Australian Open 2017

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

True, that part is more an educated opinion based on the fact Nadal was losing to lesser ranked players early in those competitions during that time. Hard court was his weakest surface for a good while.

Sorry, but you're talking absolute waffle. Federer past his prime at 28 because he wasn't winning as much? More like Nadal on a continued upward trajectory, to the point where he was walloping Federer on all surfaces by that stage. Nothing to do with Federer declining, just Federer being bested by another player.

How are the hth's skewed? Federer is lucky there isn't two clay court slams around, seeing as there's 3 that favour his style of play, yet hardcourts and grass don't account for 3/4's of the season. Nadal is far better on harder surfaces than Federer was on clay. It's like saying Federer is only better at half a sport to Nadal. If anything skews the hth's it's Federer's victories over Nadal on hardcourt before he hit his prime. And I'd go so far as to say he got lucky against Nadal in the 07 Wimbledon final, Nadals injury timeouts breaking up play at a point where he was well on top of Federer.

As for their careers, Federer was competing against no one at his level for several years and picking up handy slams, whereas Nadal has always had to compete with Federer or Djokovic. Kind of skews the stats in Federer favour again, don't you think? How many majors do you reckon Federer and Nadal would have won is you reversed their starting points? I'd guess Nadal would be over 20, with 10 being generous for Federer

NoviGlitzko

This thread delivers

Tennis is about match-ups and some players are better at facing certain players than others. Nadal is a nightmare match-up for Federer because he's a left handed defensive player, and likewise Djokovic has been dismantling Nadal for years because he can run around as much as him so he can't create UE's.

H2H mean's absolutely nothing. It's winning matches, titles, and ranking that counts.

walshb

One other thing. In 2004-2007 how much would Fed have won had Nole not been a youngster so to speak? Fed is superb, but two players are as deadly. Nadal and Nole. His h2h against both shows he is inferior against them.

Not once in their 34 meetings did I ever cheer for Nadal. But I am not naive enough to think that Nadal was only winning circa 65 percent of their matches because of ludicrous suggestions like Fed not being at his prime. No matter how you twist the stats Fed comes out a loser vs both Nadal and Nole.

All at their best competing at the same time and no way Fed has close to 17 slams..he wouldn't have as many as Nole or Nadal.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Federer had glandular fever in 2008. Utter nonsense to suggest he was deadlier that year than in previous years

Glandular fever didn't stop him making three slam finals, winning one, oh and losing two to who? Nadal... but I guess that was only because of the glandular fever.... again, more nonsense and refusing to admit.

Federer played out of his skin in SW19 2008. That version was better IMO than any previous Federer.

NoviGlitzko

walshb wrote: »

All at their best competing at the same time and no way Fed has close to 17 slams..he wouldn't have as many as Nole or Nadal.

.

Burial. wrote: »

Opinions aren't facts, soz.

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Glandular fever didn't stop him making three slam finals, winning one, oh and losing two to who? Nadal... but I guess that was only because of the glandular fever.... again, more nonsense and refusing to admit.

The way he's talking, you'd swear Nadal had no injury problems of his own that season, not least in a slam final itself

RosyLily

Women's SFs and one of the Men's SFs are tonight/tomorrow.

I can't see Mirjana getting past Serena. She was in the zone vs. Konta. Looked back to her best. Hard to call the other. Coco has played so well this tournament, especially against Kerber. Part of me wants Venus to win - one last final.

50/50 on Federer/Wawrinka. I think it depends on Stan. He could go Stanimal or could be absolutely dire. The joy of Stan....you never know what you're going to get. Looking forward to it though!

Bryan Brothers are first on Laver - SFs versus Carreno Busta/Garcia Lopez. I was full sure they'd retire last year. Maybe they'll go after the US Open. They've already retired from Davis Cup.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Glandular fever didn't stop him making three slam finals, winning one, oh and losing two to who? Nadal... but I guess that was only because of the glandular fever.... again, more nonsense and refusing to admit.

Federer played out of his skin in SW19 2008. That version was better IMO than any previous Federer.

I don't think Federer was particularly great in that match. He dug deep to drag a match to 5 sets that should have been over in 3. Nadal let him back into it a bit IMO. He was 2 sets and a break up and should have cruised home. Federer was not on top of his game in 2008. He was better in subsequent years. The Nadal Federer Australian Open final in 2009 was actually a higher quality IMO. The first 4 sets of that match is the best tennis I've ever seen. It doesn't get talked about as much because the 5th set wasn't close.

