Another take of Federer vs Nadal
Manco
If Federer never existed Nadal would have 8 slams.
'Nuff said.
Ali Asoag
If I had played tennis both would not have won a single slam. ;-)
Sao Paulo Swallow
Wrong thread. See "Whisper's boasts" below.
Gracchus
Except that Nadal is younger than Federer and might have had less wear
and tear on his knees without the marathon matches he played against
Federer.
But your main point is certainly valid.
Vrai Cinico
Nadal is an equal opportunity marathoner, isn't he? His longest 3 set
match was against Djokovic at 4 hours and 3 minutes and his longest HC
match was against Verdasco, I believe. On grass, yes, it is
Federer-Nadal 2008 that is Nadal's longest grass court match.
--
Cheers,
vc
Jeff Colby
Nadal would have more than 8. Guys who've beaten him at hardcourt slams
have played loose and pressure-free knowing that the bigger match vs
Federer was to come. Take away Federer and a match against Nadal becomes
the virtual final - much more pressure and harder to win.
kaennorsing
Many possible scenario's had Federer not existed. Nadal wouldn't have
had the higher standard to chase so outrageously. He wouldn't have
been inspired by Federer's level. Therefore, may not have won 6 slams
at this point. Then again, he would likely pass 6 six slams as a
result of a longer career. Who knows.
TT
Good point.
Also, without Nadal, Djokovic might have played according to the level
he's capable of, taking all those slams and more from fed...since Nadal
wouldn't have beaten him to submission at FO+w+Olympics.
TT
> Then again, he would likely pass 6 six slams as a
> result of a longer career. Who knows.
That's just stupid. Federer has nothing to do with Nadal's injuries.
Those injuries were there already in 2005.
Nadal does not play IW-Miami to catch Federer, he plays them because of
ATP schedule. Same with MC+Barcelona+Rome...Nadal played Barcelona last
year too, while leading fed with a big margin on ranking points...which
makes your theory invalid.
Jeff Colby
> Also, without Nadal, Djokovic might have played according to the level
> he's capable of, taking all those slams and more from fed...since Nadal
> wouldn't have beaten him to submission at FO+w+Olympics.
Complete nonsense.
TT
Not really. Nadal has kept Djokovic's confidence down by beating him at
FO+queens+hamburg+W+Olympics. Djokovic never was the same after losing
to Nadal at Queens...where Djokovic played grass court tennis on higher
level than Federer does and still lost.
Last year Djokovic did bring his best game to Madrid, only to lose to
Nadal again.
If there had not been Nadal, Djokovic could have won some FO and been
completely different player confidence-wise. Djoker did lose to Nadal a
lot at FO.
TT
...Now you do notice that Djokovic's lack of success is confidence
related? He underperforms a lot at big events.
Javier González Nicolini
> where Djokovic played grass court tennis on higher
> level than Federer does and still lost.
RST. Come for the tennis, stay for the jokes.
TT
Would you agree same statement for Madrid 2009 or FO 2008?
TT
...Meaning that Djokovic played on higher level on clay than fed does.
Javier González Nicolini
This *could* be defensible. But Djokovic playing better grass court
tennis than Federer? Never seen that.
(though the "does" is a bit misleading - as in "right now"? as in
"ever did"?)
TT
> On Mar 12, 12:56 pm, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Javier González Nicolini wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 12:13 pm, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
>>>>> where Djokovic played grass court tennis on higher
>>>>> level than Federer does and still lost.
>>>> RST. Come for the tennis, stay for the jokes.
>>> Would you agree same statement for Madrid 2009 or FO 2008?
>> ...Meaning that Djokovic played on higher level on clay than fed does.
>
> This *could* be defensible.
Well, it's a start. :)
Patrick Kehoe
> Javier González Nicolini wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 12:56 pm, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
> >> TT wrote:
> >>> Javier González Nicolini wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 12, 12:13 pm, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
> >>>>> where Djokovic played grass court tennis on higher
> >>>>> level than Federer does and still lost.
> >>>> RST. Come for the tennis, stay for the jokes.
> >>> Would you agree same statement for Madrid 2009 or FO 2008?
> >> ...Meaning that Djokovic played on higher level on clay than fed does.
>
> > This *could* be defensible.
>
> Well, it's a start. :)
++ Oh! come on TT... Djoker-choker a better grass court player than
Feds... where's he been at Wimbledon then? Or is that a one match peak
kinda theory :))
TT
Latter one, I was speculating what could have been unless Nadal had not
broken his back.
