Surface to surface

[arahim]

ATP lists Nadal and Federer meeting on 4 different surfaces:
Outdoor Hard: Nadal 8-5 (Nadal 61.54%, Federer 38.46%)
Outdoor Clay: Nadal 13-2 (Nadal 86.67%, Federer 13.33%)
Indoor Hard: Federer 5-1 (Nadal 16.67%, Federer 83.33%)
Outdoor Grass: Federer 2-1 (Nadal 33.33%, Federer 66.67%)

Equalizing for surfaces (If they played a 100 on each surface):
Nadal 198.21, Federer 201.79

[*skriptis]

arahim <arahim...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

That AO final loss hurt Nadal tremendously in every way and every
stat.



--

[John Liang]

This is actually meaningless, the important stats is how well they did against the pool of competitors they faced. Purely on the stats you showed Nadal should also have more hard court slam titles because most of the slam are played in outdoor venues, but the reality is Federer won more on hard court because he was superior against the same competition they both faced.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 17 mei 2017 00:17:35 UTC+2 schreef arahim:

Something tells me TT is not going to like these stats!

However, this is what I (and others) have been arguing for years. They mostly met on Rafa's best surfaces, early in the year. I believe the first time met post-Wimbledon season was in 2013 (Fed's worst year since 2002 incidentally), excluding the YEC. That's why those samples sizes (in Fed's favour) are so small.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 17 mei 2017 11:59:30 UTC+2 schreef John Liang:

> This is actually meaningless,

I disagree. It's one way to show how much the overall h2h stat itself is misleading.

> the important stats is how well they did against the pool of competitors they faced. Purely on the stats you showed Nadal should also have more hard court slam titles because most of the slam are played in outdoor venues, but the reality is Federer won more on hard court because he was superior against the same competition they both faced.

Fair enough. Still doesn't make it meaningless. A perhaps more fair statistical analyses would be a breakdown of h2h between varying surface speeds. Still, the outdoor h2h stat tells us that the matchup favours Rafa, in those conditions, regardless of who is the better overall player.

[*skriptis]

kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

You don't have to be Einstein to realize they've met mostly on
surface favouring Nadal.

So it was never about the fact Nadal led h2h, but "how much" he led.

Nadal had disproportionate success rate vs Federer, at least until
this AO final.

Now that's gone.

--


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

[arahim]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:21:58 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op woensdag 17 mei 2017 11:59:30 UTC+2 schreef John Liang:
>
> > This is actually meaningless,
>
> I disagree. It's one way to show how much the overall h2h stat itself is misleading.
>

Exactly.

> > the important stats is how well they did against the pool of competitors they faced. Purely on the stats you showed Nadal should also have more hard court slam titles because most of the slam are played in outdoor venues, but the reality is Federer won more on hard court because he was superior against the same competition they both faced.
>
> Fair enough. Still doesn't make it meaningless. A perhaps more fair statistical analyses would be a breakdown of h2h between varying surface speeds. Still, the outdoor h2h stat tells us that the matchup favours Rafa, in those conditions, regardless of who is the better overall player.

Nadal and Federer never met at USO. There is no question about who avoided whom more there and if they had played who would win...in the land of would and could. And there are other factors.

[The Iceberg]

HahahHahajah what happened in Wimbledon 2008?! HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH hahahhaah

[The Iceberg]

Hahjahahhahahhah lol you go Fedfans! Must be why you all absolutely hate Nadal so much eh! Lolol this is too funny!

[TT]

Indoor hard is not a surface.

Also, 3 matches is too few for statistical analysis, as is 6.

[TT]

17.5.2017, 18:14, kaennorsing kirjoitti:
> That's why those samples sizes (in Fed's favour) are so small.

Too small to draw conclusions on. Plus indoor hard is not a surface,
it's just part of the matches played on hard.

[Tim]

I agree. We should only base the comparison on meet ups on Nadal's best
surfaces and ignore the rest.

After all who wants to be bothered with facts.

--
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

[arahim]

The distinction is ATPs not mine. There is also carpet which they never met on but there is little doubt how that would go. Or how things would have panned on blue clay if Nadal and Djokovic hadn't got it shut down. Or the USO where Nadal and federer never met.

[TT]

17.5.2017, 22:12, Tim kirjoitti:
> On 17/05/2017 17:55, TT wrote:
>> 17.5.2017, 1:17, arahim kirjoitti:
>>> ATP lists Nadal and Federer meeting on 4 different surfaces:
>>> Outdoor Hard: Nadal 8-5 (Nadal 61.54%, Federer 38.46%)
>>> Outdoor Clay: Nadal 13-2 (Nadal 86.67%, Federer 13.33%)
>>> Indoor Hard: Federer 5-1 (Nadal 16.67%, Federer 83.33%)
>>> Outdoor Grass: Federer 2-1 (Nadal 33.33%, Federer 66.67%)
>>>
>>> Equalizing for surfaces (If they played a 100 on each surface):
>>> Nadal 198.21, Federer 201.79
>>>
>>
>> Indoor hard is not a surface.
>>
>> Also, 3 matches is too few for statistical analysis, as is 6.
>
>
> I agree. We should only base the comparison on meet ups on Nadal's best
> surfaces and ignore the rest.
>
> After all who wants to be bothered with facts.
>

Dumb comment, it's you who is ignoring facts here. 'Indoor hard' is of
course a subset of hard court matches, taking it as separate entity and
then extrapolating is disingenuous to say the least.

