Dubai 2012 - Final : Federer v Murray

First topic message reminder :

Under Jahu's orders here is the thread.

Much to discuss still on the semis's other thread but when we are ready to move...It will happen here.

Federer might be tired from that semi but if he can play like today.....he has a good chance.

socal1976 wrote:The fed extremists after Murray-Djoko and Nadal Djoko could not stop screeching in horror at how these two matches produced so many errors, and how many more errors were hit than winners. Although the players I listed about had a reason, they played on the slowest hardcourt on tour and played against a top 3 guy in terms of retrieval skills. Throughout this tournament we did not see come to pass another big selling point of the fast court heaven crowd; that faster conditions would automatically increase the number of points ended on winners vis a vis errors.

If you wish an answer change the tone of your posts.

There aren't extremists here.....Your views might be so extreme that you have lost a sense of normality and sees extreme posters right and left.

amritia3ee wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
Tennis according to some is watching service games with an ace a couple of unreturnable serves and a couple of meatball forehands hit off the court in the first 2 shots. That about sums up this dubai tournament. The signature moment of this tournament is Roger serving and his opponent netting his return, that accounts for about half of the points he won on serve this tournament, or at least it seemed that way. Talk about sheer excitement!

I couldn't have put it better

Au contraire - there were some lovely 1-2 shot play, with the forehand struck very deep into the corner - a bit like Rafa does so brilliantly on clay at his best (circa unbeaten clay run 2010) Similarly, there was some great patient rallying from Fed where he did wait before making the winning strike, and from Andy too. Good to see some lovely drive volleys and net play

honestly socal - I think you must have nodded off

I prefer watching slowe surfaces to faster ones, but I respect your opinions TP.

Btw congrats to federer, played well today!

socal1976 wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:The man who served better won. Well done Fed, deserved it. Murray's first serve wasn't in often enough. I'm guessing around 50%? Also the aggression of yesterday seemed a little diluted today.

As for the court, it made a nice change to have faster conditions but I must confess I prefer the slightly slower courts. Yes it makes matches more physical but it also allows for greater variety and more dramatic points. Each to their own, but that's my preference.

That said, it would be nice if Wimbledon was speeded up a bit, and New York was back to the pace of old.

Laverfan posted a nice article that states emphatically that the New york courts have been the same speed since 2003, and that they were slowed down in 2002. Your first line tells us everything we need to know about Fast court tennis, "the man who served better won" which is what happens about 80 percent of the times on fast courts. A very good post and I concur.

Socal, please read this once and for all... This is not an observation from us fans but from a player...

“Did they make a mistake? Maybe they did paint the court a bit too rough. It’s just unfortunate that maybe all the Slams are too equal,” the 16-time major champion said. “They should feel very different to the Australian Open, and now I don’t feel it really does.”
“The night session just feels like you can take huge cuts at the ball, you can run everything down. It’s great for tennis, but I’m not sure if it’s really what the game needs. The game needs different speed at Slams and so forth. I don’t feel we quite have that at the moment, especially if the U.S. Open is getting slower.”

Well I like slow clay too amritia - I love to watch Rafa play on clay and I really enjoy the classic clay encounters and to see such a great exponent of that game excel. I think you will find that most tennis fans do.

What some of us are saying is that it is a shame to lose some of the other classic play by slowing all the courts down to the same.

Two slow slams and I medium, I fast would do most of us very well - and quite frankly would suit all the top four as well. What we would see is more of their repertoire rather than just marvelling at their endurance.

Roger feeds into these excuse makers he is not above placing statements in the media. By the way as I have stated we have statements here from US open officials that courts are the same since 2003. Outside of Nadal no clay courters have won that tournament. Roger look for answers maybe to why he isn't winning. Also nothing definitive in his statement, "especially if" well which is it Rog are the slowing the USO down or aren't they.

Socal - Eight of the top ten showed up in Dubai. I wasn't able to watch the match (had to be content with following by live text ) so I'm not equipped to give a personal opinion on the 'quality' of play.

But I do want to say this : I try hard to see both sides of a debate when people can express their views in a calm and rational manner. However ..... when you casually label folk as 'fed extremists' (even though many of them could well be just fans of tennis, regardless of who is on court) purely because you happen not to share their views, I honestly feel you're in danger of people not taking you seriously.

I don't think social is referring to you Lags.
Probably to the constant excuses from some fed fans, bitter attacks on Nadal and when no credit is given to the opponent.

