Re: Toughtest tennis player to beat... ever

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:50 pm

summerblues wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Tenez could have easily picked 'losses' in general, but to make it more one sided towards Federer- he picked 'players lost to' on purpose.
This is ridiculous, as losing to a certain player and then having not having the toughness to rebound and beat them- should be counted as part of the stats.
When I said Tenez's approach was more reasonable than yours I mostly meant that it was more reasonable to start with the best year, then look at the second best, and so on, rather than to do it chronologically.

I was not referring to the specifics of looking at W/L ratio or "# players lost to". Those are various angles of looking at it; each of them with its own merits and disadvantages.

Oh cmon it's clear Tenez saw that Federer has lost to the same opponent a few times, so just decided to count number of players to make his case seem more convincing.

by Tenez Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:54 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Oh cmon it's clear Tenez saw that Federer has lost to the same opponent a few times, so just decided to count number of players to make his case seem more convincing.

Both stats favour Federer so I am not sure what you are on about. You simply do not want to see it. Fanatism gets you blind.

Waske was able to beat Rafa. Waske never beat Federer. What else is clearer when talking about the hardest player to beat?

The funny thing is that out of their best 5 years Nadal was beaten by 50% more players than Federer....despite Nadal withdrawing many times!

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:58 pm

Tenez wrote:Both stats favour Federer so I am not sure what you are on about.

How much have you had to cheery pick for that conclusion?
Not only have you only picked a certain numbers of years, you've not counted matches where one player beats another more than once during a season.

These are the fair stats again:

Nadal:
Accumulatively by aged 22: 81.4%
" By age 23: 81.6% (400/490)
" By age 24: 82.5% (471/571)
" By age 25: 82.5 % (540/655)
" By age 26: 82.8% (582/ 703)
" By age 27: 83.7% (653/780)

Federer:
Accumulatively by aged 22: 70.0%
" By aged 23: 73.9% (315/426)
" By aged 24: 77.4% (396/511)
" By aged 25: 80.2% (488/608)
" By aged 26: 81.2% (556/685)
*By aged 27: 81.2% (622/766)

(I have done it annually eg Nadal turning 27 this year in 2013)

Nadal has a higher cumulative W/L ratio on every single year.

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:00 pm

Waske was able to beat Rafa. Waske never beat Federer. What else is clearer when talking about the hardest player to beat?

Oh give me a break. Is this anecdotal player really more convincing than the accumulative stats all across their careers so far?

by Tenez Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:08 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
(I have done it annually eg Nadal turning 27 this year in 2013)

Nadal has a higher cumulative W/L ratio on every single year.

You know that is not fair. You are accounting the year(s) when Federer may not have been 100% like 2008 but yet made the effort to play and turn up while not accounting the tournaments nadal skipped of fear of being beaten. I believe he missed 2 Masters minimum to start with refusing to play the best players in the world...not counting slams and TMS. Typical his withdrawal this year at IW when needed to face Murray and then possibly Djoko!

Very unfair of you to penalise Roger for his courage to still try while not 100% but Nadal gets away again by pulling out in the middle of year or tournament!

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:14 pm

Ok fine, tell me the matches where you think Fed was injured, and I will discount that.
Then I can apply the same to Nadal, and we'll see where we are.

by noleisthebest Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:16 pm

Nadal's wins don't count as they are all achieved by scrapping tennis, rigged draws and blood doping.
Wait till Nike drops him like a hot potato in a couple of years...

by Tenez Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:20 pm

No you won't. Typically the Cincy 2007 v Murray is one where fed wanted to pull out but you don;t want to see it. Nadal pulled out in the middle of Miami 12 but "this loss" is not even counted in his record. 2008 fed tried to fight through his mono and other problems but he doesn't want to give up. Same about his first loss to Rafa where he had flue yet kept on fighting....That's th emain difference between rafa and Federer. Federer has not much to prove. Nadal wants to cling to his more favourable stats.

by noleisthebest Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:20 pm

I wish Nadal really was a decent player, but he is not!
Which tennis fan would not like to see good matches played in fair spirit with no gamesmanship, just skill against skill?

by summerblues Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:30 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Oh cmon it's clear Tenez saw that Federer has lost to the same opponent a few times, so just decided to count number of players to make his case seem more convincing.

