Federer is closing in on 300 weeks at Number UNO!

I believe he is 297 weeks now and needs to be #1 after Shanghai.

The only one who can stop him is Djokovic if he wins both Beijing and Shanghai.....but that won't be enough. Federer will have to lose apparently in the first round of Shanghai.

So any "faux pas" from Djokovic to Shanghai's final and Federer is guaranteed 300 weeks at number 1...and doesn;t he deserve it?

Shame you're not a fan, otherwise you'd be so proud

Imagine him in front of a cake with 300 candles to blow out, would his lungs be up to the task?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nMF8cejaAms/UB8XOjgB4KI/AAAAAAAAArw/-dLwXJglA6g/s1600/birthday+cake.jpg

noleisthebest wrote:Shame you're not a fan, otherwise you'd be so proud

I agree! I see his tennis as simply oustanding and I am glad talent and achievement for once go hand in hand....even if I still believe he has under-achieved in his career.

Yes, he's done so well.
I did say once on the old bbc 606 that he was the best thing that happened to tennis.
He has evolved and aged very gracefully as a character.
Of course, he can't help being Swiss now and then, but I forgive him that on the account of all the many hours of breath-taking tennis he gave to tennis fans.

I hope to see him live a few more times before he retires, he's great to watch from up close!

By golly gosh he does deserve it.

He has simply pushed the boundaries of tennis to heights which I doubt in my lifetime I will see the likes of again.

I think the modesty he has approached with each milestone and record he has set is not spoken highly enough in the press and amongst his peers.

You wonder just how much more he achieve and set in terms of records.

noleisthebest wrote:Imagine him in front of a cake with 300 candles to blow out, would his lungs be up to the task?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nMF8cejaAms/UB8XOjgB4KI/AAAAAAAAArw/-dLwXJglA6g/s1600/birthday+cake.jpg

Nadal will help him out with his lungs and perhaps his legs as well.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Imagine him in front of a cake with 300 candles to blow out, would his lungs be up to the task?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nMF8cejaAms/UB8XOjgB4KI/AAAAAAAAArw/-dLwXJglA6g/s1600/birthday+cake.jpg

Nadal will help him out with his lungs and perhaps his legs as well.

And you shall help out with your 'balanced' act, won't you?

The haters were predicting that he would be back to being ranked 3rd by the beginning of this month...but now they are all eating crow and hiding in shame as Roger marches on to 300 weeks at no1
Being ranked no1 at his age against the current generation is probably his greatest achievement for the simple fact that he was able to do it after everything he has been through,1000+ matches in his legs,never missed a grand slam and only ever lost before the semi finals of a grand slam 4 times in 30 straight grand slams and of course breaking all the records,to come back and be the no1 player again after achieving all of that is phenomenal

Not quite there yet but very close now. Agree it is pretty impressive. What do you think beyond 300 weeks? I expect he will not keep the #1 at YE but I would not be entirely shocked if he were to reclaim it again for at least some time in 2013.

Beyond 300 weeks will just be ridiculous,but I think 300 is a nice round number,cant see anyone catching that for the simple fact that no player in the history of the game has ever been able to be as consistent and "injury free" as Roger
Dont know about reclaiming the ranking for a 4th time if he loses it,he has a lot to defend next season,but you can never write Roger off

Any slam would break a special record:

2 FO (only player to have won twice all 4 slams since Rod Laver)

5 AOs - no-one did it, I believe and yet the amazing achievement of winning 3 out of the 4 slams 5 times!!!

8 Wimby....never happened before...not even at Renshaw's time.

6 USO....never happened before either.

Tenez wrote:Any slam would break a special record:

2 FO (only player to have won twice all 4 slams since Rod Laver)

5 AOs - no-one did it, I believe and yet the amazing achievement of winning 3 out of the 4 slams 5 times!!!

8 Wimby....never happened before...not even at Renshaw's time.

6 USO....never happened before either.

Every RG title would be another career grand slam,another AO would mean he has won 3 different grand slam events at least 5 times
Roger was only 2 points away from a 6th straight U.S Open title and 2 points from a 6th straight Wimbledon title
He also had a match point against Safin at the 05 AO,which means he was only a single point away from making 19 ( I think) consecutive grand slam finals

yep, quite a few "missed" opportunites there.

