Nadalites – Rafa Nadal Talk

[Moxie]

Ha, I don't respond to you for a few hours and you start beating your chest in victory...

My point is simple enough, Roger has lots to lament in the matchup and most of it is off clay. Yes resumes don't play each other, and they all have to play the matches, but resumes do provide a basis for expectations. And given that Roger's resume off clay is like 5 times Rafa's, the expectation is that he'd do better than 13-10, that he would have no problem beating Rafa on grass all 3 times, etc.

I have always thought the matchup disadvantage was overstated a bit off clay and a few high bouncing hard courts (Miami and IW). He didn't lose the aforementioned big matches from Nadal just lobbing high topspin all match. He lost because he was extremely erratic (Wimbledon especially) and mostly sucked in the big moments.

I would say that's because I really did make the better argument. And you're still arguing the resume, no matter what you say, which has nothing to do with the reality of W's and L's. I love how often you like to repeat the H2H on HCs, now that it's 13-10 in Roger's favor. Remember how long it was in Rafa's? I note that you can't cop to Rafa being an excellent tennis player as one explanation for the lopsided results. And the snide remark about "just lobbing topspin all match." No, for you, Roger was "extremely erratic" and "sucked at the big moments." Wonder why he tended to do that especially against Nadal. Bad match up? No, of course, not. I forgot about those hellish, Nadal-favoring high-bouncing courts. #excusemaking

I'm sorry, but if Roger could have solved Rafa earlier, he would have. If he's such a GOAT, and Rafa is so vastly inferior, the HC surfaces, at least, wouldn't have made such a difference. Obviously, it's not all about clay. Their first 3 meetings were 1 clay and 3 HC, and Rafa won 3 of them, 2 on HC. (And Rafa would have won the MIA F had it been Bo3, or he'd been more experienced.) Here's a small factoid: in April 2018, Rafa became the first player, female or male, to amass 400+ wins on both HCs and clay. He's not complete shite on the HCs. You can try to keep rewriting the H2H, the match-up and those losses you particularly hate, but it won't change them. Would it break your fingers to admit that Nadal is a great tennis player, all-around? Or just your heart?

 

[DarthFed]

I would say that's because I really did make the better argument. And you're still arguing the resume, no matter what you say, which has nothing to do with the reality of W's and L's. I love how often you like to repeat the H2H on HCs, now that it's 13-10 in Roger's favor. Remember how long it was in Rafa's? I note that you can't cop to Rafa being an excellent tennis player as one explanation for the lopsided results. And the snide remark about "just lobbing topspin all match." No, for you, Roger was "extremely erratic" and "sucked at the big moments." Wonder why he tended to do that especially against Nadal. Bad match up? No, of course, not. I forgot about those hellish, Nadal-favoring high-bouncing courts. #excusemaking

I'm sorry, but if Roger could have solved Rafa earlier, he would have. If he's such a GOAT, and Rafa is so vastly inferior, the HC surfaces, at least, wouldn't have made such a difference. Obviously, it's not all about clay. Their first 3 meetings were 1 clay and 3 HC, and Rafa won 3 of them, 2 on HC. (And Rafa would have won the MIA F had it been Bo3, or he'd been more experienced.) Here's a small factoid: in April 2018, Rafa became the first player, female or male, to amass 400+ wins on both HCs and clay. He's not complete shite on the HCs. You can try to keep rewriting the H2H, the match-up and those losses you particularly hate, but it won't change them. Would it break your fingers to admit that Nadal is a great tennis player, all-around? Or just your heart?

Like I've ever denied that Nadal is a great player and that yes, he is great off clay as well. But compared to Roger off clay he is nothing. This is a fact, I could go over stats if you like but I think it should be obvious. Djokovic is also way superior on everything except clay and that has translated to the H2H between them where Rafa barely has a prayer off clay. This is the point I'm making in regards to resumes and how they can dictate our expectations.

So when we examine why Roger has done poorly against Nadal on grass (2-1) and hardcourts (11-9), it comes down to what you believe. Was it all just a matter of high topspin (that is the main part of the matchup disadvantage) or was Roger suffering a mental block from clay that spilled over to surfaces where he is vastly superior.

