Simon Australian Open classics: 2009 QF and 2011 2nd rd. Comparison. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Simon Australian Open classics: 2009 QF and 2011 2nd rd. Comparison.

Start da Game
01-20-2011, 03:26 PM
two classic tennis matches in which he lost to tennis' two best players out there today........he played an amazing hand in both the matches.......let's analyze these two classics and compare them.......

AO 2009 QF

the setting was quarterfinal and the opponent was nadal.......simon was in blistering form late 2008 and carried over the momentum to the AO.......as expected, he fed a lot of balls to nadal and rafa had to come up with out-maneuvering genius on a consistent basis.......

nadal breezed through the first two sets but simon challenged him in the third.......but the champion upped a gear and arrested the escaping frenchman........it was one of the most intelligent displays ever on a tennis court........

AO 2011 2nd rd

the setting was 2nd round and the opponent was fed........simon was getting into the zone with a win in sydney........

fed breezed through the first two sets and started to feel the heat in the third........fed could not hold his nerve and let simon into the match........we know the rest of the story.......simon managed to take 2 sets.......

so one was a 3 set classic and the other was a 5 set classic........which match do you think simon played better? what do these two matches suggest about simon's respective opponents?

_Chaz
01-20-2011, 03:32 PM
fed breezed through the first two sets and started to feel the heat in the third

What heat? From what I've heard (didn't see the match) it wasn't hot that day (+ that was a night session) and Fed said smth like "It got more and more difficult because it got colder and then the court of course played slower" .

I wasn't able to watch any of the two matches (have been to school) so I can't say when he played better.

rocketassist
01-20-2011, 05:37 PM
2009 AO QF a classic? Oh dear, oh dear.... :lol:

Certinfy
01-20-2011, 05:37 PM
:haha:

Henry Chinaski
01-20-2011, 05:42 PM
smh

70-68
01-20-2011, 05:47 PM
cool story bro

Start da Game
01-20-2011, 05:47 PM
2009 AO QF a classic? Oh dear, oh dear.... :lol:

how is it not a classic? there's no written rule that only 5 set matches can be classics........

5 years from now, it will be shown on tennis channel classics, just wait and watch........it's going to be a legendary story where a deceitful frenchman was carefully captured and packed back to france through sheer tactical genius.......

people are also going to remember the 2011 simon AO classic where he almost pulled off a huge upset.......

rocketassist
01-20-2011, 05:52 PM
how is it not a classic? there's no written rule that only 5 set matches can be classics........

5 years from now, it will be shown on tennis channel classics, just wait and watch........it's going to be a legendary story where a deceitful frenchman was carefully captured and packed back to france through sheer tactical genius.......

people are also going to remember the 2011 simon AO classic where he almost pulled off a huge upset.......

Not really- Sampras and Agassi had some classics that weren't 5 sets- the 4 set all tiebreak was a corker for example.

Does anyone really remember any Simon-Nadal match other than that muggy shit one at the USO where he couldn't wait to go and see his kid?

Start da Game
01-20-2011, 06:34 PM
Not really- Sampras and Agassi had some classics that weren't 5 sets- the 4 set all tiebreak was a corker for example.

Does anyone really remember any Simon-Nadal match other than that muggy shit one at the USO where he couldn't wait to go and see his kid?

people who watched AO 2009 do remember that classic stuff from simon and nadal........had nadal been 0.1% reckless, simon would have sneaked in and run him very close.......

nadal is prone to something similar against another aussie pusher tomorrow, tomickey........tomickey is similar to simon and presents a similar danger but i am sure nadal will play a perfect match again........

DTL
01-20-2011, 06:41 PM
two classic tennis matches in which he lost to tennis' two best players out there today........he played an amazing hand in both the matches.......let's analyze these two classics and compare them.......

AO 2009 QF

the setting was quarterfinal and the opponent was nadal.......simon was in blistering form late 2008 and carried over the momentum to the AO.......as expected, he fed a lot of balls to nadal and rafa had to come up with out-maneuvering genius on a consistent basis.......

nadal breezed through the first two sets but simon challenged him in the third.......but the champion upped a gear and arrested the escaping frenchman........it was one of the most intelligent displays ever on a tennis court........

AO 2011 2nd rd

the setting was 2nd round and the opponent was fed........simon was getting into the zone with a win in sydney........

fed breezed through the first two sets and started to feel the heat in the third........fed could not hold his nerve and let simon into the match........we know the rest of the story.......simon managed to take 2 sets.......

so one was a 3 set classic and the other was a 5 set classic........which match do you think simon played better? what do these two matches suggest about simon's respective opponents?


You forgot two other classic matches involving the two best players:

2008 AO SF Tsonga def Nadal 6-2 6-3 6-2
2010 AO SF Federer def Tsonga 6-2 6-3 6-2

I eagerly await your analysis of these two matches.

Nidhogg
01-20-2011, 06:42 PM
It's a good thing we still have some true naturals here who stand out in the flood of boring trolls.

Seriously, man, you're so relentless up Nadal's ass on a constant basis that we've pinned down the reason to his chronic hemmorhoids.

It's funny, cause you're perfectly capable of reason. It's just that you can't heed anything which doesn't suit your clear-cut agenda. If you ever develop some distance to yourself you'll have a good laugh at your posting history here.

Fed_Ds
01-20-2011, 06:49 PM
You forgot two other classic matches involving the two best players:

2008 AO SF Tsonga def Nadal 6-2 6-3 6-2
2010 AO SF Federer def Tsonga 6-2 6-3 6-2

I eagerly await your analysis of these two matches.

:worship: :worship:

Certinfy
01-20-2011, 07:03 PM
You forgot two other classic matches involving the two best players:

2008 AO SF Tsonga def Nadal 6-2 6-3 6-2
2010 AO SF Federer def Tsonga 6-2 6-3 6-2

I eagerly await your analysis of these two matches.
From the logic I conclude:

2011 AO F Federer def Nadal 6-0 6-0 6-0

Sapeod
01-20-2011, 07:10 PM
Simon vs. Nadal was one of the worst matches of the tournament.

Tsonga vs. Nadal. Now there's a classic. Was that really 3 years ago? :o

adingh
01-20-2011, 07:11 PM
Does anyone really remember any Simon-Nadal match other than that muggy shit one at the USO where he couldn't wait to go and see his kid? Madrid 2008 is surely best remembered clash between Nadal and Simon, you cannot disagree.

vn01
01-20-2011, 07:15 PM
Simon played better this year. He should have won :o

luie
01-20-2011, 07:17 PM
Madrid 2008 is surely best remembered clash between Nadal and Simon, you cannot disagree.
It is remembered because it was an upset & it was played in nadull backyard.
AO 09 will not be remembered much by nuetral tennis fans because it went according to script..nadull in the form of his life abused a nobody pusher, who rose to #6 in the world on the backdrop of 1 QF of his career.Fluke even if one is to get candid.

Sophocles
01-20-2011, 07:20 PM
You forgot two other classic matches involving the two best players:

2008 AO SF Tsonga def Nadal 6-2 6-3 6-2
2010 AO SF Federer def Tsonga 6-2 6-3 6-2

I eagerly await your analysis of these two matches.

Please stick around & post in every Tard Da Fail thread. This kind of ridicule is good for him.

Commander Data
01-20-2011, 07:25 PM
two classic tennis matches in which he lost to tennis' two best players out there today........he played an amazing hand in both the matches.......let's analyze these two classics and compare them.......