Jeff Colby
First he's playing with bad knees, now with a broken back as well. Nadal
sure is tough :)
TT
Djerk's back that is.
Cliff Barnes
Not only that, he broke Djoker's back as well!
Tanking a set
Agreed. Good post.
Tanking a set
Yup! Well said.
Tanking a set
Tanking a set
> TT wrote:
> > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >> On Mar 12, 8:25 am, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
> >>> Javier González Nicolini wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 12, 12:56 pm, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
> >>>>> TT wrote:
> >>>>>> Javier González Nicolini wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 12, 12:13 pm, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> where Djokovic played grass court tennis on higher
> >>>>>>>> level than Federer does and still lost.
> >>>>>>> RST. Come for the tennis, stay for the jokes.
> >>>>>> Would you agree same statement for Madrid 2009 or FO 2008?
> >>>>> ...Meaning that Djokovic played on higher level on clay than fed does.
> >>>> This *could* be defensible.
> >>> Well, it's a start. :)
>
> >> ++ Oh! come on TT... Djoker-choker a better grass court player than
> >> Feds... where's he been at Wimbledon then? Or is that a one match peak
> >> kinda theory :))
>
> > Latter one, I was speculating what could have been unless Nadal had not
> > broken his back.
>
> Djerk's back that is.
Rafa also broke Nole's ass on clay and grass over and over again...
williemeikle
> Jeff Colby wrote:
> > On 12/03/10 14:41, TT wrote:
>
> >> Also, without Nadal, Djokovic might have played according to the level
> >> he's capable of, taking all those slams and more from fed...since Nadal
> >> wouldn't have beaten him to submission at FO+w+Olympics.
>
> > Complete nonsense.
>
> Not really. Nadal has kept Djokovic's confidence down by beating him at
> FO+queens+hamburg+W+Olympics. Djokovic never was the same after losing
> to Nadal at Queens...where Djokovic played grass court tennis on higher
> level than Federer does and still lost.
Now that made me laugh... a lot. You -really- are delusional
Manco
>
> Nadal does not play IW-Miami to catch Federer, he plays them because of
> ATP schedule. Same with MC+Barcelona+Rome...Nadal played Barcelona last
> year too, while leading fed with a big margin on ranking points...which
> makes your theory invalid.
Poor Nadal, ATP out to get him always!!!! ATP is on Roger's payroll,
no doubts.
Manco
>
> > ...Meaning that Djokovic played on higher level on clay than fed does.
>
> Yup! Well said.
I can see this thread has brought out the crazy contingent.
kaennorsing
> kaennorsing wrote:
> > Then again, he would likely pass 6 six slams as a
> > result of a longer career. Who knows.
>
> That's just stupid. Federer has nothing to do with Nadal's injuries.
> Those injuries were there already in 2005.
Everything has to do with everything. Something you obviously fail to
grasp. I think Nadal has said something to the effect of Federer being
an inspiration for him. Someone to try to emulate. The very best ever
according to Nadal himself.
> Nadal does not play IW-Miami to catch Federer, he plays them because of
> ATP schedule. Same with MC+Barcelona+Rome...Nadal played Barcelona last
> year too, while leading fed with a big margin on ranking points...which
> makes your theory invalid.
The big margin didn't last very long though, did it? My point is not
about which tournaments he plays but how he approaches the game and
his inspiration having an effect on his motivation. Maybe he realised
he needed the Barcelona points as he felt Federer getting back to full
strengths and realized his time at the top was limited. So he
attempted to extend his lead for a little while longer by adding
Barcelona.
Perhaps it's just a case of Nadal having a more limited, short-term
outlook compared to Fed who clearly has a long term vision. For Nadal
everything is much more about being in the moment, having the
intensity and fighting for every inch. Federer is clearly more
strategical, durable and playful.
Manco
>
> Now that made me laugh... a lot. You -really- are delusional
Tell us something we don't already know.
TT
Stop whining Manco, try to act like your idol.
Manco
>
> Perhaps it's just a case of Nadal having a more limited, short-term
> outlook compared to Fed who clearly has a long term vision. For Nadal
> everything is much more about being in the moment, having the
> intensity and fighting for every inch. Federer is clearly more
> strategical, durable and playful.
This is why TT loves Nadal and hates Federer. That attitude about
fighting for every inch no matter what is a very romantic/heroic
notion to many people...
Superdave
yeah he's a real bull man !
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
but he's got those forks sticking out of him the matador put in.
Superdave
except for two things.
