Nadalites – Rafa Nadal Talk

[The_Grand_Slam]

Funny how you ignore the early wins, and call 2008 a "poor year." It's not such a "fickle" stat, so much as one that reflects poorly on Roger, no matter how his fans keep trying to shape-shift it in different ways, or make it unimportant. Yet you say that "Nadal barely played him in his out of form years." I thought you just mentioned 2. I could also mention dates when Federer didn't show up, but for one round, and not on clay. This is just excuse-making for that H2H that doesn't mean so much, except that you guys keep massaging it and remaking it over and over.

What early wins?
Nadal led 8-6 before 2008 (6-1 on clay,2-5 off clay-Miami and Dubai).
And Nadal has failed to show up more times

 

[Moxie]

What early wins?
Nadal led 8-6 before 2008 (6-1 on clay,2-5 off clay).
And Nadal has failed to show up more times

Early wins? The first time they played. The 2nd time they played in which Nadal almost got him. The 3rd time they played, first at a major. You can quote all the numbers you want, as is commonly done, but it doesn't tell the story of their early rivalry. Or mid-rivalry, or into the late. It doesn't change the fact that the closest Roger ever got in the h2h was 1-1, and he acually nearly lost that 2nd one. (Nadal led 4-1 in the 3rd of that Miami final, having won the first 2 sets.) 6-3 in Major finals, and only that with Roger's recent win at AO '17. Rafa has beaten Roger on all surfaces at majors, and Roger finally got his sole win over Rafa off of grass. All of their non-final meetings at majors went to Rafa, and not all of those on clay. See? We can slice it up any way we want to.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Early wins? The first time they played. The 2nd time they played in which Nadal almost got him. The 3rd time they played, first at a major. You can quote all the numbers you want, as is commonly done, but it doesn't tell the story of their early rivalry. Or mid-rivalry, or into the late. It doesn't change the fact that the closest Roger ever got in the h2h was 1-1, and he acually nearly lost that 2nd one. (Nadal led 4-1 in the 3rd of that Miami final, having won the first 2 sets.) 6-3 in Major finals, and only that with Roger's recent win at AO '17. Rafa has beaten Roger on all surfaces at majors, and Roger finally got his sole win over Rafa off of grass. All of their non-final meetings at majors went to Rafa, and not all of those on clay. See? We can slice it up any way we want to.

Roger was sick in that first Miami encounter.

Q. You played a lot of tennis this year already. Do you feel more tired physically or mentally?

ROGER FEDERER: My fatigue right now has got nothing to do with all the matches I've played this year. I've been sick, and this was my problem for the imperfect preparation for this tournament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger almost won loads of matches too- Rome 2006,Wimbledon 2008,Hamburg 2008,AO 2009,obvious choices

iirc their Madrid 2010-11 were also very close.
Even 2011 FO F,AO 2012 SF when Nadal was in his prime and Federer had left his.
Those 5 cheap wins Nadal got over Federer in 2013 was a lot.Federer foolishly overplaying in 2008/2013 should be amongst his top regrets.

 

[Moxie]

Roger was sick in that first Miami encounter.

Q. You played a lot of tennis this year already. Do you feel more tired physically or mentally?

ROGER FEDERER: My fatigue right now has got nothing to do with all the matches I've played this year. I've been sick, and this was my problem for the imperfect preparation for this tournament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger almost won loads of matches too- Rome 2006,Wimbledon 2008,Hamburg 2008,AO 2009,obvious choices

iirc their Madrid 2010-11 were also very close.
Even 2011 FO F,AO 2012 SF when Nadal was in his prime and Federer had left his.
Those 5 cheap wins Nadal got over Federer in 2013 was a lot.Federer foolishly overplaying in 2008/2013 should be amongst his top regrets.

Please, then, I hope I never hear any more about Nadal fans being excuse-makers. Federer was unwell in the IW, so he was underprepared for Nadal in Miami in '04. I have heard that one. At least it explains why it didn't go 3, but Roger has also said he didn't know what to do with Nadal's lefty spin. He was likely to lose that one, anyway. Federer over-played in '08? And '13? What you're saying is, if he'd scheduled better, he wouldn't have been so sick or weak and would have beaten Nadal more, or wouldn't have met him when he did get beaten? So you're making the sweeping general excuse for 2 whole seasons, plus the '04 loss, right? I dunno. 8 matches difference in the h2h is a lot to make up for, even with this recent run of 5 wins for Wodger. That is a lot of woulda-shoulda/parallel universe. And even so, I don't think the math works in your favor. Note that some of those "tight" matches you mention didn't go the distance. And don't give me that the "old man" had left his prime, since he was still winning Majors at 35. I'm sorry, but that's a lot of whining about actual losses. If you even watched a portion of them, you do understand that Rafa has known how to beat Roger since they started playing each other.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Please, then, I hope I never hear any more about Nadal fans being excuse-makers. Federer was unwell in the IW, so he was underprepared for Nadal in Miami in '04. I have heard that one. At least it explains why it didn't go 3, but Roger has also said he didn't know what to do with Nadal's lefty spin. He was likely to lose that one, anyway. Federer over-played in '08? And '13? What you're saying is, if he'd scheduled better, he wouldn't have been so sick or weak and would have beaten Nadal more, or wouldn't have met him when he did get beaten? So you're making the sweeping general excuse for 2 whole seasons, plus the '04 loss, right? I dunno. 8 matches difference in the h2h is a lot to make up for, even with this recent run of 5 wins for Wodger. That is a lot of woulda-shoulda/parallel universe. And even so, I don't think the math works in your favor. Note that some of those "tight" matches you mention didn't go the distance.

