Rome F: Nadal def. Ferrer 7-5 6-2 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Rome F: Nadal def. Ferrer 7-5 6-2

samanosuke
05-02-2010, 07:36 PM
Another Nadal's main role in the Spanish reality show " Do you want be my bitch ? " It's really pathetic to see Spanish players playing against Nadal . Anyway all credits to Rafa

Lopez
05-02-2010, 07:36 PM
No surprise, Ferrer doesn't have the firepower to win Nadal on a slow surface. Hangs tough, but then Nadal turns up the volume.

Rain ruined the match, most of the crowd left.

Bilbo
05-02-2010, 07:36 PM
dedicated to all the gulbistards :banana::banana:

expected title for rafa :yeah:

Ozone
05-02-2010, 07:36 PM
5th title for King Rafa!:worship:

rubbERR
05-02-2010, 07:37 PM
nadal continues winning ways without win over top 8 player, fluke run

Priam
05-02-2010, 07:37 PM
Expected result. Rain prolonged the inevitable sadly.

federernadalfan
05-02-2010, 07:37 PM
too good from rafa. nid expected :hatoff:
tied with agassi at 17 shields

Fedicilous
05-02-2010, 07:37 PM
You should hammer yourself firstly.

Typical mugstuff , waiting for someone with faith and good strike like Gulbis.

Sunset of Age
05-02-2010, 07:38 PM
Well deserved victory for Rafa, by far the best player this week (again). :hatoff:
Didn't need to do much against Ferrer who clearly doesn't have the weapons to hurt him, but who cares about that?

Masters shield #17, tieing Agassi, and I have no doubts Rafa will go far beyond that tally. Great achievement. :worship:

Ozone
05-02-2010, 07:38 PM
You should hammer yourself firstly.

Typical mugstuff , waiting for someone with faith and good strike like Gulbis.
What? Come again please?

Orka_n
05-02-2010, 07:39 PM
Expected but still disappointing to watch from Ferrer.

Pirata.
05-02-2010, 07:39 PM
Expected after David blew that 0-30 lead on Rafa's serve.

Congrats on #17, Rafa.

Commander Data
05-02-2010, 07:39 PM
To our great surprise Nadal was the better!

Ferrer tried for one set..better then nothing...

out_here_grindin
05-02-2010, 07:40 PM
Ferrer just can't beat Nadal on clay.

centralviva
05-02-2010, 07:40 PM
Caught the end of the match didn't seem like Ferrer could handle Nadal, Another Masters :devil:

Smoke944
05-02-2010, 07:41 PM
dedicated to all the gulbistards :banana::banana:

expected title for rafa :yeah:

I don't get it. Gulbis almost beats Rafa on clay and this is somehow sticking it to Gulbis? :confused:

cobalt60
05-02-2010, 07:42 PM
Nadal is just incredible :worship:
:hatoff: to both guys this week.

Topspin Forehand
05-02-2010, 07:42 PM
Ferrer was on fire early on in the match but Nadal was able to finally get control of the points. This match was very similar to their Miami match. Court speed almost the same?

Fedicilous
05-02-2010, 07:42 PM
Chokefest in the first set, Nadal played total crap until 4-5 0-30. Then he realized that Mugrrer is terrified like always.
Expected second one, no will of fight and easy victory.

Nadal will take Madrid and RG with no problems If there is no ballbasher around him.

moonlightdance
05-02-2010, 07:43 PM
finally, after all the rain delays...congrats on no.17 rafa! some good hitting in the match, but the outcome was pretty much expected. congrats to ferrer as well for a nice run this week.

ad-out
05-02-2010, 07:44 PM
dedicated to all the gulbistards :banana::banana:



Bilbo :ras:

Personally I think that Rafa beating Ferrer so easily just makes Ernests look even stronger for taking it the distance! ;)

Sunset of Age
05-02-2010, 07:44 PM
Bilbo :ras:

Personally I think that Rafa beating Ferrer so easily just makes Ernests look even stronger for taking it the distance! ;)

It does. :)

Topspin Forehand
05-02-2010, 07:45 PM
The only downer is that Ferrer will probably never win a Masters Shield. :(

Xristos
05-02-2010, 07:45 PM
Expected.

Congrats to Rafa.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 07:45 PM
nadal continues winning ways without win over top 8 player, fluke run

No, he's just that much better than the rest of the top 8 (which he is a part of by the way) currently on clay. No fluke. Nothing but dominance.

MacTheKnife
05-02-2010, 07:45 PM
Delpony, denko, and roddick need to get back in action. They have created a vacuum..

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 07:46 PM
Nadal turned it up when he needed, and Ferrer faltered. Rafa served well today. Overall, a B performance, which is all he needed to win today.

Good job Clay King.

Priam
05-02-2010, 07:46 PM
Yeah I agree. This tournament definitely gave some hope to the bashers that they can trouble Rafa on fast clay. Not as dominant as MC, more passive and tight at some moments, but he was the most consistent all week. Congrats.

tyruk14
05-02-2010, 07:47 PM
Heavyweight against a featherweight.

Spaniard against a Spaniard.

Expected.

Fedicilous
05-02-2010, 07:48 PM
Lack of consistent ballbashers is the main reason of Nadal's dominance this season.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 07:48 PM
Delpony, denko, and roddick need to get back in action. They have created a vacuum..

Outside of Del Potro, none of the 3 have any remote chance to beat Nadal on clay. Nadal is going to keep dominating barring injury, we should enjoy the master at his work, because he's truly something special that should be appreciated on this surface.

Topspin Forehand
05-02-2010, 07:48 PM
Yeah I agree. This tournament definitely gave some hope to the bashers that they can trouble Rafa on fast clay. Not as dominant as MC, more passive and tight at some moments, but he was the most consistent all week. Congrats.
And I believe Madrid and RG are fast clay nowadays. RG with very little top surface clay and lively balls will give hope to players that hit hard.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 07:50 PM
No, ball bashers cannot beat Nadal on clay. Fast clay, slow clay, it's all clay, and Nadal has beaten them all, and will continue to do so. The paranoia is ridiculous. He won, he's the best. What more does he need to prove to get people to stop doubting him.

Ales_Alessandra
05-02-2010, 07:50 PM
:worship: Rafa!!! Well deserved! The best won!
Don't know why people love to hate Rafa, he does what he has to do on court, play his best to win as all the other players do. He really respects his opponents and always have a smile at the end! Tk God we have him in the circuit!
*Edit* Good run David! :hug:

azmad_88
05-02-2010, 07:50 PM
congrats nadal! hope ul take madrid and RG

gorgo1986
05-02-2010, 07:50 PM
Congrats to Rafa, well deserved win! Number 17!!!

Also great week for David, his first final! Most wins on the tour this year. Solid as always.

Surcouf
05-02-2010, 07:51 PM
Congrats Rafa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A new MS title after MC. It's like a reborn after all these bad months. Eventhough he played bad compared to his MC level, he is still above my initial expectations after that horrible end of last year.


I only caught the last games. How did Nadal played today? Better than against Hanescu, Wawrinka and Gulbis? Or the same?

