Indian Wells Draw: Federer Lands With Nadal, Murray Gets Djokovic Again
by Sean Randall | March 6th, 2012, 11:26 pm
  • 194 Comments

For the second straight major event in 2012 Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have landed on the same half of the draw. That leaves Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray projected to clash in the top half semifinal of the Indian Wells tennis masters.

The World No. 1 Djokovic and defending champion is seeded to meet Delray Beach champion Kevin Anderson in the third round, Richard Gasquet in round four before Tomas Berdych in the quarterfinals. Berdych may have to play the Andy Roddick-Ivo Karlovic winner in the third round to meet either Nicolas Almagro, Kei Nishikori or Sam Querrey in the fourth. It won’t be easy for the Czech.

Andy Murray is on the path to face the big serving Viktor Troicki, assuming the Serb gets through Ryan Harrison in the second round. Murray might then meet Stan Wawrinka or Gilles Simon ahead of a date against Mardy Fish in the quarterfinals. Fish’s only real roadblock could come in the form of John Isner in the fourth round. And if that match happens Isner gets the edge on form.

With Djokovic and Murray relatively in good places, the bottom half is where we find the action. Three-time champ Roger Federer’s section is loaded with danger. The Swiss, who’s won nine straight matches including a fifth title in another desert half a world away, could meet explosive Canadian Milos Raonic in the third round, Gael Monfils in the fourth before either Juan Martin Del Potro or David Ferrer in the quarterfinals. Both Delpo and Ferrer appear to have a great draws out to that fourth round encounter.

Rafael Nadal, who hasn’t played since that tough loss in the Australian Open final almost 45 days ago, probably won’t be tested until the quarterfinals where he hopefully will meet JW Tsonga. The Frenchman, though, will have to get past the Llodra-Gulbis winner in his opener, then the tricky Radek Stepanek before a potential meeting with David Nalbandian, Janko Tipsarevic or maybe Bernard Tomic.

Overall, it’s a pretty balanced draw. Federer’s is the toughest section with Delpo, Raonic and Ferrer, three guys who’ve been playing really good tennis of late.

I think Djokovic and Murray look strong for a semifinal clash while Nadal could have trouble with Tsonga if JW can get out that far.

Early on, among the few first round highlights are Gulbis-Llodra, Chardy-Baghdatis, Dodig-Dimitrov and the Tomic-Muller match could be a good one.

Matches begin on Thursday, I’ll have a pick and more thoughts before then.


Also Check Out:
Poll: Djokovic, Federer, Murray Or Nadal, Who’ll Win Indian Wells?
Andy Murray: The Courts At Indian Wells Are Very Slow, They’re Also Very Slow Here In Miami
Andy Murray Won’t Play Dubai In 2013, He’ll Focus On Indian Wells
To Rest His Knees, Rafael Nadal Might Not Play Indian Wells
The Nightmare Is Over: ATP Finally Approves The Indian Wells Prize Money Increase

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

194 Comments for Indian Wells Draw: Federer Lands With Nadal, Murray Gets Djokovic Again

skeezerweezer Says:

“Rafael Nadal, who hasn’t played since that tough loss in the Australian Open final almost 45 days ago, probably won’t be tested until the quarterfinals where he hopefully will meet JW Tsonga.”

Hopefully? I am sure you mean guaranteed. As usual, Rafa is playing “nobodies” the up until qtrs. He must have called ahead of time and got a good reservations and said take it easy on me, I haven’t played in 45 days, lol….., or unc toni has “connections”.

Like his usual clay court draw ( minus the ‘Isner” factor…who no one predicted could be good on Clay )

Lets see, he could play Dolgo ( cough )no good on slowgo, er….Granny who?( cough cough ) Lo pez….or Slowpez ( who needs to play on Fastpez or else he he outpez )
.
Now IF Tsonga somehow gets beat(Cilic, Nalby, Tomic…really? Now that is some potential good matches)…then Rafa continues to take an all expenses free paid trip to the Semis…OMG…how did he do that? He is awesome. See you in the semi’s Rafa, “where he will hopefully meet…… MURRAY”. Finally, in the semi’s, he may have a competitive match.


Nixon Says:

Dave,

We are all waiting for your loooooong rant on why Federer will beat Rafa this time at IW.
Come on dave !!!!
You can do it !!!!


roy Says:

oh the irony of federer fans complaining about nadal’s draws.

the draws in federer’s prime weren’t half as competitive as the ones facing nadal’s generation.

and here’s a fun game. make a list of federer’s opponents in his GS victories sometime, and count the first timers. then add in the roddicks and a 36 year old with back injections and see how close you get to 16.


Ajet Says:

LOL Nixon! ;)

Ok Fed, you can do it! Please beat Nadal this time! I’m sure that’ll be a huge boost to your confidence!
GO ROGER!!!


carlo Says:

I have no idea who to pick to win this time. Feels like Nadal maybe. I dunno.

Here’s my hot tip: watch out for Ferrer going out before he gets to Federer. Last year after winning Acapulco he lost his 1st match to Dr. Ivo. It was very surprising too, because Ferrer was really the star of the practice courts, imo. He was practice partner to Nadal, Bellucci, Verdasco – out there on the hot practice courts laboring hours longer than anyone. I enjoyed it a lot. :D


steve-o Says:

Using that logic all the great champions of the past: Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi were wusses and what they did was meaningless because the competition was not as tough as it is today.

But for some reason that argument is only used to devalue Federer’s accomplishments and no one else’s.

And you can’t complain if five or ten years from now people sneer at Nadal and Djokovic’s accomplishments because the field of players in the future will surely be more competitive than today’s.


Ajet Says:

dude roy, nadal has been there since 2005, if you can remember things!

And btw, guys like agassi, hewitt, safin, nalbandian, ferrero, moya, kuerten, SAMPRAS, rafter, ivansievic etc. at the beginning of federer’s career (and his early succss) were hardly slouches! and then, by the time of 2005 itself , nadal had entered the scene with a bang! Too bad, if you were not intellectually mature at the time to be able to come to terms with it!

and even then there were guys like berdych, soderling around! and were quite competitive too even then! it’s another thing that then federer was also at his prime, and that’s why they were helpless! now that federer has clearly lost his edge, everyone looks mighty competetive! otherwise it was still mourning for all these guys!

if you see guys like monfils, tsonga, delpotro now, then also there were immensely competetive guys of the class of gasquet, ancic, ferrrer, fernando gonzalez, tommy haas, blake, coria, davydenko etc. who were not only highly competetive, but also immensely capable, young and at their prime and even consistent! and we all know how davy kicks ass of badal even now at HCs and blake too was thrashing nadal! how uncompeteive really! LOL ;)

not other’s problem if you were blind not to see it! hell, even that bald old guy from croatia(the countryman of cilic) could beat nadal last year or the year before or sometning like that! HUH!


