The question of talent in tennis

First topic message reminder :

It's often so easy for a physical specimen like Nadal to be confused as not as talented as some players mostly as a result of opinion and preference but here is what Nadal himself had to say on the issue with talent;

Question: It's easy to see power, physique, and strength in your game. Is your talent forgotten? Living in the era of Federer ....

"Those who forget about it don't know a lot about tennis. Talent is not only hitting the ball beautifully or having a lovely slice backhand and a perfect volley. Talent is a lot of things. Running is a talent. Returning the ball in difficult situations, inside and deep, difficult for the opponent, is talent. I am not going to get into comparisons with Federer. He is the best practically in everything except for movement and tactics. But I have a special talent for many things. "

You hardly see Nadal get this demonstrative in an interview but he is right. What many seem to forgot is tennis or professional sport to speak is not a beauty pagent contest. I'll even add more to Nadal's comment. Having great defensive skills is also talent. The misconception in tennis is if a player hits a beautiful shot, he is more talented than another who hits a less beautiful shot and that is simply wrong in every sense.

Also at the end, Nadal says Federer is best at practically everything but for movement and tactics.

So to conclude, what's talent and how can one judge it without bringing in personal preference or subjective opinion. To the eye i'll say many judge talent on how effortless a player plays but how about those that use whatever ability they have a get the best possible result out of it, are they not as talented?

Tenez, I picked 2010 because:

a) it's the most recent complete year
b) both of them participated in all tournaments they were required to (someone can confirm this, as far as know I think they did)
c) Picking 2009 wouldn't make much sense because Nadal was injured and I could also look at 2008 (but I'm not digging out stats for another year when last year is perfectly fine, as far as I can see)

The above doesn't really amount to cherry picking on my side, I could look at 2008 if you prefer? At the Australian he lost 3 sets (all in his quarter final loss), @ the French he lost no sets (vintage Nadal, smashed most his opponents), @ Wimbledon he lost 3 sets (2 in the finals & both to Fed) and @ the USO, he lost 5 sets, with 3 in the finals (with 3 of them in his semi final loss). So he lost 9 in total in 2010 & he lost 11 in 2008. That doesn't seem like a dramatic difference to be honest.

Well said socal

Haddie, in tennis as in life talent is really just another word for potential. Potential, is "I could have gotten the girl", " I could have made millions of dollars", "I could have been a superstar". It really is neither here nor there. There are plenty of people I have met with high IQs who are unemployed or working menial jobs. At the same time there are plenty of people I have met that I swore to myself this guy is an idiot, but somehow he made something special of himself through hardwork and determination. To me that kind of will and discipline is rarer and much more special than talent. Everyone has a talent for something, few have the work ethic and will to succeed to be the very best.

Lol at Davydenko against Nadal. I'm sure Nadal is also lucky he hasn't met Hrbarty in a slam. Lol.

socal1976 wrote:Haddie, in tennis as in life talent is really just another word for potential. Potential, is "I could have gotten the girl", " I could have made millions of dollars", "I could have been a superstar". It really is neither here nor there. There are plenty of people I have met with high IQs who are unemployed or working menial jobs. At the same time there are plenty of people I have met that I swore to myself this guy is an idiot, but somehow he made something special of himself through hardwork and determination. To me that kind of will and discipline is rarer and much more special than talent. Everyone has a talent for something, few have the work ethic and will to succeed to be the very best.

I agree socal it is the point I was clumsily trying to make earlier. Every person has talent... but so many of us never get the chance or opportunity to discover what that talent is.. The vast majority of us go through life never knowing our potential.. through circumstance, lack of money, lack of education, lack of encouragement... who knows ?? the world could have had more Nadals,Federers etc. Kids who were not lucky enough to be born into families with money, or families who cared or indeed some who had no family at all. Even inborn natural talent is wasted if you do not know how to use it .... Gulbis is a good examplel, has no work ethic, no desire to achieve..Doesnt even need the money. Talent cannot be quantified... like beauty..

Tenez wrote:There are those who know and those who don't want to know and maybe those who genuinely don't know.

And those who always know best.