By the way, how far he is from the record of MSs won? I think he passed Federer today.

Fedicilous
05-02-2010, 07:52 PM
I'm not doubting him, I'm just saying that Del Potro in top form would easily take a set from Nadal, maybe even defeat him.
He has an ideal game against the Spaniard, he neutralizes the main weapon of Nadal's tennis.

philosophicalarf
05-02-2010, 07:53 PM
Chokefest in the first set, Nadal played total crap until 4-5 0-30. Then he realized that Mugrrer is terrified like always.


Yup. Ferrer was playing great until then, Nadal wasn't. Soon as it got to that point, and the prospect of actually winning seemed realistic, Ferrer promptly stuck a slow middle service box second serve into the net, errored away the other points, then choked away his own serve (highlight being an awesome doublefault at 5-5 *adv-40)

federernadalfan
05-02-2010, 07:54 PM
now he just needs to take madrid and roland garros :lol:

cobalt60
05-02-2010, 07:54 PM
No, ball bashers cannot beat Nadal on clay. Fast clay, slow clay, it's all clay, and Nadal has beaten them all, and will continue to do so. The paranoia is ridiculous. He won, he's the best. What more does he need to prove to get people to stop doubting him.

By MTF standards he needs to lose ;)

Surcouf
05-02-2010, 07:54 PM
I'm not doubting him, I'm just saying that Del Potro in top form would easily take a set from Nadal, maybe even defeat him.
He has an ideal game against the Spaniard, he neutralizes the main weapon of Nadal's tennis.

Del Potro on clay is juste average. Nadal does not have any bad match up in clay, when he plays well. He is just that good and well above the field.

Corey Feldman
05-02-2010, 07:54 PM
http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/indifferent/indifferent0022.gif

Noleta
05-02-2010, 07:54 PM
Rafa:worship:The 17th Master shield at 23yrs:banana:

Veronique
05-02-2010, 07:55 PM
Congrats Rafa! Number 17 and counting........

Sham Kay
05-02-2010, 07:55 PM
Delpony, denko, and roddick need to get back in action. They have created a vacuum..

Yeah, cause Roddick would spank Nadal on clay eight ways to Sunday.

Good performance Rafa, quite a few blips against Gulbis, which may show others that he isnt completely impregnable. For now though, well done on the title.

moon language
05-02-2010, 07:55 PM
Delpony, denko, and roddick need to get back in action. They have created a vacuum..

Roddick on clay? That would be more of a vacuum as he would take a spot that could go to someone who is good on the surface.

Persimmon
05-02-2010, 07:56 PM
:yeah:

Priam
05-02-2010, 07:56 PM
Ferrer played so-so, just not enough firepower to consistently hit through Nadal. IMO the first set was closer than it should have been with Rafa blowing plenty of his chances. The weather played its part as well.

Veronique
05-02-2010, 07:57 PM
Congrats Rafa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A new MS title after MC. It's like a reborn after all these bad months. Eventhough he played bad compared to his MC level, he is still above my initial expectations after that horrible end of last year.


I only caught the last games. How did Nadal played today? Better than against Hanescu, Wawrinka and Gulbis? Or the same?

By the way, how far he is from the record of MSs won? I think he passed Federer today.

He matched Agassi for the record with number 17. He'll hold the record by himself when he wins number 18.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 07:57 PM
I'm not doubting him, I'm just saying that Del Potro in top form would easily take a set from Nadal, maybe even defeat him.
He has an ideal game against the Spaniard, he neutralizes the main weapon of Nadal's tennis.

Nadal on top form is better than Del Potro on clay. I do think he could trouble him, but win? It would take Nadal not playing well, otherwise JMDP will just hit himself out of the match, just like all other ball bashers do on clay playing Nadal. And Nadal will expose his movement too.

vn01
05-02-2010, 07:58 PM
Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Persimmon
05-02-2010, 07:59 PM
Ferrer was on fire early on in the match but Nadal was able to finally get control of the points. This match was very similar to their Miami match. Court speed almost the same?

Indeed. New Rome centre court = Miami.

Pirata.
05-02-2010, 07:59 PM
The only downer is that Ferrer will probably never win a Masters Shield. :(

:sad:

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:00 PM
By MTF standards he needs to lose ;)

Yeah, you're right about that ;) MTF standards, I guess it's a good think Rafa doesn't hold himself to those.

@Sweet Cleopatra
05-02-2010, 08:01 PM
http://smiles.mmuz.com/data/27/etoile06.gif

http://smiles.mmuz.com/data/22/36_7_111.gif

Fedicilous
05-02-2010, 08:02 PM
I completely disagree with theory that Del Potro is average on clay.

He played some incredible tennis at RG 2009, he destroyed a decent clay court player like Robredo and almost crashed out Federer, who was playing really good that day.

azinna
05-02-2010, 08:02 PM
Nice week of continued prep for Nadal, with good wins against the sort of game/player he finds most troublesome.
He and his camp should be very satisfied with his progress.

MacTheKnife
05-02-2010, 08:02 PM
Outside of Del Potro, none of the 3 have any remote chance to beat Nadal on clay. Nadal is going to keep dominating barring injury, we should enjoy the master at his work, because he's truly something special that should be appreciated on this surface.

Roddick on clay? That would be more of a vacuum as he would take a spot that could go to someone who is good on the surface.

As usual, point missed. You think the return of those guys would not change the landscape of who advances in a tournament..:rolleyes:

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:05 PM
As usual, point missed. You think the return of those guys would not change the landscape of who advances in a tournament..:rolleyes:

It may change who makes the semis or quarters, but it wouldn't change Nadal dominating whoever is put in front of him.

moon language
05-02-2010, 08:05 PM
As usual, point missed. You think the return of those guys would not change the landscape of who advances in a tournament..:rolleyes:

Then your point was poorly stated. What exactly were you trying to say?

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:06 PM
I completely disagree with theory that Del Potro is average on clay.

He played some incredible tennis at RG 2009, he destroyed a decent clay court player like Robredo and almost crashed out Federer, who was playing really good that day.

Del Potro is good on clay, but Nadal is superhuman. And, Robredo is ultra-defensive and as we have seen, Del Potro has Roger's number. Much different scenario against the king of clay.

Fedicilous
05-02-2010, 08:11 PM
The only way to find out is to wait for Nadal-Del Potro encounter.
Unfortunately, it will happen at the earliest in 2011.

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 08:13 PM
Masters shield #17, tieing Agassi, and I have no doubts Rafa will go far beyond that tally. Great achievement. :worship:

Agassi won 17 real Masters, not these clown Masters.

Hope this helps.

rocketassist
05-02-2010, 08:13 PM
dedicated to all the gulbistards :banana::banana:

expected title for rafa :yeah:

Why the fuck would they care if Nadal won this? :cuckoo:

*Jean*
05-02-2010, 08:13 PM
David :sad:

rocketassist
05-02-2010, 08:14 PM
Agassi won 17 real Masters, not these clown Masters.

Hope this helps.

