Nadalites – Rafa Nadal Talk

[Moxie]

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

English isn't Isabelle's first language. You could be a bit more patient.

 

[Ricardo]

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

Well not only is this sentence some kind of brain failure, you have also managed to join the make up crew.....so I have to correct you again, Roger beat Rafa in 2 finals at Wimbledon, out of 3...

 

[Ricardo]

English isn't Isabelle's first language. You could be a bit more patient.

Says somebody who criticises others grammatical skills, so no patience for them but plenty for her.

 

[Moxie]

Says somebody who criticises others grammatical skills, so no patience for them but plenty for her.

I have never picked on a person who's not a native speaker. For nasty posters who are English-speakers and can't insult grammatically, I won't go so easy. Also, I don't lie. I'm flattered that you always follow me around to give me a hard time, though.

 

[Moxie]

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.

Nadal didn't need the "free" ones...he beat Roger 7 times at Majors before Roger turned 30, too. I don't understand this very flexible notion of Roger's agedness. He lost to Rafa in '12 and '14 because he was "old," and yet beat him in '17. How does that work? Couldn't have anything to do with Rafa also being older, and not recovering as well from his previous 5-setter with 1 less day of rest, though, right? It seems that, in your dictionary, when Roger loses post-2007, he's "old,/geriatric" or "past prime." When he wins, it's because he's "superior." For a guy who was still winning Majors at 35, you do make a lot of excuses for his age. B-)

 

[Horsa]

English isn't Isabelle's first language. You could be a bit more patient.

I can understand her English easily & British English is my native language. I think Isabelle's English is quite good actually. I only found 3 errors in the post that people were complaining about.

 

[Ricardo]

I have never picked on a person who's not a native speaker. For nasty posters who are English-speakers and can't insult grammatically, I won't go so easy. Also, I don't lie. I'm flattered that you always follow me around to give me a hard time, though.

Hard time? Only pointed out that you made up something to make Rafa look good and Roger bad, funny you never accidentally do that to give Roger some love, not even once. Look at Isabella and Fiero all prone to doing the same thing, the common denominator is screaming out loud.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Federer fans hijacking the Nadal fans thread and trying to diminish his accomplishments. :cuckoo: They are so insecure. They know that if Rafa wins the AO and heads to RG as the favorite, the slam record could disappear out of their boyfriend's hands in no time. Stop being threatened and go back to the Federer fans thread.

 

[DarthFed]

Nadal didn't need the "free" ones...he beat Roger 7 times at Majors before Roger turned 30, too. I don't understand this very flexible notion of Roger's agedness. He lost to Rafa in '12 and '14 because he was "old," and yet beat him in '17. How does that work? Couldn't have anything to do with Rafa also being older, and not recovering as well from his previous 5-setter with 1 less day of rest, though, right? It seems that, in your dictionary, when Roger loses post-2007, he's "old,/geriatric" or "past prime." When he wins, it's because he's "superior." For a guy who was still winning Majors at 35, you do make a lot of excuses for his age. B-)

We've been over this so many times. Roger didn't stop being old when he won big events in 2017 or 2018, he won despite being ancient. That doesn't speak well on Nadal and the rest of the tour.

Give me the reasons Roger lost to the vastly inferior Nadal off clay. I'd be interested to hear them? Do you really think it was 100% about the high ball to his backhand on surfaces where the ball doesn't bounce nearly as high as clay? Or was there more to it mentally due to the clay beatdowns and just generally poor strategy and execution in the big moments. You seem to think Rafa is Roger's equal on grass and hard courts.

 

[Moxie]

We've been over this so many times. Roger didn't stop being old when he won big events in 2017 or 2018, he won despite being ancient. That doesn't speak well on Nadal and the rest of the tour.

Give me the reasons Roger lost to the vastly inferior Nadal off clay. I'd be interested to hear them? Do you really think it was 100% about the high ball to his backhand on surfaces where the ball doesn't bounce nearly as high as clay? Or was there more to it mentally due to the clay beatdowns and just generally poor strategy and execution in the big moments. You seem to think Rafa is Roger's equal on grass and hard courts.

The basic fallacy here is "vastly inferior." That's why you don't understand how Rafa beat Roger so much, including "off clay," as you so like to repeat.

 

[DarthFed]

The basic fallacy here is "vastly inferior." That's why you don't understand how Rafa beat Roger so much, including "off clay," as you so like to repeat.

Elegant way to dodge the question

 

[Moxie]

Elegant way to dodge the question

It's not really a question, it's a statement of outrage, in your arrogance as a Federer fan: how in the world could someone as crappy as Nadal beat someone as fabulous as Roger!

 

[DarthFed]

It's not really a question, it's a statement of outrage, in your arrogance as a Federer fan: how in the world could someone as crappy as Nadal beat someone as fabulous as Roger!

