Who can beat Nadal at RG 2019?

[Moxie]

This is unworthy of you. Bragging, Moxie? We know that Rafa won. And this is a total mischaracterization of what I was saying earlier. Never did I suggest that Rafa wouldn't win RG, just that there was no need to make a case for him, because he was the default favorite.

Oh wait...that was another thread. In this thread, I was razzing you. Do you really want to gloat, though? Dial back to post-AO and yes, RG looked much less certain. But since then we've seen two things clearly: Novak is far more vulnerable than his peak form of 2011/2015-16, and Rafa can still reach an unbeatable form...on clay.

I do think that Novak at his very best can beat Rafa anywhere, anytime. I suppose we'll never know what 2015 Novak vs. 2010/13 Rafa would look like at RG...would be fun to see, though. The closest we got was 2013, and that was very, very close - Rafa at the peak of his powers, but Novak not at his very best, but close enough to say that they were pretty evenly matched.

As I said to Darth, this isn't about bragging. And I'm not gloating. But you guys really did give me a hard time for defending Nadal's options in the then-far future to RG. At one point you said something like that everyone knew Rafa would be the favorite, so why did I need to defend him? Well, because everyone was writing off his chances. Or gaming against them. I understand that, if you're not a Nadal fan, one of the most interesting things is who can take him down on clay. Remember that I started the thread, because we were derailing the YEC thread. But this is a discussion forum, so I get to argue the opposite point. And yes, you did "razz" me, saying that I was "shitting bricks." I wasn't...I was arguing my point. Notice I didn't say "you lot," I said you, specifically. You treated me as if my argument wasn't valid, that I was only making an argument as a fangirl, or gaming the Fedal wars. I contend that I was not. I was arguing my side, and getting shouted down. At least that's the way it felt to me. Anyway, there are a lot of interesting predictions within this thread, if anyone cares to read them.

 

[Moxie]

Look at when was this thread started. Nov. 15 2018. Nadalites have nothing else to think about other than RG starting from Nov. 15 of last year. I feel sorry for them.

If you could have been bothered to read the OP, or remember back, since you tend to always be on the forums, I started this thread because El Dude, Darth and I were disrupting the YEC thread with a conversation about RG, and particularly Novak v. Nadal. It was a public service choice. No need to be a douche and judge it differently.

 

[El Dude]

As I said to Darth, this isn't about bragging. And I'm not gloating. But you guys really did give me a hard time for defending Nadal's options in the then-far future to RG. At one point you said something like that everyone knew Rafa would be the favorite, so why did I need to defend him? Well, because everyone was writing off his chances. Or gaming against them. I understand that, if you're not a Nadal fan, one of the most interesting things is who can take him down on clay. Remember that I started the thread, because we were derailing the YEC thread. But this is a discussion forum, so I get to argue the opposite point. And yes, you did "razz" me, saying that I was "shitting bricks." I wasn't...I was arguing my point. Notice I didn't say "you lot," I said you, specifically. You treated me as if my argument wasn't valid, that I was only making an argument as a fangirl, or gaming the Fedal wars. I contend that I was not. I was arguing my side, and getting shouted down. At least that's the way it felt to me. Anyway, there are a lot of interesting predictions within this thread, if anyone cares to read them.

OK, fair enough, Moxie. One thing we are continually reminded of is that the landscape continually shifts, yet at the same time the Big 3 always seem to come back and win again. We cannot count them out. Of course at some point they won't come back...that just keeps getting pushed back, and I think we're all rather surprised with how the last few years have unfolded. I suspect there are more surprises ahead.

By the way, when I "razz" it is meant as friendly teasing.

 

[Moxie]

OK, fair enough, Moxie. One thing we are continually reminded of is that the landscape continually shifts, yet at the same time the Big 3 always seem to come back and win again. We cannot count them out. Of course at some point they won't come back...that just keeps getting pushed back, and I think we're all rather surprised with how the last few years have unfolded. I suspect there are more surprises ahead.

By the way, when I "razz" it is meant as friendly teasing.

Can't really count the old dogs out until they go, I guess. I know you think you meant "friendly teasing," but you accused me of being a Fedal addict, of making my case only because I was "shitting bricks" as a fearful fan. This is dismissing and demeaning my opinion as mere fanishness, and not worthy of regard. I told you I was holding up the other side of the argument, and that is really how it was meant. I don't mind being disagreed with, but I object to being dismissed as a mere fangirl. You should know me better than that.

 

[El Dude]

Except I didn't dismiss you as a "mere fangirl" -- that's your take, which doesn't line up with my view of you. Now as for Carol.... .

I do think you are a bit "addicted" to Fedal Warring, though, but that's not the same thing as fannishness.

I don't remember my inner mindscape when I wrote the "shitting bricks" comment, but I'm guessing it was nothing more or less than friendly ribbing.

 

[Moxie]

Except I didn't dismiss you as a "mere fangirl" -- that's your take, which doesn't line up with my view of you. Now as for Carol.... .

I do think you are a bit "addicted" to Fedal Warring, though, but that's not the same thing as fannishness.

I don't remember my inner mindscape when I wrote the "shitting bricks" comment, but I'm guessing it was nothing more or less than friendly ribbing.

I'm not "addicted" to the Fedal Wars, I don't think, but I'm not unwilling to put up my dukes. If you had to put up with the likes of Darth (and his copycats) calling Nadal "Cuntdal," or "peasant," or the like, or listening to him and Front with the endless slurs about "juicing," despite all rational efforts to tell them they're wrong and wearing tinfoil hats, you might be more sympathetic. As I see it, I have two choices: let them run roughshod over the boards with that crap, or fight them. I choose fight.