This. Any TMS after 2006 (IW and Miami after 2007) are glorified MMs. Bring back the no byes and 5 set finals.

gulzhan
05-02-2010, 08:14 PM
Good feeling when Rafa wins again. Hopefully he'll keep it up through the whole clay season.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:15 PM
Agassi won 17 real Masters, not these clown Masters.

Hope this helps.You aren't anyone to really say Nadal's masters series crowns are less of value, since at the end of the day, it's the record book that counts, and Nadal is tied with Agassi, fair and square.

Hope this helps.

Fedicilous
05-02-2010, 08:15 PM
They can't bring back this formula of MS events, because Rafa wouldn't have won any Masters Series title again.

Aenea
05-02-2010, 08:16 PM
http://serve.mysmiley.net/party/party0011.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

Congrats, Rafa!

Go party now and take some rest. Looking forward to seeing you in Madrid.

M4RC
05-02-2010, 08:16 PM
Well done Raf.

Agassi won 17 real Masters, not these clown Masters.

Hope this helps.

:rolleyes:

You made this exact comment yersterday. Do I need to quote it? You're starting to sound quite boring.

The only way to find out is to wait for Nadal-Del Potro encounter.
Unfortunately, it will happen at the earliest in 2011.

Find out what? When Del Potro achieves a 1/100 part of the titles, records and stats Nadal has on clay maybe there will be something to consider between them in a possible match-up on clay.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:16 PM
This. Any TMS after 2006 (IW and Miami after 2007) are glorified MMs. Bring back the no byes and 5 set finals.

That doesn't really change the value of winning one of these events, it just means guys get tired easier, pick up more injuries, and many wont play the events at all.

The record book is what really counts, and Nadal is tied with Agassi and will soon pass him to be known as the best player ever at this level.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:17 PM
They can't bring back this formula of MS events, because Rafa wouldn't have won any Masters Series title again.

Who would beat him exactly?

born_on_clay
05-02-2010, 08:17 PM
Job done
Next :)

Veronique
05-02-2010, 08:19 PM
You aren't anyone to really say Nadal's masters series crowns are less of value, since at the end of the day, it's the record book that counts, and Nadal is tied with Agassi, fair and square.

Hope this helps.

I guess only Nadal is interrested in winning these "clown" masters titles. All the other players don't care about them. ROFL.

l_mac
05-02-2010, 08:20 PM
:lol:

Rafa :yeah: :hearts:

Haters :haha: :haha: You've had a good last 12 months. Remember those times, they'll come again.

Fedicilous
05-02-2010, 08:21 PM
His body on first place.
Current MS formula doesn't request from Nadal as much as it should. There's nothing masterful in winning 5 matches like in other tournaments.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:21 PM
I guess only Nadal is interrested in winning these "clown" masters titles. All the other players don't care about them. ROFL.

:haha: Exactly. But the more haters hate and go out of their way not to give credit to a champion, the sweeter the victories are for him and his fans.

M4RC
05-02-2010, 08:23 PM
They can't bring back this formula of MS events, because Rafa wouldn't have won any Masters Series title again.

:eek: God Bless ATP then.

:bs:

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:25 PM
His body on first place.
Current MS formula doesn't request from Nadal as much as it should. There's nothing masterful in winning 5 matches like in other tournaments.

There is something masterful beating 5 great generally top 10-50 players on back to back days consecutively for years. It's not just 5 matches, it's 5 matches against the best of the best of the tour for the most part, and that is a great feat.

Opponents bodies on clay would give out far quicker than Nadal's would. The competition would be even more defeated if the MS matches were 5 sets on clay.

dav abu
05-02-2010, 08:26 PM
Fantastic for Nadal :worship: and to have equalled that record at 23!

Persimmon
05-02-2010, 08:28 PM
This. Any TMS after 2006 (IW and Miami after 2007) are glorified MMs. Bring back the no byes and 5 set finals.

Does this mean all of Murray's and Nole's MS are worthless? :rolleyes::retard::baby:

Arkulari
05-02-2010, 08:28 PM
Rafa :worship:
Pics :hug:

it was NID

l_mac
05-02-2010, 08:29 PM
http://i41.tinypic.com/2lcseq8.png

This was Rafa's 50th ATP final, his 38th title, and 17th Masters. :worship:

rocketassist
05-02-2010, 08:31 PM
Does this mean all of Murray's and Nole's MS are worthless? :rolleyes::retard::baby:

Not Nole's 2007 Miami. He had to win six matches and a 5 set final. And I didn't say they were worthless, just now they're no better than winning Dubai or something.

Persimmon
05-02-2010, 08:31 PM
Not Nole's 2007 Miami. He had to win six matches and a 5 set final. And I didn't say they were worthless, just now they're no better than winning Dubai or something.

Disagree. You don't earn 1000pts for winning Dubai:o

Aaric
05-02-2010, 08:33 PM
Congratulations

l_mac
05-02-2010, 08:34 PM
Not Nole's 2007 Miami. He had to win six matches and a 5 set final. And I didn't say they were worthless, just now they're no better than winning Dubai or something.

Except the top players are required to be there :wavey:

rocketassist
05-02-2010, 08:34 PM
That doesn't really change the value of winning one of these events, it just means guys get tired easier, pick up more injuries, and many wont play the events at all.

The record book is what really counts, and Nadal is tied with Agassi and will soon pass him to be known as the best player ever at this level.

Of course it does. Playing six matches in a week and a 5 set final was an acid test, especially in these clay court masters, and it's not being anti-Nadal either, in Rome 05 and 06 they were both splendid efforts to come through the 64 draw and win the five set final. Now it's just too fucking easy.

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 08:35 PM
Except the top players are required to be there :wavey:

Ok, then Monte Carlo doesn't count. :wavey: :D

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:35 PM
Not Nole's 2007 Miami. He had to win six matches and a 5 set final. And I didn't say they were worthless, just now they're no better than winning Dubai or something.

A win is a win, and the point is, Nadal has won 17 MS, and according to the record books, there isn't any grade on whether Nadal's have more or less value than Djokovic at Miami or Agassi's record. That's what counts at the end of the day, the win.

l_mac
05-02-2010, 08:38 PM
Ok, then Monte Carlo doesn't count. :wavey: :D

Yes, they should take it off the list. Now Rafa only has 15 :bigcry:

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:39 PM
Of course it does. Playing six matches in a week and a 5 set final was an acid test, especially in these clay court masters, and it's not being anti-Nadal either, in Rome 05 and 06 they were both splendid efforts to come through the 64 draw and win the five set final. Now it's just too fucking easy.

Acid test? Perhaps, seems more like a grand slam, which isn't what MS are. And regardless, 3 sets or 5, you still are playing the best players in the world on consecutive days. You may believe it is easy, but I doubt the players would agree, 3 or 5 sets, there is still great difficulty. And I'm 100% sure the tournaments would end up less interesting if there were 5 set matches with players playing every day.

What it comes down to is, the record book is what counts. And that's not being "pro-Nadal", it's just reality.

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 08:39 PM
Of course it does. Playing six matches in a week and a 5 set final was an acid test, especially in these clay court masters, and it's not being anti-Nadal either, in Rome 05 and 06 they were both splendid efforts to come through the 64 draw and win the five set final. Now it's just too fucking easy.

