I won't bring up one-trick-pony-ness any more ...

[ahonkan]

... is there anything more to say?
If Rafa is unable to win anything off clay even in his most consistent
form all year and loses not just to his erstwhile nemesis thrice in a row
but also to nobodies and newbies, there's nothing left to prove.
The 'mentally strongest' or 'best ever clutch' player tag is similarly
undeserved. Rafa has lost 4 straight final-set TBs and lost many more
times after being up a break or more in the final set. And these losses
have been to all kinds of players, not just the top players. The number of
times he loses in straight sets also belies the 'mentally strongest' tag.
It's true that Rafa is still one of the best defending BPs, but that's
about it.

[Manco]

Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.

[*skriptis]

ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

He's lost his edge and is past his peak.

You can criticize him for falling or praise Federer for keeping up
longer and managing to stay closer to his best level, fine.


But to negate obvious Nadal's peak vs peak superiority?
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:


> He's lost his edge and is past his peak.
>
> You can criticize him for falling or praise Federer for keeping up
> longer and managing to stay closer to his best level, fine.
>
>
> But to negate obvious Nadal's peak vs peak superiority?

So if he had this peak superiority, why could Nadal *never in his career*, peak
or otherwise, defend a single title off of his beloved dirt?

[*skriptis]

Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

Let's be honest about it, excluding slams, it's a bogus stat anyway.

It's just something haters use.
I remember some clown poster mocking Djokovic around here in 2008
or 2009, for the same, not defending tune-up or such and Djokovic
later won 4 consecutive YEC, most ever, and YEC is a tournament
where you meet most top players.


In Nadal's case, due to his seasonal dynamics and on-off periods
it just didn't happen.

But remember if Djokovic hadn't gone mad in 2011, Nadal most
likely defends FO-Wim-USO 2010-11.

You can't better than that. So he was pretty much there knocking
at the door of the highest achievement in terms of defending
titles. Didn't make it in the end. So would have defending Doha
or Indian Wells made such a difference now?

[ali...@alinefx.com]

Now you're just relegated to woulda-coulda-shoulda when it comes to nadal cos reality is 180 degrees reversed and he's just utter shit now.

#20 > #15

[RaspingDrive]

Nadal is the only guy who had to compete against two 10 plus slam winners and still secured 15. Dominated Federer, was in turn dominated by Djok but eventually was able to beat him at USO, his supposed weaker surface. One of the goat contenders for sure. All this one-trick pony business are bogus things. No offense meant to Ahonkan. I say he should concentrate on FO and get four or five more. Seriously.

[RaspingDrive]

I mean two 10 plus slam winners in their prime. Djok had his share of challenge too, but by the time he emerged the top dog Federer was largely dilapidated.

[joh]

Op zondag 13 augustus 2017 05:02:06 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:

wow

[John Liang]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 1:02:06 PM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
> Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> >
> >
> >> He's lost his edge and is past his peak.
> >>
> >> You can criticize him for falling or praise Federer for keeping up
> >> longer and managing to stay closer to his best level, fine.
> >>
> >>
> >> But to negate obvious Nadal's peak vs peak superiority?
> >
> >
> > So if he had this peak superiority, why could Nadal *never in his career*, peak
> > or otherwise, defend a single title off of his beloved dirt?
>
>
> Let's be honest about it, excluding slams, it's a bogus stat anyway.

Let's face it , he has not defend a single non clay court tournament in his whole career. It is not a bogus stat but a fact.

>
> It's just something haters use.
> I remember some clown poster mocking Djokovic around here in 2008
> or 2009, for the same, not defending tune-up or such and Djokovic
> later won 4 consecutive YEC, most ever, and YEC is a tournament
> where you meet most top players.
>
>
> In Nadal's case, due to his seasonal dynamics and on-off periods
> it just didn't happen.

Pretty bad excuses. The guys was good for about 3 months of the year in most part of his career.

>
> But remember if Djokovic hadn't gone mad in 2011, Nadal most
> likely defends FO-Wim-USO 2010-11.

Most like do not count, if Djoker is not around Fed would probably have 10 Wimbledon right now. So many coulda, woulda for all three of them.

[John Liang]

And much of his dominance over Federer and Djoker in slam were built on clay, he won 5 of his slam on hc/gc inferior to his main rivals who had 18 and 11 slam titles on HC/GC, Nadal is clearly not the best HC/GC player in this era and Federer/Djoker are better than him on those two surfaces.

[Manuel aka Xax]

Le dimanche 13 août 2017 04:07:35 UTC+2, Manco a écrit :
> Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.