Sampras, Connors and Wilander for instance made the most of their opportinities

I guess it depends on how you look at it,those may seem like missed opportunities,then then he did make the most of all the rest of his opportunities

Veejay wrote:I guess it depends on how you look at it,those may seem like missed opportunities,then then he did make the most of all the rest of his opportunities

If you bear in mind the 12/12 statistics when Novak was in Federer's half of the draw in all non RG slam draws, you get the idea.

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:I guess it depends on how you look at it,those may seem like missed opportunities,then then he did make the most of all the rest of his opportunities

If you bear in mind the 12/12 statistics when Novak was in Federer's half of the draw in all non RG slam draws, you get the idea.

Not sure I get your point NITB?
For quite a few seasons Roger and Nadal were seeded 1 and 2,so they were always only ever on course to meet in the final

Veejay wrote:I guess it depends on how you look at it,those may seem like missed opportunities,then then he did make the most of all the rest of his opportunities

I cannot imagine Wilander, Nadal, Sampras, Connors for instance having missed close opportunities or having lost a slam from MP up. If anything I remember Pete winning a slam from MP down...and all the others have been able to reverse very tough situations.

Federer looks to me as someone who has let slip very good occasions to win slams:

AO05 (vSafin), Master 06 (v Nalbandian) WImby 08 (v Nadal), AO09 (v Nadal), US09 (v Delpo), FO2010 (v Soderling), FO2011 v (Nadal).

I woudl remember the other "great" players often being beaten fair and square but Fed very often had a very good look at the matches he lost.

Veejay wrote:
Not sure I get your point NITB?
For quite a few seasons Roger and Nadal were seeded 1 and 2,so they were always only ever on course to meet in the final

Yes, but some had the easier route to that final than the others. Imagine if Nadal had to play Djokovic at USO, AO and Wimbledon semi-finals as opposed to Murray etc.

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:
Not sure I get your point NITB?
For quite a few seasons Roger and Nadal were seeded 1 and 2,so they were always only ever on course to meet in the final

Yes, but some had the easier route to that final than the others. Imagine if Nadal had to play Djokovic at USO, AO and Wimbledon semi-finals as opposed to Murray etc.

It depends on the match up,but the dynamic also changes,Djokovic would have lost to both Federer and Nadal in the semis,but not necessarily anymore and now it seems like Murray could also be a serious threat to the other 3 players

Veejay wrote:

It depends on the match up,but the dynamic also changes,Djokovic would have lost to both Federer and Nadal in the semis,but not necessarily anymore and now it seems like Murray could also be a serious threat to the other 3 players

Yes, but how many slams will have Nadal won had he not had the draws fixed for him?

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

It depends on the match up,but the dynamic also changes,Djokovic would have lost to both Federer and Nadal in the semis,but not necessarily anymore and now it seems like Murray could also be a serious threat to the other 3 players

Yes, but how many slams will have Nadal won had he not had the draws fixed for him?

0?

btw NITB which slams do you think Nadal would have not won if he had a harder semi-final?
FO 2005,2006,2007,2008 arguably his biggest opponent was Federer, who he beat during all 4 years.
FO 2010 he drew the harder semi in Djokovic, but Djokovic lost before the semis.
Wimby 2008, he drew and faced Murray in the semis. Djokovic did not even reach the semis that year, so he couldn't have played him whatever the draw was.
USO 2010 he played beat Djokovic in the final.
AO 2009 neither Murray or Djokovic reached the semis, so couldn't have faced either of them, irrelevant of who he drew.
FO2011 he played Federer in the final. If he had drawn Djokovic in the semi it would have been a difficult match, but given Nadal's record at RG I think he would have won. He beat Djokovic this year in FO, remember.
Wimby 2010, Djokovic did not reach the semi-final stage, so Nadal couldn't have faced Djokovic.
FO 2012, Nadal beat his big nemesis Djokovic in the final stage in 4 sets.

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:I guess it depends on how you look at it,those may seem like missed opportunities,then then he did make the most of all the rest of his opportunities

I cannot imagine Wilander, Nadal, Sampras, Connors for instance having missed close opportunities or having lost a slam from MP up. If anything I remember Pete winning a slam from MP down...and all the others have been able to reverse very tough situations.

Federer looks to me as someone who has let slip very good occasions to win slams:

AO05 (vSafin), Master 06 (v Nalbandian) WImby 08 (v Nadal), AO09 (v Nadal), US09 (v Delpo), FO2010 (v Soderling), FO2011 v (Nadal).