Tenez wrote:But you have to at least agree that he was also helped by modern medecine

As was Federer with psychological training that came from the latest cognitive understanding in pressure situations. Many people are helped by modern medicine - what do you advocate, a return to the use of leeches and a 'magic' sponge?

droogle wrote:I think the case for claiming that Nadal isn't as talented as Federer comes from the idea that without his physique he couldn't play the way he does, it's a necessary part of his game.

Yes, but we could strip away lot of different attributes of players games and they couldnt play the way they do. For example, lets take Edberg's volley away, or Borg's ability to handle pressure, etc. Its a moot point.
Being physically more able than others is a different sort of talent. Talent comes in many packages, not just shot making in itself. Besides which shall we take away the physical conditioning that Federer has put himself through over the years? http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2004

droogle wrote:I wonder what difference some extra muscle would make to Federer's game.

If you read icecold recently referenced article, Federer did just that, he set out to be the strongest and fittest athlete on the tour from a relatively young age so you could argue he was setting a trend that players like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray followed.

Some good reading here, but talent for me is taking what ability you have, maximising it and in sport, applying it to make you a winner. Its entirely subjective over what is perceived as more aesthetically pleasing over others and all down to personal choice, but that in itself doesn't make one individual superior over the other.

I have always enjoyed watching Rafa Nadal play because of his rawness, spirit and his passion. Roger Federer turned me off tennis for 2 years. But I'd be a complete fool if I started to make spurious suggestions that he lacked talent ... of course he doesn't, its just that his style isn't appealing to me.

I've stood in front of Botticelli's Birth of Venus and thought - whatever - whereas the work of Jackson Pollock has me in raptures. Its all talent, just different styles and methods of getting there. You can argue cases for and against till the cows come home, all talent has merit but its down to the individual which you prefer. And no one person is right.

Notions of talent are surely in the end just matters of opinion and arguing about player x being more (naturally) talented than player y is a bit like arguing whether blue is a better colour than green. Pointless. In the end it is what players do with their talents that count. What is the end product? What are the results?

But what I really do not understand for the life of me is those people who for example regard player x as being relatively untalented compared to the supremely talented player y, not being in absolute awe of player x's ability to overcome that enormous talent deficit and get the win time after time.

I mean by the age of 25 to get to No. 1 and stay there for more than 100 weeks, win 10 slams on all surfaces, 18 Masters, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, $40,000,000 + in prize money alone and have a 17-8 H2H with the most supremely talented player that ever did lift a racquet is an astonishing achievement for anyone, but to achieve all that when you haven't really been blessed with very much natural talent at all must surely be the greatest achievement in the entire history of sport. Who else has done it?

I would take my hat off to such a unique person. Maximum respect would surely be due?

The paradox is that those who feel that Nadal has minimal talent seem also to have the least respect for his achievements when surely it should be the other way around?

Shouldn't we have more respect and appreciation for those who have had to work to achieve what they have rather than those who have been handed everything (including natural talent) on a plate and still cannot get the job done when it really counts?

Great post icecold...echoes my sentiments entirely

Have said the same things regarding Lendl and McEnroe for example. One grafted to make the best of what he had, the other ended up with less than he should of done yet we are supposed to annoint him with reverance as some great talent of the game. For what - underachieving?

And yes, what an extremely talented non-talent Nadal is

Notions of talent are surely in the end just matters of opinion
-----------------------

Yes and NO. I am sure Lydian could see himself as more talented than Federer but the general opinion would probably disagree.

It's like beauty....matter of opinion maybe but Bradd Pitts makes the $$millions teh rest of us don't.

Talent at doing something can be difficult to measure as it is a subtle concept but at the end of the day it is a tangible reality. it's not because it is difficult to measure that it's purely subjective unlike some would like us to believe.

So Icecold, I am afraid you are wrong. It;s like saying "Gasquet and Nadal are equally fit, it's a question of opinion". No. It's not!

So Icecold, I am afraid you are wrong. It;s like saying "Gasquet and Nadal are equally fit, it's a question of opinion". No. It's not!

------------------------------------------------------------

In YOUR VIEW Icecold is wrong....thats is your opinion. Who are you to say he is wrong.. On this subject everyon e has an opinion and everyone is entitled to one. That does not make them wrong.