+1

[Manuel aka Xax]

Le dimanche 13 août 2017 05:42:04 UTC+2, ali...@alinefx.com a écrit :
> Now you're just relegated to woulda-coulda-shoulda when it comes to nadal cos reality is 180 degrees reversed and he's just utter shit now.
>
> #20 > #15

Hum...
Are you trolling or trying to have Fedfans considered as dumber than average Joe?
Talking about reality and ending with #20 > #15 ?
Not even mentioning that you qualified one of Nadal best year as utter shit because he lost a match to a quite highly promising youngster ?

You're embarrassing yourself, and many less biased Fedfans, I guess.

[Whisper]

On 13/08/2017 12:07 PM, Manco wrote:
> Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
>

It's surreal, when you consider Borg's 6 was considered insurmountable.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

On 13/08/2017 5:34 PM, John Liang wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 1:02:06 PM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
>> Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
>>> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> He's lost his edge and is past his peak.
>>>>
>>>> You can criticize him for falling or praise Federer for keeping up
>>>> longer and managing to stay closer to his best level, fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But to negate obvious Nadal's peak vs peak superiority?
>>>
>>>
>>> So if he had this peak superiority, why could Nadal *never in his career*, peak
>>> or otherwise, defend a single title off of his beloved dirt?
>>
>>
>> Let's be honest about it, excluding slams, it's a bogus stat anyway.
>
> Let's face it , he has not defend a single non clay court tournament in his whole career. It is not a bogus stat but a fact.
>

One of the reasons this stat is 'bogus' is exactly because of Rafa.
He's proven to be better than Federer at peak, so 'defending a slam off
clay' doesn't mean he's not better than Federer. Get it?

Conversely Federer mustn't be very good to allow himself to be owned by
such a 1-dimensioanl player. So you see you lose the argument on many
levels.

[Whisper]

But he most likely is the best 'at peak' player of this era. Certainly
I see his best as better than Fed or Djoker, on every surface.

[joh]

Op zondag 13 augustus 2017 13:40:44 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

The thing is: you win at most one slam per slam.
Lousy resource management is gonna cost ya, legacy wise.

[stephenJ]

There's no denying that off of clay, Nadal hasn't been anywhere near a
GOAT contender. Two Wimbledons and three total HC slams? That's Edberg
territory, not GOAT territory.

We all know Nadal has been brilliant on surfaces other than clay - USO
2010 and Wimbledon 2008 come immediately to mind - but the mark of a
great champ is being able to do it consistently, and Nadal just hasn't.








---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[TT]

He doesn't have a great serve...

If you have a great serve it's much easier to win on fast surfaces. Most
opponents seem to fold.

[stephenJ]

I agree. Give Nadal a great serve and he might have won the CYGS a
couple of times.

FWIW, Nadal has served very well this year at times. I think he has a
good chance to win this US Open, anyone who discounts his chances
because of the Montreal loss (like when Fed lost to Haas at W tuneup) is
fooling themselves.

[PeteWasLucky]

> I think he has a
good chance to win this US Open

Don't you want to attach a percentage chance to your prediction?! :)

I really enjoy your numbers :)

[stephenJ]

On 8/13/2017 9:04 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> I think he has a
> good chance to win this US Open
>
> Don't you want to attach a percentage chance to your prediction?! :)

Not yet. :)

[*skriptis]

stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

I'm more referring to the issue of defending titles.

I think it's not such a big deal that could disqualify a guy with
Edberg type off clay credentials. Nadal has 5 slams there.


Connors too hasn't defended Wimbledon title, and has defended USO
just once, even though he won it 5 times. Nobody talks about that
as it's irrelevant.

Otoh, Courier defended both his AO and FO titles so what?

[RaspingDrive]

No need to discount a 15-slam champ's chances at USO. This year he already reached the final of a HC slam. It is not inconceivable that he would repeat that feat and, with luck and more confidence, seal it in the final. AO 2017 was a close contest, mind you.

[RaspingDrive]

And 6 more finals on non-clay surfaces. Edberg had 4. Becker had 4 as well.

> Connors too hasn't defended Wimbledon title, and has defended USO
> just once, even though he won it 5 times. Nobody talks about that
> as it's irrelevant.
>
> Otoh, Courier defended both his AO and FO titles so what?

Note: Connors has 8 and Courier has 4. Slam count, dear :)

[John Liang]

No, he is not the best on HC and GC in this era and far from it when it was time to face up the pressure defending his slam titles on those surface, you can expect him to shit his pants and not able to handle the pressure, he did not in his two Wimbledon defence, did not at AO and again at USO. When you are the best at best you need to show some resolve in defending the title. He is the best in not defending his non clay court titles and with expectation to shit his own pants when it was his part to defend a slam not played on clay.