Nadal is a CHEATER
Nadal is a QUITTER
Manco
bob
<musef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If Nadal never existed Federer would have 22 slams.
>If Federer never existed Nadal would have 8 slams.
>
>'Nuff said.
and if rafa didn't have tendinitis last yr, fed would have 13 slams.
bob
Pedro Dias
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:26:26 -0800 (PST), Manco
>
> >If Nadal never existed Federer would have 22 slams.
> >If Federer never existed Nadal would have 8 slams.
>
> >'Nuff said.
>
> and if rafa didn't have tendinitis last yr, fed would have 13 slams.
>
> bob
Or not, what with Federer being over his mononucleosis and all...
Pedro Dias
This is an interesting argument, when one considers that Federer has
won more consistently, for far longer; and that Nadal, while a good
front-runner, has a history of folding once his opponent gets the
advantage.
Then again, Romanticism was largely about failure, defeat and decay.
Patrick Kehoe
++ No... Romanticism was more about not being bound by the emperical,
the normative, the perceptable, unbounding man's mind to reach for the
sublime, the imaginative and that which gives something akin to
transcendant meaning to the otherwise all too often colourless,
mundane plane of mortality... :)
P
Whisper
Fed has made last 7 Wimbledon finals, winning 6.
Djoker has never reached a Wimbledon final.
Don't forget this is rst where eg some think Flipper > Sampras based on
Sampras losing 1 set to him.
Pedro Dias
As conveyed by picturesque ruins and consumptive, unpublished poets,
sure.
;-)
bob
mono didn't prevent him from having typical fed type results VS anyone
but nadal though. nadal's post knees results have been horrendous VS
all.
bob
CloudsRest
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:02:07 -0800 (PST), Pedro Dias
>
Losing in straights to Djokovic isn't exactly normal either. During
that AO, he was sweating a lot more than usual, resulting from the
mono. By the time FO came around, the illness was no longer a
factor. At Wimbledon, Nadal gained confidence from the previous year,
and Federer had the pressure of passing Borg. Nadal should have won
2007, Federer in 2008. It all evened out. But the illness affected
his results at the small tournaments. Getting destroyed by Fish was a
sign of his overall form.
Nadal's post knee results aren't that much different, as he usually
struggles 2nd half of the season. At full strength, he could lose to
Murray at OZ. Even Tsonga blasted him down there. Not the best hard
court player in the world, pre or post knee. He didn't look hurt
against Soderling either.
Pedro Dias
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:02:07 -0800 (PST), Pedro Dias
>
Nadal was never as good against "all" as Federer was.
As for Federer's results... Look, it's a matter of relative strength:
imagine you were playing in a league against a bunch of four-year-olds
- and *one* twelve year-old. It's quite possible you could be at
death's door and *still* beat all the littler guys comfortably. But
your margin over the older kid is narrower, so if you're quite ill, he
might be able to beat you - even though the four-year-olds *still*
can't.
No, the field aren't four, and Nadal isn't twelve, but it's been
really, really hard to make you Usual Idiots grasp a pretty simple
point, so I'm grasping at tutorial straws here.
dbrowne
> No, the field aren't four, and Nadal isn't twelve, but it's been
> really, really hard to make you Usual Idiots grasp a pretty simple
> point, so I'm grasping at tutorial straws here.
Oscar is trying to explain to Michael that the office budget has a
surplus for the year, and if they don't spend it they will lose it.
"Explain it to me like I'm an 8 year old," etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjMJscj8Q
Whisper
> On Mar 13, 4:34 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:02:07 -0800 (PST), Pedro Dias
>>
>> <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 8:12 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:26:26 -0800 (PST), Manco
>>>> <musefan2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> If Nadal never existed Federer would have 22 slams.
>>>>> If Federer never existed Nadal would have 8 slams.
>>>>> 'Nuff said.
>>>> and if rafa didn't have tendinitis last yr, fed would have 13 slams.
>>>> bob
>>> Or not, what with Federer being over his mononucleosis and all...
>> mono didn't prevent him from having typical fed type results VS anyone
>> but nadal though. nadal's post knees results have been horrendous VS
>> all.
>>
>> bob
>
> Losing in straights to Djokovic isn't exactly normal either.
But in the previous slam Fed beat Djoker in the final 76 76 75 & Djoker
had many set points in 1st 2 sets - not really that far off a straight
sets loss.
Wait - did Fed actually have mono in August 2007....?
Pedro Dias
A straight-sets win is not that far off a straight-sets loss?
Niiiiiice! Next, I want you to prove up is down, black is white, and
you're not an idiot.
