Will Nadal pass Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

Speaking of revisionist history...unless you want to argue about 2006 AO (that Rafa would have somehow won that tourney) the only one Rafa skipped that Roger won is 2009 Wimbledon.

Well, let's just say I'm of the belief that Nadal was injured at the 2009 FO, which was a huge resurgence in Federer's career. And history would have been quite different had Fed not won that (a tournament that happened to give him a career slam).

Also, it is hilarious seeing a Fed fan (not you) say Roger was "less good" in 2008 (and he was, don't get me wrong), despite the fact that he was great at Wimbledon until the final (and was great again after the first two sets), reached the RG final, won the US Open, reached the AO final in 2009, then won 3 out of the next four slam (while epically messing up one that he should have won), but at the same time, write about Novak's win yesterday over a flat out washed up Nadal who can barely beat anyone in the top 15 without bringing that elephant in the room up. I mean, Novak is far and away the best, and he deserves all that he can get, but the double standards and bias are absurd.

And I'd say that Roger's 2008 was badly compromised by mono at the start of the year which led to a loss in training and the loss in confidence that came with all the losses he was unaccustomed to. Roger stunk up the place until Wimbledon and then managed to have his 65 match win streak on grass snapped. The USO was his only good tournament of note. Pretty easy to play the what if game. But what Roger's 2008 and Rafa's RG 2009 have in common is that both players took the court and lost...no excuses.

Nadal didn't take the court at Wimbledon, where he was the defending champion, and before he won it the next year... in the middle of 5 trips to the finals.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Clearly not, Rafa won RG last year. By "over" I mean his chances of being a contender at slams. If he goes slamless now through RG '16 it'd be tough for him to right the ship.

Sigh, I meant his chances of catching up to Roger were over when he didn't win that match.

I know that's what you meant, but I was referring to his chances of even remaining relevant. And the fact that Rafa won RG last year shows that his chances of catching Roger were not done, and I'd say they still aren't done now though it's obviously tougher.

It was always clear that with Nadal's history of injuries, his longevity will pale to comparison to Roger so he can't afford to miss an opportunity. You can actually catch my posts from back then, I said as much.

 

[DarthFed]

Notice how there isn't a single tennis argument in the post above (ie what makes Murray better in Australia than New York). I'm not talking about a single match in which he handled the wind (although that's another reason why he's better in NY: The conditions. The super hot conditions of Melbourne don't suit his game. You're basically proving my point further). I'm talking about his game in general.

And yes, you have been consistent... at consistently trying to downplay anything related to Nadal by talking about the competition (the irony), the surfaces, or what have you. I mean just in the other thread, you laughed at the notion that the greatest clay courter ever, in his greatest ever form, would have beaten Djokovic. Yes, THAT is a laughable notion.

Consistent indeed.

Why would I need a tennis argument when I can let the facts speak for themselves? Murray has been in 4 finals at the AO, but only 2 at the US Open. That constitutes greater expertise at the AO in my view. If you disagree that's your opinion. Do you realise how much of a joke you make yourself appear to be when you feel the need to post such a trivial difference of opinion in such a snarky manner? :snicker Jeepers. Imagine if it was an important issue :nono

Facts: Murray is a US Open champion. He's an AO finalist. That is no joke. No snark needed. Facts speak for themselves. Of course if you were ever capable of assessing what goes on the court we could have a discussion that's a little more interesting, but then again, you thought as recently as two months ago that Nadal was still in his prime and he needed to lose the FO before you make up your mind. You also barely spotted declines in movement.

That's the kind of joke I'm entertaining here. Before resorting to personal insults, get a clue.

Ah, but aren't you one of those who puts a lot of stock in major finals? Murray is 0-4 at AO and 1-1 at USO. Murray at AO deals with Djoker who is a hell of a lot better there than he is at USO (where Murray won). I think someone made the (valid) point earlier that the competition at AO is tougher than USO due to Djokovic. At the USO there hasn't been a major force since 2009 when Roger lost to DP. For the record I do agree that Murray is a little more dangerous at the USO as the counterpunching is more effective, but at the same time it is easier to blast him off the court when he is playing passively. Anyways grass is far and away his best surface as the weak 2nd serve is easier to hide.

 

[DarthFed]

Well, let's just say I'm of the belief that Nadal was injured at the 2009 FO, which was a huge resurgence in Federer's career. And history would have been quite different had Fed not won that (a tournament that happened to give him a career slam).

