[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by Looner

Take point people. The great GSMTardal thinks anything outside of Slams does not count.

You people are awesome at taking quotes out of it's context. I expected nothing less from you.

Let's go back to rickcastle's post:

'I agree that it is a bit unfair that Federer did not have a lot of chances to "even the score" so to speak when he was at his prime because Nadal wasn't showing up on USO finals until recently but it is what it is'

I reacted to that specific statement, you guys just jump on it like the rabid tards you are without reading the entire story.

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by tripwires

He was just talking about the USO, though.

tripwires

[tripwires]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

tripwires

I accept goodreps, thanks.

[Looner]

And the whole discussion was in line with which rivalry is more interesting. So, it [the discussion] did include matches outside of the USO. GSMNadal is out of his depth yet again.

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by Looner

And the whole discussion was in line with which rivalry is more interesting. So, it [the discussion] did include matches outside of the USO. GSMNadal is out of his depth yet again.

Nice way to draw a bad conclusion. Rickcastle only mentioned the USO, so I just highlighted that part. You're not obliged to address everything all the time, do you?

It is however helpful to read someone's comment before making a statement, Looner. But since you almost always have an instant, one lined, incorrect insult ready after I post, I assume you don't always do that.

[Ariadne]

Originally Posted by rickcastle

That's neither here nor there though, the fact is Federer-Nadal rivalry for me has become unexciting as a Federer fan to watch because of the way Federer has folded mentally against Nadal. I agree that it is a bit unfair that Federer did not have a lot of chances to "even the score" so to speak when he was at his prime because Nadal wasn't showing up on USO finals until recently but it is what it is. For the reason alone that both Federer and Djokovic have the self belief that they can beat the other player on their best day at any surface makes this rivalry more exciting IMO. It's not just Federer though, watching Nadal vs. anybody on clay is pretty much NID and makes for a pretty boring rivalry.

While I agree to a degree I would content that Nadal-Djokovic rivalry is the most enthralling in tennis today. Their grinding battle of attrition is actually pretty exciting. Considering Federer is now beyond his prime I really don't get excited by any of his so called next gen rivals. Despite the successful aberration of an year he has been having, he won't be able to sustain it next year -- I feel it is his last hurrah. It's almost a given that he will end of with a negative H-H against Nadal, Djokovic, Murray et al. if he persists in playing for next few years further into his decline.

[tripwires]

Originally Posted by Ariadne

While I agree to a degree I would content that Nadal-Djokovic rivalry is the most enthralling in tennis today. Their grinding battle of attrition is actually pretty exciting. Considering Federer is now beyond his prime I really don't get excited by any of his so called next gen rivals. Despite the successful aberration of an year he has been having, he won't be able to sustain it next year -- I feel it is his last hurrah. It's almost a given that he will end of with a negative H-H against Nadal, Djokovic, Murray et al. if he persists in playing for next few years further into his decline.

Nadal/Djokovic was exciting the first couple of times last year, if only because it was great to finally see someone who could beat Nadal at his own game. But AO 2012, far from being an epic that it's touted to be, was a boring, one-dimensional slugfest that quite aptly represents the rivalry. A tennis match does not have to be 6 hours long to be epic; it does not have to be 6 hours long to be a good match. I personally found it really boring and I really wasn't a fan of the tennis on display.

Federer/Djokovic, on the other hand, benefits from the unpredictability mentioned by rickcastle and also the wider variety of shots that both players are able to bring to the court, though these days that tends to be Roger more than Nole. Their matches at the French and US Open last year were some of the best of the year. Conversely, some of the Nadal/Djokovic finals like Wimbledon and the US Open, I didn't find to be of particularly high quality.

As for Federer/Nadal...the less said about it, the better.

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by luie

Every era is full of chokers and players that are good enough but since the beginning of time the dominating athletes have had 2 aspects in common great Serve n forehand or great forehand.
The bh based players were always seen as chokers or inconsistent.
Gonzalez-laver- Borg-Lendl-Sampras -fed- nadull all fh based players . Some have great serves. U have to take the initiative , your options under pressure is wider as well.
Second fiddle players of the era. Rosewall/Connors/wilander/Agassi/ Hewitt/ nalby/Murray etc. their bh more reliable than fh generally.
Conditions have a lot to do with it as well. Hewitt would get destroyed but del-po on HC but Hewitt was able to beat him at Wimby why did he suddenly get good no. The surface and speed of the court played an important role.

Laver? I agree with your general point, but Laver is a pretty major exception.

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

Time to stop this madness about 'Nadal dodging Federer at the USO'. Federer did just as much, if not more of the dodging. But that's what you get when one guy is older and primes don't overlap. Get over it.

Have you run out of tablets? How are 6 finals the same as 2?

[duarte_a]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

Time to stop this madness about 'Nadal dodging Federer at the USO'. Federer did just as much, if not more of the dodging. But that's what you get when one guy is older and primes don't overlap. Get over it.

Even if you were only talking about the US Open how can you say "Federer did just as much, if not more of the dodging.". Roger was in 6 finals in a row. Nadal 2. Roger lost 2 times in the semis as did nadal in 2008 and 2009.

I'm not seeing how Roger "dodged" more than nadal.

Also Roger made the finals of MC, ROme and RG in 2006, MC and RG in 2007, MC and RG in 2008, Madrid in 2009, Madrid in 2010, RG in 2011. He could very well have "dodged" some of these matches.

[Ariadne]

Originally Posted by duarte_a

Also Roger made the finals of MC, ROme and RG in 2006, MC and RG in 2007, MC and RG in 2008, Madrid in 2009, Madrid in 2010, RG in 2011. He could very well have "dodged" some of these matches.

He probably should've since had Federer been less formidable/consistent on clay, it would have made the H-H argument moot along with the psychological baggage Federer had to endure on account of all those defeats. Apparently for some Nadal tards (or anti-Fed tards for that matter), the lack of a skewed H-H would have also given Federer's status as GOAT more legitimacy.

[IOFH]

The Fedal H2H has an asterisk to it.

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by IOFH

The Fedal H2H has an asterisk to it.

No asterisk.

[duarte_a]

Originally Posted by Ariadne

He probably should've since had Federer been less formidable/consistent on clay, it would have made the H-H argument moot along with the psychological baggage Federer had to endure on account of all those defeats. Apparently for some Nadal tards (or anti-Fed tards for that matter), the lack of a skewed H-H would have also given Federer's status as GOAT more legitimacy.

Exactely. Their retarded logic says that had Roger reached less finals on clay and hence not been the 2nd best player on clay from his generation it would have made hm the GOAT because the H2H would be much closer.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by Matt01

No asterisk.

Yup, it's more of a star the size of the Sun.