In any other year, Nadal's year would have been the standout performance [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

In any other year, Nadal's year would have been the standout performance

R.Federer
10-27-2005, 05:45 PM
1 slam, 4 TMS (on different surface), and 11 titles in all.... at 19! Would have been the single standout performance of the year. But.... Wertheim writes

Nadal's lament
Great year has been overshadowed by a certain Swiss

I've asked this before, but I thought I'd give it another shot since the timing seems right. How accurate do you think it is to put Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal on equal footing in terms of the years they have had (as many news sources seem to be doing)? How would you assess their respective successes this year? Who impresses more?
-- Ethan Steele, Stanford, Calif.

Many of you have been asking about Nadal's year. Vincent Durrough of Nashville went so far as to write, "If Nadal wins another Masters Series event, and he wins the Masters cup over Federer, shouldn't we be calling him the best player in the world?" I feel for Nadal. In any other year, winning 11 titles would make a player a lock for No. 1. Add in the fact that the guy is still a teenager, he took a Major and four (!) Masters Series events, and he'd be fit for canonization. Regardless of what happens in Shanghai, this is just a banner year.

By unfortunate accident, Nadal is a contemporary of Roger Federer. As sterling as Nadal's season has been, it takes a backseat to Federer's 2005. Federer has, of course, won two Slams (and reached the semis at the other two) and has also taken four Masters events, winning titles on all surfaces. The cold and clinical rankings essentially end the debate. Spectacular as Nadal's year has been, Federer's has been superior -- 292 points superior, to be precise.

Subjectively, though Nadal and Federer split their the head-to-head matches and have won the same number of TMS events (Aside: it's pretty amazing that only two players have won the eight biggest ATP tournaments this year ) I think Federer's play in the Majors tips the scales. These are the money events, and Federer's 24-2 record is just otherworldly. (Federer can thank James Blake -- who, of course, took out Nadal in the first week of the U.S. Open -- for cementing the case.)

But let's forget Federer for a second and give Nadal his due. He's had a tremendous year. He's splintered the "clay-court specialist" label. He's made a lot of promoters happy. And, as an overnight star still in his teens, he's looked awfully comfortable wearing the trappings of celebrity.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jon_wertheim/10/26/mailbag/index.html

Castafiore
10-27-2005, 06:18 PM
Cartoon from L'Equipe:
http://tinypic.com/f1h6gy.jpg

Translation:
"What is that noise, nurse?
It's the new gardener who is trimming the maze, Mr. Federer..."


found on vr.com

Jimena
10-27-2005, 06:22 PM
One thing to keep in mind about Nadal's year that Wertheim doesn't mention is that he barely met members from the top 5 in the world. His year has been extremely impressive, yes. But the competition he has faced for the most part has been subpar. Had he faced Hewitt (he did lose to him at the Oz Open), Safin or Roddick, and beaten them, his year would've been much more impressive.

Just my opinion.

LaTenista
10-27-2005, 06:24 PM
Nadal has more points now than when Roddick finished 2003 as No 1 and Moya as well. 12 titles before even being 19.5 years old is amazing. The article is right that most people will think Federer the better player because he won 2 of the 4 slams and Nadal only one.

But this overshadowing by Federer's continued outstanding performances doesn't stop at just Nadal and even Nadal overshadows other players. For example, David Ferrer has made a tremendous climb in the rankings this year - he started off 50-something and reached a career high of 13 after his best ever showing at the USO (3rd round). He made the SFs at Miami, Roma, Viņa del Mar, and New Haven as well as QFs at Monte Carlo, Roland Garros, Umag and Madrid. He was a finalist at his hometown tournament in Valencia. But in his country people only pay attention to Rafa.

:shrug: Perhaps tennis is a sport that is meant to be dominated by one player? Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, etc.

LaTenista
10-27-2005, 06:25 PM
One thing to keep in mind about Nadal's year that Wertheim doesn't mention is that he barely met members from the top 5 in the world. His year has been extremely impressive, yes. But the competition he has faced for the most part has been subpar. Had he faced Hewitt (he did lose to him at the Oz Open), Safin or Roddick, and beaten them, his year would've been much more impressive.

Just my opinion.

Nadal did beat Roddick. DC finals in Sevilla, come back to win from a set down. ;)

nobama
10-27-2005, 06:43 PM
Nadal did beat Roddick. DC finals in Sevilla, come back to win from a set down. ;)Not in 2005. Beating someone once to me doesn't mean much. But beating someone 10 out of 11 times or 8,9 times in a row does. I'll be even more impressed if Rafa starts beating top 5, top 10 players on a regular basis like Rogelio does.

peteslamz
10-27-2005, 06:45 PM
For me, I do not think that Nadal has been overshadowed by Federer this year. I mean he was able to get a HUGE following this year and almost all the media wants to cover him. He can even let his piratas and his Michelin shirt do all talking.

mangoes
10-27-2005, 06:45 PM
Nadal did beat Roddick. DC finals in Sevilla, come back to win from a set down. ;)

While I am going to keep away from debating Andy vs Rafa, I will defend Andy for that match:

IT WAS CLAY..........AND...........THE CROWD WAS DISTRACTING........LOLOLOL ;)

mangoes
10-27-2005, 06:48 PM
For me, I do not think that Nadal has been overshadowed by Federer this year. I mean he was able to get a HUGE following this year and almost all the media wants to cover him. He can even let his piratas and his Michelin shirt do all talking.


I agree with you. I don't think Nadal has been "overshadowed". Each player, in my opinion, has been well covered and has earned the love and respect of tennis fans everywhere. But someone had to be no. 1 and no. 2.

Chloe le Bopper
10-27-2005, 06:49 PM
One thing to keep in mind about Nadal's year that Wertheim doesn't mention is that he barely met members from the top 5 in the world. His year has been extremely impressive, yes. But the competition he has faced for the most part has been subpar. Had he faced Hewitt (he did lose to him at the Oz Open), Safin or Roddick, and beaten them, his year would've been much more impressive.

Just my opinion.

Had Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin gotten into position more often for them to face Nadal, *their* years would have been more impressive. The guy won 4 masters series where not a single one of these guys factored in. While they all have their reasons for that, I fail to see how his year is less impressive because these three performed even worse (or didn't really perform at all).

Jimena
10-27-2005, 06:51 PM
Yeah, that was on clay. And if we're going back to 2004, Andy beat Nadal and bageled him in the process at the US Open. :P

Nadal has more points now than when Roddick finished 2003 as No 1 and Moya as well. 12 titles before even being 19.5 years old is amazing. The article is right that most people will think Federer the better player because he won 2 of the 4 slams and Nadal only one.

But it's not only because of that, in my mind. The quality of players Roger's beaten and his results at the Slams are much better than Nadal's.

Chloe le Bopper
10-27-2005, 06:51 PM
Not in 2005. Beating someone once to me doesn't mean much. But beating someone 10 out of 11 times or 8,9 times in a row does. I'll be even more impressed if Rafa starts beating top 5, top 10 players on a regular basis like Rogelio does.
Yeah, and I'll be even more impressed in those OTHER players if they start getting to the later stages of the same tournaments as Nadal, making it possible for him to face them in the first place. Nadal fell short at Wimbledon and the USO, but aside from that the reason that he didn't face these guys more often is that their years really weren't that impressive (compared to previous years).