[*skriptis]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Connors won 7 non-clay slams and defended just one title.

Nadal won 5. Is it such a big deal?

[Tim]

On 13/08/2017 03:07, Manco wrote:
> Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
>

Which just proves it's a clown era for clay.

--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388

[TT]

Tim kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 18:52:
> On 13/08/2017 03:07, Manco wrote:
>> Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
>>
>
> Which just proves it's a clown era for clay.
>

Who faced two of his main rivals as often at a slam as Nadal did at RG?

[Carey]

There is no way to dispute that Raffi is the best ever on the dirt.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Djok did pwn him nicely on clay too when he was still alive. Had the
tummy match gone the other way ...

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[stephenJ]

Nobody is talking about Courier or Connors as GOAT. Standards are higher
at that level.

That said, I agree with you, it's a pretty minor detail. Better to win 5
USO spread out over 13 years like Sampras did than to win 3 in a row
like Lendl did, obviously.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 12:10:39 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 13.8.2017 19:07, Carey wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 9:03:00 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> >> Tim kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 18:52:
> >>> On 13/08/2017 03:07, Manco wrote:
> >>>> Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Which just proves it's a clown era for clay.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Who faced two of his main rivals as often at a slam as Nadal did at RG?
> >
> >
> > There is no way to dispute that Raffi is the best ever on the dirt.
>
> Djok did pwn him nicely on clay too when he was still alive. Had the
> tummy match gone the other way ...

Djokovic "owned" a Nadal who was at an all time low in his career in 2015 at the FO. On clay, comparing Djokovic to Nadal is laughable. There is no comparison. Nadal's accomplishments on clay dwarf Djokovic's accomplishments and Federer's too. Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time. Borg is second best.

[Jason White]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 4:28:41 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> On 13/08/2017 12:07 PM, Manco wrote:
> > Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
> >
>
> It's surreal, when you consider Borg's 6 was considered insurmountable.
>

Nadal has benefited chasing total slam numbers higher than his own. Winning the French is the best way for him to do that, and kept him motivated. It doesn't make Nadal's wins any less remarkable. Would Borg have had same motivation under similar circumstances? Maybe not, but it's plausible that he would. No one knows. How things actually worked out, that's life.

[Jason White]

In the scope of their h2h matchup, sure. But if Nadal were truly better overall, wouldn't he have dominated the tour at a higher level for a longer period of time than he actually did? Or at least more consistently? He didn't. The guys who truly shouldered the top dog status in the past 15 years are Federer and Djokovic.

[Jason White]

Good point. Especially if Federer suffers an upset. The path would surely be cleared for Nadal, at least on paper. It's tougher to beat Nadal best of five, but truth is he's more vulnerable to a larger set of players on the hardcourts as well.

[Jason White]

Typically Connors isn't debated as greatest player. Perhaps the facts you listed are some of the key reasons why he isn't.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 13/08/2017 22.27, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 12:10:39 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>> On 13.8.2017 19:07, Carey wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 9:03:00 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>>> Tim kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 18:52:
>>>>> On 13/08/2017 03:07, Manco wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which just proves it's a clown era for clay.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who faced two of his main rivals as often at a slam as Nadal
>>>> did at RG?
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no way to dispute that Raffi is the best ever on the
>>> dirt.
>>
>> Djok did pwn him nicely on clay too when he was still alive. Had
>> the tummy match gone the other way ...
>
> Djokovic "owned" a Nadal who was at an all time low in his career in
> 2015 at the FO. On clay, comparing Djokovic to Nadal is laughable.

That's silly. In 2011 2-0 on clay for Djok. Overall post 2011, they're
basically equals, can't recall the exact record. Rafa just made one putt
in the rain and had a tummy win.

A little luck and the record would be reversed. They are very very
close. Peak v. peak and Djok pummels Rafa.

[Whisper]

On 14/08/2017 1:52 AM, Tim wrote:
> On 13/08/2017 03:07, Manco wrote:
>> Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
>>
>
> Which just proves it's a clown era for clay.
>

Then you'd have to include Fed & Djoker as clay clowns, because Rafa
owns them at FO 5-0 & 6-1 h2h.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

Yes, he's the only confirmed surface goat/boat in history.

There is no obvious grass/hardcourt boat - at a guess probably Laver on
grass & Sampras on hard, but it's not obvious like Rafa on clay.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 14/08/2017 13.24, Whisper wrote:
> On 14/08/2017 1:52 AM, Tim wrote:
>> On 13/08/2017 03:07, Manco wrote:
>>> Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
>>>
>>
>> Which just proves it's a clown era for clay.
>>
>
>
>
> Then you'd have to include Fed & Djoker as clay clowns, because Rafa
> owns them at FO 5-0 & 6-1 h2h.

