The chase for # of slams and weeks at no.1

[Front242]

Rafa should have won in straight sets..and you know this Front..

Federer should have won the AO 2017 in straight sets too and you know it and yet he didn't. Can't change history unfortunately.

 

[Front242]

Hell No..Rafa defeated him 3 weeks earlier 6-3 6-0 in Montreal..That wasn't happenstance. Medvedev had been a beast all summer and only wacky Nicky outclassed him in DC..
Again you think all of Rafa's victories are due to Happenstance..Give it a rest.and give Nadal's game credit.
Nuff Said..

Different court, different match. You think Medvedev hasn't improved? He most certainly has. Nadal beat Soderling 6-1 6-0 in Rome 2009. Didn't turn out too well for him a mere few weeks later at RG which kinda debunks the whole ah but he beat him easily a few weeks ago notion.

If sport was that predictable there wouldn't be any bookies.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Different court, different match. You think Medvedev hasn't improved? He most certainly has. Nadal beat Soderling 6-1 6-0 in Rome 2009. Didn't turn out too well for him a mere few weeks later at RG which kinda debunks the whole ah but he beat him easily a few weeks ago notion.

If sport was that predictable there wouldn't be any bookies.

You got a point..regardless of what was the underlying reason Rafa loss that match.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Federer should have won the AO 2017 in straight sets too and you know it and yet he didn't. Can't change history unfortunately.

True Roger outplayed Rafa the beginning of the match. I thought Rafa had control of the match until midway of the 5th set..no need for revisionist history.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Different court, different match. You think Medvedev hasn't improved? He most certainly has. Nadal beat Soderling 6-1 6-0 in Rome 2009. Didn't turn out too well for him a mere few weeks later at RG which kinda debunks the whole ah but he beat him easily a few weeks ago notion.

If sport was that predictable there wouldn't be any bookies.

More proof that Nadal was injured at RG 2009.

 

[Fiero425]

More proof that Nadal was injured at RG 2009.

You're kidding? This is still a theme w/ some I guess! "If not for an injury, Nadal would be ….!" :cuckoo: :suicide:

 

[Nadalfan2013]

You're kidding? This is still a theme w/ some I guess! "If not for an injury, Nadal would be ….!" :cuckoo: :suicide:

The fact that he also had to withdraw from Wimbledon where he was defending champion wasn’t proof enough for some of you guys. Well this is yet another proof.

 

[Moxie]

You're kidding? This is still a theme w/ some I guess! "If not for an injury, Nadal would be ….!"

It's not the answer to all of his losses, but it's rather hilarious that some people still find it unbelievable that he was carrying injury in that 2009 RG match. There is a lot more to argue for it than against it. Everyone agrees that Soderling played a great match that day. No doubt about it, but Nadal-detractors can't seem to accept that injury could have played a part.

As the years go by, the very fact that the best haven't been able to beat him at RG should be one indicator. He's like 118-2 in Bo5 on clay. Djokovic couldn't beat him until his worst year, (2015,) and yet Soderling was able to do it when Rafa was 22. Even when Rafa had crushed Soderling 1 and love just a few weeks prior. Even though Nadal had been carrying knee tendinitis for some time, and even though he had to withdraw from Wimbledon, which he was defending, and take 2+ months off after that match.

The best is that Djokovic fans have no problem accepting when he withdraws due to injury, and comes straight back to win tournaments. (Cincy '11/USO '11, as an example.) And Federer fans have no problem insisting that he lost due to injury, even without withdrawing, but fair excuse, (USO '17 and '19, and Canada '17 come to mind.) However, if Rafa loses (RG '09) or withdraws due to injury (USO '18 has been brought up recently,) it's all just made up BS. If folks don't see that as wildly contradictory, I don't know what.

PS: And if one more person tells me that "yes, but Rafa was running around like the energizer bunny in that RG match," I will come through my computer at them. Playing through pain means nothing, apparently, unless it's Roger.

 

[Fiero425]

The fact that he also had to withdraw from Wimbledon where he was defending champion wasn’t proof enough for some of you guys. Well this is yet another proof.

But who really cares? I don't understand! Why should Rafa or you care what we think? You're hilarious; going to the mat over this BS! o_O

 

[Moxie]

But who really cares? I don't understand! Why should Rafa or you care what we think? You're hilarious; going to the mat over this BS! o_O

Surely Rafa doesn't care what we think. But the whole reason we're here is to debate it all. I'm guessing why you're rolling over is that you have no defense of as to the notion that Rafa may have been injured in RG that year.