SwissMister1
10-27-2005, 06:53 PM
LOLZ at the bastion of tennis journalism, L'Equipe calling the Nadal-lookalike "Federer" in the cartoon

Chloe le Bopper
10-27-2005, 06:56 PM
Frankly, I think that this "Rafa didn't face quality opposition" blah is simply people making BS excuses for his performance this year. I mean, seriously - how on earth can he face people who either underperformed more often than him, or got injured and didn't play at all? How did it make his year less impressive because he happened to be head and shoulder above said players this season? Blasphemy. Absurd. RIDICULOUS.

But that's just my opinion, naturally ;)

Castafiore
10-27-2005, 06:58 PM
LOLZ at the bastion of tennis journalism, L'Equipe calling the Nadal-lookalike "Federer" in the cartoon
:scratch:

What are you talking about, SwissMister?
L'Equipe's Federer is inside the house (maison de repos 'le Shining' joli'), the Nadal-lookalike is waving an ax in the garden.

nobama
10-27-2005, 06:59 PM
Yeah, and I'll be even more impressed in those OTHER players if they start getting to the later stages of the same tournaments as Nadal, making it possible for him to face them in the first place. Nadal fell short at Wimbledon and the USO, but aside from that the reason that he didn't face these guys more often is that their years really weren't that impressive (compared to previous years).I hope Hewitt, Roddick and Safin are in-form next year and Rafa plays them quite often. It's hard to assess him on hard courts when he hasn't played the best hard court players on a regular basis (through no fault of his own).

Chloe le Bopper
10-27-2005, 07:02 PM
I hope Hewitt, Roddick and Safin are in-form next year and Rafa plays them quite often. It's hard to assess him on hard courts when he hasn't played the best hard court players on a regular basis (through no fault of his own).
It's not hard to assess him at all. For the most part, he's clearly capable of beating everybody that he "should" beat, and even some that he shouldn't (some people had him going down to Agassi... who only became "old" and "irrelevant" upong losing to Nadal, naturally). The upsets that he has had (Berdych, Blake) were perfectly understandable since he was outplayed in both cases... and probably shouldn't have bothered with Cincy in the first place, though Berdych seems to be a bother to him no matter what.

I fail to see why not facing players who didn't perform at his level as often as he did, makes it impossible to assess his ability on hardcourts.

Regardless, I also look forward to those three coming back and making more of an impact.

Jimena
10-27-2005, 07:09 PM
Had Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin gotten into position more often for them to face Nadal, *their* years would have been more impressive. The guy won 4 masters series where not a single one of these guys factored in. While they all have their reasons for that, I fail to see how his year is less impressive because these three performed even worse (or didn't really perform at all).

Yeah, and I'll be even more impressed in those OTHER players if they start getting to the later stages of the same tournaments as Nadal, making it possible for him to face them in the first place. Nadal fell short at Wimbledon and the USO, but aside from that the reason that he didn't face these guys more often is that their years really weren't that impressive (compared to previous years).

Federer had to beat these guys in other tournaments, even though they haven't had "great" years. Lleyton had better results than Nadal on the three Slams Nadal didn't do well in. And he beat Nadal in the Aus Open. Nadal also fell short in Cincy, where Hewitt and Roddick did much better than him. So it's not as if they're always losing before being able to play Nadal. Sometimes, it's the other way around. :p And Nadal has played most (if not all) of his optional tournaments on clay, tournaments where none of the three guys I mentioned have played (not that they would've done better than Nadal- that would be silly- but they never had the chance to play him).

So I do believe that some luck, in terms of draws, has been on Nadal's side this year. Do I think it makes his year less impressive? Not really. But it's less impressive than Federer's. Rafa's year is not less impressive in and off itself. But if you factor that into the equation, Federer's year is even better.

Frankly, I think that this "Rafa didn't face quality opposition" blah is simply people making BS excuses for his performance this year. I mean, seriously - how on earth can he face people who either underperformed more often than him, or got injured and didn't play at all? How did it make his year less impressive because he happened to be head and shoulder above said players this season? Blasphemy. Absurd. RIDICULOUS.

A big effing WHATEVER to that. :rolleyes:

Galaxystorm
10-27-2005, 07:19 PM
Day after Day Nadal's haters seem to be more ridiculous :o

Blue clays , lucky and weak fields/draws , the next excuse will be : " Nadal poisoned his opponents " :retard:

PaulieM
10-27-2005, 07:24 PM
Frankly, I think that this "Rafa didn't face quality opposition" blah is simply people making BS excuses for his performance this year. I mean, seriously - how on earth can he face people who either underperformed more often than him, or got injured and didn't play at all? How did it make his year less impressive because he happened to be head and shoulder above said players this season? Blasphemy. Absurd. RIDICULOUS.

But that's just my opinion, naturally ;)
nadal's year has been amazing regardless of who he has faced. you can only play who the draw presents you with, whether we like it or not. one can say that he's faced some "easy" opponents but who hasn't at one point or another, you still have to win the matches. so while some of his wins haven't been surprising, it doesn't mean they haven't been great results. that doesn't have to be equated with diminishing his achievements, nobody can deny that he's far surpassed what most people expected to see him do this season. i don't see anything wrong with wondering how he would have done against those other players top players. a lot of people have had very disappointing seasons this year, but there's nothing that can be done about that, hopefully they'll all be back playing better next year and we'll get to see plenty of the matchups we've been waiting for :shrug:

vincayou
10-27-2005, 07:24 PM
Frankly, I think that this "Rafa didn't face quality opposition" blah is simply people making BS excuses for his performance this year. I mean, seriously - how on earth can he face people who either underperformed more often than him, or got injured and didn't play at all? How did it make his year less impressive because he happened to be head and shoulder above said players this season? Blasphemy. Absurd. RIDICULOUS.

But that's just my opinion, naturally ;)

Hewitt and Nadal played 5 times the same tournament. Hewitt went 4 times further and even beat Rafael once. But he missed a lot of event and didn't even play on clay once!!!
- Australia open : he beats Nadal
- Wimbledon : wrong side of the draw but goes further
- Canada : Hewitt eliminated 1st round
- Cincinatti : Hewitt goes to SF
- US open : wrong side of the draw but goes further

Roddick and Nadal played 9 times the same tournament, Nadal went 6 times further.
- AO : Roddick went further
- Miami : Roddick retires against Verdasco and avoid Nadal
- Rome : Nadal
- RG : Nadal
- Wimbledon : ARod in final
- Canada : Roddick eliminated first round
- Cincinatti : Roddick in final, Nadal eliminated 1st round
- Us Open : both eliminated early, Nadal goes further
- Madrid : another bad outing for Andy

I realise that Lleyton had quite a good year in fact.

Grinder
10-27-2005, 07:31 PM
Nadal actually had trouble with Roddick on the clay. That clay was a lot slower than the clay that is usually used in tournaments. The score was 6-7 6-2 7-6 6-2

Clara Bow
10-27-2005, 07:32 PM
I personally would love for Hewitt and Nadal to play again. Even though Hewitt beat him in Oz, it was not a thrashing by any means- but rather a close and competative match that went five sets.

