Nadal v. The Armada

[mrzz]

At least now we know who will be competing for the wheelchair titles in 2065.

 

[Denis]

Denis wrote:
<blockquote>
Carol wrote:
Ferru doesn’t tank against anyone but to discuss about it is not worth it , it’s completely silly, move on!

He said as much himself. Not that it matters with you. You will say Nadal will win RG when he is 80 and in a wheelchair.</blockquote>
When something is out of context and just a speculation of some Rafa’s antis then it’s not worth it to discuss. And look who is talking, you will say Novak will win the AO, RG, Wimbledon and USO when he is 80 and in a wheelchair lol

Actually I don't.

You on the other hand have been doing nothing else than talking out of your behind for more than a year, saying that Nadal would be his old self very soon. Look where he is now.

 

[DarthFed]

All the talk about Stan playing vs. Fed and Spaniards vs. Nadal has always been overblown.  Stan before 2 years ago was just another good but not great player.  Why would he have a decent record vs. Roger who used to be much better than he currently is?  Stan's record vs. Nole and Nadal is comparable to his record vs. Fed.  Also, you should pay attention to where Stan beats Roger, clay and clay only so far.  Any kind of a fast court match and he still gets killed by Roger.

Same deal with Ferrer and the other Spaniards, good not great players.  Why would they have decent records vs. Nadal when the fact is they didn't do any better vs. the other elite players.

 

[Denis]

All the talk about Stan playing vs. Fed and Spaniards vs. Nadal has always been overblown. Stan before 2 years ago was just another good but not great player. Why would he have a decent record vs. Roger who used to be much better than he currently is? Stan’s record vs. Nole and Nadal is comparable to his record vs. Fed. Also, you should pay attention to where Stan beats Roger, clay and clay only so far. Any kind of a fast court match and he still gets killed by Roger. Same deal with Ferrer and the other Spaniards, good not great players. Why would they have decent records vs. Nadal when the fact is they didn’t do any better vs. the other elite players.

All agreed. However, this is all beside the point. To me at least. I thought we were discussing the incorrect assertion that Ferrer or one of the other spaniards always try their best against Nadal. This is simply not true. No biggie, don't get me wrong.

 

[Carol]

Carol wrote:
<blockquote>
Denis wrote:
<blockquote>
Carol wrote:
Ferru doesn’t tank against anyone but to discuss about it is not worth it , it’s completely silly, move on!

He said as much himself. Not that it matters with you. You will say Nadal will win RG when he is 80 and in a wheelchair.</blockquote>
When something is out of context and just a speculation of some Rafa’s antis then it’s not worth it to discuss. And look who is talking, you will say Novak will win the AO, RG, Wimbledon and USO when he is 80 and in a wheelchair lol</blockquote>
Actually I don’t. You on the other hand have been doing nothing else than talking out of your behind for more than a year, saying that Nadal would be his old self very soon. Look where he is now.

Excuse moi, when I have said that? don't try to put words that I've never said. And let me tell you where he is now. After  to have two bad years due to his injuries and therefore a huge lack of confidence, he is the #5 which I don't think is a bad think, on the contrary it's pretty good due to those circumstances AND I don't lose the hope that he will reach better numbers, this is just the beginning of the year

 

[Denis]

Denis wrote:
<blockquote>
Carol wrote:
<blockquote>
Denis wrote:
<blockquote>
Carol wrote:
Ferru doesn’t tank against anyone but to discuss about it is not worth it , it’s completely silly, move on!

He said as much himself. Not that it matters with you. You will say Nadal will win RG when he is 80 and in a wheelchair.</blockquote>
When something is out of context and just a speculation of some Rafa’s antis then it’s not worth it to discuss. And look who is talking, you will say Novak will win the AO, RG, Wimbledon and USO when he is 80 and in a wheelchair lol</blockquote>
Actually I don’t. You on the other hand have been doing nothing else than talking out of your behind for more than a year, saying that Nadal would be his old self very soon. Look where he is now.</blockquote>
Excuse moi, when I have said that? don’t try to put words that I’ve never said. And let me tell you where he is now. After to have two bad years due to his injuries and therefore a huge lack of confidence, he is the #5 which I don’t think is a bad think, on the contrary it’s pretty good due to those circumstances AND I don’t lose the hope that he will reach better numbers, this is just the beginning of the year

Ok fine. It's tough enough as it is for you, Moxie and the rest. Let's see what the clay season brings.

Has he committed to Buenos Aires yet?