Even if so, so what? It does not matter all that much why Tenez did it but rather whether the argument itself is reasonable. And the way he does it is reasonable enough. Say player X has 7 losses in a year, all to player Y. player Y has 5 losses, one each to different 5 players. When you are trying to answer a nebulous question such as "which one is harder to beat", should you be looking at total number of losses, or the number of players they lost to? It is not totally obvious which way is better. Sure, you are more likely to see fans of player X look at the number of players, and fans of player Y look at total number of losses, but it does not make either approach "ridiculous".

by summerblues Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:32 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:These are the fair stats again:

I do not think this is the best way to look at it. And, as I said before, the presentation (while perhaps not the substance) is outright biased.

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:58 pm

summerblues wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:These are the fair stats again:
I do not think this is the best way to look at it. And, as I said before, the presentation (while perhaps not the substance) is outright biased.

I got them from ATP.com, it's not biased it's accurate.

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:47 pm

Tenez wrote:No you won't.

I will.
Give me a list of matches where you think Federer was injured, and I will discount them: simple.

by summerblues Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:03 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:I got them from ATP.com, it's not biased it's accurate.

As I said, the presentation is biased, not the numbers themselves - I am assuming you did not make those up.

Look at the example I gave yesterday where we have two players who both played from age 20 to age 30, with these win percentages - year-by-year:

A: 80, 80, 80, 80, 80, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90
B: 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80

Your presentation (chronological, showing numbers "up to" certain age) would give:

up to age 21: B is better
up to age 22: B is better
up to age 23: B is better
up to age 24: B is better
up to age 25: B is better
up to age 26: B is better
up to age 27: B is better
up to age 28: B is better
up to age 29: B is better
up to age 30: A and B are tied

A cursory look gives impression of B looking better - he is ahead at all ages except they are tied at the end. However, in reality their careers are equally good, and taking say best five years would make it more clearly visible:

Best year: A and B are tied
Best 2 years: A and B are tied
Best 3 years: A and B are tied
Best 4 years: A and B are tied
Best 5 years: A and B are tied

by Tenez Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:07 pm

I don't think JS understands you SB. Not that he cannot understand. He doesn't want to. It does not suit his purpose.

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:09 pm

But even if you simply take their performances from 17-27; Nadal is ahead of Federer.
I do not have to show it year by year; the fact is Nadal is ahead even if you take it as a whole.

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:10 pm

Tenez wrote: It does not suit his purpose.

Oh please, this is coming from you...

Even if I did not give it year by year, and simply said: 'this is the overall ratio from ages 17-27' Nadal would still be ahead.

by Tenez Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:17 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:But even if you simply take their performances from 17-27; Nadal is ahead of Federer.
I do not have to show it year by year; the fact is Nadal is ahead even if you take it as a whole.

Well yes, Nadal was fitter at 17 that all the pros on tour. Now that we know fitness comes with age, we really can ask ourselfves how come Rafa was so fit so young?

But anyhow, you are also omitting the fact that Nadal did a lot of satellite tournament where his losses count is not recorded.....unlike Fed who did get most of his early entries on the main tour. That's also a disadvantage of Federer.

I told you about nadal's activity in 200? (1?) where he has many loss against unknown but not recorded cause they are not ATP.

But there are also many reasons why not count the overall record on tour. A player might simply mature later especially if his game is a bit more complicated and refined than heavy senseless moonballing for instance.

At the end of the day Fed has by far the best AND longest domination period from any other tennis player. I'd say Lendl and Borg are in fact ahead of Nadal in that department who essentially dominated on clay only for many years.

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:19 pm

Tenez wrote:
I told you about nadal's activity in 200? (1?) where he has many loss against unknown but not recorded cause they are not ATP.

That was when Nadal was 15? (Nadal was 15 in 2001)

This is ridiculous, how can you expect me to count matches when Nadal is 15 anyway. I did not do so for Federer, infact I started it when he was 17.

by N2D2L Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:21 pm

If you want to I can, I have the data to do so.
It will probably send it even more in Nadal's favour.

by Daniel Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:24 am

The thing you keep ignoring is the fact there are so many clay tournaments to grass, and that skews these silly statistics in Nadal's way, along with the slower conditions. Also, Nadal is going to have a much worse record than Fed at the end of his career, because he won't be able to rely on his speed anymore to get him out of trouble from big hitters (read: better players). Federer relies on shot making and serve, Nadal has notjing to fall back on. Once he loses a step or two he is finished.

Also, I remind you that Fed didn't lose against rank outsiders in his prime. He wasn't losing to Darcis and Rosol or anyone before the Q Final for years.