Well, I suppose it's not fair asking for the impossible, but you
should have a shot at the other two.
bob
wrote:
that's what i'm hearing. unbelievable.
bob
bob
your explanation is for 4 yr olds too. 12 yr olds have more sense.
c'mon pedr0. this isn't what happened, and if that's the best you can
do to explain it, pretty sad.
bob
bob
and that's a line borrowed from a fine movie "Philadelphia" with Tom
Hanks and Denzel Washington, about a homo being discriminated against.
cannot you ever be original brownie?
bob
Pedro Dias
And no matter how low I go, you're still looking upward with your
little face screwed into a puzzled little frown. Pretty sad is right.
Pedro Dias
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:26 -0800 (PST), dbrowne
>
This doesn't deserve an answer, really, but I'm a sap... You do
understand that Mr. Brown was referencing a TV show, right? If anyone
failed to be "original", it was the writers for The Office.
bob
egads, who cares.
pedro, right, wrong, or indifferent, i used to be able to count on you
at least making a strong argument. whatever happened, you've gone off
the deep end.
bob
bob
if federer made 0 or 1 slam final, lost 20 tuneup matches VS 6 the
previous yr, you might have a claim. your statistical explanation is
horrendous. for 6 MONTHS old.
c'mon pedro, you used to be better than this.
bob
Pedro Dias
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:17:33 -0700 (PDT), Pedro Dias
>
>
>
> <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
> >On Mar 14, 11:38 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:26 -0800 (PST), dbrowne
>
> >> <dbrowne1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 13, 8:36 pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
> >> >> No, the field aren't four, and Nadal isn't twelve, but it's been
> >> >> really, really hard to make you Usual Idiots grasp a pretty simple
> >> >> point, so I'm grasping at tutorial straws here.
> >> >This reminds me of an episode of The Office (American version), where
> >> >Oscar is trying to explain to Michael that the office budget has a
> >> >surplus for the year, and if they don't spend it they will lose it.
> >> >"Explain it to me like I'm an 8 year old," etc.
>
> >> and that's a line borrowed from a fine movie "Philadelphia" with Tom
> >> Hanks and Denzel Washington, about a homo being discriminated against.
>
> >> cannot you ever be original brownie?
>
> >This doesn't deserve an answer, really, but I'm a sap... You do
> >understand that Mr. Brown was referencing a TV show, right? If anyone
> >failed to be "original", it was the writers for The Office.
>
> egads, who cares.
Well, you felt you needed to make a crack about it. And you know how I
trust your judgment.
> pedro, right, wrong, or indifferent, i used to be able to count on you
> at least making a strong argument. whatever happened, you've gone off
> the deep end.
Sayin' so don't make it so, bobbsie, though I'm not sure that I *made*
an argument there. Just pointin' out the facks, Ma'am.
Pedro Dias
Again, make a counter-argument. I don't even know what the Hades you
find wrong with mine. The deviation is necessarily small, which is
integral to the argument, but its effect is statistically significant,
in fact it's huge enough to be pretty darn hard to miss - Federer's
losses more than double, I believe, if you take Slams into account.
The fact that you think otherwise is irrelevant: you can argue for an
alternative explanation, but you can't shrug the facts away.
In fact, that is exactly what you *used* to do: at one point you had
no problem with the notion that Federer's form was way off, but you
were *enjoying* it, and explained it by claiming he was on a
precipitous downward slide. But the fact that '09 played out like it
did sort of deflated *that* balloon, so all of a sudden you claim
there *was* no drop in performance.
In case you aren't aware of this, everyone here (you included, I
believe) is aware of your ever-shifting arguments. I'm not sure why
you think they go away just because you pretend they never existed.
That's something most children grow out of very early in their
cognitive development.
bob
i had hoped for it, but it never happened. instead, he maintained his
level - right up til today. he still beats the field (minus nadal),
and the field has improved, and are not clowns, IMO, like they were
for fed's 1st 10 slams. none of this has to do with fed VS healthy
nddal.
> But the fact that '09 played out like it
>did sort of deflated *that* balloon, so all of a sudden you claim
>there *was* no drop in performance.
09 started exactly as i figured, minus nadal developing a knee
condition that might be chronic. nothing different here.
>In case you aren't aware of this, everyone here (you included, I
>believe) is aware of your ever-shifting arguments. I'm not sure why
>you think they go away just because you pretend they never existed.