-

it's like guardiola-mourinho in la liga
guardiola is fed
mourinho is nadal

barca/guardiola plays with beauty , easy on eye but wearing opponents down physically mentally with less drip of sweat on his side..when they're on fire,,its quite unstoppable
but when the flow was blocked/disturbed,,theres not much variation in the team.
but still in this case,,not many teams hav done it

mourinho is such a great tactician i've seen in my life...his teams always seem a different side in 2nd half bcoz of his superior tactics.
his teams are efficient when theres one DM hooks in the middle of the pitch eg makelele,pepe,,disturbing the flow of his opponents,,absorbing the attacks.
but,,take out that DM,,his team will be quite vulnerable

Guardiola is Fed and Mourinho Nadal you say? Doesn't quite work out does it? Guardiola team beats Mourinho's in their head to head. Guardiola has only lost twice to a Mourinho team, bad example to use.

icecold wrote:Notions of talent are surely in the end just matters of opinion and arguing about player x being more (naturally) talented than player y is a bit like arguing whether blue is a better colour than green. Pointless. In the end it is what players do with their talents that count. What is the end product? What are the results?

But what I really do not understand for the life of me is those people who for example regard player x as being relatively untalented compared to the supremely talented player y, not being in absolute awe of player x's ability to overcome that enormous talent deficit and get the win time after time.

I mean by the age of 25 to get to No. 1 and stay there for more than 100 weeks, win 10 slams on all surfaces, 18 Masters, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, $40,000,000 + in prize money alone and have a 17-8 H2H with the most supremely talented player that ever did lift a racquet is an astonishing achievement for anyone, but to achieve all that when you haven't really been blessed with very much natural talent at all must surely be the greatest achievement in the entire history of sport. Who else has done it?

I would take my hat off to such a unique person. Maximum respect would surely be due?

The paradox is that those who feel that Nadal has minimal talent seem also to have the least respect for his achievements when surely it should be the other way around?

Shouldn't we have more respect and appreciation for those who have had to work to achieve what they have rather than those who have been handed everything (including natural talent) on a plate and still cannot get the job done when it really counts?

Absolutely 100% correct in my view. Simply achieving something because you are able is actually not something to remark about. Achieving something which pushes your own boundaries is remarkable. I was going to write something similar outside this debate asking why people hold so much stock in what we perceive as talent, when at the same time those same people talk about how easy an activity is for some one with talent? In a way talent on its own should not be something we are impressed with. However those who are able to utilise those talents to reach their own personal maximum level are highly impressive. For example apparently i am talented at 9-ball pool and am able to play at national level, but how many tournaments have i one - zip.... and so my talent is nothing to write home about in my own eyes.

I agree as well with those who say that despite talent you also have to be in a fortunate situation to have the opportunity to develop and nurture it. Its also a key reason the UK doesn't do well at global sports. Generally we must produce pound for pound just as many people with talent as other nations, but many world class cricketers are sat at home having never had a good chance to realise they could play. There must be dozens of world class tennis players who grew up on council estates and only experienced playing tennis on uneven tarmac courts amongst broken glass. Its the people who achieve in spite of restrictions who are most impressive.... but then of course i would think that because as i already mentioned i walk with a permanent limp.

That Im afraid is far too subtle for some

Simple Analyst, your forgetting when he was manager @ Inter Milan, and they beat Barcelona (I'm pretty sure they did), so not necessarily a bad example, although it's not a bad example for that reason. They've not played each other's side that often and also in tennis, you can't have a draw at all, whereas in many of their matches, they can.

Yes but match for match he has beaten Guardiola's Barcelona only 2 times. 1 at Inter and Madrid. Guardiola has dominated him so far including a 5-0 thrashing recent. Bad example.

Tenez wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:I'm not sure Nadal is great tactician, I think he has just perfected the art of how to play Federer.
I thought Djokovic's recent run raised big questions about Nadal's tactical astuteness, particularly in Madrid and Rome. It was clear early on in both of those matches that Nadal wasn't going to get anywhere just by pounding Djokovic's backhand (a tactic that often works against Federer). But he was completely unable to change his approach. Once his main weapon had been negated, he seemed at a loss of what to do.

