Rafael Nadal is first one who is 3 times runner-up in a row in GS finals!!! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Rafael Nadal is first one who is 3 times runner-up in a row in GS finals!!!

petar_pan
01-30-2012, 01:19 PM
Yes, he is first one.

Belludal
01-30-2012, 01:21 PM
Nadal will get the Rafa Slam in Roland Garros when he lose to Djokovic again. :haha:

rickcastle
01-30-2012, 01:24 PM
This is why stats like H2H and lost finals should be irrelevant for GOAT debate. Should Nadal have dropped in the QF against Berdych or SF against Federer to avoid possible finals with Djokovic and avoid getting beaten 3 finals in a row? Surely, a finals result is still better than losing in the QF or SF but now he has this ugly record and Djokovic is closer than ever to reversing their H2H. In the end, all that should matter are the titles really.

bokehlicious
01-30-2012, 01:28 PM
This is why stats like H2H and lost finals should be irrelevant for GOAT debate. Should Nadal have dropped in the QF against Berdych or SF against Federer to avoid possible finals with Djokovic and avoid getting beaten 3 finals in a row? Surely, a finals result is still better than losing in the QF or SF but now he has this ugly record and Djokovic is closer than ever to reversing their H2H. In the end, all that should matter are the results really.

Tell that to the rafatards who keep pointing out those RG finals Fed lost to Rafa. Surely, if Fed was sent packing by a random in R2 his legacy would be shinier. :o

rickcastle
01-30-2012, 01:32 PM
Tell that to the rafatards who keep pointing out those RG finals Fed lost to Rafa. Surely, if Fed was sent packing by a random in R2 his legacy would be shinier. :o

That was my point exactly... :lol: Federer fan here. Now Nadal tards are victim to the same H2H ploy they've kept harping on. I hope they've realized something by now.

BroTree123
01-30-2012, 01:46 PM
Tell that to the rafatards who keep pointing out those RG finals Fed lost to Rafa. Surely, if Fed was sent packing by a random in R2 his legacy would be shinier. :o

Not that I hate Fed, but it would make the sport more interesting :)

Naudio Spanlatine
01-30-2012, 03:27 PM
Vamos Rafa:angel:

Looner
01-30-2012, 03:27 PM
Good for the game.

hiperborejac
01-30-2012, 04:26 PM
We could get 2 records in RG - Nole slam and Rafa runner-up slam :o

Allez
01-30-2012, 06:19 PM
Tell that to the rafatards who keep pointing out those RG finals Fed lost to Rafa. Surely, if Fed was sent packing by a random in R2 his legacy would be shinier. :o

Plus Wimbledon 2008 AND the Australian Open 2009.

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 06:23 PM
I want to see Djokovic beat Nadal in Monte Carlo F, that is known as Nadal's confidence booster when preparing for his domination of the rest of the clay season.

peribsen
01-30-2012, 06:36 PM
Placing him miles ahead of all the other players but the winner of the 3 slams.

Another achievement yet for Rafael. Of the last 8 slams, he has played 7 finals. That's consistency for you. And he's won 3 of them.

Problem was Rafa hadn't lost a slam final since 2007, leading many of his fans into thinking that his reaching a final was almost synonymous with winning it. He would fail to reach the final in some slams, but if he made it to the last Sunday, it was almost in the bag. Before WB 2011, he won 10 out of 12 finals, an almost outrageously good result. Now his record is 10 out of 15, which is still exceedingly good (99% percent of pro players never get to play a slam final, let alone win one).

People trying to portray a RU into a failure are ridiculous. What would one have to say then of those who fell in the SF, QF, etc? That attitude can only be driven by sheer envy.

MatchFederer
01-30-2012, 06:41 PM
Excellent consistency from Nadal, he's reached the last 4 finals winning 1. This is way better than Roger Federer or Andy Murray and there is just one man ahead of him at the moment. Being the finalist the last 3 times is nothing to scoff at, in fact, it adds to Nadal's legacy.

peribsen
01-30-2012, 06:43 PM
Tell that to the rafatards who keep pointing out those RG finals Fed lost to Rafa. Surely, if Fed was sent packing by a random in R2 his legacy would be shinier. :o

You misrepresent the feelings of many Rafa fans, who never said the above in derision of Fed, but as an honour for Rafa, since beating prime Fed (2005-06-07) in slam finals was obviously far more prestigious than beating another player. Likewise, Nole fans can legitimately argue that Djoko's last 3 slams are more prestigious because he won them against Nadal, instead of against smaller players like Tsonga (AO 08) and Murray (AO 11).

