The 2013 In Between Grand Slam Thread

Rjd2

Lads calling it now, i have spent the whole day studying the form....:eek:



























































































Novak to beat Gasquet in 2 sets;)

WaterLily.

Gasquet is making Djokovic work for this! Into a first set tiebreak, whatever happens Gasquet isn't rolling over like everyone expected him to!

I'm very impressed with how Gasquet has done in this tournament, he really pushed Delpo, it was such a tight match and although it was straight sets against Federer it was no walk in the park for Roger.

But I think you may ever so possibly be right about Novak in 2 here :P

WaterLily.

^ Well looks like Gasquet has just proved everyone wrong!

Allez Richard!!

walshb

One of the best rallies ever juts there, and won by Federer.

John.Icy

Had hopes that it would be a close game when Fed broke back to 5-5.

But mother of god...silly amounts of unforced errors by Fed. He'll never win anything big again unless he cuts them out or avoids Nadal or Djokovic.

WaterLily.

I have to say I'm loving this match, but Federer is just making too many errors! He can't expect to beat the very best with so many unnecessary faults; yes he'll probably get away with that against weaker players but it's just not good enough against Djokovic, Nadal, etc.

Edit: thought I posted this about 10 mins ago and then John you beat me to it, totally agree

Oh and that's that! Disappointing from Roger, I really had hopes that he might be able to at least push Rafa... it was a long shot, he was thoroughly outplayed.

Snowy Man

You know Federer's career is coming to an end when he can't even beat Nadal on an indoor hardcourt. Two years ago he Nadal 6-3 6-0.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Snowy Man wrote: »

You know Federer's career is coming to an end when he can't even beat Nadal on an indoor hardcourt. Two years ago he Nadal 6-3 6-0.

Two years ago Nadal was really ill and had to leave the court to throw up during his first match. Doesn't count.

MisterAnarchy

WaterLily. wrote: »

Oh and that's that! Disappointing from Roger, I really had hopes that he might be able to at least push Rafa... it was a long shot, he was thoroughly outplayed.

He wasnt thoroughly outplayed .
He started the match very well ,serving well and gave up hardly any points in his first 4 service games .
He should have been a break up before his serve completely deserted him and he couldnt buy a first serve.

He is a broken man mentally and I cant see him beating Nadal again .
How do you go from serving almost flawlessly to not being able to get a first serve in ,its mental.
He seems to throw in 1-2 bum service games every set against his main rivals ,Nadal didnt do anything to break Federer it was poor serves and bad forehands that gifted Nadal the games.

Near the end of the second set Federer looked sorry for himself ,the head was down ,he was resigned to defeat ,it was sad to watch ,no fight at all .

The Federer of old would always up his game at the vital time in sets ,near the end and at the start of a set.
Nowadays he plays these games poorly ,he gets nervous and his serve deserts him under pressure .

For once I was actually impressed with Castle and Henman on BBC ,they analysed the game very well,they must have upped their game due to complaints.

Becker and Rusedski on Sky said Federer needs a new coach,what he needs the most is a sports psychologist .

You know Federer's career is coming to an end when he can't even beat Nadal on an indoor hardcourt. Two years ago he Nadal 6-3 6-0.

Nadal was happy just to keep the ball in play today and let Federer blow up in a few vital service games.
Prime Federer would have flogged Nadal ,he wouldnt lose his serve and break Nadal easily 3-4 times .

Btw does anyone else find it very dark at the O2 ,the lighting is very poor and its hard to see the ball .

yerwanthere123

Felt kinda bad for Federer today, but in reality I think he should be grateful he qualified for London at all, and was gifted a spot in the semi's by Delpo. The best I think he can hope for next year (in my opinion) is to get back in the top 4 and stay there.

yerwanthere123

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Prime Federer would have flogged Nadal

But Federer at his peak has still lost most of his matches to Nadal, consistently throughout his career. Nadal has always lead their head-to-head.

Snowy Man

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Two years ago Nadal was really ill and had to leave the court to throw up during his first match. Doesn't count.

He beat him three years ago in the final too.

Snowy Man

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

But Federer at his peak has still lost most of his matches to Nadal, consistently throughout his career. Nadal has always lead their head-to-head.

Not on non clay courts and certainly not indoor hardcourt during Federer peak years.

yerwanthere123

Snowy Man wrote: »

Not on non clay courts and certainly not indoor hardcourt during Federer peak years.