Nadal is nowhere near as good as Federer.

by N2D2L Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:25 am

FedererKing wrote:The thing you keep ignoring is the fact there are so many clay tournaments to grass,

But there are also many hard court tournaments compared to clay tournaments.
If there was currently the clay tournaments that were on hard court (outdoor clay on 2 slams and 5 Masters, indoor clay for 1 Master and 1 WTF), Nadal would have broken records even if the rest of the tournaments on hard court and grass were fast.

FedererKing wrote:
Also, Nadal is going to have a much worse record than Fed at the end of his career,

Very possible, but let's wait and see.

FedererKing wrote:
Also, I remind you that Fed didn't lose against rank outsiders in his prime. He wasn't losing to Darcis and Rosol or anyone before the Q Final for years.

Canas? Volandri?
Not sure if you can judge too much from such a small sample size of matches.

by SayonaRa Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:41 am

Tenez wrote:I don't think JS understands you SB. Not that he cannot understand. He doesn't want to. It does not suit his purpose.

And what’s his/her purpose? Let’s hear it again elaborated by Mikey-Julius below:

Mikey-Julius: “What you have to realise is that Amrit NEEDS to believe that Rafa is the greatest player ever. And to a certain extent needs to preach it as well, as part of her 'duty' to Rafa.

Psychologically, it is of great importance to keep this belief - it matters greatly for mental peace of mind. Amrit can't give up the belief or the steadfast preaching of it - it would be too troubling….

When you understand all that about Amrit, when you realise the absolute (and necessary for mental well-being) commitment to this belief, then you realise that any argument is futile. And in the interests of being nice, just wish her well and let her get on with it. Any more than that is not worth the time.”

I agree, it’s mostl JS's personal feelings for his/her chosen player. JS is actually a very sweet and decent poster. Just got her heart stuck in the wrong place. Unlike Fed (winning W at 30+), nadal hasn’t passed the test of time yet. Just wait till lover-boy’s hair all fall out and he looks shrunken like a version of Davydenko minus the steroid and the hunk. We’ll see how fast JS is still willing to move mountains to defend him when the tennis is there but the heart isn’t anymore.

by SayonaRa Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:44 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:Canas? Volandri?

Fed lost to them in the opening rounds of a GS?

by Daniel Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:46 am

I was referring to Slams in the above post. Edit. As SR has just pointed out.

Nadal has been kicked out of Slams by lesser players all through his career. Federer holds consecutive appearance at QF and SF in Slam history, and that record may never be broken. How can Nadal even compare to Federer given he was booted out in his prime at the greatest Slam in R1 and R2? Even with all the surfaces playing to Nadal's advantage he can't compete with Fed's records.

by Tenez Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:59 am

FedererKing wrote:I was referring to Slams in the above post. Edit. As SR has just pointed out.

Nadal has been kicked out of Slams by lesser players all through his career. Federer holds consecutive appearance at QF and SF in Slam history, and that record may never be broken. How can Nadal even compare to Federer given he was booted out in his prime at the greatest Slam in R1 and R2?

You can confidently say : "...and that record will never be broken". Though for me as great as it is, it's more a record of consistency (which adds a point in the this thread debate) than a record of how great his tennis was and how much better his best tennis was above the rest.

Nadal's slams reflects very well how consistant Nadal has been but it gives way much credit to his tennis and how much better his tennis is/was compared to the rest. For Fed it's the opposite.

It's a bit like Wilander v McEnroe. Both with 7 slams but Wilander admits that talent wise Mc was miles ahead but unfortunately not translated in slams.

by SayonaRa Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:02 am

Exactly, FK, try hard as she likes, Julia's efforts to defend the indefensible is futile. Any alert and honest tennis fan knows that without the help of PED's, nadal is easily beatable in any match anywhere, just ask Zebellos, Rosal and Darcis.

While Fed at 27 was Never defeated in the first week of a GS . End of story. Magic

by N2D2L Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:55 am

Nadal has been kicked out of Slams by lesser players all through his career.

As far as I'm aware, thsi simply isn't true.
If I recall correctly he's only lost 3 times before the QF in Slams all throughout his prime, which is not bad at all. He also has a fantastic Masters 1000 record, infact he holds the most Masters 1000.

by N2D2L Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:57 am

JS is actually a very sweet and decent poster.