...Might as well begin counting by events. Davis Cup Nadal 100% etc...

[TT]

17.5.2017, 23:11, arahim kirjoitti:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:00:07 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> 17.5.2017, 18:14, kaennorsing kirjoitti:
>>> That's why those samples sizes (in Fed's favour) are so small.
>>
>> Too small to draw conclusions on. Plus indoor hard is not a surface,
>> it's just part of the matches played on hard.
>
> The distinction is ATPs not mine.

It's still wrong, plus you're using it wrong...
Desperate stuff.

> There is also carpet which they never met on but there is little doubt how that would go. Or how things would have panned on blue clay if Nadal and Djokovic hadn't got it shut down.

Not to forget indoor clay. And wood.

> Or the USO where Nadal and federer never met.
>

Nadal would probably have won...

And, it was actually Federer who failed to make the appointment, all
three times Nadal got there.

[John Liang]

Tennis tournaments are not about just two players, it is fair comparison if the tour is only contested by just two player not a 100 players. And it is a comparison not giving you an overall picture of why Federer is ahead of Nadal in non clay court surfaces.

[arahim]

For Slams Nadal started playing in 2003 at Wimbledon. Until last year Federer had played in all slams that Nadal had.
From 2003 Wimbledon to now there have been 55 slams. Federer has skipped 2, playing 53. Nadal skipped 8, playing 47. None of the skipped slams were common.

Federer 8, Nadal 2

Federer won 18 (three of these Nadal skipped and already counted above), Nadal won 14 so Federer an additional 15, Nadal 14.

Total so far
Federer 23, Nadal 16 (ie 39 of the 55 slams)

So there are 16 slams where both showed up but neither won. Who kept the date or progressed further?

Federer was in 4 finals he lost that were not against Nadal since those are already counted for Nadal wins. So he obviously kept the date here but Nadal didn't. Nadal too was in 4 finals he lost that were not against Federer so he obvously kept the date here but Federer didn't. So four to each.

Total so far
Federer 27, Nadal 20

with 8 slams to go where neither was absent, or won, or was in the final.


2003 USO Federer 4R, Nadal 2R Federer
2005 AO Federer SF, Nadal 4R Federer
2008 AO Federer SF, Nadal SF Even
2011 AO Federer SF, Nadal QF Federer
2013 W Federer 2R, Nadal 1R Federer
2015 AO Federer 3R, Nadal QF Nadal
2015 FO Federer QF, Nadal QF Even
2016 AO Federer SF, Nadal 1R Federer

Federer 5, Nadal 1

Total
Fedrer 32, Nadal 21

If one does not want to count skipped (by either) slams

Federer 24, Nadal 19

If the 8 slams where both were present but neither won or made the final are also taken out:

Federer 19, Nadal 18

[arahim]

True and Nadal failed to make the appointment the 7 times Federer was there.

[TT]

Lucky for Fed. I'm sure he wouldn't have changed all those agassis,
hewitts, roddicks and murrays to nadal. Meanwhile Rafa would certainly
liked to face Federer instead of Djokovic.

Now this thread, of course, is just fedtard excuse making to Federer
cowardly avoiding Nadal on clay - on purpose. Whole this clay season
plus a few Monte Carlos etc. In other words Federer is manipulating h2h
and still losing.

[arahim]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:53:17 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> 18.5.2017, 0:18, arahim kirjoitti:
> > On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:20:49 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> >> 17.5.2017, 23:11, arahim kirjoitti:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:00:07 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> >>>> 17.5.2017, 18:14, kaennorsing kirjoitti:
> >>>>> That's why those samples sizes (in Fed's favour) are so small.
> >>>>
> >>>> Too small to draw conclusions on. Plus indoor hard is not a surface,
> >>>> it's just part of the matches played on hard.
> >>>
> >>> The distinction is ATPs not mine.
> >>
> >> It's still wrong, plus you're using it wrong...
> >> Desperate stuff.
> >>
> >>> There is also carpet which they never met on but there is little doubt how that would go. Or how things would have panned on blue clay if Nadal and Djokovic hadn't got it shut down.
> >>
> >> Not to forget indoor clay. And wood.
> >>
> >>> Or the USO where Nadal and federer never met.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nadal would probably have won...
> >>
> >> And, it was actually Federer who failed to make the appointment, all
> >> three times Nadal got there.
> >
> > True and Nadal failed to make the appointment the 7 times Federer was there.
> >
>
> Lucky for Fed. I'm sure he wouldn't have changed all those agassis,
> hewitts, roddicks and murrays to nadal. Meanwhile Rafa would certainly
> liked to face Federer instead of Djokovic.
>

He has had his wish fulfilled a lot over the years.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 17 mei 2017 19:00:07 UTC+2 schreef TT:

How about deviding the season in 2 parts; the slow first half includes everything up to the clay season. All these surfaces are generally considered medium slow to very slow. The faster 2nd part is everything from start of the grass season to YEC. All these surfaces are medium fast to fast.