Btw, the argument about Nole and Nadal could be flipped around. How many slams would they have won if Roger was the same age as them? Can't have it both ways.

NoviGlitzko

RosyLily wrote: »

50/50 on Federer/Wawrinka. I think it depends on Stan. He could go Stanimal or could be absolutely dire. The joy of Stan....you never know what you're going to get. Looking forward to it though!

Should be a cracker alright! Almost too close to call but I have a feeling it's Stan's match this time around.

I already told the boss I have to see the match in the morning and I'll catch up on the work later tomorrow night.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don't think Federer was particularly great in that match. He dug deep to drag a match to 5 sets that should have been over in 3. Nadal let him back into it a bit IMO. He was 2 sets and a break up and should have cruised home. Federer was not on top of his game in 2008. He was better in subsequent years. The Nadal Federer Australian Open final in 2009 was actually a higher quality IMO. The first 4 sets of that match is the best tennis I've ever seen. It doesn't get talked about as much because the 5th set wasn't close.

Btw, the argument about Nole and Nadal could be flipped around. How many slams would they have won if Roger was the same age as them? Can't have it both ways.

I know it could be flipped around. All three would have less wins, but for me Fed loses the most, and a deep analysis of their head to heads bears this out.

Nadal and Fed have been doing battle for 12 calendar years. 2004 Nadal beat Fed, and has beaten every year right up until 2014.

So can you correct your view that they never met when both at or close to peak?

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I know it could be flipped around. All three would have less wins, but for me Fed loses the most, and a deep analysis of their head to heads bears this out.

Btw, a correction for me. Nadal and Fed have been doing battle for 12 calendar years. 2004 Nadal beat Fed, and has beaten every year right up until 2014.

So can you correct your view that they never met when both at or close to peak?

My opinion is that Federer's peak (2004-2007) didn't overlap with Nadal's peak (2008-2010). That's my opinion.

H2H is flawed. Federer was ahead of Novak until very recently. He's clocked up a lot of losses as a 33-34 year old against an in-peak Djokovic. Had he retired 3-4 years ago he'd have finished his career with a winning record against Djokovic. I believe he is only 1 win down on him. Not bad given how many times they have played in the last couple of years.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don't think Federer was particularly great in that match. He dug deep to drag a match to 5 sets that should have been over in 3. Nadal let him back into it a bit IMO. He was 2 sets and a break up and should have cruised home. Federer was not on top of his game in 2008. He was better in subsequent years. The Nadal Federer Australian Open final in 2009 was actually a higher quality IMO. The first 4 sets of that match is the best tennis I've ever seen. It doesn't get talked about as much because the 5th set wasn't close.

Btw, the argument about Nole and Nadal could be flipped around. How many slams would they have won if Roger was the same age as them? Can't have it both ways.

Wasn't that great in the match or wasn't let play? As you say Nadal should have won in 3 but imo stuttered under the weight of history and let Federer back in. Federer wasn't better in 09, a freak result knocked Nadal out of the French who became subsequently injured later in the season. You attribute Federer winning slams to him playing better, but fail to give any context to the wins i.e he didn't have to face Nadal. He wasn't playing better, he just wasn't facing Nadal (another 2-3 cheap slams thrown in tbh).

It can't be flipped around. Federer did get a head start on Nadal in terms of slams, to "flip it around" for Federer is to see how it actually did play out. Them starting at the same time is interesting, and tbh Federer loses out big time here

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Sorry, but you're talking absolute waffle. Federer past his prime at 28 because he wasn't winning as much? More like Nadal on a continued upward trajectory, to the point where he was walloping Federer on all surfaces by that stage. Nothing to do with Federer declining, just Federer being bested by another player.

How are the hth's skewed? Federer is lucky there isn't two clay court slams around, seeing as there's 3 that favour his style of play, yet hardcourts and grass don't account for 3/4's of the season. Nadal is far better on harder surfaces than Federer was on clay. It's like saying Federer is only better at half a sport to Nadal. If anything skews the hth's it's Federer's victories over Nadal on hardcourt before he hit his prime. And I'd go so far as to say he got lucky against Nadal in the 07 Wimbledon final, Nadals injury timeouts breaking up play at a point where he was well on top of Federer.

