and it's been a battle for Nadal ever since, even though he's been the better in Majors. A point that isn't often well-taken is that Nadal has had to contend with top Roger and top Novak, while each has rather escaped the prime of each other. The Fedfans and Djokolites are now amusingly trying to debate "weak era" without really talking about it. At the same time, Rafa had no weak era in his best years. Just when he was getting rid of Prime Federer, he ran up against Prime Novak. And in the face of it, and yes, injuries and illness, he has 14 Majors, he's just been trading the top most MS1000 with Novak; he's still in the top 8, I think of weeks at #1. He owns Roger in the H2H, and he owned Novak until last November, or whatever. Djokovic and Federer have both had some breathing room in their careers. Nadal has had none. This is a point worth making.

Sometimes when posting on an internet board the message can get lost. I don't deny that Novak got into Rafa's head and is still there to a certain extent. My point is that it's hard for me to pump up that rivalry when Rafa has been injured off and on for a good while. The difference being that while Rafa has had injuries throughout his career, during the Fedal era, Rafa was mostly there. These last couple of years, as a Nadal fan, it seems to me that he's always coming back from one injury or another. So, this "rivalry" loses its potency when one member is noticeably absent for large chunks of the season.

That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that Novak is playing out of this world. He hardly ever misses; that's indisputable. And even when Rafa was in his prime Novak was always a threat to him on hard courts. So, to me, I'm not using that as an excuse, I'm simply saying that with all of the absences it's like a start-stop rivalry, period and so I don't see it the same as other people seem to. Rafa never got beat consistently by lower ranked players like he has in the last couple of years, but I think the injuries take a toll on you and how can you have a rivalry when the other half is missing?

I don't care about that weak era argument because this is the most physical era with all of the new information, technology, nutrition, etc. that I've ever witnessed. Other than I think this is a great post.

Here is one article that illustrates the start-stop point that I was trying to make, that to me, dilutes the potency of a "rivalry":

Tennis Fan is a woman. People always think I'm a man, LOL. I don't know why.

Rafael Nadal's Long Road Back

Eternally beset by injuries, Rafa looks to regain his old form at the Australian Open

By Juan Jose Vallejo January 20, 2015

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/rafael-nadal-long-road-back-20150120#ixzz48m5rM4F7

 

[DarthFed]

Dude, you are falling into the trap of being a Nadal excuse-maker, which is a bad look, generally. And on top of it, you're not working from memory, but from Google. Trust me, other folks have been paying attention.

As a fellow Nadal fan, if I can presume to advise you, avoid the injury excuse. When you mention injury/illness, do so advisedly, and with caveats. Go with the strengths. The OP is on about how Nadal owned Federer on clay. He did. And on other surfaces, in several big moments. He also owned Djokovic for ages. But don't try to re-write the script on 2011. Djokovic got into Rafa's head, and it's been a battle for Nadal ever since, even though he's been the better in Majors. A point that isn't often well-taken is that Nadal has had to contend with top Roger and top Novak, while each has rather escaped the prime of each other. The Fedfans and Djokolites are now amusingly trying to debate "weak era" without really talking about it. At the same time, Rafa had no weak era in his best years. Just when he was getting rid of Prime Federer, he ran up against Prime Novak. And in the face of it, and yes, injuries and illness, he has 14 Majors, he's just been trading the top most MS1000 with Novak; he's still in the top 8, I think of weeks at #1. He owns Roger in the H2H, and he owned Novak until last November, or whatever. Djokovic and Federer have both had some breathing room in their careers. Nadal has had none. This is a point worth making.

I wouldn't say Roger "escaped" prime Novak. They've played over 20 times since 2011 and 9 times at slams. In that same time period Rafa has faced him 8 times at slams and 26 times overall. Djokovic did have to deal with both of them in their primes when he was coming up.

And Rafa didn't own Nole until last November and he hasn't been the better at slams. I don't want to be harsh but what head to head have you been watching? Since 2011 it is 19-7 and 4-4 at majors and it must be pointed out that Nole has grand slammed Rafa while Rafa has only won at RG and USO in that time period. There is no dodging it, Novak has been the better player for a long time and has owned the head to head in a major way.