Totally agreed.

Masters Series used to be brutal having to play 6 matches in 7 days including a best of 5 final. I would argue they were harder to win than GS considering the first rounds are harder than in GS, you could play the 17th ranked player in the 1st round.

Veronique
05-02-2010, 08:40 PM
Of course it does. Playing six matches in a week and a 5 set final was an acid test, especially in these clay court masters, and it's not being anti-Nadal either, in Rome 05 and 06 they were both splendid efforts to come through the 64 draw and win the five set final. Now it's just too fucking easy.

If it's that easy, why is the same guy winning over and over again?

Silvester
05-02-2010, 08:42 PM
How many of Nadals masters win have come on Clay compare to other surfaces? Also isn't there more Masters 1000 on Clay than other surfaces..how many would Fed have if the grass-court season had just as many as the clay?

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:43 PM
Totally agreed.

Masters Series used to be brutal having to play 6 matches in 7 days including a best of 5 final. I would argue they were harder to win than GS considering the first rounds are harder than in GS, you could play the 17th ranked player in the 1st round.

Well MS are not grand slams and therefore shouldn't more difficult than a grand slam, that's a bad sign for GS tournaments if that were the case. There is still difficulty in winning MS tournaments in having to win consecutive matches against generally top 10-50 players, but it isn't as brainless with the scheduling and taxing players physically like before. Players would skip most Masters series if they were the former format, and injuries would increase.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:44 PM
Obviously it isn't easy to win Masters Series events since most cannot do so.

l_mac
05-02-2010, 08:44 PM
How many of Nadals masters win have come on Clay compare to other surfaces? Also isn't there more Masters 1000 on Clay than other surfaces..how many would Fed have if the grass-court season had just as many as the clay?
:haha:

Surcouf
05-02-2010, 08:47 PM
How many of Nadals masters win have come on Clay compare to other surfaces? Also isn't there more Masters 1000 on Clay than other surfaces..how many would Fed have if the grass-court season had just as many as the clay?

IW
Miami
Montreal/Toronto
Cincinnati
Bercy
Shangai

6 masters series on hard court.

And clay is part of tennis, deal with it.

philosophicalarf
05-02-2010, 08:48 PM
How many of Nadals masters win have come on Clay compare to other surfaces?}

2 x Canada
2 x Indian Wells <---- admittedly the slowest hard court surface anywhere.
1 x Madrid (the old indoors one)



Also isn't there more Masters 1000 on Clay than other surfaces..

3 clay, 5 hard, 1 indoors (used to be 3/4/2).

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 08:48 PM
Well MS are not grand slams and therefore shouldn't more difficult than a grand slam, that's a bad sign for GS tournaments if that were the case. There is still difficulty in winning MS tournaments in having to win consecutive matches against generally top 10-50 players, but it isn't as brainless with the scheduling and taxing players physically like before. Players would skip most Masters series if they were the former format, and injuries would increase.


No, they wouldn't. Seems like you started watching tennis last year.

andy neyer
05-02-2010, 08:49 PM
If it's that easy, why is the same guy winning over and over again?

Because Nadal is the best on clay by far at the moment.

I don't think it's easy to win a MS now but it's definitely easier (in terms of efforts recquired) than in 2006.

Ultimately, Nadal's 17 MS might go down in history in a similar fashion to Agassi's but in reality they are totally different things.

M4RC
05-02-2010, 08:49 PM
How many of Nadals masters win have come on Clay compare to other surfaces? Also isn't there more Masters 1000 on Clay than other surfaces..how many would Fed have if the grass-court season had just as many as the clay?

:rolleyes:

Nadal has 12 clay court masters and 5 on hard. There are 3 clay court masters per season, and the rest are played on hard, both indoor and outdoor, plus the WTF (6+1=7>3). Basic maths.

Also, olympics tennis is played on hard, too. There aren't grass M1000 because the lack of courts. I would love to have at least one grass masters.

And last but not least Federer doesn't win more M1000 because he doesn't deserve it considering the way he plays. It has nothing to do with Nadal.

Pirata.
05-02-2010, 08:49 PM
If it's that easy, why is the same guy winning over and over again?

Because there is no real competition on clay other than maybe Federer and Djokovic, and barely even then. He's too dominate on the surface and there is no one at this point who can compete with his level of tennis :shrug:

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:50 PM
No, they wouldn't. Seems like you started watching tennis last year.

Yeah, they would. They would skip Indian Wells, probably Paris, and possibly Cincinnati, also possibly Madrid. Why would they put themselves though the ringer physically, when many of these events are right before majors? Masters series are not majors, so therefore they shouldn't have the same rules as majors.

peribsen
05-02-2010, 08:50 PM
Agassi won 17 real Masters, not these clown Masters.

This. Any TMS after 2006 (IW and Miami after 2007) are glorified MMs. Bring back the no byes and 5 set finals.

Nadal won 6 of them in 2005-06, enough to make the top 10 of all times and several more than any active player has. And he won them before he turned 20. Not his fault they changed the rules, but only a nerd would use that fact to deny Rafa would have kept on winning a bunch of them if the final was 5 sets.

Haters fool themselves into thinking their posts show how cool they are, while in fact their incapacity to acknowledge other people's achievements only shows off their pettiness.

l_mac
05-02-2010, 08:51 PM
Because there is no real competition on clay other than maybe Federer and Djokovic, and barely even then. He's too dominate on the surface and there is no one at this point who can compete with his level of tennis :shrug:

Mmm, I think the point is that switching back to best of 5 finals isn't really going to change that.

Surcouf
05-02-2010, 08:52 PM
No, they wouldn't. Seems like you started watching tennis last year.

They made the MS finals in 2 sets after both Nadal and Federer pulled out Hamburg after their epic Roma final.

No matter how you will try to spin it, the MS are really though events to win and a huge and coveted prize. Players of Nadal generations like Djokovic and Murray are far behind in term of MS won.

guga2120
05-02-2010, 08:53 PM
Congrats to the king, on #17.

l_mac
05-02-2010, 08:53 PM
Rafa has no titles to defend until Monte Carlo 2011 :D

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:55 PM
Nadal won 6 of them in 2005-06, enough to make the top 10 of all times and several more than any active player has. And he won them before he turned 20. Not his fault they changed the rules, but only a nerd would use that fact to deny Rafa would have kept on winning a bunch of them if the final was 5 sets.

Haters fool themselves into thinking their posts show how cool they are, while in fact their incapacity to acknowledge other people's achievements only shows off their pettiness.

:worship:

Read this post haters, you got taken to school.

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 08:56 PM
Yeah, they would. They would skip Indian Wells, probably Paris, and possibly Cincinnati, also possibly Madrid. Why would they put themselves though the ringer physically, when many of these events are right before majors? Masters series are not majors, so therefore they shouldn't have the same rules as majors.