If we do that we have:
1st part: Rafa leads 21-8 = 72%
2nd part: Fed leads 6-2 = 75%

Pretty telling I would say.

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:53:17 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:

Federer is focusing on career achievements and longevity. Only in your mind is every choice he makes calculated with Nadal in mind.

And you'd better hope that Nadal actually tears through the field in Paris and takes this FO now, because otherwise, you're going to feel awfuuuuully silly for all this big talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks7-A-7Zvak

[arahim]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:53:17 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:

Nadal has "avoided" Federer 8 times, Federer only twice so far in slams.

Since Nadal started winning the slams he has avoided USO twice, Wimbledon twice, AO twice but never the FO.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 17 mei 2017 22:20:49 UTC+2 schreef TT:

> > Or the USO where Nadal and federer never met.
> >
>
> Nadal would probably have won...
>
> And, it was actually Federer who failed to make the appointment, all
> three times Nadal got there.

But Federer got there 7 time. That's more than double FYI.

So Nadal failed more (than double).

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:07:02 UTC+2 schreef kaennorsing:

Correction:
2nd part is 6-3: 66%

Still pretty convincing lead wouldn't you say? And 2 of those 3 Rafa wins were in 2013, Fed's worst career year as a slam winner (post 2002). The 3rd ended in the darkness of night... So I guess you have a point about the sample size being too small: Fed's lead should be bigger.

[TT]

18.5.2017, 1:18, kaennorsing kirjoitti:
> Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:07:02 UTC+2 schreef kaennorsing:
>> Op woensdag 17 mei 2017 19:00:07 UTC+2 schreef TT:
>>> 17.5.2017, 18:14, kaennorsing kirjoitti:
>>>> That's why those samples sizes (in Fed's favour) are so small.
>>>
>>> Too small to draw conclusions on. Plus indoor hard is not a surface,
>>> it's just part of the matches played on hard.
>>
>> How about deviding the season in 2 parts; the slow first half includes everything up to the clay season. All these surfaces are generally considered medium slow to very slow. The faster 2nd part is everything from start of the grass season to YEC. All these surfaces are medium fast to fast.
>>
>> If we do that we have:
>> 1st part: Rafa leads 21-8 = 72%
>> 2nd part: Fed leads 6-2 = 75%
>>
>> Pretty telling I would say.
>
> Correction:
> 2nd part is 6-3: 66%
>

Which apparently includes two matches at Wimbledon which Rafa lost due
to age and one YEC match where he was destroyed by the preceding SF.

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:18:21 PM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:07:02 UTC+2 schreef kaennorsing:

> > If we do that we have:
> > 1st part: Rafa leads 21-8 = 72%
> > 2nd part: Fed leads 6-2 = 75%
> >
> > Pretty telling I would say.
>
> Correction:
> 2nd part is 6-3: 66%
>
> Still pretty convincing lead wouldn't you say? And 2 of those 3 Rafa wins were in 2013, Fed's worst career year as a slam winner (post 2002). The 3rd ended in the darkness of night... So I guess you have a point about the sample size being too small: Fed's lead should be bigger.

Good points overall but why the insistence on the "darkness of the night" in all the Wim posts ? The conditions were the same for both players.

[TT]

What big talk?

Just replying silly posts in silly fedtard threads...

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks7-A-7Zvak
>

lol

How many have you seen?
http://www.listchallenges.com/clint-eastwood-movies

I was missing two:
Honkytonk Man and Ambush at Cimarron Pass.

Now it's fixed, although I had seen Honkytonk Man previously... good
film, and Clint sings in it (also sings on Paint Your Wagon, which is
missing from the list ffs). Cimarron Pass not really a Eastwood film but
decent generic western with Clint in minor role.

[TT]

Didn't he 'avoid' Fed at FO 2009...
Fed must be really pissed about that one.

[TT]

The point is that they met so often on clay because Nadal almost always
made the final. Meanwhile Federer made the finals on hard a lot less
frequently, wasn't a single time at USO final when Rafa was...

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 4:09:26 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:

> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks7-A-7Zvak
> >
>
> lol
>
> How many have you seen?
> http://www.listchallenges.com/clint-eastwood-movies
>
> I was missing two:
> Honkytonk Man and Ambush at Cimarron Pass.
>
> Now it's fixed, although I had seen Honkytonk Man previously... good
> film, and Clint sings in it (also sings on Paint Your Wagon, which is
> missing from the list ffs). Cimarron Pass not really a Eastwood film but
> decent generic western with Clint in minor role.