I do get tired of the number of posts I have seen in this forum and others saying that Nadal's success is attributed to "luck." It is just very dismissive to me. Did Federer have a better year than Nadal? Of course, but I don't see why you can't praise Federer's year without dismissing Nadal's year as a fluke that is attributed to luck or whathave you. You can praise one year without bashing the other.

amierin
10-27-2005, 07:32 PM
Frankly, I think that this "Rafa didn't face quality opposition" blah is simply people making BS excuses for his performance this year. I mean, seriously - how on earth can he face people who either underperformed more often than him, or got injured and didn't play at all? How did it make his year less impressive because he happened to be head and shoulder above said players this season? Blasphemy. Absurd. RIDICULOUS.

But that's just my opinion, naturally ;)

THANK YOU!!!! Federer started out with a lot of points. In any other year Rafa is number one. It's not his fault Safin is a head case. It's not his fault Roddick didn't compete the way he should. And it's not his fault Hewitt didn't either. I think if anyone is ducking anyone, they're ducking Nadal.
That said, of the three Safin, Roddick and Hewitt, I think that only Safin, and only if he's focused can beat the Nadal who is playing now.

mangoes
10-27-2005, 07:45 PM
That said, of the three Safin, Roddick and Hewitt, I think that only Safin, and only if he's focused can beat the Nadal who is playing now.

I agree about Safin, but I'm not so quick to say that Nadal is better on hard court than Hewitt. Hewitt has had a year plagued with injury. Nevertheless, he is very talented and I won't write him off against Nadal. If anything, a match up between Hewitt and Nadal should be more competitive than a match up between Hewitt and Federer.................imo ;)

Jimena
10-27-2005, 07:45 PM
I do get tired of the number of posts I have seen in this forum and others saying that Nadal's success is attributed to "luck." Did Federer have a better year than Nadal? Of course, but I don't see why you can't praise Federer's year without dismissing Nadal's year as a fluke that is attributed to luck or whathave you. You can praise one year without bashing the other.

All success has something to do with luck. There's nothing wrong with that. Do I think he's had some lucky draws? Sometimes. Do I think it makes him less of a player? No.

I don't believe I was bashing Nadal nor dismissing his year.

tennischick
10-27-2005, 07:46 PM
Nadal has had an impressive year, yes. But Rogelio's has been even more superlative. nuff said. ;)

DhammaTiger
10-27-2005, 07:48 PM
Don't forget Rafa is only 19, and when Federer was his age he didn't perform as well .In fact, Federer started beating everyone in 2003 after he won Wimby 2003.From the age of 21 or 22 , did he start fulfilling his promise. It's ridiculous to expect more from Rafa than he has already accomplished. In my humble opinion Rafa is just the beginning of an amazing career.

nobama
10-27-2005, 08:10 PM
It's not hard to assess him at all. For the most part, he's clearly capable of beating everybody that he "should" beat, and even some that he shouldn't (some people had him going down to Agassi... who only became "old" and "irrelevant" upong losing to Nadal, naturally). The upsets that he has had (Berdych, Blake) were perfectly understandable since he was outplayed in both cases... and probably shouldn't have bothered with Cincy in the first place, though Berdych seems to be a bother to him no matter what.

I fail to see why not facing players who didn't perform at his level as often as he did, makes it impossible to assess his ability on hardcourts.

Regardless, I also look forward to those three coming back and making more of an impact.Who ever said Agassi was old or irrelevant? :confused: I guess my point was most people would consider Safin, Hewitt and Roddick (and Rogelio, of course ;) ) major threats on hard courts. Of course Rafa has no control over who he faces and his year shouldn't be knocked because Roddick underachieved and Safin and Hewitt haven't played as much. But I still think he needs to play the best on that surface more often to assess just how good of a hc player he'll be. I mean some commentators were expecting him to be in the finals of the US Open even though he only had one hard court title to his name.

nobama
10-27-2005, 08:14 PM
I personally would love for Hewitt and Nadal to play again. Even though Hewitt beat him in Oz, it was not a thrashing by any means- but rather a close and competative match that went five sets.

I do get tired of the number of posts I have seen in this forum and others saying that Nadal's success is attributed to "luck." It is just very dismissive to me. Did Federer have a better year than Nadal? Of course, but I don't see why you can't praise Federer's year without dismissing Nadal's year as a fluke that is attributed to luck or whathave you. You can praise one year without bashing the other.I think the "luck" argument is quite lame. As others have said, you can only play the draw presented to you. It's not Rafa's fault that Roddick underperformed, Safin was injured and Lleyton was so-so (and also sometimes injured).

nobama
10-27-2005, 08:19 PM
That said, of the three Safin, Roddick and Hewitt, I think that only Safin, and only if he's focused can beat the Nadal who is playing now.Ok, Rafa's played Roddick and Hewitt ONCE on hard, and he and Safin have never played each other. I don't know how one can say Rafa's the clear favorite when all three of these guys have a lot more hc titles to their names than Rafa does. Again, to be clear this isn't a knock on Rafa or what he's accomplished this year. But I'm not yet prepared to assume he'll have a positive h2h record with these guys. Probably on clay, but hard, who knows? :shrug:

tennisinparis
10-27-2005, 08:38 PM
i am a fan of rafa's, so I have a little bias, but I still th ink Nadal's year was teh standout performance of the year, and that it wasn't overshadowed by Federer. I totally respect Federer and what he did this year, but it wasn't better than last year. So last year Federer was the standout performance, and though Rodger has more Slams and equal as many titles. Nadal's year 'stand out' far more. That doesn't mean he had a better year than Federer, it means we were all suprised (to some degree) by Nadal's results and just how well he did do. Federer's year was expected really. So I would call Nadal's performance the standout this year, but it would have been so much more extraordinary if Rodger hadn't been there. I would classify Rodger's year as amazing because he didn't let down, he didn't crumble after such a great year last year. Just my opinion, either way, congrats to both.

1 slam, 4 TMS (on different surface), and 11 titles in all.... at 19! Would have been the single standout performance of the year. But.... Wertheim writes

Nadal's lament
Great year has been overshadowed by a certain Swiss

I've asked this before, but I thought I'd give it another shot since the timing seems right. How accurate do you think it is to put Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal on equal footing in terms of the years they have had (as many news sources seem to be doing)? How would you assess their respective successes this year? Who impresses more?
-- Ethan Steele, Stanford, Calif.

Many of you have been asking about Nadal's year. Vincent Durrough of Nashville went so far as to write, "If Nadal wins another Masters Series event, and he wins the Masters cup over Federer, shouldn't we be calling him the best player in the world?" I feel for Nadal. In any other year, winning 11 titles would make a player a lock for No. 1. Add in the fact that the guy is still a teenager, he took a Major and four (!) Masters Series events, and he'd be fit for canonization. Regardless of what happens in Shanghai, this is just a banner year.

