Federer v Tsonga - Who will prevail this time?

First topic message reminder :

Once again its going to be a Fed v Tsonga QF, the third in almost as many months. Will Federer be able to turn the tables on Tsonga this time around or will it be a third consecutive defeat for Federer?

Tsonga is playing really well and I for one think it is enough to beat Federer. Fed on the other hand is up and down and I am just wondering whether he had what it takes to beat Tsonga. Tsonga's serve is brilliant as are his ground strokes which make it very hard to get into his service games.

I think Federer is really up against it in terms of the draw compared to the others in the top four. Murray has been spared JMDP, Novak has Tipsaravic which will be a straight sets win and Nadal has been fortunate again this year as he has no real threats except Murray should he reach the semis.

Fed's got his work cut out for him that't for sure!

There is only one analyst on these forums. 606 still allows wumming hence the existence of SA. I am sure that SA is not there on MTL.
All he does is to bring up h2h of fed v nadal but I don't know where he is going to hide when Nadal fails to open this slam too. No way Nadal is going to catch up with Fed's record 16 slams or the no. raking hold for consecutive and total no. of weeks.

Well nothing much can be done after all SA is an analyst whereas we are mere ordinary posters.

So Nadal at 25 is supposed to have won 16 slam? I know the bad luck of Nadal having to play Djokovic in the future, if only bunny Federer was his opponent.
Remember Djokovic will have to win every other slam for the next 2 years to stop Nadal winning one. Confident much? Should I remind you Djokovic lost 5 straight matches to Nadal along the way too? He came back from that didn't he? For the laughable attempt at down playing Federer's poor mental toughness, what more proof do we need? Match points choked, consistent crumbling in 5th sets, losing from 2 sets up etc, one of the poorest 5th sets records, panicking and losing to 20 year old Del Potro at USO despite being 2-1 up and worst 2 points from victory etc. now tell me more.

As for Nadal getting hammered at Wimbledon, well he did what was required, fought back with a breadstick of his own. When Federer was getting hammered at RG 08, he looked to the crowd for sympathy with a face signalling - Check Mate!. Clueless as to if to run off court or hit the next ball into the net. :laugh:e proof do we need? Match points choked, consistent crumbling in 5th sets, losing from 2 sets up etc, one of the poorest 5th sets records, panicking and losing to 20 year old Del Potro at USO despite being 2-1 up and worst 2 points from victory etc. now tell me more.

As for Nadal getting hammered at Wimbledon, well he did what was required, fought back with a breadstick of his own. When Federer was getting hammered at RG 08, he looked to the crowd for sympathy with a face signalling - Check Mate!. Clueless as to if to run off court or hit the next ball into the net.

luciusmann wrote: I'll be laughing all day if Nadal ends up losing the French Open next year, especially if it's Djokovic he loses to.

Now that would be a match worth watching and even more so the presentation ceremony. Nadal looked as if he wanted to do Djoko an injury with the runner up tray in Rome Wimbledon wasnt very cordial either!

You think Nadal will win 3 slams next year? That's what Federer did when he was the same age as Nadal. So the age comparison thing is a dud point, Nadal has one more slam than Fed @ the same age, that's correct. I don't think anyone thinks Nadal is going to beat Federer's slam record for these reasons:

a) Unless Nadal had both the French AND Wimbledon, he had a good chance of beating Fed's tally, but he doesn't have Wimbledon anymore
b) Hard court has always been Nadal's weakest surface, if he gets beaten on grass, ergo, he's got little chance against Djokovic on hard court. Fed actually beat Nadal on hard court in the Tour Finals last year, I'm pretty confident that Fed could beat Nadal even if Djokovic doesn't make it (especially the faster the USO courts).
c) More like Djokovic allowed him that breadstick, I watched that match twice, just because I couldn't believe Nadal was so thoroughly demolished and in that third set, Djokovic just wanted to get it finished with as quickly as possible so that meant throwing away games.

No one said Nadal was going to get to 16 @ 25 but no one thinks he will ever reach 16 when he's 28 either. I'm talking about Wimbledon, the French Open is another matter, Federer has never been a match for Nadal on clay. What other slam do you suppose Nadal will dominate to reach 16? He won't reach it with the French alone, so I'm all ears as to which one you think it will be.

Shame Nadal wasn't that kind at RG. The kindness of Djokovic to give a set and a break in the 4th set, oh the stupidity.
Nadal should have organised a backyard clay tournament and show such kindness to Federer lol.