Katarina Says:

I don’t think that Nole’s part of the draw is the easiest,but,I was execepting that story! All those players you mentioned in Fed’s half is piece of cake for Fed of course! And what to say for Rafa?As always,he has the easiest way!But,who’s counting!(we are,lol)!


van orten Says:

Again delpo in Feds section.?!??! Come On …there is no shame in wanting him to play nadal i guess…


Dave Says:

Clearly Federer has the toughest quarterfinal section of the draw. Even the ATP Staff agreed: “(Federer) is up against arguably the trickiest quarter. The section of the draw includes four of the ATP’s top five match wins leader this season – David Ferrer (18), Federer (16), Juan Martin del Potro (16) and Milos Raonic (15).” It also includes Melzer, Monfils, Davydenko, Verdasco, Dodig. Certainly a section that would give Nadal lots of potential landmines.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2012/404/mds.pdf

When All Else Fails, There’s Still Federer
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577265862776147168.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Nixon, nixon: I see you’ve emerged from your cave again. I know you like to discuss topics that are irrelevant to this blog topic, but this is not the thread to speculate on “why Federer will beat Rafa at IW”. In the other thread I posted about scenarios for Fed to return to No. 1 because it was relevant to the blog article — then Nirmal and Ajet turned it into why Federer cannot beat Nadal (even though they temper it with “Federer could beat Nadal”). It’s not whether we should do it, it should be whether it’s appropriate to do it, lol


skeezerweezer Says:

Ajet
@1:26 post
Nice :-)


Ajet Says:

liar dave:

it’s you who turned it to why federer canot beat nadal! I was merely saying that federer has much better chance of winning important tournaments and gaining points to close in to the no.1 slot if he hasn’t to go through nadal. get it right first, if you cannot comprehend!


Ajet Says:

thanks skeeze! :)


Dave Says:

Ajet, when will you stop making up nonsense like “liar dave: it’s you who turned it to why federer canot beat nadal!”

That this is totally false is easily proven by my posts on March 3rd 4:51 pm, March 4th 1:33 pm, March 5th 1:51 am and 12:38 pm. I talked about scenarios how Federer could return to No. 1, which were relevant to the blog’s article.

Ajet, you are incriminated by your March 5th 1:17 pm post: “And U definitely think that Federer, even if he avoids djoker, would almost(let me say sure!) face nadal if he ios to win a slam, and I don’t sadly think federer can beat nadal at this point of time, as is more than clear from the results of their recent encounters… federer lacks the MENTAL FIRMNESS against Nadal, which definitely is making federer impossible to beat nadal, and give away the matches to nadal… federer just can’t cross the finishing line against nadal in a match anymore(except at WTF). Thus, I’d rather bet my money on nirmal kumar’s stand than on dave’s stand w.r.t. the possibilty of fed regaining No.1.!”
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-03-03/8986.php#comment-251852

And nirmal said at March 5th 5:28 am “(Federer) may have a chance in Halle, but only if Nadal decides to tank as he did in Queens last 2 years. Still Roger’s chance there is remote.”

So it was you (initially) and Nirmal who turned my insightful comments about how Federer could return to No. 1 into “Federer can’t beat Nadal”


Ajet Says:

is it so difficult for you to understand that nadal is a big factor in the scheme of things for fed to reach the no.1 spot. and that the possibilty of nadal standing in the way of federer’s march just cannot be ignored??? how’s federer supposed to, start his journey to reach no.1 again??? is it by losing another possible semi to nadal at IW so that he doesn’t!I GUESS NOT!
That’s why I said nadal is going to be a huge obstacle in federer’s way! can’t you still not see why i had to bring nadal into the equation to analyse the possibilty of his role in allowing/denying federer his desired progress??? duh!


chico Says:

@ Dave vs. Ajet & Nirmal

1-0 Dave it would seem from an 100% unpartial bystander. This is based mostly on the references Dave put up. Didn’t check them out but looks impressive :), and I’m sure if there are shortcomings A&I will find them.

Fight fair guys :)!


Nirmal Kumar Says:

I think this time DelP gets Roger. The slow courts are going to help Delpo and also bit more confidence as he came lot closer to playing Roger last time they met in Dubai.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Dave Says : So it was you (initially) and Nirmal who turned my insightful comments about how Federer could return to No. 1 into “Federer can’t beat Nadal”
I’m not sure if your self proclaimed insightful commands make any sense, since all your comments are extracted from the online articles. Basically your comments are a collate from different articles. But you claim it’s your insightful comments.

As far as Roger not getting to No1. We don’t know. But his best chance was to start by winning AO. He had all the momentum compared to others after winning WTF. The pattern seems to be more similar to 2010-2011, where Roger finished the season on a high, started with victory in Doha but faded away slowly. Except he has Dubai, but I do not see that as a big stepping stone.

Let’s wait till Miami to get over. If Roger can win atleast one of them, and Murray wins the other, then we can start talking about his chances.

All I’m implying is, we cannot get ourself too far ahead when not even the first master has started to talk about Roger getting to No1. Give him time. Let him win some more or wait for Novak or Rafa to lost few before we talk about him taking No1.

There are so many ways we can work out the point system to get back Roger to No 1, but for that he has to start winning atleast 1 masters and 1 major, and expect Novak and Rafa to falter. It’s too much to ask for at this stage.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Do any one have any idea why Roger always attracts strong hitters in his side most of the time. The guys with momentum always seems to be in Roger’s draw. I remember Soderling used to be Roger’s draw most of the time, then Berdych happend, then Tsonga was in his side in a bunch and now Del Po.


Colin Says:

Nirmal, there is no reason “why”, unless you go along with the conspiracy theorists and think all draws are fixed. It just happens, by chance. Roger doesn’t “attract” anyone. When you toss a coin, the coin doesn’t “attract” any result. It falls as it falls. Chance rules coin tosses – and it rules tennis draws.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Colin, ofcourse that’s my understanding too. But having seen this happening so many times just baffles me.


grendel Says:

Nirmal – sometimes we see “coincidences” when actually, there aren’t any. For instance, you see a big hitter in Federer’s draw a couple of times running, and you remember all those other matches with big hitters. You recall a particular Soderling match, etc. And then you do something illegitimate; because your mind turns to all those matches with Berdych etc, it glides over all the tourneys where this does NOT happen. The mind selectively – but unconsciously, and no that’s not an oxymoron – homes in on what it is predisposed to do. Talk about self-brainwashing!