Cheers

Certainly more positive than Julius had to say anyway.

by Tenez Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:10 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
Nadal has been kicked out of Slams by lesser players all through his career.
As far as I'm aware, thsi simply isn't true.
If I recall correctly he's only lost 3 times before the QF in Slams all throughout his prime, which is not bad at all. He also has a fantastic Masters 1000 record, infact he holds the most Masters 1000.

Certainly....and you think there are not enough clay tournaments???

by N2D2L Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:12 am

Tenez wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
Nadal has been kicked out of Slams by lesser players all through his career.
As far as I'm aware, thsi simply isn't true.
If I recall correctly he's only lost 3 times before the QF in Slams all throughout his prime, which is not bad at all. He also has a fantastic Masters 1000 record, infact he holds the most Masters 1000.
Certainly....and you think there are not enough clay tournaments???

If there were as many clay Masters 1000 as hard courts Masters 1000, Nadal would have won way way more Masters 1000.
There are double number of Masters 1000 on HC than clay.

by Daniel Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:15 am

Nadal is lucky there are no grass masters, if it was 1/3 grass, 1/3 hard and 1/3 clay, he would have won less. Tennis is a lawn game anyway, it was never meant to be played on the other surfaces, and on that fact alone I taker Federer's achievements above Nadal's.

by N2D2L Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:26 am

FedererKing wrote:Nadal is lucky there are no grass masters, if it was 1/3 grass, 1/3 hard and 1/3 clay, he would have won less. Tennis is a lawn game anyway, it was never meant to be played on the other surfaces, and on that fact alone I taker Federer's achievements above Nadal's.

He could have won less. He could have won more.
We can't know for sure, you're just guessing.

As for your last line, tennis is evolving; a century ago women and gays had no rights- things change.

by Daniel Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:32 am

No, you need to learn the difference between pure guess and educated guess. This is an educated guess because grass is Federer's best surface, and one of Nadal's worst. Cutting Clay down and boosting Grass will only aid Federer and not Nadal. That is totally logical. I think it's completely pointless arguing with you on this because you aren't going to change your point of view, no matter what facts are placed in your way. So you'll just have to be content that Federer will always hold the majority of records over Nadal (5 finals in all slams, Weeks number 1, Grass and hard court slam totals), and make of it what you will. I make of it that Federer is a better player than Nadal, and so do others. I don't think you will find one former or current player who believes having more grass Masters tournaments would have no benefit to Federer over Nadal.

Your analogy with gay and women's rights is also preposterous.

by N2D2L Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:54 am

Cutting down clay?

This is just mathematically illiterate.
You said we have a third of matters on clay: one third of 9 is 3.
And we have 3 already.
How is 3 more than 3?

by noleisthebest Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:02 pm

Ok, I think everyone has got their point across by now. Some think Nadal is hardest to beat, some disagree.
Here, the truth comes out from someone who actually plays the guy.
Straight and down to a point Bubbly

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=plbomcLe1rI

End of conversation.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:12 am

Thank You Tenez for your wonderful posting, it was a debate killer. Well researched and well put too. Thanks everyone for your posting.

Only, my opinion about Nadal being the toughest player to beat.. still hold, but now has narrowed down to only Federer. So for Fed, Nadal is the toughest opponent to beat. I think you will too agree to it.

Cheers everyone, it was a fantastic WTF. tea

by Tenez Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:31 am

Thanks Rotla! Knowing how logic you are, your compliment is much appreciated. And I agree that Nadal is certainly the toughest to play for Federer...and in fact he is probably the toughest to play in general when on form as the power and spin of his shots takes the game away from what is known as tennis and turn it into a marathon which obviously is not the sport his opponents signed for when they picked up a racquet.

Great OP!

What did you think of Nadal's mental strength yesterday? He certainly fought hard, hitting harder and harder...but I did not see much composure or even able to go for riskier shots when needed. He has the power to pull winners at will (if he can't none one can) yet he played conservative again....and on some occasion the ball was ridiculously short.

by SayonaRa Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:44 am

What mental strength?

It’s easy to see that from the first point on, Djoko dictated and nadal was mauled here and there like a puppet unable to rise up to meet the challenge he faced. I think the unmistakably low quality and apparent lack of mental toughness of nadal’s play last night was directly a result of the fact that he was extremely nervous. He knew he won’t win it.

Nadal has always been the sorest of losers and the smallest of minds forever fancying himself, albeit in vain, “the unbeatable one”. His falsehood and immature mind-set does not prepare him well to deal with losses, even though losing is part of the business. That’s why he is notorious for pulling out of matches/tournaments he knows he can’t win and then attempts to cover up any losses by making up the most incredible excuses either before or after the fact. How’s that for mental strength?