I missed the part where Luciusmann attempted to sweep us of our feet; 'Federer can beat Nadal at slams even if Djokovic can't'
Seriously, i'll bet my house on my dog beating Nadal in a slam to Federer beating him

I'm actually serious I will.

Djokovic had beaten Nadal in 4 matches previously including on clay, if you think Nadal stood a chance in that Wimbledon final, you're clearly not watching the match. Did you watch the match? I've watched it twice, and if you heard Boris Becker, he clearly said Djokovic would win if he kept the match short, allowing Nadal to race through the third sped up the match which only benefited Djokovic and well all know what happened, Nadal lost. Surprise Surprise. It's not unknown that Nadal just is so slow, it doesn't matter how many Nadal fans try to prove otherwise, people are not blind.

What's sweeping anyone off the feet got to do with it? Nadal lost to Fed in the World Tour Finals on hard court, that's a fact. If it was the French or Wimbledon, you'd have a point, but you don't. Again, don't patronize me with your childish asides. I bet you my house Nadal won't get more slams than Federer, do you want to debate why? You might want to quote the whole sentence, I'm talking about hard court, selectively quoting and making it out I'm talking about all the grand slams is just pathetic and slimy. As usual, selective and self serving describes your approach to discussing tennis.

So part of the plan Djokovic had was to further shorten the match by going down a break in the 4th set? Are you really thinking before typing?

Federer beat Nadal at London on hard court and lost to him on hard court this year. Well when they met in a hard court slam 2 years ago, Kleenex got a free advertisement

Like I said, i'll bet my house on my dog. nadal does not need to reach Federer's slam total. He has show in a career total of 25 matches he has been better than him in every measurable way.

All you ever talk about is the head to head, this has been pointed out by other posters too. Weeks @ No.1? Slam titles won? Winning two slams 5 or more times? There are so many Federer records I don't even need to go through them all but all you can bang on about is the head to head, maybe you should read up the match up articles a few months ago where you didnt understand them or denied they were possible.

You must be on another planet, once the set was lost, Djokovic didnt stick in there and slow the set down by trying to contest it so he didn't bother after the first break of serve. That was clear to see except to you. If you wanted to clarify what I meant, you can ask instead of again being highly patronizing. The only person who isn't thinking is you, who only ever bangs on about the head to head and nowt else. Nadal does need to have more slams otherwise you're delusional, Nadal will never be considered the best of tennis if he doesn't surpass it, that's a fact. Now get over it.

The way Nadal played against Golubev and his previous losses in the 2 run up tournaments to US open confirms that he is going to win US open and to take his tally to 11 slams.

BTW who did Nadal lost to in Cincy and Montreal?

I think Tsonga will win this one. Federer has good and bad days and is on schedule to have a bad one. Tsonga may have also got into Federer's head a little bit. Maybe in 4 or 5 sets. Don't seem to be able to vote though?

I am not sure - both played very well the other day. I think it all comes down to how much Fed really wants this, and if he does then I think he will take it in 4. Tsonga playing so beautifully atm, but I am going to put my faith in TMF.

luciusmann wrote:All you ever talk about is the head to head, this has been pointed out by other posters too. Weeks @ No.1? Slam titles won? Winning two slams 5 or more times? There are so many Federer records I don't even need to go through them all but all you can bang on about is the head to head, maybe you should read up the match up articles a few months ago where you didnt understand them or denied they were possible.

You must be on another planet, once the set was lost, Djokovic didnt stick in there and slow the set down by trying to contest it so he didn't bother after the first break of serve. That was clear to see except to you. If you wanted to clarify what I meant, you can ask instead of again being highly patronizing. The only person who isn't thinking is you, who only ever bangs on about the head to head and nowt else. Nadal does need to have more slams otherwise you're delusional, Nadal will never be considered the best of tennis if he doesn't surpass it, that's a fact. Now get over it.

