The BIG DEBATE: 2006vs2011

First topic message reminder :

The DEBATE:

In which year did Fed face higher competition? As we are not debating about Federer's level in the respective years- but the competition he faced- I will now compare the players he has faced in each round of a slam- from Round 1 to the final. Even if he lost earlier than the final I would see his route if he had won- we are not judging him but WHO he faced/would have faced.

Aus Open: I will always state the 2006 player first then 2011- eg AO final: Baghdatis vs Djokovic
R1- Istomin vs Lacko- Lacko was ranked in the top 100 and ran Rafael Nadal very close in Doha a few weeks
before AO. Istomin meanwhile was not on great form- although he did have potential as we saw in his 2010 Queens display. Very close. DRAW
R2- Mayer vs Simon- the talented frenchman Giles Simon has a good baseline game and will look to try and break into the Top 10 next year. Mayer has improved a lot since 2006 when he was outside the Top 50. 2011
R3- Myrini vs Malisse- both were top 50 players at the time. Malisse came of a great performance in Chennai while Myrini was in indifferent form. 2011
R4- Haas vs Robredo- Haas was top 50 and definitely a tougher prospect. 2006
QF- Davydenko vs Wawrinka- The Swiss number 2 has no real chance of troubling Fed. Davydenko provided slightly more of a challenge. 2006
SF- Keifer vs Djokovic- 2011
F- Baghdatis vs Murray- (if he had reached 2011 final)- 2011
2011 4-2 2006

French Open:
R1- Hartfield vs Lopez- hartfield was outside the top 150 while Lopez ran fed close a few weeks before they played. 2011
R2- Falla vs Texeira- while Falla is potentially a dangerous player- Texeira was outside the top 150. Easy call. 2006
R3- Massu vs Tipsarevic- both were in Top 50 but Tipsarevic has a more dangerous game- he is now in the
Top 10. 2011
R4- Berdych vs Wawrinka- as shown in 2010 Wimby Berdych had the game to cause trouble to Fed, unlike the Swiss number 2. 2006.
QF- Ancic vs Monfils- monfils was top 10 at that time, unlike Ancic, and had a french crowd behind him. Its very tight though. DRAW
SF- Nalbandian vs Djokovic- No question, Djokovic was pre-tournament favourite- 2011
F- Nadal vs Nadal- Nadal has improved since 2006- 2011
2011 4-2 2006

Wimbledon:
R1- Gasquet vs Kukushin- Gasquet easily- 2006
R2-Henman vs mannarino- henman was former semi-finalist- 2006
R3- Mahut vs Nalbandian- Nalbandian has the shots to cause Fed trouble- 2011
R4- Berdych vs Youzhny- Berdych- who beat him in 2010- 2006
QF- Ancic vs Tsonga- Tsonga came in on good form with strong showing at Queens but Ancic was good on grass- tight call- 2011
SF- Bjorkman vs Djokovic- if he had got to the semi (remember what fed did is irrespective- we are judging it purely on his competition)- 2011
F- Nadal vs Nadal- Nadal improved by 2011 on grass- 2011
2011 4-3 2006

US Open:
R1- Wang vs Giraldo- Giraldo was top 60 player- unlike Wang- 2011
R2- Henman vs Sela- former number 4 was potentially dangerous- 2006
R3- Spadea vs Cillic- Cillic is a very dangerous player on his day- a tougher fixture- 2011
R4- Gicquel vs Monaco- Monaco ranked higher and more consistent- 2011
QF- Blake vs Tsonga- both very good attacking players- DRAW
SF- Davydenko vs Djokovic- no doubt- 2011
F- Roddick vs Nadal- Roddick had a lethal serve on a fast surface but Nadal is a better baseline player- DRAW
2011 4-1 2006

ALTOGETHER:
2011 16-8 2006
This means that 2011 was tougher/ more competition for Federer compared to 2006.

Remember! Fed's level of play and how the match turned out is irrelevant- its just his competition we are judging.
Fed might have improved/got worse but that is irrelevant. This is why I have continued his draw even when he exited!