:spit:
:haha:

Nothing more to discuss with you. You are clueless. :wavey:

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 08:58 PM
:spit:
:haha:

Nothing more to discuss with you. You are clueless. :wavey:

The players didn't want the old format of Masters Series, so you bet they wouldn't want to show up to the events, and have to wear themselves out physically. Masters series are not majors.

l_mac
05-02-2010, 08:59 PM
Bad news for Andre, 10 of his 17 wins came in 3 set finals. :tears:

Persimmon
05-02-2010, 09:00 PM
Rafa has no titles to defend until Monte Carlo 2011 :D

Yeah, Fed is the one with all the pressure:unsure:

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 09:01 PM
They made the MS finals in 2 sets after both Nadal and Federer pulled out Hamburg after their epic Roma final.

No matter how you will try to spin it, the MS are really though events to win and a huge and coveted prize. Players of Nadal generations like Djokovic and Murray are far behind in term of MS won.


The problem there was that they were played back to back on consecutive weeks.

Problem easily solved by putting a week in between like it is now.

Surcouf
05-02-2010, 09:02 PM
Bad news for Andre, 10 of his 17 wins came in 3 set finals. :tears:

Yes, people forgot that. Nadal record is as impressive as Andre, even more, because his career is not finished.

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 09:04 PM
Bad news for Andre, 10 of his 17 wins came in 3 set finals. :tears:

Still had to play 6 matches instead of 5.

But it's funny you just searched for that stat in order to make that comment. :haha:

ossie
05-02-2010, 09:05 PM
vamos rafa! i dont see any1 stopping him from winning madrid as well. lol at the pathetic haters in this thread

Surcouf
05-02-2010, 09:05 PM
Still had to play 6 matches instead of 5.

But it's funny you just searched for that stat in order to make that comment. :haha:

Do you honestly thinks that Nadal would have less MSs if he played some 100th ranked player in a first round? You are reaching.

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 09:08 PM
Do you honestly thinks that Nadal would have less MSs if he played some 100th ranked player in a first round? You are reaching.

Too bad he couldn't play some 100th ranked player in the 1st round of a Masters (unless he got a qualy player, or a wild card, etc.).

l_mac
05-02-2010, 09:09 PM
Still had to play 6 matches instead of 5.

But it's funny you just searched for that stat in order to make that comment. :haha:

I didn't have to look very hard, before Rafa Andre was my favourite, and I've argued this point before.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 09:11 PM
Still had to play 6 matches instead of 5.

But it's funny you just searched for that stat in order to make that comment. :haha:

And Nadal is still tied with Agassi for 17 MS titles.

rocketassist
05-02-2010, 09:11 PM
Mmm, I think the point is that switching back to best of 5 finals isn't really going to change that.

Not on clay no and of course he'd win them, but it would look a lot more impressive than it does right now.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 09:12 PM
Too bad he couldn't play some 100th ranked player in the 1st round of a Masters (unless he got a qualy player, or a wild card, etc.).

Yes, an early 6-2 6-1 match at the start of masters series is what separates Nadal and Agassi in terms of the value of their tied record.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 09:13 PM
Not on clay no and of course he'd win them, but it would look a lot more impressive than it does right now.

Not necessarily. Quality of matches, value of matches etc. has nothing to do with the amount of sets they go.

Surcouf
05-02-2010, 09:13 PM
Too bad he couldn't play some 100th ranked player in the 1st round of a Masters (unless he got a qualy player, or a wild card, etc.).

You are avoinding my point like the plague. I know why.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 09:15 PM
The problem there was that they were played back to back on consecutive weeks.

Problem easily solved by putting a week in between like it is now.

Madrid is a week before a major, Cincinnati is 2 weeks before a major, Paris is a week before London, and now you have many other events being moved or eliminated in favor of long drawn out matches at events that aren't majors. That would be a negative decision by the ATP.

Veronique
05-02-2010, 09:15 PM
Because there is no real competition on clay other than maybe Federer and Djokovic, and barely even then. He's too dominate on the surface and there is no one at this point who can compete with his level of tennis :shrug:

Thank you! So his winning has nothing to do with the MS new format being easy, but b/c of his dominance on the surface.

andy neyer
05-02-2010, 09:16 PM
Do you honestly thinks that Nadal would have less MSs if he played some 100th ranked player in a first round? You are reaching.

I for one would like to see how Nadal's knees hold playing 6 matches in 7 days.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 09:17 PM
I for one would like to see how Nadal's knees hold playing 6 matches in 7 days.

Yes, because one match playing someone ranked 80 and winning 6-1 6-1 is going to have his tendonitis magically return.

l_mac
05-02-2010, 09:18 PM
I for one would like to see how Nadal's knees hold playing 6 matches in 7 days.

Nice :yeah:

Veronique
05-02-2010, 09:18 PM
Mmm, I think the point is that switching back to best of 5 finals isn't really going to change that.

;)

Surcouf
05-02-2010, 09:19 PM
I for one would like to see how Nadal's knees hold playing 6 matches in 7 days.

That's just ridiculous. Federer fans are pathetic. It's not one match who will change anything. Go away.

Veronique
05-02-2010, 09:25 PM
Bad news for Andre, 10 of his 17 wins came in 3 set finals. :tears:

:haha::haha: He'll always have that extra best 3 out 5 sets MS title to make his record carry more weight than Rafa's. Good stuff!

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 09:25 PM
Madrid is a week before a major, Cincinnati is 2 weeks before a major, Paris is a week before London, and now you have many other events being moved or eliminated in favor of long drawn out matches at events that aren't majors. That would be a negative decision by the ATP.

OMG, you don't get it, do you?

That was the way it was before 2006 and nobody died.

In fact some tournaments outside of Masters also had best of 5 finals at that time.

LinkMage
05-02-2010, 09:29 PM
You are avoinding my point like the plague. I know why.

Your point being? :confused:

I never said the top players would lose that 1st round match, just that it could have some impact for the later rounds.

Do I need to point everything out? My God, this forum is like talking to 5 year olds. You have to explain every single thing. Can you people infer things?

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 09:32 PM
OMG, you don't get it, do you?

That was the way it was before 2006 and nobody died.

In fact some tournaments outside of Masters also had best of 5 finals at that time.

5 set matches should be reserved to majors.

M4RC
05-02-2010, 09:36 PM
Yes, people forgot that. Nadal record is as impressive as Andre, even more, because his career is not finished.

Even more because he is just 23 and has won more at this point than every other of the active players on tour will ever win, except for maybe Federer (I think he can win one more and reach 17, but no more).

Veronique
05-02-2010, 09:36 PM
It's a fact that Nadal at age 23, has tied a legend of the game, with most MS titles, far more than his contemporaries, playing under the same conditions. Deal with it, haters! I keep asking. If the new format is so easy, why is it that only Rafa has been able to take advantage of it to this extent?

Lopez
05-02-2010, 09:39 PM
Outside of Del Potro, none of the 3 have any remote chance to beat Nadal on clay. Nadal is going to keep dominating barring injury, we should enjoy the master at his work, because he's truly something special that should be appreciated on this surface.

This forum was desperately in need of a new Rafaclown, as they always contribute so much :yeah:. These guys always creep out of their holes when Nadal starts winning. And this one has a reason for even a possible defeat lined up already! He's injured or tired if he loses, gotcha :yeah:.