Early on, 2004-2007, Rafa had only Rogi to contend with on clay. All the
past champs died in the plague of 2004.

After that, ok.

At present, if Rogi doesn't play, Djok is on his deathbed and Andy is
whereever, who's the next threat at RG? Thiem?

Yup. Yup.

[TT]

When was Nadal's peak?

Why did Nadal win 10 RG titles and Djokovic 1?

[The Iceberg]

Lolol oh yeah it nothing to do with Nadal being out of sorts, great Fedfan post though, well done!

[The Iceberg]

No cos Nadal whooped Fed in W2008 didn't he, have you ever even watched that match?

[The Iceberg]

Yes except there was a short time in 2011 when peak Djoker was marginally better on hard court.

[The Iceberg]

He is the best at thrashing Fed at Wimbledon 2008 though isn't he.

[The Iceberg]

Thiem who is always too tired to do anything at slams LOL

[Pelle Svanslös]

On clay, pretty much every year except for that slump when he was
probably doing the dishes.

2011 certainly qualifies. Rafa was coming off a great 2010, played for a
NCYGS, but wimped out, straightsetted practically everybody on clay,
lost only those two matches to Djok.

*Pummel*

> Why did Nadal win 10 RG titles and Djokovic 1?

Probably because Rafa came into a very weak clay scene in 2004, a
vacuum. The same goes for the situation now. A ruffi estimation is that
Rafa's RG count is inflated by about 5.

Djok, OTOH, matured into a clay player right smack in the golden era.
Unreal competition on all surfaces. Kicked ass though.

[John Liang]

Let me know when Connors won 12+ slams then there is some merit to draw a comparison between him and Nadal. Nadal's rivals are Federer and Djoker, Federer defended slam titles at three different venues and Djoker at 2 slams.

[stephenJ]

On 8/14/2017 5:28 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 14/08/2017 2:07 AM, Carey wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 9:03:00 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>> Tim kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 18:52:
>>>> On 13/08/2017 03:07, Manco wrote:
>>>>> Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which just proves it's a clown era for clay.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who faced two of his main rivals as often at a slam as Nadal did at RG?
>>
>>
>> There is no way to dispute that Raffi is the best ever on the dirt.
>>
>
>
> Yes, he's the only confirmed surface goat/boat in history.
>
> There is no obvious grass/hardcourt boat - at a guess probably Laver on
> grass & Sampras on hard, but it's not obvious like Rafa on clay.

er, Federer has 10 HC slams and Sampras has 7, so he's certainly a
confirmed goat/boat on HC, at least compared to Sampras.


---

[TT]

How about 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2017 - where was Djokovic?

>> Why did Nadal win 10 RG titles and Djokovic 1?
>
> Probably because Rafa came into a very weak clay scene in 2004, a
> vacuum. The same goes for the situation now. A ruffi estimation is that
> Rafa's RG count is inflated by about 5.
>
> Djok, OTOH, matured into a clay player right smack in the golden era.
> Unreal competition on all surfaces. Kicked ass though.
>

Well Rafa has won 5 to Djokovic 1 RG titles since 2011...

7 to 1 since Djokovic's prime, since 2008...

You're fucking delusional.

[Court_1]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

> > Djokovic "owned" a Nadal who was at an all time low in his career in
> > 2015 at the FO. On clay, comparing Djokovic to Nadal is laughable.
>
> That's silly. In 2011 2-0 on clay for Djok.

???? What's their RG h2h? Who cares about tune-ups?

> Overall post 2011, they're
> basically equals,

They are nothing of the sort on clay! Djokovic was only able to beat an out of sorts Nadal in 2015 at RG. That's the reality.

> can't recall the exact record. Rafa just made one putt
> in the rain and had a tummy win.
>
> A little luck and the record would be reversed. They are very very
> close. Peak v. peak and Djok pummels Rafa.

A little luck, if this, if that. Who cares. Their RG record is 6-1 for Nadal and Nadal has 9 more RG titles than Djokovic. That's NOT very very close. You are seriously crazy when it comes to Djokovic.

[Court_1]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 8:50:15 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

> Djok, OTOH, matured into a clay player right smack in the golden era.
> Unreal competition on all surfaces. Kicked ass though.

LOL. Such nonsense.

[*skriptis]

Ok, Rafa is dismissed for not defending non-clay title even though
he won 5 non-clay slams and played 12 finals overall, more than
McEnroe, Edberg or Becker.