The resumes off clay aren't even remotely conparable. It's not to say Nadal stinks off clay, he obviously doesn't and some like myself are annoyed he has achieved so much off clay. But let's not act like their achievements are in the same universe on grass, outdoor hard, and indoor hard.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

The resumes off clay aren't even remotely conparable. It's not to say Nadal stinks off clay, he obviously doesn't and some like myself are annoyed he has achieved so much off clay. But let's not act like their achievements are in the same universe on grass, outdoor hard, and indoor hard.

But Nadal is much closer to Federer off-clay than Federer is to Nadal on clay. And Nadal on clay is the measure of true greatness, much more spectacular than Federer or Djokovic or anyone on any surface. In fact, when compared to Nadal on clay, nobody else in the universe deserves to be called great. True Greatness and GOATness = Nadal on clay. Even Federer at Wimbledon is 95-12 while Nadal at RG is 86-2, it's like comparing a gazelle to a lion. Federer on grass (or anywhere) can be called "good" at best. The only player to have achieved true Greatness, Excellence and GOATness is Nadal. Have a nice day.

 

[atttomole]

But Nadal is much closer to Federer off-clay than Federer is to Nadal on clay. And Nadal on clay is the measure of true greatness, much more spectacular than Federer or Djokovic or anyone on any surface. In fact, when compared to Nadal on clay, nobody else in the universe deserves to be called great. True Greatness and GOATness = Nadal on clay. Even Federer at Wimbledon is 95-12 while Nadal at RG is 86-2, that's like comparing a gazelle to a lion. Federer on grass (or anywhere) can be called "good" at best. Have a nice day.

I am not so sure about that.

 

[DarthFed]

But Nadal is much closer to Federer off-clay than Federer is to Nadal on clay. And Nadal on clay is the measure of true greatness, much more spectacular than Federer or Djokovic or anyone on any surface. In fact, when compared to Nadal on clay, nobody else in the universe deserves to be called great. True Greatness and GOATness = Nadal on clay. Even Federer at Wimbledon is 95-12 while Nadal at RG is 86-2, it's like comparing a gazelle to a lion. Federer on grass (or anywhere) can be called "good" at best. The only player to have achieved true Greatness, Excellence and GOATness is Nadal. Have a nice day.

The magical troll world where being the best ever on grass and hard courts means you are barely good on grass and hard courts. Try harder troll B-)

 

[Moxie]

The resumes off clay aren't even remotely conparable. It's not to say Nadal stinks off clay, he obviously doesn't and some like myself are annoyed he has achieved so much off clay. But let's not act like their achievements are in the same universe on grass, outdoor hard, and indoor hard.

You very nearly answered your own question, but then you always fall into the trap of your own blindness. You Fed fans engage in some very complicated double-think. You're willing to accept that Nadal is the greatest on clay because it would be ludicrous not to. However, you don't see how that translates. It's not like Nadal is "Gustavo Kuertan-good" on clay. He's far beyond that. His kind of great is about overall talent, commitment, mentality, etc., and it means that he's a great enough tennis player even to beat Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic on their best surfaces. You concede his greatness on clay, but keep trying to confine it to that. He can beat TMF so many times on clay, but you can't understand why he beats him off. The answer is fairly straightforward: because he's a very great tennis player. And they don't play resumes, they play each other.

 

[Carol]

This is a Portuguese soccer player star and very fan of Nadal. Yep, just seeing his tattoo

 

[DarthFed]

You very nearly answered your own question, but then you always fall into the trap of your own blindness. You Fed fans engage in some very complicated double-think. You're willing to accept that Nadal is the greatest on clay because it would be ludicrous not to. However, you don't see how that translates. It's not like Nadal is "Gustavo Kuertan-good" on clay. He's far beyond that. His kind of great is about overall talent, commitment, mentality, etc., and it means that he's a great enough tennis player even to beat Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic on their best surfaces. You concede his greatness on clay, but keep trying to confine it to that. He can beat TMF so many times on clay, but you can't understand why he beats him off. The answer is fairly straightforward: because he's a very great tennis player. And they don't play resumes, they play each other.

Still dodging it. I'm not pretending Roger should have creamed Rafa every time off clay but the resumes suggest he is way way way better than Rafa on everything but clay. I don't think there was a big matchup issue to explain the underwhelming 13-10 record off clay.

It's interesting you include Novak since that matchup has been a massacre off clay for many years. Yes, Nadal has won a couple so it's not like you'd expect Novak to win every single match off clay, but he, like Fed, is far superior to Rafa on hard courts and grass and he has done a better job of showing it H2H.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Still dodging it. I'm not pretending Roger should have creamed Rafa every time off clay but the resumes suggest he is way way way better than Rafa on everything but clay. I don't think there was a big matchup issue to explain the underwhelming 13-10 record off clay.

It's interesting you include Novak since that matchup has been a massacre off clay for many years. Yes, Nadal has won a couple so it's not like you'd expect Novak to win every single match off clay, but he, like Fed, is far superior to Rafa on hard courts and grass and he has done a better job of showing it H2H.

In terms of slam finals Nadal has 4 AOs, 11 FOs, 5 WB and 4 USO. That's huge everywhere and even outside the FO/clay could stand up against most all-time greats. Stop pretending that he was a force only on clay, he was a force everywhere.