Thankyou for reading
I hope you enjoyed the research

An easy multiple choice question I have for you guys:
Since 2006 Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are now a bigger threat- across all surfaces. Do you think Federer's competition in the latter stages of a Grand Slam (irrelevant of form) has got:
a)harder
b)easier
c)stayed the same

Pretty easy question- don't be a politician by answering vaguely at first and then expanding on some sidetrack- it's an easy multiple choice.
To help you with the question you can use my research above with the comparisons and also consider this: If Fed played the same level as he did this year in 2006; would he still have won 3 slams? I believe so, and therefore my question above is answered.

Good. So try to look at the recent 63 60 thrashing of Nadal by Federer without the shadow of an excuse.

lighten up amritia - it's an opinion after watching a match that Tenez is entitled to. You are entitled to disagree, but you don't need to be rude!

I didn't watch either IW 2004 and Fed's victory there, or his loss at Miami a week later. It does strike me that it is not an implausible thing to claim that he may have been not completely at his very best and rested at Miami, and I would have thought that might have been treated with little more seriousness from a Nadal fan who has claimed fatigue as being a factor in many of Nadal's losses?

It's a viewpoint, not one I can share having not seen either tournament, but one that it is as valid to hold as claiming that Nadal was worn out by the summer of 2008 by the time he reached Murray in the semis of the US Open.

Why don't you try and 'deal with' and respond to different opinions on here in a way that will open rather than stifle debate?

Tenez wrote:Good. So try to look at the recent 63 60 thrashing of Nadal by Federer without the shadow of an excuse.

lol i don't make excuses.

time please wrote: I would have thought that might have been treated with little more seriousness from a Nadal fan who has claimed fatigue as being a factor in many of Nadal's losses?

When have i said that?

Even better. So considering there is no excuse of fatigue, court conditions and so on we can safely conclude that Fed at 30 is much better than peak Nadal.

End of discussion.

Amritia, I remember a post of yours recently to the effect that Fed only wins the WTF because most other top players are injured or fatigued. Presumably those other top players don't include Nadal (which would mean that Nadal can't win it even when 100%) and also that you're not making excuses for the other top players?

Tenez wrote:Even better. So considering there is no excuse of fatigue, court conditions and so on we can safely conclude that Fed at 30 is much better than peak Nadal.

End of discussion.

The H2H this year (including 2 exhibitions)= 3-1 (5-1) Nadal.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Amritia, I remember a post of yours recently to the effect that Fed only wins the WTF because most other top players are injured or fatigued. Presumably those other top players don't include Nadal (which would mean that Nadal can't win it even when 100%) and also that you're not making excuses for the other top players?

No that was S-A, not me.

Who cares about history. The last match they played that counted Nadal got his bum kicked. 63 60. That's terrible. Nadal at his peak with no excuse whatsoever gets bagelled. He also got bagelled by Murray and Lacko the 200th ranked player.

Try to stomach that until their next encounter. Maybe Nadal will have improved or Federer will have declined...but until then that is the state of affair in the real world of tennis for those who don't look for excuses.

Attack attack attack. Jeeez let's calm down a bit.

Observe

Nadal defeated a below par Federer in Miami in 2004. It's not an excuse, but an observation that Nadal was able to seize the opportunity and win. But don't get carried away as Federer fans could marvel in light of Federer's win over Nadal at Hamburg in 2007 when Nadal was at his peak on Clay. Nadal in turn then defeated Federer at AO 2009 and Miami 2011. Federer defeated Nadal in Madrid 2009. The point I make is that it get's redundant very fast. Federer has made 5 French Open finals and Nadal has made 3 HC Slam finals. When comparing such a rivalry, stats like this get lost because of oneupmanship. To me it has been the most enthralling rivalry I have ever seen. Purely because of the achievements of both players. Strip down the H2H and enjoy the match up between the 2 in stats.

Tenez wrote:Who cares about history. The last macth they played that counted Nadal got his bum kicked. 63 60. That's terrible. Nadal at his peak with no excuse whatsover gets bagelled. He also got bagelled by Murray and Lacko the 200th ranked player.

Try to stomach that until their next encounter. Maybe Nadal will have improved or Federer will have declined...but until then that is the state of affair in the real world of tennis.

6-1 7-5.

legendkillar wrote:Attack attack attack. Jeeez let's calm down a bit.

