Nadalites – Rafa Nadal Talk

[Nadalfan2013]

The pathetic performance Federer put on at RG was the reason for that loss and he didn't even start playing properly for 2.5 sets at Wimbledon. I guess 52 unforced errors is evidence he played well too.

Lol even in 2007 Wimbledon when Federer was in his absolute prime and Nadal still building his game outside of clay, it went 5 sets. Stop making excuses. :cuckoo:

 

[Front242]

Lol even in 2007 Wimbledon when Federer was in his absolute prime and Nadal still building his game outside of clay, it went 5 sets. Stop making excuses. :cuckoo:

What excuses? These are facts. He clearly made 52 unforced errors and did not play properly for 2.5 sets. He was up 4-1 in set 2 and still lost the damn set. Plenty of matches in history went 5 sets, that means nothing unless you win. Btw, it was a 6-2 final set in 2007.

You speak of 5 sets as if it's a big deal but fail to realize Nadal has had plenty of 5 set losses against complete donkeys as well as straight sets blowouts at Wimbledon.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

What excuses? These are facts. He clearly made 52 unforced errors and did not play properly for 2.5 sets. He was up 4-1 in set 2 and still lost the damn set. Plenty of matches in history went 5 sets, that means nothing unless you win. Btw, it was a 6-2 final set in 2007.

You speak of 5 sets as if it's a big deal but fail to realize Nadal has had plenty of 5 set losses against complete donkeys as well as straight sets blowouts at Wimbledon.

Always excuses. You should get over it and smarten up a little bit, but if Federer fans can't even acknowledge that Nadal is at a whole different level on clay than Federer is on grass, then there's really zero hope for you to be smart about anything. lol Have a nice day and happy holidays to everyone!

 

[DarthFed]

Rafa has less slams despite being in a paradise where the vast majority of courts have been slowed down so he can maximize his ugly game of attrition.

Back in the day people were actually awarded for playing aggressive tennis. Imagine that. We all know Nadal wouldn't have won anything at Wimbledon if it actually resembled a real grass court. We all know he'd have struggled to win anything on fast, quick bouncing hard courts which are practically extinct now. We all know he is pure trash on indoor hard courts since the ball doesn't bounce so high for peasant boy. Nads and Djokovic have had the carpet rolled out for them, the game was still mostly quick when Federer was an upcoming talent.

 

[DarthFed]

Lol even in 2007 Wimbledon when Federer was in his absolute prime and Nadal still building his game outside of clay, it went 5 sets. Stop making excuses. :cuckoo:

No one is making an excuse for the inexcusable 2008 debacle. Roger failed to do what many journeyman did so effortlessly. Wouldn't take a high level to win that day.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Rafa has less slams despite being in a paradise where the vast majority of courts have been slowed down so he can maximize his ugly game of attrition.

Back in the day people were actually awarded for playing aggressive tennis. Imagine that. We all know Nadal wouldn't have won anything at Wimbledon if it actually resembled a real grass court. We all know he'd have struggled to win anything on fast, quick bouncing hard courts which are practically extinct now. We all know he is pure trash on indoor hard courts since the ball doesn't bounce so high for peasant boy. Nads and Djokovic have had the carpet rolled out for them, the game was still mostly quick when Federer was an upcoming talent.

I second that. It's worth adding the equipment changes (stronger racquets with more powerful bounce) together with high bouncing surface, tend to reward the strategy standing deep in the court and delivering a passing shot past a tiring or attacking opponent: a strategy that perfectly suits Nadal's style. Look what happened to serve and volley tactic. It's virtually non-existent now. Fed used it often as young. then he had to adjust to the new conditions (and even to change his racket later on), complaining in the process that SV tactic is disappearing. Meanwhile Nad still practices essentially the same tactic of standing and returning deep: he does not need to change anything to rip the benefits (titles). I'm sure in an era of different courts and equipment that favoured SV, Nad would not have been as successful with his style as he is today.

 

[atttomole]

In my opinion, the arguments above made by some posters suggest why crowning a surface GOAT is not as easy as it looks.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

In my opinion, the arguments above made by some posters suggest why crowning a surface GOAT is not as easy as it looks.

A surface GOAT case for Nadal is 100 times easier to make than an overall GOAT case for Federer, yet that doesn’t stop you guys doesn’t it?

 

[atttomole]

A surface GOAT case for Nadal is 100 times easier to make than an overall GOAT case for Federer, yet that doesn’t stop you guys doesn’t it?

This shows that you have not been following the more recent posts on this thread.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

This shows that you have not been following the more recent posts on this thread.

I have. This board really needs a dislike button.

 

[atttomole]

I have. This board really needs a dislike button.

Who do you want to dislike?

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Who do you want to dislike?

For whomever Nadalfan2013 dislikes, we'll find 10 people who dislike him for his trolling posts consisting of his passionate but fact-free wishes or even worship that Nadal be the greatest human being (not just player) ever. So a "dislike button" would downgrade more him than anyone of us. Even serious Nadal fans such as Moxie, already expressed their dislike of some of Nadalfan2013's posts.

 

[mrzz]

Many Rafa fans are criminally overrating Federer's serve. They are acting like he's Isner out there. I've always felt it gets a bit overrated with some overrating it to an enormous degree. If his serve was all that he wouldn't have lost a ton on grass.

There is a reason for that. Usually people who don't pay that much attention about actual tennis are the ones who "overrate" Federer's serve. Between quotes as occasionally Federer's serve actually becomes untouchable.

What these people don't get is this: While there are a few very tall big servers out there who basically just hit as hard as they can (and given their size and strength this is effective), the serve, for the rest of the universe, is a very technical and difficult shot to master, specially if you want to explore all its possibilities, like Federer does.