By unfortunate accident, Nadal is a contemporary of Roger Federer. As sterling as Nadal's season has been, it takes a backseat to Federer's 2005. Federer has, of course, won two Slams (and reached the semis at the other two) and has also taken four Masters events, winning titles on all surfaces. The cold and clinical rankings essentially end the debate. Spectacular as Nadal's year has been, Federer's has been superior -- 292 points superior, to be precise.

Subjectively, though Nadal and Federer split their the head-to-head matches and have won the same number of TMS events (Aside: it's pretty amazing that only two players have won the eight biggest ATP tournaments this year ) I think Federer's play in the Majors tips the scales. These are the money events, and Federer's 24-2 record is just otherworldly. (Federer can thank James Blake -- who, of course, took out Nadal in the first week of the U.S. Open -- for cementing the case.)

But let's forget Federer for a second and give Nadal his due. He's had a tremendous year. He's splintered the "clay-court specialist" label. He's made a lot of promoters happy. And, as an overnight star still in his teens, he's looked awfully comfortable wearing the trappings of celebrity.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jon_wertheim/10/26/mailbag/index.html

tennisinparis
10-27-2005, 08:50 PM
ideally if roddick, hewitt, and marat were all playing there best of best tennis, rafa i am not sure would be able to beat any of them on hard court, the closest he might come is hewitt. unforuntalely none of those three are playing there best tennis. with roddick losing to any and everyone, i think rafa would have a good chance. hewitt, just seems to be in, marriage life mode right now, but still he is playing decent tennis. and marat i still think on a bad day could beat rafa on hardcourt. rafa is getting better on hardcourt, but still nowhere near what he needs to be to challenge those players. just a side note, how happy do think brad gilbert is that roddick has failed with his new coach? i know he would never say he was happy because of professionalism, but really, think about it.

Ok, Rafa's played Roddick and Hewitt ONCE on hard, and he and Safin have never played each other. I don't know how one can say Rafa's the clear favorite when all three of these guys have a lot more hc titles to their names than Rafa does. Again, to be clear this isn't a knock on Rafa or what he's accomplished this year. But I'm not yet prepared to assume he'll have a positive h2h record with these guys. Probably on clay, but hard, who knows? :shrug:

Scotso
10-27-2005, 09:01 PM
It doesn't really matter. Nadal will be #1 some day. :shrug:

tennisinparis
10-27-2005, 09:14 PM
hopefully this is true, you never really know what will happen int he future. as a fan though, i hope he reaches it.


It doesn't really matter. Nadal will be #1 some day. :shrug:

idolwatcher1
10-27-2005, 09:20 PM
I agree that Nadal's year would have been the standout performance had Fed not been just a notch above him...but I don't think Fed is overshadowing Nadal anymore than he's casting a shadow on everyone that's below him...Being #2 at 19 years old is nothing to be ashamed of or become unhappy about... ;)

Chloe le Bopper
10-27-2005, 09:35 PM
Hewitt and Nadal played 5 times the same tournament. Hewitt went 4 times further and even beat Rafael once. But he missed a lot of event and didn't even play on clay once!!!
- Australia open : he beats Nadal
- Wimbledon : wrong side of the draw but goes further
- Canada : Hewitt eliminated 1st round
- Cincinatti : Hewitt goes to SF
- US open : wrong side of the draw but goes further

That part in bold was exactly part of my point.

I realise that Lleyton had quite a good year in fact.

It's been fine, but nothing compared to Nadal. Which was also my point.

Chloe le Bopper
10-27-2005, 09:37 PM
Nadal actually had trouble with Roddick on the clay. That clay was a lot slower than the clay that is usually used in tournaments. The score was 6-7 6-2 7-6 6-2

Davis Cup. Would that results translate to say, Monte Carlo? Maybe. Maybe not.

Chloe le Bopper
10-27-2005, 09:38 PM
I personally would love for Hewitt and Nadal to play again. Even though Hewitt beat him in Oz, it was not a thrashing by any means- but rather a close and competative match that went five sets.


As do I, if only to see if that matchup has changed any. Nadal used to be good enough to bother Hewitt but not quite beat him. Nadal is much better now, but Hewitt's also probably seen more of him.

Either way, I like watching these two play each other.

Chloe le Bopper
10-27-2005, 09:39 PM
THANK YOU!!!! Federer started out with a lot of points. In any other year Rafa is number one. It's not his fault Safin is a head case. It's not his fault Roddick didn't compete the way he should. And it's not his fault Hewitt didn't either. I think if anyone is ducking anyone, they're ducking Nadal.
That said, of the three Safin, Roddick and Hewitt, I think that only Safin, and only if he's focused can beat the Nadal who is playing now.

I don't like any of them against Nadal on clay, though Safin would have the best chance. I look forward to seeing how those two will matchup - perhaps it won't be so bad for Safin, even on clay.

I would take any of them over him on grass, however.

Chloe le Bopper
10-27-2005, 09:41 PM
... I mean some commentators were expecting him to be in the finals of the US Open even though he only had one hard court title to his name.

Rafa is well handled and gets good press. I wouldn't read too much into it :p

PREtournament, I thought he could beat Blake. But once I saw how Blake was playing, that loss was no surprise.

Er, either way I didn't put him in the finals... but as I said, the media is smoking weed courtesy of camp Rafa, so they talk him up ;)

RogiFan88
10-27-2005, 11:07 PM
Duh... isn't it still a standout perf fr Rafa anyway?? Who else of the currently active players has achieved so much so young??

Kip
10-27-2005, 11:19 PM
Federer is simply on a different level from
the rest of the tour so ofcourse he'll cast a
showdow over the rest of the players.

IMO, Federer has gotten to the point where
he is competing against himself. His 05' was
great, but his 04' is still his benchmark for
the time being, winning 3 of the 4 Slams.

That said, I do feel that Nadal has gotten
his due and his fair share of praise and recognition
for all he's done. And all that his promising ralents
points to him doing as the years go bye.

Lee
10-27-2005, 11:24 PM
Duh... isn't it still a standout perf fr Rafa anyway?? Who else of the currently active players has achieved so much so young??

:lol: And if I use the argument that some posters here love very much, Nadal is much better than Federer.

Nadal is a Slam winner and 4 master shields owner before he's 20 years old while Federer had zip ;)

RogiFan88
10-27-2005, 11:38 PM
i am a fan of rafa's, so I have a little bias, but I still th ink Nadal's year was teh standout performance of the year, and that it wasn't overshadowed by Federer. I totally respect Federer and what he did this year, but it wasn't better than last year. So last year Federer was the standout performance, and though Rodger has more Slams and equal as many titles. Nadal's year 'stand out' far more. That doesn't mean he had a better year than Federer, it means we were all suprised (to some degree) by Nadal's results and just how well he did do. Federer's year was expected really. So I would call Nadal's performance the standout this year, but it would have been so much more extraordinary if Rodger hadn't been there. I would classify Rodger's year as amazing because he didn't let down, he didn't crumble after such a great year last year. Just my opinion, either way, congrats to both.

First of all, I don't think that Federer's year this year was expected necessarily, esp after he lost to Safin at the AO and didn't defend his slam. I don't think that people thought he would win 11 titles again this year.