>That's something most children grow out of very early in their
>cognitive development.
my argument is consistent from day 1. my predictions may change based
on what's conditions on teh ground, but my analysis of what happened
has NEVER varied 1 iota.
bob
PedroDias
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:38:10 -0700 (PDT), Pedro Dias
>
>
>
So Federer is DONE, OVER, NEVER WINNING ANOTHER SLAM!
That, by the way, is only a *slight* exaggeration of your late-'08
stance. Your argument was that not only was Nadal now much better than
aging Federer, the rest of the field was no longer intimidated and
would tear him new ones on a weekly basis.
Not exactly what happened, as it turns out.
bob
i always closed it with a nadal being healthy clause. consistently
over and over. i also said that fed would never win a FO so long as he
had to go through a healthy nadal to get it.
turns out i was right.
bob
Superdave
i said nadal would injusr himself and be forced to quit the game early. turns
out i was right too.
PedroDias
that covers. You also said that we now had a crop of new players who
were not going to fold when playing him (have you seen Murray lately?
Djokovic?). *And* you were quite clear about the fact that this was
caused as much by Federer's decay as any other factor - which was the
grounds on which you disagreed with my prediction that Federer would
be comin' right on back to show us all what a bunch of doofuses you
Idiots truly are.
Look it up. Or, alternatively, keep trying to re-invent the past, when
your every word is archived. Let me know how that works out for you.
Ted S.
> A straight-sets win is not that far off a straight-sets loss?
> Niiiiiice! Next, I want you to prove up is down, black is white, and
> you're not an idiot.
I don't know how you put up with this garbage. I remember already back
in 2006, when Federer had match points on Nadal at Rome, and beat Nadal
in four sets in the Wimbledon final, the anti-Federers were claiming
Nadal was closer to beating Federer on grass than Federer was to beating
Nadal on clay....
--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova
Pedro Dias
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Pedro Dias wrote:
> > A straight-sets win is not that far off a straight-sets loss?
> > Niiiiiice! Next, I want you to prove up is down, black is white, and
> > you're not an idiot.
>
> I don't know how you put up with this garbage. I remember already back
> in 2006, when Federer had match points on Nadal at Rome, and beat Nadal
> in four sets in the Wimbledon final, the anti-Federers were claiming
> Nadal was closer to beating Federer on grass than Federer was to beating
> Nadal on clay....
It's not that hard, actually. I like to indulge in low pursuits, and
it doesn't get much lower than playing Logical Whack-A-Mole with our
very own Usual Idiots. The only worry I have is that I might become
the obverse of that which I slap around, but realistically so many
brain cells would first have to die that I most likely would lose the
ability to post long before it came to pass. Self-limiting, really.
TT
>
> It's not that hard, actually. I like to indulge in low pursuits, and
> it doesn't get much lower than playing Logical Whack-A-Mole with our
> very own Usual Idiots. The only worry I have is that I might become
> the obverse of that which I slap around, but realistically so many
> brain cells would first have to die that I most likely would lose the
> ability to post long before it came to pass. Self-limiting, really.
Nice comments after being beaten like a rented mule. You have no shame.
Pedro Dias
Heh. Don't think so, youngster. Still waiting for an answer to any
single point, from you, bobbsie or his Daddy. Who, by the bye, has
wisely made himself very notably absent: you might do well to watch
Whispless for clues: he invariably disappears when things are going
poorly for the Usual Idiots, and leaves his witless minions to waste
their verbiage upon the desert air. Not a man to lead from the
vanguard, our Whispy.
john
"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cjplp59aj76sg816o...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:26:26 -0800 (PST), Manco
> <musef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If Nadal never existed Federer would have 22 slams.
>>If Federer never existed Nadal would have 8 slams.
>>
>>'Nuff said.
>
> and if rafa didn't have tendinitis last yr, fed would have 13 slams.
>
> bob
Rafa did not have tendinitis in 2005 - 2008 he still did not make past USO
semi and still
did not win AO. Beating Federer in 1 out of 3 Wimbledon finals and making
it 1 final
out of 13 is not convincing enough to predict Federer would have 13 slams.
Federer basically
wore down Nadal by making him work beyond his physical ability to take No.1
and stay at
No.1.
CloudsRest
> "bob" <stein...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Sounds perfectly logical to me. That's been my take on the
situation. Nadal had his own aspirations to dominate the way Federer
did, but his game is just too physical to maintain that level. How
long to engines last when they're constantly pushed to the red lines?