Most fed fans aren't like that, it's a pity there are so many on the site, due to which there are only 2 regular nadal fans left on the forum. I think federer is a great player and deserves all the respect, but no respect is given to nadal and co. just sour grapes.

lags72 wrote:Socal - Eight of the top ten showed up in Dubai. I wasn't able to watch the match (had to be content with following by live text ) so I'm not equipped to give a personal opinion on the 'quality' of play.

But I do want to say this : I try hard to see both sides of a debate when people can express their views in a calm and rational manner. However ..... when you label folk you happen to disagree with as 'fed extremists' (even though many of them could well be just fans of tennis, regardless of who is on court) purely because you happen not to share their views, I honestly feel you're in danger of people not taking you seriously.

I have to agree - I really enjoy most of your contributions socal, but you lose me when you start labelling people in this way. I don't try and bulldoze you out of your opinion and I sometimes feel that you won't just sometimes accept that we will all have different viewpoints.

This sums Andy Murray up in a nutshell
He had a huge opportunity and should have beaten Roger if you take his recent form and how Federer was playing into consideration.If he cant win a final against one of the heavyweights when they are having an off day how is he ever going to beat them when they are their best?
This proves the difference in class,when things aren't going Rogers way he finds a way to win or at least to turn things around,when things aren't going Murrays way he doesn't have that champions mentality to rise above it
So I guess not much has changed re the "new Murray",still pretty much the same player,shows great promise in the run up to the final but seems completely out of depth once he gets to the final
Roger should be chuffed cause I think ( correct me if Im wrong)that since last years U.S Open he has won every tournament he has played in bar this years AO
Oh I forgot he withdrew from Doha due to injury,well that doesn't really count as he withdrew and I think everyone gets the picture
Another nail in the coffin for the weak era muppets

amritia3ee wrote:I don't think social is referring to you Lags.
Probably to the constant excuses from some fed fans, bitter attacks on Nadal and when no credit is given to the opponent.

Most fed fans aren't like that, it's a pity there are so many on the site, due to which there are only 2 regular nadal fans left on the forum. I think federer is a great player and deserves all the respect, but no respect is given to nadal and co. just sour grapes.

Are you here just to disrupt or actually discuss todays final?
Because all I have seen so far is you having a pop and complaining about this forum.

I'm not a 'weak era muppet' VJ.
Firstly I actually specifically said it was not a 'weak' era as federer was playing. Secondly don't call me a muppet.

And as for you Y I I said fed played brilliantly today and served to win, anything left to say. If you want I can write an article on that.

And well what can I actually say Y I. On the 'rankings' thread I put nadal as number 1 and Tenez accuses me of being worse and more senseless than wumming. If I had said that you would have interjected.

amritia3ee - fair enough on the specific question of respect.

But I think you might be feeling a little too sorry for yourself. I'd say there are many here who do give Rafa due credit, even though they may find cause to also criticise him (and indeed various other players) for all sorts of reasons. Speaking personally I would have to lose all my mental faculties before I could ever find myself saying I don't respect Rafa and his huge achievements in the sport. And for that matter, I respect any of the guys who make it even to the top 100, because that sure takes some doing, given the level of ability required.

But .... I really don't like seeing language like 'extremist' used on what should be a lively, controversial - but fundamentally enjoyable - sports forum. And it invariably puts me off reading with interest whatever follows in the rest of a post that begins with such labels

amritia3ee wrote:I don't think social is referring to you Lags.
Probably to the constant excuses from some fed fans, bitter attacks on Nadal and when no credit is given to the opponent.

Most fed fans aren't like that, it's a pity there are so many on the site, due to which there are only 2 regular nadal fans left on the forum. I think federer is a great player and deserves all the respect, but no respect is given to nadal and co. just sour grapes.