So, full, strictest criteria?

Then let me know when Federer wins cygs.

I mean, it's ridiculous to have a guy in goat contention who
hasn't even won 4 consecutive slams, let alone the main prize,
cygs.

[John Liang]

Dismissed as the best of this era on non clay court surfaces ? Yes, because both Djoker and Federer have better record on those two surfaces.
>
> So, full, strictest criteria?

Criteria, simple get better result on grass and hard court than the other two you are the best on grass and hard court.

>
> Then let me know when Federer wins cygs.


>
> I mean, it's ridiculous to have a guy in goat contention who
> hasn't even won 4 consecutive slams, let alone the main prize,
> cygs.

You miss the main prize that is winning the most number of grand slams.

[*skriptis]

If that is the biggest prize, why does it matter if Nadal defended
some non clay titles or not?

[TT]

It's Pelle comedy hour time.

[John Liang]

It is not me who claim Nadal is the best on grass and hard court surfaces, if he has a claim then he must perform better than his two main rivals on the two surfaces.

[Whisper]

If he thinks Djoker is only a 'little behind' Rafa with 1 FO v 10, then
Rafa's 1 AO v Djoker's 6 must mean they are essentially equal at AO?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 15/08/2017 15.40, Whisper wrote:
> On 15/08/2017 12:30 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A little luck and the record would be reversed. They are very very
>>> close. Peak v. peak and Djok pummels Rafa.
>>
>> A little luck, if this, if that. Who cares. Their RG record is 6-1 for
>> Nadal and Nadal has 9 more RG titles than Djokovic. That's NOT very
>> very close. You are seriously crazy when it comes to Djokovic.
>>
>>
>
>
> If he thinks Djoker is only a 'little behind' Rafa with 1 FO v 10, then
> Rafa's 1 AO v Djoker's 6 must mean they are essentially equal at AO?

Put rubber Reagan masks on both and watch them play. You won't be able
to differentiate which one is "better".

Rafa v. Djok is 5-1 since 2011 at RG. Flip one putt in the muddy
trenches and one tummy issue, you have 3-3.

Saying which one is better on the basis of one match/year is lunacy.
Irrespective of the "prestige" of the match.

[The Iceberg]

Except in W2008!

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 8:40:20 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> On 15/08/2017 12:30 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> A little luck and the record would be reversed. They are very very
> >> close. Peak v. peak and Djok pummels Rafa.
> >
> > A little luck, if this, if that. Who cares. Their RG record is 6-1 for Nadal and Nadal has 9 more RG titles than Djokovic. That's NOT very very close. You are seriously crazy when it comes to Djokovic.
> >
> >
>
>
> If he thinks Djoker is only a 'little behind' Rafa with 1 FO v 10, then
> Rafa's 1 AO v Djoker's 6 must mean they are essentially equal at AO?

Pelle now claiming that you can't tell which one is better between Djokovic and Nadal on clay tells us all we need to know about Pelle--OUT TO LUNCH! He's too far gone when it comes to Tiger Djokovic to be taken seriously at all.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 4:13:31 AM UTC-7, Manuel aka Xax wrote:

> Le dimanche 13 août 2017 04:07:35 UTC+2, Manco a écrit :
> > Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
>

> +1

+1

P

[*skriptis]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

What's the issue here? People read, you waste bandwidth but no one
seems to understand what are you arguing about.

Of course Nadal is greater (everyone knows how to compare 10 vs 1)
and for many years was better than Djokovic on clay.


But otoh picking one player who came closest to consistently
challenge Nadal on clay, and even subdued him on many occasions,
you'd have to be troll to pick anyone other than Djokovic.


Nadal lost to Djokovic in Monte Carlo finals, Rome finals, Madrid
finals and FO quarters.

Or, another way, if you had to pick a peak player that Nadal would
fear most on clay?

It certainly ain't Federer.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 6:32:19 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
> On 8/13/2017 8:19 AM, TT wrote:
> > stephenJ kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 16:06:

> >> On 8/12/2017 10:02 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> >>> Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
> >>>> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> He's lost his edge and is past his peak.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can criticize him for falling or praise Federer for keeping up
> >>>>> longer and managing to stay closer to his best level, fine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But to negate obvious Nadal's peak vs peak superiority?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So if he had this peak superiority, why could Nadal *never in his
> >>>> career*, peak
> >>>> or otherwise, defend a single title off of his beloved dirt?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Let's be honest about it, excluding slams, it's a bogus stat anyway.
> >>>
> >>> It's just something haters use.
> >>> I remember some clown poster mocking Djokovic around here in 2008
> >>> or 2009, for the same, not defending tune-up or such and Djokovic
> >>> later won 4 consecutive YEC, most ever, and YEC is a tournament
> >>> where you meet most top players.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In Nadal's case, due to his seasonal dynamics and on-off periods
> >>> it just didn't happen.
> >>>
> >>> But remember if Djokovic hadn't gone mad in 2011, Nadal most
> >>> likely defends FO-Wim-USO 2010-11.
> >>>
> >>> You can't better than that. So he was pretty much there knocking
> >>> at the door of the highest achievement in terms of defending
> >>> titles. Didn't make it in the end. So would have defending Doha
> >>> or Indian Wells made such a difference now?
> >>

> >> There's no denying that off of clay, Nadal hasn't been anywhere near a
> >> GOAT contender. Two Wimbledons and three total HC slams? That's Edberg
> >> territory, not GOAT territory.
> >>
> >> We all know Nadal has been brilliant on surfaces other than clay - USO
> >> 2010 and Wimbledon 2008 come immediately to mind - but the mark of a
> >> great champ is being able to do it consistently, and Nadal just hasn't.
>
> > He doesn't have a great serve...
>
> I agree. Give Nadal a great serve and he might have won the CYGS a
> couple of times.
>
> FWIW, Nadal has served very well this year at times. I think he has a
> good chance to win this US Open, anyone who discounts his chances
> because of the Montreal loss (like when Fed lost to Haas at W tuneup) is
> fooling themselves.

Rafa has a shot at the USO... AND there are a number of stumbling blocks awaiting him... both are true...

Rafa will have to measure out what level of commitment he will put out on the court to make it happen.

In 2013, his last USO winning season, he also won in Canada beating Milos in that final in straights, if memory serves. And he beat Nole in China after that in the final on hardcourt.

Shows just how good he could be on hardcourt. Can't forget that.

AND, it's also true he's getting clipped more 'visibly' (let us say) these days on grass and hardcourt... He 'seems' more suseptable to aggressive players who can serve BIG and hit a lot of 'winners'/who tend to ignore the UE ratios and just go for first strike orientated attack tennis. Meaning neither his defensive coverages NOR his retrun of serve quality are quite what they were when he was in his 20s. He could (more often than not) blunt almost anyone hitting at almost any serving level; he was that impressive defensively at the big tournaments.

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

> Good point. Especially if Federer suffers an upset. The path would surely be cleared for Nadal, at least on paper. It's tougher to beat Nadal best of five, but truth is he's more vulnerable to a larger set of players on the hardcourts as well.

That's a fair point. Rafa has been more suseptable to a wider range of player than Federer and Nole, even, on hardcourt certainly. Doesn't diminish Rafa's best play on hardcourt, where he got the better of Federer (at the majors) on hardcourt over the years fairly frequently. Yes, they never met at a USO, in the final or at any other stage of the tournament; however, AO certainly gives us a sampling if you want to indulge in hypotheticals and make summary judgements based on what might have happened.

Federer's main validating point has been his ability to endure over time WHILE succeeding over time. He's attenuated his period of dominance (on the one hard) and success (on the other) not only longer but in a more defining way than any other player since, well, Rosewall and Laver. Certainly, both Rafa and Nole have 5 or 6 more seasons (perhaps - health permitting) to refine and further define their historical markers in terms of absolute quality and duration.

P

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 11:04:30 AM UTC-4, Patrick Kehoe wrote:

> AND, it's also true he's getting clipped more 'visibly' (let us say) these days on grass and hardcourt... He 'seems' more suseptable to aggressive players who can serve BIG and hit a lot of 'winners'/who tend to ignore the UE ratios and just go for first strike orientated attack tennis. Meaning neither his defensive coverages NOR his retrun of serve quality are quite what they were when he was in his 20s. He could (more often than not) blunt almost anyone hitting at almost any serving level; he was that impressive defensively at the big tournaments.
>
> P

It's imperative that Nadal wins Cinci and wins it convincingly. His big rivals are out of Cinci as are many other dangerous players. He needs to take control, be aggressive and win this title to get some confidence on hc before the USO. He should NOT lose to Muller, Kyrgios, Querrey or Zverev types if he wants to be any kind of force for the USO. He's not like Federer who can waltz into a slam without any tune-up wins prior to the slam and win it at least not off clay.

