Will Nadal pass Federer?

[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.

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.

Do you believe Roger would have won RG that year if he played Nadal? Yes or no question.


(Save me the "the fact is he didn't." Yes, I know. It's irrelevant. But this thread is long past the what ifs so we might as well do it).

 

[Front242]

I just find it dense, federberg all this Federer benefitted from Nadal's absence nonsense certain fans keep harping on about. Most of the time Federer failed to win the tournament anytime Nadal lost and even if Nadal had played they all assume one of two things: either (a) had he played Nadal would've beaten Federer (despite a complete lack of logic 'cos they may not have even been drawn to play each other or Nadal may not have been good enough to meet Federer. I know, shock, right?!) or (b) Nadal would have won the tournament 'cos some of his fans are so pretentiously delirious they think that he probably would've won he had played the ones he missed :cover

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

..and yet you still do the woulda coulda when Roger beat Novak at RG 2011 because our guy achieved so much and you felt threatened. If this doesn't apply to you, it sure applies to Fed fans. We were all here when that conversation took plac.e

 

[brokenshoelace]

I just find it dense, federberg all this Federer benefitted from Nadal's absence nonsense certain fans keep harping on about. Most of the time Federer failed to win the tournament anytime Nadal lost and even if Nadal had played they all assume one of two things: either (a) had he played Nadal would've beaten Federer (despite a complete lack of logic 'cos they may not have even been drawn to play each other or Nadal may not have been good enough to meet Federer. I know, shock, right?!) or (b) Nadal would have won the tournament 'cos some of his fans are so pretentiously delirious they think that he probably would've won he had played the ones he missed :cover

Yes. It's absolutely obtuse to assume Nadal would have won Roland Garros if he were healthy. He almost never does that.

 

[Front242]

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.

Do you believe Roger would have won RG that year if he played Nadal? Yes or no question.


(Save me the "the fact is he didn't." Yes, I know. It's irrelevant. But this thread is long past the what ifs so we might as well do it).

Why ask me what I already answered when I said had Nadal beaten Soderling he probably would've won the whole tournament? I already answered that. I'm merely pointing out he really wasn't all that injured so making it sound like Roger got lucky 'cos of an injury is dense. He played well enough to destroy everyone before that match and got punished for poor play against Le Sod.

 

[Front242]

I just find it dense, federberg all this Federer benefitted from Nadal's absence nonsense certain fans keep harping on about. Most of the time Federer failed to win the tournament anytime Nadal lost and even if Nadal had played they all assume one of two things: either (a) had he played Nadal would've beaten Federer (despite a complete lack of logic 'cos they may not have even been drawn to play each other or Nadal may not have been good enough to meet Federer. I know, shock, right?!) or (b) Nadal would have won the tournament 'cos some of his fans are so pretentiously delirious they think that he probably would've won he had played the ones he missed :cover

Yes. It's absolutely obtuse to assume Nadal would have won Roland Garros if he were healthy. He almost never does that.

You can keep going on and on and around in circles. I don't think he was all that unhealthy at all. At full health he still hits tons of short balls the last few years. He was unlucky he didn't get away it 'cos he usually does.

 

[I.Haychew]

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.

Now maybe some Fed or Soderling fans jabbed a load of needles in their voodoo dolls the night before he played Sod

Was there even such a thing as a "Soderling fan" prior to that match?

 

[Federberg]

I just find it dense, federberg all this Federer benefitted from Nadal's absence nonsense certain fans keep harping on about. Most of the time Federer failed to win the tournament anytime Nadal lost and even if Nadal had played they all assume one of two things: either (a) had he played Nadal would've beaten Federer (despite a complete lack of logic 'cos they may not have even been drawn to play each other or Nadal may not have been good enough to meet Federer. I know, shock, right?!) or (b) Nadal would have won the tournament 'cos some of his fans are so pretentiously delirious they think that he probably would've won he had played the ones he missed :cover

What can you do Front? :nono If reality doesn't fit the narrative, the tactic is to go for fantasy. Quite apart from it not being a certainty that Nadal beats Federer, the entire tour is disrespected because it's assumed that Rafa just waltzes his way into the final. Even though the facts don't support the fantasy. What colour is the sky in Nadal-fanworld I wonder uzzled

 

[Front242]

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.