That said, except over a very long run indeed, there is no symmetry in chance – if you toss a coin 10 times, getting 8 heads or 2 heads is perfectly normal, whilst toss it a 1000 times, and you will always get roundabout 500 heads. So it is perfectly conceivable that over the last 3 or 4 years Federer has had more than his share of the big hitters. The question is only: how marked is this “fact”?

b.t.w.Nirmal, I absolutely agree with you that it is absurdly premature to be seriously contemplating Federer’s recapturing the #1 spot. We can all dream, of course. The trick is not to mistake the dream for reality – some people have a hard time doing that, it seems.


serbian hammer Says:

I wouldnt make such a big deal of every tournament these players enter,the entire season is very long and until its finished we wont know the outcome,but im prety sure we wont see Federer,nadal or Murray at Number 1,but thats just my opinion.there are so many of this hibrid monster players,like
Raonic,Tomic,Dolgopolov and some more familiar like Del Potro,Tsonga,Isner,Ferrer,Berdych all in top form ready to break trough.So one wrong move from the top 4 and they could end up in defeat.Djokovic wont just standstill and wait to lose Number 1 spot,im sure about that,its actually good thing that he lost to Murray in Dubai,just to remind him of what is his job.I see him taking one of IW,Miami masters for sure,the other one possibly Nadal,but that only depends on Djokovic and his game.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Grendel – You are right. I agree. I understand the fact. I just wonder it has happened in bunches more to Roger compared to others. His number of matches with Tsonga and DelPo has gone up significantly in the last six months. But the draw looks to be fairly done.


El Flaco Says:

I can see Fed losing to Raonic.


Andrew Murray Says:

I’m dumbfounded that Andy Murray can beat Djokovic but gets beaten by Federer? Let’s hope that he can beat Djorkovic and also beats either Federer or Nadal in the Final. Let’s hope that Andy can get back on track ASAP and get to Number 1 in the World Rankings. GOOD LUCK.


dari Says:

Draws will be draws!
I for one am excited to see rafa play after being off for a while. also looking forward to he and fed havinf the chance to play again. Even though the oytcome is usually not the one i want, i am excited foe the chance at a win over rafa for fed.
What’s cooking on the ladies side?


Humble Rafa Says:

I’m dumbfounded that Andy Murray can beat Djokovic but gets beaten by Federer?

Your Humble Highness is happy to introduce you a brand new phenomenon called “Choking”. It is not the player at the other end that causes you to lose, it is the occasion. It has mostly to do with the head.

Andy Murray=Master Choker.


Steve 27 Says:

Federer back to number 1 is like the work of Hobbes: Utopia. Time is the real thing and the swiss cant win this battle.


Humble Rafa Says:

I can see Fed losing to Raonic.

I would like your Humble Highness to take care of that noble deed.


andrea Says:

raonic vs fed will be a highlight match but as a Canadian-Swiss, who do i root for?

Novak’s draw – on paper- looks the easiest, at least in the early rounds.

roger getting back #1 seems impossible. maybe #2, but even if that happened, it would likely be after wimbledon or the us open. clay season is coming up and even though he’s been beaten by novak last year, can anyone say that, if he is healthy, nadal won’t be in most clay court finals, at minimum semi’s?

who knows…maybe fed sweeps IW and Miami and then he is #2.


MMT Says:

roy, roy, roy…

You know, before the H2H with Nadal became the favorite argument against Federer as the GOAT, the “weak competition” argument prevailed. They used to say, “he didn’t play any GS champions, in their prime, on their favorite surface, with a positive H2H, and a thunderbolt for a racquet”…etc., you get the point.

Well, let’s take a look at Federer’s GS opponents with notations of their accomplishments AT THE TIME:

Mark Phillipousis (2nd GS final)
Marat Safin (USO)
Andy Roddick (USO, 2nd GS final, fmr #1)
Lleyton Hewitt (USO, Wimb Champ, fmr #1)
Andy Roddick (USO, 2nd final, 3rd GS final fmr #1)
Andre Agassi (Career slam, fmr #1, 14th GS final)
Marcos Bagdatis (1 GS final, no ATP titles)
Rafael Nadal (FO, 3rd GS final)
Andy Roddick (USO, 3rd final, 4th GS final fmr #1)
Fernando Gonzalez (1st GS final)
Rafael Nadal (FO, 5th GS final)
Novak Djokovic (1st GS final)
Andy Murray (1st GS final)
Robing Soderling (1st GS final)
Andy Roddick (USO, 3rd final, 5th GS final fmr #1)
Andy Murray (2nd final)

Fair enough – a mixed bag. A few 1st time finalists, 1st time GS finalists and a few champions. How about Sampras:

Andre Agassi (2nd GS final)
Jim Courier (AO, FO, fmr #1, 1st final)
Cedric Pioline (1st GS final – no ATP titles)
Todd Martin (1st GS final – 1 ATP title)
Goran Ivanisevic (2nd final)
Boris Becker (Wim, US, AO, 7th final, 9th GS final, fmr #1)
Andre Agassi (US, AO, 3rd final, 7th GS final, #1)
Michael Chang (FO, 1st final, 2nd GS final)
Carlos Moya (1st final)
Cedric Pioline (2nd final, 2 ATP titles)
Goran Ivanisevic (3rd final)
Andre Agassi (US, AO, 2nd final, 10th GS final, fmr #1)
Pat Rafter (US, 2nd final, 4th GS final, fmr #1)
Andre Agassi (US, AO, 4th final, 13th GS final, fmr #1)

Hmm…looks like a mixed bag for him too. I mean Pioline hadn’t even won a tournament the first final they played. Okay, let’s thrown in Bjorn Borg for good measure:

Manuel Orantes (1st GS final)
Guillermo Vilas (1st GS final)
Illie Nastase (US, FO, 2nd final, 5th GS final)
Jimmy Connors (US, AO, Wim, 3rd final, 8th GS final, #1)
Jimmy Connors (US, AO, Wim, 4th final, 10th GS final, #1)
Guillermo Vilas (3rd final, 5th GS final)
Victor Pecci (1st GS final)
Roscoe Tanner (AO, 1st final, 2nd GS final)
Vitas Gerulaitis (AO, 1st final, 3rd GS final)
John McEnroe (USO, 1st final, 2nd GS final)
Ivan Lendl (1st GS final)

Hmmm…the names look better, but look at their accomplishments at the time. Lots of 1st finalist (at that major) and 1st GS finals on ALL 3 lists.

Very interesting, don’t you think?


Brando Says:

Guys take it easy! When fed was no.1 he had his share of cupcake draws, and so did rafa, and now nole. They all earnt the privilege. It is what it is- so accept it. As for the draw itself, fed no doubt has the toughest route to the final, but ultimately I would be surprised if the top 4 do not make it to the semi final stages. From there, anything can happen- all 4 can feel reasonably confident about their chances, I feel.


Everyone is entitled to my opinion Says:

skeezerweezer Says: See you in the semi’s Rafa, “where he will hopefully meet…… MURRAY”. Finally, in the semi’s, he may have a competitive match.”

