Roger Federer : Can You Predict His Future

[brokenshoelace]

Why would you think Nole can take out Rafa at RG?

Five setter played this year in which Novak led in the fifth suggests he "can," yes. Stating otherwise is a bit delusional.

Delusional? You sure? I tend to think that giving a guy a win he didn't get is actually delusional...

Except that say he "can" beat Nadal is far from "giving" him the win. It's just acknowledging that he is capable of beating him. Unless you're one of those "I'll believe it when I see it" and "you can't do it until you actually do" kind of people. And hey, there's nothing wrong with it, but it didn't work out too well for those who used that logic regarding Murray never winning a major.

Djokovic has beaten Nadal on clay, and flat out outplayed him before. He also gave him all he can handle at this year's RG. Nadal WILL lose again at RG. That much is a near given. Unless you expect him to keep winning until he retires. And yeah, Djokovic is the most well-equipped player to beat him. This, he "can" do it. Doesn't mean I'm giving him the win, or predicting it will happen next year for that matter.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Either way, it's ridiculous to say it's delusional to think that the greatest clay court player would never lose against a guy he's beaten 5 times out of 5 in Paris....

Not, but it's delusional to think that a guy who handed him his ass on more than one occasion, on every surface no less, CANNOT beat him.

 

[Kieran]

Fed almost beat Novak in 2 US opens with 2 mps in the 5th in that case Unless you do it, it doesn't count. I was merely backing up Broken's post that of course Novak has shown he can win at RG against Nadal. Whether he will remains to be seen.

But he hasn't shown he can win against Nadal in Paris, that's the point: a defeat isn't proof you can win. It's just more weighty evidence that you lose against the guy.

And Federer has shown he can beat Novak - at all four slams...

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

By the way, not sure why your post isn't visible. I edited it for the purpose of my reply but the full post is here:

A lot can change between now and May/June so we'll see. Novak's been poor in all the big moments this year in slam finals and has surely got a point to prove to try and redeem himself next year. The 3rd set at the US Open was the final nail in the coffin for him and I hope he wakes from his slumber. I'd love to have seen what would have entailed had he won that set but we'll never know. There are many examples of players with time off coming back and playing well. Look at Clijsters. And he almost won in 4 doesn't count. Fed almost beat Novak in 2 US opens with 2 mps in the 5th in that case Unless you do it, it doesn't count. I was merely backing up Broken's post that of course Novak has shown he can win at RG against Nadal. Whether he will remains to be seen.

 

[Kieran]

Except that say he "can" beat Nadal is far from "giving" him the win. It's just acknowledging that he is capable of beating him. Unless you're one of those "I'll believe it when I see it" and "you can't do it until you actually do" kind of people. And hey, there's nothing wrong with it, but it didn't work out too well for those who used that logic regarding Murray never winning a major.

Djokovic has beaten Nadal on clay, and flat out outplayed him before. He also gave him all he can handle at this year's RG. Nadal WILL lose again at RG. That much is a near given. Unless you expect him to keep winning until he retires. And yeah, Djokovic is the most well-equipped player to beat him. This, he "can" do it. Doesn't mean I'm giving him the win, or predicting it will happen next year for that matter.

And yet, it's "delusional" to say that he can't win in a place he's lost five out of five? You sure about that word delusional, because it sounds a bit expansive and lazy to me?

Fact is, Paris isn't Madrid, any more than Flushing Meadows is Cinci or Halle is Wimbledon. I am one of those who defer judgment on a player until they actually get it done (which doesn't mean I ever said Murray would never win a slam). But it's silly to claim a player can do something, when the evidence doesn't back it up. And victories in smaller tourneys are not evidence that a player can bring that to a slam, even Nole. In fact, the weight of evidence is against it.

Rafa may well lose again at Paris, if he plays long enough, but Nole is much more likely to lose. And if he faces Nadal, the "more likely" becomes something more certain...

 

[Kieran]

Either way, it's ridiculous to say it's delusional to think that the greatest clay court player would never lose against a guy he's beaten 5 times out of 5 in Paris....

Not, but it's delusional to think that a guy who handed him his ass on more than one occasion, on every surface no less, CANNOT beat him.

This is irrelevant. He hasn't handed him his ass in Paris. In fact, the opposite is what usually happens. It's a slightly higher level to Madrid and Rome, and read the memo: 2011 has been and gone...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I think the wins Nadal had over Djokovic at Montreal and US Open will give Nadal major confidence for next time they meet on clay. And likewise it won't help Djokovic mentally to know Nadal improved so much since 2013 Roland Garros that he then became superior to Djokovic on hardcourts. And especially if Nadal beats Djokovic at the Australian Open (which I think is a good possibility, considering how close the 2012 AO final was).