I actually forgot with your history of missing parts of matches it comes as no suprise you missed part of the 4th set where Djokovic's plan to shorten the match was give Nadal a break. You really are clueless

You seem to be convincing yourself I care if you consider Nadal the greatest or not. Many think he is so argue against them not me. As for the H2H, why can't reference be made to it when the so-called goat has been beaten so many times by his main rival, 17 times, 4-0 in last 4 slam finals and after 8 years against the said rival, he still can't beat him consistently. Some goat ey? Borg, Sampras, Laver , all in the past and rightful goat candidates were not that dominated. Now if you want your hero to save face, tell him to at least manage a double digit career win against his main rival. Doesn't matter if it's a win in an exhibition match. If he still can't get over it, he has not been good enough Simple,is it?
We want to see in his career, he's had the talent to consistently beat his main rival, not the consistency to beat the 4 jokes like Blake, Ljubicic, Robredo and bunny Roddick.


k of serve. That was clear to see except to you. If you wanted to clarify what I meant, you can ask instead of again being highly patronizing. The only person who isn't thinking is you, who only ever bangs on about the head to head and nowt else. Nadal does need to have more slams otherwise you're delusional, Nadal will never be considered the best of tennis if he doesn't surpass it, that's a fact. Now get over it. [/quote]

I actually forgot with your history of missing parts of matches it comes as no suprise you missed part of the 4th set where Djokovic's plan to shorten the match was give Nadal a break. You really are clueless

You seem to be convincing yourself I care if you consider Nadal the greatest or not. Many think he is so argue against them not me. As for the H2H, why can't reference be made to it when the so-called goat has been beaten so many times by his main rival, 17 times, 4-0 in last 4 slam finals and after 8 years against the said rival, he still can't beat him consistently. Some goat ey? Borg, Sampras, Laver , all in the past and rightful goat candidates were not that dominated. Now if you want your hero to save face, tell him to at least manage a double digit career win against his main rival. Doesn't matter if it's a win in an exhibition match. If he still can't get over it, he has not been good enough Simple,is it?
We want to see in his career, he's had the talent to consistently beat his main rival, not the consistency to beat the 4 jokes like Blake, Ljubicic, Robredo and bunny Roddick.

I don't think Tsonga can be described as playing 'beautifully', he's playing 'brutally' going all out with his physical bulk, and he struggled badly with Fish who isn't the hardest player in a slam.

Roger has this baby in the bag, straight sets.

You mean the lucky net cord Nadal got which gave him that break in 4th set @ Wimbledon? Yes, of course that explains everything. That's just luck, it happens. That was way beyond Djokovic's control. I actually forgot how you never talk about anything BUT the head to head. Do you want to play another record instead of the same one? You spent most of your last post ranting about the head to head, care to talk about anything else? Why Nadal hasn't outdone Federer in any other regard?

I don't need to convince myself but perhaps you do need to convince yourself. Yes you do seem to care because all you do is bang on and on about Nadal's head to head and somehow that makes him the greatest, in fact you said Nadal doesn't need as many slams as Federer to be considered the best, er, in your dreams. Most of Nadal's slams have been @ the French, he will be remembered as the best on clay if he can manage another win (without doubt he will be considered that) but on other surfaces? 2 wins on grass and 2 wins on hardcourt. Fed's record? 1 on clay BUT 6 on grass (compared to 2 for Nadal) and 9 on hardcourt (compared to Nadal's mere 2). Federer was far more consistent across the slam surfaces than Nadal @ the same age (i.e. he didnt win 6 slams alone on clay like Nadal).

The funny thing is that now Nadal is being dominated by Djokovic and that has already happened and I bet it will continue to happen too, it will amusing to see how you defend Nadal is somehow the GOAT when he has not only:

a) less slams
b) a worse head to head against Djokovic than Federer
c) he lost so consistently to Djokovic

Yes, let's hear what you got to say should Nadal lose the French Open next year to Djokovic, it will be so funny, I'll be laughing very hard because Nadal will then have nothing. Sorry, just clarify who thinks Nadal is the GOAT? I'd like to see who does, come on, let's hear it? More bogus 'facts'.

luciusmann wrote:

b) a worse head to head against Djokovic than Federer

Careful - Djoko hasn't finished with Fed yet.

Oh look another Fedal GOAT discussion...just what we needed.

A shame 2 great players are reduced to this type of nitpicking where their obvious achievements are undermined in the pursuit of which poster is the "best". For me, its simply amazing that Nadal has won slams across all 4 surfaces, something anyone would have thought impossible when he set out in 2003/4.

True, but I'm confident Fed will come out with a better head to head against Djokovic than Nadal. Fed has actually beaten Djokovic this year, Nadal hasn't. Big difference.

I'd have preferred to have avoided this sort of discussion lydian, but some poster(s) insist on banging on and on about one stat and dismissing one of the greatest players in order to elevate his favourite player, it's so plain and obvious to see. In fact, it's only one poster who does this fairly regularly and without fail. I have a great deal of respect for Nadal, but claiming he's the greatest with 10 slams is very premature, most certainly so when we haven't seen how next year goes, which I see as crucial for Nadal.