Rafa can only meet Murray in the final.


carlo Says:

MMT and Ajet. Even though I try to keep an open mind on the “weak competition” idea, it requires downgrading the competition in 2003-2007, which is too subjective, really. Who is to say the competition now, Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer, Tsonga, even Murray if he doesn’t win a GS, and aging Federer, ect. won’t be looking weak era-ish in ten years? So when exactly does the weak era end?

Fedal H2H is more of a problem. There are going to be writers and posters bent on taking away from Federer – the only one taking a little off of him is Nadal with a tennis racquet.


alison hodge Says:

it will be great to have rafa back playing,to see how he will fare,and where his game is at,and whether or not he will be rusty,it seems like forever since the ao,i love all the other top players too,but its nice to have them all playing,at the same time,it creates more competition,some great potential clashes to look forward to rafa/tsonga,fed/raonic,is amongst the ones im looking forward to.


MMT Says:

carlo, I think you misunderstood my post – I totally disagree with the weak competition argument – first it all it requires you to lose more often in order to have better competition, and that can’t be a criterion for the GOAT.

But if you look at the list of GS finalist against Federer, Sampras and Borg, you can see that all of them played some players who would be considered weak competition, and others who were great champions – on other words, EVEN IF we accept the argument about the competition, if you compare the competition of these 3, it seems to me to be equally mixed for all, so the argument doesn’t hold water.

But I reject it outright, regardless.


carlo Says:

Anyway “weak competition” as a reason for Federer’s dominance and success really doesn’t say much for Nadal or Djokovic, since Federer has been able to beat them in the overlapping, mirky, undefined time periods which I still don’t quite get; and it gets further complicated by age issues.


Dave Says:

Nirmal Kumar, put your money where your mouth is and prove to us your claim that: “Basically your comments are a collate from different articles. But you claim it’s your insightful comments.” Prove to us that EVERY comment (or even most or even many) I made was collated from different articles.

Nirmal Kumar, actually it’s you who are not making any sense when you said “I’m not sure if your self proclaimed insightful commands make any sense, since all your comments are extracted from the online articles” (even assuming you misspelled ‘comments’ as ‘commands’). It’s silly to claim that a comment becomes incomprehensible because itwas “extracted from an online article”

Nirmal Kumar: “his best chance was to start by winning AO.” In decades of tennis history, numerous players ended the year as No. 1 even though they did not start the year winning the AO. Not only is your presumption contradicted by history, you are telling us that lthe greatest player of all time can’t overcome not winning the AO.

Nirmal Kumar: “The pattern seems to be more similar to 2010-2011, where Roger finished the season on a high, started with victory in Doha but faded away slowly. Except he has Dubai, but I do not see that as a big stepping stone.” You are cherry picking facts that fit your dismal view, while rationalizing away facts that contradict your doomsday view. Winners/champions think this way: the past does not have to become the future.

Nirmal Kumar: “Let’s wait till Miami to get over…then we can start talking about his chances.” You are the one who has brought up the issue of Federer’s chances to become No. 1 on this thread. regardless, there is no need to wait as if “chances” are affected by linear progress.

Nirmal Kumar: “All I’m implying is, we cannot get ourself too far ahead when not even the first master has started to talk about Roger getting to No1.” For Federer, the first Master was 2011 Paris. Fed’s logical focus is probably to try to become No. 1 by end US Open — if so, then Federer is probably looking first at the one-year ranking period post 2011 US Open to 2012 US Open (for weekly rankings)… then later at the Jan 1 2012 to November 11 2012 ranking period (for year end rankings). Since after 2011 US Open, Federer (4,810 points) has built up a 2,070 points gap over Djokovic (2,740 points) and 2,930 points gap over Nadal (1,880), plus or minus non-countable tourneys if any. Thus for this one year ranking period (that started after the 2011 US Open and ends at the 2012 US Open), Federer is well ahead of Nadal and Djokovic, regardless of the Australian Open.

That Fed is serious about maintaining and building his momentum is shown by his sacrificing his customary vacation time after the Australian to win both Rotterdam Dubai. Federer looks set to soon recapture what made him so special between 2004 to 2007: the ability to enter a calm, trance-like mental state, enter the zone, and raise his game into another gear in key situations better than is anyone else. That’s what has been missing from Roger’s game on a consistent basis when he played the top players since 2008.


carlo Says:

My bad, MMT. I was agreeing with you and Ajet.

Something has been wrong with my communication skills since Federer – Delpo semi! lol :D


carlo Says:

I mean if Djokovic was beaten by the weak era king Federer at the FO 2011 – uh, why did Nadal get beaten by Djoker at Wimbledon and US Open? Is Nadal co-king of the weak-era? It makes no sense “weak competiton.”


Sienna Says:

I do not know why people are trying to put Fed and his wins down. Atm he his in the best possible shape. He has positioned himself better then any of the other players. The only minor setback was his backinjury which in my belief cost him his match against Rafa at AU Open. Just prior to his injury he served like a dreamboat.

His serving was and is stiil not yet back where it could be. But I belief his 1e serve% will go up and with it his chances to beat Nadal. I agree that he can only win those 2 if he is 100% on top of his ame and that was not the case at AU open.

What I really loved about his match against Murray was that he hardly made any unforced errors and could hang with Murray for rallye well in the 20″multiple times at pressure situations. There was no choking from both sides. Stupid to think there was when you look at the match.

Nadal will face the Fed who beat him at WTF and not the Fed who was not at 100%.


alison hodge Says:

i completely agree with carlo,if its considered a so called weak era,then surely thats a credit to roger and his dominance,he can only beat whomever is stood at the other side of the net,competition is competition,i for one have never understood the argument its pointless.


Tennis Vagabond Says:

Brutal draw for Fed. On the one hand, as a Fed fan, I know he has to be able to beat these guys to have a chance to beat the other Four. On the other hand, I’d love to see these guys, Raonic, Monfils, Del Potro, Ferrer- in someone else’s quarter just to see those guys challenged a bit more.
Pains me to say it, but I used to hope for Fed to land Rafa in his draw on hard courts. Now I really think Fed’s only way to win tournaments is for someone else to take out Rafa. (caveat indoors).
I think Del potro would have a better shot against Rafa than against Fed.


alison hodge Says:

sienna rogers the greatest ever player dont get me wrong,and i would not dream of putting him or his achievements down,but could haves,would haves,and should haves,amount to doodle squat in the real world,no excuses its just a possibility that rafa was the better player that day.


Steve 27 Says:

All tournaments now, people said: Federer has the toughest draw. i hear/read this thing about two years and Nadal has the easiest draw. When Federer was a number 1 for that long, people dont said nothing about that. But time change the position of the players, and the difficulties are more for the guys like Federer who is now the third in the rankings. Its no fair like the 1 and 2 have a more accessible draw than the 3 and 4, therefore, have earned that right. not?