There are at least three different techniques, the flat, the slice and the top spin serve. Federer is very good at them all, but it takes a lot of training and a lot of talent to use all that effectively in the course of one match, specially if you also vary speed an placement. Most players basically chose between an wide or down the middle flat first serve and revert to a generic top spin second serve. Federer always serve close to the lines, varying technique, speed and placement at will. This is EXTREMELY hard and it is the exact opposite of a servebot.

In other words, one thing is to repeat always the same thing, other is to vary between countless possibilities.

But to be able to realize that one needs to actually watch the game and not just masturbate at the sight of a particular player.

 

[Horsa]

There is a reason for that. Usually people who don't pay that much attention about tennis are the ones who "overrate" Federer's serve. Between quotes as occasionally Federer's serve actually becomes untouchable.

What these people don't get is this: While there are a few very tall big servers out there who basically just hit as hard as they can (and given their size and strength this is effective), the serve, for the rest of the universe, is a very technical and difficult shot to master, specially if you want to explore all its possibilities, like Federer does.

There are at least three different techniques, the flat, the slice and the top spin serve. Federer is very good at them all, but it takes a lot of training and a lot of talent to use all that effectively in the course of one match, specially if you also vary speed an placement. Most players basically chose between an wide or down the middle flat first serve and revert to a generic top spin second serve. Federer always serve close to the lines, varying technique, speed and placement at will. This is EXTREMELY hard and it is the exact opposite of a servebot.

In other words, one thing is to repeat always the same thing, other is vary between countless possibilities.

But to be able to realize that one needs to actually watch the game and not just masturbate at the sight of a particular player.

Excuse me, please! When I learnt to play tennis I actually found the serve the easiest shot to learn & play. I found it a lot easier than the return shots.

 

[Moxie]

@mrzz: I don't agree that the greatest of the tall guys with the big serves just hit hard and pray. When your serve is your big weapon, I'm sure you learn to use it really well. I'm fairly certain that Nadalfan2013 calls Roger a "servebot" in response to some Fed fans who speak of Nadal's game in very disparaging and uni-dimensional terms.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Can’t wait!!!

 

[Moxie]

What excuses? These are facts. He clearly made 52 unforced errors and did not play properly for 2.5 sets. He was up 4-1 in set 2 and still lost the damn set. Plenty of matches in history went 5 sets, that means nothing unless you win. Btw, it was a 6-2 final set in 2007.

You speak of 5 sets as if it's a big deal but fail to realize Nadal has had plenty of 5 set losses against complete donkeys as well as straight sets blowouts at Wimbledon.

5 sets does mean something, and Rafa took Roger to 5 in 2 finals, then beat him in one. You are making excuses, let's face it. We all know that UFEs are also forced errors. It's a bit of BS to say that Roger didn't play "properly" for 2.5 sets. Well, who's fault is that? And "properly?" You mean it chaps you that he didn't play better, and Nadal did. You people have to get over Rafa beating Roger at Wimbledon. He was close the year before, and he got the job done in a year when Rafa was ascending and Roger didn't have the answers.

 

[Moxie]

Rafa has less slams despite being in a paradise where the vast majority of courts have been slowed down so he can maximize his ugly game of attrition.

Back in the day people were actually awarded for playing aggressive tennis. Imagine that. We all know Nadal wouldn't have won anything at Wimbledon if it actually resembled a real grass court. We all know he'd have struggled to win anything on fast, quick bouncing hard courts which are practically extinct now. We all know he is pure trash on indoor hard courts since the ball doesn't bounce so high for peasant boy. Nads and Djokovic have had the carpet rolled out for them, the game was still mostly quick when Federer was an upcoming talent.

They play in the time they play. If Roger were such an overwhelming talent, he'd adapt. And he has, let's be honest. A lot of the changes happened before the sweet spot of his career, anyway. You complain that he didn't play in an era that he didn't even play in. Roger is plenty good, and has won a lot. He plays on the same surfaces that everyone else does, and has most of his career. You can't moan that tennis changed, or he'd have done better. They play under the same conditions.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

5 sets does mean something, and Rafa took Roger to 5 in 2 finals, then beat him in one. You are making excuses, let's face it. We all know that UFEs are also forced errors. It's a bit of BS to say that Roger didn't play "properly" for 2.5 sets. Well, who's fault is that? And "properly?" You mean it chaps you that he didn't play better, and Nadal did. You people have to get over Rafa beating Roger at Wimbledon. He was close the year before, and he got the job done in a year when Rafa was ascending and Roger didn't have the answers.

1. Saying UFEs are also forced errors is like saying black is white. They keep track of winners and unforced errors explicitly. You can find
out the forced errors of Roger by subtracting from the total points won by Ralph the sum of winners by Ralph and UFE by Roger.

2. Yes, Roger did play poorly. Having said that, it is his own fault that he played poorly. I don't think any Feddies claim otherwise.

 

[Moxie]

1. Saying UFEs are also forced errors is like saying black is white. They keep track of winners and unforced errors explicitly. You can find
out the forced errors of Roger by subtracting from the total points won by Ralph the sum of winners by Ralph and UFE by Roger.

2. Yes, Roger did play poorly. Having said that, it is his own fault that he played poorly. I don't think any Feddies claim otherwise.

1. I think everyone knows that forced and unforced errors aren't tracked that carefully and are subjective. There is a huge argument in general about "forced errors."

2. It is only the assessment of the Federer fans that Roger played poorly. The consensus in general is that it was a stellar match because both played outstandingly well, overall. I and many have said that Roger started slowly, but he did not play poorly in that match. He just lost it. It was close. He played very well. Folks need to get over that one.