AO 2009 QF

the setting was quarterfinal and the opponent was nadal.......simon was in blistering form late 2008 and carried over the momentum to the AO.......as expected, he fed a lot of balls to nadal and rafa had to come up with out-maneuvering genius on a consistent basis.......

nadal breezed through the first two sets but simon challenged him in the third.......but the champion upped a gear and arrested the escaping frenchman........it was one of the most intelligent displays ever on a tennis court........

AO 2011 2nd rd

the setting was 2nd round and the opponent was fed........simon was getting into the zone with a win in sydney........

fed breezed through the first two sets and started to feel the heat in the third........fed could not hold his nerve and let simon into the match........we know the rest of the story.......simon managed to take 2 sets.......

so one was a 3 set classic and the other was a 5 set classic........which match do you think simon played better? what do these two matches suggest about simon's respective opponents?

It suggests that Simon matches up better with Fed then with Nadal. Which is well know.

Why don't you go and analyze AO2010 SF and F vs Murray and tell us what that suggests about Fed and Nadal, if your logic is assumed.

BTW: I saw you recently said that RG 2009 was not legit as the defending champion was injured.
you are not very smart are you? go look at the US Open title 2010 and investigate if the defending champion was healthy, what does follow from this?


you may try ginseng to improve the performance of your neurons.

luie
01-20-2011, 07:34 PM
It suggests that Simon matches up better with Fed then with Nadal. Which is well know.

Why don't you go and analyze AO2010 SF and F vs Murray and tell us what that suggests about Fed and Nadal, if your logic is assumed.

BTW: I saw you recently said that RG 2009 was not legit as the defending champion was injured.
you are not very smart are you? go look at the US Open title 2010 and investigate if the defending champion was healthy, what does follow from this?


you may try ginseng to improve the performance of your neurons.
Every-one in the tennis community knows nadull would not have won the USO if del-po was fit.That was all Mc enroe & Carillo talked about,its nadulls best chance to win the USO this year no del-po,Murray out early.
Even last night in his match against the no serve mug,, Martina the nadull ass kisser was going on &on about nadull ,how is unbeatable when healthy crap, justin said one word & it was basically the end of the conversation. DEL-PO,, even martina had to agree.

allpro
01-20-2011, 08:17 PM
It is remembered because it was an upset & it was played in nadull backyard.
AO 09 will not be remembered much by nuetral tennis fans because it went according to script..nadull in the form of his life abused a nobody pusher, who rose to #6 in the world on the backdrop of 1 QF of his career.Fluke even if one is to get candid.

Every-one in the tennis community knows nadull would not have won the USO if del-po was fit.That was all Mc enroe & Carillo talked about,its nadulls best chance to win the USO this year no del-po,Murray out early.
Even last night in his match against the no serve mug,, Martina the nadull ass kisser was going on &on about nadull ,how is unbeatable when healthy crap, justin said one word & it was basically the end of the conversation. DEL-PO,, even martina had to agree.

despite your clownish sig you frequently post cogent arguments backed by sound logic. unfortunately, none of them can be found in this thread.

luie
01-20-2011, 09:32 PM
despite your clownish sig you frequently post cogent arguments backed by sound logic. unfortunately, none of them can be found in this thread.
With regard to the simon post I was responding to a post that simon/nadull match in Madrid will be remembered ,true because of 2 aspects the level of play & outcome ,, which is an upset.
The simon/nadull match @ the AO is not remembered by much apart from simon fans because the outcome was never in doubt, Simon has only progressed passed the 3RD of a slam 2 times,was beaten by a better player & thats a classic.
OK Which is remembered more Tsonga beating nadull @ AO 08 or nadull's demolistion of Tsonga @ the USO 07 in the 3RD I believe... the reason it was an upset of a top player by a lower ranked player.


With regard to the nadull comment about the USO,, I'am stating Murray/Del-po defeated nadull on the 3 previous HC slams they contested & was beginning to beat him in BO3.
Nadull beat fed @ the last 4 FO slams they contested.
Nadull is the favorite against fed on clay untill proven otherwise /Murray-del-po has the edge against nadull on HC slams untill proven otherwise.
If both Murray & nadull meet in the SF & nadull wins my theory is flawed.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
01-20-2011, 09:45 PM
start to fail, you rly outdid urself with this thread

2 matches

in 1 match simon pushed rog due to the matchup

in the other, nadal wiped the floor clean with hiim due to nadal being a better pusher/grinder than simon

leng jai
01-20-2011, 09:50 PM
This Simon bandwagon is great stuff. The guy is an intellectual prodigy posing as a tennis player.

Pirata.
01-20-2011, 10:49 PM
:spit::haha:

Start da Fail, you've really outdone yourself this time.

Jaz
01-20-2011, 10:57 PM
two classic tennis matches in which he lost to tennis' two best players out there today........he played an amazing hand in both the matches.......let's analyze these two classics and compare them.......

AO 2009 QF

the setting was quarterfinal and the opponent was nadal.......simon was in blistering form late 2008 and carried over the momentum to the AO.......as expected, he fed a lot of balls to nadal and rafa had to come up with out-maneuvering genius on a consistent basis.......

nadal breezed through the first two sets but simon challenged him in the third.......but the champion upped a gear and arrested the escaping frenchman........it was one of the most intelligent displays ever on a tennis court........

AO 2011 2nd rd

the setting was 2nd round and the opponent was fed........simon was getting into the zone with a win in sydney........

fed breezed through the first two sets and started to feel the heat in the third........fed could not hold his nerve and let simon into the match........we know the rest of the story.......simon managed to take 2 sets.......

so one was a 3 set classic and the other was a 5 set classic........which match do you think simon played better? what do these two matches suggest about simon's respective opponents?

Could you at the very least use punctuation correctly? If you have some time please also use one period, instead of a line of them? It would increase the readability of the post.

Thanks!

shadows
01-20-2011, 11:15 PM
http://i51.tinypic.com/2ujpf1y.jpg

NadalesDios
01-20-2011, 11:17 PM
You forgot two other classic matches involving the two best players:

2008 AO SF Tsonga def Nadal 6-2 6-3 6-2
2010 AO SF Federer def Tsonga 6-2 6-3 6-2

I eagerly await your analysis of these two matches.

I remember this classics too:

Soderling def Federer QF RG 2010
Nadal def Soderling F RG 2010

Berdych def Federer QF WB 2010
Nadal def Berdych F WB 2010

Djokovic def Federer SF UO 2010
Nadal def Djokovic F UO 2010

allpro
01-21-2011, 12:08 AM
Every-one in the tennis community knows nadull would not have won the USO if del-po was fit.

the "tennis community" consists of more than just biased nadal nadull haters.

Every-one in the tennis community knows nadull would not have won the USO if del-po was fit.That was all Mcenroe & Carillo talked about,its nadulls best chance to win the USO this year no del-po,Murray out early.

you exaggerate. they mentioned it a few times during the fortnight and that was it. and at no point did mac or carillo ever state that nadal would have lost to a healthy del potro.

Even last night in his match against the no serve mug,, Martina the nadull ass kisser was going on &on about nadull ,how is unbeatable when healthy crap, justin said one word & it was basically the end of the conversation. DEL-PO,, even martina had to agree.

since when did gimelclown and martina become the voice of authority on mens tennis? according to most fedturds, all tennis journos and ex-players are mindless rafatards and media whores with zero credibility (that is of course, unless they agree with their own opinions - then they can be quoted as authoritative and unbiased).
besides, who really cares?.....fed's '09 rg and nadal's '10 uso are both legit and everything else is sour grapes.