Also, it is hilarious seeing a Fed fan (not you) say Roger was "less good" in 2008 (and he was, don't get me wrong), despite the fact that he was great at Wimbledon until the final (and was great again after the first two sets), reached the RG final, won the US Open, reached the AO final in 2009, then won 3 out of the next four slam (while epically messing up one that he should have won), but at the same time, write about Novak's win yesterday over a flat out washed up Nadal who can barely beat anyone in the top 15 without bringing that elephant in the room up. I mean, Novak is far and away the best, and he deserves all that he can get, but the double standards and bias are absurd.

And I'd say that Roger's 2008 was badly compromised by mono at the start of the year which led to a loss in training and the loss in confidence that came with all the losses he was unaccustomed to. Roger stunk up the place until Wimbledon and then managed to have his 65 match win streak on grass snapped. The USO was his only good tournament of note. Pretty easy to play the what if game. But what Roger's 2008 and Rafa's RG 2009 have in common is that both players took the court and lost...no excuses.

Nadal didn't take the court at Wimbledon, where he was the defending champion, and before he won it the next year... in the middle of 5 trips to the finals.

Yes, and as stated that is the one slam that Roger won where Rafa was out with injury (aside from 2006 AO if you badly want to count that).

 

[Federberg]

Why would I need a tennis argument when I can let the facts speak for themselves? Murray has been in 4 finals at the AO, but only 2 at the US Open. That constitutes greater expertise at the AO in my view. If you disagree that's your opinion. Do you realise how much of a joke you make yourself appear to be when you feel the need to post such a trivial difference of opinion in such a snarky manner? :snicker Jeepers. Imagine if it was an important issue :nono

You do realise that actually winning the event is better than a half a dozen losses in the final, no?

It's Federberg, so no, he doesn't.

I simply don't respond to that poster. But I'm willing to take the bait.

Let's talk hypotheticals (I know how much you love your 'woulda coulda shouldas' after all :snicker) Player A wins a slam at the US Open, but never reaches the final again in his career. Now, at the AO he is a finalist 7 years in a row, but never wins. Which tournament is he stronger in? To me.. the AO. He might have achieved greater success at the US Open, but he is stronger at the AO. Hope that helps. :cover

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why would I need a tennis argument when I can let the facts speak for themselves? Murray has been in 4 finals at the AO, but only 2 at the US Open. That constitutes greater expertise at the AO in my view. If you disagree that's your opinion. Do you realise how much of a joke you make yourself appear to be when you feel the need to post such a trivial difference of opinion in such a snarky manner? :snicker Jeepers. Imagine if it was an important issue :nono

Facts: Murray is a US Open champion. He's an AO finalist. That is no joke. No snark needed. Facts speak for themselves. Of course if you were ever capable of assessing what goes on the court we could have a discussion that's a little more interesting, but then again, you thought as recently as two months ago that Nadal was still in his prime and he needed to lose the FO before you make up your mind. You also barely spotted declines in movement.

That's the kind of joke I'm entertaining here. Before resorting to personal insults, get a clue.

Ah, but aren't you one of those who puts a lot of stock in major finals? Murray is 0-4 at AO and 1-1 at USO. Murray at AO deals with Djoker who is a hell of a lot better there than he is at USO (where Murray won). I think someone made the (valid) point earlier that the competition at AO is tougher than USO due to Djokovic. At the USO there hasn't been a major force since 2009 when Roger lost to DP. For the record I do agree that Murray is a little more dangerous at the USO as the counterpunching is more effective, but at the same time it is easier to blast him off the court when he is playing passively. Anyways grass is far and away his best surface as the weak 2nd serve is easier to hide.

1- Yes, I put a lot of stock in major finals, but never more than actual major wins. What kind of stupid ass argument is that?

2- Murray's game is better suited for faster conditions. This is a fact based on results at both masters and majors (see WImbledon and US Open... the only slams he's won) as well as the nature of his game. Quite how is that an argument is beyond me?

Surprised that post is coming from you.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You do realise that actually winning the event is better than a half a dozen losses in the final, no?

It's Federberg, so no, he doesn't.

I simply don't respond to that poster. But I'm willing to take the bait.