Observe

Nadal defeated a below par Federer in Miami in 2004. It's not an excuse, but an observation that Nadal was able to seize the opportunity and win. But don't get carried away as Federer fans could marvel in light of Federer's win over Nadal at Hamburg in 2007 when Nadal was at his peak on Clay. Nadal in turn then defeated Federer at AO 2009 and Miami 2011. Federer defeated Nadal in Madrid 2009. The point I make is that it get's redundant very fast. Federer has made 5 French Open finals and Nadal has made 3 HC Slam finals. When comparing such a rivalry, stats like this get lost because of oneupmanship. To me it has been the most enthralling rivalry I have ever seen. Purely because of the achievements of both players. Strip down the H2H and enjoy the match up between the 2 in stats.

Yes I agree, great rivalry. My point in mentioning Miami 2004 was that even in their first match Nadal showed defensive skills that the likes of Blake, Roddick, Gonzalez had not shown.

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Amritia, I remember a post of yours recently to the effect that Fed only wins the WTF because most other top players are injured or fatigued. Presumably those other top players don't include Nadal (which would mean that Nadal can't win it even when 100%) and also that you're not making excuses for the other top players?

No that was S-A, not me.

So "However by WTF most top players come in injured/knackered so sometimes its just a case of last man standing." on 30th Dec wasn't you?

amritia3ee wrote:
6-3 7-5

How that's really sad. It's called selective memory. A fan who cannot take on reality. I admire your courage of refusing excuses but the reality was not 63 75 in Nadal's favour but 63 60.

I hope you can live with it until their next match.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
So "However by WTF most top players come in injured/knackered so sometimes its just a case of last man standing." on 30th Dec wasn't you?

Yes, that was a valid point, but I think that shows Federer's great thinking in scheduling it very well. Of course being the last tournament of the season people will be tired. Even Fed is tired but his scheduling is much cleverer. So credit goes to him.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Amritia, I remember a post of yours recently to the effect that Fed only wins the WTF because most other top players are injured or fatigued. Presumably those other top players don't include Nadal (which would mean that Nadal can't win it even when 100%) and also that you're not making excuses for the other top players?

No that was S-A, not me.

So "However by WTF most top players come in injured/knackered so sometimes its just a case of last man standing." on 30th Dec wasn't you?

Oh dear...more selective memory.

Amri from now on I'll be nice with you and try to help you in those difficult moments.

Tenez wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:
6-3 7-5

How that's really sad. It's called selective memory. A fan who cannot take on reality. I admire your courage of refusing excuses but the reality was not 63 75 in Nadal's favour but 63 60.

I hope you can live with it until their next match.

Sorry, I've edited it back; I meant to say

61 75

Yes Blake, Gonzalez and Roddick are not great defenders, but Roddick in 2009 against Murray at Wimbledon showed great defensive skills against a great defender. Murray in 2009 was beaten by players who did not have great defensive skills what so ever.

When fans of Federer compare matches he had with Blake, Gonzalez and Roddick is because it is a much equal match up than Federer - Nadal. Federer is aggressive and as is Roddick, Gonzalez and Blake. A much detailed comparison can be made. When Nadal faces Murray, Djokovic and Simon you tend to find it a much better match up because Nadal plays so similar to them.

The comparison is a like for like one. There is no harm in it

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:
6-3 7-5

How that's really sad. It's called selective memory. A fan who cannot take on reality. I admire your courage of refusing excuses but the reality was not 63 75 in Nadal's favour but 63 60.

I hope you can live with it until their next match.

Sorry, I've edited it back; I meant to say

61 75

Yes. Of course. Well done!

Don't know why people think indoor courts are always fast. Infact the WTF at London is as slow as it gets. The only difference is the low bounce. Indoor also does not have the natural effect of wind speed and the pressure is controlled in the arena. Essentially an artficial and controlled environment. The problem with Federer is, he has shown the ability to beat Nadal indoors but the best part of this is, most of them have come at the end of the season where Nadal has been known to be notoriously not at his best. 4 of Federer's hard court indoors victories over Nadal has come at the WTF end of season. Only Miami outdoor hard court came earlier in the season. Nadal has won 4 of the 5 hard court outdoor match. This clearly is not a coincidence. The maimi victory Federer had over Nadal in 2005 was clearly a once off but as Nadal has shown, he has the better of Federer outdoors. Infact i believe if the WTF was played in the middle of the season and still indoors, Nadal would have beaten Federer easily many times there as well. The 4 Federer's indoor end of season victories over Nadal and his inability to repeat such during the regular season outdoors confirms one thing; Nadal is never at his best end of the season and renders those results inconclusive.