Steve 27 Says:

It’s fair like the 1 and 2 have a more accessible draw than the 3 and 4, therefore, have earned that right. not?, I mean.


carlo Says:

alison, we agree :D that makes us both right, or wrong about weak competition. I thought MMT and Ajet were very good on the subject.

Delpo vs Nadal? unkown, imo. Nadal won in 5 sets on clay most recently. I thought he had a better chance vs Federer than Nadal prior to AO. But look how that turned out. All I can do is wait and see if Delpo can win vs the top 4. He’ll get a chance vs Ferrer very soon, maybe.


Sienna Says:

alison hodge
Absolutely agree. But they are not machines and Roger’s margin of error these days is limited. Esp. against the top players. But I still give him great chance when he is matchtough and 100% fit. I believe that was not the case against Nadal last time they met. That doesnot take anything away because you should be at prime shape.

Steve 27
As far as I know seedings go with pairing for the Top 4 So 1 and 2 and then randomly 3 / 4 to match their halves of the daw.
Then # 5 – 8 are drawn randomly for those top 4. and then next 90 – 6.

So I do not think 3-4 can have more favorable drawing just because the are ranked below 1-2.


Sienna Says:

should be… and then next 9 – 16.


Skorocel Says:

Nirmal Kumar: “There are so many ways we can work out the point system to get back Roger to No 1, but for that he has to start winning atleast 1 masters and 1 major, and expect Novak and Rafa to falter.”

Agree with everything except the last sentence: he can’t except Novak and Rafa to falter. One may falter, but not both. These two are just too good for that to happen… Roger simply HAS to start beating them (preferably consistently) in order to get that No 1. ranking back. And there lies the problem… 2-7 in 2011 doesn’t speak all that brightly, does it?


grendel Says:

Nirmal Kumar – when you wrote:” “his best chance was to start by winning AO,” I assumed you meant because Federer was on a roll, even allowing for the Christmas break. On those grounds, I thought you were clearly right. Please correct me if I got the wrong end of the stick. Of course, in the normal run of things, one wouldn’t lay such emphasis on the AO.

When you said:”“The pattern seems to be more similar to 2010-2011, where Roger finished the season on a high, started with victory in Doha but faded away slowly”, this again resonated. I agree, in short. I would be very surprised if most posters who take an interest did not share this position. It is a rational and obvious one. Of course, it could turn out to be mistaken, life is full of surprises, eh? I imagine you share my hope that we are both mistaken.

In general, like carlo, I find your posts quietly illuminating.


Skorocel Says:

“Overall, it’s a pretty balanced draw. Federer’s is the toughest section with Delpo, Raonic and Ferrer, three guys who’ve been playing really good tennis of late.”

Out of these 3, only Raonic remains an unknown quantity, as he hasn’t played Fed yet. Against JMDP & Ferrer, Roger’s 22-2…


Humble Rafa Says:

I hope they water the clay every day at Indian Wells. Need it. SLOW


Steve 27 Says:

Carlo, Nadal won in 4 sets in clay against Del Potro.


Skorocel Says:

Ajet: “if you see guys like monfils, tsonga, delpotro now, then also there were immensely competetive guys of the class of gasquet, ancic, ferrrer, fernando gonzalez, tommy haas, blake, coria, davydenko etc. who were not only highly competetive, but also immensely capable, young and at their prime and even consistent!”

Let’s take away JMDP (USO 2009 winner, beating Nadal & Fed en route) and maybe Davy (WTF 2009 winner, beating Nadal & Fed en route + winner of 3 MS 1000 titles, beating Nadal twice along the way), and ask yourself this question: WHAT did the rest of these guys win?

Monfils? A guy who can hit 120 mph FH winners yet plays like a little boy from kindergarten & is 4-13 in singles finals? The “eternal talent” Gasquet, whom we each year await to finally explode, yet always see him blow up? “One good season and I’m gone” Blake? The dope “clay court king” Coria who couldn’t even win that long yearned for FO title when Nadal wasn’t there yet? Baghdatis? Once he reached that maiden slam final in AO 2006, he became virtually invisible. And the list goes on…


alison hodge Says:

carlo or steve 27,has rafa actually lost to delpo since his come back from injury? and also has rafa ever lost to pelpo on clay,just wondering,as i cant remember?


madmax Says:

roy Says:
oh the irony of federer fans complaining about nadal’s draws.

the draws in federer’s prime weren’t half as competitive as the ones facing nadal’s generation.

and here’s a fun game. make a list of federer’s opponents in his GS victories sometime, and count the first timers. then add in the roddicks and a 36 year old with back injections and see how close you get to 16.

March 7th, 2012 at 1:05 am

Roy,

Do you always have to be so negative about federer?

Do you hear all the time fans talking about rafa’s wins predominantly on clay? Take away his clay wins and what have you got?

Let’s talk about that shall we?


madmax Says:

Oh yeah, and leave Dave alone.

He shows insight and takes the time to post information to share with others. You don’t like it? Don’t read it.


carlo Says:

Yap. You are right steve27. Delpo got a set, though, on clay, in Seville – I do ‘big’ it up, in my mind. But the truth is, Delpo did not have much luck last year vs. Nadal. I say, there’s still hope for a Delpo supporter, since Delpo’s serve and forehand weren’t at 2009 level. But the counter to that is Nadal was injured or coming back from injury in 2009.

Arguably, Delpo’s best win, purest win is Miami 2009, alison, but there was something bothering Nadal that time. Delpo hasn’t beaten Nadal on clay. And Delpo’s US Open win over Nadal is asterisked. But a win is a win.

All in all, I was giving Delpo a better chance vs. Federer, as I said. Now, I’m not feeling good about either Federer or Nadal.

A Nishikori v Berdych quarterfinal match IW looks intriguing. Nishikori leads with a modest 2-0 h2h. Could be something, or not. I don’t recall the circumstances of the wins.


alison hodge Says:

funny that jamies gone missing since djokovic lost to murray in dubai last week.


alison hodge Says:

carlo its funny but i thought it would be the other way around,and that delpo would have a better chance against rafa rather than roger.


Ajet Says:

when somebody says that it’s silly to say that the greatest player of all time cannot overcome the aus setback, then i also need to remind him that the greatest player of all time doesn’t mean the simply perfect guy, even the greatest has limitations. For example the greatest has never been able to beat nadal on clay, and with the progress of rime has also started losing to nadal in all tournaments outside clay(whether on hard or grass, except only carpet); and no matter how great one is, one cannot fight time. Time can curb every mighty one! Nobody can fight age, not the greatest one even!

So yes, nirmal kumar is not that wrong after all if he doesn’t expect federer to suddenly do the impossible and become the federer of 2004-07! It’s too late for that to happen.