[stephenJ]

On 8/15/2017 10:40 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 11:04:30 AM UTC-4, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>
>> AND, it's also true he's getting clipped more 'visibly' (let us say) these days on grass and hardcourt... He 'seems' more suseptable to aggressive players who can serve BIG and hit a lot of 'winners'/who tend to ignore the UE ratios and just go for first strike orientated attack tennis. Meaning neither his defensive coverages NOR his retrun of serve quality are quite what they were when he was in his 20s. He could (more often than not) blunt almost anyone hitting at almost any serving level; he was that impressive defensively at the big tournaments.
>>
>> P
>
> It's imperative that Nadal wins Cinci and wins it convincingly.

Not it's not. Cinci is a USO tuneup for Rafa, his goal there is to prime
his game for peak play at the USO. If that happens to coincide with
winning Cinci, great. But far better for him to work out kinks in his
game while losing there then to gloss them over while winning.




---

[Carey]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:12:01 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:

> Not it's not. Cinci is a USO tuneup for Rafa, his goal there is to prime
> his game for peak play at the USO. If that happens to coincide with
> winning Cinci, great. But far better for him to work out kinks in his
> game while losing there then to gloss them over while winning.
>

That is one way of looking at it, but as I see it, another loss will have
the sharks circling even more than they are already.

[Court_1]

Sorry, I disagree. Nadal needs titles off clay to build up his confidence. If he can't win Cinci with that depleted field, I don't like his chances for the USO. Even if he wins Cinci, he'll still be more vulnerable to many players on hc at the USO than Roger will be.

Have you seen the names of players who have defeated Nadal on hc since his last hc title win a few years ago? Dzumhur, Klizan, Verdasco, Berrer, Pouille, Querrey, Lopez, Coric, Raonic, Berdych, Shapovalov, Dolgopolov, etc. etc.

[stephenJ]

I agree that's a possible concern, if one of the kinks in his game is a
lack of confidence. If losing at Cinci will make him doubt his ability
to win at the USO, then winning will be important to him.

But I've never felt Nadal cared what external sharks -fans, the media,
other players, etc. - thought about his chances. Their doubts have never
seemed to bother him.

[TT]

Patrick Kehoe kirjoitti 15.8.2017 klo 18:04:
> In 2013, his last USO winning season, he also won in Canada beating Milos in that final in straights, if memory serves. And he beat Nole in China after that in the final on hardcourt.

Rafa actually swept NA hardcourt swing in 2013, all three big NA
tournaments:

Canada
Cinci
USO

Something no other active player has achieved...

(Next up: John says Rafa sucks because he didn't defend them)

[TT]

Court_1 kirjoitti 15.8.2017 klo 18:40:
> It's imperative that Nadal wins Cinci and wins it convincingly.

Nah, not really...

[Court_1]

I beg to differ.

[Patrick Kehoe]

Well, I agree with your point... certainly Rafa will want to beat the usual suspects, which makes up 90% of the field remaining in the Cinci Masters. Zverev's there; at 20, he should have enough mojo to make another run and not pull out the "I'm tired" card... Enthusiams and eagerness should be able to stoke the competitive fires sufficiently at his age... If he doesn't have mega energy now, he never will!

P

[ahonkan]

Just as A Zverev flattered at Rome to deceive at RG by falling at the
first hurdle, he flattered at Montreal to fall at the first hurdle to a
nobody at Cincy. This extended rest may actually work well for him for the USO.

[Patrick Kehoe]

And he's out... :)))))

Amazing...

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

Shows how unlikely it can be for players to win 3 weeks in a row, when the NEXTGen leader goes out first match...

P

[Carey]

Strategic loss by Sascha? He's played enough tennis by now, dunno.

So Raffi has no one at all in his way. Cakewalk in Cincinnati.

[ali...@alinefx.com]

Why wait for John, nadal sucks and he hasn’t defended a non clay court title ever

[John Liang]

I will let the stats speak for itself, and in the next few years, Nadal won just 2 matches in cinci in 2 years, 3 matches in Canada, 5 matches at USO in 2 years. Mind blowing performance for sure, TT. At least he got the priority right winning more matches at slam than MS.

[Carey]

Good stuff. Wonder why 'beast mode' comes so seldom (off dirt) for Raffi?

[Whisper]

I'm impressed. We've seen a lot of seemingly futile debates in rst over
the yeas, but Djoker > Nadal on clay is right up there. If you were
trolling it would be pointless, so I really appreciate this kind of out
of the box thinking.

[Court_1]

It's called "fan delusion syndrome." Rabid fans have to build agendas to make their idols the best in every category/stat as a way to trick their minds into feeling better about themselves. It's like these idols are extensions of themselves for these over the top fans. It's a remarkable phenomenon. Djokovic is a much better hardcourt player than Nadal and on grass they are fairly equal but on clay? Djokovic isn't worthy of carrying Nadal's jockstrap. Neither is Federer.

