What happens first? The unlikeliest achievements remaining to Fedal.

Which of these is going to happen first?

Can't believe people are voting for Hell freezing over - global warming, guys! Now if the option was 'Polar ice caps melting completely'.....

Global warming might lead to the next ice age.

I go for option 1 (surely not I hear you say) on the grounds that as Rafa holds no off-clay title he needs to win one particular title two years on the run, which I doubt he'll do. Fed made the final in 201 so he has to be closer than that, and finally being an Atheist I don't believe in Hell.

Can I change my vote to C?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway

Fed's won 16 slams, Rafa's won Wimby, USO and AO so does it really matter ?

And the validity of retaining the same title off clay means what...? That Nadal is a useless tennis player?
Many players have retained titles off-clay but dont (as erictbuk says) actually hold the key titles of SW19, AO and OG.
I would wager that had he not been injured in 2009 post-FO that he would have likely retained SW19 given he won it in 08 and 10. Also winning Wimby & USO in '10 and getting to finals in 11 isnt exactly "bad".

lydian wrote:And the validity of retaining the same title off clay means what...? That Nadal is a useless tennis player?
Many players have retained titles off-clay but dont (as erictbuk says) actually hold the key titles of SW19, AO and OG.
I would wager that had he not been injured in 2009 post-FO that he would have likely retained SW19 given he won it in 08 and 10. Also winning Wimby & USO in '10 and getting to finals in 11 isnt exactly "bad".

If my Auntie had balls she'd be my Uncle.

Odd that you've interpreted this article as criticism of Nadal. After all, I feature Federer just as prominantly, and Federer fans aren't assaulting me implying that I've posted a Fed-hating article.

Yes odd that...after all, its not like you snipe at Nadal or his team much is it

lydian wrote:Yes odd that...after all, its not like you snipe at Nadal or his team much is it

I don't like Nadal either:) I would have been so much happy had delpo pulled this one off. Gutted is not the word which can describe the disappointment.

lydian wrote:Yes odd that...after all, its not like you snipe at Nadal or his team much is it

I post only unbiased irrefutable insights.

lol...mais oui BB
I didnt share your disappointment wow

What if Nadal wins Wimbledon, the AO and the US open every two years. Does that mean he's still rubbish?

hawkeye wrote:What if Nadal wins Wimbledon, the AO and the US open every two years. Does that mean he's still rubbish?

Oh dear, what a pity that I try to start a thread about how unlikely it is that Nadal OR FEDERER achieve a particular thing yet the Rafalitos just won't let go of the idea that any reference that includes their man must be an assault defended to the last.

This article didn't include the word "rubbish" and it's unseemly that you bring it in now. As I said to lydian, it's noticable how Federer fans have not swarmed all over the thread, braying like demented asses at a perceived sleight to their man.

I do actually think Federer has a Roland Garros left in him. If Nadal is to weaken on Clay, I think it is more likely to have a Djokovic v Federer final. Who would your money be on if that was the contest in 2012?

legendkillar wrote:I do actually think Federer has a Roland Garros left in him. If Nadal is to weaken on Clay, I think it is more likely to have a Djokovic v Federer final. Who would your money be on if that was the contest in 2012?

Fed has to get to No. 2 first, and then IF Djoko and Nadal are on the same side of the draw you may get a Fed vs. Djoko final after Djoko and Nadal have bludgeoned 7 shades of hell from one another, which history suggests would give Fed a better chance of winning at RG than a Fed vs. Nadal final would.

I don't see it happening - and the DC suggests that Nadal and clay get along just fine.

If Nadal wins the Olympics in 2012 he will have defended a title off clay, and winning the Olympics at SW19 is within Nadal's capabilities. I therefore go for Nadal defending a title off the clay.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I do actually think Federer has a Roland Garros left in him. If Nadal is to weaken on Clay, I think it is more likely to have a Djokovic v Federer final. Who would your money be on if that was the contest in 2012?