And someone also said that fed’s AUS loss to nadal was just a minor setback, but I agree not Loss in major, especially on one of your more favoured surfaces to the eternal nemesis is no minor setback! Of course, fed can recover from the greatest of setbacks, he has that quality; but doesn’t mean nadal’s win over fed at oz was any ordinary thing from historical point of view or future prospect point of view! Federer certainly coulda done a hell lot better without that loss!

and one cannot help thinking that if a erson cannot see why federer lost to nadal in AUS 12 and attribute it to a supposed back injury, then one hss to think that nobody’s more wrong than the person who thinks that fed lost to nadal due to some injury whereas the reason, as usual is that fed again lost more due to his never-ending doubt on his ability to end up in the winning side against nadal than anything else!

And btw, madmax should leave others alone to give their opinions without whining and complaining about it and refrain from trying to make others shut up if they’re forced by dave to open their mouth in response to his never-ending ilogical and wishful drivel directed against the ones who happen to disagree with him on reasonable grounds!


Ajet Says:

i could definitely put an asterisk over delpo’s win against nadal at 2009 if it was anything close to competitive, but too bad that it was a rout! and delpo even backed it up by recovering to beat fed from two sets-to-one down the very next day! THE GUY DESERVES SOME CREDIT AND RESPECT FROM YOU GUYS AT LEAST, I think, instead of trying to demean his incredible achievement in us 09. And it was also not like delpo was challenged anytime in that tournament before final, he kept destroying whoever fell in his path until the finals!


Ajet Says:

”carlo Says:
I mean if Djokovic was beaten by the weak era king Federer at the FO 2011 – uh, why did Nadal get beaten by Djoker at Wimbledon and US Open? Is Nadal co-king of the weak-era? It makes no sense “weak competiton.””

FANTASTIC WAY TO NAIL IT! ;)


Steve 27 Says:

well said Ajet, by the way, do you expect Raonic could be a threat in the Us open more than Wimbledon?, is he really so good than analysts will think he could be a multiple grand slam champion and number 1 in the world?


steve-o Says:

I don’t know which is the more indefatigable, Dave or Ajet. Both seem able to continue posting forever without pause or letup. They would give Nadal a run for his money in the endurance department.


Colin Says:

“He shows insight and takes the time to post information to share with others. You don’t like it? Don’t read it.”

But madmax, how do we know we don’t like it UNTIL we’ve read it?


Ajet Says:

steve 27:

i have really not followed raonic closely enough to be able to comment about his future prospects. so i cannot tell. :(


Colin Says:

Note to the specimen who writes the “Funk/Trunk” stuff. Please, please, will you ask Roddick about his retirement yourself. Then he’ll rip your head off and we won’t have any more of your nonsense. Oh, no. come to think of it, you could write that without a head. You already do, more or less.


Ajet Says:

Colin Says:
Note to the specimen who writes the “Funk/Trunk” stuff. Please, please, will you ask Roddick about his retirement yourself. Then he’ll rip your head off and we won’t have any more of your nonsense. Oh, no. come to think of it, you could write that without a head. You already do, more or less.

HAHAHAHAHA, COMPLETELY AGREE :P


grendel Says:

@Skorocel 3.46 p.m.

There is another way of looking at those tennis players – Gasquet, Monfils, Coria and so on. You sort of mock them, and I understand your thinking – they are all chronic “underachievers”.

But after all, they, and the others mentioned by Ajet, all played in the era of Federer and Nadal, and more lately Djokovic and Murray. Pretty hard sneaking through that lot. And of course, there were others – Safin and Nalbandian, for instance, both regarded by some as Federer’s equal or even, in the case of Safin, superior in terms of sheer talent. So -no room at the top, mate.

Meanwhile, consider these players. Tremendous entertainers, all. Coria – pure magic on a clay court, and a tremendously worthy opponent for Nadal. Gonzalez, Monfils – on their day, wonderful. I think we have been lucky to have so many creative and one off individuals forming the backdrop, as it were, to the heroics at the top. You can’t have too many challenging at the top, can you. Hard to say why, exactly, but it just seems to be so.

Meanwhile, Federer has had to negotiate his way through these and others. If he has sometimes made it look easy, I don’t think he should be penalised for that. For there is a paradox here. If Federer wins easily, it is assumed his opposition must be weak. If he had been engaged in titanic battles, then you could have said he played in a tough era. But the exact opposite could also, with equal logic, be argued.


Dave Says:

Ajet’s whine “And btw, madmax should leave others alone to give their opinions without whining and complaining about it and refrain from trying to make others shut up if they’re forced by dave to open their mouth in response to his never-ending ilogical and wishful drivel directed against the ones who happen to disagree with him on reasonable grounds!”

You must also be weaked-willed “be forced by dave” to do anything.

Madmax is right. Ajet’s oversized ego is what drives you to read everything I post, despite your whining. The truth that your whining is a smokescreeen is proven by the only times I tried to force you to do something constructive. For example, when I instructed you to be quiet — you did not. When I advised you to stop looking foolish — you did not. When I asked that you put your money where your big mouth is to provide honest facts to back up your hot air — you did not. When I suggested you learn to debate with less speculation and more facts, principles, logic and intelligence — you did not.

Nirmal Kumar: “As far as Roger not getting to No1. We don’t know. But his best chance was to start by winning AO. He had all the momentum compared to others after winning WTF. The pattern seems to be more similar to 2010-2011, where Roger finished the season on a high, started with victory in Doha but faded away slowly. Except he has Dubai, but I do not see that as a big stepping stone.”

Let me reiterate, the big picture is that winning the AO is not — and has not — been proven necessary by tennis history as necessary for achieving No. 1. For example, both years Nadal became No. 1 without winning the AO. In 2008; he became No. 1 by being hot during a atretch of 10 tourneys (winning 8 between mid April to mid August).

Given Federer’s greater consistency in getting to the later stages of tourneys, he has no reason to worry if he loses at the semifinal or quarterfinal stage of some tourneys. He knows exactly what he has to do to get to No. 1 from now to end US Open. It’s really very simple: if he does it, he becomes No. 1. If he does not do it, he does not become No. 1. This is just sound business: every large company basically operates on stretch goals, an analysis of alternative scenarios and a strategic path of wins to accomplish those bigger goals. It’s bad business to put speculative road blocks in the future based on what happened in the past — especially when no player is unbeatable

You jump to conclusions that the pattern seems to be more similar to 2010-2011, even though the pattern is broken by (a) Federer consecutively winning Rotterdam and Dubai after Australian Open; (b) Federer consecutively winning Basel, Paris Masters and World Tour Finals; and (c) Federer withdrawing from Doha after three matches. The only common event in these two dissimilar patterns (2010-11 and 2011-2012) is Federer losing the Australian Open. It’s irrational to extrapolate with such conviction based on such dissimilarities.