Now maybe some Fed or Soderling fans jabbed a load of needles in their voodoo dolls the night before he played Sod

Was there even such a thing as a "Soderling fan" prior to that match?

Back then I used bet on tennis a lot and Soderling was a decent player on clay and won me quite a few few bets so yeah, I liked his game. I like aggressive players.

 

[Federberg]

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

..and yet you still do the woulda coulda when Roger beat Novak at RG 2011 because our guy achieved so much and you felt threatened. If this doesn't apply to you, it sure applies to Fed fans. We were all here when that conversation took plac.e

I'm intrigued. What 'woulda coulda'?

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Do you believe Roger would have won RG that year if he played Nadal? Yes or no question.


(Save me the "the fact is he didn't." Yes, I know. It's irrelevant. But this thread is long past the what ifs so we might as well do it).

Why ask me what I already answered when I said had Nadal beaten Soderling he probably would've won the whole tournament? I already answered that. I'm merely pointing out he really wasn't all that injured so making it sound like Roger got lucky 'cos of an injury is dense. He played well enough to destroy everyone before that match and got punished for poor play against Le Sod.

Because I fail to see what we disagree on then. If you agree with that, then you agree Roger benefited. Can't have one without the other.

Yes, Roger still had to do his part and he did. Full props. He won the tournament. I never believed in the asterisk BS. It's not like he cheated. But benefiting from someone's loss and an asterisk are not the same.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

..and yet you still do the woulda coulda when Roger beat Novak at RG 2011 because our guy achieved so much and you felt threatened. If this doesn't apply to you, it sure applies to Fed fans. We were all here when that conversation took plac.e

I'm intrigued. What 'woulda coulda'?

...the past 3 pages of this thread? The part where I brought up Nadal's injuries, DarthFed brought up Fed's mono (and said it was the same thing even though Roger never missed time), me saying Nadal would have won RG in 2009, etc... I don't blame you for skipping through all that if you did, but yeah, that woulda coulda.

 

[Front242]

Do you believe Roger would have won RG that year if he played Nadal? Yes or no question.


(Save me the "the fact is he didn't." Yes, I know. It's irrelevant. But this thread is long past the what ifs so we might as well do it).

Why ask me what I already answered when I said had Nadal beaten Soderling he probably would've won the whole tournament? I already answered that. I'm merely pointing out he really wasn't all that injured so making it sound like Roger got lucky 'cos of an injury is dense. He played well enough to destroy everyone before that match and got punished for poor play against Le Sod.

Because I fail to see what we disagree on then. If you agree with that, then you agree Roger benefited. Can't have one without the other.

Yes, Roger still had to do his part and he did. Full props. He won the tournament. I never believed in the asterisk BS. It's not like he cheated. But benefiting from someone's loss and an asterisk are not the same.

There are certain Nadal fans who make out Roger has benefitted a lot from Nadal's absences. I really can't think of any other times he actually won anything besides RG '09 but I'd love to see them listed for sheer comedy value. Sure if you want to say it made his path easier, it obviously did but he had to do A LOT more after that, as in win 4 more matches. His 4th round match was still going when he saw Nadal lost I believe. I just don't succumb to the whole Roger got lucky Nadal was injured nonsense. Word it as it was beneficial to him that Soderling beat Nadal fair and square and I'm all for it but he didn't seem anyway injured as much as the Nadal fans make out and that's where the disrespect comes in.

 

[I.Haychew]

Now maybe some Fed or Soderling fans jabbed a load of needles in their voodoo dolls the night before he played Sod

Was there even such a thing as a "Soderling fan" prior to that match?

Back then I used bet on tennis a lot and Soderling was a decent player on clay and won me quite a few few bets so yeah, I liked his game. I like aggressive players.

I was just trying to be funny. Prior to that match, I'd never even heard of Soderling. After he beat Folks that day, I immediately became a fan.