Respect is earned,Im sorry if you have a problem with the fact that I have no respect for Nadal,but you cannot blame me for the fact that he has made it impossible for me to support him through all his poor sportsmanship,breaking,abusing and bending the rules/medical time outs and all his other shenanigans like suggesting to change the end year ranking or the tour to benefit mostly himself
Please don't call people sour grapes when you knowingly over look the above
You cant tell me that what Nadal does isn't wrong,you know its not right,but instead of having a problem with what your idol does,you have a problem with those who wish to highlight it and the claim their motive is sour grapes!
You may think some Fed fans hate Nadal because of the h2h etc,its a pretty narrow/close minded way to look at things,putting my personal opinion of Nadal aside for a minute,I actually think he is the best thing that has ever happened to Rogers career.Every great champion needs an arch nemesis and Nadal has been a brilliant rival,not just as players the difference couldnt possibly be any further apart.
Nadal challenged Roger,pushed Roger to the limit and forced him maximise his ability rather then just relying on his natural talent.Nadal is proof Roger didn't have it as easy as the weak era theorists like to think and in the midst of playing in the same era as arguably the greatest clay court player/all time great and arguably the greatest athlete the sport has ever seen,who he has the worst possible match up with ( Roger is to Nadal what Roddick is to him) who also happens to be his biggest rival,he was still able to achieve everything he did.Nadal proves how great Roger really is

As a fan of the sport I do praise Nadal for how he has changed the game and the variety he brings and I personally would much rather see Roger retire with less titles because of his rivalry with Nadal then see one player completely dominate the sport.How boring would that have been? Not only that,when one player dominates the way Roger has it kinda takes the magnitude of what he is achieving away,seeing him win becomes mundane,Nadal has put everything he has achieved in perspective
Theres more to life then just winning,Im sure even Roger believes this and losing is part of the game,you cant win them all, besides wouldn't you trade a Fedal final in over Federer/Roddick final?
What difference does his h2h with Nadal make in my life?
Anyway,if you want to hang onto the h2h and use it for every argument by all means go ahead,my advice to you would be to get as much out of it while you can cause looking at the way things are heading,h2h is the last thing you're ever going to bring up or defend your opinion.What then will your response be to those who accuse you of being sour grapes?

amritia3ee wrote:I'm not a 'weak era muppet' VJ.
Firstly I actually specifically said it was not a 'weak' era as federer was playing. Secondly don't call me a muppet.

And as for you Y I I said fed played brilliantly today and served to win, anything left to say. If you want I can write an article on that.

My comment wasn't directed specifically at you,if it was I would have quoted you...
Write another article?
Ok,Ill give you a head start so you can find something to cut and paste...

amritia3ee wrote:I'm not a 'weak era muppet' VJ.
Firstly I actually specifically said it was not a 'weak' era as federer was playing. Secondly don't call me a muppet.

And as for you Y I I said fed played brilliantly today and served to win, anything left to say. If you want I can write an article on that.

You say it wasn't weak as Fed was playing but dismiss his opposition as weak (except clay of course)...

Veejay wrote:
Nadal challenged Roger,pushed Roger to the limit and forced him maximise his ability rather then just relying on his natural talent.Nadal is proof Roger didn't have it as easy as the weak era theorists like to think and in the midst of playing in the same era as arguably the greatest clay court player/all time great and arguably the greatest athlete the sport has ever seen,who he has the worst possible match up with ( Roger is to Nadal what Roddick is to him) who also happens to be his biggest rival,he was still able to achieve everything he did.Nadal proves how great Roger really is

As a fan of the sport I do praise Nadal for how he has changed the game and the variety he brings and I personally would much rather see Roger retire with less titles because of his rivalry with Nadal then see one player completely dominate the sport.

I agree with this, but do remember I think nadal was quite poor on HC/grass when he was young, fed had no real challenger in these surfaces for a long time.

Amritia, you think Nadal was 'quite poor' when reaching the Wimby final in 2006/2007? Is that what you thought at the time - you couldn't believe Rafa was playing so poorly, but still reached the final.

Rafa reached his first Wimby final in 2006. Fed reached his first FO final in 2006. I've asked before but had no answer - Why was Rafa poor opposition for Fed at Wimby 2006, but Fed was tough competition for Rafa at FO 2006?
Looking at the Wimby and FO results for following years I'd say Rafa was tougher for Fed at Wimby than Fed was for Rafa at the FO.

Well certainly in 2006 Nadal was improving on grass, even more so in 2007.

That's not the same as being quite poor though.

Again, FO 2006 was Fed's first FO final - why was that so tough for Rafa, but Rafa was not tough for Fed in Wimby 2006?

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:I'm not a 'weak era muppet' VJ.
Firstly I actually specifically said it was not a 'weak' era as federer was playing. Secondly don't call me a muppet.

And as for you Y I I said fed played brilliantly today and served to win, anything left to say. If you want I can write an article on that.

You say it wasn't weak as Fed was playing but dismiss his opposition as weak (except clay of course)...

