Nadal's H2H Against Top 20

by hawkeye Tue 11 Jun 2013, 9:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

Saw this elsewhere and presume it's correct.

Djokovic 20-15

Murray 13-5

Federer 20-10

Ferrer 20-4

Berdych 14-3

Tsonga 8-3

Del Potro 8-3

Gasquet 10-0

Wawrinka 10-0

Haas 5-0

Cilic 2-1

Nishikori 5-0

Tipsarevic 3-0

Raonic 3-0

Almagro 10-0

Simon 5-1

Kholshreiber 9-1

Querry 3-0

Monaco 4-1

Outstanding! I wonder how this compares with Federer?

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:58 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:What name-calling?

I called you a sanity clause.

lol

Honestly these days, I suggest the ATP should subsidise some tournaments in America to have grass courts- which could address the fact we have very few big grass tournaments- and I am met with hostile responses suggesting I am on the wind-up and I should go get a geography degree.
One day when I'm ~~king~~ head of the ATP, and all the tournaments are played on clay in Mallorca- that's when you'll all get properly angry Smile

by barrystar Wed 12 Jun 2013, 2:01 pm

debaters1 wrote:
mthierry wrote:As for the weak competition on clay, if Nadal didn't exist, Federer would have initially dominated the surface like Borg and we wouldn't be calling it his weakest surface; he'd be one of the clay GOATs. Nole would have won it the last 2 times just like his HC dominance and we won't be calling it his weakest surface. These guys grew up on this surface. It appears to be their weakest surface and clay appears to have the weakest competition because of one man. It makes that one man a once-in-a-lifetime freak and a great. It doesn't mean the surface competition is weak.

This right here. Fed would have about 20/21 Majors and have done the RG/Wimby double several times over. And Novak would likel be on 8 Majors, and a career slam, too.

Differently without Fed:

Nadal would be on 14 slams, including 4 Wimbledons so not much change, albeit not the same emphasis on RG;

Djoko would most likely be on 7 slams and have played in an additional 4 slam finals, so possibly up to 11 slams (USO 2007 F, SF: USO 2008-2009, RG 2011, Wimbledon 2012)

Murray would have faced a different opponent in 3 of his slam finals, and would probably have carried Aus 2010 with a final vs. Djoko in USO 2008 and Wimbledon 2012 (Nadal has been pretty destructive of his slam prospects in 4 SF's).

by HM Murdock Wed 12 Jun 2013, 2:05 pm

Red wrote:

One day when I'm ~~king~~ head of the ATP, and all the tournaments are played on clay in Mallorca- that's when you'll all get properly angry

Events at which you'll probably claim that Rafa's chances of winning are slightly less than those of the ballboy, the groundsman, the guy in the front row eating a hot dog and David Ferrer. Wink

by debaters1 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 2:07 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:Red, I can't decide whether you are just a WUM or just intentially being provactive (and I'm being generous there with that comment).

Davydenko is not in the top 20. Well done. But has he been? Yes. That's why the notion of a positive h2h against the top 20 means bugger all. The top 20 is a dynamic thing that is forever changing and means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Its a measure of nothing.

As for your comment about Grass and Newport, Indian Wells and Miami. Take a look at a map and look at their locations. Then do a degree in Geography. You will learn all about climate and its implications on vegetation. No billionaire on Earth can do much about that. Or the lead in events required for a grass tournament. Or the logistics in organising a world-wide professional sporting tour.

Just switch this, just change the weather here, just make this a grass event, this will increase demand (even though it won't because switching a venue from HC to Grass would significatly reduce the availability of court time due to courts needing to be rested/put to bed so the grass can grow back - this in turn means fewer courts meaning fewer people can play meaning lost return on investment).

This seems to be completely and utterly lost on you. It's all so simple to you. Maybe you should run for ATP Chairman or whoever organises the tour.

Johnny, I totally accept the point that changing Indian Wells to a grass court tournie is at best logistically difficult, but to say it is impossible because of the desert is ridiculous; there are 18 hole GOLF COURSES in the American desert regions.

This of course no more proves it is possible to change IW to grass than saying it rains a lot in Ireland, but a dozen grass courts are as feasible in a desert as a golf course is, provided you have the financial backing to build and maintain. Which is where all the points regarding your friendly neighbourhood billionaire being reluctant to pump money into the venture comes in to play and why I do not see it happening in North America.