I woudl remember the other "great" players often being beaten fair and square but Fed very often had a very good look at the matches he lost.

I get your point but you have to also consider to the amount of finals Roger has made,its a lot more.Nadal,Sampras and Connors werent making the final of every grand slam winning 2 or 3 in a season.The more finals you make the greater the chance to increase your victories or add more to your loses or missed opportunities
Federer won 11 majors in 4 seasons and was a finalist in every grand slam during those 4 season except on 2 occasions, where as it took Sampras somewhere around the span of 48-50 grand slams to win his 14 majors
You cant win them all,its impossible.
The fact that those matches that he lost were almost always on his racket is testament to how brilliant he is.Even now he still rarely loses a match when he is beaten fair and square
Id say the final he really blew was 09 U.S Open,he had that match wrapped up serving for the second set,was stupid to come into the net twice and allowed Del Potro into the match and got distracted.He seemed to be ok with losing that time
09 AO was heart breaking,but he had ample opportunity to close the match out int eh 3rd and 4th sets

Amritia3ee wrote:
USO 2010 he played beat Djokovic in the final.

After having an extra day of rest and not having to play 5 sets against the 5 times USO champion Federer in the semi-final.

Nadal is the most manufactured player/slam winner in the history of tennis: artificial leftie, draw fixing, prolonged form absences at the end of every season, dodgy borderline "treatments", rule-bending, gamesmanship, blatant on-court coaching, time-wasting. Unbeliavable, no?

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
USO 2010 he played beat Djokovic in the final.

After having an extra day of rest and not having to play 5 sets against the 5 times USO champion Federer in the semi-final.

Well that's only one tournament.
Djokovic coped in AO2012 with a day's rest and beat Nadal there. His match against Fed 2010 was not as long as vs Murray AO 2012.
Anyway, you hardly have bulletproof evidence that Djokovic would have 100% won the match, but clearly you are a bit upset as your hero lost the match.
A bit like after a football match the losing team cries 'it's all the referees fault' etc.

Amritia3ee wrote:His match against Fed 2010 was not as long as vs Murray AO 2012.

3 hours against Fed is like 10 against Murray.

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

It depends on the match up,but the dynamic also changes,Djokovic would have lost to both Federer and Nadal in the semis,but not necessarily anymore and now it seems like Murray could also be a serious threat to the other 3 players

Yes, but how many slams will have Nadal won had he not had the draws fixed for him?

Imposible to say as all the players benefit in some ways and dont benefit in other ways from the draw
I dont think Nadal wins majors just because of the draw and Im not convinced the draws are fixed just for him,the real question should be- how many grand slams Nadal would have if he played clean.None I think.When he is on the juice,he can beat anyone,when he is off the juice,he cant take a single set off any top 8 player

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:His match against Fed 2010 was not as long as vs Murray AO 2012.

3 hours against Fed is like 10 against Murray.

Really?
Aren't the points generally not as long against Federer- i.e. less long baseline rallies??

Veejay wrote:
Imposible to say as all the players benefit in some ways and dont benefit in other ways from the draw
I dont think Nadal wins majors just because of the draw and Im not convinced the draws are fixed just for him,

Well I've just been through is 11 slam wins, and NITB could only pick out USO 2010, and even that I still think Nadal would have beaten Djoko in the semi.

Veejay wrote:
When he is on the juice,he can beat anyone,when he is off the juice,he cant take a single set off any top 8 player

Can beat anyone?
What happens if he's not on PEDs?
You say he 'cycles down' in the indoor season, but what happens if his poor results there are because he is weak on the surface? Ever considered that. He's not failed a drugs test, and I realise that it's not definitive proof he is not guilty, the whole top 100 could be guilty and be covered up by ATP as far as we know, but even you have admitted on v2 that there is no proof that he is guilty:

The autumn season is played on indoor hard.
This is his weakest surface, for many reasons, mainly that the ball bounce is very low.
In 2009 WTF, he lost every single match he played indoors. A week later he crushed Tomas Berdych on clay for the loss of 7 games in 3 sets. (Also won his other fixture comfortably without dropping a set- on clay).
In 2011 WTF he lost every match he played bar one, one of those losses was a crushing by Roger Federer, who went on to win the tournament. This was on indoor hard. A week later he crushed Juan Monaco with the loss of just 4 games on clay. He also went on to beat Del Potro in 4 sets.

