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

[Front242]

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.

Sucks on clay? He's been in more RG finals than anyone else besides Nadal since the big 3 have been playing. Didn't play RG since 2015 and made the semi at 37 years of age. Yeah, clearly sucks.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

No offense, but did you even watch their head-to-head matches on clay? Most of them were close and tightly contested.

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.

Well Nadal started winning them in 2005 so it's not like Federer played a full decade of matches there in his twenties before winning one.

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

Me a big boy so be respectful.

finally a name does not make a troll but saying a 6-1 set is close definitely does lol.

Which set are you referring to? 1 of the sets Djokovic beat Nadal in at Doha? I never mentioned that.

 

[calitennis127]

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

Cool, thanks. But I don't think you should be salty when I point out that there were numerous times on clay when Federer played at a level above and beyond Nadal's. I think you should just accept it.

 

[calitennis127]

Sucks on clay? He's been in more RG finals than anyone else besides Nadal since the big 3 have been playing. Didn't play RG since 2015 and made the semi at 37 years of age. Yeah, clearly sucks.

Well it is Federer's fault that people can say these things about him because he should have won at least 2 of those finals against Nadal at Roland Garros. No one to blame but himself because he was the more talented player but still didn't get the job done.

 

[Andy22]

Sucks on clay? He's been in more RG finals than anyone else besides Nadal since the big 3 have been playing. Didn't play RG since 2015 and made the semi at 37 years of age. Yeah, clearly sucks.

I did really not mean Federer sucks on clay I just meant he's clearly not as good like nadal on clay honestly Federer always been the second or third best clay court player in the world.

 

[Andy22]

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.

I mean yea clearly one of nadal greatest matches on clay, but his had so many great seasons on clay it be too hard to pick just one season.

 

[Ricardo]

I did really not mean Federer sucks on clay I just meant he's clearly not as good like nadal on clay honestly Federer always been the second or third best clay court player in the world.

Thanks for the lesson, good to learn something new.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

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.

If you haven't noticed, it's calitennis127 who recently created 2 ridiculous threads one implying that "Medvedev collapsed against Nadal" and the other one implying that "Nadal overachieved at the USO". Anything to put down Nadal's latest win! Nadal fans are just replying to this hater that if he wants to make such claims then we can also do similar claims about his boyfriends Federer and Djokovic.

But the problem remains that it's calitennis127 who is starting unnecessary threads to diss Nadal and then post 100 messages in these threads dissing him even more (while praising Federer & Djokovic). So please address yourself to calitennis127 not to Moxie or anyone else. We are not the problem.

 

[Moxie]

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

This is parallel universe crap again from you. You've using resumes, not the match that was played, as your ruler. Roger didn't even win the first set.

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.

Again, you are projecting an alternate outcome to that match, completely certain that you are correct that it would only ever have gone 4, whichever way it went. Firstly, they're both very fit and very competitive, and I don't believe they couldn't have gone 5, especially as they were then about 26 & 27. Sure, they both knew that Set 3 was critical, which is why it was so hard fought, particularly by Nadal who was behind for half of it. And Djokovic was still fighting him for it in the 4th, despite the scoreline.

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.

You should have a glance back at who Roger has played in some of his finals at Majors. And I wouldn't sneer at Thiem...he was considered 2nd best on clay last year, and maybe co-2nd best this year. Also, Djokovic had basically two years essentially Fedal-free, when he got his Nole Slam. As to Rog and Nole "under-performing" against him, or employing a poor strategy...perhaps you should read @Jelenafan's post above about that really just being tennis fans' sour grapes. If you think about it, it's kind of a meaningless phrase, designed to downgrade the guy that won. As to a poor strategy: I don't suppose I have to remind you that strategy is a huge part of tennis. If yours is poor, then so is your tennis IQ. Or, that you can't carryout your game plan because you're not effective with it, or you are being outplayed by your opponent, anyway.

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.