Fed has to get to No. 2 first, and then IF Djoko and Nadal are on the same side of the draw you may get a Fed vs. Djoko final after Djoko and Nadal have bludgeoned 7 shades of hell from one another, which history suggests would give Fed a better chance of winning at RG than a Fed vs. Nadal final would.

I don't see it happening - and the DC suggests that Nadal and clay get along just fine.

If Nadal wins the Olympics in 2012 he will have defended a title off clay, and winning the Olympics at SW19 is within Nadal's capabilities. I therefore go for Nadal defending a title off the clay.

Not entirely the case. As shown before that Federer being number 1, 2 or number 3 will always end up on the opposite side of Nadal.

Nadal winning at Wimbledon in the Olympics is highly unlikely given that Djokovic and even Federer would be favourites ahead of him.

The relationship between Nadal and clay may seem fine, but at this moment in time Djokovic is a better player on the red stuff than Nadal.

legendkillar wrote:
Not entirely the case. As shown before that Federer being number 1, 2 or number 3 will always end up on the opposite side of Nadal.

Nadal winning at Wimbledon in the Olympics is highly unlikely given that Djokovic and even Federer would be favourites ahead of him.

The relationship between Nadal and clay may seem fine, but at this moment in time Djokovic is a better player on the red stuff than Nadal.

LK - I thought slam draws start again at each level, so 1 has to be on the opposite side to 2, and 3 on the opposite side to 4, but that either permutation of 1&3/2&4 or 1&4/2&3 can happen.

I don't see Fed as favourite ahead of Nadal to win the Olympics. I only see Fed favourite ahead of Nadal at the beginning or end of the season in a best-of-three set tournament on a quick surface and possibly at Cincinnati too. At Wimbledon in July/August Nadal is my favourite whether best-of-five or best-of-three.

I agree about Nadal vs. Djokovic, but we are talking about Nadal vs. Federer, and Federer will not enjoy the benefit of Nadal being taken out by Djokovic first in any tournament until such time as the rankings change.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Not entirely the case. As shown before that Federer being number 1, 2 or number 3 will always end up on the opposite side of Nadal.

Nadal winning at Wimbledon in the Olympics is highly unlikely given that Djokovic and even Federer would be favourites ahead of him.

The relationship between Nadal and clay may seem fine, but at this moment in time Djokovic is a better player on the red stuff than Nadal.

LK - I thought slam draws start again at each level, so 1 has to be on the opposite side to 2, and 3 on the opposite side to 4, but that either permutation of 1&3/2&4 or 1&4/2&3 can happen.

I don't see Fed as favourite ahead of Nadal to win the Olympics. I only see Fed favourite ahead of Nadal at the beginning or end of the season in a best-of-three set tournament on a quick surface and possibly at Cincinnati too. At Wimbledon in July/August Nadal is my favourite whether best-of-five or best-of-three.

I agree about Nadal vs. Djokovic, but we are talking about Nadal vs. Federer, and Federer will not enjoy the benefit of Nadal being taken out by Djokovic first in any tournament until such time as the rankings change.

I still make Federer favourite. I would even put Tsonga ahead of Nadal on Grass.

I can't see how Nadal can be made favourite given his form this year. If he shows 2010 form in 2012, then yes I would make him favourite, but he has some way to go to show anywhere near that form.

Nadal's staying power in points is longer an effective weapon whether it be best of 3 or 5. If anything I would predict a slamless year for Nadal next year. Federer has clicked into gear and I cannot see Nadal taking him out on any surface other than Clay. Djokovic is too much for Nadal on all surfaces. If Murray actually showed some self-belief he could take Nadal out on the Hard stuff. Tsonga has beaten Nadal on Grass and Hard this year. Points to which I fear have been overlooked rather generously.

I guess as a Fed fan I have learned not to underestimate Nadal!

I think that the mistake people make at this time of year is to forget that we see two different Nadals during a year. There is the hugely energised Bull between April and July, and there is the shadow of that player otherwise, however the Bull tussles fiercely with the shadow at the USO and the Bull has prevailed over the shadow there for the last two years (and he managed the SF in 2008-9, none too shabby).