What happens if he is actually injured, and it is not a silent ban? His style of play means injuries to his knees is inevitable. Of course it's not definitive proof he is currently injured, but people have been saying for years he will retire due to knee injury. If there was a silent ban he would have a definitive date, that he has been banned for. Knee injuries are difficult to put an exact date on, look at Arsenal midfielder Jack Wilshere. He was meant to be back a few months ago, still not starting for Arsenal.

So you are just speculating that he is doping. You think this is the case. You have no proof. I have no proof.
You said when on juice he can beat anyone, maybe in reality that's 'when at his best he can beat anyone.'

Veejay wrote:
,the real question should be- how many grand slams Nadal would have if he played clean.None I think.When he is on the juice,he can beat anyone,when he is off the juice,he cant take a single set off any top 8 player

Even more so, will we ever find out?

Amritia3ee wrote:btw NITB which slams do you think Nadal would have not won if he had a harder semi-final?
FO 2005,2006,2007,2008 arguably his biggest opponent was Federer, who he beat during all 4 years.
FO 2010 he drew the harder semi in Djokovic, but Djokovic lost before the semis.
Wimby 2008, he drew and faced Murray in the semis. Djokovic did not even reach the semis that year, so he couldn't have played him whatever the draw was.
USO 2010 he played beat Djokovic in the final.
AO 2009 neither Murray or Djokovic reached the semis, so couldn't have faced either of them, irrelevant of who he drew.
FO2011 he played Federer in the final. If he had drawn Djokovic in the semi it would have been a difficult match, but given Nadal's record at RG I think he would have won. He beat Djokovic this year in FO, remember.
Wimby 2010, Djokovic did not reach the semi-final stage, so Nadal couldn't have faced Djokovic.
FO 2012, Nadal beat his big nemesis Djokovic in the final stage in 4 sets.

The French Open 2011 is very debatable 2bh bud I think that was the year Novak could have toppled the king of clay, such was his phenomenal form and confidence (remember he was playing soo well in his unbeaten run and wasn't as good after but still rode that wave of confidence to victory).
Djoko lost in the semi's to berdych at wimby 2010, I know it doesn't mean much but just thought I would point it out but good points.

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:
,the real question should be- how many grand slams Nadal would have if he played clean.None I think.When he is on the juice,he can beat anyone,when he is off the juice,he cant take a single set off any top 8 player

Even more so, will we ever find out?

Whether he's on PEDs?
No one knows. Tenez thinks Djokovic and Murray are also on PEDs.
Some think Nadal is on PEDs.
People on THASP think Fed is on PEDs.

Amritia3ee wrote:

The autumn season is played on indoor hard.
This is his weakest surface, for many reasons, mainly that the ball bounce is very low.
'

You keep forgetting that Nadal made it to the WTF final in 2010.

luvsports! wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:btw NITB which slams do you think Nadal would have not won if he had a harder semi-final?
FO 2005,2006,2007,2008 arguably his biggest opponent was Federer, who he beat during all 4 years.
FO 2010 he drew the harder semi in Djokovic, but Djokovic lost before the semis.
Wimby 2008, he drew and faced Murray in the semis. Djokovic did not even reach the semis that year, so he couldn't have played him whatever the draw was.
USO 2010 he played beat Djokovic in the final.
AO 2009 neither Murray or Djokovic reached the semis, so couldn't have faced either of them, irrelevant of who he drew.
FO2011 he played Federer in the final. If he had drawn Djokovic in the semi it would have been a difficult match, but given Nadal's record at RG I think he would have won. He beat Djokovic this year in FO, remember.
Wimby 2010, Djokovic did not reach the semi-final stage, so Nadal couldn't have faced Djokovic.
FO 2012, Nadal beat his big nemesis Djokovic in the final stage in 4 sets.

The French Open 2011 is very debatable 2bh bud I think that was the year Novak could have toppled the king of clay, such was his phenomenal form and confidence (remember he was playing soo well in his unbeaten run and wasn't as good after but still rode that wave of confidence to victory).
Djoko lost in the semi's to berdych at wimby 2010, I know it doesn't mean much but just thought I would point it out but good points.