Smoewhere like Shanghai making the change is more likely, given the way that the Chinese government chooses to operate in respect of logistics. However, shifting this on the calender not to mention the distance players would be travelling post RG and pre Wimby, would rule this out from the get go. So maybe another European city (Moscow even) establishing another Masters/replacing one on the calender, and becoming a Masters Event on Grass could (I say could in the same way scientists speak of cold fusion being a theortical possiblity not a practical certainty) then maybe we could have such an Tournie on the tour. But I for one shan't be holding my breath.

But the desert isn't close to being the biggest obstacle to a Grass Masters Event.

by barrystar Wed 12 Jun 2013, 2:08 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
Red wrote:

One day when I'm ~~king~~ head of the ATP, and all the tournaments are played on clay in Mallorca- that's when you'll all get properly angry

Events at which you'll probably claim that Rafa's chances of winning are slightly less than those of the ballboy, the groundsman, the guy in the front row eating a hot dog and David Ferrer.

And events at which those will be the only people present

by barrystar Wed 12 Jun 2013, 2:11 pm

debaters1 wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:Red, I can't decide whether you are just a WUM or just intentially being provactive (and I'm being generous there with that comment).

Davydenko is not in the top 20. Well done. But has he been? Yes. That's why the notion of a positive h2h against the top 20 means bugger all. The top 20 is a dynamic thing that is forever changing and means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Its a measure of nothing.

As for your comment about Grass and Newport, Indian Wells and Miami. Take a look at a map and look at their locations. Then do a degree in Geography. You will learn all about climate and its implications on vegetation. No billionaire on Earth can do much about that. Or the lead in events required for a grass tournament. Or the logistics in organising a world-wide professional sporting tour.

Just switch this, just change the weather here, just make this a grass event, this will increase demand (even though it won't because switching a venue from HC to Grass would significatly reduce the availability of court time due to courts needing to be rested/put to bed so the grass can grow back - this in turn means fewer courts meaning fewer people can play meaning lost return on investment).

This seems to be completely and utterly lost on you. It's all so simple to you. Maybe you should run for ATP Chairman or whoever organises the tour.

Johnny, I totally accept the point that changing Indian Wells to a grass court tournie is at best logistically difficult, but to say it is impossible because of the desert is ridiculous; there are 18 hole GOLF COURSES in the American desert regions.

This of course no more proves it is possible to change IW to grass than saying it rains a lot in Ireland, but a dozen grass courts are as feasible in a desert as a golf course is, provided you have the financial backing to build and maintain. Which is where all the points regarding your friendly neighbourhood billionaire being reluctant to pump money into the venture comes in to play and why I do not see it happening in North America.

Smoewhere like Shanghai making the change is more likely, given the way that the Chinese government chooses to operate in respect of logistics. However, shifting this on the calender not to mention the distance players would be travelling post RG and pre Wimby, would rule this out from the get go. So maybe another European city (Moscow even) establishing another Masters/replacing one on the calender, and becoming a Masters Event on Grass could (I say could in the same way scientists speak of cold fusion being a theortical possiblity not a practical certainty) then maybe we could have such an Tournie on the tour. But I for one shan't be holding my breath.

But the desert isn't close to being the biggest obstacle to a Grass Masters Event.

Now I know it's a waste of time discussing this with you - the grass requirements for a golf course are entirely different to the grass requirements for a tennis court. There are differences between golf and tennis that I'll leave it to you to look up - and what's the point of narrowly debating theoretical possibilities when they are so wildly unlikely and impossible in the real world that we live in?

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 2:21 pm

barrystar wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
Red wrote:

One day when I'm ~~king~~ head of the ATP, and all the tournaments are played on clay in Mallorca- that's when you'll all get properly angry

Events at which you'll probably claim that Rafa's chances of winning are slightly less than those of the ballboy, the groundsman, the guy in the front row eating a hot dog and David Ferrer.

And events at which those will be the only people present

The guy in the front row is bery good, no? He has fantastic results in last few days, will be bery tough to beat. I will try my best, for sure.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 2:27 pm

debaters1, good post thumbsup

by debaters1 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 2:39 pm

Yes there are grass differences between golf courses and tennis courts, for sure there are. But Green maintainence and that of a tennis court in a dry climate are not so far divorced from one another as to be irrelevant. I'll leave you to look that up.