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
It’s a fair point to make that a friend/compatriot/teammate could have trouble summoning the amount of ruthlessness it takes to beat the superior player. (An opposite example would be Soderling taking out Nadal at RG in ’09. I think several things went into that win, and one was more than a bit of spite and payback on Robin’s part.) For obvious reasons, I’m not that interested in making this thread about gauging Nadal’s decline,

Perhaps we could make it more about intimidation and motivation. However, I did look up the h2h’s, so I’ll tell you what I learned: Ferrer: beat Rafa in 2004 on clay; 2007 at USO and China, both HCs; AO in 2011; Paris Bercy in 2013; Monte Carlo 2014. Ferrer has had his best success v. Nadal on HC, including indoor. The MC win was an upset, and was an early indicator of Nadal vulnerability. Almagro: Lone win was Barcelona 2014. Again, an upset and early indicator. Lopez: 2003 Basel on indoor HC; 2010 Queen’s on grass; 2014 Shanghai and 2015 in Cincy. Cincy was won in a 3rd set TB, I think, which was again, a surprise. Verdasco: 2012 Madrid on clay; 2015 Miami; and, well…you know. Madrid doesn’t tell that much, and everyone beat Rafa last year, pretty much. The big one was the other day. In sum: I don’t think looking at the Spanish players tells that much. It’s the overall picture that isn’t too pretty.

Well, apart from Ferrer, the others practically had zero victories against Nadal before 2014. Even in Ferrer’s case you can put some victories in context (AO 2011, for example). At least all this tells the (now clear to everyone) story that Nadal’s level have dropped significantly. And, yes, back to the original point (you’ll see where I wanna get), Almagro, Lopez, Verdasco… on fast hards and grass, they should at least put up a fight (I mean, pre 2014). But the fact is that they did not (at least in the matches I watched, it was never a contest…). But (connecting to your point), maybe they were lacking that aggression factor that would the only thing that could counter the intimidation the #1 or #2 imposed on them. These numbers, as I suspected from the start, support the original point I made (in fact, recalled, the point was made by others).

I don't think that is an accurate summary of those statistics.  Lopez had 2 wins prior to 2014, and 2 since; Verdasco one prior, 2 since.  Only Almagro had never beaten him until 2014.  I know you said "practically zero," but given that they only a few more since, the numbers do matter.  So I don't think it's a great gauge.  And again, I don't think it's fair to say they didn't put in effort earlier on.  There may have been an extra psychological barrier, which is actually Federberg's idea, not mine, but it's also because Nadal was far the superior player.  You might at least acknowledge that part of the equation.

 

[Moxie]

Twisted wrote:
All the talk about Stan playing vs. Fed and Spaniards vs. Nadal has always been overblown. Stan before 2 years ago was just another good but not great player. Why would he have a decent record vs. Roger who used to be much better than he currently is? Stan’s record vs. Nole and Nadal is comparable to his record vs. Fed. Also, you should pay attention to where Stan beats Roger, clay and clay only so far. Any kind of a fast court match and he still gets killed by Roger. Same deal with Ferrer and the other Spaniards, good not great players. Why would they have decent records vs. Nadal when the fact is they didn’t do any better vs. the other elite players.

All agreed. However, this is all beside the point. To me at least. I thought we were discussing the incorrect assertion that Ferrer or one of the other spaniards always try their best against Nadal. This is simply not true. No biggie, don’t get me wrong.

It's not beside the point, and it's a very fair post by Twisted.  It is true that Ferrer says that he had mentally given up against Nadal in the '14 RG QF, but you're extracting that as the case across all Spaniards playing Nadal pre-2014.  And you're holding it against Ferrer for admitting a human frailty.  As Twisted says:  good, not great players.  Why should they have done better against Nadal in his prime when they didn't do better against other elite players, either?  I would hope you can look beyond your own entrenched prejudice in the face of a reasonable argument.

 

[mrzz]

Moxie, up to the match in Madrid (2012), it was 13x0 in favour of Nadal. Since then is 3x1 Verdasco. One of the Lopez wins you counted is from 2003(!!!), Nadal had what, 17 years? Since then it is similar, 9x1 up to 2014, and then 2 wins by Lopez.  Almagro's lone win came in 2014.  It is the same pattern in all cases.

And I never said that they did not put up an effort, I said that the matches I saw were not competitive.

And I really do not need to acknowledge that Nadal is a superior player to them. This is not only beyond obvious, but part of the premisses of this discussion. But surfaces, match ups, circumstances and a lot of different things matter. Nadal is a superior player than Davydenko (which, ok, is better than those three), but lost to him a lot of times.

 

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, up to the match in Madrid (2012), it was 13×0 in favour of Nadal. Since then is 3×1 Verdasco. One of the Lopez wins you counted is from 2003(!!!), Nadal had what, 17 years? Since then it is similar, 9×1 up to 2014, and then 2 wins by Lopez. Almagro’s lone win came in 2014. It is the same pattern in all cases. And I never said that they did not put up an effort, I said that the matches I saw were not competitive. And I really do not need to acknowledge that Nadal is a superior player to them. This is not only beyond obvious, but part of the premisses of this discussion. But surfaces, match ups, circumstances and a lot of different things matter. Nadal is a superior player than Davydenko (which, ok, is better than those three), but lost to him a lot of times.