Loves it...funny how I never see any "fed fanatics" claim Nadal faced weak opposition,I mean apart form Roger who he matches up with really well with, who else did he face on clay?
If Fed fans were "fanatics" wouldn't we constantly hear them claim that Nadal benefitted from a weak era to try and diminish Nadal "in fear of him over taking Roger as the "GOAT" "
We are the ones who are supposedly threatened by Nadal,but yet its always the Nadal fans who trumpet the weak era theory with the sole purpose to diminish Rogers achievements.I guess that proves which fan base is really threatened
Let them have the weak era,all they end up with is that Nadal dominated a "weak" opponent who is only great for dominating other weak players and Nadals h2h over him is really nothing to rave about
Doesn't leave much for Nadal in the GOAT argument either,cause how can Nadal be considered one of the greatest clay court players ever and an all time great if he dominated a weak opponent in Federer?
Of course all this falls on the deaf and blind and then they want to use Nadals winning h2h over Roger ( the GOAT when it suits them) to prove he is a much greater player
I thought Socal said Fed fans were the ones who try to have their cake and eat it too...

JuliusHMarx wrote:Amritia, you think Nadal was 'quite poor' when reaching the Wimby final in 2006/2007? Is that what you thought at the time - you couldn't believe Rafa was playing so poorly, but still reached the final.

Rafa reached his first Wimby final in 2006. Fed reached his first FO final in 2006. I've asked before but had no answer - Why was Rafa poor opposition for Fed at Wimby 2006, but Fed was tough competition for Rafa at FO 2006?
Looking at the Wimby and FO results for following years I'd say Rafa was tougher for Fed at Wimby than Fed was for Rafa at the FO.

Brilliant post and to the point - amrit, you have just demonstrated how blinkered you are with your response.

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:
Nadal challenged Roger,pushed Roger to the limit and forced him maximise his ability rather then just relying on his natural talent.Nadal is proof Roger didn't have it as easy as the weak era theorists like to think and in the midst of playing in the same era as arguably the greatest clay court player/all time great and arguably the greatest athlete the sport has ever seen,who he has the worst possible match up with ( Roger is to Nadal what Roddick is to him) who also happens to be his biggest rival,he was still able to achieve everything he did.Nadal proves how great Roger really is

As a fan of the sport I do praise Nadal for how he has changed the game and the variety he brings and I personally would much rather see Roger retire with less titles because of his rivalry with Nadal then see one player completely dominate the sport.

I agree with this, but do remember I think nadal was quite poor on HC/grass when he was young, fed had no real challenger in these surfaces for a long time.

Nadal won his first hard court tournament in Miami at just 17 years old beating Roger in the final who was the legitimate world no1 back then
I think its a misconception that Nadal was weak on the hard courts,the fact that he was so much better on clay made him look weaker but if you look at his achievements on the hard court,you'll see he is on the top of the list behind Roger

Roger had a lot of challengers on the hard court,out of all the surfaces,thats where the draw is generally the tightest.While I agree there wasn't a consistent challenger it doest automatically make it a weak era.Roger was definitely way ahead of the pack and extremely consistent,so he was always there to stop everyone but I don't think that automatically means the pack was weak
If a player wins a tournament like Miami at just 17,usually there would be hype for that player to go on to win hard court majors,so I dont buy the excuse that Nadal was poor on the surface.He just wasn't good enough to make it to those finals,which once again proves that the draw wasn't as weak as some would like to think.If you really believe that,then why did the legitimate world no 2 for several seasons not make a single final at Flushing meadows against such a weak draw? I mean if the draw is so weak he should have been breezing to the finals ever year
Tennis is all about match ups,Nadal may find it a lot easier to beat someone like Federer then he would perhaps a much lesser player like Davydenko for instance
I think Roger is to Nadal what Roddick is to Federer,easy pickings,which is why Nadal could always beat Roger but couldn't get past other players to get to the finals.This is why I don't think its fair to look at Rogers h2h with Roddick and automatically call him a weak opponent because of that.I think his 09 Wimbledon run really showed how tough he actually is
This is another reason why I don't believe in strong or weak eras

JHM - Forget Fed being 'tough competition' for Rafa at RG 2006 !

Rafa's real test, surely, was one year earlier when he battled his way past finalist Mariano Puerta (ranked 37) for his very first French title.....

lags72 wrote:JHM - Forget Fed being 'tough competition' for Rafa at RG 2006 !