 

[Front242]

Btw, don't you mean you were trying to be phunny after he beat Pholks you immediately became a phan? :snicker

 

[DarthFed]

..and yet you still do the woulda coulda when Roger beat Novak at RG 2011 because our guy achieved so much and you felt threatened. If this doesn't apply to you, it sure applies to Fed fans. We were all here when that conversation took plac.e

I'm intrigued. What 'woulda coulda'?

...the past 3 pages of this thread? The part where I brought up Nadal's injuries, DarthFed brought up Fed's mono (and said it was the same thing even though Roger never missed time), me saying Nadal would have won RG in 2009, etc... I don't blame you for skipping through all that if you did, but yeah, that woulda coulda.

Rafa missed RG 09? That's news to me. Remind me, how is 09 RG different than Roger's 2008? Surely Rafa's knees were made worse when the Swede ran him ragged and helped book his flight back to Mallorca in such beautiful fashion

 

[Kieran]

I'm intrigued. What 'woulda coulda'?

...the past 3 pages of this thread? The part where I brought up Nadal's injuries, DarthFed brought up Fed's mono (and said it was the same thing even though Roger never missed time), me saying Nadal would have won RG in 2009, etc... I don't blame you for skipping through all that if you did, but yeah, that woulda coulda.

Rafa missed RG 09? That's news to me. Remind me, how is 09 RG different than Roger's 2008? Surely Rafa's knees were made worse when the Swede ran him ragged and helped book his flight back to Mallorca in such beautiful fashion

Roger's 2008? What happened?

Am I missing something here? Did Roger skip a slam somewhere and I didn't hear about it?

Did he even skip a tournament?

What are you referring to? :s

 

[Kieran]

he didn't seem anyway injured as much as the Nadal fans make out and that's where the disrespect comes in.

Buddy, we love your confusions when it comes to Rafa. Federberg clicking likes on them only adds to your predicament. Seriously, you been on the wrong side of this stuff for years, to the extent that you used to make up whole fictional segments of Rafa's autobiography. :laydownlaughing :lolz:

Give it a rest... :hug

 

[Front242]

he didn't seem anyway injured as much as the Nadal fans make out and that's where the disrespect comes in.

Buddy, we love your confusions when it comes to Rafa. Federberg clicking likes on them only adds to your predicament. Seriously, you been on the wrong side of this stuff for years, to the extent that you used to make up whole fictional segments of Rafa's autobiography. :laydownlaughing :lolz:

Give it a rest... :hug

Maye you should pay attention to the silly likes other Nadal fans do because most of the time Federer fans make more valid arguments and don't succumb to what if scenarios so we tend to like realistic posts. We live in a more real world, not one where you guys seem to assume that Nadal would've won all the events he missed. I'm sure he was so utterly debilitated from his stomach virus that it meant he couldn't possibly have recovered in 18 days before the AO '13 started Newsflash though, Federer didn't "benefit" there either since Novak won.

 

[DarthFed]

...the past 3 pages of this thread? The part where I brought up Nadal's injuries, DarthFed brought up Fed's mono (and said it was the same thing even though Roger never missed time), me saying Nadal would have won RG in 2009, etc... I don't blame you for skipping through all that if you did, but yeah, that woulda coulda.

Rafa missed RG 09? That's news to me. Remind me, how is 09 RG different than Roger's 2008? Surely Rafa's knees were made worse when the Swede ran him ragged and helped book his flight back to Mallorca in such beautiful fashion

Roger's 2008? What happened?

Am I missing something here? Did Roger skip a slam somewhere and I didn't hear about it?

Did he even skip a tournament?

What are you referring to? :s

Did Rafa skip 2009 RG? He was clearly not injured enough to play RG and smoke his first 4 opponents... Roger wasn't sick enough to skip AO 2008 and other tournaments either. Both guys played way worse than we were accustomed to seeing but they showed up, they played, and they lost. So again, what is the difference between Rafa and his knees in RG 09 and Roger and his mono in 2008?