Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

by AceofDeath Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:04 pm

No.

Look at Nadal and then look at Fed now, not years ago, now.

Nadal is the one who looks 35 because he hasn't looked after his body right. Ran himself into the ground and was lucky to make the final.

by Emancipator Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:25 pm

A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.

by AceofDeath Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:31 pm

It only took 10 years because Nadal failed to do anything at a slam in 2015 or 2016. If he did he would have lost in 3 of the 4 slams, his level was way below Federer's the last 2 years.

Writing was on the wall by nearly losing to Dimitrov... a guy who is a poor imitation of Federer.

by Veejay Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:32 pm

TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.

lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

by Emancipator Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:48 pm

Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.

by Veejay Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:07 pm

TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.

so true,federer is to nadal what roddck was to federer
it was harder for nadal to beat davydenko then it is beat federer
i do think that the dynamic has slightly edged in federers favour simply cause i think that nadal is more burnt out then federer is but lets wait and see what happens next

by Emancipator Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:22 pm

Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.
so true,federer is to nadal what roddck was to federer
it was harder for nadal to beat davydenko then it is beat federer
i do think that the dynamic has slightly edged in federers favour simply cause i think that nadal is more burnt out then federer is but lets wait and see what happens next

I think the only things that could shift this matchup more towards Federer is a rapid decline in Rafa's foot speed (half a step is not enough) and/or speeding up of the conditions, both elements allowing Federer to hit through him. As of now Rafa is clearly fast enough. The main element in his game that was lacking was the mental aspect, especially confidence, and the ability to play the big points. He was the best at that before but for a couple of years he became awful at it. In OZ, particularly against Raonic he looked sharp. If he plays at a similar level for the rest if the year, Federer fans better hope the two of them don't meet or it's gonna be a rude (re)awakening.

by noleisthebest Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:27 pm

Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.
so true,federer is to nadal what roddck was to federer
it was harder for nadal to beat davydenko then it is beat federer
i do think that the dynamic has slightly edged in federers favour simply cause i think that nadal is more burnt out then federer is but lets wait and see what happens next

I think that's a bit ott...

by Veejay Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:47 pm

TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.
so true,federer is to nadal what roddck was to federer
it was harder for nadal to beat davydenko then it is beat federer
i do think that the dynamic has slightly edged in federers favour simply cause i think that nadal is more burnt out then federer is but lets wait and see what happens next

I think the only things that could shift this matchup more towards Federer is a rapid decline in Rafa's foot speed (half a step is not enough) and/or speeding up of the conditions, both elements allowing Federer to hit through him. As of now Rafa is clearly fast enough. The main element in his game that was lacking was the mental aspect, especially confidence, and the ability to play the big points. He was the best at that before but for a couple of years he became awful at it. In OZ, particularly against Raonic he looked sharp. If he plays at a similar level for the rest if the year, Federer fans better hope the two of them don't meet or it's gonna be a rude (re)awakening.

the main question is how much of an impact the semi final against dimitrov had on nadal..
at his age matches like that are gonna to take much longer for his body to recover especially taking into consideration his style of play
in my opinion federer won the match,rather then nadal losing the match
there were several positives for roger,his backhand,his mental strength etc,things that usually cost his against nadal turned out to be his biggest strength

by Tenez Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:49 pm

TMF wrote:Federer might win W

Nadal might win RG

Federer and Nadal both have a shot at the USO

Neither of them have any chance of beating Djokovic if he comes back in 2015 form - but I think he probably won't

Murray is shit. He's only number one by default. He woulda got humiliated by Fed in the quarters in these slightly faster conditions and lucky for him he lost before that match or he'd never be able to play it down. The supposed number one player in the world being humiliated by a 35 year old.

Federer beat Djokovic twice in 2015....If I remember correctly.

Thrice actually. Either on fast conds (DUbai and Cinci) or fresh...What Federer cannot do is bbeat Djoko at teh end of a tournament in slow court...otherwise on the day he is still much better.

by Tenez Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:58 pm

AceofDeath wrote:Writing was on the wall by nearly losing to Dimitrov... a guy who is a poor imitation of Federer.

Good point. What TMF does not see (or does nor want to see) is that had Fed been fresh like in the first week....Nadal woudl not have won a set.

by AceofDeath Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:48 pm

TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.

35 years of age and 6 months without a match.. and you have the balls to blame the schedule drunk

by noleisthebest Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:50 pm

Tenez wrote:
AceofDeath wrote:Writing was on the wall by nearly losing to Dimitrov... a guy who is a poor imitation of Federer.
Good point. What TMF does not see (or does nor want to see) is that had Fed been fresh like in the first week....Nadal woudl not have won a set.