When you deduct their clay results, Nadal still leads the head-to-head. In the grand scheme of things, I think the fact that Federer leads the h2h on indoor hard courts matters very little. Nadal has dominated the rivalry from start to finish.

It does seem unfair. I mean, they've played 15 times on Rafa's best surface and only 3 times on Federer's best. This obviously skews the h2h disproportionately in Rafa's favour. Had they played more times on grass then the h2h would obviously be a bit more even. But the point is, they haven't. And it's unfortunate that the grass 'season' is only 3 weeks long, but that's the way the tour is.

Nadal has dominated the rivalry fair and square, and there's nothing anyone can say to take away from that.

mickmackey1

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Nadal has dominated the rivalry fair and square, and there's nothing anyone can say to take away from that.

It's a simplistic argument however; Djokovic has beaten Nadal more often then Federer has, does that mean Djoko is greater than Fed?

And Krajicek beat Sampras more often than he lost, that doesn't mean much.

It's all about number and quality of tournament wins at the end of the day.

yerwanthere123

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It's a simplistic argument however; Djokovic has beaten Nadal more often then Federer has, does that mean Djoko is greater than Fed?

And Krajicek beat Sampras more often than he lost, that doesn't mean much.

It's all about number and quality of tournament wins at the end of the day.

I know. But in this instance what we are talking about is their record against each other, and the notion that "prime Federer would have flogged Nadal", which quite obviously isn't true at all.

I'm not suggesting that Nadal is a better player than Federer. When they both retire, regardless of their total grand slam count, I'm pretty sure that Federer will still be considered the better player by most. However, the point I'm making is you can try and skew their h2h any way you like, Nadal still leads it by a clear mile.

mickmackey1

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

However, the point I'm making is you can try and skew their h2h any way you like, Nadal still leads it by a clear mile.

True, but here's a different h2h... Nadal: 18 non-clay court titles, Federer... 67

MisterAnarchy

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

But Federer at his peak has still lost most of his matches to Nadal, consistently throughout his career. Nadal has always lead their head-to-head.

Whilst Federer is obviously in decline outside forces haven't helped him .
Nadal (and Djokovic and Murray) has benefited from the huge slow down of court surfaces.

The court at the O2 was slowed dramatically last year and its slower still this year.
Nadals persistent complaints about the surface not suiting him have paid off ,the court at the O2 is now a medium pace court with a medium bounce ,its not a true indoor surface .

It has come to the ludicrous stage now where players hit more winners at the French Open than at either Wimbledon or the Australian Open.
If Del Potro cant hit through these courts, then who can?

WaterLily.

mickmackey1 wrote: »

True, but here's a different h2h... Nadal: 18 non-clay court titles, Federer... 67

That is not a fair comparison at all, comparing Nadal's weakest surface (if we take out the 2 Wimbledon's and is it 1 Queens I think) to Federer's strongest!

If we are saying Federer's weakest surface is clay and Nadal's hard courts then: Nadal hardcourt tournaments: 15, Federer clay: 10...

Also Federer is 5 years older

Snowy Man

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

When you deduct their clay results, Nadal still leads the head-to-head. In the grand scheme of things, I think the fact that Federer leads the h2h on indoor hard courts matters very little. Nadal has dominated the rivalry from start to finish.

It does seem unfair. I mean, they've played 15 times on Rafa's best surface and only 3 times on Federer's best. This obviously skews the h2h disproportionately in Rafa's favour. Had they played more times on grass then the h2h would obviously be a bit more even. But the point is, they haven't. And it's unfortunate that the grass 'season' is only 3 weeks long, but that's the way the tour is.

Nadal has dominated the rivalry fair and square, and there's nothing anyone can say to take away from that.

During mutual peak years Federer dominated, put them both in a tournament and chances are Federer wins it during his peak years.

Snowy Man

WaterLily. wrote: »

That is not a fair comparison at all, comparing Nadal's weakest surface (if we take out the 2 Wimbledon's and is it 1 Queens I think) to Federer's strongest!

If we are saying Federer's weakest surface is clay and Nadal's hard courts then: Nadal hardcourt tournaments: 15, Federer clay: 10...

Also Federer is 5 years older

Then comparing head to head isnt fair as they played the majority on clay.

its as simple as this. Federer 2006 is the greatest player of all time.