Indeed Luciusmann...infact judging anyone of these guys within the context of history is pointless until any of them have actually retired. 10 slams (and 19 Masters) for Nadal is fantastic but it doesnt make him GOAT...not when you have guys like Borg, Laver (I'm forgetting Emerson) and of course Sampras ahead of him. We'll have to see about 2012 and whether Nadal can sustain his peak and Nole his. Federer is unlikely to win more slams but you never know given a good draw.

Anyway...Federer vs Tsonga anyone? I'm pick Fed to win this one - he's well rested and in better form than the last 2 times they played.

lydian wrote:Oh look another Fedal GOAT discussion...just what we needed.

A shame 2 great players are reduced to this type of nitpicking where their obvious achievements are undermined in the pursuit of which poster is the "best". For me, its simply amazing that Nadal has won slams across all 4 surfaces, something anyone would have thought impossible when he set out in 2003/4.

Echo these arguments, lets give both guys their due. Roger is the most accomplished and complete player of the modern era, Nadal the greatest clay courter ever and one of the best to ever play the game and still rising up the charts. Djokovic is having a record breaking year after what had been a very productive start to his career. Murray is probably the best guy to never win a slam. This whole goat debate is too partisan, we are blessed that both guys are around and that both guys play a unique brand of tennis and are quality individuals.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:Oh look another Fedal GOAT discussion...just what we needed.

A shame 2 great players are reduced to this type of nitpicking where their obvious achievements are undermined in the pursuit of which poster is the "best". For me, its simply amazing that Nadal has won slams across all 4 surfaces, something anyone would have thought impossible when he set out in 2003/4.

Echo these arguments, lets give both guys their due. Roger is the most accomplished and complete player of the modern era, Nadal the greatest clay courter ever and one of the best to ever play the game and still rising up the charts. Djokovic is having a record breaking year after what had been a very productive start to his career. Murray is probably the best guy to never win a slam. This whole goat debate is too partisan, we are blessed that both guys are around and that both guys play a unique brand of tennis and are quality individuals.

I agree - what helps define all these guys is the quality of those close to them. Federer's career can't be discussed without the context of Nadal, and vice-versa, and Djokovic's run shows that he has learned well the need to marry the highest quality with an astonishing degree of perserverence to succeed. Murray with 18 tournament wins including 7 TMS and 3 slam final appearances by the age of 24 would be a feted player at any time - but the fact that he's had to battle against the other three to get that far shows his class too. I very much hope that he'll manage to make the same step up in consistency that Djoko has over the next couple of years. Tennis has been lucky to be blessed with such players and it's to be hoped that those following in their wake appreciate what's required and pick up the baton.

Definetly, Barry and really neither Nadal or Fed is my favorite player but both guys have given so much to the fans and the game. I mean even the most rabid Nadal hater or Fed hater has to appreciate these guys for what they delivered to us at wimby 08 and 07 and in many other matchups. And the fact that both are so different really dispels the myth that the modern game lacks variety and that there isn't room for different styes within the context of the modern game which is principally dominated by power baseliners.

lydian wrote:For me, its simply amazing that Nadal has won slams across all 4 surfaces, something anyone would have thought impossible when he set out in 2003/4.

It's not that amazing to me considering you can win on 4 surfaces with the same game nowadays. Agassi did it too without changing his style either but did it at a time where surfaces were really different to one another.

I certainly woudl like to see how he handles his second part of his career and what place he will have in history. I think that the media and tennis world have been extremely favourable to him but if he starts to lose more often or whinge at the system like he did yesterday, they might turn against him and we know they can suddenly turn mercyless.

Quite right and heartening to see these posters joining forces in common sense. Thank God those other idiots who try to decry Federers achievements by fabricating some kind of ridiculous "weak era" argument aren't here!

luciusmann wrote:You mean the lucky net cord Nadal got which gave him that break in 4th set @ Wimbledon? Yes, of course that explains everything. That's just luck, it happens. That was way beyond Djokovic's control. I actually forgot how you never talk about anything BUT the head to head. Do you want to play another record instead of the same one? You spent most of your last post ranting about the head to head, care to talk about anything else? Why Nadal hasn't outdone Federer in any other regard?