Way back I used to think l_Mac was the biggest rafatard around but she's a hater compared to you guys.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 09:43 PM
This forum was desperately in need of a new Rafaclown, as they always contribute so much :yeah:. These guys always creep out of their holes when Nadal starts winning. And this one has a reason for even a possible defeat lined up already! He's injured or tired if he loses, gotcha :yeah:.

Way back I used to think l_Mac was the biggest rafatard around but she's a hater compared to you guys.

I'm not a Rafaclown, or tard, or whatever stupid MTF lingo haters want to place on me. I'm simply a tennis fan who recognizes and appreciates greatness, and that is what Nadal is on clay. I can't help it if people are so bitter that they cannot actually stop drinking their haterade and wake up.

When is the last time Nadal has lost being 100% on clay? Hamburg '07, and even then he was dead tired in that match. Nadal at 100% is 2 levels above every other player in the field on clay, and he is unbeatable if playing at a decent level. If that weren't true, then someone would actually beat him at 100%, and they haven't.

Lopez
05-02-2010, 09:47 PM
I'm not a Rafaclown, or tard, or whatever stupid MTF lingo haters want to place on me. I'm simply a tennis fan who recognizes and appreciates greatness, and that is what Nadal is on clay. I can't help it if people are so bitter that they cannot actually stop drinking their haterade and wake up.

When is the last time Nadal has lost being 100% on clay? Hamburg '07, and even then he was dead tired in that match. Nadal at 100% is 2 levels above every other player in the field on clay, and he is unbeatable if playing at a decent level. If that weren't true, then someone would actually beat him at 100%, and they haven't.

No one has ever beaten Fed at 100% either :shrug:.

The logic is irrefutable.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 10:08 PM
No one has ever beaten Fed at 100% either :shrug:.

The logic is irrefutable.

Rafa has beaten Roger on clay when he was 100%.

The logic isn't irrefutable at all. When Nadal has been known to carry an injury or clear tiredness, he has occasionally lost. When Nadal is assumed to be healthy, he always wins. It's really simple logic actually.

l_mac
05-02-2010, 10:10 PM
The logic isn't irrefutable at all. When Nadal has been known to carry an injury or clear tiredness, he has occasionally lost. When Nadal is assumed to be healthy, he always wins. It's really simple logic actually.
Federer beat Nadal in Hamburg in 2007 when Rafa was fine physically.

Lopez
05-02-2010, 10:12 PM
Rafa has beaten Roger on clay when he was 100%.

The logic isn't irrefutable at all. When Nadal has been known to carry an injury or clear tiredness, he has occasionally lost. When Nadal is assumed to be healthy, he always wins. It's really simple logic actually.

Nah. Fed has never lost at 100% percent. Sry to burst your bubble :shrug:.

It's true cos' I say so.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 10:13 PM
Federer beat Nadal in Hamburg in 2007 when Rafa was fine physically.

Yes, I said this, it's the last time Nadal has lost being fine physically, although he was very tired, but I don't consider that much of an excuse.

All I'm saying is, a healthy and fresh Nadal is unbeatable on clay. He's either been not fresh or not healthy in every single loss on clay the past few years. He has not lost when he was 100%.

madmax
05-02-2010, 10:15 PM
Rafa has beaten Roger on clay when he was 100%.

The logic isn't irrefutable at all. When Nadal has been known to carry an injury or clear tiredness, he has occasionally lost. When Nadal is assumed to be healthy, he always wins. It's really simple logic actually.

it's very flawed reasoning actually...you can say that ANY great player is unbeatable when they are 100% and firing on all cylinders - the fact of the matter is that very rarely you get 2 great players battling each other with both being 100%. Professional athletes always have nagging injuries and the likes of Nadal are even more prone to those due to the nature of his grueling game style

uNIVERSE mAN
05-02-2010, 10:17 PM
same old shit

Billups85
05-02-2010, 10:17 PM
Nah. Fed has never lost at 100% percent. Sry to burst your bubble :shrug:.

It's true cos' I say so.

Wimbledon 2008? AO 2009?

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 10:17 PM
Nah. Fed has never lost at 100% percent. Sry to burst your bubble :shrug:.

It's true cos' I say so.

Players are assumed healthy unless they are shown to be unhealthy. Federer was not shown to be unhealthy during several of the matches Nadal won, so therefore, he is assumed to be a healthy opponent, which Rafa beat.

You should probably stop trying to look for a way out of your web of illogical posts with content that is petty and negative towards Nadal. Facts are facts. Nadal has not lost being fresh, fit and 100% on clay in years.

Lopez
05-02-2010, 10:21 PM
Players are assumed healthy unless they are shown to be unhealthy. Federer was not shown to be unhealthy during several of the matches Nadal won, so therefore, he is assumed to be a healthy opponent, which Rafa beat.

You should probably stop trying to look for a way out of your web of illogical posts with content that is petty and negative towards Nadal. Facts are facts. Nadal has not lost being fresh, fit and 100% on clay in years.

But we both know that we, the experts, know best when players are 100%. I'm sure that you, as do I, know the REAL situation behind the scenes :worship:.

Fed hasn't been fine in any of his losses, poor thing. If he plays at 100% no one can beat him, as his glory years suggest.

Lopez
05-02-2010, 10:22 PM
Wimbledon 2008? AO 2009?

Oh c'mon :rolleyes:

Sarcasm detector misfiring on all cylinders

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 10:25 PM
it's very flawed reasoning actually...you can say that ANY great player is unbeatable when they are 100% and firing on all cylinders - the fact of the matter is that very rarely you get 2 great players battling each other with both being 100%. Professional athletes always have nagging injuries and the likes of Nadal are even more prone to those due to the nature of his grueling game style

True, most every player generally battles niggling injuries, but niggling injuries are not the same as debilitating knee problems or foot blisters. Professional athletes fight through small pains here and there and do not let that affect them. A player is assumed to be at their best possible physical fitness unless proven or shown not to be. Nadal has shown that when he isn't healthy, he can lose on clay. He has not shown that when he is healthy.

I can't say the same about other players because they have lost when assumed as 100%. Federer at Wimbledon, Roddick at Wimbledon, Djokovic to Nadal on clay on several occasions. Nadal is more prone to injury than other players, but on clay, the surface helps his joints, and allows him to execute his shots more effectively. Making him an unmovable force on clay.

Filo V.
05-02-2010, 10:30 PM
But we both know that we, the experts, know best when players are 100%. I'm sure that you, as do I, know the REAL situation behind the scenes :worship:.

Fed hasn't been fine in any of his losses, poor thing. If he plays at 100% no one can beat him, as his glory years suggest.

On clay, Nadal beat him when Fed was at 100%, and in his glory years.

The real situation is what is shown to be true by the players and their words and actions, the information on their situations, their camps. Unless I forgot, I don't believe Roger ever indicated he was injured during those losses at the French, and I don't believe there was any indication he was from anyone else. So therefore, he is assumed to be healthy, and he lost. Rafa has been KNOWN to be hurt during pretty much all of his losses on clay over the past few seasons. When assumed healthy, he has never lost.

Like I said, simple logic.