Rafa's real test, surely, was one year earlier when he battled his way past finalist Mariano Puerta (ranked 37) for his very first French title.....

His 2010 season doesn't look much better,Solderling and Berdych who was ousted in the first round of RG last season when he was a semi finalist the year before.Ok they may be ranked higher,but neither a grand slam champion or world no1
To date,I don't believe Roddick has ever lost in the 1st round of a major

Roddick lost a few times in the 1st round at the french open veejay and also at the US open back in 05.

[quote="LuvSports!"]Roddick lost a few times in the 1st round at the french open veejay and also at the US open back in 05.[/quote

What? I thought he was a finalist in 05...sorry it was 06..

Ok well then I stand corrected
But I still stick to my guns,if Roddick and Hewitt are considered weak opponents shouldn't Solderling and Berdych be considered weak too?

First off I stand by my position that a certain segment of Fed extremists exist online not only this site but some of the same people go onto other sites and pumps this stuff. I myself am a big fan of Roger's game and character. Some small percentage of Fed fans on this and other forums do certain things that are in my mind beyond the pale of fair discourse. Accusations of doping, cheating, how Roger is unfairly punished by the conditions, and constantly whinning to the point where they forward an agenda of not just appreciating Fed but knocking down others. This is what is meant by Fed extremist not the majority of Fed fans and not the majority of FEd fans on this site are that way however. And anyway being an extremist in your Fed allegiance doesn't make you any less of a person, hell I am an extremist in my love of certain types of food. Not accusing a fed extremist of being anything but an extremist in their agenda to pump up Roger even further. I am sure most of them are really nice, doesn't mean I have to be quiet when they go off on these types of tangents. Does freedom of speech exist only for the fed extremers?

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The fed extremists after Murray-Djoko and Nadal Djoko could not stop screeching in horror at how these two matches produced so many errors, and how many more errors were hit than winners. Although the players I listed about had a reason, they played on the slowest hardcourt on tour and played against a top 3 guy in terms of retrieval skills. Throughout this tournament we did not see come to pass another big selling point of the fast court heaven crowd; that faster conditions would automatically increase the number of points ended on winners vis a vis errors.

If you wish an answer change the tone of your posts.

There aren't extremists here.....Your views might be so extreme that you have lost a sense of normality and sees extreme posters right and left.

Ok Tenez, point taken. Do tell why this relatively faster conditioned tournament failed to produce the plethora of winners vis a vis errors? Pretty please, I need to hear this. What is wrong with being extreme in your Federer worshipping, it isn't a crime or moral turpitude, don't be so touchy.

socal1976 wrote:First off I stand by my position that a certain segment of Fed extremists exist online not only this site but some of the same people go onto other sites and pumps this stuff. I myself am a big fan of Roger's game and character. Some small percentage of Fed fans on this and other forums do certain things that are in my mind beyond the pale of fair discourse. Accusations of doping, cheating, how Roger is unfairly punished by the conditions, and constantly whinning to the point where they forward an agenda of not just appreciating Fed but knocking down others. This is what is meant by Fed extremist not the majority of Fed fans and not the majority of FEd fans on this site are that way however. And anyway being an extremist in your Fed allegiance doesn't make you any less of a person, hell I am an extremist in my love of certain types of food. Not accusing a fed extremist of being anything but an extremist in their agenda to pump up Roger even further. I am sure most of them are really nice, doesn't mean I have to be quiet when they go off on these types of tangents. Does freedom of speech exist only for the fed extremers?

While I agree that there are definitely many irrational obsessive Federer fans out there,some who seriously hate Nadal with a passion just because he beats Fed,its not fair to continually single Federer fans out and to stereotype fans that way.I have seen similar kind of behaviour from Nadal fans too,where is your outrage towards them?
The truth is you'll find fans like that supporting anyone or thing,thats kinda what being a fan really is