As for your asking why debate one narrow difficulty of any given propsotion over another narrow difficulty, no reason, I just took issue with the desert being the problem at IW per se, the geograhical difficulties between Wimbledon and another Master Standard grass tournie (as you and others quite rightly pointed out) are much greater and most likely insurrmountable obstacles than the what we discussed above, not to make light of those aforementioned difficulties.

by lydian Wed 12 Jun 2013, 2:50 pm

emancipator wrote:
lydian wrote:Emancipator, call me fanboy or whatever you like if it makes you feel better, I really don't give 2 hoots. I've posted long enough on here to not defend myself. We know the agenda at play here and every time Nadal wins a slam. On this occasion he wins his 12th slam to move within 5 short, so lo and behold the knives are out to diminish his overall record and position him as a specialist, with his clay wins now not worth as much as Federer's HC wins. And you call me a fanboy...lol.

Wow Lydian, you really are getting a little touchy.

I didn't mean to call you a fanboy and I don't think I did.

I said that you have some fanboyish tendencies when it comes to evaluating Nadal and his achievements. This was very much apparent in your discussions with Socal wherin it was quite clear that Socal was actually making the logically consistent points whilst you were floundering in inconsistencies. I have noticed that you tend to contradict yourself a lot and offer a lot of hotch potch theories which you try to pass off as technical analysis. These theories tend to change dependent on which player you are discussing. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this - I think Socal and Summerblues have both also picked up on this. This is just an observation so don't get too upset on reading this. I am after all the emancipator, and it is part of my service to humanity to observe, educate and thus, emancipate.

Anyway, my point with regards to this thread is clear and stands. Rafa's numbers are inflated by his clay resume. To have almost 50% of your wins on a surface that only accounts for approx 25% of the tour is indicative of this. I ask again, would Roger's numbers not be just as impressive and indeed more so if he had had played 5-6 grass tournies per year during his pomp? Or how about Pete Sampras? Of course they would. This is not to diminish Nadal as a specialist but the fact remains that HC is the staple of the tour and has been for about 20 years now. The competition on HC's is more fierce, the potential for losing earlier greater. This is stating the obvious and it is fanboyish (emphasis on the ish) to dismiss this as if it is not a valid arguement. Another example of your clouded and inconsistent evaluations of Nadal. The acknowledgement has already been made that Nadal is statistically the clay GOAT, but it doesn't necessarily follow that that clay dominance then extends to all other surfaces. Why should this then not be pointed out? So I don't understand all this talk about diminishing Rafa's record or knives being drawn. I'm merely adding some context.

It's perfectly reasonable to challenge the OP, especially when there is a clear insinuation in the OP and subsequent posts that other players are not as good or their records not as impressive on the basis of the stats provided. As to why there is such a defensive outpouring, I have no idea.

emancipator

Admittedly been travelling for 3 days around Switzerland with little sleep.
Thanks for the character assassination....fanboyish tendencies, floundering in inconsistencies, contradict yourself a lot, hotch potch theories, pass off as technical analysis, theories tend to change...
Anything else you'd like to add whilst you're at it or are you quite finished?

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 3:05 pm

On the bright side lydian, you didn't have a Mod calling your articles drivel Smile

by HM Murdock Wed 12 Jun 2013, 3:44 pm

lydian wrote:
Thanks for the character assassination....fanboyish tendencies, floundering in inconsistencies, contradict yourself a lot, hotch potch theories, pass off as technical analysis, theories tend to change...
Anything else you'd like to add whilst you're at it or are you quite finished?

I don't like your tie.

by _homogenised_ Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:23 pm

Another desperate argument that uses h2h to try and elevate Nadal (have you noticed how the only thing the Nadal fans can come up with is h2h arguments? I have one for you... Rosol v Nadal 1-0). No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, the fact is, Nadal is a 1 dimensional baseline slugger. The reason he has 12 slams is because a. all but 4 are on clay which favours that game immensely, and b. the other 4 are no longer on true hard and grass surfaces. Borg is a superior player in all respects, because he won 11 slams on two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT surfaces in an era where modern strings couldn't save your ass every time. Let me spell this out for you...