As for Nadal's perf being more extraordinary if Roger hadn't been there, I disagree. It doesn't take away fr what Rafa has achieved this year. In fact it's the complete opposite.

The fact that Roger was there, winning so many titles [equalling his wins fr 2004] and wasn't out w injury, for example, and that Rafa was able to match Roger's success immediately, makes Rafa’s victories all the more impressive. Every time Rogi won a title, Rafa followed him. In fact, Rafa said that he wants to win more titles than Rogi this year. He's already won more matches than Rogi this year.

For the person who started this thread, just look at Rafa's W-L record in finals... 11-1 -- is that not a standout year so far? Rafa has broken records w practically every win.

I would say that both Rogi and Rafa have had a standout year in 2005. Last year, nobody could come close to Rogi.

What impresses me most about Rafa is how quickly he has improved as a player, physically, tennistically, tactically [he doesn't need to improve mentally]. No challenge is too big for Rafa – in fact, the bigger the better. If any Spaniard will win Wimbledon, it will be Rafa [besides, he always said he wanted to win it].

What’s even better is that Rafa has gotten his due fr fans and journalists alike – he certainly hasn’t been in Rogi's shadow at all! Rafael Nadal is every tournament’s BIG DRAW.

In conclusion, this article is crap... Rafa w say "don't cry for me". ;)

vincayou
10-27-2005, 11:46 PM
That part in bold was exactly part of my point.



It's been fine, but nothing compared to Nadal. Which was also my point.

I want to add that I didn't intend to make any point by sum up these facts. But Hewitt has had a better year than Nadal outside the clay season. Of course, Nadal on clay was just exceptional, a Muster like performance.

blosson
10-28-2005, 12:08 AM
All top players will meet in Shangai in a few weeks, let's see what happens.

Deivid23
10-28-2005, 12:19 AM
Blah, blah, blah....

This 2005 will be remembered as the one where Nadal took ATP by storm, therefore itīs fair to say Nadal is the player of the year. Full stop.

Deivid23
10-28-2005, 12:20 AM
All top players will meet in Shangai in a few weeks, let's see what happens.

And your point is? :shrug: Iīll tell you what will happen. Nadal will lose to Federer, Ljubicic or Roddick if he faces them. Too easy to predict, Taraflex and indoors is a nice cryptonite for the wonder kid. But that wonīt change my view above.

megadeth
10-28-2005, 01:01 AM
this is just like 10 years ago. muster won 12 titles in '95 but still had to play second fiddle to sampras and agassi.

the number of titles can be really misleading because if you think about it, a lot of those events won when broken down are from minor clay tournaments that didn't include much of the top 5 or even top 10 - resulting in a sure win for muster and nadal

let's see nadal's breakdown of minor tourneys:
1. acapulco
2. bastad
3. beijing
4. Costa Do Sauipe
5. Stuttgart
6. Barcelona

that's 6 of 11 titles picked up from areas where no top 5 strongly contested with only a few points...

sure, fed's guilty of that too by winning rotterdam and thailand (also minor tourneys), but roger has always GONE DEEP in every major tourney he's played and that's the major difference between him and rafa.

nobama
10-28-2005, 01:57 AM
Nadal is a Slam winner and 4 master shields owner before he's 20 years old while Federer had zip ;)Yeah, and Lleyton and Marat both won grand slams before Rogelio did. So what?

Lee
10-28-2005, 02:38 AM
Yeah, and Lleyton and Marat both won grand slams before Rogelio did. So what?

Ehhhhh, please read my whole post. :rolleyes: And please don't quote part of my post.

nobama
10-28-2005, 04:05 AM
Blah, blah, blah....

This 2005 will be remembered as the one where Nadal took ATP by storm, therefore itīs fair to say Nadal is the player of the year. Full stop.How can you say that when Rogelio won just as many titles and performed better in the slams? I certainly would give Rafa most improved player, but not player of the year. I think player of the year should be based on results, not results as compared to expectations.

nobama
10-28-2005, 04:07 AM
Duh... isn't it still a standout perf fr Rafa anyway?? Who else of the currently active players has achieved so much so young??Who here is saying that Rafa hasn't had a standout year? :confused:

tennischick
10-28-2005, 04:13 AM
Who here is saying that Rafa hasn't had a standout year? :confused:
no-one. what i find unfortunate is that Rogelio and Rafa have not had enuf of a rivalry. the year would have been more interesting if their accomplishments had not been so separate. never mind. they will meet in Shanghai. and a king will be crowned. here's hoping he's a right-handed hottie who's posed for Vogue and does not reek of Puig :p :p

RogiFan88
10-28-2005, 04:16 AM
this is just like 10 years ago. muster won 12 titles in '95 but still had to play second fiddle to sampras and agassi.

the number of titles can be really misleading because if you think about it, a lot of those events won when broken down are from minor clay tournaments that didn't include much of the top 5 or even top 10 - resulting in a sure win for muster and nadal

let's see nadal's breakdown of minor tourneys:
1. acapulco
2. bastad
3. beijing
4. Costa Do Sauipe
5. Stuttgart
6. Barcelona

that's 6 of 11 titles picked up from areas where no top 5 strongly contested with only a few points...

sure, fed's guilty of that too by winning rotterdam and thailand (also minor tourneys), but roger has always GONE DEEP in every major tourney he's played and that's the major difference between him and rafa.

Muster played third fiddle... :p

Really who cares if these guys won because of a "weak draw"? Some players couldn't win if everyone in their path were struck down by lightning. You take your opportunities when you can in order to win. As GWH always says: it's the W beside your name that counts. ;) If Rafa "has" to go to S Amer in order to win a few titles, that's fine. Nothing wrong w that at all. He's the one w the 11 titles...

Altho Rogi ONLY won 2 slams this year [he clearly failed in the journalists' claim that he w win THE GRAND SLAM], he actually did v well at all slams [none of those ridiculous R1 losses]. :angel:

tennisinparis
10-28-2005, 07:06 AM
Um. the only statement you made that I disagree with is your first one. Even though Rodger lost his first grand slam, I don't understand how anyone could say that it wasn't expected for him to repeat at least as much as he did or come close to last y ear. At the beginning of the year, most people though federer would still be dominant like 2004, and once he lost in Aus Open, all his fans(stirred by other people) started worrying that he might not be as awesome as last year, because he lost one match and didn't defend his title. Doesn't this seem absurd, the guy lost one match, and he was already doomed to have a failed year. I just don't believe the fact people can say he we wasn't expected or people didn't expect him to have a great year this year. I mean who did they think was going to test him?

First of all, I don't think that Federer's year this year was expected necessarily, esp after he lost to Safin at the AO and didn't defend his slam. I don't think that people thought he would win 11 titles again this year.


Everything else you said, i completely agree with.

Action Jackson
10-28-2005, 07:11 AM
Nadal actually had trouble with Roddick on the clay. That clay was a lot slower than the clay that is usually used in tournaments. The score was 6-7 6-2 7-6 6-2

You think Roddick would get that close now?

jacobhiggins
10-28-2005, 07:15 AM
Federer showed he's still heads and shoulders above everybody, even Nadal, this year belongs to Federer once again! People were expecting him to have a great year this year as well, a grand slam was being tossed out by a few peoples mouths, and next year I think he will continue to dominate the mens tour!