Back to last night’s match, nadal’s lost was unsurprising for me. But the easy way he lost it was rather shocking and unexpected, as though that was not the same nadal the Terminator we knew prior to the Final. I saw a nadal simply too nervous to sustain consistency anywhere close to how we know he is capable of.. Just count the errors. Name me another match, win or loss, where he’d made that many UFEs in 2 sets. Also, has he ever hit 4 double-faults in 1 game, 2 of which occurred consecutively?

Conclusion: For nadal it's all about fear of losing and vainity. He can't play when he anticipates a loss. Psychologically, nadal’s ship had already sunken even before the race vs Djoko last night. And this must be the reason why he tanked in Paris to avoid meeting the same guy he knew he can’t beat. The whole repeated scenario from New York to London stands to the same reasons once more why nadal will always remain an incomplete, short-live and over-rated #1. And I doubt he’ll prove us wrong approaching 28+. Whistle

by N2D2L Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:54 am

Did you watch the Rome final this year SR?

by Tenez Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:17 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Did you watch the Rome final this year SR?

Yes. Federer was there playing despite a bad back and did withdraw from the game even though I agrees that in retrospect he should have taken time out to fix his back.

by Daniel Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:23 pm

I got the score right too, and the reason, before the match was played. When Djokovic is on form, Nadal has no say in things. He is a very limited player with only one weapon, his topspin moonballing. And to do that successfully he has to run fast to be able to retrieve everything. Against Federer he has one boring but successful (because of the conditions) strategy: play to the backhand. Against Djokovic even that tactic won't work because he has one of the best double handed backhands there has ever been.

The truth is, Djokovic owns Nadal. Nadal has nothing that can hurt Djokovic. Djokovic can do whatever Nadal can do and put it back with interest. When Nadal can no longer chase down balls he is going to look even more stupid.

I think SR is correct too, his uncle Moron has brought him up with a huge vain ego and belief that he is the greatest, and he can't handle it. There is no question that Nadal comes up with tons of excuses for losing and looks plain spiteful on court with his facial expressions. His uncle Moron is the main reason for Nadal's issues... you have a guy who will admit to cheating to get the "job done" and he has obviously brought Nadal up with the same pitiful attitude.

Just look at this nonsense:

"I think at the beginning he was playing much better than me. The first three games, no doubt. Even the fourth… After that I didn't see that difference. I felt I was playing aggressively, going for the shots. I had the control of the points a lot of times with my forehand after the [first] three games."

Talk about delusional.

by Tenez Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:55 pm

I don't think it's Djoko's BH that makes the difference. I was not impressed by it yesterday. I believe he score 0 DTL BH.

His strength is that he can handle Nadal's DTL FH as well as the cross court and place the ball (incl angles) more accurately than Nadal therefore forcing Nadal to do most of the running (while udsually it's Djko doing most of the running against other opponents).

Nadal's game is simple and 1 D I agree but it is extremely efficient. Especially when you get to the tough pressure points and you have to deliver winners...even Djoko failed most of the time yesterday when you consider he really should have won 61 61.

Federer says it best "he always does the same thing......but he does it very well"....a way for him to avoid talking about 1D again as the press gave him a hard time for saying it a few years ago.

by SayonaRa Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:22 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Did you watch the Rome final this year SR?

So here you go again totally off base. As I pointed out in my reply to you in the other thread when you cited Fed’s FO loss to nadal, it seems to me all you want to do is attempting to cover up your idol’s in-door incompetence by going back to history to dig some irrelevant stats at Fed’s expense that has nothing whatsoever to do with nadal unable to win the wtf. But again, if you insist, I don’t deny that both the FO and Rome losses were bad. But so what? I see no shame at all for Fed to lose to a much younger king of clay on his turf.

What’s I feel is important for you to do is to compare nadal’s typical excuses and cowardice in avoiding matches he's not fit/good enough to win vs Fed’s courage and willingness to meet the toughest challenges on court. I daresay if there was a way nadal could have hiden again from yesterday’s final like he did last year, he would have done so.

Past history isn’t enough to explain away a big hole in nadal’s tennis records. No way around it. Nadal must make new history to mend the hole based on his own merits to (re)establish his credibility as the new #l.

by SayonaRa Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:39 pm

Tenez wrote:I don't think it's Djoko's BH that makes the difference. I was not impressed by it yesterday. I believe he score 0 DTL BH.