Let's talk hypotheticals (I know how much you love your 'woulda coulda shouldas' after all :snicker) Player A wins a slam at the US Open, but never reaches the final again in his career. Now, at the AO he is a finalist 7 years in a row, but never wins. Which tournament is he stronger in? To me.. the AO. He might have achieved greater success at the US Open, but he is stronger at the AO. Hope that helps. :cover

Your hypothetical doesn't apply to Murray, who's made a US Open final aside from the one he won. So yeah, stupid hypothetical is stupid. Stick to reality mate.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think Murray reached the AO final more times than the US Open final because the competition there is easier.

I of course have nothing to support this claim but I'm speaking out of my ass like everyone else here.

 

[Federberg]

It's Federberg, so no, he doesn't.

I simply don't respond to that poster. But I'm willing to take the bait.

Let's talk hypotheticals (I know how much you love your 'woulda coulda shouldas' after all :snicker) Player A wins a slam at the US Open, but never reaches the final again in his career. Now, at the AO he is a finalist 7 years in a row, but never wins. Which tournament is he stronger in? To me.. the AO. He might have achieved greater success at the US Open, but he is stronger at the AO. Hope that helps. :cover

Your hypothetical doesn't apply to Murray, who's made a US Open final aside from the one he won. So yeah, stupid hypothetical is stupid. Stick to reality mate.

:laydownlaughing
the fact you declare it doesn't apply is irrelevant. But keep thinking you have the final word. Hilarious!

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's all too easy for Nadal fans to assume Roger "benefitted" from Nadal not being in a slam he won but that just shows the pompous nature to assume if Nadal was playing he would've either won or beaten Roger. Who's to say they'd have even ended up playing each other? It's utterly pointless fanboyism drivel.

OK, I'll say it out loud:

I believe, with 100% certitude, that if Nadal were healthy he would have won the FO, like he won it 4 times before and 5 times since, and he would have beaten Roger without breaking a sweat, like he always does on clay. But no yeah, I'm sure THAT year would have been different. Roger had him figured out.

By the way, I don't want this post to get lost in the shuffle. Yes, quote me. I'm making excuses for Rafa.

If Fed fans can claim Fed did Nadal a favor by beating Djokovic in 2011 (a fact I actually agree with) and that Nadal would have a lost to Djokovic (even though he had never lost to him at the FO and proceeded to beat him the next 3 times they played there. But again, I actually agree he would have lost), then I find it far less ludicrous to claim Nadal would have won the tournament he always wins and owned the guy he always owns on the court he always owns him on.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I simply don't respond to that poster. But I'm willing to take the bait.

Let's talk hypotheticals (I know how much you love your 'woulda coulda shouldas' after all :snicker) Player A wins a slam at the US Open, but never reaches the final again in his career. Now, at the AO he is a finalist 7 years in a row, but never wins. Which tournament is he stronger in? To me.. the AO. He might have achieved greater success at the US Open, but he is stronger at the AO. Hope that helps. :cover

Your hypothetical doesn't apply to Murray, who's made a US Open final aside from the one he won. So yeah, stupid hypothetical is stupid. Stick to reality mate.

:laydownlaughing
the fact you declare it doesn't apply is irrelevant. But keep thinking you have the final word. Hilarious!

Your hypothetical portrays a guy who seems to have been a one hit wonder at a particular slam, something that Murray clearly isn't since he had already reached a final there. So yes, irrelevant.

 

[Federberg]

Your hypothetical doesn't apply to Murray, who's made a US Open final aside from the one he won. So yeah, stupid hypothetical is stupid. Stick to reality mate.

:laydownlaughing
the fact you declare it doesn't apply is irrelevant. But keep thinking you have the final word. Hilarious!

Your hypothetical portrays a guy who seems to have been a one hit wonder at a particular slam, something that Murray clearly isn't since he had already reached a final there. So yes, irrelevant.

Sophistry. If you can't apply or resist using deductive reasoning, there's no point going on. I've expressed my opinion which was my objective anyway

 

[DarthFed]

Facts: Murray is a US Open champion. He's an AO finalist. That is no joke. No snark needed. Facts speak for themselves. Of course if you were ever capable of assessing what goes on the court we could have a discussion that's a little more interesting, but then again, you thought as recently as two months ago that Nadal was still in his prime and he needed to lose the FO before you make up your mind. You also barely spotted declines in movement.

That's the kind of joke I'm entertaining here. Before resorting to personal insults, get a clue.

