Could Nadal become No.1 after FO by his own efforts?
geeeam
roughly that by beating Federer in SFs of Madrid and FO, Nadal would
make up 3500 points or more. As Federer will also lose a lot of points
from last year's SF at Rome, it could become very close.
Manco
No.
felangey
by around 45 pts.
Bottom line is Fed needs to start winning if he wants to beat Sampy during
this stint at no.1. If Nadal can take RG then it is hard for him not to be
no.1 after Wimby....assuming he can play it this year.
Fan
I do not think Nadal cares about #1. He wants to win the French and
unless he is injured, he should have no problem.
The problem with Nadal getting #1 is that trying to keep it would
destroy his knees unless they are already shot. It is not worth it.
Vari L. Cinicke
He will need his own success and Federer's non-success.
It is Federer's dismal performances in the Masters events this year and
Nadal's excellence at the Masters level that have defined their rivalry
lately.
Nadal could regain #2 prior to Roland Garros if Djokovic continues
floundering.
--
Cheers,
vc
TT
> On 4/30/2010 11:19 AM, geeeam wrote:
>> I was just wondering whether this is possible or not. I calculated
>> roughly that by beating Federer in SFs of Madrid and FO, Nadal would
>> make up 3500 points or more. As Federer will also lose a lot of points
>> from last year's SF at Rome, it could become very close.
>
> He will need his own success and Federer's non-success.
>
Even with perfect success but losing to Nadal may not be
enough...depending on draw: if they meet at semis or not.
--
"Ave Rafa, morituri te salutant!"
Ali Asoag
Nadal could and will never be able to become #1 under his own steam! He
always needed and will need Fed's help (weak phase, mono etc)! Remember
this!
So Nadal can consider himself lucky in 2008 and first half of 2009
having had Fed mono-affected.
Ali Asoag
> I do not think Nadal cares about #1. He wants to win the French and
> unless he is injured, he should have no problem.
Haha, unless he is injured bla bla. I tell you: If Fed plays his best he
is unbeatable even on clay! In most of Fed's defeats to Nadal on clay
Fed was not at his best.
Whisper
The record clearly shows Rafa is better than Federer when they play each
other. It doesn't matter if Fed beats Blake/Berdych 100% of the time.
Rafa has always had Fed's number & looks like he always will. He's
simply a better tennis player when both at peak.
Whisper
The real truth is Rafa at his best beats Fed on grass, HC & clay. Your
posts have no substance attached to them.
Ali Asoag
Yeah, against no-peak Fed. No wonder. But I don't grudge Nadal these wins.
And, Soederling beat Nadal at his best on clay, too, no?
And, DelP beat Nadal at his best on HC, too, no?
Ali Asoag
Fed at peak in 2008? You are disappointing me, Whisper!
felangey
Vari L. Cinicke
> If it's any consolation, I think Pete cries like this too sometimes. :(
Both Sampras and Federer can say of Roland Garros: I got owned by a
Champion!
Only one of them can say: I am a Roland Garros Champion!
--
Cheers,
vc
Ali Asoag
>> On 4/30/2010 9:41 AM, Fan wrote:
>>> I do not think Nadal cares about #1. He wants to win the French and
>>> unless he is injured, he should have no problem.
>>
>> Haha, unless he is injured bla bla. I tell you: If Fed plays his best he
>> is unbeatable even on clay! In most of Fed's defeats to Nadal on clay
>> Fed was not at his best.
>
>
> The real truth is Rafa at his best beats Fed on grass, HC & clay.
So did Canas, even twice in a row. So die others. So what? Nadal is just
one of the players who sometimes beat Fed who cannot always win as he is
not a roboter.
Why does it count more when Fed loses to Nad?
Whisper
> On 4/30/2010 11:07 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 5/1/2010 2:20 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2010 9:41 AM, Fan wrote:
>>>> I do not think Nadal cares about #1. He wants to win the French and
>>>> unless he is injured, he should have no problem.