I'm saying that people who say he's just lucky are being proven wrong. No one wins 19 Majors on luck. Not even mostly. Not even close. As to Nadal having lost a lot? He has an 82.65% career wins, same as Djokovic. Federer is at 82.15%. So by "lost a lot," I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Moxie]

If you haven't noticed, it's calitennis127 who recently created 2 ridiculous threads one implying that "Medvedev collapsed against Nadal" and the other one implying that "Nadal overachieved at the USO". Anything to put down Nadal's latest win! Nadal fans are just replying to this hater that if he wants to make such claims then we can also do similar claims about his boyfriends Federer and Djokovic.

But the problem remains that it's calitennis127 who is starting unnecessary threads to diss Nadal and then post 100 messages in these threads dissing him even more (while praising Federer & Djokovic). So please address yourself to calitennis127 not to Moxie or anyone else. We are not the problem.

He totally gets that...thus the post, which I thought was brilliant. More people should read his post again. I will quote it again, for anyone who missed it (@calitennis127):

"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."

 

[Front242]

This is parallel universe crap again from you. You've using resumes, not the match that was played, as your ruler. Roger didn't even win the first set.


Again, you are projecting an alternate outcome to that match, completely certain that you are correct that it would only ever have gone 4, whichever way it went. Firstly, they're both very fit and very competitive, and I don't believe they couldn't have gone 5, especially as they were then about 26 & 27. Sure, they both knew that Set 3 was critical, which is why it was so hard fought, particularly by Nadal who was behind for half of it. And Djokovic was still fighting him for it in the 4th, despite the scoreline.



You should have a glance back at who Roger has played in some of his finals at Majors. And I wouldn't sneer at Thiem...he was considered 2nd best on clay last year, and maybe co-2nd best this year. Also, Djokovic had basically two years essentially Fedal-free, when he got his Nole Slam. As to Rog and Nole "under-performing" against him, or employing a poor strategy...perhaps you should read @Jelenafan's post above about that really just being tennis fans' sour grapes. If you think about it, it's kind of a meaningless phrase, designed to downgrade the guy that won. As to a poor strategy: I don't suppose I have to remind you that strategy is a huge part of tennis. If yours is poor, then so is your tennis IQ. Or, that you can't carryout your game plan because you're not effective with it, or you are being outplayed by your opponent, anyway.


I'm saying that people who say he's just lucky are being proven wrong. No one wins 19 Majors on luck. Not even mostly. Not even close. As to Nadal having lost a lot? He has an 82.65% career wins, same as Djokovic. Federer is at 82.15%. So by "lost a lot," I'm not sure what you mean.

That stat is nothing to write home about as a boast tbh given Federer is over 5 years older than Nadal and 6 years older than Djokovic. The winning percentage is almost tied and he's 38 now. Theirs will plummet if they play to 38 or 40 as Roger may well do. Go and seek out a % for each at the same age, eg all at 32 and that number will be a lot different or like I said let's see if Djokovic and Nadal play till 38 or above 'cos theirs will drop like an anchor.

As to the notion that poor strategy means poor tennis IQ, that's bollocks. Jose Higueras came up with that crap strategy for RG 2008 so it had nothing to do with Federer's tennis IQ.

 

[Moxie]

That stat is nothing to write home about as a boast tbh given Federer is over 5 years older than Nadal and 6 years older than Djokovic. The winning percentage is almost tied and he's 38 now. Theirs will plummet if they play to 38 or 40 as Roger may well do. Go and seek out a % for each at the same age, eg all at 32 and that number will be a lot different or like I said let's see if Djokovic and Nadal play till 38 or above 'cos theirs will drop like an anchor.

As to the notion that poor strategy means poor tennis IQ, that's bollocks. Jose Higueras came up with that crap strategy for RG 2008 so it had nothing to do with Federer's tennis IQ.

That stat wasn't meant to diss Roger, and I figured readers of this forum didn't be reminded of the differences in their ages or lengths of their careers. It's was merely a reply to Cali would said that Rafa loses a lot. I just wondered, "relative to whom?"

I don't really think that Roger has a low tennis IQ. I'm merely pointing out that, going down the road of this new fashion of his poor performances v. Nadal across his career having to do with just a bad strategy opens the danger of offering a different fault. Saying that if he'd used a different strategy, so much would have come out differently is trading in alternate-universe thinking, which is Cali's favorite hobby, when he's not playing amateur sports psychologist, or being the resident "expert" on all things "Black America." :lulz2: But this Jose Higueras theory is a new claim, is it not? Never heard that one before. Anyway, it doesn't explain all the rest of his losses to Nadal, on or off clay.