With regard to the nadull comment about the USO,, I'am stating Murray/Del-po defeated nadull on the 3 previous HC slams they contested & was beginning to beat him in BO3.
Nadull beat fed @ the last 4 FO slams they contested.
Nadull is the favorite against fed on clay untill proven otherwise /Murray-del-po has the edge against nadull on HC slams untill proven otherwise.

i agree with most of what you say here although with murray, many might argue that nadal has the edge with two hc slams.

If both Murray & nadull meet in the SF & nadull wins my theory is flawed.

what if murray fails to reach the semi?

DTL
01-21-2011, 12:26 AM
I remember this classics too:

Soderling def Federer QF RG 2010
Nadal def Soderling F RG 2010

Berdych def Federer QF WB 2010
Nadal def Berdych F WB 2010

Djokovic def Federer SF UO 2010
Nadal def Djokovic F UO 2010

Also,
Soderling def Nadal 4R RG 2009
Federer def Soderling F RG 2009

Murray def Nadal QF AO 2010
Federer def Murray F AO 2010

We can go on and on with this. The irony of my previous post obviously eluded you.

Guy Haines
01-21-2011, 01:37 AM
Do you have to get drunk or f---ed up on something before you post in this thread?

Arkulari
01-21-2011, 01:43 AM
Try some K, it's the only way to stand it :o

gusavo
01-21-2011, 03:57 AM
It's funny, cause you're perfectly capable of reason.
no

oranges
01-21-2011, 04:00 AM
It's a good thing we still have some true naturals here who stand out in the flood of boring trolls.

Seriously, man, you're so relentless up Nadal's ass on a constant basis that we've pinned down the reason to his chronic hemmorhoids.

It's funny, cause you're perfectly capable of reason. It's just that you can't heed anything which doesn't suit your clear-cut agenda. If you ever develop some distance to yourself you'll have a good laugh at your posting history here.

:worship: This thread was worth it for this comment

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 04:50 AM
I remember this classics too:

Soderling def Federer QF RG 2010
Nadal def Soderling F RG 2010

Berdych def Federer QF WB 2010
Nadal def Berdych F WB 2010

Djokovic def Federer SF UO 2010
Nadal def Djokovic F UO 2010

well said.......

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 04:59 AM
:worship: This thread was worth it for this comment

that was the worst input, no need to worship it........the fact that these dumbs cannot take a simple comparison in the spirit it was meant to be, shows what a jungle we are in........how much simon influenced two different minds and produced two classic tennis matches........

match-ups are just our illusions due to the fear of a certain player........practically, there are two tennis players slugging it out on a tennis court........that's all matters and that's all the reality........

del potro is not a bad match up to nadal.......never........similarly, nadal is not a bad match up to federina.......simon is not a bad match up to anyone.......those are just illusions........

no one is a bad match up to anyone.......you simply have to deal with what's in front of you.......

tests
01-21-2011, 04:59 AM
del potro vs nadal 2009 USO was a classic TOO! O how potro ballbashed his way to the final against the best defender/pusher in tennis history.

It will be displayed on tennis classics for years to come!

Arkulari
01-21-2011, 05:17 AM
http://www.jillstanek.com/circular%20reasoning.gif

Nidhogg
01-21-2011, 05:48 AM
no

Hey, I'm a generous guy. I never fully give up on anyone.

that was the worst input, no need to worship it........the fact that these dumbs cannot take a simple comparison in the spirit it was meant to be, shows what a jungle we are in........how much simon influenced two different minds and produced two classic tennis matches........

match-ups are just our illusions due to the fear of a certain player........practically, there are two tennis players slugging it out on a tennis court........that's all matters and that's all the reality........

del potro is not a bad match up to nadal.......never........similarly, nadal is not a bad match up to federina.......simon is not a bad match up to anyone.......those are just illusions........

no one is a bad match up to anyone.......you simply have to deal with what's in front of you.......

Even though I know I probably should...

You got it all figured out, Shank. The dynamics of how the game of one player matches up against and with the game of another is all an illusion. That's why we see Davydenko get into the exact same rhythm against Nadal and Federer. It's really obvious how he's able to hit the ball from the exact same positions in both match-ups.

luie
01-21-2011, 03:50 PM
the "tennis community" consists of more than just biased nadal nadull haters.




you exaggerate. they mentioned it a few times during the fortnight and that was it. and at no point did mac or carillo ever state that nadal would have lost to a healthy del potro.
They mentioned it a few times in any event, all will be answered in time,as Del-po is back on tour & nadull still playing at a high level.



since when did gimelclown and martina become the voice of authority on mens tennis? according to most fedturds, all tennis journos and ex-players are mindless rafatards and media whores with zero credibility (that is of course, unless they agree with their own opinions - then they can be quoted as authoritative and unbiased).
besides, who really cares?.....fed's '09 rg and nadal's '10 uso are both legit and everything else is sour grapes.

Martina is not the aurthority but because she is in the media, she has to promote the best player @ the time for economic reason. Plus they were just trading ideas,which match-up wise seems logical.


i agree with most of what you say here although with murray, many might argue that nadal has the edge with two hc slams.



what if murray fails to reach the semi?
With regard to USO it was mentioned but because they are in the media part of their job would be too promote the best players @ the time.So in reality in will not be discussed alot.It would be counter productive.
In any event both nadull & del-po are playing so there is alot of time still to put that arguement to rest.
With regard to Murray, I stated I believe he will beat nadull more often than not on HC.
It is uncertain he meets nadull though as when he gets into a rot he starts pushing with his forehand.
Even though Murray has a technically flawed forehand,, it "comes alive" vs certain players.
Is it a coincidence that Murray has more difficulty beating 1 hand bh players or difficult for him than tall 2 handed bh players.
Murray struggles against
Gasquet--When he was good
Wawa
Federer
but has a 5-1 h2h against del-po
5-1 against cilic
& a good HC record against nadull.I think not.
Murray likes balls @ a high trajectory on his forehand so he can safely inject pace into his forehand.
Thats why he is accused of pushing to much against fed/wawa/gasquet,, he doesn't have the balls to chance it & play aggressively for fear for giving the ball boys too much work, picking up the balls on his side of the net.

oranges
01-21-2011, 03:58 PM
that was the worst input, no need to worship it.

yada yada

I'll respond with the best part of that quote again

If you ever develop some distance to yourself you'll have a good laugh at your posting history here.

Orka_n
01-21-2011, 03:59 PM
Pay heed, students. This is a prime example on exactly how crazy a person can get before we actually need to call the men in white coats.

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 04:06 PM
@luie

In any event both nadull & del-po are playing so there is alot of time still to put that arguement to rest.

this i agree.......but i also suggest that nadull figures out everyone and goes on to dominate as proved in the cases of his 2009 beaters during the knee episode........remember how soderling and berdych were hyped as nadull-beaters after 2009? anti-nadull tards are desperate to find a player who can own nadull like how nadull owns fedull but the possibilities of that happening are remote to the power of thousand.......

GlennMirnyi
01-21-2011, 04:09 PM
Only a delusional Raflukel Nadull could ever consider a straight-sets clownish match a "classic" just because he played Nadull.