Tenez wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

61 75

Yes. Of course. Well done!

Kl thanks Tenez.
To be fair Fed improved in the second set.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Don't know why people think indoor courts are always fast. Infact the WTF at London is as slow as it gets. The only difference is the low bounce. Indoor also does not have the natural effect of wind speed and the pressure is controlled in the arena. Essentially an artficial and controlled environment. The problem with Federer is, he has shown the ability to beat Nadal indoors but the best part of this is, most of them have come at the end of the season where Nadal has been known to be notoriously not at his best. 4 of Federer's hard court indoors victories over Nadal has come at the WTF end of season. Only Miami outdoor hard court came earlier in the season. Nadal has won 4 of the 5 hard court outdoor match. This clearly is not a coincidence. The maimi victory Federer had over Nadal in 2005 was clearly a once off but as Nadal has shown, he has the better of Federer outdoors. Infact i believe if the WTF was played in the middle of the season and still indoors, Nadal would have beaten Federer easily many times there as well. The 4 Federer's indoor end of season victories over Nadal and his inability to repeat such during the regular season outdoors confirms one thing; Nadal is never at his best end of the season and renders those results inconclusive.

King of Clay and yet can't negotiate a slow indoor court?

Being end of season renders it inconlusive? We may as well render every result inconclusive as it is during the tennis season. I will never understand why they don't play competitive tennis more often.

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

61 75

Yes. Of course. Well done!

Kl thanks Tenez.
To be fair Fed improved in the second set.

I agree. Nadal did not see the ball, poor guy.

Tenez wrote:
I agree. Nadal did not see the ball, poor guy.

What are you talking about? Nadal won the match 6-1 7-5.

Legendkilla, i can't help you if you don't understand the difference between the bounce on clay and an indoor court at 02 arena.

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I agree. Nadal did not see the ball, poor guy.

What are you talking about? Nadal won the match 6-1 7-5.

Of course. What was I thinking? We all know that Nadal won a match 61 75 v Federer...somewhere.

Who cares about what the ATP selectively remembers.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=F324

Simple_Analyst wrote:Legendkilla, i can't help you if you don't understand the difference between the bounce on clay and an indoor court at 02 arena.

Maybe you can help your friend amrit. I am a bit concerned about his health.

Tenez wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I agree. Nadal did not see the ball, poor guy.

What are you talking about? Nadal won the match 6-1 7-5.

Of course. What was I thinking? We all know that Nadal won a match 61 75 v Federer...somewhere.

Who cares about what the ATP selectively remembers.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=F324

In Abu Dhabi a few days ago. It wasn't an official ATP match, but it was still a game of tennis.

Tenez wrote:

Try to stomach that until their next encounter.

Their next encounter was a few days ago in Abu Dhabi, you never said it had to be an official ATP match.

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Try to stomach that until their next encounter.

Their next encounter was a few days ago in Abu Dhabi, you never said it had to be an official ATP match.

Indeed.

Does this one count as well?
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/03/Other/Bogota-Exhibition-Nadal-Beats-Djokovic.aspx

JuliusHMarx wrote:Does this one count as well?
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/03/Other/Bogota-Exhibition-Nadal-Beats-Djokovic.aspx

Well it counts as a game of tennis or an 'encounter' as Tenez put it but it wasn't an official ATP match.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Legendkilla, i can't help you if you don't understand the difference between the bounce on clay and an indoor court at 02 arena.

So if the O2 played the same speed as Clay, tell me what difference would be should the balls not be any different?

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Legendkilla, i can't help you if you don't understand the difference between the bounce on clay and an indoor court at 02 arena.

So if the O2 played the same speed as Clay, tell me what difference would be should the balls not be any different?

Bounce

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Legendkilla, i can't help you if you don't understand the difference between the bounce on clay and an indoor court at 02 arena.

So if the O2 played the same speed as Clay, tell me what difference would be should the balls not be any different?

Bounce

So you are telling me that despite the same speed and same balls that bounce would make that much of difference to Nadal succeeding on Clay and not Indoors?

LK, may be getting to educate yourself on the "bounce" being referred to here will help you understand the very basic of things. After that, i can help you on other elements of indoor courts.