Gerry91

Snowy Man wrote: »

During mutual peak years Federer dominated, put them both in a tournament and chances are Federer wins it during his peak years.

Well Nadal didn't peak on hard until about 09/10 and from then he started beating Fed non-stop on the surface. Before that he lost to guys like Gonzales,Del Potro and Tsonga by cricket scores no less and the likes of Ferrer at HC Grand slams, nowhere near peak form for sure!

On grass he was brilliant in 08 but in 06 and 07 he could well have got knocked out in an early round. He nearly fell arse backwards into the final in a way.

He was always unstoppable on clay. I'd say Nadal's peak years in general were from late 08/ early 09 until now I guess, while Fed's were arguably 05-08. It;s hard to compare them really IMO as their peaks occured at different times. Fed was still at the top of his game though in 09,10,11 and I don't think he's beaten Nadal since 08??

I can't say who was better myself as Nadal obviously was on clay and Fed obviously was on grass. Peak Nadal on HC would give peak Fed on HC a serious game IMO. Thing is Nadal didn't peak on HC till AO 09

Fed was naturally more gifted and far better to watch but on his day Nadal is one seriously tough nut to crack

Gerry91

Snowy Man wrote: »

Then comparing head to head isnt fair as they played the majority on clay.

its as simple as this. Federer 2006 is the greatest player of all time.

It isn't fair full stop IMO.

But people try and compromise by taking out clay. And then after that it's usually said Fed wasn't near his peak in recent years so those results are redundant

It's widely regarded Fed is the GOAT and I've no problem with that. But this at times seems to cause a few people to knock Nadal's achievements which isn't that fair

It's all a matter of opinion though. Would 06 Fed have won the USO just gone? Hmm hard one to call

Snowy Man

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It's a simplistic argument however; Djokovic has beaten Nadal more often then Federer has, does that mean Djoko is greater than Fed?

And Krajicek beat Sampras more often than he lost, that doesn't mean much.

It's all about number and quality of tournament wins at the end of the day.

Yep, much like boxing styles make fights.

X can dominate Y who can dominate Z whoncan dominate X.So you cant use head to determine who is the better tennis player. Davydenko is certainly not a better tennis player than Nadal yet he leads Nadal in the head to head.

What determines the quality of a tennis player is how good they are against the entire field.

Gerry91

Snowy Man wrote: »

Yep, much like boxing styles make fights.

X can dominate Y who can dominate Z whoncan dominate X.So you cant use head to determine who is the better tennis player. Davydenko is certainly not a better tennis player than Nadal yet he leads Nadal in the head to head.

What determines the quality of a tennis player is how good they are against the entire field.

So by amount of Grand Slams perhaps?

If Nadal surpasses 17 would you consider him better than Fed? I don't think it's that simple myself and I'd expect Fed will always be considered the GOAT tbh

I actually think if Rafa wins the AO he'll beat 17- he has 2/3 more French's in him for sure

WaterLily.

Snowy Man wrote: »

Then comparing head to head isnt fair as they played the majority on clay.

its as simple as this. Federer 2006 is the greatest player of all time.

I agree with you, I don't think comparing any two players h2h is ever going to be fair. I was just pointing out in that person's post that comparing the number of titles Federer has on his favourite surface against the number of titles Nadal has on his least favourite is not fair.

But I also don't think that you can say Federer 2006 was the greatest player ever. Federer is still the same person, just not playing as good tennis, also in 2006 he had virtually no opposition! Nadal and Djokovic were only teenagers, who did he have to contend with, Safin? Hewitt?

I think Federer is the greatest ever at the momentand nothing whatsoever can take away from that and I love watching him play at his best. But if in 5 years time Nadal retires having been injury free that whole time, I wouldn't put it past him to have racked up another 5 slams or so.

I think Federer will always be considered the GOAT no matter what happens. What he has achieved throughout his career surpassed outstanding long ago!

But I hate this debate, people who support Federer discredit Nadal's achievements and people who prefer Nadal pull out the head to head card. I wish people could just watch the magnificent tennis we are seeing in this era and that's it. It's all very well having a good discussion/ argument about it but sometimes I just think it gets out of hand and leads nowhere in the end.

Snowy Man

Gerry91 wrote: »

Well Nadal didn't peak on hard until about 09/10 and from then he started beating Fed non-stop on the surface. Before that he lost to guys like Gonzales,Del Potro and Tsonga by cricket scores no less and the likes of Ferrer at HC Grand slams, nowhere near peak form for sure!