I don't need to convince myself but perhaps you do need to convince yourself. Yes you do seem to care because all you do is bang on and on about Nadal's head to head and somehow that makes him the greatest, in fact you said Nadal doesn't need as many slams as Federer to be considered the best, er, in your dreams. Most of Nadal's slams have been @ the French, he will be remembered as the best on clay if he can manage another win (without doubt he will be considered that) but on other surfaces? 2 wins on grass and 2 wins on hardcourt. Fed's record? 1 on clay BUT 6 on grass (compared to 2 for Nadal) and 9 on hardcourt (compared to Nadal's mere 2). Federer was far more consistent across the slam surfaces than Nadal @ the same age (i.e. he didnt win 6 slams alone on clay like Nadal).

The funny thing is that now Nadal is being dominated by Djokovic and that has already happened and I bet it will continue to happen too, it will amusing to see how you defend Nadal is somehow the GOAT when he has not only:

a) less slams
b) a worse head to head against Djokovic than Federer
c) he lost so consistently to Djokovic

Yes, let's hear what you got to say should Nadal lose the French Open next year to Djokovic, it will be so funny, I'll be laughing very hard because Nadal will then have nothing. Sorry, just clarify who thinks Nadal is the GOAT? I'd like to see who does, come on, let's hear it? More bogus 'facts'.

Lol. you genuinely amuses me Luciusmann. I will not defend Nadal if Djokovic dominates him into the near future but there is more comfort for Nadal which lies in 5-1 slam head to head against Djokovic as well as still 16-12 up in the head to head. Djokovic will have to win their next 4 slams meetings and possibly the next 10 matches without reply to have any form of one sided head to head against Nadal but mind you any domination Djokovic has has now, Nadal has dominated him in similar ways before like beating him 4-0 straight in 2009 and 5-0 straight so hardly anything new here and unlike the one way traffic that is the Nadal domination over Federer.
Back to the slam record, Nadal does not need to win 10 slams. Infact 10 is enought to have him in GOAT arguments by many. The quality of the slams alone speak volumes and he still remians the most dominant slam performer over his main rivals in the history of tennis. Hilariously you are comparing their careers with one at 30 and the other at 25. At the same age, Federer won 4 Wimbledon's and 5 Hard court slams. Same age, Nadal won 6 FO, 2 hard court slams and 2 Wimbledons. Won it on all surfaces, the keyword, won the career slam with the Olympics Gold to make a Golden slam as well as making 5 Wimbledon finals. Well at 25 years, Federer just about dug out his 1st slam final outside hard courts or grass lol. Nadal has done that quite along time ago.

Still till now, Nadal has won at least 2 slams on all surfaces. Federer, never won 2 on all surfaces, still a 2 surface wonder if you think of it. Nadal actually has the more variety in the slams won.

I should clarify who thinks Nadal is GOAT? Like Brad Gilbert said after an incredible career slam at 24 at the USO last year ; ''there is your GOAT''. And like McEnroe said ; "There is an argument to be made that Rafael Nadal may be the greatest player eventually, even possibly now''
You ever guess why all of the top past players who ever calls Federer one of the greatest always add a subtitle about Nadal to it? They only trying to save his face as they know he has been domiated rather badly by his main rivals.

I do agree its been easier for Nadal to win the 4 slams than say the 90s but its still a massive achievement nonetheless considering his out and out clay orientation and Western grips - not to mention his lack of a serve back then.

Yep Agassi was a wholly different kettle of fish. To accomplish this feat in the 90s when the surfaces were still truly different is simply remarkable and stands alone in the Open Era as one of THE biggest achievements in tennis in my opinion. Indeed he should have really achieved this feat as soon as Jan 1995 given that he should have won the French in 1990 (how he lost that Gomez match I'll never know) - but nonethless he had reached all 4 slam finals (and won 3 of them) by 1/95.

I think Nadal is still very much liked in tennis, I dont think his outburst yesterday will have much impact - and many agree with him. Yes its a challenge to make his career forwards as successful but this guy has been plugging away since 2003...he hasnt got that many years left I dont think. He may be only 25 but in tennis terms the guy is ancient. Let's see...he may yet continue to win the major prizes, he may even meet the Nole challenge. It will be interesting to watch...but cut the guy some slack, he's been great for tennis as a whole, and will be an ambassador for the sport long after he's hung his racquet up.

S_A, I'm not going to argue your opinion, but why is it so important to you to spend so much time writing about it?
Do you consider yourself a HUGE Rafa fan and feel the need to stand up for him every chance you get?
Or do you hate Fed with such a passion that you have to argue against him endlessly?

Nothing wrong with either of those, but I do wonder how much time you've spent, both here and on the old 606, repeating the same agrument, and wonder if it's really time well spent?