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Why would you think Nole can take out Rafa at RG?

Brother, there are multiple answers to that question, but in a nutshell, Nole has proven himself on clay and on a good day, he can beat anyone, even Rafa, which he has on more than one occasion. Rafa has to lose at some point , no?

Also, I don't quite get the concept of something not being possible until it is done. If I say "Nadal can beat Rosol" you are not going to buy it because it has never been done?

 

[Kieran]

Why would you think Nole can take out Rafa at RG?

Brother, there are multiple answers to that question, but in a nutshell, Nole has proven himself on clay and on a good day, he can beat anyone, even Rafa, which he has on more than one occasion. Rafa has to lose at some point , no?

I don't mind people thinking like that, my friend, but the idea that to disbelieve it is "delusional" is both lazy and unintelligible. I'm sure the word was used carelessly. But the fact is, Rafa has lost at RG, in 2009. And I think it'll take another 2009 for Novak to get his hands on that trophy.

If he faces Rafa, I don't see him winning. What happens elsewhere isn't an indicator for Paris. We know this because Roger has also beaten Rafa on clay - bageled him! - and has never gotten close to winning against him in Paris. This year was Nole's best shot, imho...

 

[Mog]

Why waste time with this troll? Don't feed the beast.

Exactly.
I was wondering too why we respond to such posts.

 

[ClayDeath]

time has come indeed to skip RG.

Why are you obsessed with players needing to skip slams? Of all the tournaments Roger can skip, you choose Roland Garros? Makes zero sense, and I don't understand why many here always feel the need for drastic measures.

ask the guy who proposed it just above in one of the posts.


I am just agreeing with him. it might be a good idea given his back issues and the fact Wimbledon offers him his best chance to do well at a slam. he could just rest up and spend a little extra time on grass.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Either way, it's ridiculous to say it's delusional to think that the greatest clay court player would never lose against a guy he's beaten 5 times out of 5 in Paris....

Not, but it's delusional to think that a guy who handed him his ass on more than one occasion, on every surface no less, CANNOT beat him.

This is irrelevant. He hasn't handed him his ass in Paris. In fact, the opposite is what usually happens. It's a slightly higher level to Madrid and Rome, and read the memo: 2011 has been and gone...

This, as well as your above post, essentially suggest that you can't do something until you actually do it. If after the 2007 Wimbledon final, someone said Nadal can't beat Federer at Wimbledon, and someone took umbrage with it, would they have been right?

Being able to do something and doing it are two different things. Novak CAN beat Nadal in Paris. He's done it everywhere else and he's done it on clay, including Monte Carlo, where Nadal was even more invincible than he was in Paris. So yeah, while he wouldn't be favored if he is to play Nadal at Roland Garros, and it's certainly an uphill battle, all evidence suggests that he CAN do it. He's beaten him at all other 3 slams, and 3 clay masters. This is indication that he CAN do it. Denying it based on the fact that he hasn't done it yet is backwards logic. Because "can do it" and "has done it" are two different issues. Your argument backs up the latter, not the former.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If he faces Rafa, I don't see him winning.

Sure, but that still doesn't mean that he "can't" do it. So flat out disregarding the possibility of Novak doing it, is at the very least, misguided (since you took so much umbrage with that other term, and are ignoring the bigger picture due to a technicality).

 

[brokenshoelace]

time has come indeed to skip RG.

Why are you obsessed with players needing to skip slams? Of all the tournaments Roger can skip, you choose Roland Garros? Makes zero sense, and I don't understand why many here always feel the need for drastic measures.

ask the guy who proposed it just above in one of the posts.


I am just agreeing with him. it might be a good idea given his back issues and the fact Wimbledon offers him his best chance to do well at a slam. he could just rest up and spend a little extra time on grass.

I'm asking you.

 

[Kieran]

This, as well as your above post, essentially suggest that you can't do something until you actually do it. If after the 2007 Wimbledon final, someone said Nadal can't beat Federer at Wimbledon, and someone took umbrage with it, would they have been right?

Being able to do something and doing it are two different things. Novak CAN beat Nadal in Paris. He's done it everywhere else and he's done it on clay, including Monte Carlo, where Nadal was even more invincible than he was in Paris. So yeah, while he wouldn't be favored if he is to play Nadal at Roland Garros, and it's certainly an uphill battle, all evidence suggests that he CAN do it. He's beaten him at all other 3 slams, and 3 clay masters. This is indication that he CAN do it. Denying it based on the fact that he hasn't done it yet is backwards logic. Because "can do it" and "has done it" are two different issues. Your argument backs up the latter, not the former.