The reason Nadal has more Masters titles than fed? Ermmm could it be that there isn't a single grass Masters tournament, and hasn't been all through Federer's prime... yet there are ample clay? Oh no, we mustn't use logic, mustn't we?

The reason Nadal has a favourable h2h v most of these players... HMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm I just can't work it out... MAYBE it is to do with the fact most of these wins are again from clay.

If the tour was like it used to be, Nadal would not have won ONE grass tournament, in fact, he probably wouldn't have made a single final at Wimbledon.

When the players have both reached the end of their careers, it won't be fanboys that decide who is better, it will be objective analysis of the players' ability and consistency... both of which Federer rules at. Go on Youtube and have a look at how many Federer videos there are, and the amount of views he gets. Know why? Because his tennis is beautiful, and the ability at his best, unrivalled. Precious few people can be bothered watching Nadal running about a court using modern racquets to easily retrieve everything another player is throwing at him. It's the same old over and over again. Federer is like Monet. Real tennis isn't about physicality, it is about ability, skill, touch, and tactics.

Nadal won't be remembered like Federer... he will be "that guy who runs a lot". Even now, people don't appreciate his game for that very reason. Sorry, but it's true. You can have all the titles in the world, but it doesn't make you better. It's HOW you play that ultimately matters.

by Guest Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:32 pm

Homogenised, I like watching Nadal, as do millions of others, hes brilliant, a lot of people admire a man who never gives up and leaves it all on court. His forehand is brilliant, not elegant but brutal. Not everything beautiful in the world is "elegant", I get up to watch tennis more for Nadal than anyone else including Murray or Federer. Thankfully not everyone appreciates the same things.

This whole article is ridiculous, the OP tries to point out Nadals good h2h record, and Red tries to defend it, and suddenly the good ol' "only on clay" GOAT debate that murdered the old 606 rears its freakish deformed face, and a bunch of people INCLUDING an admin no less start having digs at eachother. Its no wonder we rarely get new posters, one look at this and theyd be off.

Julius, for goodness sake, please bring this to an end before it gets old 606 bad

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:35 pm

Ah yes, my favourite poster is back! Hug

by _homogenised_ Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:35 pm

This is a forum, instead of bitching to the mods to have people silenced, deal with it.

by bogbrush Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:36 pm

To be fair this is to 606 what a domestic row is to the Syrian crisis.

I was there. I survived it (some would say thrived in it, but that's just a vicious rumour).

by debaters1 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:37 pm

Ah homoginised.

Touch you say. Then why is Nadal better at volleying than Federer? Why is his points won second serve percentage one of the best the game has and will ever see, if he is just a "baseliner"?

But the one that really made me laugh was using Youtube to support your arguements as an objective source. Yes, and Pravda was perfectly objective in Communist Russia too..... But yes, whatever.

Federer is a great player; diminshing the achievements of his great rival diminishes Federer too.

by _homogenised_ Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:38 pm

Better at volleying than Federer?

HAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!

by Guest Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:39 pm

This is indeed a forum, which means people discuss, but it is also expected that people treat each other with respect, even if they dont like their opinion, or their posting. This ones getting out of hand though, soo everyone cool it and debate the topic without little digs at eachother

by _homogenised_ Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:40 pm

I'd be happy if they'd ban double handed play. That would shift the balance right back to skill and ability.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:40 pm

debaters1 wrote:Ah homoginised.

Touch you say. Then why is Nadal better at volleying than Federer? Why is his points won second serve percentage one of the best the game has and will ever see, if he is just a "baseliner"?

But the one that really made me laugh was using Youtube to support your arguements as an objective source. Yes, and Pravda was perfectly objective in Communist Russia too..... But yes, whatever.

Federer is a great player; diminshing the achievements of his great rival diminishes Federer too.