>>>
>>> Haha, unless he is injured bla bla. I tell you: If Fed plays his best he
>>> is unbeatable even on clay! In most of Fed's defeats to Nadal on clay
>>> Fed was not at his best.
>>
>>
>> The real truth is Rafa at his best beats Fed on grass, HC & clay. Your
>> posts have no substance attached to them.
>
> Yeah, against no-peak Fed. No wonder. But I don't grudge Nadal these wins.
Whether you 'grudge' anything is completely irrelevant. Facts are Rafa
is the better player.
>
> And, Soederling beat Nadal at his best on clay, too, no?
> And, DelP beat Nadal at his best on HC, too, no?
er, none of these guys beat Rafa in a slam final. Rafa beat Fed in 5
slam finals on all 3 surfaces. Don't be dumber than absolutely necessary.
Whisper
You're in denial about all of Rafa's other wins - it's sad you're so
blinded by Fed love you ignore reality. Pretty pathetic.
Whisper
er, because Rafa beat him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces....?
Are you pulling my leg or what? Surely nobody is this dumb?
Joe Ramirez
er, that's not an answer to his question. It doesn't even approximate
an answer -- it's just a restatement of the premise behind the
question.
Ali Asoag
1) You don't respond to "Fed at peak in 2008?", so I see you admitted
you spoke nonsens.
2) I appreciate what Nadal achieved so far, but don't say this BS of
"Nadal won against peak Fed"! All what Nadal won against Fed in 2008 -
and also in AO 2009 - was his achievement, no question about this. But
they were not won agains a Fed at his best so don't say Nadal is the
better player. If you like: Peak Nadal is better than non-peak Fed, yes!
Ali Asoag
This only shows that he has no more argument, no?
Ali Asoag
Let's talk about facts:
- On Clay: Yes, Nadal *was* better than Fed until 2008. Nadal was peak
in 2008 while Fed had a "weak" year then (but good enough to reach 1 SF,
3 finals and win 1 in Slams!). Fed was peak on clay in 2009, but was it
his fault Nadal did not reach the final? How an FO final in 2009 Fed vs
Nad would have come out, we don't know. We only know Fed beat him 2
weeks before in Madrid in straight, and Fed looked very impressive
against DelP and in the final against Soederling.
- On HC: Nadal won the only Slam final they played on HC with him having
been peak and Fed still far below his. And it was not Fed's fault when
Nadal never reached a Slam final on HC while Fed was peak.
- On Grass: Nadal won 1 Slam final on grass against Fed, yes. But Fed
won 2 against Nadal. So?
Taking all this into consideration, you must be dumb and biased to say
Nadal is a better player!
> Are you pulling my leg or what? Surely nobody is this dumb?
Yes, you!
Ali Asoag
> On 5/1/2010 3:13 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>> On 4/30/2010 11:07 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2010 2:20 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2010 9:41 AM, Fan wrote:
>>>>> I do not think Nadal cares about #1. He wants to win the French and
>>>>> unless he is injured, he should have no problem.
>>>>
>>>> Haha, unless he is injured bla bla. I tell you: If Fed plays his
>>>> best he
>>>> is unbeatable even on clay! In most of Fed's defeats to Nadal on clay
>>>> Fed was not at his best.
>>>
>>>
>>> The real truth is Rafa at his best beats Fed on grass, HC & clay. Your
>>> posts have no substance attached to them.
>>
>> Yeah, against no-peak Fed. No wonder. But I don't grudge Nadal these
>> wins.
>
>
> Whether you 'grudge' anything is completely irrelevant. Facts are Rafa
> is the better player.
Facts? LOL.
>> And, Soederling beat Nadal at his best on clay, too, no?
>> And, DelP beat Nadal at his best on HC, too, no?
>
>
> er, none of these guys beat Rafa in a slam final. Rafa beat Fed in 5
So what? It was a Slam. Nadal was just not good enough to reach the
final, he lost before, against Soederling and DelP!