FO 2011 is interesting, but on RG Rafa is practically unbeatable. Djokovic had his chance to win the tournament, but was beaten by Rog.
Wimby 2010 apologies, Djokovic lost to Berdych, not Safin. Either way, it's not the form that would have troubled Nadal.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

The autumn season is played on indoor hard.
This is his weakest surface, for many reasons, mainly that the ball bounce is very low.
'

You keep forgetting that Nadal made it to the WTF final in 2010.

This backs up my theory even more.
Nadal struggles on indoor hard, but when he has confidence (as he had in 2010 after winning 3 slams) he can fight and grit his way through. Remember he nearly lost to Roddick and Djokovic in the group stages, and was on the verge of losing against Murray.

I feel 2011 was where rafa was there for the taking 2bh i.e. isner and below par performances and Djoko was to quote Koenig 'playing tennis from another planet'. It would have been very close but I really do believe Novak could have won.
Ye bird took apart a poor djokovic that day was a real shame to see him double faulting away the big points.

Amritia3ee wrote:
This backs up my theory even more.
Nadal struggles on indoor hard, but when he has confidence (as he had in 2010 after winning 3 slams) he can fight and grit his way through. Remember he nearly lost to Roddick and Djokovic in the group stages, and was on the verge of losing against Murray.

why does he struggle on indoor hard?

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
This backs up my theory even more.
Nadal struggles on indoor hard, but when he has confidence (as he had in 2010 after winning 3 slams) he can fight and grit his way through. Remember he nearly lost to Roddick and Djokovic in the group stages, and was on the verge of losing against Murray.

why does he struggle on indoor hard?

The bounce on an indoor hard court is generally lower.
Nadal's game relies on high bounce, he uses his extreme grip to create a high net clearance (because he can achieve a higher 'dip' with his topspin), and hence the bounce is steeper. The steep bounce is his big strength, but on indoor hard court the ball bounces lower, and hence the ball falls on his opponent's 'hitting zone.' Returning wise, obviously Nadal would prefer the ball to bounce higher, as Nadal has more time to return it.
Anyway you should know this considering you are an expert on Nadal, right?

Amritia3ee wrote:
The bounce on an indoor hard court is generally lower.
Nadal's game relies on high bounce, he uses his extreme grip to create a high net clearance (because he can achieve a higher 'dip' with his topspin), and hence the bounce is steeper. The steep bounce is his big strength, but on indoor hard court the ball bounces lower, and hence the ball falls on his opponent's 'hitting zone.' Returning wise, obviously Nadal would prefer the ball to bounce higher, as Nadal has more time to return it.
Anyway you should know this considering you are an expert on Nadal, right?

What is the difference between the bounce in Wimbledon and WTF?

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
The bounce on an indoor hard court is generally lower.
Nadal's game relies on high bounce, he uses his extreme grip to create a high net clearance (because he can achieve a higher 'dip' with his topspin), and hence the bounce is steeper. The steep bounce is his big strength, but on indoor hard court the ball bounces lower, and hence the ball falls on his opponent's 'hitting zone.' Returning wise, obviously Nadal would prefer the ball to bounce higher, as Nadal has more time to return it.
Anyway you should know this considering you are an expert on Nadal, right?

What is the difference between the bounce in Wimbledon and WTF?

WTF has lower bounce. Unless the roof is on at Wimbledon, then it is relatively similar.

Funny, if Nadal was cycling down in 2009 during the WTF, how on earth did he crush Berdych a week later on clay
My theory is that on indoor hard he struggles more, and hence his results aren't as good. A week later on clay, it is another story, he loves clay.
I wonder what the conspiracy theorists will say? Was he cycling up for the last match of the season??
Isn't it a coincidence that he 'cycles down' for indoor hard, and 'cycles up' for clay a week later. He grew up on clay, it suits his play best.
Isn't it a coincidence that Nadal, a player who everyone thought would have to retire at 23 due to knee troubles, gets a knee injury? Silent ban is it? Why- because he can't put a definitive date?? Surely if it was a ban he would know how long he was banned for. Knee injuries are another issue. Every injury is potentially unique. Look at Wilshere, Monfils, Jimmy Bullard, Flintoff, all of them had knee injuries and they could never put a definitive date on when they would return. Wilshere was meant to be back last month, still out.