Equally, Rafa is a great player; diminshing the achievements of his great rival diminishes Rafa too, but many Rafa fans still do it.

by Guest Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:40 pm

I rmemeber 606 too bb and yeah this is peanuts to what happened back there, doesnt mean people shouldnt calm down a bit though

by Guest Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:41 pm

To be fair Julius, this has never been a one way street, Rafa Fans and Fed fans have wound each other up with these debates in equal measure for years, theyre both culpable to this.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:41 pm

homogenised wrote:When the players have both reached the end of their careers, it won't be fanboys that decide who is better, it will be objective analysis of the players' ability and consistency... both of which Federer rules at. Go on Youtube and have a look at how many Federer videos there are, and the amount of views he gets.

homogenised wrote:The reason Nadal has a favourable h2h v most of these players... HMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm I just can't work it out... MAYBE it is to do with the fact most of these wins are again from clay.

Well on hard courts, the only player from this specific list who is ahead of him is Djokovic.
Of course if you take away Nadal's best surface, the H2H is not as favourable against the rest, but that's hardly surprising.

homogenised wrote:Nadal won't be remembered like Federer... he will be "that guy who runs a lot".

Yeah, I have to give you that one.
Did you see The Telegraph headline this monday?
'Guy who runs a lot wins French Open for record 8th time' Sad

homogenised wrote:Even now, people don't appreciate his game for that very reason.

http://fanpagelist.com/category/athletes/tennis/view/list/sort/followers/

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:42 pm

I think I agree with almost everyone here. Nadal's game matches up well against everyone but I dislike it for the same reasons as homogenised. I don't think this article is as bad as some people think, it's strengths and flaws have been evaluated. I think it's the misinterpretation that this was an attempt at a Fedal debate that's upset people.

by hawkeye Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:43 pm

Last time I checked H2H's on the ATP website they are not split up according to the surface the matches were played on. EVERY pro match between the two players are listed. There is no hiding place. I have no idea why this thread has descended into an attempt to invalidate one surface. As I've said before a players H2H with other players who are at present in the top 20 can be an indication of the barriers that may prevent them from winning future tournaments. A good H2H against all the top players will of course show that their chances of winning future events is good. I was hoping that someone would list Federer's, Djokovic's and perhaps Murray's as this would highlight the players that may stand in their way in future tournaments. If no-one does it I may do so myself.

laverfan. I feel very disappointed and shocked that you should mock my valid thread that has promoted so much discussion. I thought better of you... The silly line about Davydenko with the laugh emoticon was particularly shocking. I am sure you are aware that he is not in the top 20 and I'm sure that I know this as well so why did you say it?

by _homogenised_ Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:44 pm

emancipator wrote:
Red wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Red wrote:
At which point did I compare 2007 to 2005/6??
My post had nothing to do with that.

At 9:11 bantroban wrote, replying to a post by mthierry that 2007 was peak Federer.

Sorry but that is nonsense. During 2004/5 Federer played Tennis that no-one has ever played before or since.

Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

He was still pretty good in 2007, far better than most other slam winning players peaks - but he was losing to the likes of Andy Murray, i.e. not quite 'god like' Tennis

At 9:22 you replied

Hmmm. Perhaps the reason it looked liked he was playing in another stratosphere was precisely that... all his rivals were in a lower stratosphere Whistle

So, yeah, I think it pretty much reflects exactly what you wrote.

What I've shown you is that EXCLUDING Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, he lost THREE matches against everyone else in 2005 & 2006 combined, and SEVEN in 2007 alone. Obviously bantroban is right.

Oh for crying out loud BB, you're better than this.
I was not talking about Banb's whole post, I only quoted a bit of it and replied to that. Now you've quoted all of the two posts you make it seem like my reply was addressed to the whole post, when it wasn't. I only quoted the bit I was replying to.
My post had nothing to do with a comparison between 2006-2007.
For the record, I believe Federer's best level was probably 2006- but that's nothing to do with what I was arguing earlier.

The stratosphere part of Banbro's post which you quoted was clearly referring to 04/05.

Surely this isn't another one of your attempts at using semantics (incorrectly) to dig yourself out of a hole that you've created?

I think a lot of people are tired of this kind of debating. Making statements and then claiming not to have made them and then endlessly arguing pointless nuances.

I know I certainly am.

Anyway BB has more than adequately dealt with this already.

I second this. I see it everywhere as well. It's really easy to spot, and just annoying.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:50 pm

Well I've actually cleared that up, I wasn't talking about 06/07- but making a general point.
Not sure why you've brought that up now anyway.

by HM Murdock Wed 12 Jun 2013, 4:50 pm

by socal1976 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:04 pm

_homogenised_ wrote:I'd be happy if they'd ban double handed play. That would shift the balance right back to skill and ability.

