Which has been greater at the US Open: Nadal's overachieving or Djokovic's/Federer's underachieving?

[Moxie]

I'm sorry I don't see how I do it in the same way. There is no reason to call Nadal in the 2007 or 2011 French Open Finals merely "average" as compared to some mythical unbeatable level. He played his usual way, the same way that got him that squeaky little victory over Federer at Hamburg 2008 in 3 sets (a match which Federer should have won going away).

Do you remember how Federer went up 5-1, 40-30 in the first set but still lost it?

"Squeaky?" And how about "sneaky," and "cheap," just to name a few of the of the "cheesy" little descriptors you've thrown in, just on this thread, to discredit Nadal. I stand by my pot/kettle comment, and I won't be distracted by highlights of a match that Rafa won, however pleasing.

 

[Moxie]

I don’t think Federer underachieved at RG, but I think he underachieved at Wimbledon and at the US Open. I may add the Australian Open too. Nadal in my opinion has overachieved at the US Open.

Hard to say which is greater. I am leaning towards Nadal overachieving at the US Open than Federer/Djokovic underachieving at the same tournament.

I'm curious as to how you really see that Nadal has "overachieved" at the US Open. Should he not have beaten Djokovic, for his first two wins? Each final only went 4 sets. In 2017, I will grant you that both the finalist and the winner from the previous year were out sick, but somebody had to take it. If Roger had managed to stay in and win it, would that have been one for the "over-achieving" column? If you're inclined to think that it would have been Roger's due, then why not Rafa's? Think about that. And this year: at 33, Rafa was the last man standing at a Major that many thought he'd never win, let alone 4 times. How is that not deserved, and, actually, not admirable? So please, tell me how he's "overachieved" at the US Open. Every Major win takes 7 victories, and I think it's childish to diminish them. That's why, by the same token, it's rather facile to say that someone has "underachieved," when they didn't win one. They lost before they got to 7.

 

[Jelenafan]

Federer definitely overachieved at the French Open.

Rafa definitely underachieved at the Australian Open.

 

[Moxie]

Federer definitely overachieved at the French Open.

Rafa definitely underachieved at the Australian Open.

While I agree that Rafa could have done better in Oz, and will yet, I don't agree with you on Roger at the FO. He was so close, so many times. And he even said that if Rafa got knocked out, he'd have to seize his chance. And he did. You could see that the pressure almost got to him, but he closed the deal. Good on him.

 

[Jelenafan]

While I agree that Rafa could have done better in Oz, and will yet, I don't agree with you on Roger at the FO. He was so close, so many times. And he even said that if Rafa got knocked out, he'd have to seize his chance. And he did. You could see that the pressure almost got to him, but he closed the deal. Good on him.

My point was that it’s all so silly.

These terms (over/under) many times are simply doublespeak for fans who are pissed their favorites hasn’t won more and are very pissed players they don’t like have won as much as they have....

It’s like trying to revise sports history by inflating or deflating actual results.

 

[Moxie]

My point was that it’s all so silly.

These terms (over/under) many times are simply doublespeak for fans who are pissed their favorites hasn’t won more and are very pissed players they don’t like have won as much as they have....

It’s like trying to revise sports history by inflating or deflating actual results.

Post of the day! Exactly right.

 

[Andy22]

Why was Nadal only "average" in those matches? Throwing that little descriptor in there is a ridiculous, imjimmy-like way of making the ideal Nadal sound like the most unbeatable player in tennis histroy.



I don't.

Don't care who you think better out of the big 3 its just your dumb opinion, second of course nadal only played average level RG 07,11 nadal showed you his god mode level at French open 2008 lol, that's he best and you know it little boy.

 

[Andy22]

.[/QUOte] Federer 2011 level lost to nadal on clay so did 2008,07,06,05 13 19] so have not got a leg to stand, nadal owned Federer he's whole career on clay 14-2, 12 roland garros titles/1 roland garros title. your never going to win if you trying put Federer clay stats against nadal always end with a big L just like Federer and all you got is a trash high mode level of tennis by Federer that can only win 1 roland garros title stop the cry baby Federer fanboy troll its getting old.:cuckoo:[/QUOTE]

 

[Front242]

Don't care who you think better out of the big 3 its just your dumb opinion, second of course nadal only played average level RG 07,11 nadal showed you his god mode level at French open 2008 lol, that's he best and you know it little boy.

The first half of set 1 of the 2008 RG was awful passive muck by both Nadal and Federer. Nadal's best clay performance ever was the Monte Carlo 2010 final imo hands down.

 

[Andy22]

The first half of set 1 of the 2008 RG was awful passive muck by both Nadal and Federer. Nadal's best clay performance ever was the Monte Carlo 2010 final imo hands down.

Ok fair enough that's your opinion, 2010 was one of Nadal best ever seasons on clay hard to say it's the best because Nadal did not have to play Djokovic like other clay court seasons.

 

[monfed]

You mean who has been luckier?

 

[calitennis127]

I look forward to reading Cali’s posts about Nadal in the next few years. If he’s this butthurt right now with Nadal reaching 19 slams, can you imagine how much more butthurt he will be when Nadal reaches 24 slams?

Out of curiosity, how did you interpret Nadal's loss in the Australian Open final this year? How did that make you feel?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Out of curiosity, how did you interpret Nadal's loss in the Australian Open final this year? How did that make you feel?

It made me feel like he will bounce back and win the #1 hardcourt tournament the USO.