:haha:

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 04:09 PM
back to the topic,

french hero simon might take it to del potro come next australian open........it would be a serious classic with him blocking back those bullets from d pot........will be interesting to see if he ends up on the winning side that time.......who's your pick for that one? simon vs d-pot on the australian open plexicushion surface.......

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 04:15 PM
Only a delusional Raflukel Nadull could ever consider a straight-sets clownish match a "classic" just because he played Nadull.

:haha:

glendull mirndull, it's a classic and you saw it with your eyes or you did not? a classic where in the spartan tactfully arrested the floating frenchman.......a lot of pre match discussion was going on about how nadal should play against giles.......

majority opined that he should attack and try to force the issue........only nadal knew how to tackle and he did it wisely........

fed had a similar challenge but he allowed simon into the contest and somehow limped past the finish line.......either way, both are classics.......simon had a good role in both the matches.......

GlennMirnyi
01-21-2011, 04:18 PM
glendull mirndull, it's a classic and you saw it with your eyes or you did not? a classic where in the spartan tactfully arrested the floating frenchman.......a lot of pre match discussion was going on about how nadal should play against giles.......

majority opined that he should attack and try to force the issue........only nadal knew how to tackle and he did it wisely........

fed had a similar challenge but he allowed simon into the contest and somehow limped past the finish line.......either way, both are classics.......simon had a good role in both the matches.......

:retard:

A classic... :haha: :haha: :haha:

A classic display of moonballing and pushing, that is, or of how weak tennis is nowadays, or of how mediocre Raflukel Nadull is or of how delusional you are. :lol:

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 04:27 PM
right.......raflukel nadull owns your god 6-2 in slam finals across all surfaces........imagine what rafael nadal will do.......

luie
01-21-2011, 04:29 PM
@luie

In any event both nadull & del-po are playing so there is alot of time still to put that arguement to rest.

this i agree.......but i also suggest that nadull figures out everyone and goes on to dominate as proved in the cases of his 2009 beaters during the knee episode........remember how soderling and berdych were hyped as nadull-beaters after 2009? anti-nadull tards are desperate to find a player who can own nadull like how nadull owns fedull but the possibilities of that happening are remote to the power of thousand.......
It would be difficult for a player to dominate nadull in this era as opposed to federer.
In this "slow" high bouncing era generally the weakness in fed's game can be exploited more than the weakness in nadull's. (fundermental weakness).
Fed has difficulty generating pace/ controlling shoulder high balls to his bh. So he prefer to play ball-bashers than pushers,, as he can use the opponents pace against them & redirect the ball. So in this slow high bouncing era his bh becomes more vunerable than say pre 2004.
Nadull weakness is ROS & "needs time" to set-up his 3500 rpm forehand,so if you can consistently take time away from nadull you can beat him.So faster surfaces would be disadvantageous for him.He would rather play pushers than ball bashers.
In short nadull benefitted more from the slowing conditions than fed.

Fujee
01-21-2011, 04:37 PM
This thread makes me glad i am not completely deluded.

GlennMirnyi
01-21-2011, 04:41 PM
right.......raflukel nadull owns your god 6-2 in slam finals across all surfaces........imagine what rafael nadal will do.......

My what?

I'm not a Frauderer gloryhunter, you psycho. :rolleyes:

Fujee
01-21-2011, 04:43 PM
right.......raflukel nadull owns your god 6-2 in slam finals across all surfaces........imagine what rafael nadal will do.......

Don't you mean 5-2?

Get you facts straight before you argue your point.

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 04:53 PM
It would be difficult for a player to dominate nadull in this era as opposed to federer.
In this "slow" high bouncing era generally the weakness in fed's game can be exploited more than the weakness in nadull's. (fundermental weakness).
Fed has difficulty generating pace/ controlling shoulder high balls to his bh. So he prefer to play ball-bashers than pushers,, as he can use the opponents pace against them & redirect the ball. So in this slow high bouncing era his bh becomes more vunerable than say pre 2004.
Nadull weakness is ROS & "needs time" to set-up his 3500 rpm forehand,so if you can consistently take time away from nadull you can beat him.So faster surfaces would be disadvantageous for him.He would rather play pushers than ball bashers.
In short nadull benefitted more from the slowing conditions than fed.

i am not convinced that 2004-07 conditions were any different to the present conditions.......3,4 years before that, yes.......the surfaces now have slowed down significantly compared to the 90s........fed was the first one in this era to have struggled on the fast surfaces.......he did not win shit until every serve and volleyer disappeared and surfaces slowed down.......

it's not like federina alone can play on fast surfaces of today, nadal can play too.......just look at his us open, wimbledon victories.......he also has several fast court titles........it's a false belief haters carry that nadal struggles on fast surfaces.......

luie
01-21-2011, 05:21 PM
i am not convinced that 2004-07 conditions were any different to the present conditions.......3,4 years before that, yes.......the surfaces now have slowed down significantly compared to the 90s........fed was the first one in this era to have struggled on the fast surfaces.......he did not win shit until every serve and volleyer disappeared and surfaces slowed down.......

it's not like federina alone can play on fast surfaces of today, nadal can play too.......just look at his us open, wimbledon victories.......he also has several fast court titles........it's a false belief haters carry that nadal struggles on fast surfaces.......
1. Fed has a great record against players of the 90s,, only player he struggled with was henman,,, he was a teenager when he lost to kafelnikov & rafter.
2.Wimbledon was faster in 2003 than 2008 & lower bouncing.He won a couple indoor titles before.
3. Nadull has a poor record indoors where generally the surface is faster & lower bouncing.Yet to make a final @ cincy, 70% of his titles are on clay.
4.Nadull won the USO for much the same reason fed did @ RG,, his tormentor on that particular surface was absent,, nadull can play @ the USO he made 2 SF prior but lost because of Murray/del-po.
Fed made numerous FO finals but lost because of nadull, remove the anomaly & you get victory.
5. The slowest of the court favours both fed/nadull, nadull has time to set-up his forehand & fed has "time" to run around his bh. The difference is bounce,, the higher the bounce the more it favours nadull's western grip,great @ handling high bounce but susceptable to low bounce.Fed eastern bh grip favour low bouncing balls susceptable to high bouncing balls.
Fed beats nadull on low bouncing surfaces or @ least competitive......eg YEC/Hamburg.
Nadull wins RG/MC,,, grass is even some what & competitive.
Hence by reference to the slowness of courts today is not relevant to the specific fed/nadull rivalry but the field @ large.Players are unable to use the courts to generate pace to hurt nadull. Players like blake/davydenko hurt nadull more than players like novak/simon,,, what do I chalk that up to blake/davydenko > novak/simon..no these players are more equiped to take advantage on a nadull weakness on faster surfaces.
This doesn't mean fed is a better player but that today conditions favour nadull more.

Orka_n
01-21-2011, 05:25 PM
Best thread in GM right now.

http://i983.photobucket.com/albums/ae311/Orka_n/Robinthumb2.jpg

GlennMirnyi
01-21-2011, 05:38 PM
Best thread in GM right now.

http://i983.photobucket.com/albums/ae311/Orka_n/Robinthumb2.jpg

Priceless.