Exactly. Nadal plays always the same. His luck is that his power is enough to take the edge out of Federer's BH. Very much like Becker and Sampras had enough power to break McEnroe's touch game. McEnroe could handle the balls send by players of his generation but would struggle applying his touch game v guys who had learnt how to whack the ball with a big frame.

Now that a player can stay physically with Nadal, his lack of tactic and frankly imagination was obvious to see. More so that I believe Djoko was not even 100% fit in that last clay final they played.

I am reminded of a........

https://2img.net/h/i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt272/bogbot/ttbr1.png

I agree it's a not an ideal example but not for the reasons your giving, they don't have many matches to have a head to head to talk of, how many matches have they had last season? 2 league, 1 Spanish Cup, 2 Champions League, that adds up to 5, and season before, 2 @ Inter, that amounts to just 7, and actually that's incorrect, that 'recent' match you refer is not their most recent match, that was ages ago now. Their most recent match was the Champions League matches and before that the Kings Cup which Real Madrid won and before that (just a week before I think) a league match which was a draw. That 5 - 0 match is not recent at all, they've played 4 games since then. I'm guessing your not a footie fan like me then?

Out of interest, if a draw was possible in tennis, how many times would Nadal, Fed, Djoko and Murray have drawn matches?

Tom

Well, I think the Fed v Nadal final 08(?) that ended 10-8 to Nadal in the 5th would count as a score draw, although what you would then describe Isner v Mahut as would stretch anyone's vocabulary.

I was going to use a football analogy for Roger and Rafa, but based on a pair of players like (say) Rooney and Vidic - both are obviously outstanding players and are very important to the success of their team, but have different attributes. How you say one is a better football player than the other is a subjective judgement because of the differences in both their skillset and in what they are trying to do from a tactical point of view, however they are both focussing on the objective of winning a match and both do a bloody good job in making that happen.

Rich questioning if i'm a football. I live football and Barcelona is my 2nd team after Arsenal. Again you are wrong. At Inter Mourinho played Barca 4 times, 2 games in CL semi and 2 in the groups. He played 5 times last season and only won 3-1 in cl semi and 1-0 Copa del rey. 2 draws and lost 5 times. I pointed to the 5-0 match which was only last season. Guardiola has dominated Mourinho so far, not hard to understand really.

Rich questioning if i'm a football. I live football and Barcelona is my 2nd team after Arsenal. Again you are wrong. At Inter Mourinho played Barca 4 times, 2 games in CL semi and 2 in the groups. He played 5 times last season and only won 3-1 in cl semi and 1-0 Copa del rey. 2 draws and lost 5 times. I pointed to the 5-0 match which was only last season. Guardiola has dominated Mourinho so far, not hard to understand really.

Rich questioning if your a football? You're clearing not a football (if your meaning that literally, I'm hoping you're not). Barcelona is also my second team thanks and my first is Chelsea, so I guess we got some common ground. That doesn't sound correct, how does any team play the same team twice in the group stages? Impossible, you're wrong. You play each team once, so even if they played in the group stages and finals, that's 3, not 4. I've also checked that now and for Inter, 1 win, Barcelona, 1 win and 1 draw, domination? Er, no, especially given that one win knocked out Barcelona.

Hang on, they played 5 times in 2010/2011 season, drew 1 league, lost 1 league, and again, the same in the champions league, and they won the King's Cup. So that's 2 wins for Barcelona, 1 for Real Madrid and 2 draws, er domination? 1 more win? Er, I don't think so.

And yes, there was one 5-0 loss which was right at the beginning of the season, but you can't just judge one result in isolation, you look at the others and they don't really support your claim of 'domination', it's very easy to check if what your claiming is factually correct, and it's not.

I also don't want to go into the other factual errors which are in your post but to help out, the relevant information for the Champions League are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%9311_UEFA_Champions_League

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_UEFA_Champions_League

Very easily verified and easily found too.

Guys Football stays in the Football forum. I can understand your trying to bring logic using sporting examples, but please can we stick to tennis.