> Don't be dumber than absolutely necessary.
I guess you said it while you were in front of the mirror!
felangey
>
> I guess you said it while you were in front of the mirror!
It's kind of a mantra. The problem is, the more he seeks these obscure
angles of Sampy apology...the deeper the depths of dumb that are necessary.
;)
Ali Asoag
:-)
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
[Learn about cyberbullying... You need help!]
P
Whisper
Huh?
I explained why Fed's losses to Canas don't matter - they occurred in
events that have zero impact on his legacy. The cost of those losses
was nothing.
Whisper
No, clearly peak Nadal is better than peak Federer.
I'm certain you wouldn't bet 1k of your money on Fed beating Rafa in any
slam.
Whisper
If Fed could reverse those Canas losses his standing the game would
remain completely unchanged - ie exactly as it is today. That means
they have no value.
If he could reverse his slam losses to Rafa he would have 22 slams
today, 2 calendar slams, 5 FOs in a row, 7 Wimbledons in a row, 6 yrs in
a row as year-end No.1 etc. Asking 'Why do Canas lossses mean less than
Rafa losses' is vintage retardo rst question.
Why are you guys so fucking stupid? I guess I'm not too sharp either
wasting my time with imbeciles.
Whisper
So much bullshit I can actually smell it wafting over the computer. Fed
nearly lost to Potro in straight sets, & Haas had him on the ropes. If
this is Fed's best clay form you're a moron. What the hell is wrong
with you..?
>
> - On HC: Nadal won the only Slam final they played on HC with him having
> been peak and Fed still far below his.
Fed coasted into final without breaking a sweat, while I was surprised
Rafa even turned up for the final given his epic 5 set s/f win over
Verdasco.
>And it was not Fed's fault when
> Nadal never reached a Slam final on HC while Fed was peak.
No, just good fortune for Fed.
>
> - On Grass: Nadal won 1 Slam final on grass against Fed, yes. But Fed
> won 2 against Nadal. So?
Tie-breaks saved him in 2007 final - if Rafa won the t/b's he woulda
beaten Fed in straights in that final. You make it sound like Rafa
can't compete with Fed on grass, when in reality he is the fave.
>
> Taking all this into consideration, you must be dumb and biased to say
> Nadal is a better player!
>
>> Are you pulling my leg or what? Surely nobody is this dumb?
>
> Yes, you!
Completely useless post, based on nothing but man love. Get a grip.
Whisper
> On Apr 30, 6:26 pm, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 5/1/2010 3:23 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/30/2010 11:07 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2010 2:20 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2010 9:41 AM, Fan wrote:
>>>>>> I do not think Nadal cares about #1. He wants to win the French and
>>>>>> unless he is injured, he should have no problem.
>>
>>>>> Haha, unless he is injured bla bla. I tell you: If Fed plays his best he
>>>>> is unbeatable even on clay! In most of Fed's defeats to Nadal on clay
>>>>> Fed was not at his best.
>>
>>
>>> So did Canas, even twice in a row. So die others. So what? Nadal is just
>>> one of the players who sometimes beat Fed who cannot always win as he is
>>> not a roboter.
>>
>>> Why does it count more when Fed loses to Nad?
>>
>> er, because Rafa beat him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces....?
>>
>> Are you pulling my leg or what? Surely nobody is this dumb?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ www.bullying.org
>
> [Learn about cyberbullying... You need help!]
>
> P
I don't 'bully' anyone who doesn't deserve it. Allsog is a lunatic. He
excuses all Fed's losses to Rafa as fluke.
If he's going to post garbage like that he should expect to be called on it.
TT
Pretty close at least.
felangey
> slam.
Not in the French. Anywhere else, game on.
john
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:jY2dnc_8tN2ttUHW...@westnet.com.au...