Lopez
05-02-2010, 10:36 PM
On clay, Nadal beat him when Fed was at 100%, and in his glory years.

The real situation is what is shown to be true by the players and their words and actions, the information on their situations, their camps. Unless I forgot, I don't believe Roger ever indicated he was injured during those losses at the French, and I don't believe there was any indication he was from anyone else. So therefore, he is assumed to be healthy, and he lost. Rafa has been KNOWN to be hurt during pretty much all of his losses on clay over the past few seasons. When assumed healthy, he has never lost.

Like I said, simple logic.

There are many indications, true fans and insiders know them (as you know) :worship:. As you know, it's obviously difficult to be so in tune with a certain player that you can't possibly know all the inside stuff so I believe you as a Nadal expert, trust me on Fed :yeah:.

ChinoRios4Ever
05-02-2010, 11:05 PM
well done u freaking animal :yeah:

KarlyM
05-03-2010, 12:11 AM
Congrats on #17 Rafa! :worship:

Ferrer did a good job getting to the final this week. ;)

Il Primo Uomo
05-03-2010, 12:14 AM
Tell 'em Rafa! Haters stay mad, loving it. Onto Madrid for the repeat.

Matt01
05-03-2010, 12:20 AM
I for one would like to see how Nadal's knees hold playing 6 matches in 7 days.


Didn't you know that the new format for Masters Events was only established to make it easier for Nadal to win them? :confused:

coonster14
05-03-2010, 01:39 AM
Nadal wins 7-5, 6-3, just a random scoreline guess.

wow, can not believe my original score prediction was so close...
VAMOS RAFA!!! now equals agassi on 17 MS titles!!! :woohoo:

FlameOn
05-03-2010, 01:48 AM
Bit of a boring result really...:shrug:

I'm glad Ferrer lost though. :devil:

GEMtennis
05-03-2010, 01:59 AM
Disappointing match tactically from Ferrer... showed too much respect to Nadal and didn't really try anything different... Rafa is definitely the man to beat.

star
05-03-2010, 02:21 AM
Still had to play 6 matches instead of 5.



No, not always. First the number of matches played had something to do with the draws. The draws in the masters series vary from tournament to tournament. For instance, in order to win in Miami or Indian Wells, even with a bye, a player has to win 6 matches to win the tournament. However, in Cincy, with a bye, only five matches are required.

But since your argument seems to center around no byes, let's take a look at Masters Series tournaments and see whether the norm has been for the top players to have a bye in the opening round.

Indian Wells - Had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,

Canada -- Had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2007

Miami -- had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,

Hamburg -- had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2007 (most likely an incomplete history)

Cincy -- had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2007

Stockholm -- had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,

Monte Carlo -- had a bye in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2007 (most likely an incomplete history)

Paris -- had a bye in 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007

Essen -- had a bye in 1995

Stuttgart -- had a bye in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001

Madrid -- had a bye in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007

Rome had a bye in 2007.

This isn't a complete tally. I looked at the records for Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Edberg, and Kuerten.

It seems to me that if you keep saying something over and over and over, some people will start to believe it. The bye at the Masters Series tournaments has been the norm over the years. There was a brief flirtation with having no byes between 2000 and about 2006. Not all masters tournaments were no bye tournaments even at that time. In short, since 1990, there has been no year when ALL masters series had "no byes." There have been some tournaments who stuck by the no bye system longer than others in the decade of the century, but 2007 was the break point.

Interestingly, Rome had no byes from 1990 to 2007. Also, Miami always had byes from 1990 on.

Now, if we can put the idea to rest that the no-bye policy was the norm prior to 2007 or 6 or whenever, that would be great.

Also please note that Masters Series tournaments also did not have best of five finals before the year 2000 -- or at least it was not the norm. Then in 2000, the ATP thought that would be a groovy idea, but it didn't last long and I don't believe every masters tournament had the five set finals even then. Someone else will have to do that research.

HarryMan
05-03-2010, 02:22 AM
Genius at work. Nadal is simply incredible on clay, hats off to him, and congrats to his fans as well. :)

bad gambler
05-03-2010, 03:40 AM
Well done Rafa

Clay Death
05-03-2010, 03:53 AM
affirmative bad gambler.

clay warrior is far from his best at the moment but he gets it done anyway.

credit to ferru as well for making the finals. what a warrior he is also.

Mimi
05-03-2010, 03:58 AM
:lol::bounce::lol::bounce::bowdown::woohoo::woohoo ::woohoo::yippee::nerner::rolls::music::rocker2::b anana::rocker::crazy::sport::inlove:

Filo V.
05-03-2010, 04:48 AM
There are many indications, true fans and insiders know them (as you know) :worship:. As you know, it's obviously difficult to be so in tune with a certain player that you can't possibly know all the inside stuff so I believe you as a Nadal expert, trust me on Fed :yeah:.

:yawn: Talk to me when you decide to stop being facetious.

Clara Bow
05-03-2010, 05:25 AM
star- you are awesome. I can't add a rep to you because of the rules- but great post. :)

@Sweet Cleopatra
05-03-2010, 05:26 AM
Genius at work. Nadal is simply incredible on clay, hats off to him, and congrats to his fans as well. :)

thanks :hug:

*bunny*
05-03-2010, 06:35 AM
Congrats, Rafa!! :worship::worship::worship:
Must have been a tougher week for him than MC, but I thought he played very well against Hanescu and he did a great job of putting up with a stiff challenge made by Wawrinka in the first set and then by Gulbis, who was really impressive all week.
All the best to Rafa in Madrid if he decides to play.

Good week for Ferru too. Hope he keeps it up! :hug:

Missed the last part after the second rain delay. Must go find a clip to see the trophey ceremony!

stebs
05-03-2010, 01:33 PM
Nadal marches on...

JolánGagó
05-03-2010, 03:56 PM
No, not always. First the number of matches played had something to do with the draws. The draws in the masters series vary from tournament to tournament. For instance, in order to win in Miami or Indian Wells, even with a bye, a player has to win 6 matches to win the tournament. However, in Cincy, with a bye, only five matches are required.

But since your argument seems to center around no byes, let's take a look at Masters Series tournaments and see whether the norm has been for the top players to have a bye in the opening round.

Indian Wells - Had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,

Canada -- Had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2007

Miami -- had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,

Hamburg -- had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2007 (most likely an incomplete history)

Cincy -- had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2007

Stockholm -- had a bye in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,

Monte Carlo -- had a bye in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2007 (most likely an incomplete history)

Paris -- had a bye in 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007

Essen -- had a bye in 1995

Stuttgart -- had a bye in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001

Madrid -- had a bye in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007

Rome had a bye in 2007.

This isn't a complete tally. I looked at the records for Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Edberg, and Kuerten.

It seems to me that if you keep saying something over and over and over, some people will start to believe it. The bye at the Masters Series tournaments has been the norm over the years. There was a brief flirtation with having no byes between 2000 and about 2006. Not all masters tournaments were no bye tournaments even at that time. In short, since 1990, there has been no year when ALL masters series had "no byes." There have been some tournaments who stuck by the no bye system longer than others in the decade of the century, but 2007 was the break point.