From IW through to Wimbledon Nadal played 9 tournaments making the final in 8 of them and wining 3 (losing only against Djoko in finals). His loss to Tsonga during the warm-up tournament of Queens was not an indicator of form on grass when it mattered as he made the Wimbledon final. The same can be said for his next two early losses at Canada and Cincinnati given that he made the USO final for the 2nd year running.

Outside April-July, and the USO, almost anything can happen to Nadal, but when the Spring sun warms his back and the European clay season looms onto the near horizon the Bull returns. I believe we'll see the Bull next year too, and for me the main question is whether Djokovic will be able to maintain his dominance in their rivalry. I don't think Federer can beat the Bull any longer, and Murray hasn't managed that yet.

barrystar wrote:
I think that the mistake people make at this time of year is to forget that we see two different Nadals during a year.

Oh no! Some of us know too well!

I haven't seen the Bull this year and if anything I have only seen the Bull's backside this year!

Yes he has won 3 tournaments, but he has also lost 5 finals this year. When it matters.

To say Queens was irrelevent is a bit harsh given that Nadal and Tsonga have yet to tussle at Wimbledon. When Nadal really had to win at WTF against Tsonga, he couldn't. Like I said I put Nadal behind Tsonga on Grass.

I think people make the mistake of making Nadal out to be a force that is unstoppable. Djokovic is now that force. Federer is playing some of his best tennis since 2007. I cannot see Nadal on current form and that is the measuring stick for me. If we base it on historic form, then Federer would be streets ahead.

What also needs to be taken into account is what state the courts will be after Wimbledon for the Olympics.

We can chase around in circles on this one - but the real difference has been Djokovic, who has consistently beaten Nadal and caused him noticeable self-doubt even against others.

But - I think it counts for something that nobody managed to beat Nadal apart from Djoko during the most important matches in the most important part of the season.

Fed's schedule management and general brilliance meant he had a superb end of 2011, and he went close in a number of big matches - but he was brilliant at the end of 2010 too and it was not much of a portent for the crucial April-July period for 2011.

My view is that it all turns on Djoko - if he can keep Nadal under his thumb then wider cracks may appear in Nadal's game and psyche, if Djoko's not quite up to that standard then I don't see anyone else being able to do that to Nadal between April and July.

lydian wrote:lol...mais oui BB
I didnt share your disappointment wow

I know Lydian. It seems I would have to wait to write any posts till 2012 hardcourt season starts hopefully not.
Had Nadal lost on clay as well, I would have filled 606v2 with his early retirement posts. In hindsight it's probably good for game if he hangs around for some more time.
We shall see in 2012.

lol...your disappointment is palpable wow.
Love, like or hate Nadal's game, he sure does make people have an opinion about him. I'd say tennis would be poorer without Nadal in it, he's provided the perfect contrast to Federer as Agassi did to Sampras. The game would be boring if they were all the same.
He's also a charismatic player on/off court and thats good for tennis, the sport we all love, as a whole.

Federer wins another Roland Garros?

Well as a Federer fan, I think Rafa is more likely to retain a title off of clay. He won both the US Open and Wimbledon last year and may have retained both titles this year had it not been for the brilliance of Djokovic.

As long as Rafa is in the RG final, Roger is always going to come up second best more often than not I'm afraid.

Remember, to retaion a title he first has to win it.

Other than the Olympics he holds no such title. Nor has he ever retained a non-clay title.

This is something you always go on about BB...but I dont really see the significance of it when the guy has won AO, USO, OG on hard, IW twice, Canada Masters twice, Madrid hard, and got to finals of Shanghai and Paris Masters. His career % W:L on hard is 76% which is just outside the Top10 of all time.
Why dont you focus on what he has done, rather than hasnt?

Well the only way Federer will win another FO title is if he is the only player in the draw.
What do you think the FO is? Russian Roulette?
I haven't quite understood the point of defending a title. What significance is attached to it? Does defending a title make it any special? Never knew tennis is boxing.

legendkillar wrote:I haven't seen the Bull this year ...

