2008 US Open

[Total Power]

lolz, so Federer won the US open due to luck because Nadal got smashed by Murray?

4 tight sets is not getting smashed, secondly, nadal can get smashed by anyone but when he plays federer, federers ball shrink , i love the commentary by Mats Wilander .He was asked whats federers thoughts about the finals against muzza, he said...what thoughts, he has gone to buy some beer to celebrate his US open victory

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

4 tight sets is not getting smashed, secondly, nadal can get smashed by anyone but when he plays federer, federers ball shrink , i love the commentary by Mats Wilander .He was asked whats federers thoughts about the finals against muzza, he said...what thoughts, he has gone to buy some beer to celebrate his US open victory

Haha. 4 tight sets? You're having a laugh. He was lucky to even stretch it to 4.

 

[Total Power]

Haha. 4 tight sets? You're having a laugh. He was lucky to even stretch it to 4.

hm...second set tiebreak, third set comfortably won and lost the fourth set after leading 4-2 ... surely not a walk in the park. Time to go learn more about tennis little boy

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

hm...second set tiebreak, third set comfortably won and lost the fourth set after leading 4-2 ... surely not a walk in the park. Time to go learn more about tennis little boy

First set? Smashed. Second set? Nadal was lucky to even take it to a tie-break fighting off break points throughout the set. Break point opportunities for the match were an astounding 20-3 in favour of Murray, imagine if he took all of his chances? It would have been embarrassing for your little crush.

 

[Total Power]

First set? Smashed. Second set? Nadal was lucky to even take it to a tie-break fighting off break points throughout the set. Break point opportunities for the match were an astounding 20-3 in favour of Murray, imagine if he took all of his chances? It would have been embarrassing for your little crush.

The fact is...over 2 and half hour of tennis is not really a walk in the park but keep telling yourself that if that makes u feel better.Sure Nadal served poorly and murray was returning brilliantly, but how many times did murray break? Nadal saved most of those break points with relative easy.You can argue with missing break points is better than saving them...i would say..credit to Nadal for saving them.Anyway..2 and half hours tennis not a walk in the park but you keep telling yourself that since you are new to tennis.

P.S While we are at it... in 2008, 2>1 and #1>#2 , career head to head 12> 6... in 2008 Rafa >>>> everyone.

 

[gaelictiogar]

This idea that rafa owns Fed is nonsense though of course nadal fans will cling to it.

ALL it reveals is Nadals consistent inability to final at Melbourne and NY etc.

Clay: 9-1. nadal is clearly ahead nad dominant.

However
Grass 1-2
Hards 2-3

It is clear to anyone looking at it fairly that if Nadal finalled when out of his comfort zone as often as Fed does when clearly out of his on european clay the head to head would be much closer. I fully expect TP to deny this but the reality is that Nadal's ENTIRE lead is reliant on clay. off clay he is 3-5 against Federer. The 12-6 record in fact simply reveals the one dimensional nature of Nadal compared to Federer who is a multi finalist EVERYWHERE. whereas Melbourne, NY and Shanghai are beyond Nadal.

 

[Total Power]

This idea that rafa owns Fed is nonsense though of course nadal fans will cling to it.

ALL it reveals is Nadals consistent inability to final at Melbourne and NY etc.

Clay: 9-1. nadal is clearly ahead nad dominant.

However
Grass 1-2
Hards 2-3

It is clear to anyone looking at it fairly that if Nadal finalled when out of his comfort zone as often as Fed does when clearly out of his on european clay the head to head would be much closer. I fully expect TP to deny this but the reality is that Nadal's ENTIRE lead is reliant on clay. off clay he is 3-5 against Federer. The 12-6 record in fact simply reveals the one dimensional nature of Nadal compared to Federer who is a multi finalist EVERYWHERE. whereas Melbourne, NY and Shanghai are beyond Nadal.

yes grass 1-2 and you are discounting the fact that how he played against him last year.Seriously GT i am not beginning to think you dont understand the game at all.All you do is look at the numbers.