I count 24 that I've seen. There are some very popular ones among them that I never wanted to see and some I've just not gotten around to. It would be tough to pick a favorite.

[arahim]

That's like saying Cilic made one final and Djokovic was not there.

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 01:11:15 UTC+2 schreef TT:

Well, Fed did beat Rafa on clay prior to the FO that year, in front of Rafa's home crowd in Spain, in straights. Rafa arguably was more beatable on clay that year than in any other peak year (2006-2010). Fed's clay game was arguably better than ever as well, having effectively added the drop shot to his game. Crucial against a guy like Nadal... So who knows what would have happened at the FO had they met there that year.

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:55:59 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:

Yes, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?

In fading light it becomes more of a toss up, while Fed was slowly becoming the better player in that match. Say, what if the 2000 Wimbledon final was played an hour later and Sampras lost to Rafter in the dark. You might think there was an asterisk next to the win then?

[Whisper]

What explanation do you have for Fed's failure to play Rafa at USO? 3
times Rafa was waiting for him, & all 3 times Fed lost the match before.



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

[Whisper]

Not when you consider 4 of the 6 are WTF matches - essentially exhibition.

[Whisper]

On 18/05/2017 8:07 AM, Gracchus wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:53:17 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> 18.5.2017, 0:18, arahim kirjoitti:
>>
>> Now this thread, of course, is just fedtard excuse making to Federer
>> cowardly avoiding Nadal on clay - on purpose. Whole this clay season
>> plus a few Monte Carlos etc. In other words Federer is manipulating h2h
>> and still losing.
>
> Federer is focusing on career achievements and longevity. Only in your mind is every choice he makes calculated with Nadal in mind.
>

Actually not true. I turned the radio on the other day in the car & all
the talk on a sports show was how Fed was cowered by Rafa's form on clay
& that's why he was ducking the FO.

Surprised me to hear it as it was predominantly a football show.

[Whisper]

Like I said Rafa was waiting for Fed in USO. 3 times Fed just needed to
win 1 more match to play Rafa at USO, & he lost all 3 times.

[Whisper]

It should actually be less, which is pretty damning imo.
Most of Fed's wins were in WTF exhibition tournament when players were
tired & didn't care anymore after a long yr. Also factor in the fact
Fed is a baseliner & great on clay by today's standards (eg 5 FO
finals), & the h2h feels more like 20-2 in Rafa's favor on balance.

[TT]

All are worth seeing (yes even the 'brilliant' Chimp Duology)... I don't
think he even has bad films.

The worst rating I've given is a 6:

Ambush at Cimarron Pass (1958)
The Rookie (1990)
Joe Kidd (1972)
Blood Work (2002)
Sudden Impact (1983)

And even those are pretty legendary...

All rest are 7-10, and that's including films he only directed.

[Whisper]

On 18/05/2017 7:12 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:55:59 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:
>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:18:21 PM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
>>> Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:07:02 UTC+2 schreef kaennorsing:
>>>> If we do that we have:
>>>> 1st part: Rafa leads 21-8 = 72%
>>>> 2nd part: Fed leads 6-2 = 75%
>>>>
>>>> Pretty telling I would say.
>>>
>>> Correction:
>>> 2nd part is 6-3: 66%
>>>
>>> Still pretty convincing lead wouldn't you say? And 2 of those 3 Rafa wins were in 2013, Fed's worst career year as a slam winner (post 2002). The 3rd ended in the darkness of night... So I guess you have a point about the sample size being too small: Fed's lead should be bigger.
>>
>> Good points overall but why the insistence on the "darkness of the night" in all the Wim posts ? The conditions were the same for both players.
>
> Yes, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?

I think Rafa would suffer more as Fed could really take advantage in the
fading light. Hitting the ball early in the dark means Rafa has less
time to see where the ball is going etc

[Whisper]

Rafa should have won that match 64 64 63 as I predicted before the match.

If Sampras lost to Rafter there would be no *, just as there is no * for
any match in history. Well, before Fed came on the scene & Fedfuckers
put * next to all of his losses.: )

[TT]

18.5.2017, 12:12, kaennorsing kirjoitti:
> Yes, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?
>
> In fading light it becomes more of a toss up, while Fed was slowly becoming the better player in that match.

Nonsense.

And if you can't see well the bigger server gets the advantage.

[arahim]

Same as Wawrinka waiting for Federer in 3 slam finals I presume.

[arahim]

Don't you have multiple asterisks for Sampras at the FO...year after year.

[John Liang]

Federer made 7 USO finals where was Nadal in those finals ? Federer also made 10 Wimbledon finals where was Nadal in 7 of those finals ? Federer also made 6 AO finals where was Nadal in 4 of those finals ? What explanation do you have for Nadal's failure to play Federer in 18 finals ?