 

[Moxie]

Roger was pretty much past peak when Novak came up to his 2011 level. He's won one Major since. I know you'd like to argue that "but for Novak" he might have won more, but that's debatable. He'd won 16 before Novak's annus mirabilis in 2011. That's pretty much escaping Novak's prime.

I never said that Rafa "owned" Nole until last November...only that that was when Novak finally tied the h2h. Hey, I was supporting your argument v. TennisFan. I might say, though, that if Novak had "owned" him so much since 2011, he might have tied it sooner. At Majors, Nadal is 7-4 over Djokovic, including 3 finals wins over him since he became Novak 2.0. Nole won 3 in a row from 2011-12, but then only beat Rafa again in a major at RG last year when Nadal was dreck, and it was a QF. You of anyone know what it means to win when it counts, and, until the last 2 years, Rafa could still get Novak when it mattered. And now that Nadal is playing much better, he may yet again.

 

[DarthFed]

It's 4-4 at slams since 2011 and you have to give Nole an edge there because he beat Nadal at all 4 slams. Not sure where 7-4 came from. Basically Rafa turned the tables on clay and then snuck in a couple wins on hard courts in 2013 when he was playing out of his mind and Nole hit a patch of major weakness until Wimbledon the following year.

It's hard to argue that Roger winning more would be debatable. He's lost 3 finals and 4 semifinals vs. Djokovic since 2011.

 

[Moxie]

It's 4-4 at slams since 2011 and you have to give Nole an edge there because he beat Nadal at all 4 slams. Not sure where 7-4 came from. Basically Rafa turned the tables on clay and then snuck in a couple wins on hard courts in 2013 when he was playing out of his mind and Nole hit a patch of major weakness until Wimbledon the following year.

7-4 is their total record h2h at Majors. You're doing a bit of spinning there in the bold to make little of Nadal getting those wins over Djokovic. You can give the edge if you like, but all of those wins led Rafa to a title and only 3 of those led Novak to one. Also, no one has taken more Major titles directly off of Nole than Rafa, who has also taken more directly over Roger...10 total of his 14 came in finals v. those 2, and in their prime years. (Though you will dispute Roger's, I already know, however illogically.) Roger got two over Djoker only, in his first ever Major final, and one over Prime Djokovic; all of Djokovic's Major final wins over Roger (4) were definitely past his prime.

 

[DarthFed]

7-4 is their total record h2h at Majors. You're doing a bit of spinning there in the bold to make little of Nadal getting those wins over Djokovic. You can give the edge if you like, but all of those wins led Rafa to a title and only 3 of those led Novak to one. Also, no one has taken more Major titles directly off of Nole than Rafa, who has also taken more directly over Roger...10 total of his 14 came in finals v. those 2, and in their prime years. (Though you will dispute Roger's, I already know, however illogically.) Roger got two over Djoker only, in his first ever Major final, and one over Prime Djokovic; all of Djokovic's Major final wins over Roger (4) were definitely past his prime.

Their record is 9-4 Nadal at majors, 5-0 through 2010 and 4-4 from 2011-2016. There was no "spinning in the bold" Rafa turned the tables big in 2012 and 2013 on clay and won a couple hard court matches in 2013 when he was in blistering form. Aside from that he has been trounced, even the H2H on clay is 7-5 since 2011 and let's remember that he is just one year older than Djokovic and has played about 100 more matches. And if we are splitting hairs Rafa beat Nole in the 2010 USO final and Roger in the 2011 RG final, so I'd say 8 of 14.

And the fact of the matter is Rafa was never as dominant as either of them at their best. Rafa never even reached all 4 major finals in one year and has held #1 for barely over 100 weeks. "Bad luck" doesn't have much to do with it either. For large portions of his career he was simply inferior to Roger and Novak even if he had the H2H edge with Roger from the start and held it over Nole before his prime. And in the end chances are both will go down as greater players than Rafa as it should be. If Nole wins RG this year I think many would have him above Nads already because he would hold all 4 at once.