Who is saying Nadals lead is not dependent on clay? ofcourse he is a clay monster, but not he is better than federer on grasscourts as well. So federer has the edge on hardcourts only.How about federer vs nadal on clay? fed got his ass kicked so hard this year, he will remember that for the rest of his life...and yet on his favourite surface, he barely escaped last year but the better player on grass prevailed this year..fact mate.But i wont deny the fact that federer holds the edge on hardcourts, but hardcourt tennis not tennis, tennis is a combination of 3 surfaces.


But hey 2-3 on hardcourt means federer is really way ahead of him isnt it? At best i give federer a 70 percent chance to win on hardcourts. 40 percent on grass and 0 percent on clay.

Rafa on hardcourts can actually win against federer, he has a chance, ok it might be 30-70 but he has a chance...but federer has no chance against him on clay.The only time he won was when even hewitt beat rafa he ran out of gas.On grasscourts, now rafa is the better player, anyone with a half a brain can see that.

You can keep telling yourself that his only dependent on clay, but the fact is he has won queens, beating Roddick and Nole, and then Wimbledon beating Muzza and Federer and then on hardcourts, Muzza, Nole, Gonzo again... sure, go ahead call him a dud..EVEN if you discount his french open points he is STILL WORLD NUMBER 1...yes, he is still number 1 without french open points. Hard to swallow that fact, eh GT??????

I will remember your melbourne , NY and shaingahi comments, another egg on face or karma coming up soon anyway, you must be sick of it already by now GT?? dont you learn?? or shall i bump some of your wonderful comments again?

And before you start generalising me once again i would like to tell you, Rafa is fast catching up with Roger, he is already owned him on his favourite surface, i couldnt give a rats tossbag is roger beats him in a masters series event, Federer will not win a grand slam encounter with Nadal again, yep, thats a big prediction i am putting my balls in line here.

 

[gaelictiogar]

In fairness TP you are reading a lot into one win.

Rafa beat federer 8-6 in the fifth set of the Wimbledon final at a time when rafa was in the form of his life playing brilliantly in the lead up to Wimbledon and when Federer was in a deep form slump by his standards. Federer looked and was vulnerable.

No point talking about 2007 as if it was some kind of Rafa win. It wasn't. One could just as easily point out that Roger has taken sets from him at RG.

The suggestion that Rafa is a better grass court player is based on one win over 5 sets for a man in form against a man out of form. Not enough evidence. Anyone recognises that rafa's game matches up well against Rogers. his strenghts are suited to attacking Roger's weaknesses but that does not mean he is a better grass court player. He isn't or at least hasn't proven it.

 

[Total Power]

In fairness TP you are reading a lot into one win.

Rafa beat federer 8-6 in the fifth set of the Wimbledon final at a time when rafa was in the form of his life playing brilliantly in the lead up to Wimbledon and when Federer was in a deep form slump by his standards. Federer looked and was vulnerable.

No point talking about 2007 as if it was some kind of Rafa win. It wasn't. One could just as easily point out that Roger has taken sets from him at RG.

The suggestion that Rafa is a better grass court player is based on one win over 5 sets for a man in form against a man out of form. Not enough evidence. Anyone recognises that rafa's game matches up well against Rogers. his strenghts are suited to attacking Roger's weaknesses but that does not mean he is a better grass court player. He isn't or at least hasn't proven it.

There you go, your typical excuse...from illness to vulnerable Ever wondered why 80 percent of times roger looks vulnerable againt rafa? the only roger has against rafa is on fast indoor surfaces, where rafa has little chance to beat roger.

Secondly last years wimbledon final was the evidence that rafa was catching up with federer on grass.Face it, the knee injury really ruined his chances, he was comfortably accounting for federer on grass before that and this year is the further evidence that he was surpassed federer on grass.I am not saying rafa will win 5 wimbledon titles, maybe Nole or Muzza is gonna catch up with him, but trust me, federer will really be happy to see Murray or Nole in the finals and not Nadal, even you know that.

FFS, at the age of 22, winning 5 slams is really awesome, how do you compare that with rogers 13?? roger is 27, how many do you expect a 22 year old to win? 10??