[John Liang]

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:50:20 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/05/2017 7:12 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
> > Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:55:59 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:
> >> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:18:21 PM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> s, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more
> defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad
> light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?
> >
> > In fading light it becomes more of a toss up, while Fed was slowly becoming the better player in that match. Say, what if the 2000 Wimbledon final was played an hour later and Sampras lost to Rafter in the dark. You might think there was an asterisk next to the win then?
> >
>
> Rafa should have won that match 64 64 63 as I predicted before the match.

Just like your roddick was Sampras on steroid prediction, it was wrong the match went to five sets and finished 9:7 in the fifth.

[John Liang]

That certainly wasn't your tone when Sampras was winning them in the 90s.

[John Liang]

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:00:42 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/05/2017 8:07 AM, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:53:17 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> >> 18.5.2017, 0:18, arahim kirjoitti:
> >>
> >> Now this thread, of course, is just fedtard excuse making to Federer
> >> cowardly avoiding Nadal on clay - on purpose. Whole this clay season
> >> plus a few Monte Carlos etc. In other words Federer is manipulating h2h
> >> and still losing.
> >
> > Federer is focusing on career achievements and longevity. Only in your mind is every choice he makes calculated with Nadal in mind.
> >
>
> Actually not true. I turned the radio on the other day in the car & all
> the talk on a sports show was how Fed was cowered by Rafa's form on clay
> & that's why he was ducking the FO.

False, it was barely mentioned in most of the sport show I watched and heard. .

[Whisper]

Yes, the guy who is more aggressive has the advantage in poor light.
It's hard enough to react in broad daylight, let alone in dusk.

[Whisper]

Wait, you're arguing Rafa was scared of facing Fed in slams?

[*skriptis]

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

You don't get it do you?

If Federer is the "king" of those surfaces like Nadal is on clay,
it's his "duty" to be in every final there and wait Nadal, who'll
naturally, reach less of those final.

So it's Federer's personal failure not to meet Nadal twice in
Australia, twice in Wimbledon and thrice at USO.


It's 7 failures. More than two failures per slam. Nadal otoh
failed just once at FO.

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

--


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

[Whisper]

On 18/05/2017 11:58 PM, John Liang wrote:
> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:00:42 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>> On 18/05/2017 8:07 AM, Gracchus wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:53:17 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>>> 18.5.2017, 0:18, arahim kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>> Now this thread, of course, is just fedtard excuse making to Federer
>>>> cowardly avoiding Nadal on clay - on purpose. Whole this clay season
>>>> plus a few Monte Carlos etc. In other words Federer is manipulating h2h
>>>> and still losing.
>>>
>>> Federer is focusing on career achievements and longevity. Only in your mind is every choice he makes calculated with Nadal in mind.
>>>
>>
>> Actually not true. I turned the radio on the other day in the car & all
>> the talk on a sports show was how Fed was cowered by Rafa's form on clay
>> & that's why he was ducking the FO.
>
> False, it was barely mentioned in most of the sport show I watched and heard. .

Not false. I was genuinely surprised they were talking about tennis, &
the consensus was Fed was scared of Rafa's great clay form & that's why
he pulled out.

I personally don't hold that view, but the suggestion that it's not
common out in the real world is very wrong.

[John Liang]

If this is sort of logic then it is pretty poor. So it must be in your mind that 7 times Nadal could not make was also Federer's failure, smae to go with three times he could not make AO final and 6 time he could not make the USO final.

>
> So it's Federer's personal failure not to meet Nadal twice in
> Australia, twice in Wimbledon and thrice at USO.
>
>
> It's 7 failures. More than two failures per slam. Nadal otoh
> failed just once at FO.

And Nadals failure in all slams is 18 that is 4.5 failures per slam. Learn some maths.

[Gracchus]

Well that says it all, then. They don't know shit about tennis.

[Gracchus]

"The Rookie" and "Blood Work" were rather weak, yes. As was "Sudden Impact." IMO only the first three Dirty Harry films were really good (the first two being great). I liked "Joe Kidd" though. Duvall's performance, John Saxon's over-the-top Mexican accent as Luis "Chayma," and the nasty henchman Eastwood keeps smacking around. Not an A-1 Eastwood western, but still fun.

I never could get through the "chimp trilogy." Not even the first one.

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 12:57:42 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

Another pathetic attempt to downgrade Fed's accolades... Was it also an exhibition when Sampras was arsed enough to win a record number of them? You cheap goalshifter.

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 16:17:23 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

> Yes, the guy who is more aggressive has the advantage in poor light.
> It's hard enough to react in broad daylight, let alone in dusk.

There's more time to react when playing defense, dummy. That's the whole idea of playing defense; it's considered safer... Can't believe I have to type this out.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:12:58 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:55:59 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:

> > Good points overall but why the insistence on the "darkness of the night" in all the Wim posts ? The conditions were the same for both players.
>
> Yes, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?
>

I look at it this way. Everything starts off with the serve. I believe it's more difficult to return Fed's serve than Nadal's serve because of the obvious reason that Fed has quite a bigger serve than Nadal. The difficulty is compounded when you are receiving in the dark. So I would think Nadal was at more of a disadvantage in the dark, relatively speaking.

