[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by BroTree123

de Bakker's just shit although I enjoy Haase's ballbashing game at times -- I didn't know he's cocky and arrogant ..I thought his personality is alright....he was sort of funny when he was getting destroyed by Duck in AO 1R .

Probably not so easy for him to display his true self in interviews in English, but you should hear his Dutch ones

[BroTree123]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

Probably not so easy for him to display his true self in interviews in English, but you should hear his Dutch ones

Yeah probably. There any links?

[Orka_n]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

He just isn't winning 3 out of 5 sets again vs. Nadal

Their sets on clay:

6-2, 7-5, 6-1, 6-1, 6-0, 2-6, 7-6, 4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-4, 6-4, 6-1, 7-6

'When Robin is in the zone'... if Nadal plays to 80% of his clay court ability Soderling has no chance to even get near that zone.

Nonsense. Maybe you would be right if it was Nadal who was dominating the points, however that is not the case. In this matchup, Robin is clearly the more aggressive one. Therefore, if he keeps his UEs down, he will win. Simple as that. Granted, that is very hard to do against the best clay defender there is, but it is not impossible (as shown previously). The outcome also has a lot to do with Robin's 1st serve % of course.

[Ash86]

Originally Posted by Certinfy

If Nadal plays the way he did at Roland Garros last year I believe Djokovic, Federer (if he doesn't choke so badly like he did last year), Soderling (I know they played last year at RG but that was by far the only good match Rafa played, was in 2008 form that match), Del Potro and maybe throw in guys like Isner there too after what happened last year.

Federer? At RG?

By now it is clear that Fed in a best of 5 has next to no chance of beating Rafa - and at RG even less so. He played near his peak clay level at RG last year in the semi & final (his backhand was never that good against Nadal before) yet still lost 6-1 in the fourth. He's not getting 3 sets.

Djokovic - I'll give you that.
Del Potro - that too - perhaps if his forehand is on and he just steamrolls like he was at the start of the DC tie.
Isner - much less likely after last year - Nadal will be more aggressive on the return. BUT if he has a monster serving day you never know.
Soderling - the guy hasn't played since Bastad last year, still isn't well - will he be in the kind of form needed to beat Rafa at RG by June? Very doubtful.

So basically before the final the threats are Isner & Del Potro. Hope they're both in Djokovic's half - Novak to play Isner 4th round & then Del Potro in the quarters. Just want Nadal to get his record breaking 7th title - rather an easy draw than having to fight past Del Po etc. - let the pretender to the throne deal with the difficult players I say - after all RG is his main goal this year according to Novak...

[masterclass]

Originally Posted by EddieNero

The sample of one particular match is too small to draw conclusions about Isner's chances against Nadal.
Besides, Isner was never close to win this match.

This is not a statistical analysis of his chances against Nadal. There is obviously insufficient data to make a legitimate statistical analysis.
The question remains who are the biggest threats outside the top 4.
It is of no matter that Mr. Isner only played 1 big match at RG against Mr. Nadal.
It was done once and recent enough to make him a threat to do it again, especially as described by me with Mr. Nadal less than his best.

And to say Isner was never close to winning the match is almost laughable.
When was Mr. Nadal close to winning the match? Only in the last set at the end, up 1 break, 5-3.
In terms of sets, one could say that Mr. Isner was close, going up 2 sets to 1 and needing 1 more set for the win.

Regardless, it was the only time anyone has ever taken Mr. Nadal to 5 sets and if anyone outside the top 4 is a threat to Mr. Nadal, it is my opinion that Mr. Isner has to be at or near the top of the list.

You may have a different opinion of who is the biggest threat. It would be nice to see you commit to an opinion with a well reasoned argument. In this thread, I only have seen you be a negative force negating other people's opinions.

Respectfully,
masterclass

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by BroTree123

Yeah probably. There any links?

This whopper

After that Roddick loss you thought he handled very well, damn he shows the real Robin Haase in this one

'I was the better player.'

'I dictated the rallies.'

'He was constantly looking at his coach asking what he had to do, because I returned every serve.'

'He was lucky in the first set, I had BP's when he hit the line, and I had my doubts. Maybe I should've challenged.'

[BroTree123]

Win or lose, one thing's for sure. Nadal is a lock for the final.

[swisht4u]

Originally Posted by EddieNero

DelPo's fitness ain't good enough to withstand Nadal for more than 2-3 sets so the only way to victory leads through straights sets which is very unlikely/impossible to happen.

Depends on DelPo's training, he almost took out Fed in 2009 in five sets with his fitness not as good as later that year.
At the USO he lasted 5 sets and looked strong in the fifth set.
So we know that he has the ability to bring that area up to the highest levels.

Lately though he has looked not to be in good shape as far as endurance, his confidence looks a little thin too.

