Switching Nadal & Federer

[DarthFed]

That I think is a cheap shot. There is a sad, sick trope that Nadal plays long matches without getting tired, and by which it implies bad things. Nadal is a great athlete, and most would not deny that. To imply anything else is sour grapes.

To imply Nadal has had bad luck when he's had an incredibly long career given his playing style is sour grapes. To assume he'd have won something like 4 out of the 6 non-clay majors he's missed is sour grapes and shows a crazy grasp of reality. Of course a certain clown wants to award him 10 more majors even though he's missed 6 since his first major in 2005. Maybe he's counting ones before Nadal joined the tour. Par for the course for Waffy fans

 

[Moxie]

Exactly. Nadal trains 10 times more than Federer, countless of hours in practice and at the gym. If Federer put as much effort and hard work on his fitness then he also would do better in long matches. Heck if you look at both, Nadal looks like an athlete and Federer looks like an accountant. It's normal that Nadal can play as physical as he does because he works a lot on his strength and the physical side, while if there's anything fishy or weird it's how Federer and Djokovic can look so skinny and yet be so strong.

LOL on bolded.

 

[Moxie]

To imply Nadal has had bad luck when he's had an incredibly long career given his playing style is sour grapes. To assume he'd have won something like 4 out of the 6 non-clay majors he's missed is sour grapes and shows a crazy grasp of reality. Of course a certain clown wants to award him 10 more majors even though he's missed 6 since his first major in 2005. Maybe he's counting ones before Nadal joined the tour. Par for the course for Waffy fans

You miss the point. @atttomole was implying that Roger had no stamina for long matches. That was my only point, and as to how his was suspicious.

 

[atttomole]

That I think is a cheap shot. There is a sad, sick trope that Nadal plays long matches without getting tired, and by which it implies bad things. Nadal is a great athlete, and most would not deny that. To imply anything else is sour grapes.

My statements about Nadal's stamina are not meant to be insinuations. His ability to play long matches is probably his biggest strength. The problem is that some Nadal fans are saying Federer is luckier than Nadal because he has had less injuries. However, I feel that Nadal is actually lucky that he can play the way he does, and still get fewer injuries than would be expected.

 

[atttomole]

You miss the point. @atttomole was implying that Roger had no stamina for long matches. That was my only point, and as to how his was suspicious.

Federer has some stamina because he is an athlete. However, I don't think he can sustain long, grueling matches as much as Nadal, and yet Nadal fans think Federer is luckier with injuries.

 

[Moxie]

My statements about Nadal's stamina are not meant to be insinuations. His ability to play long matches is probably his biggest strength. The problem is that some Nadal fans are saying that he is luckier than Federer because he is more injury prone. However, I feel that he is actually lucky that he can play the way he does and still get fewer injuries than would be expected.

I'm sure you mean "less lucky than Federer." In any case, I would surely say his strengths are more likely his forehand, his running shots and his net play. Then, after that, I would say his ability to out-last his opponents, and out-strategize them. I think that those who are not fans of Nadal tend to think that all he really does well is run a lot. That is a major understatement of his talents. If his ability to "play long" was his best strength, I'm sure he wouldn't have won 17 Majors and all the MS1000s that he has. Lots of players have good stamina.

 

[Moxie]

Federer has some stamina because he is an athlete. However, I don't think he can sustain long, grueling matches as much as Nadal, and yet Nadal fans think Federer is luckier with injuries.

Who won the '17 AO in 5?

 

[Carol]

What about Wimbledon 2008 and according his fans Roger played those 5 sets with 'mono'? he could sustain long and it wasn't the only match that he played 5 sets that year, even before and after

 

[atttomole]

I'm sure you mean "less lucky than Federer." In any case, I would surely say his strengths are more likely his forehand, his running shots and his net play. Then, after that, I would say his ability to out-last his opponents, and out-strategize them. I think that those who are not fans of Nadal tend to think that all he really does well is run a lot. That is a major understatement of his talents. If his ability to "play long" was his best strength, I'm sure he wouldn't have won 17 Majors and all the MS1000s that he has. Lots of players have good stamina.

You are right, I meant to say less lucky than Federer.

 

[monfed]

Yes but I was banned from MTF a long time ago by Fed fans, so if someone is still posting under that same username it’s a fake one. My popularity was responsible for many other nadalfanxxxx members to join. B-)

I'm one infraction away from getting permabanned so I can relate but it's by a Nadaltard mod.

 

[atttomole]

Who won the '17 AO in 5?

The AO has been sped up, so, you know what that means.

 

[Moxie]

The AO has been sped up, so you know what that means.