Oh dear, Julius cares about how i use my time

By the way i find arguing Federer more of an amusement to be honest.

You genuinely amaze me, you still come back on here trashing Federer as usual when every other poster want nothing to do with you're blatant player bashing. I just knew you were going to quote John McEnroe, anyone else you can think of, just two people? Are these the only two you can think of? At the point where McEnroe said that, it just didn't seem like anyone could stop Nadal then, I bet you my house you won't have McEnroe saying that today or next week unless Nadal somehow wins the USO, which I think most people doubt. Can you explain how 2 people who say he was greatest last year (doubt either of them would say the same this year) somehow means 'many' consider him the GOAT? Can you count SA? No one in the UK @ least, consider '2' many. Can you clarify anyone else who considers him GOAT (apart from you, who is not a tennis commentator of any standing).

There's a slight difference, Nadal's defeats to Djokovic have been getting worse, not better and you somehow think Nadal can stop Djokovic? Stop prattling on about delusional dreams please.

It's a matter of opinion whether you think Nadal has more variety or not. Fed didn't win most of his slams @ one slam like Nadal, that's the difference. Comparison @ the same age: Aussie Open, Fed 2, Nadal 1, French, Fed 0, Nadal 6, Wimbledon, Fed 4, Nadal 2, USO, Fed, 3, Nadal 1. Federer has a greater spread across the slams, just because you don't agree, that's your opinion I don't really see how you're opinion is more valid than mine. No one is going to consider Nadal the GOAT with 10, I think you'll find next to no posters who agree with you on that but if you insist, let's hope Nadal stays on 10 and see what the history of tennis writes.

lucius, he know, he's just wumming for fun. Once you work him out he's easy.

pm if you like and I'll tell you the way to own Simplistic.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Oh dear, Julius cares about how i use my time

It keeps me up at night. That and my prostrate.

Lol it has now become greater spread across the slams. Of course, they can add 3 hard court slam to it and it will still be 1 surface - hard courts. Spread across slams? That's a funny one.

By the way i know in the UK Sue Barker thinks Federer is GOAT. No wonder she sounded like she was about to cry that afternoon at RG 2008

You think i'm the only one on this forum who thinks Nadal is GOAT, well i actually point out his is one of the greatest but you are the one who thinks Federer is GOAT here too....Well besides the other rabid Federer fans.

I am pranting on about delusional dreams? Which is more delusional? Me thinking Nadal can beat Djokovic or you thinking Federer can actually beat Nadal in a slam. Remember the last time that happened was in 2007. Seriously? 2007?

What's Sue Barker got to do with it? Getting back to my actual points, you haven't answered many of my questions. Can you answer them instead of prattling on about how Nadal has defeated Federer and the head to head which is the only points you raise. Read my posts, I said no other posters are interested in joining you in player bashing, have you considered reading my post?

Actually, if someone won 10 French Opens and 1 slam at the rest, I don't think many consider that player the best of all time, that's not a good spread at all. Federer hasn't got the majority of slams @ one tournament, Nadal has. I'm also fairly confident that will remain the case @ the end of his career.

I do recall you saying that Djokovic stood no chance of beating Nadal @ Wimbledon, we know how impartial you are and you're useless stat quoting about how Djokovic had never beaten Nadal in a gram slam tournament didn't happen @ Wimbledon. We know all about how biased you are about Nadal. Unlike you, I correctly predicted the finalists the Wednesday prior to the final and also correctly identified on that day that Djokovic would win in 4 sets. I don't believe you got that right, did you? mmm, I think you said Nadal in 3 or 4 sets? Care to remind us? I also recall how sour your posts were subsequently after Nadal lost.

I'd like to see Federer play Nadal in the USO Final, but something tells me one of them won't reach the final, somehow I think there's a better chance of Nadal not reaching it, but let's see, I'll make predictions (which you seem particularly bad @) after the quarter finals have been played.

Lucius,

I think Nadal is more likely to reach the final than Fed.

Who's gonna stop him; Muller is useless.

Ferrer-Roddick - I don't think so.

Murray - too inconsistent.

Roger has to play Tsonga and Djoko

Yeh, it is a tough draw for Fed but if anyone can beat Djokovic, it certainly isn't going to be Nadal. Murray has beaten Nadal @ the USO before if I'm correct?