Ah, but aren't you one of those who puts a lot of stock in major finals? Murray is 0-4 at AO and 1-1 at USO. Murray at AO deals with Djoker who is a hell of a lot better there than he is at USO (where Murray won). I think someone made the (valid) point earlier that the competition at AO is tougher than USO due to Djokovic. At the USO there hasn't been a major force since 2009 when Roger lost to DP. For the record I do agree that Murray is a little more dangerous at the USO as the counterpunching is more effective, but at the same time it is easier to blast him off the court when he is playing passively. Anyways grass is far and away his best surface as the weak 2nd serve is easier to hide.

1- Yes, I put a lot of stock in major finals, but never more than actual major wins. What kind of stupid ass argument is that?

2- Murray's game is better suited for faster conditions. This is a fact based on results at both masters and majors (see WImbledon and US Open... the only slams he's won) as well as the nature of his game. Quite how is that an argument is beyond me?

Surprised that post is coming from you.

I don't disagree with any of that, aside from I don't think major finals are a big deal as everyone else here seems to value 2nd place a lot.

But a big part of it is competition. Murray is at his strongest on grass because the big weakness that is his 2nd serve is easier to hide. But should we not be comparing the competition on slow hards (Djokovic is easily the best slow-hardcourt player we've seen) to fast hards where there is no true dominant player since Murray became relevant? I don't think Murray is much better at the USO vs. AO. But I know Djokovic is a hell of a lot stronger at the latter and that is making a difference in the results. Similar deal when we are talking about Djokovic on clay vs. grass and fast hards. Truth is I think there is a reasonable argument that he is better on clay but the competition has obviously been stronger there. Note I said "better" not "greater"

 

[brokenshoelace]

:laydownlaughing
the fact you declare it doesn't apply is irrelevant. But keep thinking you have the final word. Hilarious!

Your hypothetical portrays a guy who seems to have been a one hit wonder at a particular slam, something that Murray clearly isn't since he had already reached a final there. So yes, irrelevant.

Sophistry. If you can't apply or resist using deductive reasoning, there's no point going on. I've expressed my opinion which was my objective anyway

No, I understand that, but your hypothetical also was founded on "X player never making the final again." Murray won the tournament in 2012, then failed to reach the final in 2013 and 2014. Hardly never again. If by the end of his career, he hasn't reached the final, then we'll talk. You can't really not see why this doesn't apply.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ah, but aren't you one of those who puts a lot of stock in major finals? Murray is 0-4 at AO and 1-1 at USO. Murray at AO deals with Djoker who is a hell of a lot better there than he is at USO (where Murray won). I think someone made the (valid) point earlier that the competition at AO is tougher than USO due to Djokovic. At the USO there hasn't been a major force since 2009 when Roger lost to DP. For the record I do agree that Murray is a little more dangerous at the USO as the counterpunching is more effective, but at the same time it is easier to blast him off the court when he is playing passively. Anyways grass is far and away his best surface as the weak 2nd serve is easier to hide.

1- Yes, I put a lot of stock in major finals, but never more than actual major wins. What kind of stupid ass argument is that?

2- Murray's game is better suited for faster conditions. This is a fact based on results at both masters and majors (see WImbledon and US Open... the only slams he's won) as well as the nature of his game. Quite how is that an argument is beyond me?

Surprised that post is coming from you.

I don't disagree with any of that, aside from I don't think major finals are a big deal as everyone else here seems to value 2nd place a lot.

But a big part of it is competition. Murray is at his strongest on grass because the big weakness that is his 2nd serve is easier to hide. But should we not be comparing the competition on slow hards (Djokovic is easily the best slow-hardcourt player we've seen) to fast hards where there is no true dominant player since Murray became relevant? I don't think Murray is much better at the USO vs. AO. But I know Djokovic is a hell of a lot stronger at the latter and that is making a difference in the results. Similar deal when we are talking about Djokovic on clay vs. grass and fast hards. Truth is I think there is a reasonable argument that he is better on clay but the competition has obviously been stronger there. Note I said "better" not "greater"

OK, but remember what I said in my initial post: The two aren't mutually exclusive (meaning that it can be both), and I flat out said Djokovic is better at the AO, but disagreed about Murray (which you agree with me on). The other thing I disagreed with, is Nadal. You can't tell me Nadal's performances at the US Open aren't typically much more impressive than his AO performances. it's a fact that got casually glossed over (his 2010 and 2013 wins are the best he's ever played on hards, and he looked damn good in 2011 before he ran into Superman Novak).

The Nadal part was conveniently ignored and it turned into a Murray discussion but don't lose sight of what the original claim was: Nadal isn't better at the US Open...the competition is just weaker. That's a reaaaaaaally selective way to put it and I'm sure you agree. He IS better at the US Open.

