Is Rafa going to win RG 2020?

[Moxie]

...anyone but Soderling.

And it will be in his obituary. I won't reignite the discussion as to Nadal's knees being compromised, because there are those who refuse to see it, even given the results in retrospect.

 

[Bonaca]

There is a difference between peak and prime.
I do not remember a single match where peak Novak played peak Bob on French clay, during their prime I do.
And some idiots complaining about how Novak fans find „excuses“ for his losses, while spitting out superior bullshit about Bob , like that it’s all about him on clay.

 

[Moxie]

There is a difference between peak and prime.
I do not remember a single match where peak Novak played peak Bob on French clay, during their prime I do.
And some idiots complaining about how Novak fans find „excuses“ for his losses, while spitting out superior bullshit about Bob , like that it’s all about him on clay.

"Peak" and "Prime" are much debated terms on the forums, but I think we mostly agree that "peak" is top-of-the-game, and "Prime" is within the best span of their playing years. (Prime is where it gets wobbly...do some think that means still within their b-game most of the time? That's the question.)

OK, so you're talking about RG:

* 2012: Final...You're going to argue that Novak played less than his best, but he was coming out of 2011 which was a peak year, so why was that not "peak" Novak?

* 2013: SF...you have to say this was peak performance of both. Do you not?

* 2014: Final...Nadal was waning, but Djokovic was still in peak years. Nadal was 48-11 on the year, Djokovic 61-8. You can complain about his performance, but he was more in peak than Rafa was.

I'd argue that Peak Novak has played Peak Nadal and lost to him twice. Peak Novak also lost once to Prime Nadal, in 2014. Novak beat him when he brought no more than his C- game in what is, to date, the worst year of his career.

 

[Bonaca]

"Peak" and "Prime" are much debated terms on the forums, but I think we mostly agree that "peak" is top-of-the-game, and "Prime" is within the best span of their playing years. (Prime is where it gets wobbly...do some think that means still within their b-game most of the time? That's the question.)

OK, so you're talking about RG:

* 2012: Final...You're going to argue that Novak played less than his best, but he was coming out of 2011 which was a peak year, so why was that not "peak" Novak?

* 2013: SF...you have to say this was peak performance of both. Do you not?

* 2014: Final...Nadal was waning, but Djokovic was still in peak years. Nadal was 48-11 on the year, Djokovic 61-8. You can complain about his performance, but he was more in peak than Rafa was.

I'd argue that Peak Novak has played Peak Nadal and lost to him twice. Peak Novak also lost once to Prime Nadal, in 2014. Novak beat him when he brought no more than his C- game in what is, to date, the worst year of his career.

I disagree on that, also peak years is another different term than peak performance in a single match. You can play a stellar season , like Novak did. for example 2011, not meaning he played every single match at his best possible. This is impossible. Otherwise they would have met in F 2011 and he would have won 2013 and of course also the F without a doubt.
I think the matches you mentioned were just near his best.

 

[Moxie]

I disagree on that, also peak years is another different term than peak performance in a single match. You can play a stellar season , like Novak did. for example 2011, not meaning he played every single match at his best possible. This is impossible. Otherwise they would have met in F 2011 and he would have won 2013 and of course also the F without a doubt.
I think the matches you mentioned were just near his best.

Right but then you really get into excuse making, like the Federer fans, for Roger's losses early to Nadal. Of course everyone isn't exactly at their best every day. But you have to cop to their peak years and sometimes you have to admit that they didn't play better because of who was across the net. There is no excuse for Novak in the 2012 RG final v. Nadal, other than he met a superior player. He was in full flight, just off of his 2011 "new self." Same as Roger, in 2008, at 26, lost to Nadal at Wimbledon. He hadn't become a pathetic player...he got beat by a better one.

And you can't reinvent matches, esp. the ones that they didn't play. You cannot say he would have won the 2013 SF "if he'd played better," because he played his best in that match and was lucky to get it to a 5th. Nadal was basically the better player that year and beat him at USO, as well. And as to 2011, he wasn't going to win that final, either. I've explained why before. Doesn't matter...he lost in the SF.

But to go back to your thesis: peak Novak has played peak Nadal at RG and he has lost, more than once.

 

[Bonaca]

Right but then you really get into excuse making, like the Federer fans, for Roger's losses early to Nadal. Of course everyone isn't exactly at their best every day. But you have to cop to their peak years and sometimes you have to admit that they didn't play better because of who was across the net. There is no excuse for Novak in the 2012 RG final v. Nadal, other than he met a superior player. He was in full flight, just off of his 2011 "new self." Same as Roger, in 2008, at 26, lost to Nadal at Wimbledon. He hadn't become a pathetic player...he got beat by a better one.