Further, if playing further from behind the baseline is an advantage in the dark wouldn't Fed have done the same ?

> In fading light it becomes more of a toss up, while Fed was slowly becoming the better player in that match. Say, what if the 2000 Wimbledon final was played an hour later and Sampras lost to Rafter in the dark. You might think there was an asterisk next to the win then?

No, I wouldn't have put any asterisk if Rafter had won the 2000 Wim F in the dark.

Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:

> Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.

Shakes, it doesn't matter whether conditions are the same for both if one player has the physical disadvantage of poor night vision. Quite different than McEnroe just being a crappy wind player for example. There's a good reason that matches that extend to dusk are suspended due to darkness. But at that match, officials probably just didn't want the logistical hassles of splitting a final over two days, so they made a shady call (so to speak). End result might have been the same or different, but we'll never know. Such a shame to taint a classic.

[arahim]

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:

> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:12:58 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> > Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:55:59 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:
>
> > > Good points overall but why the insistence on the "darkness of the night" in all the Wim posts ? The conditions were the same for both players.
> >
> > Yes, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?
> >
>
> I look at it this way. Everything starts off with the serve. I believe it's more difficult to return Fed's serve than Nadal's serve because of the obvious reason that Fed has quite a bigger serve than Nadal. The difficulty is compounded when you are receiving in the dark. So I would think Nadal was at more of a disadvantage in the dark, relatively speaking.
>

One can argue the other way. A good hard server's serve is going to be hard anyway. In the dark even a mediocre server may be hard to pick.

[*skriptis]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
>
>> Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.
>
> Shakes, it doesn't matter whether conditions are the same for both if one player has the physical disadvantage of poor night vision. Quite different than McEnroe just being a crappy wind player for example. There's a good reason that matches that extend to dusk are suspended due to darkness. But at that match, officials probably just didn't want the logistical hassles of splitting a final over two days, so they made a shady call (so to speak). End result might have been the same or different, but we'll never know. Such a shame to taint a classic.
>

Imo
not. The final way already delayed and interrupted.

People wanted to see the end.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:52:15 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
>
> > Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.
>
> Shakes, it doesn't matter whether conditions are the same for both if one player has the physical disadvantage of poor night vision.

I remember you touched on this point before. But is it a known fact ? I think if it was something that was well known, the referee would've post-poned it once the conditions were dark.

> Quite different than McEnroe just being a crappy wind player for example. There's a good reason that matches that extend to dusk are suspended due to darkness. But at that match, officials probably just didn't want the logistical hassles of splitting a final over two days, so they made a shady call (so to speak). End result might have been the same or different, but we'll never know. Such a shame to taint a classic.

They should've started the match 1 hr early.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:

1. Fed had won the 4th set, carried momentum and was the better server... had a significant set of advantages going into the 5th...

2. Toni Nadal said on a number of occasions after the match that going into the 2008 final vs Federer the Nadal camp were of one mind: Rafa absolutely HAD to win that final... their thinking was to lose 3 finals in succession might be something/amount to something recoverable... it was THAT much of a concern to Rafa and Toni and the team at that time...

3. As great of a final as it was, having watched it many times in subsequent years, I really do think that though that final was well played and the skill level was high, they did play better tennis against each other in other finals, from a technical efficiency point of view... sacrilegious to say, I know! :)

4. I don't get why so many fans feel so protective of Federer in relation to the Nadal matches... fair is fair: Rafa really did have his number, A LOT... and tended to beat Feds in very important matches for much of their careers... it's just the way it was... interesting to see Federer reversing it so very late in his career...

5. As for the decision to continue on into virtual darkness... of course there was a logistical imperative to get the match concluded... HOWEVER, the mega irony is that GIVEN how icon that final has become, CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THEY HAD HELD IT OVER UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY... unprecedented in the open era... no matter who would have won (though Rafa winning makes for a better narrative - speaking from a journalistic point of view)... that would have FURTHER enshrined the final onto an even more precious and precarious mantle of singularity than it currently rests...

P

[Gracchus]

Are you channeling Howard Cosell's ghost here or what?

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 23:39:02 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:

So if Rafter and Sampras played blindfolded and Rafter won that Wimbledon final you wouldn't say there needed to be an asterisk? :)

Look, there doesn't need to be an asterisks in general. But in the context of the discussion between h2h stats (which we were on) and the small sample size between the two on grass, the one win Rafa has there is (not only razor thin but) tainted; we'll just never know if Federer would have continued his epic comeback in daylight/normal conditions, as he did for example in Miami 2005 vs Rafa (and AO 17 to a lesser extent). It's not as if it was a normal ending, so it will forever be a topic of discussion... It's just a part of the charm/tragedy of that classic.