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 05:43 PM
1. Fed has a great record against players of the 90s,, only player he struggled with was henman,,, he was a teenager when he lost to kafelnikov & rafter.
2.Wimbledon was faster in 2003 than 2008 & lower bouncing.He won a couple indoor titles before.
3. Nadull has a poor record indoors where generally the surface is faster & lower bouncing.Yet to make a final @ cincy, 70% of his titles are on clay.
4.Nadull won the USO for much the same reason fed did @ RG,, his tormentor on that particular surface was absent,, nadull can play @ the USO he made 2 SF prior but lost because of Murray/del-po.
Fed made numerous FO finals but lost because of nadull, remove the anomaly & you get victory.
5. The slowest of the court favours both fed/nadull, nadull has time to set-up his forehand & fed has "time" to run around his bh. The difference is bounce,, the higher the bounce the more it favours nadull's western grip,great @ handling high bounce but susceptable to low bounce.Fed eastern bh grip favour low bouncing balls susceptable to high bouncing balls.
Fed beats nadull on low bouncing surfaces or @ least competitive......eg YEC/Hamburg.
Nadull wins RG/MC,,, grass is even some what & competitive.
Hence by reference to the slowness of courts today is not relevant to the specific fed/nadull rivalry but the field @ large.Players are unable to use the courts to generate pace to hurt nadull. Players like blake/davydenko hurt nadull more than players like novak/simon,,, what do I chalk that up to blake/davydenko > novak/simon..no these players are more equiped to take advantage on a nadull weakness on faster surfaces.
This doesn't mean fed is a better player but that today conditions favour nadull more.

soderling unloaded everything he had on the fast surface in abu dhabi, only to be packed back to sweden........djokovic was in the form of his life in beijing 2008 on that fastest surface in beijing, only to be outlasted.......

blake and youzhny were owned once nadal got into his own on hardcourts.......davydenko is a clown who just took advantage of injured nadal too many times.......watch that russian weakling get demolished by nadal in indian wells or miami.......

the players who you suggest that they will bother nadal on fast courts do not know how to play on fast courts themselves.......that's the reason why they suck on grass and we only have 3 or 4 players who can play on grass.......majority of the tour does not know how to take advantage of the speed of the court and finish points at the net, let alone troubling a 2 time wimbledon winner plus 1 time us open champion who happens to be the greatest retriever the game has ever witnessed.......

us open surface was not slow and neither was it high bouncing.......people talked up djokovic a lot before the final and they changed the tune once nadal came up with all answers on that fast court........

federina had a poor record in that fast era early in his career, he is the first one to take advantage of the slowness........

Orka_n
01-21-2011, 05:50 PM
us open surface was not slow and neither was it high bouncing.......people talked up djokovic a lot before the final and they changed the tune once nadal came up with all answers on that fast court........

federina had a poor record in that fast era early in his career, he is the first one to take advantage of the slowness........I really know better than to try to reason with you but this is just hilarious. First you say that US Open is fast (which is true), and then you claim that Federer has a poor record on fast surfaces and that he takes advantage of the slowness. Who won the USO five times in a row from 2004-2008 again? :scratch:

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 05:56 PM
that's not what i said, read again.......in comparison to 90s, the courts are fucking slow today.......federina's record was poor on the fast surfaces of those days which were ridiculously fast, not today's fast courts which are only reasonably fast.......he was the first one to take advantage of the relative slowness today, his advantage got doubled with the vacuum era........

Orka_n
01-21-2011, 06:00 PM
that's not what i said, read again.......in comparison to 90s, the courts are fucking slow today.......federina's record was poor on the fast surfaces of those days which were ridiculously fast, not today's fast courts which are only reasonably fast.......he was the first one to take advantage of the relative slowness today, his advantage got doubled with the vacuum era...........Yeah... You know, Fed just had his 19th birthday when the nineties ended. It took a while for him to develop his game. Not everyone are as early bloomers as Nadal. That is probably the explanation us normal people would choose.

Start da Game
01-21-2011, 06:07 PM
...Yeah... You know, Fed just had his 19th birthday when the nineties ended. It took a while for him to develop his game. Not everyone are as early bloomers as Nadal. That is probably the explanation us normal people would choose.

2000-03 period i am talking about.......anyway back to the topic,

who's your pick if simon decides to make another australian open classic against del potro? will he be third time lucky?

solowyn
01-21-2011, 06:07 PM
The first title Federer won was on indoor carpet in 01. His first finals were in 2000 on indoor carpet and indoor hard. First slow court he won on was Hamburg Masters in 02.

Fitness and mentality held Federer back, not courts.

Roger the Dodger
01-21-2011, 06:46 PM
Why do you posters encourage his start da drama with serious replies?

luie
01-21-2011, 06:49 PM
soderling unloaded everything he had on the fast surface in abu dhabi, only to be packed back to sweden........djokovic was in the form of his life in beijing 2008 on that fastest surface in beijing, only to be outlasted.......

blake and youzhny were owned once nadal got into his own on hardcourts.......davydenko is a clown who just took advantage of injured nadal too many times.......watch that russian weakling get demolished by nadal in indian wells or miami.......

the players who you suggest that they will bother nadal on fast courts do not know how to play on fast courts themselves.......that's the reason why they suck on grass and we only have 3 or 4 players who can play on grass.......majority of the tour does not know how to take advantage of the speed of the court and finish points at the net, let alone troubling a 2 time wimbledon winner plus 1 time us open champion who happens to be the greatest retriever the game has ever witnessed.......

us open surface was not slow and neither was it high bouncing.......people talked up djokovic a lot before the final and they changed the tune once nadal came up with all answers on that fast court........

federina had a poor record in that fast era early in his career, he is the first one to take advantage of the slowness........
Firstly I don't discuss exho's in a serious thread.
Novak vs nadull is a non issue for me because if you could only win 2 sets in 6 BO5 matches then its irrelevant using novak as an eg of nadull's prowess on any surface.
Blake was 25/26 when he had nadull 3-0, nadull turned the h2h around in 2008, blake was 28/29 & considered old in tennis terms.Davydenko is 6-1 against nadull on HC including Doha 10/Miami 08 nadull was healthy.
The idea of nadull turning around the h2h with YounzhyTsonga is a fallacy.Nadull beat Younzhy @ the AO05 so nadull had the early advantage in the rivalry younzhy played a great game @ the USO 06,, not that nadull "figured" him out.Similiar with tsonga,nadull beat him @ USO 07 rd of 16 but lost to him a few months later, so nadull had the early upper hand in the rivarlry. Nadull figured out no one these players were in form played a great match to beat nadull."ball basher on fire" .
The only players I endorse for several reasons are Murray/del-po.
The players I suggested that challenge nadull play well on HC where the bounce is truer & great movement is not a prerequite for success on grass.Agassi was great on HC but good on grass. Ivanesivic was great on grass but good on HC.Traditionally playing on grass & hc required a different skill set.lendl great on HC good on grass.So the fact that players I suggested can play on HC but not grass is a non issue,,If you want I can give you many more eg.
Fact is today the higher bouncing/slower grass favour baseliners/nadull more than fed.Bounce.
As I said before nadull is not bad & the USO if the anomaly is removed, bringing novak is a non issue,he shit his pants when he sees nadull across the net,, something he doesn't even see,,like YEC 10 (cyclops)
Fed against Goran 2-0,chang,4-1,sampras 1-0,pioline 1-0,rusedski 4-1 moya 7-0. Slam winners/ finalist of the nineties was not beat fed except henman.It was members of his generation Hewitt/nalbandian etc.
Fed early in his career titles
1.2001 milan--indoor carpet.2002,vienna indoor HC,sydney outdoor HC,2003 TMC HC,vienna IHC,dubai,Marselli IHC
Wimby/halle grass.
Finalist
2000 Basel Indoor carpet ,,2001 basel indoor carpet,2002 milan indoor carpet,marselli indoors/rotterdam.
Only 1 clay title 2002 hamburg & two final rome 03 & high altitude gastaad 2002.
As opposed to nadull's early career extremely clay heavy.
In fact fed won more indoor titles than nadull as a teenager than nadull entire career. Conversely nadull won more clay titles than fed in his teenage years than feds career.
Feds first RG deep run coincidened with nadulls.
Short fed would have done fine if the courts remained fast ,because during this time he was still developing .