Also the hard court H2H has mostly been in Roger's favor. Nadal took the lead in 2013 and early 2014 when he beat a corpse 5 times, 4 on HC.

 

[isabelle]

He gave Manacor 1 million to repare flood damages

 

[Moxie]

Like I've ever denied that Nadal is a great player and that yes, he is great off clay as well. But compared to Roger off clay he is nothing. This is a fact, I could go over stats if you like but I think it should be obvious. Djokovic is also way superior on everything except clay and that has translated to the H2H between them where Rafa barely has a prayer off clay. This is the point I'm making in regards to resumes and how they can dictate our expectations.

So when we examine why Roger has done poorly against Nadal on grass (2-1) and hardcourts (11-9), it comes down to what you believe. Was it all just a matter of high topspin (that is the main part of the matchup disadvantage) or was Roger suffering a mental block from clay that spilled over to surfaces where he is vastly superior.

Also the hard court H2H has mostly been in Roger's favor. Nadal took the lead in 2013 and early 2014 when he beat a corpse 5 times, 4 on HC.

Forgive me if it's hard to tell you actually think that Rafa is a great player, given all of the denigration and the thing about you thinking it took doping to get him there. But I know where all that comes from. It also explains why you use the language of spin as in the above post. You say that Nadal is "nothing" compared to Roger off-clay, and that Djokovic is "vastly superior" off-clay. This is extreme hyperbole. 5 Majors off-clay is a HOF career, and 4 of those 5 came by beating Fed and Djoker in the finals. You should save those kinds of adjectives for most of the rest of the tour, but not for Nadal. As to beating a "corpse," esp. in 2008, again...you never have met a point that you couldn't stretch beyond credulity when it comes to excusing Roger losing to Rafa. Federer was far from a "corpse" at 26. I know you hate that he lost that match, and that most of the rest of the world considers it a great match, but he was at nearly the height of his powers at that age. Your full reason for believing he was crap is that Nadal beat him. It's circular reasoning and self-serving.

To me, if anything, Novak's historical success v. Nadal should prove the match-up issue. I do agree that Rafa eventually got under Roger's skin and into his head, but it absolutely wasn't only due to clay. For example, it was clearly in the 2009 AO final when it became clear Rafa was in Fed's head. It's the match-up problem. But I know you'll go on believing what suits you. You always have.

 

[El Dude]

What criteria do you use for determining surface goat?

Take your pick - career accomplishments, titles, dominance over peers, etc. How about this: I challenge you to come up with reasonable criteria that favors someone over Rafa as surface GOAT.

 

[atttomole]

Take your pick - career accomplishments, titles, dominance over peers, etc. How about this: I challenge you to come up with reasonable criteria that favors someone over Rafa as surface GOAT.

I will try to respond piecemeal. One problem with crowning a surface GOAT is that the surfaces themselves play differently, and it is easy to lose on one surface than the other.

Look at the longest winning streaks, for example. Rafa has 81 on clay, and Roger has 65 on grass, a difference of 16 matches. I think Rafa did that playing many more tournaments because there are more tournaments that are longer and bigger on clay than on grass. Which is better, a winning streak of 65 on grass or 81 on clay?

 

[Moxie]

I will try to respond piecemeal. One problem with crowning a surface GOAT is that the surfaces themselves play differently, and it is easy to lose on one surface than the other.

Look at the longest winning streaks, for example. Rafa has 81 on clay, and Roger has 65 on grass, a difference of 16 matches. I think Rafa did that playing many more tournaments because there are more tournaments that are longer and bigger on clay than on grass. Which is better, a winning streak of 65 on grass or 81 on clay?

It is obvious that Roger has the disadvantage in this era of fewer grass tournaments to play, which is much complained about by his fans. And has to be accounted for. However, this doesn't make up for Federer having lost more on grass than Rafa has on clay. If anything, it proves the point. There are so many more opportunities for Rafa to lose on clay than for Roger to lose on grass. But there it is. Is it easier to lose on grass than on clay? I think we'd all say yes. One drop of serve and that could be the set on grass. But I don't think even that makes up the difference in their results. Remember that most are trying to make Roger the overall GOAT, as well. He would be held to a high standard on grass, and he's had more stumbles than Rafa on clay...by rather a lot.