[Patrick Kehoe]

+5

:)

Yes, Rafa's clay record OUTRAGEOUS... and at 31 Rafa's STILL winning on clay, dominating events... so, there's that as well...

P

[TT]

Rafa may have won more on clay in his teens, twenties & thirties... BUT
Djokovic was better at his peak in 2011, despite losing to Federer at
French Open and Rafa winning the title...

Pelle has extremely strong case here. :)

[RaspingDrive]

Not to mention the fact that the two USO's that Rafa won came at the expense of the superior HC player (DJok)! Luckily so far Pelle has not come up with any excuses for those two Djok debacles.

[TT]

I was referring to clay only.

But while at it... Pelle always excludes 2010 USO from any comparison
since Djokovic apparently had not yet reached his prime which began
January 2011, not a second earlier...

[RaspingDrive]

Even if he beat Federer in the semis! Who was it who said the loss to Federer in 2011 FO was due to Djok not playing for four days?

The great thing about Rafa is that he beat both Djok and Federer at their strong surfaces, while not relinquishing his hold on the FO.

[*skriptis]

RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

I did. I certainly not claimed it's the only reason. But it had an
effect.

In similar cases all players, even obviously superior, faced problems.

E.g. Federer lost a set vs Juan Carlos Ferrero in Wimbledon in a
similar situation.






--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[RaspingDrive]

It's hard to quantify such effects. Maybe Federer played out of his skin and Djok had no answer for the first two sets?

[MBDunc]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:28:42 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> Yes, he's the only confirmed surface goat/boat in history.
>
> There is no obvious grass/hardcourt boat - at a guess probably Laver on
> grass & Sampras on hard, but it's not obvious like Rafa on clay.

You were perfectly happy with Sampras' grass goat/boat for 15+ years. Dozens if not hundreds of post about this. Also remember your hundreds of post about "slam kings"...or funniest of them all: bandwidth wasted on 286>285 stuff.

Rafa on clay is obvious. But no reason *) to start another Fed-degrading campaign.

*) of course there is a reason as whisper is fedfan according to his own statements.

.mikko

[*skriptis]

We could debate endlessly but bottom line is, no pro tennis
players would pick Djokovic's preparation for that kind of high
stake match where you're going after #1, slam final, and
extending your unbeaten streak.

Playing in Sunday/Monday vs Gasguet then having 4 off days before
meeting Federer in the semis on Friday. It can't be positive.


Djokovic played many matches that season, was on a roll, and
cooling down in the middle of the slam, definitely harmed him
more than it helped him.


All players suffer in similar occasions. Federer had a walk over
vs Haas in that rain interrupted Wimbledon 2007, and in the next
match ancient Juan Carlos Ferrero took a set. On grass? I believe
the only one he lost until the final that year.

[Patrick Kehoe]

A-N-D... Pete still one of top 3 hardcourt/grass guys in Open Era, so that hasn't changed. Fed and Nole being the other 2, I would think. Again, Laver's all time standing sort of transends eras as thee (along with the all too often over looked Rosewall) cross-over figure in tennis history. If there's a reason to challenge Laver in relation to 'surfaces', certainly Rosewall's record in the 1960s - his having won more of the pro majors than Laver - is thee under reported/examined issue here. Rosewall's record staggering really. But, that's a side issue for history now...

P

[Whisper]

Good post. It's not really a side issue though.

[Guypers]

Muscles is remembered for losing 4 W finals to Droby, Hoad, Newk and Jimbo, last one was a trouncing 203! Tier 3 at best!!!

[RaspingDrive]

Note: Djokovic actually won his only FO many many years after that. In 2016. If he had continued racking up FO's like Nadal then there may be a case that the four days rest actually harmed him. Also note: being on a roll in tune-ups is no guarantee of slam title, except possibly that you will perhaps go deep. Until he wins the FO and then goes on and wins more FO's you cannot give him the benefit. Especially when the guy prowling around is the outlier NADAL.

> All players suffer in similar occasions. Federer had a walk over
> vs Haas in that rain interrupted Wimbledon 2007, and in the next
> match ancient Juan Carlos Ferrero took a set. On grass? I believe
> the only one he lost until the final that year.

Fed had a virtual walkover in the first round at W 2017. He did not lose a set at all.

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:36:48 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:

>
> All players suffer in similar occasions. Federer had a walk over
> vs Haas in that rain interrupted Wimbledon 2007, and in the next
> match ancient Juan Carlos Ferrero took a set. On grass? I believe
> the only one he lost until the final that year.

Ferrero was 27 at Wimbledon 2007, and was playing well.