BigJohn
01-21-2011, 08:50 PM
Do you have to get drunk or f---ed up on something before you post in this thread?

No........... but you need............ to be.......... a major Rafapper............... to start it............

allpro
01-21-2011, 08:58 PM
del-po has the edge against nadull on HC slams untill proven otherwise.

i disagree. i think it will take all of 2011 for del potro to fully heal and regain the match toughness necessary to compete for majors. nadal (and federer) will be heavy favorites over del potro at uso '11 should they meet.

With regard to USO it was mentioned but because they are in the media part of their job would be too promote the best players @ the time.So in reality it will not be discussed alot.

correct. mac and carillo did not mention it Ďall the timeí as you previously stated.

With regard to Murray, I stated I believe he will beat nadull more often than not on HC.
It is uncertain he meets nadull though as when he gets into a rot he starts pushing with his forehand.
Even though Murray has a technically flawed forehand,, it "comes alive" vs certain players.
Is it a coincidence that Murray has more difficulty beating 1 hand bh players or difficult for him than tall 2 handed bh players.
Murray struggles against
Gasquet--When he was good
Wawa
Federer
but has a 5-1 h2h against del-po
5-1 against cilic
& a good HC record against nadull.I think not.
Murray likes balls @ a high trajectory on his forehand so he can safely inject pace into his forehand.
Thats why he is accused of pushing to much against fed/wawa/gasquet,, he doesn't have the balls to chance it & play aggressively for fear for giving the ball boys too much work, picking up the balls on his side of the net.

excellent analysis.

It would be difficult for a player to dominate nadull in this era as opposed to federer.
In this "slow" high bouncing era generally the weakness in fed's game can be exploited more than the weakness in nadull's. (fundermental weakness).
Fed has difficulty generating pace/ controlling shoulder high balls to his bh. So he prefer to play ball-bashers than pushers,, as he can use the opponents pace against them & redirect the ball. So in this slow high bouncing era his bh becomes more vunerable than say pre 2004.

youíre grasping at straws here. federerís backhand did not become more vulnerable in 2004. in fact, quite the opposite is true. 2004-2007 marked the period of federerís historic run capturing 11 of 16 slams, 3 yecís, and compiling a staggering match record of 315-24 (92%). in other words, the most dominant stretch in mens tennis history.

your theory here merely reflects a strong personal bias against nadal and is not congruent with any facts. this is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize (and marginalize) nadalís ascendancy and dominance over fed.

luie
01-21-2011, 09:47 PM
i disagree. i think it will take all of 2011 for del potro to fully heal and regain the match toughness necessary to compete for majors. nadal (and federer) will be heavy favorites over del potro at uso '11 should they meet.



correct. mac and carillo did not mention it ‘all the time’ as you previously stated.



excellent analysis.



you’re grasping at straws here. federer’s backhand did not become more vulnerable in 2004. in fact, quite the opposite is true. 2004-2007 marked the period of federer’s historic run capturing 11 of 16 slams, 3 yec’s, and compiling a staggering match record of 315-24 (92%). in other words, the most dominant stretch in mens tennis history.

your theory here merely reflects a strong personal bias against nadal and is not congruent with any facts. this is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize (and marginalize) nadal’s ascendancy and dominance over fed.
The fundamentality of feds bh hasn't changed from his formative years till now,he is better able to play low balls as opposed to balls @ shoulder height.Pre 2004 players were able to exploit this on clay,Guga/horna/mantilla among others ,however during that time period it was isolated to clay. The slowing of the courts @ Wimby didn't affect fed much it, made nadull his rival but there was not great serve & volleyers anymore,so it was a trade off, but the bounce favoured nadull because then he could stay @ the baseline & play,, secondly the higher bounce shielded him from his weakness being exploited low balls to his bh.So together favoured nadull.
With reference to fed nadull rivalry it would not have made a different because the status quo is maintained,nadull defeats fed when the condition suit him & fed defeat nadull when the conditions suit him.So their is no need to defend fed or nadull because it played out as it should.
If fed defeats nadull @ RG or nadull defeat fed @ USO, then the victor will have the clear advantage.
My reference to the slowness of the court is related to the field, fast courts = young players mold their games for pace eg. big serve, big forehand volleys etc. Which plays into feds strenght generally.
Slower courts lead to more movement based players,good returners,pusher type tennis leads to more rewards than agressive tennis.
Bottom line without specifing any-one fed would rather play big serving agressive players (attackers) than defenders.

allpro
01-21-2011, 09:58 PM
The fundamentality of feds bh hasn't changed from his formative years till now,he is better able to play low balls as opposed to balls @ shoulder height.Pre 2004 players were able to exploit this on clay,Guga/horna/mantilla among others ,however during that time period it was isolated to clay. The slowing of the courts @ Wimby didn't affect fed much it, made nadull his rival but there was not great serve & volleyers anymore,so it was a trade off, but the bounce favoured nadull because then he could stay @ the baseline & play,, secondly the higher bounce shielded him from his weakness being exploited low balls to his bh.So together favoured nadull.
With reference to fed nadull rivalry it would not have made a different because the status quo is maintained,nadull defeats fed when the condition suit him & fed defeat nadull when the conditions suit him.So their is no need to defend fed or nadull because it played out as it should.
If fed defeats nadull @ RG or nadull defeat fed @ USO, then the victor will have the clear advantage.
My reference to the slowness of the court is related to the field, fast courts = young players mold their games for pace eg. big serve, big forehand volleys etc. Which plays into feds strenght generally.
Slower courts lead to more movement based players,good returners,pusher type tennis leads to more rewards than agressive tennis.
Bottom line without specifing any-one fed would rather play big serving agressive players (attackers) than defenders.

i'm not sure what your point is in this rambling litany. you lost me :confused:

viruzzz
01-21-2011, 10:01 PM
Simon has so much chances to be the only one who takes sets in a match vs Fed this AO.

tests
01-21-2011, 10:04 PM
Simon has so much chances to be the only one who takes sets in a match vs Fed this AO.

nadal too

luie
01-21-2011, 10:07 PM
i'm not sure what your point is in this rambling litany. you lost me :confused:
Fed would rather play big servers,with big forehands,volleys etc with limited movement so he can move them around more.=fast courts
He doesn't like to players with great movement, because they get a lot of balls back,& they are adept to baseline game eg simon/nadull/murray.=slow courts.
Simple enough for you or you want a drawing or picture.

fast_clay
01-21-2011, 10:07 PM
:lol: @ certain nadal tards mistaking general haters for being fed lovers... :lol: so funny... might it not be that they know that this period of time in tennis history will be a period widely regarded for when tennis not only failed to evolve, but actually regressed in a manner that hurt the sport for a period of time...?? just a question :lol: silly nadal tards... :lol:

fast_clay
01-21-2011, 10:36 PM
Fed would rather play big servers,with big forehands,volleys etc with limited movement so he can move them around more.=fast courts
He doesn't like to players with great movement, because they get a lot of balls back,& they are adept to baseline game eg simon/nadull/murray.=slow courts.
Simple enough for you or you want a drawing or picture.