Ok, that is pretty silly.

by socal1976 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:07 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I think I agree with almost everyone here. Nadal's game matches up well against everyone but I dislike it for the same reasons as homogenised. I don't think this article is as bad as some people think, it's strengths and flaws have been evaluated. I think it's the misinterpretation that this was an attempt at a Fedal debate that's upset people.

The shock and the horror of people wanting to discuss the two greatest tennis players on a tennis website. I don't know how we have survived for this long.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:12 pm

socal, you inadvertently added 'scu' into the word 'discuss' - predictive text, I assume?

by socal1976 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:13 pm

Red wrote:
homogenised wrote:When the players have both reached the end of their careers, it won't be fanboys that decide who is better, it will be objective analysis of the players' ability and consistency... both of which Federer rules at. Go on Youtube and have a look at how many Federer videos there are, and the amount of views he gets.

homogenised wrote:The reason Nadal has a favourable h2h v most of these players... HMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm I just can't work it out... MAYBE it is to do with the fact most of these wins are again from clay.

Well on hard courts, the only player from this specific list who is ahead of him is Djokovic.
Of course if you take away Nadal's best surface, the H2H is not as favourable against the rest, but that's hardly surprising.

homogenised wrote:Nadal won't be remembered like Federer... he will be "that guy who runs a lot".

Yeah, I have to give you that one.
Did you see The Telegraph headline this monday?
'Guy who runs a lot wins French Open for record 8th time'

homogenised wrote:Even now, people don't appreciate his game for that very reason.

http://fanpagelist.com/category/athletes/tennis/view/list/sort/followers/

LOL! the guy who runs a lot. This is getting crazy, he certainly isn't my favorite player to watch but to claim that he just runs a lot as his only redeeming feature or what he will be remembered for is a bit of a stretch.

by Guest Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:14 pm

lydian wrote:
emancipator wrote:
lydian wrote:Emancipator, call me fanboy or whatever you like if it makes you feel better, I really don't give 2 hoots. I've posted long enough on here to not defend myself. We know the agenda at play here and every time Nadal wins a slam. On this occasion he wins his 12th slam to move within 5 short, so lo and behold the knives are out to diminish his overall record and position him as a specialist, with his clay wins now not worth as much as Federer's HC wins. And you call me a fanboy...lol.

Wow Lydian, you really are getting a little touchy.

I didn't mean to call you a fanboy and I don't think I did.

I said that you have some fanboyish tendencies when it comes to evaluating Nadal and his achievements. This was very much apparent in your discussions with Socal wherin it was quite clear that Socal was actually making the logically consistent points whilst you were floundering in inconsistencies. I have noticed that you tend to contradict yourself a lot and offer a lot of hotch potch theories which you try to pass off as technical analysis. These theories tend to change dependent on which player you are discussing. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this - I think Socal and Summerblues have both also picked up on this. This is just an observation so don't get too upset on reading this. I am after all the emancipator, and it is part of my service to humanity to observe, educate and thus, emancipate.

Anyway, my point with regards to this thread is clear and stands. Rafa's numbers are inflated by his clay resume. To have almost 50% of your wins on a surface that only accounts for approx 25% of the tour is indicative of this. I ask again, would Roger's numbers not be just as impressive and indeed more so if he had had played 5-6 grass tournies per year during his pomp? Or how about Pete Sampras? Of course they would. This is not to diminish Nadal as a specialist but the fact remains that HC is the staple of the tour and has been for about 20 years now. The competition on HC's is more fierce, the potential for losing earlier greater. This is stating the obvious and it is fanboyish (emphasis on the ish) to dismiss this as if it is not a valid arguement. Another example of your clouded and inconsistent evaluations of Nadal. The acknowledgement has already been made that Nadal is statistically the clay GOAT, but it doesn't necessarily follow that that clay dominance then extends to all other surfaces. Why should this then not be pointed out? So I don't understand all this talk about diminishing Rafa's record or knives being drawn. I'm merely adding some context.