Action Jackson
10-28-2005, 07:18 AM
It's not Nadal's fault that he won 11 titles and RG at his first attempt and won titles on other surfaces, besides clay, and that fact grates on some people for sure. He gets enough kudos from people who actually have the capability to give a semi-objective view about the time, to an extent he has been overshadowed by Federer who has had backed up his outstanding 2004 albeit with less Slams.

Nadal has overshadowed more players in a way. Ferrer, Ginepri, Davydenko and Ljubicic for example have shown very real improvements in their respective games and have been overshadowed by Nadal's performances.

Deivid23
10-28-2005, 07:51 AM
How can you say that when Rogelio won just as many titles and performed better in the slams? I certainly would give Rafa most improved player, but not player of the year. I think player of the year should be based on results, not results as compared to expectations.


Canīt you read? If an award was given just by Race points, discussion about this would be useless.

Deivid23
10-28-2005, 07:53 AM
no-one. what i find unfortunate is that Rogelio and Rafa have not had enuf of a rivalry. the year would have been more interesting if their accomplishments had not been so separate. never mind. they will meet in Shanghai. and a king will be crowned. here's hoping he's a right-handed hottie who's posed for Vogue and does not reek of Puig :p :p

If Shangai were played on clay it would be useless to "crown a king" by many people in here, Iīm pretty sure ;)

Nadal is the player of the year 2005. Period

MariaV
10-28-2005, 07:55 AM
It's not Nadal's fault that he won 11 titles and RG at his first attempt and won titles on other surfaces, besides clay, and that fact grates on some people for sure. He gets enough kudos from people who actually have the capability to give a semi-objective view about the time, to an extent he has been overshadowed by Federer who has had backed up his outstanding 2004 albeit with less Slams.

Nadal has overshadowed more players in a way. Ferrer, Ginepri, Davydenko and Ljubicic for example have shown very real improvements in their respective games and have been overshadowed by Nadal's performances.
Thanks so much GWH for the statement, you're officially my tennis guru. ;) :worship:

yanchr
10-28-2005, 09:06 AM
Nadal is the player of the year 2005. Period
In which sense Nadal is a better player than Federer this year so far? Just because he took ATP this year by storm and Federer was just repeating same old things?

Deivid23
10-28-2005, 09:12 AM
In which sense Nadal is a better player than Federer this year so far? Just because he took ATP this year by storm and Federer was just repeating same old things?

I think some people here canīt read. Iīve said heīs the player of the year, not that he has had better results than Federer. Intangibles count for me in these kind of "polls", itīs not that difficult to understand I think.

yanchr
10-28-2005, 09:17 AM
I think some people here canīt read. Iīve said heīs the player of the year, not that he has had better results than Federer. Intangibles count for me in these kind of "polls", itīs not that difficult to understand I think.
Not difficult to understand, yes. But the player of the year, for me, means the best player of the year.

Deivid23
10-28-2005, 09:22 AM
Not difficult to understand, yes. But the player of the year, for me, means the best player of the year.

Respectable opinion, but then all the discussion is dumb as you only would need to check ATP race ranking and start reading. Too simple for my taste

bad gambler
10-28-2005, 09:27 AM
although these types of awards are judged by predominately the players results, there has to be a certain element which is based on expectations as well

Nadal for me as well as the player of the year

Like the Spanish gentleman above has said, it is a fairly stupid to be having such a discussion if you base it purely on results as you would only need to refer to the champs race

Nymeria
10-28-2005, 09:29 AM
Respectable opinion, but then all the discussion is dumb as you only would need to check ATP race ranking and start reading. Too simple for my taste
The best player of the year doesn't always need to have the best ranking. But in this case, I would say yes Federer is the player of the year. Closely followed by Nadal. but I think too many people are looking like it as Federer lost a slam and Nadal is the one storming up the ranking... on the other hand, I guess noone will take my opinion serious as I am a Federer fan. But I would've thinked the same if it was the other way round

yanchr
10-28-2005, 10:19 AM
Respectable opinion, but then all the discussion is dumb as you only would need to check ATP race ranking and start reading. Too simple for my taste
The best player doesn't necessarily mean he leads the ATP race ranking. Also some other elements are involved. 2003 is a good example.

nobama
10-28-2005, 11:47 AM
Respectable opinion, but then all the discussion is dumb as you only would need to check ATP race ranking and start reading. Too simple for my tasteWell then we might as well not have the Race and it can just be a popularity contest. Just what exactly are your "intangibles" that make Rafa player of the year, period?

nobama
10-28-2005, 11:57 AM
The best player doesn't necessarily mean he leads the ATP race ranking. Also some other elements are involved. 2003 is a good example.What's the point of the race, then? All these "intangibles" are puerly subjective. If we're to say results should be compared to expectations, does that mean then that Rogelio's third Wimbledon title isn't as special or doesn't carry as much weight as Rafa's first FO title?

Deivid23
10-28-2005, 01:07 PM
Well then we might as well not have the Race and it can just be a popularity contest. Just what exactly are your "intangibles" that make Rafa player of the year, period?

No one expected him to win a Slam at his first appearance (matched a 20+ years record), 4 TMS in different surfaces and 5 titles more, either having such a tyranny of clay season at 18-19 years of age. He has matched/broken some old records/streaks. In 15-20 years when people remind 2005, vast majority will say "Yeah, that one was when Nadal set ATP on fire". Of course I donīt expect you Federer trolls to think alike ;)

nobama
10-28-2005, 01:34 PM
No one expected him to win a Slam at his first appearance (matched a 20+ years record), 4 TMS in different surfaces and 5 titles more, either having such a tyranny of clay season at 18-19 years of age. He has matched/broken some old records/streaks. In 15-20 years when people remind 2005, vast majority will say "Yeah, that one was when Nadal set ATP on fire". Of course I donīt expect you Federer trolls to think alike ;)I'm not trolling for Rogeilo. The hard fact is he did have a better year. 2 GS and 2 GS SF compared to 1 GS, one GS R16, one GS R64, and one GS R32. Rafa's w/l % is .888, Rogelio's is .963. Now you're using the results vs. expectations argument. Fine. But that doesn't mean without exception Rafa is the player of the year. Just means that in your opinion he is. Just like those that say had Rogelio ended 2003 at #1 he wouldn't have been the "true" #1 because Roddick and JCF performed better in the slams and other "quality" tournaments.

Galaxystorm
10-28-2005, 01:50 PM
I think everybody is right, i mean, " player of the year " can be understood as the best player during the season and without no doubt this player has been Federer, because he's the nš1 at ATP race.

But also " playe of the year " can be understood as the player who has astonished more and although this player hasn't done the best results ,on the other hand this player has got to receive more praises because nobody could expect his results when the season began..

Then i don't understand this argument, because everbody is right, and the only difference is that every person is using the definition that he/she thinks more suitabe .

