[Han Solo]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

Point is, if Nadal had Noserer's clay draws, his clay records would be even more impressive.

Yes - he'd have met Soderling in the final of RG 2009 instead...and still lost.

Assertions are fine. But they're not convincing if you can't support them with decent evidence.

[juan27]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

And that is the reason enough to not call the draw weak.

Djoker was a former USO runner up and AO champion and world #3, plus someone who can trouble Nadal on hard courts a lot.

Who did Noserer beat for his RG title? First time ever slam finalist? Lol. His draw was weak precisely because he beat pigeons and chokers on his way to the title. He never faced anyone who could trouble him.

jajaj , you should be happy than nadal in 2010 faced the most weak year of the last years with murray , federer , nole in patetic levels and del potro out.

that djoko of 2010 played almost all the year without serve and murray said in an interview that the 2010 was his worst year , federer was a disaster too.

that 2010 he faced melzers and youzhnys in slams semis.

in clay he never faced real competition too , only federer and djokovic fast courts specialists

[RafaelNadalisGod]

Originally Posted by Han Solo

Yes - he'd have met Soderling in the final of RG 2009 instead...and still lost.

Assertions are fine. But they're not convincing if you can't support them with decent evidence.

Nadal? Losing a final at Roland Garros?

[Johnbert]

people talking about "weak rg draws" for fed. so please show me a tough draw for the french open in this era of clay-mugs

[manadrainer]

Originally Posted by Johnbert

people talking about "weak rg draws" for fed. so please show me a tough draw for the french open in this era of clay-mugs

This.

weakest clay era ever when a ballerina suited for fast courts makes it to 5 finals.

Anyway I don't understand how can Dulltards be complaining about Del Potro 2009... Maybe they forgot he smashed their idol 2,2,2 a few months later. And soderling? The only man to beat Nadal at RG, is this a weak opponent?

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by Matt01

It's true that on paper Fed had a harder draw, but Del Potro and Haas both should have beaten Fed but they choked their matches away. Haas for example missed the easiest volleys possible on crucial points

Haas arguably choked, Del Po probably got tired - but so what? Basically all you're saying is that 2 of the tough opponents Fed had in that draw were in such good form they played well enough to beat him. How exactly does that make it easier?

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

Haas arguably choked, Del Po probably got tired - but so what? Basically all you're saying is that 2 of the tough opponents Fed had in that draw were in such good form they played well enough to beat him. How exactly does that make it easier?

I posted that on paper Fed had a harder draw.
When you don't understand how a choking opponent makes your win easier, well....then you either don't know what the word choking means or it's even worse...

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by Matt01

I posted that on paper Fed had a harder draw.
When you don't understand how a choking opponent makes your win easier, well....then you either don't know what the word choking means or it's even worse...

An easy win is 6-2,6-2,6-2. Having to come back from 2 sets down is not an easy win, even if your opponent gives you the opening by choking. As wins go, that's a hard win. If Haas hadn't choked, Roger wouldn't have had a difficult win - he'd have had a loss.

I repeat: how is it easier when your opponents are actually playing well enough to beat you?

[Looner]

Matt's arguments are hilarious. Basically, he is trying to say that the draw was easier because Fed won. If Fed had lost, the draw would have been hard. It's not my logic, it's his and it's complete rubbish.

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

An easy win is 6-2,6-2,6-2. Having to come back from 2 sets down is not an easy win, even if your opponent gives you the opening by choking. As wins go, that's a hard win. If Haas hadn't choked, Roger wouldn't have had a difficult win - he'd have had a loss.

I repeat: how is it easier when your opponents are actually playing well enough to beat you?

I said "easier" and not "easy" but you probably don't know the difference between these two words either.
And now stop asking me useless questions because I'm not going to answer them.

But because I'm nice: DelPotro and Haas did not well when it really counted and that is what really matters in the end. They played up to their standard in the beginning of their matches (Fed didn't even play that well) and then (I repeat they choked their matches away.

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by Looner

Matt's arguments are hilarious. Basically, he is trying to say that the draw was easier because Fed won. If Fed had lost, the draw would have been hard. It's not my logic, it's his and it's completely rubbish.

If you had read my posts or would have been able to understand them, then you would have noticed that I'm not making these kind of claims about hard or easy draws. I'm letting the Fedtards make those kind of cheap excuses about Fed's "hard draws from hell" I've read that often enough here from you and your fellow Fedfans.

[EliSter]

RG 2009 was biggest fluke in tennis history and no matter what Nosetards rant about it will alywas be * Nole needs 2 RG and he will pass balerina.

[Johnbert]

Originally Posted by EliSter

RG 2009 was biggest fluke in tennis history and no matter what Nosetards rant about it will alywas be * Nole needs 2 RG and he will pass balerina.

if rg 2009 was a fluke, then djokovic's whole 2011 was a fluke

and true, if a at this time 4-times-rg-finalist wins his 1st rg-title, it's the perfect definition of a fluke

[EliSter]

Originally Posted by Johnbert

if rg 2009 was a fluke, then djokovic's whole 2011 was a fluke

and true, if a at this time 4-times-rg-finalist wins his 1st rg-title, it's the perfect definition of a fluke

Just a tard worthy comparation when u dont have anything smarter to say... I know it hurts when Balerina is helpless against his master Nadal in every slam.

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by Matt01

I said "easier" and not "easy" but you probably don't know the difference between these two words either.
And now stop asking me useless questions because I'm not going to answer them.

But because I'm nice: DelPotro and Haas did not well when it really counted and that is what really matters in the end. They played up to their standard in the beginning of their matches (Fed didn't even play that well) and then (I repeat they choked their matches away.

Yes, winning is "easier" than losing, & if you are being outplayed your opponent generally has to do something to let you back in, but I repeat, how is a draw full of Top 10 players playing well - an easy draw?