And you can't reinvent matches, esp. the ones that they didn't play. You cannot say he would have won the 2013 SF "if he'd played better," because he played his best in that match and was lucky to get it to a 5th. Nadal was basically the better player that year and beat him at USO, as well. And as to 2011, he wasn't going to win that final, either. I've explained why before. Doesn't matter...he lost in the SF.

But to go back to your thesis: peak Novak has played peak Nadal at RG and he has lost, more than once.

I can understand your argumentation as a Nadal fan.
But I disagree completely.
You made excuses in what happened to Nadal against Soderling.
We talk about one match in some years not peak years, just one match on clay in Paris, and my thesis is referring to this one match, not what happened before or after.
Of course I can say he would have won 2013 and 2014 if he played better . What is your point? Nadal isn’t beatable at all? Novak was lucky to get to 5th set, and was lucky to gift it to Nadal too? What about your point there is always someone on the other side. So it’s just about Nadal, when he loses he is injured or c game.
And you talk about excuses.

 

[Bonaca]

What

Right but then you really get into excuse making, like the Federer fans, for Roger's losses early to Nadal. Of course everyone isn't exactly at their best every day. But you have to cop to their peak years and sometimes you have to admit that they didn't play better because of who was across the net. There is no excuse for Novak in the 2012 RG final v. Nadal, other than he met a superior player. He was in full flight, just off of his 2011 "new self." Same as Roger, in 2008, at 26, lost to Nadal at Wimbledon. He hadn't become a pathetic player...he got beat by a better one.

And you can't reinvent matches, esp. the ones that they didn't play. You cannot say he would have won the 2013 SF "if he'd played better," because he played his best in that match and was lucky to get it to a 5th. Nadal was basically the better player that year and beat him at USO, as well. And as to 2011, he wasn't going to win that final, either. I've explained why before. Doesn't matter...he lost in the SF.

But to go back to your thesis: peak Novak has played peak Nadal at RG and he has lost, more than once.

what about discussing that later in a separate thread. It is lot to say about that.
The admins could otherwise shut my account again, oh no this time I should be protected by you mighty moxie . You can talk beside thread topics as you want, should protect me too?

let’s enjoy this slam, fighting after that! Ok?

 

[Moxie]

What

what about discussing that later in a separate thread. It is lot to say about that.
The admins could otherwise shut my account again, oh no this time I should be protected by you mighty moxie . You can talk beside thread topics as you want, should protect me too?

let’s enjoy this slam, fighting after that! Ok?

I can wait to fight about this with you. But I did think it was sort of 'on-topic', as it's about Rafa and Novak and RG. Realistically, these "will Rafa win RG" threads...after yes, no, or maybe...have nowhere to go beyond speculating on the future and reexamining the past.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

...anyone but Soderling.

Soderling is 1-3 at RG against Rafa and the only time he beat him Rafa was injured and had to even withdraw from Wimbledon where he was the defending champion.

 

[Ricardo]

I disagree on that, also peak years is another different term than peak performance in a single match. You can play a stellar season , like Novak did. for example 2011, not meaning he played every single match at his best possible. This is impossible. Otherwise they would have met in F 2011 and he would have won 2013 and of course also the F without a doubt.
I think the matches you mentioned were just near his best.

Get this through your head, peak Fed beats peak Novak, peak Wawrinka beats peak Novak, and peak Nadal certainly beats peak Novak on clay. No buts and ifs, Novak is special that he plays close to 90% more often than anyone, but he does get blown off when he runs into a red hot offensive player. Drinking kool aid won’t change this fact.

 

[Bonaca]

Get this through your head, peak Fed beats peak Novak, peak Wawrinka beats peak Novak, and peak Nadal certainly beats peak Novak on clay. No buts and ifs, Novak is special that he plays close to 90% more often than anyone, but he does get blown off when he runs into a red hot offensive player. Drinking kool aid won’t change this fact.

Before spiting out shit like usual, read twice or so often you need, to avoid worthless beside topic answers, racist.
No Stanislaus or Nadal defeated a peak performing Novak ever or will. They defeated him, yes, but more often lost, what shows who the better/superior player is.
Now go back under your tent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Before spiting out shit like usual, read twice or so often you need, to avoid worthless beside topic answers, racist.
No Stanislaus or Nadal defeated a peak performing Novak ever or will. They defeated him, yes, but more often lost, what shows who the better/superior player is.
Now go back under your tent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now, you keep saying these things, but when anyone tries to tell you you're wrong, you say go back on topic. BTW, you're wrong. They both have at FO and at USO.