I agree.

Nadal looked so beatable in the final. Even from the baseline.

The only mystery for me was what happened to Federer in that 2nd set.

I don't want to diminish Dimi's heroic match vs Nadal in the least, but maybe that was another case of Nadal making his opponemt look better than he actually is?

by Tenez Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:22 pm

Regarding Berdych, he is more consistent than Mofils but frankly what has he done to trouble the top players in slams? he was only lucky to beat Federer twice in slams when Federer was clearly injured. Besides that...he has been the most tamed player in teh top 10.

by Emancipator Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:13 pm

Berdych has beaten Federer twice, and also Djokovic and Nadal at the slams. That's a better record at the slams than any other player that hasn't won a slam. I don't remember Federer being injured in 2012.

Monfils on the other hand has managed a big fat zero.

The most overrated player in the history of the sport. Complete and utter garbage. If Monfils were in a slam final and he was leading 6-0 6-0 5-0 40-0 on his own serve he'd still find a way to lose.

by Emancipator Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:14 pm

Didn't Berdych also beat Federer at the OGs? And nearly beat him in AUS one year?

Then again maybe Federer was injured in those matches too..

by AceofDeath Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:40 pm

Didn't Fognini, Verdasco and Pouille all beat Nadal at slams in the last 15 months?

I guess Nadal was injured in those matches too..

by Emancipator Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:11 pm

Er... we're comparing Berdych and Monfils, not Federer and Nadal. Do try to keep up.

by bogbrush Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:49 pm

We're arguing over Berdych / Monfils in Slams?

Oh come on, it's Berdych every day and twice on Sundays. I don't see that as even up for debate.

by Emancipator Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:02 pm

Exactly, Monfils is a bye at the business end of a slam.

by noleisthebest Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:13 pm

TMF wrote:Exactly, Monfils is a bye at the business end of a slam.

He may be a bye, but is a more difficult opponent for Federer than Berdych atm.

He is able to drain him with bis athleticism, and Berdych can't.

One of the reasons Federer lost to Cilic in USO 2014 is Federer was dead after his 5 setter vs Monfils.

He would have probably been fresher had he have to play Berdych.

by luvsports! Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:22 pm

spot on nitb

by Tenez Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:54 pm

NITB wrote:
TMF wrote:Exactly, Monfils is a bye at the business end of a slam.
He may be a bye, but is a more difficult opponent for Federer than Berdych atm.

He is able to drain him with bis athleticism, and Berdych can't.

One of the reasons Federer lost to Cilic in USO 2014 is Federer was dead after his 5 setter vs Monfils.

He would have probably been fresher had he have to play Berdych.

And also the reason why Federer lost that badly in thae FO08 final! He played Monfils in the semi and knew he was never going to be capable of beating Nadal.

by legendkillar Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:37 am

TMF wrote:Berdych has beaten Federer twice, and also Djokovic and Nadal at the slams. That's a better record at the slams than any other player that hasn't won a slam. I don't remember Federer being injured in 2012.

Monfils on the other hand has managed a big fat zero.

The most overrated player in the history of the sport. Complete and utter garbage. If Monfils were in a slam final and he was leading 6-0 6-0 5-0 40-0 on his own serve he'd still find a way to lose.

Think Tsonga might have something to say about that Winking

by luvsports! Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:21 pm

Just want to correct you TMF, soz.
Berdych has beaten Feds twice at slams but has never beaten Rafa or Novak at the slams.

LK is right. Tsonga has beaten Feds (twice), Novak and Rafa at the slams.

by Daniel Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:59 pm

luvsports! wrote:Just want to correct you TMF, soz.
Berdych has beaten Feds twice at slams but has never beaten Rafa or Novak at the slams.

LK is right. Tsonga has beaten Feds (twice), Novak and Rafa at the slams.

And I'll correct you. Laugh

Berdych has beaten all 3 in Slams. I noted this earlier.

2015 Australian Open v Nadal. Won in straight sets.

2010 Wimbledon v Djokovic. Won in straight sets.

Berdych is not "a mug".

As to who poses the biggest problem at the Slams, but hasn't won a Slam, I'd say Tsonga. But Berdych is in second.

by legendkillar Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:16 pm

Berdych is Sir Mugalot from the dark allies of Mugville in Mugonia.

by Daniel Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:26 pm

NITB wrote:
TMF wrote:Exactly, Monfils is a bye at the business end of a slam.
He may be a bye, but is a more difficult opponent for Federer than Berdych atm.