Tenez wrote: That's why I often suspect your judgement there. Taking the ball earlier then did not help him beat Callieri a week earlier nor Gonzo a couple of matches later.

lol, you've suspected my judgement ever since I was a 'fan' of Nadal
I'm not talking about H2H with Federer here, thats been done to death and as LK and others say, thats a game of oneupsmanship. I'm merely saying, before you jump down my throat, that Nadal could used to take the ball much earlier. Lets not forget the surfaces were faster in 2004 vs 2011. My point is that Nadal can 'handle' fast courts (winning Queens' anyone?) but its low bounce he more struggles with...hence WTF doesnt suit him at all.
Whether Federer was sick or not in 2004 Miami is neither here nor there, I'm saying that Nadal could take the ball much earlier back then. Yes he might have lost to Callieri or Gonzo but so what players lose to other people all the time, even Federer, and lets not forget the guy was 17 years old! With whom else would we judge so harshly at 17 years old? The central point for me is that in some respects I believe that Nadal has gone backwards himself due to slowing conditions, its made him more and more defensive - IMO he was a much more aggressive player in 2004/2005. I would like to see the return of that aggression, and hopefully that will be the case.

amritia3ee wrote:Bounce

OK

Simple_Analyst wrote:LK, may be getting to educate yourself on the "bounce" being referred to here will help you understand the very basic of things. After that, i can help you on other elements of indoor courts.

Maybe if you could acknowledge that a tennis season doesn't end until December, I may take your views seriously.

Certainly, and if i did not realise you lack basic understanding of indoor and clay courts, i wouldn't have recommended lessons on it.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Certainly, and if i did not realise you lack basic understanding of indoor and clay courts, i wouldn't have recommended lessons on it.

I think you overstate the impact of bounce. Take Paris. Played like Clay. The O2 is not far off being Blue Clay.

At least you are making an attempt.

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote: That's why I often suspect your judgement there. Taking the ball earlier then did not help him beat Callieri a week earlier nor Gonzo a couple of matches later.

lol, you've suspected my judgement ever since I was a 'fan' of Nadal

Yes because If I were a fan of Nadal, I would try to embrace his strengthes and weaknesses and try to be as objective as I can.

I don't think many Murray fans do see Murray's first victory over Federer as very significant. The point is about discussing how Murray can hurt Federer when both play close to their top. Not when one wants to pull out to rest before the USO. he won that USO very convincingly and that was what Federer really cared. Likewise v Nadal in May 2004, it seems neither Nadal nor Federer were anywhere close to playing the best to what they could so I am not sure what the point of using this match as a reference. Why not use his match v Callieri to show he coudl take the ball early? or maybe another match he won in 2004 v X player where he took the ball early? The fact is in 2004 Federer was at the business end of most tournaments he entered, Nadal was not so we do not have much matter to base our discussion on Nadal taking the ball early.

lydian wrote: Yes he might have lost to Callieri or Gonzo but so what players lose to other people all the time, even Federer, and lets not forget the guy was 17 years old! With whom else would we judge so harshly at 17 years old? The central point for me is that in some respects I believe that Nadal has gone backwards himself due to slowing conditions, its made him more and more defensive - IMO he was a much more aggressive player in 2004/2005.

My point about Nadal losing to Callieri and Gonzo is very much about your point. Nadal did not win anything of sigificance when he took the ball early. SO I again completely disagree when you say his game went backwards after that. He did not go backward, he went in a direction where no-one had been since the 80s and beginning 90s on clay. That is moonballing and he took everybody by surprised providing the tour with a ball that had spin and energy no one was used to. And that made him successful. Now you look at what he achieved thank to the originality of his game and think he could have won as much and could still win more if he were to play like everybody else.

That is wrong I am afraid. There were many players who coudl take the ball earlier and hurt more with it. It was in Nadal's interest to take the game somewhere else, Taking the ball early means using the opponent's energy and clearly involves a risk that teh guy standing 3m behind the baseline doesn't take. It means shorter and faster rallies. Those shorter and faster rallies woudl not have allowed Nadal to make the most of what was his strength...his stamina and court speed, essentially being able to pull winners while in the trameline thanks to amazing abs and upper body power.