It's perfectly reasonable to challenge the OP, especially when there is a clear insinuation in the OP and subsequent posts that other players are not as good or their records not as impressive on the basis of the stats provided. As to why there is such a defensive outpouring, I have no idea.

emancipator

Admittedly been travelling for 3 days around Switzerland with little sleep.
Thanks for the character assassination....fanboyish tendencies, floundering in inconsistencies, contradict yourself a lot, hotch potch theories, pass off as technical analysis, theories tend to change...
Anything else you'd like to add whilst you're at it or are you quite finished?

Man get some sleep and lighten up!

That's not a character assasination. How does one character assasinate on a tennis forum. I don't know you from Jack. It's an observation on your contradictory and floundering posts, which over the last few months have become increasingly more so, particularly in the discussions with Socal. As I'm sure everyone knows, Socal and I are don't often see eye-to-eye, and consequently I had to bite down hard on my tongue to stop myself from jumping in during those debates.

I've also noticed that when pressed hard and cornered on those ill thought out view points you tend to try and brush it all under the carpet and end the discussion pronto.. which seems to be the prevailing trend here once again.

Anyway buddy get some sleep.

ghost

emancipator

by Chydremion Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:14 pm

I see the rafatards are at it again, with those pointless articles. They've come out in full force again since Rafa started sweeping the clay season. Now he's won Roland Garros for the 20th time I feel they will be unstoppable. I wonder how many times I will have to read 20-10 again. Hopefully Fed and Nadal play another match in the near future.

by socal1976 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:16 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:socal, you inadvertently added 'scu' into the word 'discuss' - predictive text, I assume?

??? don't know about that English is my second language.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:17 pm

socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:socal, you inadvertently added 'scu' into the word 'discuss' - predictive text, I assume?

??? don't know about that English is my second language.

discuss-scu= diss

by Guest Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:29 pm

LOL, the guy who runs a lot.

Ok a bit of an extreme generalisation but certainly with more than a modicum of truth to it.

Rafa is at heart a grinder. No amount of beating about the bush will alter that basic reality.

His game is more about outlasting his opponent and inducing errors.

There is no beauty and purity in his play. For me it's like comparing the defensive minded Inter Milan with the attacking flair of Barcelona. Federer being the latter.

And Homogenised is right to a large extent. Federer is not the most popular player EVER because he is the most successful (although that certainly helps).

He is the most popular player EVER because he plays beautiful, attacking tennis the way it should be played and the way most people would like to be able to play. Fed's popularity was overwhelming from the moment he got going, after just a couple of slam victories.

After all, would you rather not play football like Messi or would you want to play like Gattuso?

I think this is the thing that bugs the hardcore Rafa fans the most. They feel that their guy isn't appreciated as mush as he should be. But hey that's life. Federer is just something else, something that Rafa can never be. No matter how many tournies Rafa wins, no-one is gonna label him a genius, no one is gonna say he plays beautiful tennis, or that he makes the game look easy. He just doesn't have that innate brilliance that Roger has - no shame in that.

by debaters1 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:31 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
debaters1 wrote:Ah homoginised.

Touch you say. Then why is Nadal better at volleying than Federer? Why is his points won second serve percentage one of the best the game has and will ever see, if he is just a "baseliner"?

But the one that really made me laugh was using Youtube to support your arguements as an objective source. Yes, and Pravda was perfectly objective in Communist Russia too..... But yes, whatever.

Federer is a great player; diminshing the achievements of his great rival diminishes Federer too.

Equally, Rafa is a great player; diminshing the achievements of his great rival diminishes Rafa too, but many Rafa fans still do it.

Agreed Julius. I feel nothing short of privilaged to have witnessed this great rivalry between two greats of the game. Sadly, the fanboys on all sides seem determined to "win" a peeing contest that they fail to see the wood for the trees.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:35 pm

debaters1 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
debaters1 wrote:Ah homoginised.

Touch you say. Then why is Nadal better at volleying than Federer? Why is his points won second serve percentage one of the best the game has and will ever see, if he is just a "baseliner"?

But the one that really made me laugh was using Youtube to support your arguements as an objective source. Yes, and Pravda was perfectly objective in Communist Russia too..... But yes, whatever.

Federer is a great player; diminshing the achievements of his great rival diminishes Federer too.

Equally, Rafa is a great player; diminshing the achievements of his great rival diminishes Rafa too, but many Rafa fans still do it.