The problem is Federer won the tie break and Nadal didn't so the point does
not
stand. The reality is Nadal lost that final wether he is competitive or not
or if he
is the fave in your opinion. So utter nonsesne from an bottom tier
anal-yst.
>
>
>>
>> Taking all this into consideration, you must be dumb and biased to say
>> Nadal is a better player!
>>
>>> Are you pulling my leg or what? Surely nobody is this dumb?
>>
>> Yes, you!
>
>
>
> Completely useless post, based on nothing but man love. Get a grip.
Sounds like a man who can't argue against the fact.
>
>
kaennorsing
> No, clearly peak Nadal is better than peak Federer.
Then how come peak Nadal needed 5 hours and all but complete darkness
to beat a slumping Federer at the ultimate tennis championships on a
surface that rewards true skill and tennis quality? Shouldn't he have
had a little easier time beating an inferior player? Like how Krajicek
beat Sampras in '06?
Also how come Federer beat Nadal up so easily on his favourite surface
twice - when Nadal was clearly closer to peak than Fed? And how come
Nadal never managed to win a set or even reach a tiebreak in their two
big SF matches at the YEC that allowed Federer to close in on the
supreme Sampras record there?
Also, how come Nadal has yet to reach a USO final when Federer's made
6 in a row there? If Nadal is so clearly better than Federer shouldn't
he have done a little better than dominate only their clay meetings?
After all clay is not real tennis, right? Or did you change your
opinion on that?
john
> On 5/1/2010 2:17 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>> On 4/30/2010 9:19 AM, geeeam wrote:
>>
>> Nadal could and will never be able to become #1 under his own steam! He
>> always needed and will need Fed's help (weak phase, mono etc)! Remember
>> this!
>>
>> So Nadal can consider himself lucky in 2008 and first half of 2009
>> having had Fed mono-affected.
>>
>
>
> The record clearly shows Rafa is better than Federer when they play each
> other. It doesn't matter if Fed beats Blake/Berdych 100% of the time.
> Rafa has always had Fed's number & looks like he always will. He's simply
> a better tennis player when both at peak.
They both were at their peak or close to their peak so how many grand slam
they won against
the same competition they faced. Better players usually have better result
not the other way
round. Nadal had Federer's number on clay but on grass he is behind Federer
and won their
only meeting on hard court slam final. But there is no way you can
comprehensively saying
Nadal is better than Federer won hard court and grass court, he won exactly
2 slam outside
FO compare to Federer 15. If his peak was better than Federer why he was
only in 1 hard court
slam final out of 14 attempts and the conclusion can only be that his game
on hard court is not
good enough.
>
>
john
Of course he would put his money on Federer to win any slam not on grass
court.
Here is a simple calculation if you have bet 1 k of your money on Federer to
win
since 2005 you would have won the bet 12 times and lost the bet 9 times.
With
Nadal you would have won 6 times but lost 15 times. You are likely to make
some
money by betting on Federer than Nadal.
john
"kaennorsing" <ljub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:74630f1f-cb87-44d4...@e1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
And there is another question why is Nadal only able to play his peak tennis
once on
hard court in winning exactly 1 hard court grand slam out of 14 attempts ?
Superdave
Fed vs Rafa in W finals 2-1. Clearly Fed is is better at peak where it counts.
Ali Asoag
In regards to number of titles, yes: Losses against Canas mean less than
those against Nadal. But you Nadaltard use these losses to say Nadal
would be better than Fed. Do you see how dumb you are?
According to your logic: on the other hand, Nadal could have now 1 more
FO (--> 5 in a row!), 3 Wimby (>>> 4xFO so far), 1xUSO (--> Career GS).
So Soederling (FO), DelP (USO) and Fed (2xWimby) must be - merely based
on these matches - much better than Nadal?
> Why are you guys so fucking stupid? I guess I'm not too sharp either
> wasting my time with imbeciles.
Again a mirror in front?
Ali Asoag
Impact on Fed's legacy is something completely different than one player
being better than the other! Wake up, baby brain.