As I've said, there are more opportunities on clay, so, yes, the grass one is impressive, but so is 81 on clay. That's a close one, if you put it that way.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Take your pick - career accomplishments, titles, dominance over peers, etc. How about this: I challenge you to come up with reasonable criteria that favors someone over Rafa as surface GOAT.

But Federer plays cute ballerina tennis instead of manly warrior type of tennis, doesn't that make him surface GOAT? :scratch:

 

[atttomole]

But Federer plays cute ballerina tennis instead of manly warrior type of tennis, doesn't that make him surface GOAT? :scratch:

You are very right. Roger has more flair, while Nadal has more brawn.

 

[Moxie]

You are very right. Roger has more flair, while Nadal has more brawn.

But isn't that really a facile version of the difference between them? Rafa has a lot of flair, and fire, and individuality. And touch. Roger has the classic style, but he has a ton of ambition and self-belief. He hasn't just won pretty. He's won ugly, too. We can make too much of the obvious dichotomies, and forget about the similarities.

 

[atttomole]

But isn't that really a facile version of the difference between them? Rafa has a lot of flair, and fire, and individuality. And touch. Roger has the classic style, but he has a ton of ambition and self-belief. He hasn't just won pretty. He's won ugly, too. We can make too much of the obvious dichotomies, and forget about the similarities.

I wasn't saying Nadal has no flair. Federer just happens to have more flair than him. Nadal frustrates opponents with his unparalleled retrieval skills and Roger tortures opponents with brilliant flicks of the racket. That is a prefect dichotomy!!

 

[Moxie]

I wasn't saying Nadal has no flair. Federer just happens to have more flair than him. Nadal frustrates opponents with his unparalleled retrieval skills and Roger tortures opponents with brilliant flicks of the racket. That is a prefect dichotomy!!

Except that Nadal isn't just retrieval skills. And what makes him so popular is a flair of a different kind, which is wildly under appreciated by Fed fans. But no matter...we're used to it. Anyway, I'm waiting for the rest of your argument for Roger as the surface GOAT, because I think that's where you're going. Give it your best shot. Why not?

 

[Carol]

You are very right. Roger has more flair, while Nadal has more brawn.

Hey, it depending the picture, I´ve seen Federer doing worst movements and positions than those pictures, come on!

 

[Moxie]

Hey, it depending the picture, I´ve seen Federer doing worst movements and positions than those pictures, come on!

I say don't play into this graceful v. brawny crap. It's a sport, and they're both great athletes.

 

[El Dude]

I will try to respond piecemeal. One problem with crowning a surface GOAT is that the surfaces themselves play differently, and it is easy to lose on one surface than the other.

Look at the longest winning streaks, for example. Rafa has 81 on clay, and Roger has 65 on grass, a difference of 16 matches. I think Rafa did that playing many more tournaments because there are more tournaments that are longer and bigger on clay than on grass. Which is better, a winning streak of 65 on grass or 81 on clay?

There really isn't a way to answer your question. Maybe roughly the same? Even if 65 on grass is better than 81 on clay, what else do you have up your sleeve? That's just one factor among many.

 

[mrzz]

While I do think Nadal is the "surface goat", I understand and agree with the thinking behind @atttomole's post. As we discussed before, it is easier to have an upset on grass. Literally one mere bad service game against a big server can cost you dearly.

Also, the fact that you have more clay tournaments not only allow the king of clay to spend more time in the surface he is more familiar with (and hence enjoy all the confidence boost it gives), but also is easier to amass a sequence of victories. You have around four times more matches on clay each year (nowadays the difference is smaller), so you really need to last much longer on grass to get a similar winning streak (therefore, in this sense, 65 > 81).

Put this all together, I still give the edge to Nadal on clay, but the difference is smaller than 11 to 8 suggests.

Where I can say there is a debate is on "peak" form. Who is "more impossible" to beat? Peak Nadal on clay or peak Federer on grass? Again, if you factor in the difference in surfaces, that is an extremely close call and I personally don't have an answer.