You seem to have a real agenda against Federer fans cause you mention "Fed fans" or "Fed extremists" is most of your comments and from my observation the majority of the time you behave in the exact same way as those you point the finer at.
No one ever said you don't have the right to voice your opinion,but because your opinion differs naturally not everyone will agree.Maybe you feel like everyone bullies/gangs up on you and gives you a bit of a hard time by teasing you cause you're not a Fed fan,but to be honest you kinda bring some of it on yourself by constantly contradicting yourself and your comments are always filled with double standards
Just yesterday you were hell bent on proving that your opinion was fact when its was quite obvious to everyone,its nothing but pure speculation.And saying things like Roger wouldn't have won the same amount of majors in the 90's is bait for that kind of reaction.As I said before youre free to say whatever you want but you cant say something like that and expect a hallmark response even from the most moderate Fed fan.
I don't know how you can find it offensive if someone highlights Nadals poor sportsmanship or the many ways he continually bends or breaks the rules.I find it hard to believe that anyone can support a player who resorts such tactics.But maybe thats just me

Well I've watched many nadal matches and I haven't been able to spot any issues with cheating.
He is superstitious and has a routine so he takes longer but it's not a deliberate ploy. He is also apparently very superstitious outside the tennis court, that's him.
His interviews are very gracious, for example he comforted fed after AO 2009 in a great act of sportsmanship. Roger is very good friends with him and they have a great relationship, he always says rafas a nice guy, certainly has a different opinion about nadal to you Veejay.

OP = Dubai 2012 - Final: Federer vs. Murray

Current debate = Fedal ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Back to 'Cryptic Clues'.

PS: Does anyone know the Delray Beach finalist who is creating Tennis history?

matosevic!

Veejay wrote:Another nail in the coffin for the weak era muppets

I don't want to say but can we imagine Federer at his peak being beaten by a 30 year old?

Rooted Ljubicic gave peak Federer tougher matches in Miami 2006.

You know I am not one who believes in strong/weak eras....bar 2010 of course where all top players were under par, but when one sees someone as well prepared and as physically strong as Murray, one wonders why he can beat the number one but not Federer......from the weak era!

LuvSports! wrote:matosevic!

Correct. He is creating history. In the finals (ATP #173) from a Qualifier. Nieminen at Sydney 2012 is the other for 2012.

If Federer had not withdrawn from Doha 2012 due to back issues, and, had won Doha, he could have repeated the 2005 Doha, Rotterdam, Dubai title run in 2012 again.

Rather unfortunate back injury.

Is he back to his 2005 form?

In 2005 he had TMC 2004, 2005 AO SF (lost to Safin), 2005 Doha, 2005 Rotterdam, 2005 Dubai.

In 2012 he has WTF 2011, 2012 AO SF (lost to Nadal), 2012 Doha (withdrawal due to back injury), 2012 Rotterdam, 2012 Dubai (fifth time).

Is he going to win IW/Miami 2012 like IW/Miami 2005? Just a what-if analysis and speculation. Fans of other players need not get upset!

socal1976 wrote:I like the bigger server on the fast conditions. Go with Fed, the lightening quick conditions favors the bigger server. Not much mystery in this style of tennis.

This has to be the strangest comment I have ever read on this forum; Federer who beat Sampras playing serve-volley tennis in 2001 and has hundreds of videos of his best shots. I understand that you have to contend with over-zealous Federer fanatics and fundamentalists; however your statement is akin to me saying Rafa is a talentless moonballer, which is equally illogical.

amritia3ee wrote: Well I've watched many nadal matches and I haven't been able to spot any issues with cheating.

Of course you haven't been able to spot anything, your head was burried in the Nadal love-sand. Unless Nadal brings out a gun on court, you won't be able to spot any issues. Or even then maybe not.

amritia3ee wrote: He is superstitious and has a routine so he takes longer but it's not a deliberate ploy.

Superstitious??? Not deliberate?? Do you think acting on superstitions is not deliberate? Do you think ATP puts a strict rule on him that he must comply with the superstitions else he won't be allowed to play tennis? Who forced him to have such a 'routine' ? Can a player take a toilet break at the end of each point just because its his 'routine' or his 'superstition'? His routine or superstitions are his own choice, and choices are deliberately made. Poor you, your head is still sunk in Nadal love-sand to see even this.

amritia3ee wrote: He is also apparently very superstitious outside the tennis court, that's him.

Was it Mrs. 'Magica the Witch' who treated Nadal and he got those unreal power and speed in legs and lung capacity? . This is possible, isn't it??

amritia3ee wrote: Roger is very good friends with him and they have a great relationship, he always says rafas a nice guy, certainly has a different opinion about nadal to you Veejay.

Did you accompany them whenever they went for dinner together after Nadal accused Fed of not doing enough with his influence to keep his good image?? These days no one would want to harm their image in media. Players all appear very friendly with each other. All of a sudden there's too much love floating around in ATP. Wasn't seen some years back .