The first four were deciding set matches.One in which he had MPs(Rome),One he had the first BP in the last set(Wimbledon),and the other two he had SPs in Hamburg and in AO he had 0-40 at 4-4 in the 3rd.

You're the one who started this should've won stuff btw-

Early wins? The first time they played. The 2nd time they played in which Nadal almost got him.

If Federer scheduled even those two seasons like Nadal(peaking only for his best surfaces and avoiding his worst tournaments) yes he would've avoided those meetings and the h2h would be close.

And don't give me that the "old man" had left his prime, since he was still winning Majors at 35. I'm sorry, but that's a lot of whining about actual losses.

Winning slams=! Prime

 

[Moxie]

^ I recognize that I "started it" by mentioning how close Nadal was to winning the second of their encounters, but I think you're trying too hard with some of your other examples.

In Roger's close ones in 5-setters, he lost 3, (Rome '06, W '08, AO '09,) but only got close in one, with a MP in Rome.
In Rafa's close ones in 5-setters, he lost 2, (MIA '05, W '07,) and I think he only had a MP in the Wimbledon one.

While the others you mention were in varying degrees competitive, there were nothing like the MIA near-miss that I cited by Nadal, which is what set you off. Hamburg '08: 7-5, 6-7(3), 6-3; Madrid '10 (6-4, 7-6(5) ), Madrid '11(7-6, 6-1, 6-3). I will give you that Roger mounted possibly his best defense of Nadal at RG in '11, but it still only went 4, and the AO SF in '12 was tight but, again, only went 4.

By your measure of closeness, obviously the AO '17 has to be mentioned, since Rafa was up a break in the 5th, and by their patterns, should have won that match. (Which is not to say who played better.)

Point being, and I could be wrong here, but I think Rafa has been with in a MP of beating Roger at a Major. And possibly within one at a MS 1000, or, at the very least, 2-0 and 4-1 up. Roger has been w/in a MP of beating Rafa at a MS1000, but never closer in all of those matches you cite. Note that the deciding sets weren't mostly that close. And a fair number of the Major matches didn't go to 5. I think at SFs, they've never gone to 5.

So, I don't think the H2H is a "fickle stat." There's a lot in it, if you investigate it, and Roger doesn't come out the better. But I'm happy to keep debating it with you, if you like.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I recognize that I "started it" by mentioning how close Nadal was to winning the second of their encounters, but I think you're trying too hard with some of your other examples.

In Roger's close ones in 5-setters, he lost 3, (Rome '06, W '08, AO '09,) but only got close in one, with a MP in Rome.
In Rafa's close ones in 5-setters, he lost 2, (MIA '05, W '07,) and I think he only had a MP in the Wimbledon one.

While the others you mention were in varying degrees competitive, there were nothing like the MIA near-miss that I cited by Nadal, which is what set you off. Hamburg '08: 7-5, 6-7(3), 6-3; Madrid '10 (6-4, 7-6(5) ), Madrid '11(7-6, 6-1, 6-3). I will give you that Roger mounted possibly his best defense of Nadal at RG in '11, but it still only went 4, and the AO SF in '12 was tight but, again, only went 4.

By your measure of closeness, obviously the AO '17 has to be mentioned, since Rafa was up a break in the 5th, and by their patterns, should have won that match. (Which is not to say who played better.)

Point being, and I could be wrong here, but I think Rafa has been with in a MP of beating Roger at a Major. And possibly within one at a MS 1000, or, at the very least, 2-0 and 4-1 up. Roger has been w/in a MP of beating Rafa at a MS1000, but never closer in all of those matches you cite. Note that the deciding sets weren't mostly that close. And a fair number of the Major matches didn't go to 5. I think at SFs, they've never gone to 5.

So, I don't think the H2H is a "fickle stat." There's a lot in it, if you investigate it, and Roger doesn't come out the better. But I'm happy to keep debating it with you, if you like.

Very wrong about Wimbledon 07. That was a 6-2 5th set and Nadal was never leading the entire match. Anyways, near misses don't matter to me, it is about performing as you should especially when the matches are bigger. Roger at Wimbledon and a few of those AO matches left the door wide open. That's what made the H2H what it is.

 

[Ricardo]

^ I recognize that I "started it" by mentioning how close Nadal was to winning the second of their encounters, but I think you're trying too hard with some of your other examples.