Thanks

Lol, they can't play twice at group stages? Where did you get that from? In the group stages 2 teams can be drawn to play each other 2 times, you really sure you are a football fan?
Lol. There are 4 teams in a group stage and they play 6 times each of the teams. Working that out? Infact they played 2 times at the group stages but I remembered it was rather 0-0 and 2-0 to Barcelona. Even with that Guardiola has beaten Mourinho 4 times to his 2. That in football is still domination.

aaahh...im just using it as example,,dont be so deep bout it
n im not mentioning about head-to-head either nadal-fed or guardiola-mourinho, i just used it as a simple individual comparison as my eyes could see it,,fair enough if some didnt agree tennis is tennis, football is football.

but nadal really same as mourinho
mourinho is more about adaptation during the match,,how he could settle the obstacles/problems during matches when something was not right
here n there he would end up get beaten but he rarely lost them..so did nadal

like in recent french open final,,i dont think fed served worse compare to the SF,,but nadal seems to guess better how fed going to serve as match goes on,,the placement etc once he was in the rally, we know what will happen

Lol factual errors? You should have read that link 1st. Can't believe you a football fan if you suprised 2 teams can play each other twice in the group stages. The only error in my post was the draw 2nd leg score at San Siro against Barca at the group stages.

Mistake on that, they play home & away. As you will know, it's when those wins come, as much as anything else in champions league or anything in 2009/2010, Barcelona got 2 wins but didn't get through, so hardly domination, but let's stick with tennis, because we wont agree on 'domination'.

But is a wrong example as Guardiola himself is becoming a tactical genius who is adapting in games as they come.

Lol Real madrid won 3-1 you say I said. Read properly as I pointed out the 2 wins as 3-1 at cl semi with inter and 1-0 at madrid.
5-0
2-0
2-0
1-0

All 4 victories over Mourinho. League, cl, cl, cl.

I got it wrong on the wins, I concede that and the 4 games they play in CL but I dont think you can talk about 'domination' when:

a) you can have draws in football, so it's not a straight 4-2 head to head, that's selectively quoting what suits your argument and they've had at least 3 draws.

b) it's not particularly easy to grade wins either as it in tennis, Barcelona beat Inter in the CL but still lost because Inter beat then when it matters most.

For these reasons I can't see 'domination' as being the case unless you look at that sole result at the beginning of the league when Real Madrid got a new manager (another dynamic which makes any comment of 'domination' rather flawed) and lost 5-0.

You and Ebar86 clearly got this wrong. You try to make a very poor case of this. How is my stat selective? You are bringing this to tennis terms. There is no draw. You don't even understand the basics of football, i'm wasting time.

It might help if you read my posts, instead of being dismissive, which is unnecessary (and rude). I can easily be rude back and comment on your grammatical mistakes and spelling mistakes but I don't. I said I agreed with you, but not for the same reasons as you.

The basics of football having nothing to do with how many matches you play in the champions league, unless you think it does? The basics would be the rules and how you play. Your stat is selective because you also have draws in football which you don't list, a team can have more wins than another team yet lose if it has more overall losses and less draws as a result, so it's not a simple head to head (as in tennis).

I was commenting that I disagreed with you're brazen use of 'domination' and I didn't bring football into this (I was commenting on your use of the term and what another poster said), which I'm entitled to do, I'm happy to admit my mistakes but it doesn't undermine that I still think your case for domination is weak.

I won't bother over you pointing at my grammar or spelling. English is a 3rd language to me so no problem. Guardiola so far has dominated Mourinho, leaving him in media hysteria the last time after the CL. Don't know what is hard to understand about. He has beaten him 4 times and convincingly even though I doubt you watched any of those matches, guess what I did.

I've watched the matches, including Barcelona vs Arsenal, when Van Persie was sent off for a completely stupid reason and I'm afraid that Mourinho has a point about calling into question refereeing decisions, any fan would say the same. So Mourinho stating the obvious that some decisions are ridiculous, well, I wouldn't call that hysteria, more a statement of the obvious. As an Arsenal fan, I thought you would know this better than me.

I was pointing out that I'm not one who's rude, English not being your first language hardly is an excuse for that (i.e being so dismissive). As I said, it isn't convincing and I won't agree with you, so perhaps better we drop the subject and you can keep your views and me mine.

Lol you want to get into detail about Mourinho's rant? I bet he did not complain about refs decisions when Milito scored an offside goal at San siro and Bojan's goal was wrongly ruled out at Nou camp sending his side through. Mourinho tries to find excuses for Barca beating his team, just like how Federer fans find tiny excuses for Nadal dominating him.