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

amritia3ee wrote: Well I've watched many nadal matches and I haven't been able to spot any issues with cheating.

Of course you haven't been able to spot anything, your head was burried in the Nadal love-sand. Unless Nadal brings out a gun on court, you won't be able to spot any issues. Or even then maybe not.

Before I get labelled a Federer 'worshipper', how short is public memory - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/7857620/Wimbledon-2010-Rafael-Nadals-uncle-at-centre-of-illegal-coaching-row.html

What do you consider this, Amritia3ee? (and please do not turn around and list any of Federer's fines, they have nothing to do with coaching, but are for linguistic adventures in USO 2009).

Should I consider the action of paying the fine to be an admission of guilt or should I not?

You also should watch the ESPN (US) coverage and listen to Patrick McEnroe/Gilbert/Fowler/Cahill during AO 2012 final.

amritia3ee wrote:Well I've watched many nadal matches and I haven't been able to spot any issues with cheating.
He is superstitious and has a routine so he takes longer but it's not a deliberate ploy. He is also apparently very superstitious outside the tennis court, that's him.
His interviews are very gracious, for example he comforted fed after AO 2009 in a great act of sportsmanship. Roger is very good friends with him and they have a great relationship, he always says rafas a nice guy, certainly has a different opinion about nadal to you Veejay.

A lot of it actually has to do with culture,most people I know would consider calling a medical time out to cool your opponent and steal their momentum from them if you're behind or losing a match,a dirty trick which is fundamentally wrong in the spirit of sport,but in Nadals native Spain he would be complimented for his shrewd tactic of out smarting his opponent
But even though it may be a cultural difference thats no excuse,Nadal is all too aware that its frowned upon which means he knows he is abusing those time outs and is deliberately doing that to help him win a match through an unfair advantage
In my opinion that taints his win or title because he had to resort to poor sportsmanship to get there cause in all the matches he has pulled that trick,the time out had a direct impact in his favour on the momentum and eventually the outcome of the match
This is ultimately what made me lose all respect for him cause as an elite athlete he doesn't have moral clarity and the whole point or idea of what sport is all about is lost on him.In my opinion a true sportsman would rather lose playing his game then to stoop that low and win by stealing his opponents momentum from them.It says a lot about his character
The serving rule doesn't really bug me that much but I do think if he was forced to abide by it,he would struggle to hold serve more

The on court coaching is ridiculous,I know he isn't the only player out there who gets some coaching from the stands,the difference between him and others is that he gets coached in almost every single match showing total disregard for the rules of the game,and once again that also has an impact on the out come of matches,cause if he couldnt figure out to either move in to the baseline to return or where to serve etc half way through the match then is fair to suggest he never would have figured it out on his own.You may not think theres anything wrong with being coached from the stands,I wouldn't either if the rules didn't prohibit it.But thats the rules,either you have the rule and everyone abides by it or you don't but you cant have it both ways.
His reaction when being called out or warned by the umpire about breaking the rules or being coached from the stands is also poor,it makes him look really dishonest for lying by denying it.You can add all the phantom injuries and inconsistent injury diagnosis along with the dishonesty
The truth is Nadal gets away with murder,hiding behind the fact that he isn't fluent in English means he is never really held accountable for anything he says or does,and he knows this hence the reason why after being at the top of the game,immersed in the language on a daily basis on tour for over 6 years,his English has hardy improved/marginally improved.That along with his "body being his worst enemy" gets him a lot of sympathy

Recently the cracks in Nadals persona has started to show,apparently the rumour in the locker room is that he isn't the easy going guy he once was,add to the fact that he calls for the end year ranking to be every second year and to shorten the season because its killing him,which will mostly only benefit himself,all while he plays non mandatory tournaments and exhibition matches for huge appearance fees
Maybe he is struggling to cope with the demand of being a pro athlete,but if thats the case,why attack Roger in public?
Regardless that really gave everyone and idea of what he really thinks of Roger,that he thinks he's fake and that he is more concerned about preserving his gentlemanly image
I used to be a fan of Nadal before all of this,like you I thought he was very humble and portrayed characteristics which I really admired.I don't know if its his competitive nature,the pressure he's constantly under or if he is just the product of uncle Tonis twisted way of living his dream through his nephew,but I would like to believe he is better then this cause at times he does seem really genuine.He just keeps dong things that suggest otherwise
I know him and Roger have a good relationship but don't I think its all its made out to be.I don't think Roger will ever get over the fact that he couldn't beat someone who he considers to be completely one dimensional and Nadal may never get over playing second fiddle to Roger and now Djokovic.You can almost feel the tension and sense of intimidation between them,Nadals admires and respects Rogers greatness but probably doesn't buy into all the GOAT stuff and Nadal is probably the only player who Roger is really intimidated by on a tennis court.In light of all the doping allegations I wouldn't be surprised if Roger has personally questioned it himself.Of course theres a big difference between wondering if theres any truth behind it and flat out believing that its true,but I don't think he is so close to Nadal that he would have personal reasons to be suspicious or that he would defend Nadal no matter what

