Men's final

Daniel wrote:I'm right here, Tenez.  Nadal isn't as good as he used to be - but it helps when no-one from the younger generation has stood up.  Stan could have played far better but his 5 setter against Murray doomed any hope.  Everything fell into alignment for Nadal this tournament.  He has an absolute cake walk of a draw, tailor made for him.  You can't draw any conclusions based on that - other than he beat who was in front of him. He played the best tennis this year too overall - despite being worse than previous dominating years.

so what did you bet daniel? stan to win or rafa in 4 sets?

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

Emancipator wrote:

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

Tenez wrote:Hi DT welcome back. Do you need to be updated about the last 4 Fedal encounters? You missed a lot of tennis lately.

Federer has had a better year than Rafa so far; he's won a slam and 2 Masters like Rafa, but second half of the year is preferred for the Swiss and still to come. Also very intelligent scheduling. Nadal has played great in both slams but not as consistent in Masters.

Don't forget that Federer has kicked Nadal's butt three times this season.

Yes and Querrey did once, Thiem once too.
Should we go through all of Nadals losses in detail in case we forget to ignore this historic achievement? Maybe you'll be less upset after that.

Ah but Querrey and Thiem didn't beat Nadal in a slam final - a slight difference - don't you think?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Nadal was the clear favorite coming into the tournament. He draw too was kind and opened up further to make things easier. Not saying he would have lost otherwise, but maybe it would have been tougher than this cake-walk he received.

Finally.  Somone else not dazzled by victories and stats. Someone who can look at the draw and actual situation.

15 Slams puts him in #2, but irrespective of that in my book he was already #2 in GOAT list. He is definitely the GOAT on clay.

That depends on how you look at it.  I don't think 10 slams at one slam makes you better than Sampras....

Daniel wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Nadal was the clear favorite coming into the tournament. He draw too was kind and opened up further to make things easier. Not saying he would have lost otherwise, but maybe it would have been tougher than this cake-walk he received.

Finally.  Somone else not dazzled by victories and stats. Someone who can look at the draw and actual situation.

15 Slams puts him in #2, but irrespective of that in my book he was already #2 in GOAT list. He is definitely the GOAT on clay.

That depends on how you look at it.  I don't think 10 slams at one slam makes you better than Sampras....

15 slams, more masters titles, more overall tournaments, more slam finals, all 4 slams, I think Rafa edges ahead now.

Didn't see any of the french open, I want to now just to see if I think Federer would have had a chance. I mean hypothetically if it made sense to play and he was able to to the level of earlier this year. I understand why he wanted to avoid clay this year. 

I think his level got even better after the AO peaking at Indian Wells and maybe Miami against Kygrios and then obviously slightly tired in that final. I also think he could have had the AO final done in less than 5, that was on his racquet.

Federer would have had zero chance.

Outside of clay I expect Federer to win the majority of encounters this season.

Emancipator wrote:

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

Emancipator wrote:

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

Tenez wrote:Hi DT welcome back. Do you need to be updated about the last 4 Fedal encounters? You missed a lot of tennis lately.

Federer has had a better year than Rafa so far; he's won a slam and 2 Masters like Rafa, but second half of the year is preferred for the Swiss and still to come. Also very intelligent scheduling. Nadal has played great in both slams but not as consistent in Masters.

Don't forget that Federer has kicked Nadal's butt three times this season.

Yes and Querrey did once, Thiem once too.
Should we go through all of Nadals losses in detail in case we forget to ignore this historic achievement? Maybe you'll be less upset after that.

Ah but Querrey and Thiem didn't beat Nadal in a slam final - a slight difference - don't you think?

Yes if Querrey or Thiem had won a slam final- one of them would have had a slam. But they didn't, and only Federer and Nadal have won slams so far this year!
Maybe you can do your own decima watching the highlights of the last TEN matches that Nadal has lost on YouTube, then you will feel better!

well 10 slams at RG or 7 at wimbledon,the majority is still won on 1 surface 
i think that nadal edges sampras

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Didn't see any of the french open, I want to now just to see if I think Federer would have had a chance. I mean hypothetically if it made sense to play and he was able to to the level of earlier this year. I understand why he wanted to avoid clay this year. 