Anybody trying to argue that those results are a dishonour for Fed or Nadal is, I agree, a tard.

peribsen
01-30-2012, 06:46 PM
Excellent consistency from Nadal, he's reached the last 4 finals winning 1. This is way better than Roger Federer or Andy Murray and there is just one man ahead of him at the moment. Being the finalist the last 3 times is nothing to scoff at, in fact, it adds to Nadal's legacy.

Exactly. And Fed's superhuman 16 slams are enhanced by his total number of slam finals, in no way diminished.

zcess81
01-30-2012, 06:59 PM
Better to be in a position to win a grand slam than not. Nadal already has 10 grand slams, so it's not bad for him. It's not like he's chasing his first slam and he lost 3 in a row.

manadrainer
01-30-2012, 08:32 PM
With yesterday loss, now Fed has a better percentage of Slam finals won than Nadal.

samanosuke
01-30-2012, 08:50 PM
I opened exactly the same thread yesterday but it was closed after few posts . good moderating

Noleta
01-30-2012, 08:55 PM
Better to be in a position to win a grand slam than not. Nadal already has 10 grand slams, so it's not bad for him. It's not like he's chasing his first slam and he lost 3 in a row.

+1.:)

samanosuke
01-30-2012, 09:02 PM
Better to be in a position to win a grand slam than not. Nadal already has 10 grand slams, so it's not bad for him. It's not like he's chasing his first slam and he lost 3 in a row.

that's how nadal fans are talking now . few years back one of their biggest fighting argument with Fed tards was that Nadal doesn't lose big or epic matches. And one of biggest trashing Fed argument was some big and close matches which Fed lost. Currently, they are building Nadal's legacy on ex Fed trashing reasons . What an irony

Fedfanforever
01-30-2012, 09:05 PM
With yesterday loss, now Fed has a better percentage of Slam finals won than Nadal.
Wow...wasn't percent of slam finals won one of the arguments for the Nadal GOAT debate?
Roger :worship::worship::worship:

teacherling
01-30-2012, 09:29 PM
With yesterday loss, now Fed has a better percentage of Slam finals won than Nadal.

Well said, but kind of irrelevant. I am an "elderly" guy who's been watching (and playing) tennis for quite a while. I don't play any more but I tend to see things and rivalries in a different light. To put all this is simpler terms: Roger Federer is mistakenly taken to be the greatest of all time due to reasons that are obvious --- he exploited the time when Agassi and Sampras were leaving the big scene and when there were only the fledgling teenager Rafael Nadal and the yet-to-come teenager Novak Djokovic just around the corner. During that time, roughly between 2006-2010, just before Nadal started his reign, Federer garnered most, almost all, of his slams. Nadal took over at that time winning his slams with Federer, still a brilliant player who was not yet on the wane, and the slowly emerging Djokovic, plus the one-timer, Del Potro. Now it's Djokovic taking slams, with Nadal peaking in strength and tennis maturity, and the great Stottish tactician, Andy Murray, and the great French athlete, Tsonga, and a handful of other very strong players. In my eyes it is obvious that the bulk of Federer's slams was earned on account of rather weak opposition. Please prove me wrong. I do not for a moment deny Federer's brilliancy as a player, what I question is the CONTEXT in which players earn their majors.

For all this said above, I think that Nadal is a stronger player than Federer, and that Djokovic might prove to be even stronger. I may be wrong but I would like some sort of explication, not only mindless name-calling. And, no, I do not like Djokovic all that much (as a player he's not on par with, say, Nalbandian or even Davydenko, but he is a much stronger character and a greater "warrior" who's even out-classed Rafael Nadal in that department).