Agreed Julius. I feel nothing short of privilaged to have witnessed this great rivalry between two greats of the game. Sadly, the fanboys on all sides seem determined to "win" a peeing contest that they fail to see the wood for the trees.

There's nothing in this article that is against Roger Federer, or anyone else. And I don't think that was HE's intention either- nor the intention of my posts. In-fact if not anything, highlighting how good Rafa is means that Federer is a better player, and vice versa.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:37 pm

Emancipator and homogenised always seem to say the same thing; maybe they are brothers chin

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:39 pm

by mthierry Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:47 pm

_homogenised_ wrote:Another desperate argument that uses h2h to try and elevate Nadal (have you noticed how the only thing the Nadal fans can come up with is h2h arguments? I have one for you... Rosol v Nadal 1-0). No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, the fact is, Nadal is a 1 dimensional baseline slugger. The reason he has 12 slams is because a. all but 4 are on clay which favours that game immensely, and b. the other 4 are no longer on true hard and grass surfaces. Borg is a superior player in all respects, because he won 11 slams on two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT surfaces in an era where modern strings couldn't save your ass every time. Let me spell this out for you...

The reason Nadal has more Masters titles than fed? Ermmm could it be that there isn't a single grass Masters tournament, and hasn't been all through Federer's prime... yet there are ample clay? Oh no, we mustn't use logic, mustn't we?

The reason Nadal has a favourable h2h v most of these players... HMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm I just can't work it out... MAYBE it is to do with the fact most of these wins are again from clay.

If the tour was like it used to be, Nadal would not have won ONE grass tournament, in fact, he probably wouldn't have made a single final at Wimbledon.

When the players have both reached the end of their careers, it won't be fanboys that decide who is better, it will be objective analysis of the players' ability and consistency... both of which Federer rules at. Go on Youtube and have a look at how many Federer videos there are, and the amount of views he gets. Know why? Because his tennis is beautiful, and the ability at his best, unrivalled. Precious few people can be bothered watching Nadal running about a court using modern racquets to easily retrieve everything another player is throwing at him. It's the same old over and over again. Federer is like Monet. Real tennis isn't about physicality, it is about ability, skill, touch, and tactics.

Nadal won't be remembered like Federer... he will be "that guy who runs a lot". Even now, people don't appreciate his game for that very reason. Sorry, but it's true. You can have all the titles in the world, but it doesn't make you better. It's HOW you play that ultimately matters.

Uhh. Someone sounds quite bitter. It's only a game, bro. A couple of guys hitting a ball back and forth, albeit paid very well to do it. Sounds like you take it way too seriously. That can't be very healthy for your state of mind as the Spanish hero ignites the game again. Deep breaths now, ok? If you think that looney summation would be the way Nadal's legacy is defined, I can only chuckle at your delusion. Amusing.

by _homogenised_ Wed 12 Jun 2013, 5:51 pm

Red wrote:Emancipator and homogenised always seem to say the same thing; maybe they are brothers

Or perhaps we just don't ignore the facts. Also, stop bringing the argument to the person.

by **laverfan** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 6:07 pm

hawkeye wrote: As I've said before a players H2H with other players who are at present in the top 20 can be an indication of the barriers that may prevent them from winning future tournaments.

There are many who have been on tour for several years. Did anyone mention Federer v Sampras? or Hrbaty v Federer or Hrbaty v Nadal? Present is a convenience.

hawkeye wrote:A good H2H against all the top players will of course show that their chances of winning future events is good. I was hoping that someone would list Federer's, Djokovic's and perhaps Murray's as this would highlight the players that may stand in their way in future tournaments. If no-one does it I may do so myself.

I think you should, especially Murray. Wink

hawkeye wrote:laverfan. I feel very disappointed and shocked that you should mock my valid thread that has promoted so much discussion. I thought better of you... The silly line about Davydenko with the laugh emoticon was particularly shocking. I am sure you are aware that he is not in the top 20 and I'm sure that I know this as well so why did you say it?

No one has stayed in Top 20, except perhaps Rosewall (12+ years IIRC).

A H2h is just one of many aspects of a rivalry. Lookup Laver v Rosewall, if you care. None of the current pros will ever reach such levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry (140+ matches).

by Sponsored content