Actually, you did say:  "they should at least put up a fight (I mean, pre 2014.)"  What is that, other than saying that "they didn't put up effort?"  I hate to parse words with you, but it does matter.  And yes, I mentioned a win by Lopez in 2003, because it is part of the h2h.  But I take your point going for the "sweet spot" of Nadal's prime.  I hadn't organized it that way, but, hey, I gave you the stats so you could.  

As to Davydenko, you conveniently mention the only player (now with Djokovic) that has what could be called a reasonable h2h v. Nadal.  He retired at 6-5 in the h2h.  I'm not sure if that's "a lot of times," but it's a positive h2h.  Something I think no one but (now) Novak has, of anyone who has played him more than 2 times.  Davydenko took the ball early on Rafa, and caught him on HCs, where they played the most.  (7-4 played on HC, on won by Nadal.)  In the mysteries of match-ups, Davydenko was 2-19 v. Roger.  Their weird triangle:  Davydenko beat Rafa-Rafa beat Roger-Roger beat Davydenko.  And so again, why should the Spaniards have a great h2h against Rafa, when hardly anyone else does?

 

[mrzz]

Ok, Moxie, bad choice of words, but by now you know what I meant: losing attitude or something along those lines, that translated into non competitive matches. And yes, the Davydenko mention was a bit cherry picked, but this "exaggeration" had a point, which was to show that the look at who is the superior player does not tell the whole story.

Oh, and Hrbaty has a 3x1 edge over Nadal.

 

 

[Moxie]

Ok, Moxie, bad choice of words, but by now you know what I meant: losing attitude or something along those lines, that translated into non competitive matches. And yes, the Davydenko mention was a bit cherry picked, but this “exaggeration” had a point, which was to show that the look at who is the superior player does not tell the whole story. Oh, and Hrbaty has a 3×1 edge over Nadal.

You still expose your prejudice to say they lost by having a bad attitude.  No nod to Nadal's superior play.  And I see that you're keeping score, bringing up ol'Hrabty.  Even I'd forgotten about him.  Anyway, he and Davydenko are both retired.  It still leaves a small brotherhood with a winning h2h over Rafa.  Which is why it's a bit puny to call out the Spaniards against him.  It's not like many have done a lot better against him.  It's remarked upon because particularly Ferrer, Verdasco and Almagro have played him a lot.  But I gave you results against other players who've also played him similarly often.  Pretty much the same.

 

[mrzz]

Moxie, I am sorry, but prejudice is exactly what you are showing now. I never (and you may search it) said that they only lost because of their attitude. You are reading it, because you are assuming that I have prejudice against Nadal. I said from the beginning that it would help little to look after the results, as Nadal would have a dominant H2H against all players with whom we could compare them. Remember, again, were the discussion comes from. Nobody was trying to explain Nadal's success with such an argument, people were reacting to a statement which you correctly quoted, which is, by the way, harmless, but incorrect in my opinion. @Denis even brought up a very rare admission from Ferrer that he eventually gave up on a match, or something along those lines (which is completely understandable to me).

By the way, Hrbaty also has a positive H2H against Federer. In other forums I jokingly referred to him as goat, because of his combined results against them both (by the way, he is 0-1 against Djokovic, and has a win over him which ATP does not count, as it was a challenger I guess).

I concede that, given that English is not my first language, I often have expressed myself not in the best possible way, and it has surely not helped the discussion.

If you want I can give you a signed statement that I a) do not think was never anything dishonest in Nadal's matches against his fellow spaniards; b) He is much better than them and; c) That he is one of the greatest players of all time.

I could also say: "He lost in the first round, he lost in the first round, nanananana", but you are in no mood for that.

 

 

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I am sorry, but prejudice is exactly what you are showing now. I never (and you may search it) said that they only lost because of their attitude. You are reading it, because you are assuming that I have prejudice against Nadal. I said from the beginning that it would help little to look after the results, as Nadal would have a dominant H2H against all players with whom we could compare them. Remember, again, were the discussion comes from. Nobody was trying to explain Nadal’s success with such an argument, people were reacting to a statement which you correctly quoted, which is, by the way, harmless, but incorrect in my opinion. @Denis even brought up a very rare admission from Ferrer that he eventually gave up on a match, or something along those lines (which is completely understandable to me). By the way, Hrbaty also has a positive H2H against Federer. In other forums I jokingly referred to him as goat, because of his combined results against them both (by the way, he is 0-1 against Djokovic, and has a win over him which ATP does not count, as it was a challenger I guess). I concede that, given that English is not my first language, I often have expressed myself not in the best possible way, and it has surely not helped the discussion. If you want I can give you a signed statement that I a) do not think was never anything dishonest in Nadal’s matches against his fellow spaniards; b) He is much better than them and; c) That he is one of the greatest players of all time. I could also say: “He lost in the first round, he lost in the first round, nanananana”, but you are in no mood for that.

I'll take your signed statement in good faith and leave it on a hand shake.  Nothing is dropped in translation, as your English is perfect, and the last bit is not lost on me.  You're a Fed man, after all, and the concessions didn't come easy, I'm sure.