Who is really the " player of the year " ???. The question will be answered within some months with ATP poll . It's so easy :shrug:

Castafiore
10-28-2005, 01:52 PM
Mirkaland, you just have a different view on how to assess "player of the year" and "standout performance".
You use the total amount of points in the race and/or slam results only as a standard.
Deivid was talking about breaking a 20+ record, that's also something you can back up with statistics and figures so that's rather objective as well and that's also a "hard" fact.

The "race" is not the only way to assess this but it's your viewpoint. Fine but others do not necessarily have to share your viewpoint, I believe. :)

IMO, you can make a very good argument for either player as the "player of the year" so the final choice boils down to personal preference, I think.
Or as Galaxystorm puts it:
Then i don't understand this argument, because everbody is right, and the only difference is that every person is using the definition that he/she thinks more suitabe

Deivid23
10-28-2005, 01:52 PM
I'm not trolling for Rogeilo.

Disagree, you always are :lol:

The hard fact is he did have a better year. 2 GS and 2 GS SF compared to 1 GS, one GS R16, one GS R64, and one GS R32. Rafa's w/l % is .888, Rogelio's is .963.

And your point is? :shrug: Itīs not like Iīve said anything different, facts are facts

Now you're using the results vs. expectations argument. Fine. But that doesn't mean without exception Rafa is the player of the year. Just means that in your opinion he is.

Now weīre starting to understand each other ;)

Action Jackson
10-28-2005, 01:55 PM
Got to have Bruguera like patience sometimes deivid, to be honest with you I wouldn't care who won Player of the Year, they both have reasons to be, while Nadal's rise was so spectacular, he has the Most Improved owned, but maybe some Federer fans need more than 2 Slams to confirm it.

R.Federer
10-28-2005, 03:53 PM
Respectable opinion, but then all the discussion is dumb as you only would need to check ATP race ranking and start reading. Too simple for my taste

I understand this view also (of course I am a bit bias towards Rogeli)

But to give an example, Roge was to me the 2003 player of the year, even though he comes out #2 in ranking behind andi roddick. This is because his type of play in Wimbledon had a lot of people really finally believe that he can do it, and then he wins many tournaments on many surfaces

In some ways, I think rafa's 2005 = Roge's 2003
rafa will end 2005 as #2, but also with a first slam like Roge in 2003 and with wins on many different surfaces

tangerine_dream
10-28-2005, 04:23 PM
Even though Roger's year was better than Rafael's, in my mind it was Rafael who stood out more, but I think that may be because he's the new kid on the block (sort of) and the media went ga-ga over him for several months. He's a rare tennis breed where advertisers and promoters love him almost as much as the fans do.

celia
10-28-2005, 04:42 PM
Rafa will never have a year like this again. his opponents will figure out how to play against his lefty spin and that will be the end of him. the same happened to Roddick (his opponents figured out how to return his serve) and to Federer (his opponents now challenge him better than they used to be able to). no-one remains on top forever. their opponents spend hours with their coaches studying their tapes and figuring out how to beat them. the same will happen for Rafa.

ExpectedWinner
10-28-2005, 04:43 PM
But to give an example, Roge was to me the 2003 player of the year, even though he comes out #2 in ranking behind andi roddick.

To me Nadal can not be a player of the year mostly for the same reason that Federer wasn't in 2003- mediocre results in 3 out of 4 GS.

ExpectedWinner
10-28-2005, 04:51 PM
while Nadal's rise was so spectacular, he has the Most Improved owned, but maybe some Federer fans need more than 2 Slams to confirm it.

No. For me those are two different categories. In my mind " The most improved"(no doubt, this one goes to Nadal) # "The Player of the year" (not in 2005 anyway)

Action Jackson
10-28-2005, 04:55 PM
No. For me those are two different cathegories. In my mind " The most improved"(no doubt, this one goes to Nadal) # "The Player of the year" (not in 2005 anyway)

No shit, they are 2 different categories. I never said they were the one thing. All I said was that Nadal if he doesn't win Player of the Year, walks in the Most Improved award. Federer maintained his status, Nadal let everyone around who he is, they will give it to Federer, but as I said before don't care either way.

R.Federer
10-28-2005, 04:58 PM
To me Nadal can not be a player of the year mostly for the same reason that Federer wasn't in 2003- mediocre results in 3 out of 4 GS.

Good point. Though I guess this is going back to the point that the slams always counting a lot more than the breadth of wins or depth (#) of wins.

ExpectedWinner
10-28-2005, 05:00 PM
No shit, they are 2 different categories. I never said they were the one thing.

No shit, I've never said that you considered them as one thing. :lol:

rue
10-28-2005, 05:00 PM
I think Nadal's year has been spectacular. No one ever thought that he would win his first slam at 19 right along with 10 other titles. What impresses me about Nadal is just how mentally tough he is. He fights for every point and that is great to see in him. Yes it is true that Federer has had a better year, but I still think that Nadal took the tour by storm because no one expected him to do this well this year. He won small titles ,but lets remember how tough it is to win week in and week out. Roddick has been struggling with that this year especially.

If Nadal were to win the Masters Cup by beating Federer, people are gonna start saying something else.

Action Jackson
10-28-2005, 05:02 PM
No shit, I've never said that you considered them as one thing. :lol:

Well it my quote, you originally quoted when I said Nadal was a shoe in for Most Improved, and the fact that some Federer fans need more than 2 Slams to confirm that he is Player of the Year, at least for once it's a close thing.

R.Federer
10-28-2005, 05:04 PM
If Nadal were to win the Masters Cup by beating Federer, people are gonna start saying something else.

Would you then also agree that Roger's 2003 was better than andi roddick's? That he should have been "considered" the no. 1 player, even though in the race he was not?

ExpectedWinner
10-28-2005, 05:13 PM
Would you then also agree that Roger's 2003 was better than andi roddick's?

Discussing 2003, you shouldn't forget about Ferrero.

RogiFan88
10-28-2005, 05:18 PM
shouldn't all this player of the year and most improved player stuff be in another thread?? the more popular guy will win anyway ;)

R.Federer
10-28-2005, 05:19 PM
Discussing 2003, you shouldn't forget about Ferrero.
Yes but he was not #2 at the end of the year or in any real contention for #1 the way Roger was that year (all the way till the 2nd round of T.M.C)

ExpectedWinner
10-28-2005, 05:33 PM
Yes but he was not #2 at the end of the year or in any real contention for #1 the way Roger was that year (all the way till the 2nd round of T.M.C)

Numbers were very close that year. Fererro had a solid showing at GS( Q, W, 16, F) and won 2 TMS. Federer had better results in small tournaments. IMO, Ferrero's year was better.

jacobhiggins
10-28-2005, 06:10 PM
The player of the year should be given to the best player, and that clearly is Federer! Some of you Nadal fans are really going overbaord, i'm starting to hear woulda's, coulda's, shoulda's and the word opinion is being tossed around. This same trend happend with Roddick and his fans, it took them A LONG time for admit that Roddick was not the best and they tried to grab onto every little thing they could to make Roddick look better. I don't see how anyone could give Nadal player of the year, it's not a popularity contest. Actually you know what it, it pretty much is, you can give Nadal player of the year, it dosen't mean anything anyways. Federer is still much better!

tangerine_dream
10-28-2005, 07:00 PM
^^
Roddick was the best player in 2003. :lol:

nobama
10-28-2005, 07:09 PM
Mirkaland, you just have a different view on how to assess "player of the year" and "standout performance".
You use the total amount of points in the race and/or slam results only as a standard.
Deivid was talking about breaking a 20+ record, that's also something you can back up with statistics and figures so that's rather objective as well and that's also a "hard" fact.