Interestingly, Rome had no byes from 1990 to 2007. Also, Miami always had byes from 1990 on.

Now, if we can put the idea to rest that the no-bye policy was the norm prior to 2007 or 6 or whenever, that would be great.

Also please note that Masters Series tournaments also did not have best of five finals before the year 2000 -- or at least it was not the norm. Then in 2000, the ATP thought that would be a groovy idea, but it didn't last long and I don't believe every masters tournament had the five set finals even then. Someone else will have to do that research.

Utter pwnage.

brent-o
05-03-2010, 07:35 PM
A win is a win, and the point is, Nadal has won 17 MS, and according to the record books, there isn't any grade on whether Nadal's have more or less value than Djokovic at Miami or Agassi's record. That's what counts at the end of the day, the win.

Exactly, and besides that, if it was so goddamn easy to win Masters Series, why doesn't every other player on tour have 17?

ToniTennis
05-04-2010, 08:18 AM
Didn't you know that the new format for Masters Events was only established to make it easier for Nadal to win them? :confused:

:devil: Yep, they will change it back along with the surfaces once he retires, it's a well known fact. :worship: Such is the power of uncle Toni.

zeleni
05-04-2010, 10:33 AM
Too good Rafa. Pity about rain because Ferrer was fighting good until first rain delay. Was hoping to see first competitive Rafa match on clay this year.

ToniTennis
05-04-2010, 10:57 AM
Too good Rafa. Pity about rain because Ferrer was fighting good until first rain delay. Was hoping to see first competitive Rafa match on clay this year.

Didn't you see the SFs?

zeleni
05-04-2010, 11:05 AM
Didn't you see the SFs?

No. Couldn't watch. :sad:

Start da Game
05-05-2010, 03:27 PM
http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/sp/reuters/20100502/19/3052784064-02052010194017.jpg

FlameOn
05-06-2010, 01:13 AM
From Rafa to his haters. ;)

http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv137/psp358/gifs/rafaelnadal-fu.gif

christallh24
05-06-2010, 02:25 PM
Skip if you hate long posts. Seriously, this bitch is fucking long! Pretty sure it's the most multi-quote post ever.

Another Nadal's main role in the Spanish reality show " Do you want be my bitch ? " It's really pathetic to see Spanish players playing against Nadal . Anyway all credits to Rafa

Now you know how Rafa fans felt from '04 'til July '08 watching less than a handful of guys folding to his holy GOATity beautiful ballet tennis.

You should hammer yourself firstly.

Typical mugstuff , waiting for someone with faith and good strike like Gulbis.

:confused: :scratch:

Delpony, denko, and roddick need to get back in action. They have created a vacuum..

Kind of like the supermassive black hole of Roger's dominance.

Yeah I agree. This tournament definitely gave some hope to the bashers that they can trouble Rafa on fast clay.

This? This tournament?! What...Rafa's shitty performance and losing for the first time at Roland Garros didn't give them a clue?

Lack of consistent ballbashers is the main reason of Nadal's dominance this season.

Dominance? The guy wins two titles after a year long drought and he's dominating?

No, ball bashers cannot beat Nadal on clay. Fast clay, slow clay, it's all clay, and Nadal has beaten them all, and will continue to do so. The paranoia is ridiculous. He won, he's the best. What more does he need to prove to get people to stop doubting him.

I hate to disagree with fellow Rafa fans, but could you hold off or at least tone down these sort of bald face certainties? All the faith and rah-rah post are great and everything but lets wait until he beats a top eight player and/or reclaim Roland Garros. It's going to be hard enough to stand all the haters when he loses at any remaining clay events.

This. Any TMS after 2006 (IW and Miami after 2007) are glorified MMs. Bring back the no byes and 5 set finals.

Then we should discount everything any players' has won after '06, I suppose?

They can't bring back this formula of MS events, because Rafa wouldn't have won any Masters Series title again.

:spit::haha:...:scratch:. Riiiiight. 'cause all of the four/five sets slam matches hasn't proven his superior physicality.

His body on first place.
Current MS formula doesn't request from Nadal as much as it should. There's nothing masterful in winning 5 matches like in other tournaments.

What the hell does that mean? What should they request of Rafa than any other player?

Of course it does. Playing six matches in a week and a 5 set final was an acid test, especially in these clay court masters, and it's not being anti-Nadal either, in Rome 05 and 06 they were both splendid efforts to come through the 64 draw and win the five set final. Now it's just too fucking easy.

If you're going to go the "It's too easy" route, than nothing NO PLAYER has won means fuck all. You know, I'm finding your posts to be a roundabout admission Rafa is better than Federer. Seriously, anyone that calls Rafa's style of play and efforts easy, well, they're just plain delusional.

Because Nadal is the best on clay by far at the moment.

I don't think it's easy to win a MS now but it's definitely easier (in terms of efforts recquired) than in 2006.

Ultimately, Nadal's 17 MS might go down in history in a similar fashion to Agassi's but in reality they are totally different things.

Reasonable and gracious. Even if it is easier win a MS now than '06, Rafa is hardly the only player to benefit.

vamos rafa! i dont see any1 stopping him from winning madrid as well. lol at the pathetic haters in this thread

Nope. I don't see that happening. I wish he could skip the fucking thing all together.

Not on clay no and of course he'd win them, but it would look a lot more impressive than it does right now.

It would also look more impressive had Fed beaten Rafa instead of his regular gaping assholes too attain his GOATiness.

Thank you! So his winning has nothing to do with the MS new format being easy, but b/c of his dominance on the surface.

:nod: I like to know when did it became alright to hold someone's better surface game against them? And what makes a better hc player any better than a cc player? If that were really true, last year meant nothing.

I for one would like to see how Nadal's knees hold playing 6 matches in 7 days.

Did you happen to miss the last five years of tennis?

These guys always creep out of their holes when Nadal starts winning.

So..:shrug: sue us. Fedtards seems to enjoy gloating over his wins.

And this one has a reason for even a possible defeat lined up already! He's injured or tired if he loses, gotcha :yeah:.

No excuses here. As cliche as it is, sometimes you just get beat. I mean, how many honestly saw Fed losing to Gulbis?

IWhen is the last time Nadal has lost being 100% on clay? Hamburg '07, and even then he was dead tired in that match. Nadal at 100% is 2 levels above every other player in the field on clay, and he is unbeatable if playing at a decent level. If that weren't true, then someone would actually beat him at 100%, and they haven't.

No, no, no, no...:sigh: okay, yes, the loss that hurt the most did
external influences as much as the haters loathe to admit, but Rafa has lost when perfectly fine.

Genius at work. Nadal is simply incredible on clay, hats off to him, and congrats to his fans as well. :)

Thank you for that. There's nothing wrong for being happy for our fave.:dance:

affirmative bad gambler.

clay warrior is far from his best at the moment but he gets it done anyway.

credit to ferru as well for making the finals. what a warrior he is also.

:wavey:, CD. I agree with Rafa still isn't the Nadal of old, but he's playing a hella of alot better than around this time last year. Still :unsure: over his chances, though.