 

[calitennis127]

This is parallel universe crap again from you. You've using resumes, not the match that was played, as your ruler.

WHAT.THE.FUCK????? :lulz2:

Did you seriously just say this to me? That I'm the one using resumes instead of the match that was played?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. First of all, that's not even my argument, but you're the one who has been saying to me that I am, in essence, looking too much into one match between Nadal and Medvedev and not appreciating how daunting a challenge it supposedly was for Medvedev precisely because of Nadal's resume. So this is a rich accusation coming from you all of people.

That said, if you do want to talk resumes, as of that day Federer had won 5 US Opens and 3 Australian Opens, while Nadal had never won a hardcourt Slam. So using your resume-is-king logic, my argument only becomes stronger.

But regarding the actual play on the court (which is my concern), Federer clearly had more game on hardcourts but was approaching Nadal all wrong, especially with his return of serve. That's the point I am making. And yes, you can look at "the match that was played" and see what I am saying.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Nadal in his prime at one point had a winning record against everyone in the Top 30 and almost everyone in the Top 100 with only Davydenko having a slight winning record of 6-5. To say that Federer or anybody else should have beaten Nadal as if he’s some average player is ridiculous. Nadal was beating EVERYONE and Federer was just another victim like everyone else. Like I say keep disrespecting Nadal but Karma always comes back and he keeps winning .

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal in his prime at one point had a winning record against everyone in the Top 30 and almost everyone in the Top 100 with only Davydenko having a slight winning record of 6-5. To say that Federer or anybody else should have beaten Nadal as if he’s some average player is ridiculous. Nadal was beating EVERYONE and Federer was just another victim like everyone else. Like I say keep disrespecting Nadal but Karma always comes back and he keeps winning .

So in your opinion Federer could not have done anything better strategically or tactically in the 2009 Australian Open final against Nadal?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

So in your opinion Federer could not have done anything better strategically or tactically in the 2009 Australian Open final against Nadal?

Federer could have gotten down on his knees and prayed in case God could help him but otherwise no. Nadal was too fast and was a perfect combination of offense and defense. Nadal also beat Federer at the 2012 and 2014 AO even more convincingly. When Federer finally beat him in the 2017 AO it took him a miracle at the end.

 

[Front242]

Federer could have gotten down on his knees and prayed in case God could help him but otherwise no. Nadal was too fast and was a perfect combination of offense and defense. Nadal also beat Federer at the 2012 and 2014 AO even more convincingly. When Federer finally beat him in the 2017 AO it took him a miracle at the end.

A miracle? He was the way better player most of the match you lunatic lol.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

A miracle? He was the way better player most of the match you lunatic lol.

:cuckoo:

 

[brokenshoelace]

I just told you why. Because the guy almost got off to a 2 set lead AGAIN the next time they played in 2014 so Nadal just clearly isn't that bloody great on fast grass and that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with his knee/knees.

This is ridiculous logic. Rosol almost having a 2 set lead in 2014 doesn’t say anything about whether Nadal was injured or not in 2012. It just says Rosol is a dangerous opponent and that Nadal is vulnerable to those types of players. Of course Nadal can lose to him on grass without being injured. However this doesn’t mean he wasn’t.

You know what’s a good indicator as to whether or not Nadal was injured that day? The 8 months he missed afterwards.

 

[Front242]

This is ridiculous logic. Rosol almost having a 2 set lead in 2014 doesn’t say anything about whether Nadal was injured or not in 2012. It just says Rosol is a dangerous opponent and that Nadal is vulnerable to those types of players. Of course Nadal can lose to him on grass without being injured. However this doesn’t mean he wasn’t.

You know what’s a good indicator as to whether or not Nadal was injured that day? The 8 months he missed afterwards.

Almost every tournament in the news after he pulled out they were announcing he'd be back and then he'd pull out and same the following week. Something doesn't add up there and Nadal fans know it.