His strength is that he can handle Nadal's DTL FH as well as the cross court and place the ball (incl angles) more accurately than Nadal therefore forcing Nadal to do most of the running (while udsually it's Djko doing most of the running against other opponents).

Nadal's game is simple and 1 D I agree but it is extremely efficient. Especially when you get to the tough pressure points and you have to deliver winners...even Djoko failed most of the time yesterday when you consider he really should have won 61 61.

Federer says it best "he always does the same thing......but he does it very well"....a way for him to avoid talking about 1D again as the press gave him a hard time for saying it a few years ago.

From the way he was able to dictate the points, I think the difference was perhaps a brand-new game plan which he was able to focus on and execute quite effectively.
Nadal on the other hand was just sticking to his usual style of rote hitting to no avail.

by Daniel Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:40 pm

The reason Nadal hasn't had numerous and equal defeats to Federer is because Federer no longer HAS a surface. None of them are the old, faster conditions with older racquets. Despite this, Nadal was kept as WN2 behind Federer for a record number of weeks. Nothing will change that.

If I recall, Federer also managed a 6-0 set against Nadal on his best surface, and Nadal hasn't managed to return the compliment.

by SayonaRa Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:43 pm

FedererKing wrote:Just look at this nonsense:

"I think at the beginning he was playing much better than me. The first three games, no doubt. Even the fourth… After that I didn't see that difference. I felt I was playing aggressively, going for the shots. I had the control of the points a lot of times with my forehand after the [first] three games."
Talk about delusional.

How did he end up with 11 breakpoints to Djoko's 2 (3?) if he had THAT much control? The guy is forever hiding, just isn't big enough to admit he played lousy, even though the whole world saw it and losing is really nothing to be ashamed of, it's part of the business.

by N2D2L Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:30 pm

SR wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Did you watch the Rome final this year SR?
But again, if you insist, I don’t deny that both the FO and Rome losses were bad. But so what? I see no shame at all for Fed to lose to a much younger king of clay on his turf.

And in that case, I see no shame in Nadal reaching the final in good form, only losing 1 set in his first 4 matches, only to be beaten by the current best indoor player in the world (Djokovic).

by truffin1 Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:44 pm

Nadal is desperate to win the WTF.. he's publically stated it's his biggest remaining goal..  The vaunted Nadal who according to his fans always finds a way to achieve his goal.

You take the 8 top players of the year and you put them on what was a medium pace (neutral) court but was even slowed down this year to help Nadal achieve his goal. The court is also low bouncing and does not have the artificially created bounce Nadal has been gifted on most other courts.. In other words- a fair and balanced surface in years past that this year was even weighted towards NAdal-   and what does Nadal have to show when put on a fair surface against the top 8 players of each year?   2 Finals, 0 Wins-     Brutal beatdowns over the years at the hands of the guy he usually owns and was only able to beat on that surface once the guy was old and in poor form... and a beatdown against his same age/era rival.

Toni crying that WTF should be played on clay some years.. It all adds up to what most of us are able to understand. Nadal is a manufactured legend feasting on conditions that perfectly suit his style. Part of that was luck being born into this era and part of it an attempt by ATP and organizers to create a Federer type legend who could draw crowds and money as Fed wound down and eventually retired.. which most thought was going to be during the London Olympic year.

Take Nadal (even with the doping) out of his conditions against the top guys- and what do you get-- a good, even great player but nowhere near legend quality.    Now take the dope out of the equation as well- and my guess is you've got a top 50ish player who would win some clay events.

by truffin1 Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:49 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
SR wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Did you watch the Rome final this year SR?
But again, if you insist, I don’t deny that both the FO and Rome losses were bad. But so what? I see no shame at all for Fed to lose to a much younger king of clay on his turf.

And in that case, I see no shame in Nadal reaching the final in good form, only losing 1 set in his first 4 matches, only to be beaten by the current best indoor player in the world (Djokovic).

Let's get real here-- Nadal was not in good form the whole week-- even his fans were able to recognize he was playing avg at best but feasting on the weaker side of the draw against guys who also didn't show their best form... The Federer semi wasn't even all that high quality from Nadal.. We all know the real struggles Federer has had in his form, the inconsistency- Nadal was lucky to get this Federer this year at the WTF--

the first player he met playing at a high level- he lost too pretty comprehensively.. even if Nadal wants to pretend he was "often" in control.. smh.

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