yes, largely i agree... they are his kryptonite... but, he has had some notable success, and some notable victories are why we still see the arrogant Olderer around today...

the foundations of the players' style in bold work directly in contrast of one word: risk... when it comes to the crunch, they'll all gladly hang around and put in a marathon with a racquet just to see fed take one too many risk... or perhaps, watch him care to mentally lapse and trade for a while...

thing is, fed's 'normal' is high risk compared with 99% of the current tour (not from eras past mind you) and is good enough to punch holes in great defence... couple this with own fed's solid, but now naturally declining defence and you can see why he has been the 3rd best claycourter of the last decade...

these are the contrasts of this era... aggressive baseliner vs passive oriented counter puncher... proactive vs defensive... the lines have been blurred for the traditionalists, where risk was a pre-meditated serve and volley each point was once aggressive, now, it is more the combined accuracy and weight of one particular dominating shot that may deem a player 'attacking'...

there are a couple of exceptions to your argument tho... as there always is and should be...

to counter your point about what style fed would rather play, in the USO 09 final, fed played the big serving, flat hitting del potro and took him apart with deft touch, open face shots and a mix of pace... then, inexplicably, after a set and 3/4 of pure domination and seeming tactical nous, fed decided he would abandon the tactic in favour of displaying to del potro that he could trade equally in a flat out slugfest with an ogre... wrong... not only did fed get humbled but the argie giant, he also betrayed himself to be a pretty much tactically weak player when he is winning rather easily vs this style of player... and indeed arrogant, as the help of a coach would have kept him on the right track... annacone is the right choice... he will plead to fed's ego that it is his attacking variety is unmatched in todays game...

fed abandoned risk in that match...

exactly a year earlier, you have a match, again to counter your argument... against murray in the USO 08 final... this match i believe is the reason we still see fed around today... had murray won this, it would have opened that gates for the new breed... the final with murray was to signal the intention that there were new kids on the block... in fact, fed, fresh from serve volleying and bluffing his way out of trouble vs Andreev, stunned murray and totally ambushed him with a pretty full attacking array... and, did a repeat 16 months later at the AO 10...

fed fully embraced risk in this USO 08 match... and, was enough game to pull him through the AO 10 final also...

i do not believe Olderer will have enough game to hold off murray in just over a weeks time...

it's time for the tennis world to bow down to their new tennis overlord: The Tradesman

allpro
01-21-2011, 10:40 PM
Fed would rather play big servers,with big forehands,volleys etc with limited movement so he can move them around more.=fast courts
He doesn't like to players with great movement, because they get a lot of balls back,& they are adept to baseline game eg simon/nadull/murray.=slow courts.
Simple enough for you or you want a drawing or picture.

i don't disagree with you on what types of players fed prefers. my point of contention was why 2004 - the beginning of fed's dominance - somehow marked the year his bh became more vulnerable.

allpro
01-21-2011, 10:53 PM
i do not believe Olderer will have enough game to hold off murray in just over a weeks time...

it's time for the tennis world to bow down to their new tennis overlord: The Tradesman

:lol:

luie
01-21-2011, 11:00 PM
i don't disagree with you on what types of players fed prefers. my point of contention was why 2004 - the beginning of fed's dominance - somehow marked the year his bh became more vulnerable.
Yeah then it was my mistake!!! It was good in those years but I think it was a result of his movement,he was able to get to the balls fast,hence his timing was more in sync.
His bh has always been suspect against high balls.In any event I never used feds bh to diminish nadull "hold" over fed so to speak.
Because if you a blind fed fanboy/or blind nadull fanboy you would want your fave to win all the time however in reality through-out history even great players have their challenges & fed is no different.
Rosewall owned laver more @ the french ,even more than nadull owned fed @ the french,so eventuality is no surprise to people who followed tennis a bit before fed/nadull.

Start da Game
01-22-2011, 03:25 AM
Firstly I don't discuss exho's in a serious thread.
Novak vs nadull is a non issue for me because if you could only win 2 sets in 6 BO5 matches then its irrelevant using novak as an eg of nadull's prowess on any surface.
Blake was 25/26 when he had nadull 3-0, nadull turned the h2h around in 2008, blake was 28/29 & considered old in tennis terms.Davydenko is 6-1 against nadull on HC including Doha 10/Miami 08 nadull was healthy.
The idea of nadull turning around the h2h with YounzhyTsonga is a fallacy.Nadull beat Younzhy @ the AO05 so nadull had the early advantage in the rivalry younzhy played a great game @ the USO 06,, not that nadull "figured" him out.Similiar with tsonga,nadull beat him @ USO 07 rd of 16 but lost to him a few months later, so nadull had the early upper hand in the rivarlry. Nadull figured out no one these players were in form played a great match to beat nadull."ball basher on fire" .
The only players I endorse for several reasons are Murray/del-po.
The players I suggested that challenge nadull play well on HC where the bounce is truer & great movement is not a prerequite for success on grass.Agassi was great on HC but good on grass. Ivanesivic was great on grass but good on HC.Traditionally playing on grass & hc required a different skill set.lendl great on HC good on grass.So the fact that players I suggested can play on HC but not grass is a non issue,,If you want I can give you many more eg.
Fact is today the higher bouncing/slower grass favour baseliners/nadull more than fed.Bounce.
As I said before nadull is not bad & the USO if the anomaly is removed, bringing novak is a non issue,he shit his pants when he sees nadull across the net,, something he doesn't even see,,like YEC 10 (cyclops)
Fed against Goran 2-0,chang,4-1,sampras 1-0,pioline 1-0,rusedski 4-1 moya 7-0. Slam winners/ finalist of the nineties was not beat fed except henman.It was members of his generation Hewitt/nalbandian etc.
Fed early in his career titles
1.2001 milan--indoor carpet.2002,vienna indoor HC,sydney outdoor HC,2003 TMC HC,vienna IHC,dubai,Marselli IHC
Wimby/halle grass.
Finalist
2000 Basel Indoor carpet ,,2001 basel indoor carpet,2002 milan indoor carpet,marselli indoors/rotterdam.
Only 1 clay title 2002 hamburg & two final rome 03 & high altitude gastaad 2002.
As opposed to nadull's early career extremely clay heavy.
In fact fed won more indoor titles than nadull as a teenager than nadull entire career. Conversely nadull won more clay titles than fed in his teenage years than feds career.
Feds first RG deep run coincidened with nadulls.
Short fed would have done fine if the courts remained fast ,because during this time he was still developing .

cut it luie.......blake and youzhny in any form would not have had a prayer against even semi peak nadull.......nadull is not naturally talented, he got into his own on hardcourts through sheer hardwork and it took some time.......

not very funny that you mention one or two matches as fedull's head 2 head against players of 90s.......fedull had little idea of how to tackle the variety of that period on those slick surfaces........he was winning very little.......the slowing down of wimbledon in 2002 and gradual slow down of other surfaces, opened up options for fedull's protective baseline game.......he then started to return serves well and was easily the best server in that vacuum period........

the bounce you are talking about is sure an issue for fedull but it's his headache to deal, like how the speed is an issue for nadull and how he's learned to deal with it over the years.......