He is able to drain him with bis athleticism, and Berdych can't.

One of the reasons Federer lost to Cilic in USO 2014 is Federer was dead after his 5 setter vs Monfils.

He would have probably been fresher had he have to play Berdych.

Where are you getting this from? Berdych has beaten Federer twice in Slams. Monfils is 0-5.

Monfils is ALWAYS going to be the easier opponent for Federer and for Nadal.

by Emancipator Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:10 pm

legendkillar wrote:
TMF wrote:Berdych has beaten Federer twice, and also Djokovic and Nadal at the slams. That's a better record at the slams than any other player that hasn't won a slam. I don't remember Federer being injured in 2012.

Monfils on the other hand has managed a big fat zero.

The most overrated player in the history of the sport. Complete and utter garbage. If Monfils were in a slam final and he was leading 6-0 6-0 5-0 40-0 on his own serve he'd still find a way to lose.

Think Tsonga might have something to say about that

Good call, although I think they have the same number of big wins against the big three

by Emancipator Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:11 pm

Daniel wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Just want to correct you TMF, soz.
Berdych has beaten Feds twice at slams but has never beaten Rafa or Novak at the slams.

LK is right. Tsonga has beaten Feds (twice), Novak and Rafa at the slams.

And I'll correct you.

Berdych has beaten all 3 in Slams. I noted this earlier.

2015 Australian Open v Nadal. Won in straight sets.

2010 Wimbledon v Djokovic. Won in straight sets.

Berdych is not "a mug".

As to who poses the biggest problem at the Slams, but hasn't won a Slam, I'd say Tsonga. But Berdych is in second.

LOL, amateur hour

by Daniel Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:41 am

legendkillar wrote:
Daniel wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Berdych as a top tenner like Monfils and Raonic is a total joke!

Check Berdych's record against Federer - then check Monfils against Fed, Djok, and Nadal. He is always a banana skin. Monfils is a bye.

Any reason as to why you don't want me to check Berdych's record against Djokovic as well as Nadal?

Berdych is a joke. Proper mug in every sense.

Are you going to revise that opinion in light of him being 2 points from beating the "super new and improved" Federer?

by Daniel Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:41 am

luvsports! wrote:Berd WAS a hard match up. That hasn't been the case since 2013/14.

Are you also going to revise that opinion? Devil

by Tenez Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:48 am

Not really. Berds got creamed in that first set and as many times this year and in the past Fed has a poor 2nd set. Not much to do with Berds himself.

by legendkillar Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:36 am

Daniel wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Daniel wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Berdych as a top tenner like Monfils and Raonic is a total joke!

Check Berdych's record against Federer - then check Monfils against Fed, Djok, and Nadal. He is always a banana skin. Monfils is a bye.

Any reason as to why you don't want me to check Berdych's record against Djokovic as well as Nadal?

Berdych is a joke. Proper mug in every sense.

Are you going to revise that opinion in light of him being 2 points from beating the "super new and improved" Federer?

So you want me to revisit my opinion on a player who still couldn't beat Federer and prior to that lost to Haase and Nishioka?

Let me think Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly? - Page 2 759076010

Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly? - Page 2 759076010

Nope, still and always a mug.

by luvsports! Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:12 am

Daniel wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Berd WAS a hard match up. That hasn't been the case since 2013/14.

Are you also going to revise that opinion?

Nope

One swallow does not a summer make Winking

by Emancipator Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:31 pm

TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.

Well.. I'm prepared to revise my opinion and admit that I was wrong. It really does look like the matchup has changed, at least on hardcourts. Although I would temper that slightly by saying that Rafa played awful in Miami (Federer was just too good in IW and blew him off the court).

And I apologise to NITB for ridiculing the neo-BH. It does indeed seem to be a neo-BH - certainly better than the old one.

by bogbrush Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:33 pm

We there's something you don't see on the internet every day, or even every year!

Thumbs Up

to TMF!

by Daniel Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:29 pm

So, he's still a mug - and he's still someone who isn't a banana skin for Federer, despite recently being within 2 points of beating him.

Glad we cleared that up Winking

Ego and pride are no excuse for letting logic escape.

by Emancipator Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:36 pm

Abu-Daniel talking to himself again.

by Veejay Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:14 pm

i bet that daniel unblocks us to read what we are saying and then blocks us again (every time) Laugh

by bogbrush Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:20 am

Veejay wrote:i bet that daniel unblocks us to read what we are saying and then blocks us again (every time)

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31