[MBDunc]

perjantai 19. toukokuuta 2017 1.56.50 UTC+3 Shakes kirjoitti:
> > Shakes, it doesn't matter whether conditions are the same for both if one player has the physical disadvantage of poor night vision.
>
> I remember you touched on this point before. But is it a known fact ? I think if it was something that was well known, the referee would've post-poned it once the conditions were dark.

Not 100% sure but Fed had laser surgery for his eyes 15y+ ago? (that operation by default makes vision worse in dark conditions.

(I tried to google about this issue, but no matches)

Anyway, this "it was too dark" is a lame excuse anyway.

.mikko

[Whisper]

I agree. I think they talked about tennis for a bit because they had to
- it's obvious they have only a superficial knowledge.

Still, interesting that 'Fed is scared of Rafa' is a common perception
out there among general sports fans.

[Whisper]

Just pointing out facts.

[Whisper]

There is less time to react when it's darker. You never want to play an
aggressive big hitter in fading light. It's hard enough in bright
daylight when you can see everything clearly.

Federer is a baseliner too, but he hits the ball earlier, harder & with
more variety than Rafa. That's a nightmare to face in fading light.

Big advantage to Federer imo.

[John Liang]

Nadal won that one regardless of the condition.

[TT]

Yep

> I never could get through the "chimp trilogy." Not even the first one.
>

It grows on you gradually. Might need a dozen viewings to fully
appreciate the genius.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:07:48 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> > Lucky for Fed. I'm sure he wouldn't have changed all those agassis,
> > hewitts, roddicks and murrays to nadal. Meanwhile Rafa would certainly
> > liked to face Federer instead of Djokovic.

> >
> > Now this thread, of course, is just fedtard excuse making to Federer
> > cowardly avoiding Nadal on clay - on purpose. Whole this clay season
> > plus a few Monte Carlos etc. In other words Federer is manipulating h2h
> > and still losing.
>
> Federer is focusing on career achievements and longevity. Only in your mind is every choice he makes calculated with Nadal in mind.
>

> And you'd better hope that Nadal actually tears through the field in Paris and takes this FO now, because otherwise, you're going to feel awfuuuuully silly for all this big talk.

Even if part of the reason Federer decided to avoid RG is due to the fact that Nadal's clay form is stellar at the moment, who could blame him and who cares? He is almost 36 and has earned the right to decide whatever he wants and do what will net him the best possible results for the remainder of his career. Obviously he has a much better chance to do damage at W and the USO than he does grinding like a pig on the dirt to no avail. Let Nadal have #10 at the FO.

As for TT, yes he will look stupid if somehow Nadal doesn't mow through the weak clay field and win #10 but even if Nadal does win it(which let's face it, looks likely), hopefully if Federer and Nadal meet at W and the USO, Fed will come out on top or perhaps Nadal will lose early at Wimbledon and not make it to Fed and that will finally quiet TT's lustful and inane Nadal posts we are seeing these days. TT has been hiding in his Nadal memorabilia-filled hovel for a while and only recently has dared to come out of hiding to gloat about Nadal. This too shall pass unless of course Nadal somehow continues to do well and better than Fed post clay season.

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 19 mei 2017 12:36:56 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

> >> Not when you consider 4 of the 6 are WTF matches - essentially exhibition.
> >
> > Another pathetic attempt to downgrade Fed's accolades... Was it also an exhibition when Sampras was arsed enough to win a record number of them? You cheap goalshifter.
> >
>
> Just pointing out facts.

You have a weird concept of 'facts'. For most of us facts represent reality. Your 'facts' apparently represent your own personal perception.

Or maybe because you have no legitimacy when discussing Federer, as pointed out many times before.

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 19 mei 2017 12:43:29 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

> Federer is a baseliner too, but he hits the ball earlier, harder & with
> more variety than Rafa. That's a nightmare to face in fading light.

Thanks for pointing that out. That's obviously more difficult in poor light than waiting for the ball and playing it safe(r), which is my whole point.

[Shakes]

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:38:24 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 23:39:02 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:

> > No, I wouldn't have put any asterisk if Rafter had won the 2000 Wim F in the dark.
> >
> > Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.
>
> So if Rafter and Sampras played blindfolded and Rafter won that Wimbledon final you wouldn't say there needed to be an asterisk? :)
>
> Look, there doesn't need to be an asterisks in general. But in the context of the discussion between h2h stats (which we were on) and the small sample size between the two on grass, the one win Rafa has there is (not only razor thin but) tainted; we'll just never know if Federer would have continued his epic comeback in daylight/normal conditions, as he did for example in Miami 2005 vs Rafa (and AO 17 to a lesser extent). It's not as if it was a normal ending, so it will forever be a topic of discussion... It's just a part of the charm/tragedy of that classic.

I don't see Nadal's win as tainted. He played in the same conditions as Fed did. It's not like the referee asked them if they wanted to postpone and Fed wanted to postpone it and Nadal declined. Maybe Fed should've played defensive tennis too if it would've helped in the dark. As an aside, I believe Fed, with the bigger serve, had the advantage over Nadal.