 

[Andy22]

thinking about how unlucky nadal been at AO he's owed at least one title where, we know nadal going to win RG next year, but also feeling us open Wimbledon gold metal titles as well. if nadal ends year end number one that would be huge wtf sucks always has.

 

[Moxie]

thinking about how unlucky nadal been at AO he's owed at least one title where, we know nadal going to win RG next year, but also feeling us open Wimbledon gold metal titles as well. if nadal ends year end number one that would be huge wtf sucks always has.

If only being "owed" one meant anything.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

thinking about how unlucky nadal been at AO he's owed at least one title where, we know nadal going to win RG next year, but also feeling us open Wimbledon gold metal titles as well. if nadal ends year end number one that would be huge wtf sucks always has.

I think this year, Ralph may perform well in WTF. He is refreshed physically as he did not play much after USO and he is probably refreshed mentally due to "marriage boost". But, whether all of it will translate to a title is a different issue. But, I think he will definitely reach the semis at least this year.

 

[Moxie]

I think this year, Ralph may perform well in WTF. He is refreshed physically as he did not play much after USO and he is probably refreshed mentally due to "marriage boost". But, whether all of it will translate to a title is a different issue. But, I think he will definitely reach the semis at least this year.

I keep thinking "this" is the year that Nadal gets the WTF. Maybe this one is it, as things are lining up as best they can.

 

[rafanoy1992]

While I think he will do well in the World Tour Finals this year, I do wonder if he can win his round robin matches quickly and efficiently. The field this year could be potentially be strong:

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Medvedev
4. Federer
5. Thiem
6. Tsitsipas
7. Zverev
8. I would say Berrettini over Bautista-Agut

Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas, and Berrettini are playing well right now so they can be tough to play against on a best of three format. Also, they know that this will be their best opportunity to prove to the Big Three that they are ready for take away the mantle from them going into the 2020 season.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Federer should have won the AO 2017 in straight sets too and you know it and yet he didn't. Can't change history unfortunately.

I'll really never understand this logic. The sets he lost, he lost them pretty convincingly, yet you keep repeating this over and over. In one of the sets, Nadal got a double break before Roger broke back once. So again, what is this based on?

If your argument is that Roger's level dropped, then that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Yes, his level dropped, therefore he should NOT have won those sets. Your argument literally is: "Federer's level should not have dropped and therefore he should have won every set" and that's really ludicrous because then you can literally apply it to every match ever. You can get straight setted and if you're as good as Federer, claim you actually should have won in straights because you played like shit. Well, if you play like shit, you shouldn't win. If you weren't good enough to play well in a given set or match, you should not win it. What kind of nonsense is this?

He was playing Nadal. His nemesis. An all time great who back then, still owned him especially at slams. And Federer had already had a couple of five setters in the tournament against inferior players to Nadal...so again, based on what should he have won in straights? Has he ever actually straight setted Nadal at a slam?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal isn't winning the WTF. His game is just brutal (not in a good way) on that particular surface. The bounce stays too low and the courts aren't especially quick, which is actually the worst combination for Nadal as the surface doesn't eat up his spin AND he can't hit through the court.

 

[Fiero425]

Nadal isn't winning the WTF. His game is just brutal (not in a good way) on that particular surface. The bounce stays too low and the courts aren't especially quick, which is actually the worst combination for Nadal as the surface doesn't eat up his spin AND he can't hit through the court.

The delusional is "real" w/ all this confidence that after all these years of futility, Rafa will all of a sudden solve his problems w/ the YEC!

 

[mac]

I guess AO 2019 finalist and USO winner was fluke !

No. But 2019 slams have come and gone and time doesn't stand still. It's time (and long time due) for the rise of the NextGen guys. The Big 3 have had their huge run and will finally fade to a combination of Father Time and NextGen gaining consistency and confidence.

 

[Fiero425]

No, but 2019 Slams have come and gone and time doesn't stand still. It's time (and long time due) for the rise of the Next-Gen guys. The Big 3 have had their huge run and will finally fade to a combination of Father Time and the Next-Gen gaining consistency and confidence.

We can only hope! Unfortunately I've been waiting for years; so much so there was created a "lost-gen" that made no impression!