Ferrer beat Nadal @ the Aussie Open this year. I think he can do the job pretty well, otherwise Murray might do it, but it's a tossup.

luciusmann wrote:What's Sue Barker got to do with it? Getting back to my actual points, you haven't answered many of my questions. Can you answer them instead of prattling on about how Nadal has defeated Federer and the head to head which is the only points you raise. Read my posts, I said no other posters are interested in joining you in player bashing, have you considered reading my post?

Actually, if someone won 10 French Opens and 1 slam at the rest, I don't think many consider that player the best of all time, that's not a good spread at all. Federer hasn't got the majority of slams @ one tournament, Nadal has. I'm also fairly confident that will remain the case @ the end of his career.

I do recall you saying that Djokovic stood no chance of beating Nadal @ Wimbledon, we know how impartial you are and you're useless stat quoting about how Djokovic had never beaten Nadal in a gram slam tournament didn't happen @ Wimbledon. We know all about how biased you are about Nadal. Unlike you, I correctly predicted the finalists the Wednesday prior to the final and also correctly identified on that day that Djokovic would win in 4 sets. I don't believe you got that right, did you? mmm, I think you said Nadal in 3 or 4 sets? Care to remind us? I also recall how sour your posts were subsequently after Nadal lost.

I'd like to see Federer play Nadal in the USO Final, but something tells me one of them won't reach the final, somehow I think there's a better chance of Nadal not reaching it, but let's see, I'll make predictions (which you seem particularly bad @) after the quarter finals have been played.

The comedy continues. Find me the link to where i said Djokovic had no chance of beating Nadal at Wimbledon. I acknowledged the danger of Djokovic and did not predict any outcome but pointed out to the slam record and how Djokovic dominated Nadal prior to USO last year and still lost. Well one thing i did predict though was Nadal beating Federer at the FO. Infact after the finals i duly congratulated Djokovic and before that on many post which you'll find in my profile, i congratulated his status as the undisputed No.1 and even got excited at the prospects of him winning the USO and as any fan will do was disappointed in Nadal's performance. Did i cry like Federer fans after AO 09? No.

https://www.606v2.com/t8484-well-done-to-djokovic-poor-nadal

Lol at my sour post. If two players play a match, one loses and the other wins. Predictions are a 1 in 2 chance of being right. I can remember the more Nadal beats Federer, the more bitter his fans get on the forums. Did you read any abuse towards Djokovic by any Nadal fan on here? Infact our attitude has been nothing but examplery in welcoming Djokovic's recent domination and giving him praise for what he is achieving.


Back to the slams, well if a player win 10 slams on clay and 2 each of grass and hard courts, it's pretty obvious to see that player can actually win across all surfaces. If you have one player win a combined 15 slams on 2 surfaces and 1 on one surface, it's pretty obvious to see that player has not been good enough to win multiple slams across all surfaces. Nadal has, Federer has not, don't cry about it

No you will not like to see Nadal play Federer in the USO finals. We all know how that will turn out. Free advertisement for Kleenex.

Sadly, I have to agree.

If Nadal plays Fed in the final there's only gonna be one winner.

Too much mental baggage for Fed and a nightmare matchup.

Now your denying that you said Nadal would win Wimbledon and Djokovic would lose? Now I've heard it all, dig out where you acknowledged that Djokovic was a threat prior to the final? In fact you used the stat that Djokovic had never beaten Nadal in a grand slam to discredit Djokovic's chances repeatedly and consistently.

I don't know which Fed fans you know but I don't recall crying. Did you cry when Nadal lost Wimbledon this year? Well all I remember was that many Nadal fans stopped coming to this forum, I wonder why? Your one of the few left and coincidentally, one of the few who engaged in regular Federer bashing.

Which Nadal fans are left to welcome Djokovic's domination? You? Please. Don't make me laugh, it's too funny.

If you read my posts on the slams, I said one each at the other tournaments, and 10 at the other, not what you just said, please, for heaven's sake, read! Changing the parameters which I laid out is distorting the conclusion to make it more favourable to you. Please, just read what I actually wrote because this tiresome.

I wouldnt say Muller is useless BTW, he's a talented flashy player and on a good day can create havoc for the big boys - didnt he push Murray to 5 sets here once?

lydian wrote:I wouldnt say Muller is useless BTW, he's a talented flashy player and on a good day can create havoc for the big boys - didnt he push Murray to 5 sets here once?

I think it was Melzer!