Looking at their rivalry on grass, I see a gradual progression on Nadal's part on. Look at their Wim results: 2006 - Nadal loses in 4, 2007 - Nadal loses in 5, 2008 - Nadal wins in 5.

[Patrick Kehoe]

Yes... the win by Rafa in 2008 W was a key plank in his career and a validation of his over all greatness (beyond the clay), setting him on a course toward the #1 position and his claims of a legendary career... hardly gets any more important (for Rafa and his legacy) than that...

P

[*skriptis]

Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

All
true yet the fun thing I've only realized later, it was
Djokovic who put halt to Federer reign at non FO slams.


First him, then Rafa.

[Guypers]

Idiot after winning 18!!!!!!!!

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 19 mei 2017 18:37:27 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:

> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:38:24 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> > Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 23:39:02 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:
> > > No, I wouldn't have put any asterisk if Rafter had won the 2000 Wim F in the dark.
> > >
> > > Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.
> >
> > So if Rafter and Sampras played blindfolded and Rafter won that Wimbledon final you wouldn't say there needed to be an asterisk? :)
> >
> > Look, there doesn't need to be an asterisks in general. But in the context of the discussion between h2h stats (which we were on) and the small sample size between the two on grass, the one win Rafa has there is (not only razor thin but) tainted; we'll just never know if Federer would have continued his epic comeback in daylight/normal conditions, as he did for example in Miami 2005 vs Rafa (and AO 17 to a lesser extent). It's not as if it was a normal ending, so it will forever be a topic of discussion... It's just a part of the charm/tragedy of that classic.
>
> I don't see Nadal's win as tainted. He played in the same conditions as Fed did. It's not like the referee asked them if they wanted to postpone and Fed wanted to postpone it and Nadal declined. Maybe Fed should've played defensive tennis too if it would've helped in the dark. As an aside, I believe Fed, with the bigger serve, had the advantage over Nadal.

Well maybe not, seeing as how Fed got broken and not Rafa. Though if it's really dark it doesn't really matter who has the marginally bigger serve. Darkness is, like wind, a great equalizer. For instance, my own chances of beating Federer would dramatically increase in the dark.

What mattered most as the light faded though, apart from the supposed serve or defensive advantage, was the mental advantage Rafa had at that time over Fed, after the FO trouncing... That's huge in a situation like that.

> Looking at their rivalry on grass, I see a gradual progression on Nadal's part on. Look at their Wim results: 2006 - Nadal loses in 4, 2007 - Nadal loses in 5, 2008 - Nadal wins in 5.

No doubt. Even if Fed had won in 2008, the trend was clear.

[stephenJ]

On 5/17/2017 4:59 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:17:35 AM UTC+10, arahim wrote:
>> ATP lists Nadal and Federer meeting on 4 different surfaces:
>> Outdoor Hard: Nadal 8-5 (Nadal 61.54%, Federer 38.46%)
>> Outdoor Clay: Nadal 13-2 (Nadal 86.67%, Federer 13.33%)
>> Indoor Hard: Federer 5-1 (Nadal 16.67%, Federer 83.33%)
>> Outdoor Grass: Federer 2-1 (Nadal 33.33%, Federer 66.67%)
>>
>> Equalizing for surfaces (If they played a 100 on each surface):
>> Nadal 198.21, Federer 201.79
>
> This is actually meaningless, the important stats is how well they did against the pool of competitors they >faced. Purely on the stats you showed Nadal should also have more hard court slam titles because most of the >slam are played in outdoor venues, but the reality is Federer won more on hard court because he was superior >against the same competition they both faced.
>

You talk as if their careers are over.

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

[John Liang]

On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:59:50 PM UTC+10, StephenJ wrote:
> On 5/17/2017 4:59 AM, John Liang wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:17:35 AM UTC+10, arahim wrote:
> >> ATP lists Nadal and Federer meeting on 4 different surfaces:
> >> Outdoor Hard: Nadal 8-5 (Nadal 61.54%, Federer 38.46%)
> >> Outdoor Clay: Nadal 13-2 (Nadal 86.67%, Federer 13.33%)
> >> Indoor Hard: Federer 5-1 (Nadal 16.67%, Federer 83.33%)
> >> Outdoor Grass: Federer 2-1 (Nadal 33.33%, Federer 66.67%)
> >>
> >> Equalizing for surfaces (If they played a 100 on each surface):
> >> Nadal 198.21, Federer 201.79
> >
> > This is actually meaningless, the important stats is how well they did against the pool of competitors they >faced. Purely on the stats you showed Nadal should also have more hard court slam titles because most of the >slam are played in outdoor venues, but the reality is Federer won more on hard court because he was superior >against the same competition they both faced.
> >
>
> You talk as if their careers are over.

Federer will continue to have more HC and GC slams unless you think all of sudden Nadal started winning 5 or 6 Wimbledons in the next few years or 7 USO/AO. And you think that is realistic at Nadal's age.