 

[Moxie]

Their record is 9-4 Nadal at majors, 5-0 through 2010 and 4-4 from 2011-2016. There was no "spinning in the bold" Rafa turned the tables big in 2012 and 2013 on clay and won a couple hard court matches in 2013 when he was in blistering form. Aside from that he has been trounced, even the H2H on clay is 7-5 since 2011 and let's remember that he is just one year older than Djokovic and has played about 100 less matches. And if we are splitting hairs Rafa beat Nole in the 2010 USO final and Roger in the 2011 RG final, so I'd say 8 of 14.

And the fact of the matter is Rafa was never as dominant as either of them at their best. Rafa never even reached all 4 major finals in one year and has held #1 for barely over 100 weeks. "Bad luck" doesn't have much to do with it either. For large portions of his career he was simply inferior to Roger and Novak even if he had the H2H edge with Roger from the start and held it over Nole before his prime. And in the end chances are both will go down as greater players than Rafa as it should be. If Nole wins RG this year I think many would have him above Nads already because he would hold all 4 at once.

I did think it was 9-4, but couldn't find them all in that long list of their matches, so I went for the more conservative. You say that Rafa was never as dominant as they, but he dominated them both for long stretches, and at the Majors, where it matters most. That's its own kind of dominance.

I see where you're going with the bolded, but by that kind of hair-splitting, I can also mention beating Roger in the semis at RG in 2005, and Novak in the semis at RG in 2013, so it pretty much evens out. Or favors Nadal, because he won 2 of the Majors that he won against "lesser" players (Puerta, Ferrer) by going through the #1 in each case. That leaves only his 2010 Wimbledon win where he didn't have to play either, though he did beat Murray, and his 2010 RG, where he beat Soderling. In both of those 2010 wins, though, he beat the guy that upset Federer.

Look, I know how much you feel the need to diminish Nadal's accomplishments, but he is a great champion in this era. And 14 is still more than 11. And when and how you did the winning does matter, particularly in this era. Everyone is going to forever parse Fed/Rafa/Nole. Roger and Nole spread the outsides, but Rafa held the sweet-spot. I know it's not in your DNA to give an inch on Nadal, but most appreciate his greatness, and history will, too.

 

[Moxie]

Sometimes when posting on an internet board the message can get lost. I don't deny that Novak got into Rafa's head and is still there to a certain extent. My point is that it's hard for me to pump up that rivalry when Rafa has been injured off and on for a good while. The difference being that while Rafa has had injuries throughout his career, during the Fedal era, Rafa was mostly there. These last couple of years, as a Nadal fan, it seems to me that he's always coming back from one injury or another. So, this "rivalry" loses its potency when one member is noticeably absent for large chunks of the season.

That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that Novak is playing out of this world. He hardly ever misses; that's indisputable. And even when Rafa was in his prime Novak was always a threat to him on hard courts. So, to me, I'm not using that as an excuse, I'm simply saying that with all of the absences it's like a start-stop rivalry, period and so I don't see it the same as other people seem to. Rafa never got beat consistently by lower ranked players like he has in the last couple of years, but I think the injuries take a toll on you and how can you have a rivalry when the other half is missing?

I don't care about that weak era argument because this is the most physical era with all of the new information, technology, nutrition, etc. that I've ever witnessed. Other than I think this is a great post.

Here is one article that illustrates the start-stop point that I was trying to make, that to me, dilutes the potency of a "rivalry":

Tennis Fan is a woman. People always think I'm a man, LOL. I don't know why.

Rafael Nadal's Long Road Back

Eternally beset by injuries, Rafa looks to regain his old form at the Australian Open

By Juan Jose Vallejo January 20, 2015

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/rafael-nadal-long-road-back-20150120#ixzz48m5rM4F7

TF, thanks for the article, and the video is so interesting, in that Rafa says his favorite AO match was his losing one to Novak. Because he felt he'd made strides. That may prove to be the case in his losing effort to Novak last week. Fingers crossed for RG.

I'm also a woman on the boards, so I get the same. It's probably because you have Rafa as your avatar, so we "see" you as a man. But glad to know we have another woman in the conversation.