luie
01-22-2011, 03:21 PM
cut it luie.......blake and youzhny in any form would not have had a prayer against even semi peak nadull.......nadull is not naturally talented, he got into his own on hardcourts through sheer hardwork and it took some time.......

not very funny that you mention one or two matches as fedull's head 2 head against players of 90s.......fedull had little idea of how to tackle the variety of that period on those slick surfaces........he was winning very little.......the slowing down of wimbledon in 2002 and gradual slow down of other surfaces, opened up options for fedull's protective baseline game.......he then started to return serves well and was easily the best server in that vacuum period........

the bounce you are talking about is sure an issue for fedull but it's his headache to deal, like how the speed is an issue for nadull and how he's learned to deal with it over the years.......
Negative blake/younhny had the tools to take time away from nadull.
Instead of stating I took only a few matches tell me the players that owned nadull,,I'll be waiting.
Fed was very adept to fast surfaces I showed the titles he won/finals on indoor carpet ,HC the fastest surfaces on tour @ that time as a teenage,even though he was still developing.
Bottom line he was better on faster surfaces than slower early in his career.
He was having trouble generally againt baseliners not S& V.
Please highlight to me the players who owned him & their style of play.
As for the bounce fed has to deal with it yes,, as far as fast low bouncing surfaces go nadull & fed are about the same in dealing with it.
They can win most of the time wants the anomaly is removed.

Start da Game
01-22-2011, 03:30 PM
Negative blake/younhny had the tools to take time away from nadull.
Instead of stating I took only a few matches tell me the players that owned nadull,,I'll be waiting.
Fed was very adept to fast surfaces I showed the titles he won/finals on indoor carpet ,HC the fastest surfaces on tour @ that time as a teenage,even though he was still developing.
Bottom line he was better on faster surfaces than slower early in his career.
He was having trouble generally againt baseliners not S& V.
Please highlight to me the players who owned him & their style of play.

rafael of 2006 was not a force outside clay, defeats to blake, youzhny were understandable.......i don't get how you conclude that single handed little clowns would manage the same against this improved version, when double fisted giants like soderling, berdych with 10 times more heaviness are failing.......

not one player, the variety of the field had federina off guard in too many tournaments.......he was confronted by a mixture of serve and volley, baseliner players.......that's why he won so little despite his flourished game.......

luie
01-22-2011, 03:59 PM
rafael of 2006 was not a force outside clay, defeats to blake, youzhny were understandable.......i don't get how you conclude that single handed little clowns would manage the same against this improved version, when double fisted giants like soderling, berdych with 10 times more heaviness are failing.......

not one player, the variety of the field had federina off guard in too many tournaments.......he was confronted by a mixture of serve and volley, baseliner players.......that's why he won so little despite his flourished game.......
With regard to blake/Younzhy I'am saying @ least in this post that nadull didn't "figure" them out,the only case you have is mental miget berdych who owned rafa on HC before turning the h2h around but I can't say if it was due to a nadull improvement or berdych mental decline,,he even choked from 2-0 sets @ the AO 09 to fed,berdych I don't take seriously.
Nadull couldn't figure out younzhy because before the match he was 3-1 up in the rivalry. He didn't figure him out he simply continued his already established dominance over him post 2006.
Nadull has a 5-2 h2h against soderling he was up 3-0 against soderling pre 2008, so he simply continued his dominance over Soderling. Soderling cannot be the litmus test for nadull's improvement on fast surface or any surface.
Blake was 3-0 against nadull but he was 25 years when nadull turned the h2h around he was old in tennis. Even so going into that match nadull was the more accomplished HC player winning MS on Hard & blake had on a couple MM tournies against nobodies. So nadull should have won but blake's flat forehand took "time" away from nadull.
Yes a variety of players ,ha!ha! translation= predominately baseliners.
Fed in his younger days & even now prefer faster ,low bouncing surfaces against attackers than, pushers n' defenders. Fed did great in his younger days for a late bloomer.
The biggest problem was feds mentality not his talent or ability on a particular surface. In fact he grew up playing on indoor carpet in his home tourny.
While nadull traditionally for spanish players grew up on clay & adept to slow surfaces.
FED owns attackers.

Start da Game
01-22-2011, 04:12 PM
With regard to blake/Younzhy I'am saying @ least in this post that nadull didn't "figure" them out,the only case you have is mental miget berdych who owned rafa on HC before turning the h2h around but I can't say if it was due to a nadull improvement or berdych mental decline,,he even choked from 2-0 sets @ the AO 09 to fed,berdych I don't take seriously.
Nadull couldn't figure out younzhy because before the match he was 3-1 up in the rivalry. He didn't figure him out he simply continued his already established dominance over him post 2006.
Nadull has a 5-2 h2h against soderling he was up 3-0 against soderling pre 2008, so he simply continued his dominance over Soderling. Soderling cannot be the litmus test for nadull's improvement on fast surface or any surface.
Blake was 3-0 against nadull but he was 25 years when nadull turned the h2h around he was old in tennis. Even so going into that match nadull was the more accomplished HC player winning MS on Hard & blake had on a couple MM tournies against nobodies. So nadull should have won but blake's flat forehand took "time" away from nadull.
Yes a variety of players ,ha!ha! translation= predominately baseliners.
Fed in his younger days & even now prefer faster ,low bouncing surfaces against attackers than, pushers n' defenders. Fed did great in his younger days for a late bloomer.
The biggest problem was feds mentality not his talent or ability on a particular surface. In fact he grew up playing on indoor carpet in his home tourny.
While nadull traditionally for spanish players grew up on clay & adept to slow surfaces.
FED owns attackers.

you are basically repeating the same thing, luie.......i don't see how miniscule creatures would confront nadal when the so called threat posing giants are failing against the 2011 nadal.......

youzhny who made the semis of us open last year, was rendered plain useless by the 2010 version.......you don't make grandslam semis if you are totally useless.......the problem with your argument is, blake and youzhny scored when nadal was a kid and there are evidences that they both got spanked once nadal grew up.......

as for fed, i already said everything about that pre 2003 period.......i will agree to disagree.......

luie
01-22-2011, 04:21 PM
you are basically repeating the same thing, luie.......i don't see how miniscule creatures would confront nadal when the so called threat posing giants are failing against the 2011 nadal.......

youzhny who made the semis of us open last year, was rendered plain useless by the 2010 version.......you don't make grandslam semis if you are totally useless.......the problem with your argument is, blake and youzhny scored when nadal was a kid and there are evidences that they both got spanked once nadal grew up.......

as for fed, i already said everything about that pre 2003 period.......i will agree to disagree.......
We could agree to disagree about fed,its a non issue really, who cares where they started,it about how they finish.
The core of my point is I'am not saying nadull didn't improve in HC @ least in this post but that the eg. are flawed as these guys never consistently had the upper hand on nadull for any extended period of time or have the neccessary tools to do it.
Younzhy is 29,played a # of 5 setters hardly an airtight case.
For me to really buy into the "whole" nadull has improved bandwagon, he has the little task for him to defeat Murray/del-po on a consistent basis & my concerns will be mute.
Simple task for the improved spartan.
Beating fed/novak/soderling/younhzy/blake/fiasco/lopez/istomin prove nothing to me.

Start da Game
01-22-2011, 04:28 PM
fair enough if that's what's going to convince you, i see it happening soon.......