In Roger's close ones in 5-setters, he lost 3, (Rome '06, W '08, AO '09,) but only got close in one, with a MP in Rome.
In Rafa's close ones in 5-setters, he lost 2, (MIA '05, W '07,) and I think he only had a MP in the Wimbledon one.

While the others you mention were in varying degrees competitive, there were nothing like the MIA near-miss that I cited by Nadal, which is what set you off. Hamburg '08: 7-5, 6-7(3), 6-3; Madrid '10 (6-4, 7-6(5) ), Madrid '11(7-6, 6-1, 6-3). I will give you that Roger mounted possibly his best defense of Nadal at RG in '11, but it still only went 4, and the AO SF in '12 was tight but, again, only went 4.

By your measure of closeness, obviously the AO '17 has to be mentioned, since Rafa was up a break in the 5th, and by their patterns, should have won that match. (Which is not to say who played better.)

Point being, and I could be wrong here, but I think Rafa has been with in a MP of beating Roger at a Major. And possibly within one at a MS 1000, or, at the very least, 2-0 and 4-1 up. Roger has been w/in a MP of beating Rafa at a MS1000, but never closer in all of those matches you cite. Note that the deciding sets weren't mostly that close. And a fair number of the Major matches didn't go to 5. I think at SFs, they've never gone to 5.

So, I don't think the H2H is a "fickle stat." There's a lot in it, if you investigate it, and Roger doesn't come out the better. But I'm happy to keep debating it with you, if you like.

No match point for Nadal at Wimbledon 07 (not even close) you just said that to make Rafa look better. It’s always the same old with you Moxie.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Could they make it any easier for Fed (after he complained about difficult timezone adjustment this year) to commit happily? Yes, they could've chosen Basel But they thought Geneva would be close enough. Maybe they wanted to entice Stan to top up the lineup as a gravy.

 

[Moxie]

No match point for Nadal at Wimbledon 07 (not even close) you just said that to make Rafa look better. It’s always the same old with you Moxie.

I guess that's the way I remember the match in my dreams. But you and Darth have nothing to say about my riposte other than that correction. Same old from you both. Just ignore the rest as "inconvenient truth."

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Laver cup gives top billing to Rafael Nadal over Roger Federer, as it should be.

 

[Ricardo]

I guess that's the way I remember the match in my dreams. But you and Darth have nothing to say about my riposte other than that correction. Same old from you both. Just ignore the rest as "inconvenient truth."

Well that doesn’t justify for you to make it up to suit your argument then ( after being called out) excused yourself for ‘dreaming’ it. And I haven’t said nothing about your ‘riposte’ because there isn’t much value for me to respond to the same old shit you have always chewed on...the same defensive crap which really meant nothing anyway. I have lost the desire to read/write the repetitive rubbish just suit some agenda...good for you for persisting.

I would just occasionally point out that you yet again make things up...can’t really stand dishonesty.

 

[Ricardo]

Facts you cannot deny, Roger overall is better than Nadal on all surfaces but clay...wether you look at their head to head or more importantly, career records. While clay matches count just like others, the fact that they played 15 matches on clay out of total of 38 career meetings, is disproportionate to the overall norm....hence their head to head looks worse for Fed than it actually is. You should admit that h-h can be very misleading, like since Fed ditched playing on clay his h-h looks much better already...yet if he continues to run into Nadal on clay, I would assume that it would be quite ugly for him...debatable?

 

[isabelle]

Facts you cannot deny, Roger overall is better than Nadal on all surfaces but clay...wether you look at their head to head or more importantly, career records. While clay matches count just like others, the fact that they played 15 matches on clay out of total of 38 career meetings, is disproportionate to the overall norm....hence their head to head looks worse for Fed than it actually is. You should admit that h-h can be very misleading, like since Fed ditched playing on clay his h-h looks much better already...yet if he continues to run into Nadal on clay, I would assume that it would be quite ugly for him...debatable?

he lost 2 Wimbly's finals vs Manacors' bull...so maybe he's better than him on grass but it dosen't stop him from losing vs his best nemesis

 

[DarthFed]

he lost 2 Wimbly's finals vs Manacors' bull...so maybe he's better than him on grass but it dosen't stop him from losing vs his best nemesis

He lost 1 of 3. That was pathetic enough.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

He lost 1 of 3. That was pathetic enough.

Federer is 1 out 4 at the AO and 0 out of 5 at RG. B-)

 

[DarthFed]

Federer is 1 out 4 at the AO and 0 out of 5 at RG. B-)

The last 3 at AO came when he was in his 30's. I'd have liked to see 25 year old Roger (2006) against 30 year old Nadal (2016) at a major. Couple nice free wins Nads had.

Also, how did Ralph do in the finals of 2012 and 2014 after beating Roger in the semis

 

[atttomole]

he lost 2 Wimbly's finals vs Manacors' bull...so maybe he's better than him on grass but it dosen't stop him from losing vs his best nemesis

What does this statement mean exactly?

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

What does this statement mean exactly?

Like all her other posts on the site,its gibberish.