Sounds more like a rant from you there! I am not going to analyse every single thing he said, we're not in a football forum and besides that, what he said about the refereeing is fair, the decision previously about Van Persie was completely ridiculous, I can't believe you would send off a player because he was ruled off side and kicked a ball a second after that (because he couldn't hear him, and send him off), I mean, it totally changed the dynamic of the match and gave a free pass to Barcelona into the the next match.

Some referring decisions do need to be questioned and Mourinho's point is fair, Barcelona had been given a number of favourable ref's decisions with different teams, a valid & fair point. One decision in isolation doesn't amount to much I'm afraid, just like you going on about 5-0, means nothing and now brining up an offside goal @ San Siro.

It's just like Nadal fans going on about how amazing Nadal is against Fed, yet strip out the clay for Nadal and grass for Federer (both of their best surfaces) and they're 4-4 (on hard court, not Fed's best nor Nadal's best). Just like the evidence for Nadal being some superior player, his results on head to head on other surfaces off clay is not superior, it's a fact. It's not my fault Fed is just so great on clay he meets the only player who's better than him, just like it's not my fault that there arn't more grass court tournaments (which would have allowed them to meet more often) or that Nadal was and still is poorer on hard courts. Again, 'domination' it ain't, unless you want to selectively quote, something which many a good argument rely on (until spotted out). Admittedly Nadal's recent record is better, beyond dispute, however I'd love to see them meet in grand slam finals off clay and see how both of them fair.

This discussion needs a wider context, outside the silo of a Fedal debate.

Look at Rios, Mecir, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Monfils, Coria, Muster, Lendl, Gerulaitis, Vilas, The Four Musketeers, Rosewall, Emerson, Laver, Pancho, Hoad, Trabert. Anyone want to talk about Ferrer's or Almagro's or Dolgopolov's talent?

luciusmann wrote: however I'd love to see them meet in grand slam finals off clay and see how both of them fair.

Australian Open 2009 suit you?

Well if you claim to be a football fan then you'll know kicking the ball after the whistle is blown is in the disgression of the ref. Dubious decision it was due to the noise at the stadium but never out of the rules set out. Like I said, you are just finding excuses like you are again for Federer's record against Nadal. And they have meet in Grand slams off clay on Federer's favourite surface 4 times and guess what, it's 2-2. Shows you Nadal clearly takes advantage of his favourite surface 5-0 he leads GS there. If Federer was any better he will lead 4-0. Stop making excuses.

Looking at monfils:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTVAN7GQzf7CBGALSnlOQ9nrh7sLvyx3D646qbQokAH07h10T9Gzw

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyYsbXLXvgWYPof09tHv-xvp4eMOUH9yPtNq1DByNFkcpvnQanhQ

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0WV5CBatGCqKLeJk_auyv9qtkBBscTRTAohP80ze7p-lj_n0_QA

Hes one of the most physically developed looking specimens on tour. Why is he not able to use his physicality to muscle all the top players off the court if that is all Nadal is doing?

Are you guys for freaking real? come on dudes. Even a blind mouse can see that Roger is the most talented player on the tour. At his peak, he was on another level, floating somewhere in the stratosphere.

I mean.. it's like all the nerdiest scientists in the world got together and created a super tennis-playing robot - and they came up with Roger freeeeeeeeeeeeeeaking Federer. Unfortunately God decided to prove that no-one is perfect, so he sent Rafa Nadal to expose RF's only weakness.

This is the final word on this debate. Get with the program already!

Peace and love duuuuuuuuudes.

In the next few months is what I meant; that's the only meeting they've had on a hard court in a slam), a bit tricky to extrapolate much from that, just like if you look at 2-1 on grass might suggest a lot except:

a) most of Fed's wins were a long time ago
b) Nadal won their last meeting (also a while ago, 3 years ago)

Had they met in the USO final last year, that would have been brilliant but alas, maybe this year.