Cheers.

manadrainer
01-30-2012, 10:23 PM
that's how nadal fans are talking now . few years back one of their biggest fighting argument with Fed tards was that Nadal doesn't lose big or epic matches. And one of biggest trashing Fed argument was some big and close matches which Fed lost. Currently, they are building Nadal's legacy on ex Fed trashing reasons . What an irony

Exactly. How quickly can things change...

manadrainer
01-30-2012, 10:27 PM
Well said, but kind of irrelevant. I am an "elderly" guy who's been watching (and playing) tennis for quite a while. I don't play any more but I tend to see things and rivalries in a different light. To put all this is simpler terms: Roger Federer is mistakenly taken to be the greatest of all time due to reasons that are obvious --- he exploited the time when Agassi and Sampras were leaving the big scene and when there were only the fledgling teenager Rafael Nadal and the yet-to-come teenager Novak Djokovic just around the corner. During that time, roughly between 2006-2010, just before Nadal started his reign, Federer garnered most, almost all, of his slams. Nadal took over at that time winning his slams with Federer, still a brilliant player who was not yet on the wane, and the slowly emerging Djokovic, plus the one-timer, Del Potro. Now it's Djokovic taking slams, with Nadal peaking in strength and tennis maturity, and the great Stottish tactician, Andy Murray, and the great French athlete, Tsonga, and a handful of other very strong players. In my eyes it is obvious that the bulk of Federer's slams was earned on account of rather weak opposition. Please prove me wrong. I do not for a moment deny Federer's brilliancy as a player, what I question is the CONTEXT in which players earn their majors.

For all this said above, I think that Nadal is a stronger player than Federer, and that Djokovic might prove to be even stronger. I may be wrong but I would like some sort of explication, not only mindless name-calling. And, no, I do not like Djokovic all that much (as a player he's not on par with, say, Nalbandian or even Davydenko, but he is a much stronger character and a greater "warrior" who's even out-classed Rafael Nadal in that department).

Cheers.

In today's context, at the age of 30, in steady decline since 2008, Federer still remains probably the major threat at slams for the current world number 1 A.K.A. Nole Djokovic. In the last 5 slams, who's been the only guy to see (and convert at RG) match points against Novak? Just imagine what he'd be able to do in his peak years (2004-2007).

samanosuke
01-30-2012, 10:29 PM
Well said, but kind of irrelevant. I am an "elderly" guy who's been watching (and playing) tennis for quite a while. I don't play any more but I tend to see things and rivalries in a different light. To put all this is simpler terms: Roger Federer is mistakenly taken to be the greatest of all time due to reasons that are obvious --- he exploited the time when Agassi and Sampras were leaving the big scene and when there were only the fledgling teenager Rafael Nadal and the yet-to-come teenager Novak Djokovic just around the corner. During that time, roughly between 2006-2010, just before Nadal started his reign, Federer garnered most, almost all, of his slams. Nadal took over at that time winning his slams with Federer, still a brilliant player who was not yet on the wane, and the slowly emerging Djokovic, plus the one-timer, Del Potro. Now it's Djokovic taking slams, with Nadal peaking in strength and tennis maturity, and the great Stottish tactician, Andy Murray, and the great French athlete, Tsonga, and a handful of other very strong players. In my eyes it is obvious that the bulk of Federer's slams was earned on account of rather weak opposition. Please prove me wrong. I do not for a moment deny Federer's brilliancy as a player, what I question is the CONTEXT in which players earn their majors.

For all this said above, I think that Nadal is a stronger player than Federer, and that Djokovic might prove to be even stronger. I may be wrong but I would like some sort of explication, not only mindless name-calling. And, no, I do not like Djokovic all that much (as a player he's not on par with, say, Nalbandian or even Davydenko, but he is a much stronger character and a greater "warrior" who's even out-classed Rafael Nadal in that department).

Cheers.

So your conclusion is that Djokovic is the strongest player between big trio and you are basing this conclusion on the context of players he beats. And in that CONTEXT his biggest threat is that same but way from his peak Swiss " overachiever" who earned his slams by beating mugs ?

stewietennis
01-30-2012, 10:42 PM
Being runner up at three slams in a row would probably be a career for some players – in other words, a lot of players would trade their career for that.

paseo
01-30-2012, 11:17 PM
You misrepresent the feelings of many Rafa fans, who never said the above in derision of Fed, but as an honour for Rafa, since beating prime Fed (2005-06-07) in slam finals was obviously far more prestigious than beating another player. Likewise, Nole fans can legitimately argue that Djoko's last 3 slams are more prestigious because he won them against Nadal, instead of against smaller players like Tsonga (AO 08) and Murray (AO 11).