CloudsRest
Don't flatter yourself because tons of people reached this same
conclusion. And so what? Lots of players from the past never had
Nadal in the draw, yet they never won the French Open. If Nadal
suddenly retires, do all French Open champions from 2009- all deserve
asterisks? Federer deserved his French title, no more or less than
others that have won it.
CloudsRest
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:57:16 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
131-92. Truly unbelievable.
TT
This is one of the nice traits of fedfans...claiming that Nadal has
tendonitis because rogi is that good. Hilarious.
TT
Only in rst...
Pelle Svanslös
Yup. 7 + tendonitis > 13.
Pedro Dias
> "bob" <stein...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Actually, Nadal has had foot/leg problems late in the hardcourt season
just about every season since I've been aware of him.
Pedro Dias
Yeah, I've seen that, and I find it an unfortunate formulation of the
situation. I think Nadal would have been Nadal whether or not Federer
had existed. In fact, Nadal *was* Nadal before he ever played Federer.
TT
Finally we agree on something. :-P
Of ocurse John doesn't...so let's make this even more obvious for
him...In 2009 Nadal had a good lead on ranking points...and he still
played MC+Barcelona+Rome in succession. So he does it because of
schedule, not because of how someone else plays.
The poor bastard will play MC+B+R this summer too. He just loves his
Barcelona. Hopefully he loses in 1st round. More likely he'll take MC+B
6th year in succession.
Manco
the ATP Forces him, right!
Manco
bob
yes - and you were very right. good call you lucky sonovagun.
bob
bob
exactly. he is what he is. an animal who pushed his training and
schedule to a level that actually hurt him long term.
bob
Pedro Dias
Absolutely. Though I think the question these people are asking is
whether it is necessary to self-destruct in the long run in order to
beat Federer in the near term. If it is, then it's sort of senseless
to say Federer is "lucky" Nadal is injured: it's directly related to
the reason he was successful in the first place, and one cannot exist
without the other. In other words, if Nadal hadn't pushed himself like
this, he wold never had been able to hang with Federer, and once he
did there was a definite price to pay, an inevitably truncated career
trajectory.
Obviously impossible to demonstrate either way, and I'm not sure how
it matters, but there you are.
bob
besting federer or not, my question is if "overtraining" is what is in
nadal's best interest short or long term. i.e. what nadal needs to be
his personal best. IMO, no. there is a given amount of training, that
when overdone, can hinder even short term performance. you tend to
burn out (even if not injured). the bits of rest in between all
workaholics make them better.
> If it is, then it's sort of senseless
>to say Federer is "lucky" Nadal is injured: it's directly related to
>the reason he was successful in the first place, and one cannot exist
>without the other. In other words, if Nadal hadn't pushed himself like
>this, he wold never had been able to hang with Federer, and once he
>did there was a definite price to pay, an inevitably truncated career
>trajectory. Obviously impossible to demonstrate either way, and I'm not sure how
>it matters, but there you are.
i don't call it "lucky" for fed that nadal is injured per say; i do
believe that if nadal was not injured though, that his best would
continue to win majority of slams.
bob
CloudsRest
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:19:29 -0700 (PDT), Pedro Dias
>
>
>
Reality check: players' form and health vary from year to year. In
tennis, even from month to month (depending on surface). That goes
for all sports. Everybody wishes he could bottle up his youth and
best form forever. Doesn't work that way. This is purely subjective,
can't be proven, and is mostly biased towards favs (or against those
we don't like).
It could be that nobody beats Shaq and Kobe at their best. But we'll
never truly know, and it doesn't really matter. Time and life go on.
You can sit here all day and believe Pujols would never get a hit off
Seaver. So what?
Pedro Dias
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:19:29 -0700 (PDT), Pedro Dias
>
>
>
Maybe. It seems to be the choice Nadal made. I wouldn't have, but
that's neither here nor there: it's obviously a decision athletes have
to make for themselves.
> > If it is, then it's sort of senseless
> >to say Federer is "lucky" Nadal is injured: it's directly related to
> >the reason he was successful in the first place, and one cannot exist
> >without the other. In other words, if Nadal hadn't pushed himself like
> >this, he wold never had been able to hang with Federer, and once he
> >did there was a definite price to pay, an inevitably truncated career
> >trajectory. Obviously impossible to demonstrate either way, and I'm not sure how
> >it matters, but there you are.
>
> i don't call it "lucky" for fed that nadal is injured per say; i do
> believe that if nadal was not injured though, that his best would
> continue to win majority of slams.
Which is of course at the root of most of our disagreements: I think
Nadal would be winning some Slams, but not the majority. Not as long
as Federer was well and fit.