 

[Ricardo]

Forgive me if it's hard to tell you actually think that Rafa is a great player, given all of the denigration and the thing about you thinking it took doping to get him there. But I know where all that comes from. It also explains why you use the language of spin as in the above post. You say that Nadal is "nothing" compared to Roger off-clay, and that Djokovic is "vastly superior" off-clay. This is extreme hyperbole. 5 Majors off-clay is a HOF career, and 4 of those 5 came by beating Fed and Djoker in the finals. You should save those kinds of adjectives for most of the rest of the tour, but not for Nadal. As to beating a "corpse," esp. in 2008, again...you never have met a point that you couldn't stretch beyond credulity when it comes to excusing Roger losing to Rafa. Federer was far from a "corpse" at 26. I know you hate that he lost that match, and that most of the rest of the world considers it a great match, but he was at nearly the height of his powers at that age. Your full reason for believing he was crap is that Nadal beat him. It's circular reasoning and self-serving.

To me, if anything, Novak's historical success v. Nadal should prove the match-up issue. I do agree that Rafa eventually got under Roger's skin and into his head, but it absolutely wasn't only due to clay. For example, it was clearly in the 2009 AO final when it became clear Rafa was in Fed's head. It's the match-up problem. But I know you'll go on believing what suits you. You always have.

Where did he say Rafa beat corpse Fed in 2008? He specifically pointed out 2013-14.

 

[isabelle]

ballerina girl...

 

[Nadalfan2013]

While I do think Nadal is the "surface goat", I understand and agree with the thinking behind @atttomole's post. As we discussed before, it is easier to have an upset on grass. Literally one mere bad service game against a big server can cost you dearly.

Also, the fact that you have more clay tournaments not only allow the king of clay to spend more time in the surface he is more familiar with (and hence enjoy all the confidence boost it gives), but also is easier to amass a sequence of victories. You have around four times more matches on clay each year (nowadays the difference is smaller), so you really need to last much longer on grass to get a similar winning streak (therefore, in this sense, 65 > 81).

Put this all together, I still give the edge to Nadal on clay, but the difference is smaller than 11 to 8 suggests.

Where I can say there is a debate is on "peak" form. Who is "more impossible" to beat? Peak Nadal on clay or peak Federer on grass? Again, if you factor in the difference in surfaces, that is an extremely close call and I personally don't have an answer.

:scratch::cuckoo:

yiiikes, you are so blinded and far up his a$$, why don't you just marry him. What next, that Federer was really the first man on the moon?

 

[DarthFed]

Forgive me if it's hard to tell you actually think that Rafa is a great player, given all of the denigration and the thing about you thinking it took doping to get him there. But I know where all that comes from. It also explains why you use the language of spin as in the above post. You say that Nadal is "nothing" compared to Roger off-clay, and that Djokovic is "vastly superior" off-clay. This is extreme hyperbole. 5 Majors off-clay is a HOF career, and 4 of those 5 came by beating Fed and Djoker in the finals. You should save those kinds of adjectives for most of the rest of the tour, but not for Nadal. As to beating a "corpse," esp. in 2008, again...you never have met a point that you couldn't stretch beyond credulity when it comes to excusing Roger losing to Rafa. Federer was far from a "corpse" at 26. I know you hate that he lost that match, and that most of the rest of the world considers it a great match, but he was at nearly the height of his powers at that age. Your full reason for believing he was crap is that Nadal beat him. It's circular reasoning and self-serving.

To me, if anything, Novak's historical success v. Nadal should prove the match-up issue. I do agree that Rafa eventually got under Roger's skin and into his head, but it absolutely wasn't only due to clay. For example, it was clearly in the 2009 AO final when it became clear Rafa was in Fed's head. It's the match-up problem. But I know you'll go on believing what suits you. You always have.

This is a pointless exercise. I've acknowledged many times that Rafa is great off clay and he is probably the 2nd greatest player ever at this point. I never said Roger was a corpse in 2008, very disappointing? Yes, but still was good at majors that year, just an enormous drop from 2007 is all. 2013 was a different story, he finished behind Ferrer and Del Po despite playing a full schedule. That says it all.

Aside from that I don't think there is any debate that Rafa's resume off clay is vastly inferior to Roger and Nole. If we can't agree on that...pointless discussion.