 

[calitennis127]

And your point? Either way, Roger was going to lose, according to you, now. I thought your earlier point was that he merely fell apart in the fifth.

My point is that if Federer had his act together against Nadal, that would have been a straight-set victory.

Entirely? Look, we've already gone 10 rounds on that match over the years. And you've proven yourself as one who can rewrite history based on a couple of games. It only went 4, and Nadal won the fourth 6-1. Bottom line.

Because of the nature of the match and the fatigue both players were experiencing.....they both knew that the 3rd set winner was going to take the match.

Now you really are making a joke of yourself.

Did you see the shots Federer was hitting in the 2011 French final?

You're not addressing my points. That injury doesn't even out, and that luck does. Nothing to say about that? All of those Majors missed?

I would say that Nadal getting to play US Open finals against Anderson and Medvedev as well as French Open finals against Thiem/Ferrer and a Wimbledon final against Berdych cancels out any bad luck he may have had with injuries. He was also very lucky that Federer employed terrible strategy against him on clay in numerous matches and that Djokovic underperformed against him numerous times, including in two US Open finals. When you take all that into consideration, Nadal's good luck far outweighs his bad luck. Not even close.

Now you're just acting like a politician and answering the question you wish you were asked. Well, I could mention the FO '08, when Fed only won 4 games, and got bageled, if you'd like.

Sure, that was one occasion on which Nadal did to Federer what numerous players have done to him on hardcourts.

And I could say that Rafa has a higher winning pct. at Majors when he does participate, than either Fed or Joker. But I never said he wins every tournament, nor do I "act like it." I'd appreciate if you'd respond to what I actually said.

You mentioned Nadal's growing hardware collection as though he just keeps on winning and winning and people who critique his game are being proven wrong. That's why I said you act like he never loses. The reality is that he does lose a lot.

 

[calitennis127]

Don't care who you think better out of the big 3 its just your dumb opinion, second of course nadal only played average level RG 07,11 nadal showed you his god mode level at French open 2008 lol, that's he best and you know it little boy.

A few weeks earlier Federer had gone up 5-1, 40-30 on "god mode" Nadal in Hamburg and Djokovic took him to 4 hours the day before in the semifinal. Stop exaggerating his 2008 level.

As far as 2007 and 2011, there is no reason to say that Nadal was merely "average" as though he was playing nowhere near his potential. That is just stupid, which is why you say it. It is also quite rich for you with a Nadal image and a Nadal username to be calling someone else a "Fed fan troll boy." That is, as Moxie would say, the pot calling the kettle black.

Also, to prove my point about how obtuse Nadal fans are, they don't realize that one of the secrets to Nadal's success is that he plays to 90% of his capability every time he steps on court. To talk about his level as though it fluctuates to extremes is ridiculous. He is the most constant/consistent athlete you will ever see.

 

[calitennis127]

Federer 2011 level lost to nadal on clay so did 2008,07,06,05 13 19] so have not got a leg to stand, nadal owned Federer he's whole career on clay 14-2,

Because of terrible strategy by Federer, yes. Not because Nadal had more game on clay.

 

[calitennis127]

"Squeaky?" And how about "sneaky," and "cheap,"

Those last two descriptions of his strategy when serving are in fact accurate. And yes, winning a set after being down 5-1 and then calling a medical time-out can be called "squeaky."

It was classic Gnatal and classic terrible strategy by Fed.

 

[Andy22]

Because of terrible strategy by Federer, yes. Not because Nadal had more game on clay.

nadal always had more game than federer on clay, yes is for sure 14-2 porves that cry all that about strategy its still one French open title at the end of day. second you calling federer game strategy dumb yet he wins on other surfaces [not buying it ] its not dumb strategy by Federer he's smart tennis mind, he just sucks on clay [always] even before nadal could not win roland garros. also if federer so dumb in the mind than clearly nadal and Djokovic are much better players because that's the biggest thing in tennis little boy, finally a name does not make a troll but saying a 6-1 set is close definitely does lol. dont reply to me I cant someone for real who thinks a guy with 0 majors is better than guy with 19 slams [goat nadal] dumbest fan of all time goat troll goes to you.

 

[Andy22]

A few weeks earlier Federer had gone up 5-1, 40-30 on "god mode" Nadal in Hamburg and Djokovic took him to 4 hours the day before in the semifinal. Stop exaggerating his 2008 level.

As far as 2007 and 2011, there is no reason to say that Nadal was merely "average" as though he was playing nowhere near his potential. That is just stupid, which is why you say it. It is also quite rich for you with a Nadal image and a Nadal username to be calling someone else a "Fed fan troll boy." That is, as Moxie would say, the pot calling the kettle black.

Also, to prove my point about how obtuse Nadal fans are, they don't realize that one of the secrets to Nadal's success is that he plays to 90% of his capability every time he steps on court. To talk about his level as though it fluctuates to extremes is ridiculous. He is the most constant/consistent athlete you will ever see.

at least you saying something right now, yes nadal was not at his potential best] I still think nadal was on average level on clay but just my opinion please don't be salty. I don't plan on replying anymore to you for a while

 

[Front242]

Ok fair enough that's your opinion, 2010 was one of Nadal best ever seasons on clay hard to say it's the best because Nadal did not have to play Djokovic like other clay court seasons.

Don't let the mere name Djokovic fool you 'cos he hasn't always played well on clay. Just cos Nadal didnt face him doesn't mean much imo. Verdasco won just 1 game against Nadal at Monte Carlo 2010.