Anybody trying to argue that those results are a dishonour for Fed or Nadal is, I agree, a tard.

A slam is a slam. The title doesn't become more/less prestigious because of the finalist.

For example, If Monfils wins RG12 beating Lorenzi(QF), Volandri(SF), and Ginepri(F), the title will still worth as much as Del Potro's USO09.

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 12:05 AM
During that time, roughly between 2006-2010, just before Nadal started his reign, Federer garnered most, almost all, of his slams. Nadal took over at that time winning his slams with Federer, still a brilliant player who was not yet on the wane, and the slowly emerging Djokovic, plus the one-timer, Del Potro.

This is incorrect. The 2006-10 period you choose is arbitrary. Nadal finally took over the No. 1 spot in 2008, having reached No. 2 in 2005. Federer was clearly on the wane by 2008, as is obvious from his results against the rest of the field, including Nadal.

Jimnik
01-31-2012, 12:53 AM
He deserves a medal. Maybe a silvery one.

Sunset of Age
01-31-2012, 01:58 AM
This is incorrect. The 2006-10 period you choose is arbitrary. Nadal finally took over the No. 1 spot in 2008, having reached No. 2 in 2005. Federer was clearly on the wane by 2008, as is obvious from his results against the rest of the field, including Nadal.

This is correct. Truth is that Federer has been in decline ever since 2008, despite picking up some GS titles in the period that followed thereafter.
Nadal's best year was 2008, and sorry to split it to the tards, but despite a fantastic showing at the USO 2010, he's been on the downslide ever since as well. I refuse to judge on mere results, I judge on what I'm seeing these guys demonstrate in the sense of pure quality of tennis at any tennis tournament I watch. :shrug:

That said, it's even more remarkable that both of these giants still manage to rack up great results in GS tournaments. Reaching semifinals, QFs, let's not even talk about reaching FINALS, is nothing to piss on when having such a huge mileage as both of them have. Rather the contrary: it's a genuine sign of their true greatness. :worship:

Any player who still manages to consistantly rack up results like theirs is still in the running to grab a major title. They may well need a bit of luck to get there though - but luck is anyone's guess. Ask Sampras, ask Agassi for this matter. :D

teacherling
01-31-2012, 02:16 AM
This is incorrect. The 2006-10 period you choose is arbitrary. Nadal finally took over the No. 1 spot in 2008, having reached No. 2 in 2005. Federer was clearly on the wane by 2008, as is obvious from his results against the rest of the field, including Nadal.

You are quite right: I was speaking from my definitely fallible memory. My general idea is still the same, despite cries that the Swiss "overachiever" (whom I called a brilliant player) is still dangerous to world no.1. Yes, he just may have won a lot of slams (the "may" emphasized) but probably wouldn't have had there been Nadal and Djokovic, or players of that caliber. That's why I believe that Nadal is a stronger (better) player and that Djokovic may even be better than Nadal. Of course, I am aware that this is only a speculation.

Roadmap
01-31-2012, 02:22 AM
To win ten slams while having no talent is quite the achievement. There will never be another Nadull.

Naudio Spanlatine
01-31-2012, 02:29 AM
To win ten slams while having no talent is quite the achievement. There will never be another Nadull.

Long time no see, ROADMAP, you jus love to talk some sense when it comes to rafa dont you:rolleyes:

Roadmap
01-31-2012, 02:40 AM
Long time no see, ROADMAP, you jus love to talk some sense when it comes to rafa dont you:rolleyes:

I am anti Nadull but realistic. I fully expect a seventh French Open title for him come soon. My main gripe is the fraud he is allowed to commit outside of clay. Not too clever and disgraceful for the people who should know better.

TennisGrandSlam
01-31-2012, 08:11 AM
If Nadal lose to Djo in both Roland Garros and Olympics finals, Rafa will be Career Golden Slam + Career Silver Slam runners-up

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 11:03 AM
You are quite right: I was speaking from my definitely fallible memory. My general idea is still the same, despite cries that the Swiss "overachiever" (whom I called a brilliant player) is still dangerous to world no.1. Yes, he just may have won a lot of slams (the "may" emphasized) but probably wouldn't have had there been Nadal and Djokovic, or players of that caliber. That's why I believe that Nadal is a stronger (better) player and that Djokovic may even be better than Nadal. Of course, I am aware that this is only a speculation.