 

[El Dude]

I'm not "addicted" to the Fedal Wars, I don't think, but I'm not unwilling to put up my dukes. If you had to put up with the likes of Darth (and his copycats) calling Nadal "Cuntdal," or "peasant," or the like, or listening to him and Front with the endless slurs about "juicing," despite all rational efforts to tell them they're wrong and wearing tinfoil hats, you might be more sympathetic. As I see it, I have two choices: let them run roughshod over the boards with that crap, or fight them. I choose fight.

Hey, if it works for you...who am I to criticize another person's means of getting off?

 

[monfed]

When you get cupcake draws like Nadulla gets on a regular basis it's no surprise he won. Usually his draw is something like weaponless qualifiers in the first week upto QF/SF(usually till SF) and a tired opponent in the SF/F or a player who is a high ranked player but doesn't have the weapons to hurt him in the SF/F.

 

[isabelle]

only Moxie can beat him on clay I guess...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Silly bragging. If we knew the semis and finals would be against Federer and Thiem I'd tell you Nadal could win in a wheelchair. Novak went lame again to a degree, he's not playing awful but he's in a bit of a funk it seems.

So which players would have inspired more confidence? Djokovic...and?

The guy has won the tournament 12 times and people are still talking about his draw as if it matters. Ridiculous.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Personally, I wouldn't say Nadal has been much better at his best slam than Federer has simply because the margins are much smaller on grass.

Give me a break. One guy won Roland Garros in his first ever appearance, and has only lost there twice. He's 12/12 in finals and has never been taken to a fifth set in those finals.

Federer has to lost to his biggest rivals at Wimbledon on a number of occasions. I highly doubt it was Nadal's unbreakable serve that allowed him to beat Roger in 2008. Likewise, it wasn't Novak's aces that allowed him to beat Roger in 2014 and 2015. In fact, both guys outplayed him from the baseline (in Novak's case, pretty handily) and it was Roger's own serve that allowed him to make those matches close. Those losses alone mean Roger hasn't been nearly as good at Wimbledon as Nadal was at the FO since A) those losses cannot be explained with the whole margin for error nonsense and B) those were losses to his chief rivals. Meanwhile, Nadal is a combined 12-1 vs. Federer and a Djokovic at RG. 12 and freaking 1, with his only loss coming in his worst ever season. Between them, In those 12 wins, only once was he pushed to a fifth set. Again, let's stop this insanity.

That's not even touching on the fact that it took Roger much longer to start winning Wimbledon (peaking early isn't some random occurrence. Before that is used as an excuse), or the fact that he lost to Sergei freaking Stakhovsky there. I'm sorry, big serve or not, margin for error or not, when you lose to a no name clown, that's on you.

 

[DarthFed]

So which players would have inspired more confidence? Djokovic...and?

The guy has won the tournament 12 times and people are still talking about his draw as if it matters. Ridiculous.

Well yes, even after AO no one thought a player not named Djokovic would beat Nadal. The conversation was strictly on who would be likely to win if they met. It was also noted that Djoker was obviously way more likely to lose before the final.

 

[El Dude]

Come on Darth, can't we at least try to approach objectivity?

Roger Federer is probably the most dominant grass player of all time, at least of the Open Era, but Rafa is another whole level.

Let's look at the dreaded statistics:

Roger on grass: 176-26 (87%); Wimbledon - 95-12 (89%), 8-3 in finals.

Rafa on clay: 436-39 (92%); RG - 93-2 (98%), 12-0 in finals.

I know, stats aren't everything - but they do tell a lot.

 

[DarthFed]

Come on Darth, can't we at least try to approach objectivity?

Roger Federer is probably the most dominant grass player of all time, at least of the Open Era, but Rafa is another whole level.

Let's look at the dreaded statistics:

Roger on grass: 176-26 (87%); Wimbledon - 95-12 (89%), 8-3 in finals.

Rafa on clay: 436-39 (92%); RG - 93-2 (98%), 12-0 in finals.

I know, stats aren't everything - but they do tell a lot.

I think it's Front you are meaning to respond to. Roger has left way too much on the table at Wimbledon to even make it a conversation. 8 out of 16 Wimbledon's isn't terribly impressive and sprinkle in 3 final losses showing he's a bit too easy to beat on the big stage there. And a couple of those losses were really pathetic. It's no contest IMO

 

[Jelenafan]

Come on Darth, can't we at least try to approach objectivity?

Roger Federer is probably the most dominant grass player of all time, at least of the Open Era, but Rafa is another whole level.

Let's look at the dreaded statistics:

Roger on grass: 176-26 (87%); Wimbledon - 95-12 (89%), 8-3 in finals.

Rafa on clay: 436-39 (92%); RG - 93-2 (98%), 12-0 in finals.

I know, stats aren't everything - but they do tell a lot.

Interestingly enough the only player who comes close to equaling their stats is Borg, albeit for a 9 year career:

Borg. Wimbledon 51-4. 92.73
French Open. 49-6. 96.08

 

[El Dude]

Sorry, Darth! You're right, it was Front's comment I was referring to.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just to be clear, the whole Roger at Wimbledon vs. Nadal at RG thing falls apart under the merest hint of examination beyond the reasons I mentioned above.

Ask yourself this: How many times since 2007 has Roger entered Wimbledon as an overwhelming favourite? And is it ever nearly as close a favourite as Nadal as at RG? Also, when Roger wasn't a clear favourite, it was NEVER about the small margins on grass. Sorry, but nobody is entering this Wimbledon thinking "man, Roger would be such an overwhelming favourite had it not been for those small grass court margins" the same way nobody said that in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2011, etc...

Meanwhile, you enter the French Open thinking it would take the second coming of Jesus Christ on modern training and steroids for Nadal not to win it. The comparison is laughable.