Nadal knows he needs to take the ball earlier. The question is can he do it? ALl players knew how to beat Federer in his hey days, none coudl execute as well to do so...on fast surfaces at least.

I don't want to get drawn into a discussion over who is better than whom - I think it is fair to both players to acknowledge (apart from their rivalry with each other) than over the last few years (by results alone) Federer has been the outstanding hard court player of his generation and Rafa has been the outstanding clay court player. H2H may have been different if Roger had not been so consistently the second best clay courter, and if Rafa had earlier been more at home at Flushing Meadows - then again it may not have been.

the point I would like to make to amritia (I have given up on Simple as 'theres none so deaf as those that don't want to hear) is that caveats (not excuses) are often made for wins and losses. For instance:

1. Federer beat Nadal at Madrid 2009, but Nadal had played an exhausting 3 setter the day before against Djokovic and it is his least favourite clay tournament because of the altitude.

In other words, don't read into this result that Fed had the beating of Rafa on clay

2.However, Djokovic beat Nadal at Rome despite a gruelling (and late night) 3 setter against Murray the day before, when Nadal was looking for revenge for Madrid

In other words, Djokovic might well be a contender for RG

3.Federer has always beaten Nadal on the indoor hard courts, even though this year Nadal was well rested though he had physical issues, but it should be noted that the latter is often a problem for Rafa.

In other words, Federer seems to be able to pace himself well throughout the season and to play his game without ending the season banged up, and he is also a formidable indoor player and the low bounce helps him more than Rafa.

You can write your own caveats for any match at any time - this is what betting people do when assessing where to place their dosh. It is a truth universally acknowledged that if conditions favour one player, this may cause an adverse disadvantage to their opponent (apologies to Jane Austen!)

It pains me too much to quote him - but if you look at your mate Simple's last few posts amritia, I think you find it is rife with his own little 'caveats' yet if a caveat is offered for the 'other side' he is off screaming 'foul' at the top of his lungs.

It is the sheer childishness of his interactions with others that is so depressing - if I were you amritia, I would try to be a little better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

time please wrote:I don't want to get drawn into a discussion over who is better than whom - I think it is fair to both players to acknowledge (apart from their rivalry with each other) than over the last few years (by results alone) Federer has been the outstanding hard court player of his generation and Rafa has been the outstanding clay court player. H2H may have been different if Roger had not been so consistently the second best clay courter, and if Rafa had earlier been more at home at Flushing Meadows - then again it may not have been.
the point I would like to make to amritia (I have given up on Simple as 'theres none so deaf as those that don't want to hear) is that caveats (not excuses) are often made for wins and losses. For instance:

1. Federer beat Nadal at Madrid 2009, but Nadal had played an exhausting 3 setter the day before against Djokovic and it is his least favourite clay tournament because of the altitude.

In other words, don't read into this result that Fed had the beating of Rafa on clay

2.However, Djokovic beat Nadal at Rome despite a gruelling (and late night) 3 setter against Murray the day before, when Nadal was looking for revenge for Madrid

In other words, Djokovic might well be a contender for RG

3.Federer has always beaten Nadal on the indoor hard courts, even though this year Nadal was well rested though he had physical issues, but it should be noted that the latter is often a problem for Rafa.

In other words, Federer seems to be able to pace himself well throughout the season and to play his game without ending the season banged up, and he is also a formidable indoor player and the low bounce helps him more than Rafa.

You can write your own caveats for any match at any time - this is what betting people do when assessing where to place their dosh. It is a truth universally acknowledged that if conditions favour one player, this may cause an adverse disadvantage to their opponent (apologies to Jane Austen!)

It pains me too much to quote him - but if you look at your mate Simple's last few posts amritia, I think you find it is rife with his own little 'caveats' yet if a caveat is offered for the 'other side' he is off screaming 'foul' at the top of his lungs.

It is the sheer childishness of his interactions with others that is so depressing - if I were you amritia, I would try to be a little better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

Lets get to this point right away before i read the rest of your post. Federer has always had great difficulty beating Nadal on out door hard courts and the last time i checked, the USO was played on that. He should actually count himself lucky Nadal did not start making USO finals from 2006 as well or he would have had a maximum 3 USO trophies.