I have seen a lot of bull this year. A lot of bull ...

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well the only way Federer will win another FO title is if he is the only player in the draw.
What do you think the FO is? Russian Roulette?

Bizarre.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I haven't quite understood the point of defending a title. What significance is attached to it? Does defending a title make it any special? Never knew tennis is boxing.

There's quite a lot you don't understand.

Boggo, you try too hard to sound intelligent. Last time I checked, your beloved Federer never defended a clay title before either. Oh I forgot, defending a title on grass and hardcourt is more important than defending one on clay.
Now embrace us with your vast pseudo knowledge of the significance of a tennis player defending his title since until you raised this concern, nothing was made of it. All I ever heard was the number of times a player won a title.

I believe Federer defended Hamburg on clay...when Hamburg was aTMS.

Check your stats SA, it will help you regaining some credibility...maybe.

Which is more worrying? Me forgetting the results of an insignificant weak era tournament where clay titans like Safin and Henman were making the finals or Tenez believing he has credibility here?
I'll say the latter is more worrying.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Which is more worrying? Me forgetting the results of an insignificant weak era tournament where clay titans like Safin and Henman were making the finals or Tenez believing he has credibility here?
I'll say the latter is more worrying.

Ouch! that hurts! no really!

Simple_Analyst wrote:Which is more worrying? Me forgetting the results of an insignificant weak era tournament where clay titans like Safin and Henman were making the finals or Tenez believing he has credibility here?
I'll say the latter is more worrying.

Kuerten in 2002, Coria in 2004, 2005. Ferrero, Ferrer, Moya in 2007. Very short-sighted SA.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=414#

Don't take it too hard Tenez, you convince yourself to believe a lot of things, i'm sure if you try harder, you can convince yourself you have credibility here.

Laverfan? What is the point of that? To show me Federer has beaten a clay great in Kuerten before? I'm sure Kuerten sees the blemish on his record why the 30% fit Brazilian made sure he mauled the clay-clown at RG 2004.

The 606v2 Ad Hom detector is on "alert". Let's stick to the content.

Federer wins another Roland Garros?
I don't believe Federer can defeat a fit Nadal at Roland Garros - so Nadal would have to have a noticeable injury (which is not impossible).

I think only Nadal is "guaranteed" (see above) to defeat Federer. If Djokovic maintains his fitness and conserves himself better for RG, then I would put Djokovic as a slight favorite to defeat Federer at RG 2012. I would then place Federer as favorite to defeat anyone else at RG in 2012.

Nadal retains a title off clay?
As mentioned it would have to be 2013 at the earliest unless one counts the Olympics. I would have to say that for 2012 there must be a better chance of Nadal winning the Olympics than Federer winning Roland Garros.

If we are talking about another (off clay) title, the real question is whether Federer will win another RG singles title or Nadal to retain an off clay title in the remainder of their career. I would say the latter is slightly more likely.

Ps It will be interesting to see exactly how long Federer can keep going. If he remains competitive into his mid to late 30's then would Nadal and Djokovic have faded by then.? Federer will just have to remain psychologically strong to attempt to outlast Nadal and Djokovic for longevity. In the mean time there is always a risk that some other superstar will appear, but as yet there isn't anyone.

It’s already very clear - although perhaps not surprising - that heroic efforts by contributors (on this and sundry other threads) to help Simple Analyst on 606v2 acquire some basic understanding of the sport of tennis are sadly proving to be no less a challenge than was the case in his previous incarnation as Unbiased Educator on 606.

Of all active players currently on the tour I wonder who might be the one with a career record on clay second ONLY to that of the clay king Rafa Nadal …?

Clue : it’s not Novak Djokovic (the guy in question still boasts a better career clay win/loss ratio than Nole, even after his stellar 2011, and has won more clay titles than him)

Could it perhaps be the only player other than Rafa himself to have captured the RG trophy in the past seven years ?

And could it perhaps be the player described by SA - with such insight, wisdom and tennis knowledge – as a “clay-clown” ??