The "race" is not the only way to assess this but it's your viewpoint. Fine but others do not necessarily have to share your viewpoint, I believe. :)

IMO, you can make a very good argument for either player as the "player of the year" so the final choice boils down to personal preference, I think.
Ok, I'll state it again, what's the point of the Race then if it all comes down to personal preference? My viewpoint that Rogelio deserves player of the year is based on his performance plain and simple. Rogelio has more Race points because he's performed better in the slams than Rafa has. It's others here who are throwing "intangibles" and results vs. expectations into the mix.

nobama
10-28-2005, 07:18 PM
^^
Roddick was the best player in 2003. :lol:He was based on the Race and Entry Ranking, which last time I checked, is what's used to determine #1 status.

nobama
10-28-2005, 07:21 PM
To me Nadal can not be a player of the year mostly for the same reason that Federer wasn't in 2003- mediocre results in 3 out of 4 GS.Ah, but that's just your personal opinion. ;)

jtipson
10-28-2005, 07:31 PM
He was based on the Race and Entry Ranking, which last time I checked, is what's used to determine #1 status.

Yes, I think "best" player in 2003 was highly debatable (and indeed was highly debated around these parts), and there was a good case for any one of the top three getting it.

ExpectedWinner
10-28-2005, 07:36 PM
Ah, but that's just your personal opinion. ;)

Oh, but that's what are forums for. ;) I assume that all posters express their own opinions; none of them should be considered as dogmas.

Castafiore
10-28-2005, 07:54 PM
Ok, I'll state it again, what's the point of the Race then if it all comes down to personal preference?
No, I did not say that it ALL comes down to personal preference.

I said that you could make an argument for each player, backed up with facts and figures (just the race this year, just the slams, the broken records as a teenage player, improvement...). The way that balance finally tips over will depend on your own personal preference.
You don't see it that way and for you the only way is "The Race"...fine but accept that not everybody sees it that way and if it makes you feel better to dismiss other viewpoints...be my guest. :)

You know, if you would give the title to Roger or to Rafa...it's all good to me because neither of those two would have stolen the title in my opinion.

Gonzo Hates Me!
10-28-2005, 07:58 PM
Um, there were a lot of things Rogi wasn't capable of when he was 19, so patience my dear. Rafa is just AMAZING and so soon too.

Not in 2005. Beating someone once to me doesn't mean much. But beating someone 10 out of 11 times or 8,9 times in a row does. I'll be even more impressed if Rafa starts beating top 5, top 10 players on a regular basis like Rogelio does.

dkw
10-28-2005, 10:55 PM
Um, there were a lot of things Rogi wasn't capable of when he was 19

What are you talking about? Everyone knows Rouglieo was walking on water from the time he was a babe :angel:

asotgod
10-28-2005, 11:20 PM
If player of the year is based on element of surprise and improvement, then Nadal wins it. But I have always thought the player of the year was the "best player" in a year. I don't think there is a question to who the best player this year is. This should not even be a debatable issue at all and so did I think of the player of the year unless the ATP and ITF are coming up with something new. In almost any sport, if not every, the player of the year is one who performed best. Maybe there are exceptions in team sports, but I highly doubt there are in individual sports. I dont think anyone can say Nadal performed better than Federer this year. This is not even close at all, IMO. It's just too glaring, whatever may be used to determine it, be it percentages, number of tournament won (same in this case), quality of tournament won, no. of tournaments played, whatsoever may be the criteria.

No doubt Nadal took the ATP by storm this year and has been impressive. Any other year, he ends #1 and actually is willing to create the so much needed rivalry Federer needs. Nevertheless, I think it's just we fans here arguing who the player of the year is. This, IMO, is a foregone conclusion, whatever the year-end may show. It was decided after the U.S Open, IMO. Nadal should win the Most Improved player like GWH said or maybe the ATP/ITF should just create either 'player of the year and best player of the year" or "player of the year and runner-up". Maybe we'll just create it for them.

nobama
10-29-2005, 11:04 AM
Yes, I think "best" player in 2003 was highly debatable (and indeed was highly debated around these parts), and there was a good case for any one of the top three getting it.But as ExpectedWinner has pointed out Roddick and Ferrero actually performed better in the slams than Fed did. I think that counts for a lot. I mean if some people feel Rogelio deserved it more than Andy because he's the better player, well he got it a few months later by his performance at AO.

nobama
10-29-2005, 11:08 AM
Um, there were a lot of things Rogi wasn't capable of when he was 19, so patience my dear. Rafa is just AMAZING and so soon too.That's right, let's wait and see what Rafa's doing when he's 23/24. Hewitt and Safin both won slams before Fed did, but does anyone seriously think they'll end their careers with more slam titles than Fed?

tennischick
10-29-2005, 05:10 PM
That's right, let's wait and see what Rafa's doing when he's 23/24. Hewitt and Safin both won slams before Fed did, but does anyone seriously think they'll end their careers with more slam titles than Fed?
nope. and it think that Fed still has more to deliver. ;)

hablovah19
10-29-2005, 06:10 PM
Cartoon from L'Equipe:
http://tinypic.com/f1h6gy.jpg

Translation:
"What is that noise, nurse?
It's the new gardener who is trimming the maze, Mr. Federer..."


found on vr.com
:haha:

it's true, despite all of Nadal's success Federer has had the better year!

nobama
10-30-2005, 01:14 AM
http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/9704/rogernadal1oj.png

Dirk
10-30-2005, 02:10 PM
I personally would love for Hewitt and Nadal to play again. Even though Hewitt beat him in Oz, it was not a thrashing by any means- but rather a close and competative match that went five sets.

I do get tired of the number of posts I have seen in this forum and others saying that Nadal's success is attributed to "luck." It is just very dismissive to me. Did Federer have a better year than Nadal? Of course, but I don't see why you can't praise Federer's year without dismissing Nadal's year as a fluke that is attributed to luck or whathave you. You can praise one year without bashing the other.

I agree. Even from a non-fan like me Nadal's year has been incredible and he likely would have been number one in any other year had Roger not been around.

propi
10-30-2005, 02:29 PM
Am I the only one who can see both winning player of the year award ex aequo??? :confused:

R.Federer
10-30-2005, 03:07 PM
Am I the only one who can see both winning player of the year award ex aequo??? :confused:
Yes.... I would think you might be alone in this :shrug:

It will probably be Roge, who has more than matched all of nadal's accomplishments so far (number of titles, number of T.M.S) but gone beyond by winning 2 slams and reached the SF of the other 2, and also won higher-tier tournaments overall, which explains his position in the rankings.

Unfortunately, the prize is not age adjusted, which is one way in which to justify rafa to leapfrog over Roge and win "best player". He is neither the best player in the rankings, nor in tournaments won, nor in slams won. But he is the best player to do it at such a young age