What are you basing this on? For a start, Nadal & Djokovic were there - Nadal reached Top 3 in 2005, Djoker in 2007, & Fed was beating them more often than not (except Nadal on clay), when they were good enough to get to him. You're just assuming Nadal & Djoker are better than Fed & restating it in different, semi-coherent ways. Well sorry bud, the record says Fed is far superior to both, & however badly a declining Fed did against Nadal, he NEVER lost 7 finals in a freaking row.

betowiec
01-31-2012, 02:26 PM
major props to Rrrrrafa, hope he will go for #4

teacherling
01-31-2012, 03:34 PM
What are you basing this on? For a start, Nadal & Djokovic were there - Nadal reached Top 3 in 2005, Djoker in 2007, & Fed was beating them more often than not (except Nadal on clay), when they were good enough to get to him. You're just assuming Nadal & Djoker are better than Fed & restating it in different, semi-coherent ways. Well sorry bud, the record says Fed is far superior to both, & however badly a declining Fed did against Nadal, he NEVER lost 7 finals in a freaking row.

OK, point taken. First I got my peaking periods wrong, second I misplaced Nadal's and Djoko's raising to top spots, which makes my half-baked speculation all wrong. As I said I wasn't quite sure about the chronology, now I finally looked up the facts about their best performances. You are right, I was wrong :) It was probably due to my personal discomfort with Federer, brillant as he is as a player, but not very likeable, at least to me. The follies of personal bias :sad:

rickcastle
01-31-2012, 03:42 PM
OK, point taken. First I got my peaking periods wrong, second I misplaced Nadal's and Djoko's raising to top spots, which makes my half-baked speculation all wrong. As I said I wasn't quite sure about the chronology, now I finally looked up the facts about their best performances. You are right, I was wrong :) It was probably due to my personal discomfort with Federer, brillant as he is as a player, but not very likeable, at least to me. The follies of personal bias :sad:

So you don't like Federer so you just decided to make up some "facts" to discount him as a player? :lol: Well, at least you admit your stupidity.

Clay Death
01-31-2012, 03:47 PM
Excellent consistency from Nadal, he's reached the last 4 finals winning 1. This is way better than Roger Federer or Andy Murray and there is just one man ahead of him at the moment. Being the finalist the last 3 times is nothing to scoff at, in fact, it adds to Nadal's legacy.

history will judge accurately only at the end of their careers.

these are just normal cycles of the sport.

we will only know down the road who fared best. right now fed is sitting on his 16 slams and clay warrior has his 10.

quite obviously both nadal and nole are going to add to their slam totals over the next 4 years.

fed may snag one as well.

nadal only needs a couple of slam finals wins over nole to start repairing the head to head record in slams.

head to head records in smaller events mean nothing to those who are all time greats like fed, nadal, and nole. these guys measure greatness by the slams they win.

speedballs
01-31-2012, 04:44 PM
Well said, but kind of irrelevant. I am an "elderly" guy who's been watching (and playing) tennis for quite a while. I don't play any more but I tend to see things and rivalries in a different light. To put all this is simpler terms: Roger Federer is mistakenly taken to be the greatest of all time due to reasons that are obvious --- he exploited the time when Agassi and Sampras were leaving the big scene and when there were only the fledgling teenager Rafael Nadal and the yet-to-come teenager Novak Djokovic just around the corner. During that time, roughly between 2006-2010, just before Nadal started his reign, Federer garnered most, almost all, of his slams. Nadal took over at that time winning his slams with Federer, still a brilliant player who was not yet on the wane, and the slowly emerging Djokovic, plus the one-timer, Del Potro. Now it's Djokovic taking slams, with Nadal peaking in strength and tennis maturity, and the great Stottish tactician, Andy Murray, and the great French athlete, Tsonga, and a handful of other very strong players. In my eyes it is obvious that the bulk of Federer's slams was earned on account of rather weak opposition. Please prove me wrong. I do not for a moment deny Federer's brilliancy as a player, what I question is the CONTEXT in which players earn their majors.