No, this is wrong thinking. Beating Rafa at RG is the hardest ask in tennis. Novak has taken five swipes at it - and not done it. Winning in MC, Madrid or Rome against Rafa ISN'T an indication that he CAN win in Paris. It never has been, and so can't be used as proof.

Now, I don't mind people thinking he can, because of course we won't know until he loses against him again (or even beats him) but I do mind lazy terminology, and saying it's "delusional" to think that Novak can't beat Rafa in Paris is silly. Is it equally delusional to think that Roger can't beat Rafa in Paris? He reached the final in 2011 with a much greater pedigree than Novak, and faced a waaaay below confidence Rafa...

 

[Kieran]

If he faces Rafa, I don't see him winning.

Sure, but that still doesn't mean that he "can't" do it. So flat out disregarding the possibility of Novak doing it, is at the very least, misguided (since you took so much umbrage with that other term, and are ignoring the bigger picture due to a technicality).

Not ignoring any bigger picture - I just honed in on the details, that's all...

 

[Front242]

Fed almost beat Novak in 2 US opens with 2 mps in the 5th in that case Unless you do it, it doesn't count. I was merely backing up Broken's post that of course Novak has shown he can win at RG against Nadal. Whether he will remains to be seen.

But he hasn't shown he can win against Nadal in Paris, that's the point: a defeat isn't proof you can win. It's just more weighty evidence that you lose against the guy.

And Federer has shown he can beat Novak - at all four slams...

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

By the way, not sure why your post isn't visible. I edited it for the purpose of my reply but the full post is here:

A lot can change between now and May/June so we'll see. Novak's been poor in all the big moments this year in slam finals and has surely got a point to prove to try and redeem himself next year. The 3rd set at the US Open was the final nail in the coffin for him and I hope he wakes from his slumber. I'd love to have seen what would have entailed had he won that set but we'll never know. There are many examples of players with time off coming back and playing well. Look at Clijsters. And he almost won in 4 doesn't count. Fed almost beat Novak in 2 US opens with 2 mps in the 5th in that case Unless you do it, it doesn't count. I was merely backing up Broken's post that of course Novak has shown he can win at RG against Nadal. Whether he will remains to be seen.

Yeah, noticed that earlier and thanks for posting the reply of my post. My break had just finished at work and I noticed it didn't display. Anyway on the subject of saying Novak can win, he was in pole position serving up 4-2 in the 5th and then the net screwed him or he screwed the net (oo-er) and after that it was game over. But surely getting ahead in the 5th set by a break proves beyond doubt he has what it takes to win there. As I said, whether he does or not is another issue but had he held for 5-2 this year we may be reading a different story.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

this 'technicality' being that djokovic is a serial loser to nadal at the French open..

..but..'theoretically' he could beat rafa/wafa there..unless djokovic defeats rafa/wafa at Rg it remains theoretical. *enough of these semantic tango's, I'm outtahere*

 

[Jelenafan]

Nole has beaten Rafa in all three clay court masters and extended him to 9-7 in fifth at Roland Garos. At this point nobody would be shocked if he beat Rafa at the French Open. Sampras and Roger both lost at Wimbledon on grass several times even near their peak. I think it's extremely difficult to beat Rafa at Roland Garos but not impossible, just ask Soderling.

 

[Jelenafan]

Anyway on the subject of saying Novak can win, he was in pole position serving up 4-2 in the 5th and then the net screwed him or he screwed the net (oo-er) and after that it was game over. But surely getting ahead in the 5th set by a break proves beyond doubt he has what it takes to win there. As I said, whether he does or not is another issue but had he held for 5-2 this year we may be reading a different story.

Ironically it reminds me of the 2012 AO when Rafa had a break and blew the easy BH volley that would have given him a 40-15 lead serving at 4-2, instead he went on to be broken and lost 5-7 in that fifth set.

At the time that was the 3rd consecutive Major final he had lost to Nole and the 7th straight match and people were saying that it proved he couldn't get over the hump. Rafa has said that coming so close proved to him he could stay toe to to with Nole and win against him.

If Nole and Rafa get into a another French Open final we'll find out if Nole learned something from the last match there. Either way, I think it's more then "theoretical" he could win there, even if less than probable, it's a tennis match and every tennis match has it's own special dynamics and circumstances.

 

[masterclass]

Hey people, can the posters/mods please keep this thread on topic?

It has been diverted to a Nadal - Djokovic discussion.

Thanks!

Respectfully,
masterclass