Simple Analyst, what you call 'excuses' are explanations, only a dogmatic, die hard fan would call them 'excuses'. I follow football and am a Chelsea fan, and sorry, just like umpire's don't often give time violations to Nadal, even when he's gone over his time, a ref has to use good judgement, especially given the the high level match their working in. It just makes a mockery of the game and that's why in other sports other refs or people are looking at a video can give a decision, I don't see why football is so backward and what you've said is no excuse for a bad decision, and essentially a wrong decision. There have to be rules and they need to be applied fairly, fairness is an important principle in sport, and that's in the spirit of all sports, not just football.

What it shows clearly is Nadal is not 'dominating', maybe something is being lost in translation here. Dominating on clay doesn't amount to domination on all surfaces. There are 3 surfaces 1/3 is not domination, taking advantage on one surface? Well Fed could have just bombed out of clay and not met Nadal at all on clay, would you be then calling it 'domination', er no, because then your case would collapse.

Also, the record on Federer's favourite surface (grass) is 2-1 (in his favour), not 2-2, it's 2-2 on grass/hard court.

luciusmann wrote:Sounds more like a rant from you there! I am not going to analyse every single thing he said, we're not in a football forum and besides that, what he said about the refereeing is fair, the decision previously about Van Persie was completely ridiculous, I can't believe you would send off a player because he was ruled off side and kicked a ball a second after that (because he couldn't hear him, and send him off), I mean, it totally changed the dynamic of the match and gave a free pass to Barcelona into the the next match.

Some referring decisions do need to be questioned and Mourinho's point is fair, Barcelona had been given a number of favourable ref's decisions with different teams, a valid & fair point. One decision in isolation doesn't amount to much I'm afraid, just like you going on about 5-0, means nothing and now brining up an offside goal @ San Siro.

It's just like Nadal fans going on about how amazing Nadal is against Fed, yet strip out the clay for Nadal and grass for Federer (both of their best surfaces) and they're 4-4 (on hard court, not Fed's best nor Nadal's best). Just like the evidence for Nadal being some superior player, his results on head to head on other surfaces off clay is not superior, it's a fact. It's not my fault Fed is just so great on clay he meets the only player who's better than him, just like it's not my fault that there arn't more grass court tournaments (which would have allowed them to meet more often) or that Nadal was and still is poorer on hard courts. Again, 'domination' it ain't, unless you want to selectively quote, something which many a good argument rely on (until spotted out). Admittedly Nadal's recent record is better, beyond dispute, however I'd love to see them meet in grand slam finals off clay and see how both of them fair.

I always find this H2H bias thing laughable. Federer is a great clay court player with a wonderful clay court record. Nadal is a magnificent clay player. It is therefore correct that they have met most times on clay compared to other surfaces, as taken together its their collective best surface. Off clay... its close, that all we can tell. In slams Nadal has beaten Fed on al 3 surfaces and so appears to be better on the ultimate stage.

I also have to say i find it funny when people say Nadal's failure to meet Federer in more HC finals creates the bias. You could easily argue the Federer has failed to meet Nadal in more clay court finals and so perhaps they should have played even more times on clay. so many occasions have past where Nadal was waiting in the final on a clay court, but Federer was not there. However these days i think you could in fact also argue that Federer on occasion has been the man failing to play Nadal on Grass and HC. For example Wimbledon last year - where was Fed? Miami this year - where was Fed?, Indian wells this year, where was Fed? USO last year - where was Fed?

Overall the proportion of surface that makes up the H2H is an exact reflection of how good both players are across all surfaces taken together. Its the same for any H2H for any two players.


At the end of the day its impossible these to say anything other than on Nadal's best surface, Nadal is in great ascendancy, whereas off clay on Federers preferred surfaces its very close indeed. People used to argue that federer had the acendency on grass, but to a lesser extent than Nadal on clay. Its hard to say Federer has any ascendancy over Nadal at all after 08/09.

emancipator wrote:Are you guys for freaking real? come on dudes. Even a blind mouse can see that Roger is the most talented player on the tour. At his peak, he was on another level, floating somewhere in the stratosphere.

I mean.. it's like all the nerdiest scientists in the world got together and created a super tennis-playing robot - and they came up with Roger freeeeeeeeeeeeeeaking Federer. Unfortunately God decided to prove that no-one is perfect, so he sent Rafa Nadal to expose RF's only weakness.

This is the final word on this debate. Get with the program already!

Peace and love duuuuuuuuudes.