Indian Wells, BNP Paribas Open, Masters 1000

[GameSetAndMath]

it's about time that he wins a MS on clay

Fixed.

 

[Moxie]

I would give Thiem the win.

Fixed.

 

[Ricardo]

He's on the right trajectory to peak for clay season, but I don't see him standing much of a chance against Roger tomorrow.

Big claim, since when should a 37 yo be seen as some kind of certainty to win against someone who just clocked up some impressive wins to the final?

 

[Ricardo]

Nadal fans should be happy as it was a good chance for Fed to make h-h 16-23, making it 41% winning percentage.....looks pretty respectable, and I did not discount clay wins.

 

[Ricardo]

Please look at the official ATP H2H to realise how ridiculously wrong you are (perhaps you remove your post if you do):
https://www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-rafael-nadal/F324/N409
The 15-23 H2H includes the latrest WO win by Fed in IW 2019.

I am ridiculously wrong? So you don’t even know that w/o doesn’t count towards h-h but somehow you think you can point your finger and lecture me? Fed can have another 100 walkovers and it’d still be 15-23. What’s wrong with people these days? The clueless just talk as if they know something.

How about you remove your post? Bhahahaha

 

[Federberg]

Please look at the official ATP H2H to realise how ridiculously wrong you are (perhaps you remove your post if you do):
https://www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-rafael-nadal/F324/N409
The 15-23 H2H includes the latrest WO win by Fed in IW 2019.

sadly w/o's don't count to the h2h mate

 

[Carol]

I wasn’t bothered. Just having fun with you Rafa fans, on Thiem’s side. I can see you didn’t fall for it.

We are learning from you Roger's fans :lulz2:

 

[DarthFed]

Big claim, since when should a 37 yo be seen as some kind of certainty to win against someone who just clocked up some impressive wins to the final?

Have to agree with this. I do think Roger will win but it's just never a slam dunk anymore at his age. And for Thiem this already clearly is his best ever result off clay. Hopefully he shows some nerves today.

 

[Federberg]

Have to agree with this. I do think Roger will win but it's just never a slam dunk anymore at his age. And for Thiem this already clearly is his best ever result off clay. Hopefully he shows some nerves today.

just the h2h tells us that this isn't going to be a walk in the park. What we do know is that if they both play well Roger should win. Problem is that 37yr olds sometimes just don't play well for whatever reason

 

[mrzz]

This 37 year old is still 8-1 in the season, while Thiem is 3-4. There are few other variables to this equation...

 

[El Dude]

Of course its not a "slam dunk" and upsets do happen. But that's just it: if Thiem wins, it will be a rather large upset.

Note also that Thiem's two wins against Roger were in 2016 when he wasn't exactly playing his best.

 

[10isfan]

Did Tennis Channel claim that Nadal withdrew from 19 of the last 22 hard court tournaments? Did I hear that right? That’s tough to believe.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Did Tennis Channel claim that Nadal withdrew from 19 of the last 22 hard court tournaments? Did I hear that right? That’s tough to believe.

 

[Fiero425]

Did Tennis Channel claim that Nadal withdrew from 19 of the last 22 hard court tournaments? Did I hear that right? That’s tough to believe.

I've noted it, but not the exact number for years! Nadal plays where he wants & leaves when he wants! Nothing new here! :whistle:

 

[El Dude]

We all know this: hard courts are, ahem, hard on the knees. Nadal has bad knees, is getting older, and thus struggles on hards.

I really wouldn't be surprised if he starts taking a Federer-esque approach to his schedule. Avoiding hard courts outright isn't feasible as they constitute half the Slams and 70% of the other big titles, but he could and probably should play an abbreviated schedule.

For example, next year no Acapulco. Play AO but then save your knees for Miami (which is not only usually slower than IW, but a title he doesn't have), then rest until clay season and play the usual five clay tourneys he plays, rest until grass, then a very limited post-Wimbledon schedule: maybe Canada, USO, Paris, WTF. If he wants to pad his title shot, throw in one of the South American clay tournaments or possibly Hamburg.

So my modified "Oldal" schedule would be:

Australian Open
Maybe one of Rio/Argentina/Sao Paolo
Miami
Monte Carlo
Barcelona
Madrid
Rome
Roland Garros
Maybe Queens (as prep for Wimbledon)
Wimbledon
Maybe Hamburg (if he went out early at Wimbledon and/or hadn't overplayed earlier)
Maybe Canada (as prep for USO)
US Open
Maybe Paris (as prep for WTF)
World Tour Finals

That's 10-15 titles, but realistically he would play only 2-3 of the "maybes" at most, so 12-13 total, and probably only 3-4 hard tournaments.

 

[Federberg]

He's not Roger though. He's a rhythm player. He needs his matches. He shouldn't whine about being disadvantaged though. The very qualities that have made him a success have led him down this pass. It is what it is and nothing more

 

[El Dude]

He's not Roger though. He's a rhythm player. He needs his matches. He shouldn't whine about being disadvantaged though. The very qualities that have made him a success have led him down this pass. It is what it is and nothing more

I agree with you, but still think he can reduce hard tournaments and keep (or regain) rhythm, and of course he's taken time off before and been able to return to peak form after a tournament or two (e.g. 2013).

Or rather, it may be that he has to - at least if he wants to play longer than another couple years.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Please look at the official ATP H2H to realise how ridiculously wrong you are (perhaps you remove your post if you do):
https://www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-rafael-nadal/F324/N409
The 15-23 H2H includes the latrest WO win by Fed in IW 2019.

It is OK to be wrong. But, never alright to be wrong loudly.

 

[Horsa]

It is OK to be wrong. But, never alright to be wrong loudly.

Why is it not o.k. to admit you're wrong? I think it's an admirable quality because it shows you're human & as such make mistakes, you respect the other person by admitting that you were wrong & they were right, explaining why & apologising & you can learn from the mistakes you made & move on from them. Everyone's wrong sometimes except liars & those who do nothing. Never admitting when you're wrong makes you look arrogant. I know I respect people more who don't mind admitting when they were wrong, explaining why, apologising & learning from their mistakes & I know a few other people who think the same way.

 

[Federberg]

Why is it not o.k. to admit you're wrong? I think it's an admirable quality because it shows you're human & as such make mistakes, you respect the other person by admitting that you were wrong & they were right, explaining why & apologising & you can learn from the mistakes you made & move on from them. Everyone's wrong sometimes except liars & those who do nothing. Never admitting when you're wrong makes you look arrogant. I know I respect people more who don't mind admitting when they were wrong, explaining why, apologising & learning from their mistakes & I know a few other people who think the same way.

please read through the thread properly (and even more importantly the post you're challenging) before making these types of comments