Small thinkers — and I mean small as in ‘micro’, ‘one-dimensional’ and ‘linear’ — think they are right and rational to dwell on the past using an irrational argument that goes something like this: “Federer was on a roll and had momentum (compared to Djokovic and Nadal) after winning the WTF in late November 2011 but nine weeks later failed to capitalize on that momentum gained nine weeks earlier as he failed to win the Australian Open in late January 2012.” Nine weeks is a long time. A lot could have happened during those 9 weeks for Federer (which took him away from training) as well as for Djokovic/Nadal (that focused them on training hard). We know what happened to Federer in 2007-2008 with the mono during those 9 weeks. We also know that, unlike Nadal/Djokovic, Federer is more prone to distractions as a husband, a father and ATP Players’ Council Presiden as well as has a huge endorsement/commercial portfolio and huge charity organization, etc, etc. Plus Federer had the toughest AO draw of the Big Four. To pretend that “all things were equal” in conditions pertaining to Federer and the other Big Four is small thinking.

Yet, curiously, there will always be other small thinkers who consider such flawed, small thinking to be enlightening.


jane Says:

madmax is a sweet Fed-fan, but I don’t agree that a poster should be “left alone” if others disagree with his or her views. Ajet, Nirmal Kumar, mem, or whomever, has every right to respond to Dave’s speculations. Maybe, sometimes, disagreements do have to do with a clash of egos but I think most of the time people just see things differently, and there is nothing wrong with that or with discussions evolving out of that – it’s good methinks.

BTW, anyone know about the draw challenge – have I missed out??


Kimmi Says:

you have 15 hrs left jane. do it quick. i find it very difficult this time around. who is a sure bet to win this?

i see on atp site that ljubicic to retire next month.


Daniel Says:

Skorocel says: “in order to get that No 1. ranking back. And there lies the problem… 2-7 in 2011 doesn’t speak all that brightly, does it?”

Here is my take, this is a very thin line, people are saying roger has to beat them consistently and wins Majors, but he just needs to even out the year, against the top 4 and wins 1 major. Compensate on the other tourneys.

If he had finished 2011 with let’s say, 4-5 he would have 1 win on top of each, lets say US Open Champion, beating Djoko in the semis and Nadal in the final. He would have 1280 its more, Djoko 1780 less and Nadal the same. Which means Fed would have 10000 its, Nadal 10700 its and Djoko 11500. That would be a 1500 its lead, which is nothing this days.

He just needs to do a,little bit better, even his HxH in the year with top 4 and wins 1 Major (Wimby or US Open) and as Dave says, considering the post 2011 US Open until 2012 US Open spam, Fed is the one with more points and more titles, and he is 2-1 against top 4 (win again Nadal in WTF 11′, lost to Nadal’ in AO12 and win against Murray in Dubai 12′ ).

Another detail, this year Murray is playing better and it’s clear, so as Roger. They are not losing to outside top 10 anymore, in fact, they are nit losing to anybody outside Fab4. 2 important tourneys so far, AO and Dubai and top 4 entered was there. This years is setting up to be a very competitive one. Djoko already lost 320 pts and unless he wins 7 tourneys in a row, he can only lose. Of course, he can win 3 Majors again and all this talk will be vanished. But my take is top 4 will kill each other out. Is a do or die year for almost everybody:

- Djoko needs to defend and follow the shadow of the monster he created.

- Nadal needs to stop the bleeding against Dkojo, and win something outside of clay to reestablish himself. Nadal is still young, will turn 26 this year, but his milage is like he was 27-28 really, you can’t run forever, even Forest Gump couldn’t!

- Federer knows he has his last shot at #1 with his play in the last 5 months + Olympics + his time is clocking. This is IT!

- Murrya needs to win a major and start troubling Djoko as w know he will. They will fight each other out in the next 5 years, as did Fed and Nadal, Djoko and Nadal, Fed and Djoko…But since he is young, he still have time.

Last, regarding Fed and Nadal HxH, it is 2×1 (18-9) Nadal, every three times they play, Nadal wins 2 and Fed 1. This is the pattern for a long time, except for the period when Nadal open 6-1 in the beginning and then 5-0 post 2007 when they were 8-6.


Daniel Says:

Dave,
Agree with you regarding Fed micro management for post 2011 US Open to 2012 US Open.
The only problem is out of the 4 majors, one is gone already and French is hardly going to be him, unless Nadal loses or the gods decide to reward him for the efforts in several finals.

Also agree with you about the calm state he needs to enter, specially because he will have to target Wimby and US Open, and maybe by the time we get there, Djoko and Nadal may already dominated again, and he may lose confidence in his plan and falter. We know he works better as a front runner.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Skorocel : “Agree with everything except the last sentence: he can’t except Novak and Rafa to falter. One may falter, but not both. These two are just too good for that to happen… Roger simply HAS to start beating them (preferably consistently) in order to get that No 1. ranking back. And there lies the problem… 2-7 in 2011 doesn’t speak all that brightly, does it?”

Yes, you are right. When I say falter, I do not expect them to lost before semis. But if Roger can raise along with Murray’s help them there is a chance. Murray can beat Novak, but the question is can Roger beat Nadal. If he can do then it opens up his chances in a big way. I believe we need to wait till end of March (IW and Miami) to get over before talking about Roger’s chances. He just won two 500 tournaments, nothing much.

If he had won AO, then continued with 2 * 500 wins, then it opens up a big chance for him. We can start talking about him getting back to No1.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Grendel : “:”“The pattern seems to be more similar to 2010-2011, where Roger finished the season on a high, started with victory in Doha but faded away slowly”, this again resonated. I agree, in short. I would be very surprised if most posters who take an interest did not share this position. It is a rational and obvious one. Of course, it could turn out to be mistaken, life is full of surprises, eh? I imagine you share my hope that we are both mistaken.”

I think the pattern can be decided more by the end of march. If Roger can have a good success in IW and Miami, by winning either one of them and reaching finals of other, then he can go to Clay with some hope of regaining No1. If Roger loses to DelPo in the IW and earlier in Miami, I do not even understand how we can talk about him getting to No1.

There are many hurdles for him on his way to get No1. Let’s talk about him getting back to No1 after he crosses few hurdles, not so early.


dari Says:

Ljubicic :( everybody has got to go sometime, he is a goodie, and going out in the top 50 ain’t bad


Kimberly Says:

draw challenge

challenge.atpworldtour.com—join group tennisxfans

Off topic but just got back from the Heat game. We played like garbage but still won. Here is my psychic prediction: Heat over Oklahoma City in 4 or 5 in June. For sure.

I have no idea what kind of form Rafa will be in. Last year he played horrible but had a cupcake draw and made it to the final. In Miami he played awesome, had a very tough draw and made it to the final.