As for their careers, Federer was competing against no one at his level for several years and picking up handy slams, whereas Nadal has always had to compete with Federer or Djokovic. Kind of skews the stats in Federer favour again, don't you think? How many majors do you reckon Federer and Nadal would have won is you reversed their starting points? I'd guess Nadal would be over 20, with 10 being generous for Federer

You can argue Federer is lucky there is only one slam on clay. I'll counter that by saying Nadal is lucky there is NO grand slam event on an indoor hard court. Federer has a massive winning record over Nadal on indoor hard court, the fastest court there is.

One could also suggest that Nadal is lucky that all the grand slam courts are quite homogeneous these days. If Nadal was around in the 90s, he'd have done well to have won more than one or two slams away from clay, and none on grass. He'd have been swallowed up by the serve and volley specialists, like all the other dirt rats (to quote Agassi) were at that time. Federer on the other hand, would have been able to compete with the likes of Sampras and Agassi. He won Wimbledon in 2003 when the courts played faster than they do now.

And on and on we go.

yerwanthere123

Probably won't stay up to watch tennis tonight, my interest has waned a lot considering pretty much everyone I've supported has lost. It'll probably be a Serena-Venus final, but Vandeweghe could do it too.

Would like Dimitrov to win the men's, would be nice to see some new talent shining through. A Wawrinka-Dimitrov final would be super, if it's Federer/Nadal I think I may stay in bed

The Golden Miller

Federer had no competition in 06, bar a 19 year old Nadal (that his age then?). Federers decline is over stated as an excuse to not accepting the fact he was just bettered

The Golden Miller

Because Nadal wasn't around. He was generally at the same level

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

You can argue Federer is lucky there is only one slam on clay. I'll counter that by saying Nadal is lucky there is NO grand slam event on an indoor hard court. Federer has a massive winning record over Nadal on indoor hard court, the fastest court there is.

One could also suggest that Nadal is lucky that all the grand slam courts are quite homogeneous these days. If Nadal was around in the 90s, he'd have done well to have won more than one or two slams away from clay, and none on grass. He'd have been swallowed up by the serve and volley specialists, like all the other dirt rats (to quote Agassi) were at that time. Federer on the other hand, would have been able to compete with the likes of Sampras and Agassi. He won Wimbledon in 2003 when the courts played faster than they do now.

And on and on we go.

Well no, you're just resorting to pedantry. The majority of the calender is outdoor hardcourt and claycourt. Yet effectively 3 are played on one surface at slam level. That's a legitimate complaint for a claycourt player. Why is one style given a big advantage in slams?

As for your second point, it's just speculation and not actually relevant

The Golden Miller

The standard was generally very weak from 02-07 I would have said. A winning % will also never be the same year in year out, one or two % either way each year doesn't really signal any major change in a players standard.

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Well no, you're just resorting to pedantry. The majority of the calender is outdoor hardcourt and claycourt. Yet effectively 3 are played on one surface. That's a legitimate complaint a claycourt player can have. Why is one style given a big advantage in slams?

As for your second point, it's just speculation and not actually relevant

As I said, there's not a whole lot of difference between grand slam courts these days. They are all playing more like clay courts now than before. The same players win on all courts these days. There was a time where absolute nobodies in a general sense (Gaston Gaudio anyone?) could win at RG, but would be hopeless elsewhere. Kuerten I recall stopped bothering to show up at Wimbledon, and he was world number one at the time.

I personally believe the slowing of courts has benefited the likes of Nadal. Everything is just baseline rallies these days. Would Nadal really have been able to beat Sampras at Wimbledon on the type of courts they used to use? No chance IMO.

The Golden Miller

Because it's a dead surface at that level for various reasons, and Wimbledon is only retained due to it's prestige. The reality is, there are two dominant surfaces, and at slam level one is given preference over the other. On that point, once Nadal adapted to other surfaces he also better Federer when both were at their peak.

The Golden Miller

You actually comparing a 19/20 year old Nadal with Federer in his prime from 04 onwards on hardcourts, to downplay Nadal on hardcourts? From 08-12, Nadal bested Federer on his preferred surfaces, particularly in majors

The Golden Miller

We were talking about 08-09

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

As I said, there's not a whole lot of difference between grand slam courts these days. They are all playing more like clay courts now than before. The same players win on all courts these days. There was a time where absolute nobodies in a general sense (Gaston Gaudio anyone?) could win at RG, but would be hopeless elsewhere. Kuerten I recall stopped bothering to show up at Wimbledon, and he was world number one at the time.