Lydian, useless was a bit harsh, but Muller is five years past his best. He's not beating any top 4 player in this day and age.

luciusmann wrote:Now your denying that you said Nadal would win Wimbledon and Djokovic would lose? Now I've heard it all, dig out where you acknowledged that Djokovic was a threat prior to the final? In fact you used the stat that Djokovic had never beaten Nadal in a grand slam to discredit Djokovic's chances repeatedly and consistently.

I don't know which Fed fans you know but I don't recall crying. Did you cry when Nadal lost Wimbledon this year? Well all I remember was that many Nadal fans stopped coming to this forum, I wonder why? Your one of the few left and coincidentally, one of the few who engaged in regular Federer bashing.

Which Nadal fans are left to welcome Djokovic's domination? You? Please. Don't make me laugh, it's too funny.

If you read my posts on the slams, I said one each at the other tournaments, and 10 at the other, not what you just said, please, for heaven's sake, read! Changing the parameters which I laid out is distorting the conclusion to make it more favourable to you. Please, just read what I actually wrote because this tiresome.

Yes i am denying it. https://www.606v2.com/t8161p150-djokovic-vs-nadal-final-who-will-win and see my opinion about the match. Even before that thread i never said Nadal will win and i simply said i will enjoy the match instead of making predictions because as a Nadal fan, Djokovic has been better than him. I wasn't going to be in delusion like a Federer fan thinking some miracle happens like at the FO. Find me the thread where i used stats and discredited Djokovic consistently. There is nothing worse than being a rabid Federer fan. A lying one, now thats bad

Nadal fans can chose when to come to the forum. Infact people like me only gets interested in forum activities during slams. Again you questioning whether Nadal fans praise Djokovic, well ask Socal and the will tell you and find any one article on here where any Nadal fan had bad worse to say about Djokovic's recent domiation of tennis.
Of course many Federer fans cried about AO 2009. You should have seen the forums. Facebook pages were even created with dislikes for Nadal. Well actually that one is true

Back on the slams, please enlighten me with your superious technical igorance, how many surfaces are slams played on? How many surfaces are the USO and AO played on? How many slam per surface has Nadal and Federer won?

Simple_Analyst wrote:how many surfaces are slams played on?

Even I know that one - it's 4 different surfaces.

sportslover wrote:

lydian wrote:I wouldnt say Muller is useless BTW, he's a talented flashy player and on a good day can create havoc for the big boys - didnt he push Murray to 5 sets here once?

I think it was Melzer!

Thanks - quite right!
Melzer/Muller.....all sounds the same....lol.
Still, I know what you meant emancipator - Muller is a talented player (like Melzer) but never reached his potential IMO.

Talent is nothing in tennis when you move like a hippo, that's why Isner won't win anything...the turning circle of a cruiseliner.

That is not the only thread you posted on SA. Hang on, you're calling me not intelligent when you never met me? I don't think you can personally come on here and abuse others, like myself when:

a) You never met me
b) Debate the points, not abuse people

It speaks volumes that you descend to abuse people instead of politely debating the points. I've reported your post to the moderators. You're alias of Masked Magician, who funnily enough, never reappeared after Nadal was defeated. Of course you will deny it, but anyone reading the style of posting and the dogmatic nature of both yourself and MM, knows that it was you. The way you both wrote is so similar as to be pretty obvious that both posters are actually just you. I'm not debating with someone who abuses others instead of debating the points.

As someone else pointed out, the Aussie Open and USO are not played on identical posts, shows how much you know. I am by no means a rabid Federer fan, but it's nice to know you don't seem to be able to tell the difference. There's only one thing you are, a rabid Federer basher.

You've reported me the the moderators and i am alias as Masked Magician?

Really this is funny. Also tell the moderators how you made allegations about me on what i said on previous threads and point directly to those threads. Wasn't hard for me to find the one above was it?
I made reference to your intelligence because any one who accuses someone of any thing needs a substantial evidence to back up the accusation. We are still waiting for your links.

I'm in stitches over the part about surfaces. I'm sure RG is also played on different surfaces. I'm sure there are more stone particles on the outside courts. Surely, the grass is often greener on Centre court at Wimbledon than on Court one. Wimbledon also is played on different surfaces

I think you should read some of your posts on that old thread, you're not bitter? Read this:

'And should Nadal make the finals and win, what would you do? Drink more bitter juice and cut your wrist?'

If you don't care so much, why is your post so childish and bitter? It's funny you accuse others of what you clearly feel yourself, bitterness. Nadal isn't the best of all time, get over it. I might need to repeat that so you can understand it (English not being your first language and all).

I may be wasting my breath - but why don't you two give it a miss.