For all this said above, I think that Nadal is a stronger player than Federer, and that Djokovic might prove to be even stronger. I may be wrong but I would like some sort of explication, not only mindless name-calling. And, no, I do not like Djokovic all that much (as a player he's not on par with, say, Nalbandian or even Davydenko, but he is a much stronger character and a greater "warrior" who's even out-classed Rafael Nadal in that department).

Cheers.

so federer dominated in a weak era, beating the likes of nalbandian and davydenko, yet you say the current world number 1 djokovic is not 'on a par' with players such as nalbandian and davydenko?

Mystique
01-31-2012, 04:46 PM
so federer dominated in a weak era, beating the likes of nalbandian and davydenko, yet you say the current world number 1 djokovic is not 'on a par' with players such as nalbandian and davydenko?

Its MTF. You looking for logic pal?

teacherling
01-31-2012, 05:02 PM
So you don't like Federer so you just decided to make up some "facts" to discount him as a player? :lol: Well, at least you admit your stupidity.

I am not going to call you stupid for your misunderstanding of what I wrote. If you just cared to re-read what I wrote you'd see that I never made up some facts but used only my evidently hazy memory and said so at least twice. But it calling someone stupid makes you happy, so be it.

I guess I should finally realize what kind of forum actually this is. Thanks for helping.

teacherling
01-31-2012, 05:05 PM
so federer dominated in a weak era, beating the likes of nalbandian and davydenko, yet you say the current world number 1 djokovic is not 'on a par' with players such as nalbandian and davydenko?

I think that both Nalbandian and Davydenko play more attractive tennis than Djokovic, and that's why I like them more. However they were not as competitive as Djokovic, even in their prime. Tennis is becoming more and more physical, isn't it.

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 05:24 PM
OK, point taken. First I got my peaking periods wrong, second I misplaced Nadal's and Djoko's raising to top spots, which makes my half-baked speculation all wrong. As I said I wasn't quite sure about the chronology, now I finally looked up the facts about their best performances. You are right, I was wrong :) It was probably due to my personal discomfort with Federer, brillant as he is as a player, but not very likeable, at least to me. The follies of personal bias :sad:

Your honesty does you credit.

Roger the Dodger
01-31-2012, 05:32 PM
I opened exactly the same thread yesterday but it was closed after few posts . good moderating

Because you opened it, perhaps?

Roger the Dodger
01-31-2012, 05:34 PM
Scary thought: Had it not been for Novak's intervention, Nadal might have had 13 slams by now!

Mystique
01-31-2012, 06:14 PM
Scary thought: Had it not been for Novak's intervention, Nadal might have had 13 slams by now!

Had it not been for Nadal's intervention, Federer would have had 22 Grand Slams (AT LEAST) now.

:shrug: just the way sport works. Could have, can have - doesnt matter. Tis what it is.

tektonac
01-31-2012, 06:24 PM
I am not going to call you stupid for your misunderstanding of what I wrote. If you just cared to re-read what I wrote you'd see that I never made up some facts but used only my evidently hazy memory and said so at least twice. But it calling someone stupid makes you happy, so be it.

I guess I should finally realize what kind of forum actually this is. Thanks for helping.

:lol: touche.

Roger the Dodger
01-31-2012, 06:29 PM
Had it not been for Nadal's intervention, Federer would have had 22 Grand Slams (AT LEAST) now.

:shrug: just the way sport works. Could have, can have - doesnt matter. Tis what it is.

yes, but Roger winning 22 isn't scary. Nadal creeping closer to Roger's 16 is.

Think of what it would be like if Nadal moonballed his way to 17 slams, had not Djokovic grown stronger? Generations of tennis players would be fed on the thought that moonballing is the way to win grandslams. In fact, what you do the first time when you hold a tennis racket - which is put the ball on court - can get you slams. Talent, technique count for nothing. Only fistpumping and moonballing will get you 17. Scary!

Nole Rules
01-31-2012, 06:36 PM
yes, but Roger winning 22 isn't scary. Nadal creeping closer to Roger's 16 is.

Think of what it would be like if Nadal moonballed his way to 17 slams, had not Djokovic grown stronger? Generations of tennis players would be fed on the thought that moonballing is the way to win grandslams. In fact, what you do the first time when you hold a tennis racket - which is put the ball on court - can get you slams. Talent, technique count for nothing. Only fistpumping and moonballing will get you 17. Scary!

In short, Nole saved tennis, no? :p

blackwell
01-31-2012, 06:45 PM
Nadull can get the Rafa Silver Plate at RG

rickcastle
02-01-2012, 06:13 AM
I am not going to call you stupid for your misunderstanding of what I wrote. If you just cared to re-read what I wrote you'd see that I never made up some facts but used only my evidently hazy memory and said so at least twice. But it calling someone stupid makes you happy, so be it.

I guess I should finally realize what kind of forum actually this is. Thanks for helping.

You're on the internet pal, you can bother looking up what you remember to verify them as facts before posting them. Posting nonsense gibberish based on your hazy memory and personal bias (which you admitted) does make you stupid. I misunderstood nothing, you posted wrong stuff and you admitted it and now you're claiming it to be a fail of reading comprehension on my part. Next time, look your shit up.

Mystique
02-01-2012, 06:29 AM
In short, Nole saved tennis, no? :p

:lol:Nope. He is doing some amazing stuff for his career but he is in no way saving tennis. Not that he even has a chance today. Tennis cannot be saved today if ATP and ITF continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that their slowing down of surfaces had adversely affected both this sport and the players.

Naudio Spanlatine
02-01-2012, 06:30 AM
:lol:Nope. He is doing some amazing stuff for his career but he is in no way saving tennis. Not that he even has a chance today. Tennis cannot be saved today if ATP and ITF continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that their slowing down of surfaces had adversely affected both this sport and the players.

:worship:

ballbasher101
02-01-2012, 06:38 AM
Worrying times for Don Toni and Nadal. He lost to a man who was far from his best and had played for 5 hours in his previous match. The scoreline flattered Nadal. Djokovic's poor break-point conversion gave Nadal a sniff of a chance which he blew spectacularly. 3 in a row :eek:. Never thought a player of Nadal's class would get owned like this.

Flying Fox
02-01-2012, 08:30 AM
He wasn't owned at all in that match, it could have gone either way. And reaching 4 slam finals in a row is an achievement, not something to be ashamed of.

zcess81
02-01-2012, 08:30 AM
I know this has been said many times, but it's worth repeating: if not for Nole, Nadal would be on 13 slams by now! Man, Federer must be having wet dreams about Nole these days.

tests
02-01-2012, 09:09 AM
I know this has been said many times, but it's worth repeating: if not for Nole, Nadal would be on 13 slams by now! Man, Federer must be having wet dreams about Nole these days.


who would have thought a player who runs every fucking ball down would have had 13 slams in such a short period of time. Essentially, anti-tennis could have been the GOAT in tennis? scary thought

Mimi
02-01-2012, 09:40 AM
horrible horrible, just horrible, he is on his way to get his 4th and 5th too, just horrible, poor rafa :banghead:

MatchFederer
02-01-2012, 09:45 AM
horrible horrible, just horrible, he is on his way to get his 4th and 5th too, just horrible, poor rafa :banghead:

Speaking a bit too soon aren't you? But yes there is a possibility for that to happen, which would hand Nole 5 Slams on the trot, an achievement that I would hold in higher regard than a CYGS. rafa's strategically brain numbing boring retrieving game though works best on the red clay of Roland Garros so I'd hold out some hope yet, if I were you.

asmazif
02-01-2012, 10:51 AM
With slams played instead of successive slams, Connors has achieved this twice :lol:

atennisfan
02-01-2012, 03:30 PM
This is correct. Truth is that Federer has been in decline ever since 2008, despite picking up some GS titles in the period that followed thereafter.
Nadal's best year was 2008, and sorry to split it to the tards, but despite a fantastic showing at the USO 2010, he's been on the downslide ever since as well. I refuse to judge on mere results, I judge on what I'm seeing these guys demonstrate in the sense of pure quality of tennis at any tennis tournament I watch. :shrug:

That said, it's even more remarkable that both of these giants still manage to rack up great results in GS tournaments. Reaching semifinals, QFs, let's not even talk about reaching FINALS, is nothing to piss on when having such a huge mileage as both of them have. Rather the contrary: it's a genuine sign of their true greatness. :worship:

Any player who still manages to consistantly rack up results like theirs is still in the running to grab a major title. They may well need a bit of luck to get there though - but luck is anyone's guess. Ask Sampras, ask Agassi for this matter. :D

You are a true FEDAL fan.

very very rare indeed.
:worship:

Shirogane
02-01-2012, 03:53 PM
This is correct. Truth is that Federer has been in decline ever since 2008, despite picking up some GS titles in the period that followed thereafter.
Nadal's best year was 2008, and sorry to split it to the tards, but despite a fantastic showing at the USO 2010, he's been on the downslide ever since as well. I refuse to judge on mere results, I judge on what I'm seeing these guys demonstrate in the sense of pure quality of tennis at any tennis tournament I watch. :shrug:

That said, it's even more remarkable that both of these giants still manage to rack up great results in GS tournaments. Reaching semifinals, QFs, let's not even talk about reaching FINALS, is nothing to piss on when having such a huge mileage as both of them have. Rather the contrary: it's a genuine sign of their true greatness. :worship:
And if he is good enough, the same will most likely happen to Nole with the next dominant player.

luie
02-01-2012, 04:01 PM
I see many moonballer yards awaiting a reversal
Of fortune vs Novak, it's just a short term
Phenomenon , get real since Madrid 2009
Nadulls h2h with Novak is 10-2 . It took and
Easy draw & Nadulls best serving to win the
USO 2010 plus a tired Novak.
This so called rivalry is headed in on direction
Big time .
Even when nadull was beating Novak is was because
Of superior stamina not his game.
That factor has been removed so it's go into
Get really ugly.
He will be destroyed on clay with Novak eating
His WTA serve for breakfast.

Nole Rules
02-01-2012, 04:16 PM
I see many moonballer yards awaiting a reversal
Of fortune vs Novak, it's just a short term
Phenomenon , get real since Madrid 2009
Nadulls h2h with Novak is 10-2 . It took and
Easy draw & Nadulls best serving to win the
USO 2010 plus a tired Novak.
This so called rivalry is headed in on direction
Big time .
Even when nadull was beating Novak is was because
Of superior stamina not his game.
That factor has been removed so it's go into
Get really ugly.
He will be destroyed on clay with Novak eating
His WTA serve for breakfast.

Indeed.:lol:

peribsen
02-01-2012, 07:22 PM
I am anti Nadull but realistic. I fully expect a seventh French Open title for him come soon. My main gripe is the fraud he is allowed to commit outside of clay. Not too clever and disgraceful for the people who should know better.

Care to expand on just how come Rafa is a fraud on grass? I'd say WB 2007 and 08 prove he is nothing of the sort, no need to mention the way he swope the floor with Murray in 2010 & 11.

Mountaindewslave
02-01-2012, 07:56 PM
that's how nadal fans are talking now . few years back one of their biggest fighting argument with Fed tards was that Nadal doesn't lose big or epic matches. And one of biggest trashing Fed argument was some big and close matches which Fed lost. Currently, they are building Nadal's legacy on ex Fed trashing reasons . What an irony

i usually don't agree with samanosuke but in this case he is completely right. how can you say its a plus and only 'helps Nadal's resume' to get to the finals of Grand Slams 3 times in a row but lose, when a few years ago everyone argued that Nadal was so great partially because of how clutch he was in important moments and Grand SLam finals???

this certainly is somewhat detrimental to Nadal, losing these big matches, his legacy. there are pros of course, a final is a great accomplishment at this level BUT you can't seriously say now that Federer is tarnished by losing in some finals/big moments and that it actually helps Nadal to do the same? it's absurd

Fedfanforever
02-02-2012, 01:00 AM
i usually don't agree with samanosuke but in this case he is completely right. how can you say its a plus and only 'helps Nadal's resume' to get to the finals of Grand Slams 3 times in a row but lose, when a few years ago everyone argued that Nadal was so great partially because of how clutch he was in important moments and Grand SLam finals???

:worship::worship:

stewietennis
02-02-2012, 01:20 AM
which would hand Nole 5 Slams on the trot, an achievement that I would hold in higher regard than a CYGS

I know it's your personal opinion but why would you hold it in higher regard than a CYGS when there was an offseason in the middle of that run?