You play right into my hands Simple by demonstrating just what I was talking about - thank you so much for being so (predictably) co-operative

time please wrote:I don't want to get drawn into a discussion over who is better than whom - I think it is fair to both players to acknowledge (apart from their rivalry with each other) than over the last few years (by results alone) Federer has been the outstanding hard court player of his generation and Rafa has been the outstanding clay court player. H2H may have been different if Roger had not been so consistently the second best clay courter, and if Rafa had earlier been more at home at Flushing Meadows - then again it may not have been.

the point I would like to make to amritia (I have given up on Simple as 'theres none so deaf as those that don't want to hear) is that caveats (not excuses) are often made for wins and losses. For instance:

1. Federer beat Nadal at Madrid 2009, but Nadal had played an exhausting 3 setter the day before against Djokovic and it is his least favourite clay tournament because of the altitude.

In other words, don't read into this result that Fed had the beating of Rafa on clay

2.However, Djokovic beat Nadal at Rome despite a gruelling (and late night) 3 setter against Murray the day before, when Nadal was looking for revenge for Madrid

In other words, Djokovic might well be a contender for RG

3.Federer has always beaten Nadal on the indoor hard courts, even though this year Nadal was well rested though he had physical issues, but it should be noted that the latter is often a problem for Rafa.

In other words, Federer seems to be able to pace himself well throughout the season and to play his game without ending the season banged up, and he is also a formidable indoor player and the low bounce helps him more than Rafa.

You can write your own caveats for any match at any time - this is what betting people do when assessing where to place their dosh. It is a truth universally acknowledged that if conditions favour one player, this may cause an adverse disadvantage to their opponent (apologies to Jane Austen!)

It pains me too much to quote him - but if you look at your mate Simple's last few posts amritia, I think you find it is rife with his own little 'caveats' yet if a caveat is offered for the 'other side' he is off screaming 'foul' at the top of his lungs.

It is the sheer childishness of his interactions with others that is so depressing - if I were you amritia, I would try to be a little better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

Time Please, you started well and went horrible wrong at the end, Care to perhaps write this again? May be the points will be clearer. You made reference to me as well. Infact i pointed out Federer beats Nadal indoors but come outdoors, he is second best to him almost every time as well so what's your point here?

Spot on TP.

lydian touched on it to like I did that when you stand the 2 players together aside the H2H that is thrown around like a hot potato and their stats on their least favourite surfaces it makes for interesting reading. Two players of very opposite styles and yet their achievements alone just make quite remarkable and stunning.

Like you said about Hamburg like I did, individual battles won and lost does not paint the full picture of what they achieved. I think Tenez was more than harsh for being highly critical of his results when he was merely 17.

Look at their careers. Federer when he came through was up against players such as Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Blake. The window between 2003-2006 was full of players that were ultra aggressive and much suited Federer and hence why he has such a phenominal success rate. Nadal wasn't fully at his peak despite winning titles in that period. 2007 came along and players like Djokovic and Murray who were in the Nadal mould if you would mixed defence with attack, but the emphasis on their games being a counterpuncher. Nadal when he has broken through and enjoyed a peak of 2008-2010 where he was the best of the type of player that is around. Nadal is better than Murray, Djokovic, Simon, Ferrer those who play very like minded tennis. There are however a few players that are like minded to Federer in Berdych, Del Potro and Soderling who are aggressive minded. That is why the Nadal/Federer rivalry/match-up is the most intriguing the sport has produced and will ever. The current crop are full of players that play to strengths of Federer and Nadal. You have Djokovic which is the exception and has moulded himself into a hybrid player that encompasses the strengths of both the Nadal and Federer. It is history that is unfolding to the heights and achievements he accomplishes.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lets get to this point right away before i read the rest of your post. Federer has always had great difficulty beating Nadal on out door hard courts and the last time i checked, the USO was played on that. He should actually count himself lucky Nadal did not start making USO finals from 2006 as well or he would have had a maximum 3 USO trophies.

There's no luck involved. Fed had no say over who his opponent in the final was. Rafa did have a say over who could play Fed in the final, but lost out to other players, who then lost out to Fed. If ever there was an example of why H2H is only a small factor in tennis, the USO of 2006 - 2008 is it.

Even if Rafa was good enough to beat Fed outdoors every time, it counts for nothing if he couldn't progress far enough in the tournament to get to play Fed. That doesn't come down to luck.