OMG, are you really going to just rest on that? Even if the surface at the AO has changed? You are a reasonable poster. And I don't think you've made any claims about why Nadal won Wimbledon '08. But you think that Roger, at 35, won AO '17, in 5, because the surface changed? I think you really have to do better than that. We're talking about stamina, too. They both played some 5-setters to get there.

 

[atttomole]

OMG, are you really going to just rest on that? Even if the surface at the AO has changed? You are a reasonable poster. And I don't think you've made any claims about why Nadal won Wimbledon '08. But you think that Roger, at 35, won AO '17, in 5, because the surface changed? I think you really have to do better than that. We're talking about stamina, too. They both played some 5-setters to get there.

Remember there are other things as well, in addition to the playing conditions being faster. Roger was serving and returning well at that AO. If you look at Roger's 5 setters, they were not as long and as bruising as you may want to think.

 

[Moxie]

Remember there are other things as well, in addition to the playing conditions being faster. Roger was serving and returning well at that AO. If you look at Roger's 5 setters, they were not as long and as bruising as you may want to think.

A 5-setter is a long and psychological battle, any way you slice it, especially against a main rival. I'm not sure what your point is, that he has suffered them less. Surely the 2 x 5-setters he played v. Nadal at Wimbledon were hard-fought. And the USO ones v. Djokovic and del Potro. Not to mention the Rome and MC ones. Or Safin AO SF '05? And I don't think the AO '17 one was easy. Which ones did you have in mind that were less than long and bruising?

 

[atttomole]

A 5-setter is a long and psychological battle, any way you slice it, especially against a main rival. I'm not sure what your point is, that he has suffered them less. Which ones did you have in mind?

If you are talking about the final alone, that match was not that physical. Roger was hitting his shots with great great precision, and you noticed that he avoided long rallies whenever he could. Roger plays attacking tennis, and even on slower surfaces he has been trying to shorten the points. Like you said, it was more of a psychological battle, and Nadal was hoping for the customary Roger meltdown, which did not materialize. Roger also played 5 setters vs Nishikori and Wawrinka and they were not that physical either.

 

[Moxie]

If you are talking about the final alone, that match was not that physical. Roger was hitting his shots with great great precision, and you noticed that he avoided long rallies whenever he could. Roger plays attacking tennis, and even on slower surfaces he has been trying to shorten the points. Like you said, it was more of a psychological battle, and Nadal was hoping for the customary Roger meltdown, which did not materialize. Roger also played 5 setters vs Nishikori and Wawrinka and they were not that physical either.

Funny to diminish the Stan and Kei matches, because others have cited that that's why Roger had a difficult path to the AO final. In any case: 6-7(4), 6-4, 6-1,4-6, 6-3 v. Nishikori and 7-5, 6-3, 1-6, 4-6, 6-3 v. Stan. I'm not really sure what your point is about these not being especially physical matches. They went 5. And I thought we'd established that Roger isn't that good at 5 set matches. Nadal wasn't hoping for a Roger melt-down in the AO final. He was pretty tired through most of it, not having the benefit of the extra day's rest. He did have the advantage in the 5th, however, and couldn't capitalize. It was Roger who was fresher at the end of that match. That was unusual between them. And it wasn't like Roger hadn't spent some real hours on court. I think, given that they were both past the Rubicon as to age, it made a difference that Rafa had one less day of rest.

 

[GSMSampras]

If Federer had Nadals endless stamina he would never lose a match.

In fact give Sampras rafitos stamina and he wins 1996 channel slam

 

[Michael;Kiwi]

Injuries are an extremely unfortunate part of sport. I feel sick for Del Potro and sad for Nadal. However, I don't think any trophies can be handed out. Some people have better physical bodies for playing tennis naturally. Some people are more injury prone. Both are complete luck. Nadal is unlucky with injuries, but blessed with a body that can outlast others. @Moxie those five setters for Federer were not especially physical. The Stan one I think was under 3 hours, which is amazing compared to Nadal's five hour one over Dimitrov.

 

[Jelenafan]

No one ever says that Roger was injured playing Nadal at Wimbledon '08. They just tell us that he had mono, and he'd been losing ground since '07 and blah blah blah. He just played like crap, according to fans. No excuses. Except, well, excuses.

I do agree that most athletes hurt a good bit of the time. It's a question of how much.

In my book, that is as well as saying Federer played injured. The implication clearly being he couldn’t play at his best; ie was impaired.

Ditto the excuses per he had a “ mental block” playing Nadal. Well the mental aspect is as much of the game as strokes and stamina..

 

[Jelenafan]

I'm one infraction away from getting permabanned so I can relate but it's by a Nadaltard mod.

One can only hope and pray....