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
The bounce on an indoor hard court is generally lower.
Nadal's game relies on high bounce, he uses his extreme grip to create a high net clearance (because he can achieve a higher 'dip' with his topspin), and hence the bounce is steeper. The steep bounce is his big strength, but on indoor hard court the ball bounces lower, and hence the ball falls on his opponent's 'hitting zone.' Returning wise, obviously Nadal would prefer the ball to bounce higher, as Nadal has more time to return it.
Anyway you should know this considering you are an expert on Nadal, right?

What is the difference between the bounce in Wimbledon and WTF?

WTF has lower bounce. Unless the roof is on at Wimbledon, then it is relatively similar.

where is the measurement for it?

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
The bounce on an indoor hard court is generally lower.
Nadal's game relies on high bounce, he uses his extreme grip to create a high net clearance (because he can achieve a higher 'dip' with his topspin), and hence the bounce is steeper. The steep bounce is his big strength, but on indoor hard court the ball bounces lower, and hence the ball falls on his opponent's 'hitting zone.' Returning wise, obviously Nadal would prefer the ball to bounce higher, as Nadal has more time to return it.
Anyway you should know this considering you are an expert on Nadal, right?

What is the difference between the bounce in Wimbledon and WTF?

WTF has lower bounce. Unless the roof is on at Wimbledon, then it is relatively similar.

where is the measurement for it?

NITB unless I was allowed on the O2, with a racket and ruler in my hand, I can't tell you the exact figures I'm afraid.

Amritia3ee wrote:
NITB unless I was allowed on the O2, with a racket and ruler in my hand, I can't tell you the exact figures I'm afraid.

so why claim it's lower then?
To fit another construct in Nadal's manufactured PR spin?

For someone who has won a career grand slam and 11 slams altogether, WTF should be a piece of cake on any surface. Even Davydenko won it.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
NITB unless I was allowed on the O2, with a racket and ruler in my hand, I can't tell you the exact figures I'm afraid.

so why claim it's lower then?
To fit another construct in Nadal's manufactured PR spin?

Do you even know what you are talking about?
Find me one link which shows Nadal talks about low bounce?
Tenez himself talked about the low bounce on indoor hard on 606v2 last year.

noleisthebest wrote:
For someone who has won a career grand slam and 11 slams altogether, WTF should be a piece of cake on any surface. Even Davydenko won it.

lol what on earth are you on about.
That statement's so flawed on so many different levels it's unreal.
WTF is only played once a year, it is on his least favourite surface, Davydenko loves indoor hard.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:
Imposible to say as all the players benefit in some ways and dont benefit in other ways from the draw
I dont think Nadal wins majors just because of the draw and Im not convinced the draws are fixed just for him,

Well I've just been through is 11 slam wins, and NITB could only pick out USO 2010, and even that I still think Nadal would have beaten Djoko in the semi.

Veejay wrote:
When he is on the juice,he can beat anyone,when he is off the juice,he cant take a single set off any top 8 player

Can beat anyone?
What happens if he's not on PEDs?
You say he 'cycles down' in the indoor season, but what happens if his poor results there are because he is weak on the surface? Ever considered that. He's not failed a drugs test, and I realise that it's not definitive proof he is not guilty, the whole top 100 could be guilty and be covered up by ATP as far as we know, but even you have admitted on v2 that there is no proof that he is guilty:

The autumn season is played on indoor hard.
This is his weakest surface, for many reasons, mainly that the ball bounce is very low.
In 2009 WTF, he lost every single match he played indoors. A week later he crushed Tomas Berdych on clay for the loss of 7 games in 3 sets. (Also won his other fixture comfortably without dropping a set- on clay).
In 2011 WTF he lost every match he played bar one, one of those losses was a crushing by Roger Federer, who went on to win the tournament. This was on indoor hard. A week later he crushed Juan Monaco with the loss of just 4 games on clay. He also went on to beat Del Potro in 4 sets.

What happens if he is actually injured, and it is not a silent ban? His style of play means injuries to his knees is inevitable. Of course it's not definitive proof he is currently injured, but people have been saying for years he will retire due to knee injury. If there was a silent ban he would have a definitive date, that he has been banned for. Knee injuries are difficult to put an exact date on, look at Arsenal midfielder Jack Wilshere. He was meant to be back a few months ago, still not starting for Arsenal.

So you are just speculating that he is doping. You think this is the case. You have no proof. I have no proof.
You said when on juice he can beat anyone, maybe in reality that's 'when at his best he can beat anyone.'