I think his level got even better after the AO peaking at Indian Wells and maybe Miami against Kygrios and then obviously slightly tired in that final. I also think he could have had the AO final done in less than 5, that was on his racquet.

Well, there is one thing it would have done in hindsight - and that is change the draw up completely.  Anything would have been better than that.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Didn't see any of the french open, I want to now just to see if I think Federer would have had a chance. I mean hypothetically if it made sense to play and he was able to to the level of earlier this year. I understand why he wanted to avoid clay this year. 

I think his level got even better after the AO peaking at Indian Wells and maybe Miami against Kygrios and then obviously slightly tired in that final. I also think he could have had the AO final done in less than 5, that was on his racquet.

Federer would have done better than anyone who faced Nadal this fortnight. Nadal was nervous in the last 2 matches at the start, Fed definitely could have won the first set. After that Nadal would obviously be favourite, simply because Fed wouldn't have got as many cheap points on serve.

That's assuming Fed would have gotten that far and I don't think he would have. All depends on the draw, of course.

Daniel wrote:That's assuming Fed would have gotten that far and I don't think he would have. All depends on the draw, of course.

Who apart from Nadal would have stopped him? Murray playing too passively this year, Djokovic all over the place.
Perhaps Stan, but if Fed started red lining Stan would be in trouble.

goo.gl/OmHLSm

Updated.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

Daniel wrote:That's assuming Fed would have gotten that far and I don't think he would have. All depends on the draw, of course.

Who apart from Nadal would have stopped him? Murray playing too passively this year, Djokovic all over the place.
Perhaps Stan, but if Fed started red lining Stan would be in trouble.

Fed would have had a good run if he had a kind draw - but even then he isn't confident on the surface and could have easily crashed out. Even some of the lower players would have given Federer a problem - or knackered him out.

In a one off match at Roland Garros, if the conditions were hot, Id have still fancied Fed chances against the majority of top players.
Anyway this is a hypothetical, one thing we do know is that it was intelligent scheduling with the rest if the year in mind.

Haha, knew you'd be back.
How have you been?

Perhaps it would have been like the 2011 final where the first set was definitely winnable and seeing as he got another set after that then that match had the potential to go to 5. He'd have had similar or better shots this time and more of a mental edge, could possibly be able to stretch it to 5. 

On the other hand, any of those clay matches sounded like they would be grueling for the body and as has been said I don't think he'd make it that far either. Anyhow all hypothetical...

so did you cry again this time amri?

luvsports! wrote:Haha, knew you'd be back.
How have you been?

Good thanks, quite busy with uni, you?

Emancipator wrote:

DONALD TRUMP wrote:D

What's with the stupid lettering?

If you're gonna post, do so legibly, otherwise go away.

I think he was thinking of spelling out LA DECIMA letter by letter. Anyway, the more the merrier, he can post what he wants.

DECIMA wrote:Good thanks, quite busy with uni, you?

With uni???? I thought you disappeared because as President you were now too busy running a country!

Veejay wrote:so did you cry again this time amri?

No but I'm so happy
Last year I wrote Nadal off, but he kept fighting and this historic win made it all worth it.

summerblues wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Good thanks, quite busy with uni, you?

With uni????  I thought you disappeared because as President you were now too busy running a country!

Yeah, it's not easy being the senior lecturer at Trump university.
Running the country? What the feck do you think my maid Jared Kushner is there for.

DECIMA wrote:

Veejay wrote:so did you cry again this time amri?

No but I'm so happy
Last year I wrote Nadal off, but he kept fighting and this historic win made it all worth it.

as much as i hate the guy,it was a smart move to change coaches,its definitely paying off

Veejay wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

Veejay wrote:so did you cry again this time amri?

No but I'm so happy
Last year I wrote Nadal off, but he kept fighting and this historic win made it all worth it.

as much as i hate the guy,it was a smart move to change coaches,its definitely paying off

It was obvious there was only one way Nadal could stay with the rest instead of being dictated like in the past was to move forward, hold his own.

Where I was wrong is that I thought staying closer to the baseline woudl create more UEs and play in the hands of his opponents. But he manages to play agressive yet limit the UEs.

Good on him.

As I said in the earlier thread he would most likely guaranteed year end number 1 if it was not for Federer beating him 3 times this year.

As Stan says, he is playing better than ever..even on the other surfaces.