Ali Asoag
Winning in 5 sets or coming back from 0:2 sets does not mean that the
final winner can be in his best form? Hahahahaha, you now beat yourself!
So why do you jerk always say Nadal was at his peak in 2008 having won
against a, for sure, non-peak Fed in as many as 5 sets? Dave, need your
help, hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>> - On HC: Nadal won the only Slam final they played on HC with him having
>> been peak and Fed still far below his.
>
> Fed coasted into final without breaking a sweat, while I was surprised
> Rafa even turned up for the final given his epic 5 set s/f win over
> Verdasco.
So what, that says to you, Nadal is better? You cannot be dumber!
>> And it was not Fed's fault when
>> Nadal never reached a Slam final on HC while Fed was peak.
>
> No, just good fortune for Fed.
No more arguments?
>> - On Grass: Nadal won 1 Slam final on grass against Fed, yes. But Fed
>> won 2 against Nadal. So?
>
>
> Tie-breaks saved him in 2007 final - if Rafa won the t/b's he woulda
> beaten Fed in straights in that final.
Coulda, Woulda, if ... Yes, if Fed had not existed Nadal could have
become GOAT now.
> You make it sound like Rafa can't
> compete with Fed on grass, when in reality he is the fave.
This is your interpretation of my post. You use 1 grasscourt win of
Nadal against Fed to say Nadal would be a better player. That was so
dumb so I had to mentiond Fed won 2 on that surface, and even a
babybrain like you should know 2 > 1.
>>
>> Taking all this into consideration, you must be dumb and biased to say
>> Nadal is a better player!
>>
>>> Are you pulling my leg or what? Surely nobody is this dumb?
>>
>> Yes, you!
>
> Completely useless post, based on nothing but man love. Get a grip.
No more arguments?
Ali Asoag
This is just an answer to your dumbest garbage "Nadal is a better player
than Federer" and "Fed's FO win is worthless as Nadal was injured"!
> If he's going to post garbage like that he should expect to be called on
> it.
Did you look in the mirror again when writing this?
Ali Asoag
Oh, the other babybrain helps out ...
Ali Asoag
Can you helped any more? I doubt it. Again: They never played each other
when they both were peak on the respective surface: Fed lost his FO's
against Nadal when Fed was far below his best *on clay* and Nadal was at
his peak on clay. Same applies to Wimby 2008 and AO 2009.
> I'm certain you wouldn't bet 1k of your money on Fed beating Rafa in any
> slam.
Yes, I would. Even on FO this year (I don't know how Fed's form is on
clay this year though). Fact is: At their best, Fed would own Nadal on
any surface.
Ali Asoag
> "Whisper"<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:SsqdnSORlJK4k0bW...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 5/1/2010 2:17 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2010 9:19 AM, geeeam wrote:
>>>
>>> Nadal could and will never be able to become #1 under his own steam! He
>>> always needed and will need Fed's help (weak phase, mono etc)! Remember
>>> this!
>>>
>>> So Nadal can consider himself lucky in 2008 and first half of 2009
>>> having had Fed mono-affected.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The record clearly shows Rafa is better than Federer when they play each
>> other. It doesn't matter if Fed beats Blake/Berdych 100% of the time.
>> a better tennis player when both at peak.
>
> They both were at their peak or close to their peak so how many grand slam
> they won against
> the same competition they faced. Better players usually have better result
> not the other way
> round. Nadal had Federer's number on clay but on grass he is behind Federer
> and won their
> only meeting on hard court slam final. But there is no way you can
> comprehensively saying
> Nadal is better than Federer won hard court and grass court, he won exactly
> 2 slam outside
> FO compare to Federer 15. If his peak was better than Federer why he was
> only in 1 hard court
> slam final out of 14 attempts and the conclusion can only be that his game
> on hard court is not
> good enough.
John, this is too high for Whisper and TT, the babybrains! ;-)