I personally believe the slowing of courts has benefited the likes of Nadal. Everything is just baseline rallies these days. Would Nadal really have been able to beat Sampras at Wimbledon on the type of courts they used to use? No chance IMO.

Speculation. The argument isn't who would have done better in a different era. We're talking about the era they actually competed in

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Speculation. The argument isn't who would have done better in a different era. We're talking about the era they actually competed in

Yes. But Federer is the more versatile player. He would have been great in any era. He can play on fast courts, slow courts, medium courts. Nadal in a different era would have been one of those dirt rats Agassi talked about, albeit a very special dirt rat. I do not see Nadal being a factor on fast courts, and his record at the End of Year Championships indoors shows this. The way the courts have gone over the years benefits Nadal.

Burial.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yes. But Federer is the more versatile player. He would have been great in any era. He can play on fast courts, slow courts, medium courts. Nadal in a different era would have been one of those dirt rats Agassi talked about, albeit a very special dirt rat. I do not see Nadal being a factor on fast courts, and his record at the End of Year Championships indoors shows this. The way the courts have gone over the years benefits Nadal.

That's funny you mention that because Agassi himself rates Nadal as the greatest ever. Think Mr Agassi would have to rewrite his dictionary if that's the case?

The Golden Miller

Just because you say they were his peak years doesn't make it so. The standard improved and the minute Nadal was out of the equation in 09 he won 3 of the 4 next slams. Do the math. Once Nadal was back he stopped winning slams again

walshb

I am not debating win percentage. 2006 Fed was not meeting the same level of opposition as 2008, hence his win percentage suffered. Don't be so obtuse.

Nole was a boy in 2006. Nadal was just developing. Use some common sense.

All three at their best and Fed is in number 3 position fir me as regards h2h and slam wins.

2008 to now Fed won 5 slams I think.. funny the low number coincided with Nadal and Nole becoming men.

The Golden Miller

Burial. wrote: »

That's funny you mention that because Agassi himself rates Nadal as the greatest ever. Think Mr Agassi would have to rewrite his dictionary if that's the case?

It seems they want to change the debate to somehow make out Federer is better

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Just because you say they were his peak years doesn't make it so. The standard improved and the minute Nadal was out of the equation in 09 he won 3 of the 4 next slams. Do the math. Once Nadal was back he stopped winning slams again

Nadal was at the 2009 US Open and got knocked out by Del Potro. So he didn't just start winning slams again. Nadal being at Wimbledon in 2009 was far from a guarantee that he would have won.

RosyLily

Either bring the Nadal-Federer discussion to a new thread or wrap it up.

The Golden Miller

Del Potro is a great player who's career has been hampered by injuries, far better than the dross he was facing in 04. And yes, players do lose now and again. To most rationale people, Federer winning 3 of the next 4 majors after Nadal is injured tells alot

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

My opinion is that Federer's peak (2004-2007) didn't overlap with Nadal's peak (2008-2010). That's my opinion..

And in making this point you actually do your argument a disservice. So, a pre peak Nadal (2004-2007) was still beating a prime Federer (2004-2007.)

How can you not see that no matter what way you put it out there that for 12 calendar years Nadal consistently got the better of Federer.. I can see it, and I always rooted for Roger.

walshb

Yes, and no matter what calendar year you pick apart from 2015, Nadal was besting Federer. Game over.

Sorry, Rosylily!

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

And in making this point you actually do your argument a disservice. So, a pre peak Nadal (2004-2007) was still beating a prime Federer (2004-2007.)

How can you not see that no matter what way you put it out there that for 12 calendar years Nadal consistently got the better of Federer.. I can see it, and I always rooted for Roger.

On clay.

I never said that Nadal wasn't vastly superior on clay.

I was referring to other courts and have said that a few times now, which you continue to ignore.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

On clay.

I never said that Nadal wasn't vastly superior on clay.

I was referring to other courts and have said that a few times now, which you continue to ignore.

Ok, do the other courts and surfaces as well.. Nadal has beaten Fed on non clay surfaces between 2004 and 2007.

Typical moaning. Clay or not, it's tennis.

Btw, I never mentioned clay in the post you quoted, and the post I quoted didn't either. So what am I ignoring?