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:Another nail in the coffin for the weak era muppets

I don't want to say but can we imagine Federer at his peak being beaten by a 30 year old?

Rooted Ljubicic gave peak Federer tougher matches in Miami 2006.

You know I am not one who believes in strong/weak eras....bar 2010 of course where all top players were under par, but when one sees someone as well prepared and as physically strong as Murray, one wonders why he can beat the number one but not Federer......from the weak era!

Even at 30,Roger isn't being beaten by other 30 year olds!

When Roger did beat a 30 + year old in the draw ( Agassi) he was accused of facing weak opponents but yet Murray who cant beat the 30 year old currently in the draw is supposedly playing in a stronger era..
But yeah,I agree why is the 30 year player from the weak era proving to be harder to beat then the in form in prime world no1? And whats up with this winning streak,I think he has only lost a single competitive match since the U.S Open and has won almost every tournament he has played in beating the stronger era along the way
How is this even possible? Wouldn't logic suggest that the odds would be against a weak era player dominating a stronger era?

I don't know how anyone can buy the weak era theory,I could expose flaws in the argument all day long,are those who believe it really completely oblivious to the many flaws in their theory or are they just choosing to ignore it?

amritia3ee wrote: He is superstitious and has a routine so he takes longer but it's not a deliberate ploy.

Yes some are superstitious, others are credulous.

This Golden Era thing really makes me laugh, there is so much evidence to knock it (Lopez, Ferrer, Fish, fr instance) but the most amusing thing is watching some of the Murray/Djokovic fans desperately pushing it).

It was amusing to read from Murray that were the conds been as fast as in Dubai and in the past, Fed would still have a few years as number one left in him.

What I said here earlier in this thread I believe.

Sorry for being off topic, but dont know where else to post this.
Anyone want to join this:
https://www.606v2.com/t25042-the-entertainment-cup

Tenez wrote:It was amusing to read from Murray that were the conds been as fast as in Dubai and in the past, Fed would still have a few years as number one left in him.

What I said here earlier in this thread I believe.

From Andy Murray's post tournament interview:


"I think that the indoor season and the surfaces like this one" "I mean, if there were more tournaments on these courts, I think he could definitely be number one in the world for the next few years. It really suits his game well.

"Just so many of the courts are so slow now. You know, it's nice for us to get a change-up like here.

"Some of the tournaments are so slow it's tough against so many guys that are moving well and serving big. You know, it's become tougher and tougher to stay at the top of the game longer, I think."

"True, there's a lot of wrestling out there on tour on the slow courts, and wrestling can be grinding".

Andy says also that contrary to what Banbro and CC were saying the slow courts of IW and Miami suit him better (that fast Dubai).

Tenez wrote:It was amusing to read from Murray that were the conds been as fast as in Dubai and in the past, Fed would still have a few years as number one left in him.

What I said here earlier in this thread I believe.

Your point? And if courts were made slower then Nadal could be No.1 for the next few years or perhaps Djokovic. Like I said elsewhere tennis fans all over the world have preferences for different types of tennis and court speeds so why try to paint it like tennis simply must be played on quick courts? It smacks of a Federer fan yearning for conditions to suit their man unlike other tennis fans who will take what comes and get on with it. Like I said elsewhere I enjoyed the pace of Dubai though for what its worth.

Tenez wrote:Andy says also that contrary to what Banbro and CC were saying the slow courts of IW and Miami suit him better (that fast Dubai).

Hmmm what an interesting thought then. I mean yesterday we saw a below par Murray on a surface not to his liking losing in two tight sets to a Roger Federer described as putting in an impressive display in most reports. That must be taken as a positive for Andy then.