Ah yes, it is indeed Roger Federer.

And SA might - just might - wish to reflect that describing a former RG Champion as a “clay clown” means that he can never be taken seriously on a tennis forum.

Simple_Analyst wrote:What is the point of that? To show me Federer has beaten a clay great in Kuerten before? I'm sure Kuerten sees the blemish on his record why the 30% fit Brazilian made sure he mauled the clay-clown at RG 2004.

Kuerten had won 2000 and 2001 RG.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ku/G/Gustavo-Kuerten.aspx?t=tf

Lags72... Very well said.

Of course Federer won the FO. After all, once Nadal injured out in 09, it was the case of the luckiest player winning. However that's not the point here. Clay-clown is used in the contest of Federer compared to other clay court greats so I don't see any controversy here.
Laverfan, what has that got to do with anything?

off-topic ***** off-topic ***** off-topic ***** off-topic

With talk of clowns, this is off-topic but moderately amusing: http://c.cslacker.com/926l.jpg

With respect to Tennis clowns - this is the best I could find in terms of images with a slight clownish look:
http://media.onsugar.com/files/ons1/342/3425287/37_2009/c2322d0e1b83d2c9_john_mcenroe_4.jpg

off-topic ***** off-topic ***** off-topic ***** off-topic

Simple_Analyst wrote: .............. so I don't see any controversy here.
.............

I don't either.

In fact I don't see any 'controversy' in anything SA writes.

Controversy depends on having a degree of maturity on both sides of a discussion

All we ever see from SA is a lot of irrational and childish nonsense

Every time SA trashes Federer's record on clay (and specifically at RG) he is effectively denigrating the achievements of the player who beat Fed in the final for four of his six triumphs.

In the parallel-world inhabited by SA, Rafa himself would surely be the lucky one.

Imagine getting to the RG final six times but then finding that on four occasions, all that remains between you and the trophy is a 'clay clown'. And in the other two, your only opposition are guys with far worse records than the 'clay clown.' How incredibly fortunate.

If Federer is a 'clay clown' and given that (excepting Rafa of course) all other current players have an inferior clay record to Federer, then it's clear that Rafa has had no meaningful opposition for all his RG success. It's obviously been a doddle.

Hey Rafa, hand back all that RG prize money please. You can't keep it when you've only been beating 'clay clowns' !! Cakewalk draws all the way !

Oh dear, oh dear ....... does SA ever stop, even for one minute, to think before he types ...... ??

Simple_Analyst wrote:Of course Federer won the FO. After all, once Nadal injured out in 09, it was the case of the luckiest player winning. However that's not the point here. Clay-clown is used in the contest of Federer compared to other clay court greats so I don't see any controversy here.
Laverfan, what has that got to do with anything?

Luckiest player, who came back from 2-0 sets down to Haas, and won against Del Potro in the fifth set.

SA ... Has someone asked you in the past, whether you believe in what you write?

laverfan wrote:SA ... Has someone asked you in the past, whether you believe in what you write?

I have - he doesn't. It does appear to be having the desired effect though!

Laverfan - only two possibilities I guess !

1. He writes it and actually believes it.
(signs of delusion ?)

2. He writes it but does not believe it.
(signs of schizophrenia?)

Either way, a cause for concern ........

JHM - I suspect you're right. Just a shame his brand of wummery never seems to increase in either quality or variety !

Simple_Analyst wrote:Boggo, you try too hard to sound intelligent. Last time I checked, your beloved Federer never defended a clay title before either. Oh I forgot, defending a title on grass and hardcourt is more important than defending one on clay.
Now embrace us with your vast pseudo knowledge of the significance of a tennis player defending his title since until you raised this concern, nothing was made of it. All I ever heard was the number of times a player won a title.

Picture of a man blowing his foot off with a shotgun.

Seems to me that Simple Analyst is just a WUM and some of you are rising to it. Is it true you really were Unbiased Educator? Now that was a class WUM name. Don't get me wrong, simple analyst, is reasonable but it is rather bland compared to the heady heights of Unbiased Educator.