On grass he was brilliant in 08 but in 06 and 07 he could well have got knocked out in an early round. He nearly fell arse backwards into the final in a way.

He was always unstoppable on clay. I'd say Nadal's peak years in general were from late 08/ early 09 until now I guess, while Fed's were arguably 05-08. It;s hard to compare them really IMO as their peaks occured at different times. Fed was still at the top of his game though in 09,10,11 and I don't think he's beaten Nadal since 08??

I can't say who was better myself as Nadal obviously was on clay and Fed obviously was on grass. Peak Nadal on HC would give peak Fed on HC a serious game IMO. Thing is Nadal didn't peak on HC till AO 09

Fed was naturally more gifted and far better to watch but on his day Nadal is one seriously tough nut to crack

Federer in 09,10 and 11 was certainly past his peak. Nadal peaked on clay probably in 2008, he's probably not as good on clay now. On hardcourt I'd say nadal is at his peak now and Federer was at his peak at the Australian Open. Federer declined hugely in 2008, then even further in 2010, upped his game in 2012 and dripped off a cliff in 2013.

Snowy Man

Gerry91 wrote: »

So by amount of Grand Slams perhaps?

If Nadal surpasses 17 would you consider him better than Fed? I don't think it's that simple myself and I'd expect Fed will always be considered the GOAT tbh

I actually think if Rafa wins the AO he'll beat 17- he has 2/3 more French's in him for sure

If Nadal ends up with 18 slams I'd probably consider him the greatest. Though if he only addd more French opens Im not sure.

Snowy Man

Gerry91 wrote: »

Well Nadal didn't peak on hard until about 09/10 and from then he started beating Fed non-stop on the surface. Before that he lost to guys like Gonzales,Del Potro and Tsonga by cricket scores no less and the likes of Ferrer at HC Grand slams, nowhere near peak form for sure!

On grass he was brilliant in 08 but in 06 and 07 he could well have got knocked out in an early round. He nearly fell arse backwards into the final in a way.

He was always unstoppable on clay. I'd say Nadal's peak years in general were from late 08/ early 09 until now I guess, while Fed's were arguably 05-08. It;s hard to compare them really IMO as their peaks occured at different times. Fed was still at the top of his game though in 09,10,11 and I don't think he's beaten Nadal since 08??

I can't say who was better myself as Nadal obviously was on clay and Fed obviously was on grass. Peak Nadal on HC would give peak Fed on HC a serious game IMO. Thing is Nadal didn't peak on HC till AO 09

Fed was naturally more gifted and far better to watch but on his day Nadal is one seriously tough nut to crack

Federer beat Nadal in the final of madrid on clay in 2009, at the WTF in 2010 and 2011 and at Indian Wells in 2012.

Snowy Man

WaterLily. wrote: »

I agree with you, I don't think comparing any two players h2h is ever going to be fair. I was just pointing out in that person's post that comparing the number of titles Federer has on his favourite surface against the number of titles Nadal has on his least favourite is not fair.

But I also don't think that you can say Federer 2006 was the greatest player ever. Federer is still the same person, just not playing as good tennis, also in 2006 he had virtually no opposition! Nadal and Djokovic were only teenagers, who did he have to contend with, Safin? Hewitt?

I think Federer is the greatest ever at the momentand nothing whatsoever can take away from that and I love watching him play at his best. But if in 5 years time Nadal retires having been injury free that whole time, I wouldn't put it past him to have racked up another 5 slams or so.

I think Federer will always be considered the GOAT no matter what happens. What he has achieved throughout his career surpassed outstanding long ago!

But I hate this debate, people who support Federer discredit Nadal's achievements and people who prefer Nadal pull out the head to head card. I wish people could just watch the magnificent tennis we are seeing in this era and that's it. It's all very well having a good discussion/ argument about it but sometimes I just think it gets out of hand and leads nowhere in the end.

Well I think they are two amazing players. Nadal in 2006 was virtually at his peak clay form and Federer gave him a run for his money that year on clay. I think.that shows how good federer was that year. Djokovic 2011 was probably the second greatest player of all time imo by a narrow margin although its hard to comoare eras. Maybe mcenroe 1984 was the greatest but anyway I digress. Hooefully Djokovic will reach the final so we have a comoetetive match to watch. Incidentally if Nadal wins his first WTF his legacy will improve.