You may use the indoor hard court season as an excuse but even you have to be real and admit that he isnt half the player he is during the clay as grass season.
Amritia,your attempt to defend Nadal is enduring,even I have to to admit that youve improved a bit since the last time we discussed this but we have been through this before.I gave detailed responses with pictures and links and my personal experience and nothing came out of it,as you ignored addressing most of my points
What happens if he is injured?
Then he is injured,but then why is an athlete who is forever implying that he has career threatening injuries aggravating his injuries even more by part taking in strenuous activities.I could literally write a book about the inconsistencies regarding Nadals injuries and point our how conflicting his actions always are to what would normally be the reaction to dealing with a particular injury
Truth is if Nadal was truly injured,he would have withdrawn from the Olympics immediately and his physio would have reported that he would be out for a minimum of 3 months.A partial tear would take about that long to fully rehabilitate and in many cases would require a brace or cast so that the knee remains fully flexed at all times,but yet Nadal is playing golf and jet skiing
I know this injury,the slightest movement can hurt or feel uncomfortable

Im not speculating that Nadal dopes,I know for a fact that he does,I base it on my personal experience of using and training people who use PED's.Add that to the various scandals he has been involved in where he was reportedly a client of Fuentes.The evidence lies with a high court Spanish judge who placed super injunction on the list.You ask for evidence,there is it.If Nadas name isnt on the list wouldnt that be evidence to exonerate him? So there is evidence
Then theres all the circumstantial evidence,accusations and rumours.I dont think there has ever seen an athlete who has ever been so blatantly accused of doping by the media.Why would they do that ad why doesnt the Nadal camp sue for libel or defamation of character?
Then theres the rumour Ive been told by a friend who is close to someone who works for IMG,who claimed Nadal failed a drugs test last November

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:
,the real question should be- how many grand slams Nadal would have if he played clean.None I think.When he is on the juice,he can beat anyone,when he is off the juice,he cant take a single set off any top 8 player

Even more so, will we ever find out?

Whether he's on PEDs?
No one knows. Tenez thinks Djokovic and Murray are also on PEDs.
Some think Nadal is on PEDs.
People on THASP think Fed is on PEDs.

Murray was 100% on Nandrolone when he was being coached by Brad Gilbert
A lot of speculation surrounding Djokovic but nothing concrete.
I dont believe Roger uses banned substances or that he has ever doped because its impossible to be that consistent if youre using PED's,I do however remain open to the possibility that he could be or has used them
Truth is they are all using something banned or legal,no pro athlete competes on pure adrenalin alone

Amritia3ee wrote:
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Find me one link which shows Nadal talks about low bounce?
Tenez himself talked about the low bounce on indoor hard on 606v2 last year.

You the one who bleats about it non-stop, not I.
What you do is pick up stuff people talk about on forums and then doctor it out here in complete ignorance.
I love Novak to bits but would never go to lengths you do in order to idolise your favourite player fighting tooth and nail against anyone who says anything that tarnishes Nadal's halo.
He is not worth it.
Forget about him and enjoy tennis. Just about everyone on the tour plays it more pleasing on the eye than Nadal.

Veejay wrote:
You may use the indoor hard court season as an excuse but even you have to be real and admit that he isnt half the player he is during the clay as grass season.

His win over Berdych on clay a week later WTF 2009 is still his most one sided match against Berdych.

Veejay wrote:
Amritia,your attempt to defend Nadal is enduring,even I have to to admit that youve improved a bit since the last time we discussed this

lol thanks

Veejay wrote:
What happens if he is injured?

All his career people have been saying he will retire soon due to knee injury. 'Inevitable' in-fact as many have put it.
Why hasn't he been able to put a definitive time-scale? It's an injury. Look at Wilshere. He was meant to be back last month. Injuries aren't always the same. If it's a silent ban it's much easier to give a specific date, surely?

Veejay wrote:
Im not speculating that Nadal dopes,I know for a fact that he does,I base it on my personal experience of using and training people who use PED's.

How can I believe you? That could be a convenient lie, or it could potentially be the truth. Like a lot of things in this debate, there is simply no hard proof or evidence. Just speculation.

Veejay wrote:
Then theres the rumour Ive been told by a friend who is close to someone who works for IMG,who claimed Nadal failed a drugs test last November

A rumour. Told by a friend. Who was told by another (his) friend. Who may/may not work for IMG. Who made a huge claim about Nadal.
Hardly bulletproof stuff is it?