 

[Federberg]

Your hypothetical portrays a guy who seems to have been a one hit wonder at a particular slam, something that Murray clearly isn't since he had already reached a final there. So yes, irrelevant.

Sophistry. If you can't apply or resist using deductive reasoning, there's no point going on. I've expressed my opinion which was my objective anyway

No, I understand that, but your hypothetical also was founded on "X player never making the final again." Murray won the tournament in 2012, then failed to reach the final in 2013 and 2014. Hardly never again. If by the end of his career, he hasn't reached the final, then we'll talk. You can't really not see why this doesn't apply.

Yes true. For me, it always makes sense to use extremes in a hypothetical in order to test its veracity. Even if the reality is far less extreme than the hypothesis, if you agree with the premise then we've made progress. If you don't no harm no foul

 

[Kieran]

Why would I need a tennis argument when I can let the facts speak for themselves? Murray has been in 4 finals at the AO, but only 2 at the US Open. That constitutes greater expertise at the AO in my view. If you disagree that's your opinion. Do you realise how much of a joke you make yourself appear to be when you feel the need to post such a trivial difference of opinion in such a snarky manner? :snicker Jeepers. Imagine if it was an important issue :nono

You do realise that actually winning the event is better than a half a dozen losses in the final, no?

It's Federberg, so no, he doesn't.

Obviously not. Still, you can bring a horse to water, but you can't... :deadhorse:deadhorse

 

[Front242]

It's all too easy for Nadal fans to assume Roger "benefitted" from Nadal not being in a slam he won but that just shows the pompous nature to assume if Nadal was playing he would've either won or beaten Roger. Who's to say they'd have even ended up playing each other? It's utterly pointless fanboyism drivel.

OK, I'll say it out loud:

I believe, with 100% certitude, that if Nadal were healthy he would have won the FO, like he won it 4 times before and 5 times since, and he would have beaten Roger without breaking a sweat, like he always does on clay. But no yeah, I'm sure THAT year would have been different. Roger had him figured out.

Look, he annihilated Hewitt the match before and was moving great and then happened to hit a lot of short balls against Soderling who was serving great and painting lines everywhere. Had he beaten Soderling he probably still would've won the tournament so therefore, the injury couldn't really have been so bad then could it? And yes, I know different opponent, blah blah re Hewitt. I'm not talking about the scoreline (although that also indicates Nadal was playing at a very high level), I'm talking about his movement which just one day prior looked absolutely top notch. Now maybe some Fed or Soderling fans jabbed a load of needles in their voodoo dolls the night before he played Sod but really I can't see how he deteriorated into this supposed badly injured guy the next day. Besides set 1 all the others were very close so how injured could he possibly have been against a guy simply playing out of his mind?

As I said, had Nadal not hit so many poor short balls there and won that match, he'd have very likely won the tournament again so don't give me this Roger got lucky Nadal was injured crap. More like Soderling was lucky Nadal hit so many short balls and punished him dearly and appropriately for it. Roger had a very hard time in that tournament against Haas and Del Potro also and earned it the hard way. Nadal losing had zero to do with Roger and he still had a lot more matches to win after he heard Soderling won. I'd personally give him credit more for the mental strength it took to go on and win it rather than saying blah blah, he only won 'cos Nadal lost which is just the typical Nadal fan nonsense.

 

[Federberg]

^I 100% agree. Front maybe we find it hard to do all this 'woulda coulda' coz our guy has achieved so much!

 

[Kieran]

Look, he annihilated Hewitt the match before and was moving great and then happened to hit a lot of short balls against Soderling who was serving great and painting lines everywhere. Had he beaten Soderling he probably still would've won the tournament so therefore, the injury couldn't really have been so bad then could it? And yes, I know different opponent, blah blah re Hewitt. I'm not talking about the scoreline (although that also indicates Nadal was playing at a very high level), I'm talking about his movement which just one day prior looked absolutely top notch. Now maybe some Fed or Soderling fans jabbed a load of needles in their voodoo dolls the night before he played Sod but really I can't see how he deteriorated into this supposed badly injured guy the next day. Besides set 1 all the others were very close so how injured could he possibly have been against a guy simply playing out of his mind?

A "supposed badly injured guy" who skipped Wimbledon straight after this? :cover

Seriously brother, step away from the keyboard. You're embarrassing yourself again... :cover