The Golden Miller

I love the way you have to keep running back to a period before Nadal really made a breakthrough on all surfaces. He also won 3 of 4 in 06. Nadal wasn't injured then either. Same with 05. Or maybe one grew up on hardcourts, the other on clay, and it takes time to adapt and to really peak on your weaker surface? And tbh, Nadal let Federer off the hook in the 07 Wimbledon final. He hadn't even peaked on other surfaces in 07 and was Federers match in Wimbledon that year. Doesn't say much for Federer if we're being honest

yerwanthere123

How many more pages :eek:

RosyLily to answer your question about Vandeweghe from a few days ago, the main reason I think a lot of people don't like her is because she openly supported Trump, which I think is reason enough tbh. She's also a little up her own arse at times, and she got a bit of criticism for some of the comments she made in the wake of defeating Muguruza as well, she quipped at one point that "she gifted me a double fault" or something Apparently she's been seen glaring at players on court that have the audacity to play better than her too, although I haven't seen that. Her support of Trump is the reason I don't like her anyway.

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I love the way you have to keep running back to a period before Nadal really made a breakthrough on all surfaces. He also won 3 of 4 in 06. Nadal wasn't injured then either. Same with 05. Or maybe one grew up on hardcourts, the other on clay, and it takes time to adapt and to really peak on your weaker surface? And tbh, Nadal let Federer off the hook in the 07 Wimbledon final

So you're allowed to use the fact Nadal was only developing to back up your argument as to why Federer was winning in 2004-2007, but we are wrong when we say Federer getting older and being past his peak was a reason for Nadal winning more in later years? Having your cake and eating it.

Chivito550

Anyway, back on topic, what chance do people give Dimitriov against Nadal?

RosyLily

Seriously! There's a perfectly lovely thread for Fedal chat. Use it.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Anyway, back on topic, what chance do people give Dimitriov against Nadal?

20 percent!

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

So you're allowed to use the fact Nadal was only developing to back up your argument as to why Federer was winning in 2004-2007, but we are wrong when we say Federer getting older and being past his peak was a reason for Nadal winning more in later years? Having your cake and eating it.

No I just don't think a players form dips so radically that they can't get a look in at winning a slam, and start winning again after a certain player gets injured. Logically it takes players time to develop, particularly on their weaker surface. I saw no sign of Federer declining at that point, just kept losing to Nadal, and went back to winning slams once Nadal was injured. But it's an easy cop out to say he declined, rather than admit he was bested

lostcat

Chivito550 wrote: »

Anyway, back on topic, what chance do people give Dimitriov against Nadal?

35%
and that's generous given how flaky dimitrov is.

then again, he gave djokovic a good scare the last time he was in a slam semi (win 14), and he is in a pretty good run of form, and is a far more adaptable player than raonic, so he can definitely hurt nadal.

is he willing to dig deeper than he usually appears able to, in order to achieve this? hard to believe that he will....

its impossible to call the other semi, stan might just not turn up...

RosyLily

Apologies to anyone trying to read about Australia and seeing nothing but Federer vs. Nadal.:o

I'll try clean it up tomorrow.

Chivito550

RosyLily wrote: »

Apologies to anyone trying to read about Australia and seeing nothing but Federer vs. Nadal.:o

I'll try clean it up tomorrow.

It was night time in Australia. Nothing happening down there

NoviGlitzko

I like reading the discussion tbf! Didn't know boards had a small minority of tennis enthusiasts like myself.

Against anyone else I'd give Grigor a real chance but it's such a horrible matchup for him. Nadal was only properly tested by Zverev so far and Raonic wasn't great this morning, so it's difficult to predict his level. It's a tough ask. 65-35% sounds about right to me too.

I want Dimitrov to win more than I want Federer to win with their upcoming matches and I'm a huge Fed fan. Hopefully he is clutch and takes it.

I'll be on this thread in the morning. My bloody nerves are gonna be shot!

RobertKK

I was watching the women's semifinals, happy with the results.
I was not happy with the message underneath that Sky customers face losing all Discovery channels which include Eurosport due to Sky not wanting to pay Discovery what they want.

EagererBeaver

If Nadal gets past Dimitri, all four singles finalists will be 30+. Wonder when the last time that happened was.

Dirty Dingus McGee

RobertKK wrote: »

I was watching the women's semifinals, happy with the results.
I was not happy with the message underneath that Sky customers face losing all Discovery channels which include Eurosport due to Sky not wanting to pay Discovery what they want.

Just shows you the idiocy of Sky completely overpaying for Premiership rights and that supposed competition in TV actually screwed the customers rather than helped them.

runnerholic

Should both Roger and Rafa make the final. Would it be fair to suggest that the winner is rubber stamping their claim to be the greatest of all time?