He has a way's to go in a lot of areas, but when he came on to the scene in 2008 he came out of nowhere.

At any time he can get on a roll, he can also hit thru any court and his game can come back with no warning.

That's one of the reasons so many watch his game, to try to see the signs of a strong comeback, he can't be counted out.

[reery]

Winning for a seventh time at a slam is really difficult. Sampras is the only male player to do this in the open era.

If you search for articles of 2000, this is what it says:

2000 Wimbledon Final: Pete Sampras defeats Pat Rafter

One year earlier, Sampras had beaten his archrival Agassi in final, and equalled Emerson’s record of 12 Grand Slam singles titles. He was expected to break the record in front of the US crowd, but had to withdraw just a few days before the 99 Us Open due to a back injury. Beaten in the semifinals of the 00′ Oz Open and in the first round of Roland Garros, Sampras entered Wimbledon injured (shin inflammation).

Had this been any other tournament, Sampras said following the final, he would have pulled out. But Wimbledon is not just another tournament and instead he decided to skip practice sessions. And it proved to be a good decision as he benefited from an easy draw. Before the final, the highest-ranked player Sampras faced was No. 56,
Jan-Michael Gambill. His opponents were in succession Jiri Novak, Karol Kucera, Justin Gimelstob, Jonas Bjorkman, Jan Michael Gambill, Vladimir Voltchkov and the popular Aussie Pat Rafter in the final.


It will be very hard for Nadal. The draw will be very important.

[BroTree123]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

This whopper

After that Roddick loss you thought he handled very well, damn he shows the real Robin Haase in this one

'I was the better player.'

'I dictated the rallies.'

'He was constantly looking at his coach asking what he had to do, because I returned every serve.'

'He was lucky in the first set, I had BP's when he hit the line, and I had my doubts. Maybe I should've challenged.'

I can sorta understand what he's saying -- Dutch sounds quite similar to English. But yeah seriously.....wow . He was the better player? Omfg he's sucked for a while now including this match . He's just feeding himself nonsense there .

And the fact that he sorta looked like Stepanek there, another fellow a55ha7, didn't help either .

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by Orka_n

Nonsense. Maybe you would be right if it was Nadal who was dominating the points, however that is not the case. In this matchup, Robin is clearly the more aggressive one. Therefore, if he keeps his UEs down, he will win. Simple as that. Granted, that is very hard to do against the best clay defender there is, but it is not impossible (as shown previously). The outcome also has a lot to do with Robin's 1st serve % of course.

Being more aggressive doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to win when you're playing well, not on clay it doesn't.

If Nadal's defensive game is up there, no matter how well Soderling is playing, he's going to make those errors.

There's no escaping making a lot of errors when you're playing Nadal on clay, after 7 years this must be kicking in you'd think. Rafa forces you to make them, it's not that he's not doing anything and just every opponent just happened to choke against him for 7 years straight.

[samanosuke]

haase is such a moron . I knew it few years back when i saw him for the first time and all these years he is just proving that . screwed face also, maybe few punches could help

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by BroTree123

I can sorta understand what he's saying -- Dutch sounds quite similar to English. But yeah seriously.....wow . He was the better player? Omfg he's sucked for a while now including this match . He's just feeding himself nonsense there .

Well, he started by saying 'I just wasn't good enough.'

But then he comes with a sea of excuses saying why he really was better and Roddick was lucky

There are plenty more of these, also after he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon, and also from his Roddick loss the year before. And his epic Murray choke at the USO. That's why I don't like him that much, but hey, he's Dutch and he's the best we've got. I'll take it

[BroTree123]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

Well, he started by saying 'I just wasn't good enough.'

But then he comes with a sea of excuses saying why he really was better and Roddick was lucky . He was simply too shit on the day.

There are plenty more of these, also after he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon, and also from his Roddick loss the year before. And his epic Murray choke at the USO. That's why I don't like him that much, but hey, he's Dutch and he's the best we've got. I'll take it

GSM Roddick 6-3, 6-4, 6-1. Even though I'm not much of a Roddick fan (and admittedly wanted him to lose this match), this was not fucking luck .

I actually thought he played excellent against Nadal before he stepped his game to another level and Haase ran out of answers. Lol, he should have been proud of his efforts, not making excuses why he lost . But aside that, he should have beaten Murray -- I don't like Murray that much so I don't care what Haase says about him . But yeah like you said, he's the best from your country but still........he's sorta on a downhill slide at the moment .

[Orka_n]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

Being more aggressive doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to win when you're playing well, not on clay it doesn't.

If Nadal's defensive game is up there, no matter how well Soderling is playing, he's going to make those errors.

Yes, because Nadal runs faster than Soderling's 100 mph forehands and is therefore literally impossible to pass. This is getting nowhere.