 

[Ricardo]

Before spiting out shit like usual, read twice or so often you need, to avoid worthless beside topic answers, racist.
No Stanislaus or Nadal defeated a peak performing Novak ever or will. They defeated him, yes, but more often lost, what shows who the better/superior player is.
Now go back under your tent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Getting personal again out of nowhere, what did I say that’s racist? Cheap as usual. Peak Nadal is better than peak Djokovic, he has 12 RG vs 1. Unless of course, djokovic never was peak form at RG except once, in which case it means he is just mediocre. I can say about any player who never won, since he is never in ‘peak’ form.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Getting personal again out of nowhere, what did I say that’s racist? Cheap as usual. Peak Nadal is better than peak Djokovic, he has 12 RG vs 1. Unless of course, djokovic never was peak form at RG except once, in which case it means he is just mediocre. I can say about any player who never won, since he is never in ‘peak’ form.

Maybe once Nadal wins his 13th RG and improves to 7-1 h2h over Djokovic at RG they will finally admit it.

 

[backhandslapper]

My man got sent home.

And come on, peak Rafa is not better than peak Novak. On clay, maybe. Anywhere else, no way. Novak has him all figured out by now. He's close to his almost impeccable tennis with a botched DS here and there. If both Novak and Rafa play at the same level like they have for the most of the tournament, Rafa stands little chance. I mean, getting over Diego on fire will be a tough nut to crack in itself.

 

[Bonaca]

Getting personal again out of nowhere, what did I say that’s racist? Cheap as usual. Peak Nadal is better than peak Djokovic, he has 12 RG vs 1. Unless of course, djokovic never was peak form at RG except once, in which case it means he is just mediocre. I can say about any player who never won, since he is never in ‘peak’ form.

Once racist always racist. Don’t act like you don’t know what I mean.

Peak Novak beats peak Nadal, Crystal clear and common sense.
Sadly it never occurred in Paris.

Peak Novak vs peak Roger: that’s tight and hard to say. I give Novak the edge because he is mentally stronger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonaca]

Now, you keep saying these things, but when anyone tries to tell you you're wrong, you say go back on topic. BTW, you're wrong. They both have at FO and at USO.

Never peak, prime yes.

Even Nadal admitted never played against higher level. This level he never could reach or beat Novak when he plays best.

It’s not nice but Nadal won enough despite this fact, so you can be more than happy with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Never peak, prime yes.

Even Nadal admitted never played against higher level. This level he never could reach or beat Novak when he plays best.

It’s not nice but Nadal won enough despite this fact, so you can be more than happy with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a classic dodge and fanboy BS. The Federer fans have been employing it for a dozen years. You're saying that he couldn't possibly have been playing his best tennis, or Novak would have won. Doesn't matter how well he'd played up until he met Nadal. Somehow he just has a bad day whenever he plays Rafa at RG. Couldn't have anything to do with the guy across the net. You can keep telling yourself that, but as a logical argument it doesn't hold water.

 

[Bonaca]

This is a classic dodge and fanboy BS. The Federer fans have been employing it for a dozen years. You're saying that he couldn't possibly have been playing his best tennis, or Novak would have won. Doesn't matter how well he'd played up until he met Nadal. Somehow he just has a bad day whenever he plays Rafa at RG. Couldn't have anything to do with the guy across the net. You can keep telling yourself that, but as a logical argument it doesn't hold water.

No, you simply don’t understand or don’t want to, same result.
I don’t mind what other say, my point is no excuse.
Everytime Nadal won he was better, happened 26 times.
My point is a theoretical one, saint moxie, when both play their best possible, Novak will win. He is more talented, better server and returner, better BH. So when everything would be perfect , Nadal would go down , simple as that.
Now you got it?

Be happy what Bob achieved in their h2h, looking at this he is better than everyone else, but still no2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonaca]

This is a classic dodge and fanboy BS. The Federer fans have been employing it for a dozen years. You're saying that he couldn't possibly have been playing his best tennis, or Novak would have won. Doesn't matter how well he'd played up until he met Nadal. Somehow he just has a bad day whenever he plays Rafa at RG. Couldn't have anything to do with the guy across the net. You can keep telling yourself that, but as a logical argument it doesn't hold water.

I can understand the Federer fans, and their disappointment.
So talented and gifted, losing so often against the workman is hard to accept. If he changed his play tactic and racquet earlier, Roger would have much better h2h against Bob.

Novak is completely different case, he dominates Bob for a long time and has the better h2h, which will stand forever. Guess why? Yes because he is better in nearly every aspect of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk