Is Fed actually helping Nadal toward 16 slams by staying around? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Fed actually helping Nadal toward 16 slams by staying around?

2003
02-17-2012, 03:34 AM
I think Del Potro had a better chance vs him at 2012 AO to be honest.

No matter how well Fed plays vs Nadal he just cant beat him at slams. I think we all agree.

He can beat Djokovic though, and stopping him at a slam or two now could prove dividends in the future for his slam count if Djoker ever gets closer to 16..but not if Djoker is on his side of the draw, then he is just handing another slam to Nadal putting himself in the final.

BigJohn
02-17-2012, 04:36 AM
Quality thread.

tripwires
02-17-2012, 04:37 AM
:facepalm: you're peaking with these threads 2003.

;)

n8
02-17-2012, 05:09 AM
I think 2003 actually has a point. Nadal may have not won Roland Garros last year had Federer not played.

Sharpshooter
02-17-2012, 05:18 AM
I think 2003 actually has a point. Nadal may have not won Roland Garros last year had Federer not played.

But he would've won Wimbledon and the US Open had Djokovic not played.

Shinoj
02-17-2012, 05:30 AM
So what does he do? Go on and Retire from the Tour because his aim in life is not to see Nadal get to 16 Grand Slams. :rolleyes:

MIMIC
02-17-2012, 05:35 AM
Protect your legacy and retire, Roger :)

Kat_YYZ
02-17-2012, 05:43 AM
It's not easy being GOAT. It's not enough to amass impressive statistics; it's how you do it. You don't do it by hiding under your blanket and hoping someone else will step up and do your dirty work for you. Fed has never been afraid to face his nemesis. :cool:

Death before dishonour, and all that jazz, mate. :yeah:

mlhyde
02-17-2012, 07:08 AM
Reasonable analysis.
But Fed is an attacker, not a defender. If he just wants a nicer statistics, he could easily withdraw all those clay matches and his H2H vs Nadal would be much better.

Hewitt =Legend
02-17-2012, 07:39 AM
Lack of Nole in the thread title is quite disturbing to say the least.

Ajde.

BroTree123
02-17-2012, 07:46 AM
Lack of Nole in the thread title is quite disturbing to say the least.

Ajde.

The lack of ajde in the thread is quite disturbing to say the least.

Ajde.

2003
02-17-2012, 08:59 AM
I think 2003 actually has a point. Nadal may have not won Roland Garros last year had Federer not played.

Whos to say how 2010 US would have gone had Djokovic had a straightforward semi final.

2003
02-17-2012, 09:01 AM
:facepalm: you're peaking with these threads 2003.

;)

I like you :)

finishingmove
02-17-2012, 09:09 AM
Fed is definitely helping Nadal with this.

He should listen to his fans who know best.

Shinoj
02-17-2012, 09:19 AM
As long as the Djoker is in the mix that 16 GS Count is safe. I am sure about that.

reery
02-17-2012, 10:59 AM
Neither Nadal nor Djokovic will reach 16.

Sophocles
02-17-2012, 11:36 AM
Well if he is, he's not doing a particularly good job right now.

leng jai
02-17-2012, 11:41 AM
I like you :)

Go away.

Ajde.

Mystique
02-17-2012, 11:55 AM
Neither Nadal nor Djokovic will reach 16.

This in a nutshell.

End of thread

ballbasher101
02-17-2012, 12:06 PM
Federer's knight in shining armour Djokovic is still around to dig Federer out of a self dug hole. Time for the Swiss to extend an olive branch to the Djoker due to the work he is doing on Nadal.

ossie
02-17-2012, 12:19 PM
last 3 slam finals were nadal-djoker so fed is kind of a non-factor at this point.

Branimir
02-17-2012, 12:21 PM
If Djokovic wasn't there Nadal could possible have 13 slams by now :o

tripwires
02-17-2012, 12:54 PM
Go away.

Ajde.

:hearts:

Myrre
02-17-2012, 02:36 PM
last 3 slam finals were nadal-djoker so fed is kind of a non-factor at this point.

Well, Nole had to make a death or glory shot to make it to the final at the USO, so it's a bit harsh saying Fed is a non-factor.

Clay Death
02-17-2012, 02:40 PM
mods:

i shall be most gratrful if you can drag this thread outside and have a large water buffalo shit on it for a week.

Johnny Groove
02-17-2012, 04:07 PM
Federer is helping Federer toward 17 slams by staying around.

tennizen
02-17-2012, 04:25 PM
and some people say he didn't deserve all those sportsmanship awards:rolleyes:

Smiling Buddha
02-17-2012, 04:34 PM
If Federer was not around and Nadal played del Potro in the semi, then the straight set breakdown would have given Nadal the extra bit of energy to take out Djokovic. If Federer wasn't around, then Nadal would have at least 13 slams by now.

MaxPower
02-17-2012, 05:10 PM
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/image/sub4/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Besides I got a feeling we got time to revisit Nadal's imaginary 16 slams once he hits about 12-13 somewhere. He's 6 slams away. Pretty much a careers worth especially now past 25.

oh and AJDE!

Houstonko
02-17-2012, 05:18 PM
Well, Nole had to make a death or glory shot to make it to the final at the USO, so it's a bit harsh saying Fed is a non-factor.

I suspect Fed tank it himself to put Djokovic in Final. Nobody knows what he was thinking. He probably knew he had beaten Prime Djokovic by playing his best tennis for the first 2 sets to test his level.

Then he stopped playing in 3 and 4, start running again in 5th to get a match point to double confirm that sets 1 and 2 are not flukes.

I'm sure the next time in same situation in a final he will put Djokovic away because already a final match, no need to worry about Nadal.

Allez
02-17-2012, 07:21 PM
I think Del Potro had a better chance vs him at 2012 AO to be honest.

No matter how well Fed plays vs Nadal he just cant beat him at slams. I think we all agree.

He can beat Djokovic though, and stopping him at a slam or two now could prove dividends in the future for his slam count if Djoker ever gets closer to 16..but not if Djoker is on his side of the draw, then he is just handing another slam to Nadal putting himself in the final.

Then he is well and truly fcked. On the one hand he needs to keep playing to stop Nole from reaching 16. On the other hand he needs to retire right now to stop taking out players who would otherwise prevent Nadal from reaching 16.

Shit...what's a goat do :shrug:

Mr. Oracle
02-18-2012, 01:38 AM
Same old threads with a new spin written by the same old fanboi mastrbaters. I like it.

If the 16 slam record stands it should be prefaced with "nothwithstanding being owned by nadal."

BigJohn
02-18-2012, 01:55 AM
Same old threads with a new spin written by the same old fanboi mastrbaters. I like it.

If the 16 slam record stands it should be prefaced with "nothwithstanding being owned by nadal."

Why? He won most of those 16 titles with Nadal in the draw. Even his FO.

heya
02-18-2012, 02:24 AM
fed didn't have options in 5 setters. he gave up, as he was old at age 27.

Mr. Oracle
02-18-2012, 05:15 AM
Why? He won most of those 16 titles with Nadal in the draw. Even his FO.

Why? I'm providing context. Yeah, he may have been in the draw but didn't actually play him, or he played him when Nadal still had not peaked.

Second, Fedtards usually equate the titles record with being the GOAT. Mcenroe and many other commentators have disputed this simply because he has not been able to solve his arch-nemesis in the H2H.

On a different note, I forgot why I posted in this thread and wonder what the hell "Is Fed actually helping Nadal toward 16 slams by staying around?" means.

Mr. Oracle
02-18-2012, 05:19 AM
I think I understand...if nadal and fed meet in final, nadal will certainly win, hence get closer to 16. If he plays any other player in the final, a win is not a certainty...I get it. This is speculation at its best. If the thread is a joke its quite funny actually and yet another backhanded slap in the face for fedtards. How long can this abuse continue? Nice.

Evitman
02-18-2012, 06:44 AM
2003 and his hilarious threads :facepalm:

GSMnadal
02-18-2012, 06:51 AM
Fed only stays out there to completely ruin Rafa's legacy and prevent him from ever winning the WTF :sobbing:

lucyfur
02-18-2012, 07:06 AM
I suspect Fed tank it himself to put Djokovic in Final. Nobody knows what he was thinking. He probably knew he had beaten Prime Djokovic by playing his best tennis for the first 2 sets to test his level.

Then he stopped playing in 3 and 4, start running again in 5th to get a match point to double confirm that sets 1 and 2 are not flukes.

I'm sure the next time in same situation in a final he will put Djokovic away because already a final match, no need to worry about Nadal.

:confused:This post makes no sense.

Mystique
02-18-2012, 07:11 AM
:facepalm:
Federer is staying around to help himself towards #17. Thats all.

Fed only stays out there to completely ruin Rafa's legacy and prevent him from ever winning the WTF :sobbing:

But Rafa was tired. He was ill. Season too long, no?

desigundah
02-18-2012, 07:35 AM
Del Potro had a better chance against Nadal to do what? Win? Del Potro sucks. He's not even a part of the second crop of players at this point (Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer), he's more in the group below that with the likes of Monfils, Fish and Tipsarevic).

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Fed had chances against Nadal to beat him last month. He's clearly in contention to win more slams and I'm sure he'll get atleast another slam or two

tripwires
02-18-2012, 07:52 AM
I suspect Fed tank it himself to put Djokovic in Final. Nobody knows what he was thinking. He probably knew he had beaten Prime Djokovic by playing his best tennis for the first 2 sets to test his level.

Then he stopped playing in 3 and 4, start running again in 5th to get a match point to double confirm that sets 1 and 2 are not flukes.

I'm sure the next time in same situation in a final he will put Djokovic away because already a final match, no need to worry about Nadal.

Was this a trolling attempt? If so - :bowdown:

If not, that barely made any sense. The part about him getting match points to confirm that the first two sets weren't flukes probably makes the least sense out of the whole post. Then again, the idea that Fed would tank a SF USO match after being up 2 sets to love just to avoid Nadal in the final (or something) is quite ludicrous. It's simple: he played well but he lost. That's all there is to it.

RafitoGoat
02-18-2012, 04:10 PM
Why are people criticizing the OP?

The OP is stating a fact. The longer Federer plays the more slams Nadal wins. This is not to say Nadal can't beat Djokovic. But obviously Nadal will almost certainly win every Fedal slam final. If Federer meets and beats Djokovic in 2012 RG, 2012 WIM, 2012 USO then the odds are Nadal will win 3 slams in 2012 and move to 13 slams.

It wouldn't be a shock for Federer to beat Djokovic in several slams, as he beat Djokovic last year at RG and had matchpoints at USO. And whose to say Federer can't beat Djokovic at Wimbledon. That would make it extremely likely that Nadal will win at least 16 slams. This is the reality Federer must face. Federer and Nadal won't always be in the same half. I'm sure Federer will meet Djokovic in plenty more grand slam semi-finals. Perhaps 4-5 more. And there is also the possibility that Djokovic doesn't even reach the semis of a slam.

BigJohn
02-18-2012, 04:22 PM
Why? I'm providing context. Yeah, he may have been in the draw but didn't actually play him, or he played him when Nadal still had not peaked.

Second, Fedtards usually equate the titles record with being the GOAT. Mcenroe and many other commentators have disputed this simply because he has not been able to solve his arch-nemesis in the H2H.

The context is Fed won those titles with Nadal in the draw. Most of the time, Nadal was not good enough to make it to the final... So the winner of the title was owned by a guy that he did not face because unable to reach the final? I believe that this is the correct context, and that your argument is invalid and does not make a lot of sense.


Now about TV commentators... Their words is like the Bible to some even if most of the time they are talking BS to fill up airtime. Does anyone with a functioning brain think that TV commentators truly believe everything they say on TV?

Alex999
02-18-2012, 04:26 PM
Why are people criticizing the OP?

The OP is stating a fact. The longer Federer plays the more slams Nadal wins. This is not to say Nadal can't beat Djokovic. But obviously Nadal will almost certainly win every Fedal slam final. If Federer meets and beats Djokovic in 2012 RG, 2012 WIM, 2012 USO then the odds are Nadal will win 3 slams in 2012 and move to 13 slams.

It wouldn't be a shock for Federer to beat Djokovic in several slams, as he beat Djokovic last year at RG and had matchpoints at USO. And whose to say Federer can't beat Djokovic at Wimbledon. That would make it extremely likely that Nadal will win at least 16 slams. This is the reality Federer must face. Federer and Nadal won't always be in the same half. I'm sure Federer will meet Djokovic in plenty more grand slam semi-finals. Perhaps 4-5 more. And there is also the possibility that Djokovic doesn't even reach the semis of a slam.
kinda agree with you. Fed is still an amazing player and he can trouble Novak but I don't think he'll win against both Nole and Nadal any time soon. you know the whole match up issue with Nadal is simply driving me crazy. their matches are so predictable.
all rafa does is going to his BH, again and again. boring...

Mr. Oracle
02-18-2012, 04:33 PM
^^^ Hard to fathom the immense task of having to go thru nadalovic on the way to a GS win. Fed does not have the mental strength to do this anymore. And no that was not a typo.

reery
02-18-2012, 04:43 PM
Federer has to avoid Nadal to win another major. He's not beaten Nadal at a slam in five long years. Says it all.

out_grinder
02-18-2012, 05:17 PM
Why are people criticizing the OP?

The OP is stating a fact. The longer Federer plays the more slams Nadal wins. This is not to say Nadal can't beat Djokovic. But obviously Nadal will almost certainly win every Fedal slam final. If Federer meets and beats Djokovic in 2012 RG, 2012 WIM, 2012 USO then the odds are Nadal will win 3 slams in 2012 and move to 13 slams.

It wouldn't be a shock for Federer to beat Djokovic in several slams, as he beat Djokovic last year at RG and had matchpoints at USO. And whose to say Federer can't beat Djokovic at Wimbledon. That would make it extremely likely that Nadal will win at least 16 slams. This is the reality Federer must face. Federer and Nadal won't always be in the same half. I'm sure Federer will meet Djokovic in plenty more grand slam semi-finals. Perhaps 4-5 more. And there is also the possibility that Djokovic doesn't even reach the semis of a slam.

I wonder if the possibility that Nadal also might not automatically make the semis of every slam he enters has even crossed your mind?

Nadal better not let himself slip down one more ranking spot (and hope that in Djokovic doesn't slip to 3) or he might find himself facing Djokovic in the semi's who at least will probably tire him out for the finals.

luie
02-18-2012, 05:50 PM
^^^ Hard to fathom the immense task of having to go thru nadalovic on the way to a GS win. Fed does not have the mental strength to do this anymore. And no that was not a typo.

Unfortunately , I think you are right
Science > Talent , in this slow era.

BauerAlmeida
02-18-2012, 06:53 PM
I wonder if the possibility that Nadal also might not automatically make the semis of every slam he enters has even crossed your mind?

Nadal better not let himself slip down one more ranking spot (and hope that in Djokovic doesn't slip to 3) or he might find himself facing Djokovic in the semi's who at least will probably tire him out for the finals.

This.

RafitoGoat
02-18-2012, 07:30 PM
Well, Nadal has made 7 of the last 8 slam finals (and won 4 of those). He seems to be getting more consistent with age. The only slam final he didn't make was AO 2010 which had that terribly unlucky torn muscle in the QF (which may not have happened if he didn't have the virus). Nadal is unbelievably consistent. The key is that he has got full power over Murray now, beating Murray in the last 3 slams. And the idea of Nadal losing BEFORE the semis? Good luck with that. He's got full power over Del Potro and Berdych too. Really would require a torn muscle once more.

Vida
02-18-2012, 07:52 PM
dont see fed taking out djoko at a slam anymore. very slim possibility.

leng jai
02-18-2012, 11:25 PM
dont see fed taking out djoko at a slam anymore. very slim possibility.

Is this based on the fact that gimp Rogie is 1/2 against peak Nole and 99% of the way to winning the second match too?

Ajde logic.

luie
02-18-2012, 11:35 PM
dont see fed taking out djoko at a slam anymore. very slim possibility.

If fed decides to go gluten-free ,he could have a chance.:confused:

Yolita
02-19-2012, 04:29 AM
Based on what I've seen this year, I would be very surprised if Roger beats Novak at a grand slam again. I can't wait for them to face each other. That H2H has to be corrected. It started with baby Nole facing peak Roger, it's only fair that it ends with old Roger facing peak Nole. :devil:

Forehander
02-19-2012, 06:00 AM
actually he's got a point federer is actually in a way a quite a walk over for nadal in case you people haven't noticed.

Nole Rules
02-19-2012, 06:20 AM
actually he's got a point federer is actually in a way a quite a walk over for nadal in case you people haven't noticed.

And yet some ppl call him the GOAT. A GOAT should never be a walk over for any player.

tripwires
02-19-2012, 07:19 AM
And yet some ppl call him the GOAT. A GOAT should never be a walk over for any player.

The fact that you agreed with the post that you quoted is cause for concern.

Is this based on the fact that gimp Rogie is 1/2 against peak Nole and 99% of the way to winning the second match too?

Ajde logic.

This. :hearts:

Pirata.
02-19-2012, 08:10 AM
Federer has to avoid Nadal to win another major. He's not beaten Nadal at a slam in five long years. Says it all.

Well, considering they only played against one another twice in all of 2009-2011... :lol:

This. :hearts:

Will you two get a room :ras::lol:

Arakasi
02-19-2012, 08:12 AM
^^^ Hard to fathom the immense task of having to go thru nadalovic on the way to a GS win. Fed does not have the mental strength to do this anymore. And no that was not a typo.

Defeating them back to back is almost impossible if he plays Djokovic then Nadal. But if he somehow managed to beat Nadal in a semi then he'd have a great chance in the final. He already plays well against Djokovic in normal circumstances; how much confidence would he have if he'd just beaten Nadal?

The only caveat to this is scheduling. Any win over Nadal would be extremely physical so a quick turn around time would reduce his chances against Djokovic significantly. This won't matter though unless he can beat Nadal in a slam and he hasn't for a long time.

paseo
02-19-2012, 11:20 AM
Ajde.

tripwires
02-19-2012, 02:47 PM
Will you two get a room :ras::lol:

What? He spoke up for our Rogi. :hearts: :lol:

stewietennis
02-19-2012, 08:30 PM
Defeating them back to back is almost impossible if he plays Djokovic then Nadal.

People used to think it'd be impossible to beat Nadal and Federer back to back

Arakasi
02-19-2012, 09:56 PM
People used to think it'd be impossible to beat Nadal and Federer back to back

I said almost.

Besides, Nadal and Federer have declined significantly in recent years.

MIMIC
02-19-2012, 10:03 PM
Is this based on the fact that gimp Rogie is 1/2 against peak Nole and 99% of the way to winning the second match too?

Ajde logic.

1/3

BauerAlmeida
02-19-2012, 10:05 PM
I said almost.

Besides, Nadal and Federer have declined significantly in recent years.

Federer.

Not Nadal. If it wasn't for Djokovic he would have won the last four slams in a row.

rocketassist
02-19-2012, 10:06 PM
dont see fed taking out djoko at a slam anymore. very slim possibility.

Not even at Wimbledon?

Vida
02-19-2012, 10:10 PM
Not even at Wimbledon?

thats probably the best chance.

Arakasi
02-19-2012, 10:13 PM
Federer.

Not Nadal. If it wasn't for Djokovic he would have won the last four slams in a row.

If it wasn't for Djokovic and Nadal then Federer would have won the last 2 slams in a row. Does that mean he hasn't declined?

Don't you see how silly that logic is? Whether a player has declined or not is predicated on their level not their results. It doesn't matter if Nadal wins the calendar grand slam 10 times in a row. He's declined.

Haelfix
02-19-2012, 10:16 PM
People who think that Federer has no chance against Rafa in slams are delusional. Especially at Wimbledon/USO even though you have to put Rafa as a favorite at this stage in their career, you are still looking at something not too far from a coin toss. Its just silly to think that any of these guys are guarenteed victories against other top 10 players.

stewietennis
02-20-2012, 12:03 AM
I said almost.

Besides, Nadal and Federer have declined significantly in recent years.

I agree though – it wasn't too long ago that people were saying defeating Nadal then Federer in a major was a seemingly impossible task however look how that turned out just a couple of years later (USO '09 & USO '11). Same with Nadal and Djokovic now – it may seem impossible but anything can happen – it's not a foregone conclusion that any player will lose to one or both of them all the time.

Guga_fan
02-20-2012, 12:44 AM
If it wasn't for Djokovic and Nadal then Federer would have won the last 2 slams in a row. Does that mean he hasn't declined?

Don't you see how silly that logic is? Whether a player has declined or not is predicated on their level not their results. It doesn't matter if Nadal wins the calendar grand slam 10 times in a row. He's declined.

That's not true, Nadal has never played better on HCs than in the last USO and this AO, disregarding the 2010 USO with his fluke serve.

Ash86
02-20-2012, 12:55 AM
That's not true, Nadal has never played better on HCs than in the last USO and this AO, disregarding the 2010 USO with his fluke serve.

Nadal's declined on clay, has stayed at a pretty high level on grass & become more consistent on HCs. But if you look at his stats for last year it's clear he declined on his serve - lower % of points won, lower overall % etc. The serve let him down a lot at crucial times & that made every hold more tough in quite a few matches. His groundstrokes were mainly fine (the backhand has always been shaky after all...). It was certainly a decline vs 2010 if you look at the level he played on clay & on HCs - even though he got to the semis of IW & Miami he actually played really well there - same for Doha & Aus Open - his level was better than 2011.

2011 was remarkable for how poor everyone other than Nadal & Djokovic was - absence of Murray until the clay season, Fed not winning a title after Doha until Basel, Tipsarevic & Fish managing to reach the top 10... Objectively Nadal 2010 was better than 2011 even if 2011 Nadal reached more finals and was very consistent.

Arakasi
02-20-2012, 01:55 AM
That's not true, Nadal has never played better on HCs than in the last USO and this AO, disregarding the 2010 USO with his fluke serve.

:facepalm: So Nadal's best US Open was 2011 so long as we ignore that other US Open in which he was better? Great logic there :help:

As for Australia, his level this year was far below that of '09. He was actually rubbish for most of the tournament. If Berdych hadn't played him into form somewhat he'd have been even worse than he was.

I'll admit though his level on hardcourts isn't miles off his best. Clay and grass are a different story though.