I thought this draw was pretty even, with hazards to all, some more in the beginning and others later.


jane Says:

Thanks Kimmi and Kimberly re: draw challenge: will try to get some picks done in time. Kimmi that’s too bad about Ljub: always liked watching him but was so thrilled when he won that masters a couple years ago – it was a very nice moment to behold. Will wish him the best. Great serve, fab backhand too.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Dave says: Losing AO is not critical for Roger to get to No1, considering the past era’s results.

Here is why Winning AO is critical. Looking at last 10 years of Roger’s era, it’s certain than to be a No 1 player, they need to win atleast 2 GS and few Masters tournament to get to No.1. For Roger his best chance of winning GS are at AO, Wim and USO. Now one is already gone.

The problem for him winning the other two would be the timelines in which they are played. He is already playing a bloated schedule in the 1st half (I hope he skips 2 clay masters and Halle) and has a Olympic between Wim and USO. Will his health hold good without any niggles till then for him to peak between Wim and USO.

Winning AO would have given him such a huge boost, that he need not bank on winning both Wim and USO. Also it would have helped him to relax few masters on the way (clay ones) and attack the period between Wim and USO.

If Rafa or Novak dominate IW and Miami, it’s pretty much case closed for Roger. That’s why it makes more sense to talk about his chances of No1 after IW and Miami get over.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Excellent and fair comment by Roger for his Title woes in outdoor HC.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16787&zoneid=25

For people who claim Roger as arrogant, this proves how smart the guy is in putting things in perspective.

Also for Roger fanatics who stupidly believe Roger is losing because of his kids and him being President of players council in ATP should get some idea why he lost those critical matches.

It’s quite simple. The opponents were better on that day.


Ajet Says:

”Kimmi that’s too bad about Ljub: always liked watching him but was so thrilled when he won that masters a couple years ago – it was a very nice moment to behold. Will wish him the best. Great serve, fab backhand too.”

Echoing the sentiments of Jane here…
Enjoy your life now ljubicic, you’ve achieved what others can only dream of! your career may be done, but while it lasted, you definitely shone! :)


Sienna Says:

@Daniel
Last, regarding Fed and Nadal HxH, it is 2×1 (18-9) Nadal, every three times they play, Nadal wins 2 and Fed 1. This is the pattern for a long time, except for the period when Nadal open 6-1 in the beginning and then 5-0 post 2007 when they were 8-6.

I dont understand why the pattern usually is 2-1 when Nadal clearly has taken his lead at the startof their h2h and during the mono year. Otherwise they are pretty even.


Ajet Says:

agree with both the last posts of nirmal kumar


Skorocel Says:

@dave: I bet Federer’s withdrawal from Doha will be a major reason for him to not regain that No 1. ranking, LOL ;-)

=============

Ajet: „i could definitely put an asterisk over delpo’s win against nadal at 2009 if it was anything close to competitive, but too bad that it was a rout! and delpo even backed it up by recovering to beat fed from two sets-to-one down the very next day! THE GUY DESERVES SOME CREDIT AND RESPECT FROM YOU GUYS AT LEAST, I think, instead of trying to demean his incredible achievement in us 09.“

That’s right. And there lies the difference, Ajet. Winning a SLAM courtesy of beating Nadal & Federer is ten times better than beating one or another here and there, yet winning NOTHING… In other words, nobody will remember Monfils beating Nadal in Doha, Gasquet beating Federer in MC, Gonzalez digging out a win against Federer in a WTF RR match, or even “the multi slam champion & most dangerous player to play against (who in reality is yet to win even a Masters 1000 title)” Ferrer beating Nadal at AO & USO… But if you ask even an ordinary tennis fan who gave Nadal his worst SLAM beating & then day later beat Federer to WIN his 1st SLAM TITLE in 5 dramatic sets, I bet you’ll get the answer…

=============

Daniel: „He (Federer) just needs to do a,little bit better, even his HxH in the year with top 4 and wins 1 Major (Wimby or US Open) and as Dave says, considering the post 2011 US Open until 2012 US Open spam, Fed is the one with more points and more titles, and he is 2-1 against top 4 (win again Nadal in WTF 11′, lost to Nadal’ in AO12 and win against Murray in Dubai 12′ ).“

Well, „just“, isn’t it? It’s exactly this „just“ which prevented him going further in 2011, Daniel. And it’s exactly this „just“ which, at first, seems only like a „just“, but in reality is a lot more than that…

P.S. Roger has indeed amassed the most points in the post USO 2011 – Dubai 2012 spam, that’s right. Too bad that one of his only 2 losses during that stretch „happened to be“ precisely in the most important tournament of this spam (and one of the 4 most important tourneys of the season), yet according to someone here it was a „forgivable“ one, LOL ;-) Point wise, Roger may be the best player in that USO 2011 – Dubai 2012 stretch, it’s „just“ that season is, more often than not, being decided between AO & USO…

============

Nirmal Kumar: „If Roger can have a good success in IW and Miami, by winning either one of them and reaching finals of other, then he can go to Clay with some hope of regaining No1.“

Last year, Roger had a more than perfect chance to gain some precious points on the Djodal duo here (as he was defending only a very small amount of points both in IW and Miami). What happened? He lost to Novak in IW and Rafa in Miami… Again, it seems like a „just“, but in reality it’s exactly this „just“ which prevents him from going even further, and which, unless he can overcome it, will further block his path to regaining that No 1. ranking…

=============

Nirmal Kumar: „Also for Roger fanatics who stupidly believe Roger is losing because of his kids and him being President of players council in ATP…“

LOL ;-)


grendel Says:

We’ve had an endlessly long dispute between a pluralist and a fundamentalist. Such a dispute cannot be resolved because, whatever they purport to be arguing about (grass, apparently), it is really about something quite different. And on this, neither will – nor can – give an inch. In the end, it will either be about who has the most stamina or how long before the moderator loses patience.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Skorocel says “Last year, Roger had a more than perfect chance to gain some precious points on the Djodal duo here (as he was defending only a very small amount of points both in IW and Miami). What happened? He lost to Novak in IW and Rafa in Miami… Again, it seems like a „just“, but in reality it’s exactly this „just“ which prevents him from going even further, and which, unless he can overcome it, will further block his path to regaining that No 1. ranking…”

I think you did not get the context in which I said these statements. I basically said we should start talking about Roger only when he achieves what I mentioned above ie Win either IW or Miami and reach the final of others.

Also I agree that last year he had the same momentum at the begining of the year. I had noted the same in my response to Dave questioning basically how Roger’s year turned into pretty ordinary ie no slams entire year.

Typically at the end of the year, probably it’s 4-6 match which decides the No 1 player. If Rafa had taken 4 finals from Novak he would have been No1. If Roger would have won 4-5 key matches specially the FO final, Quarters against Tsonga things could have looked so different.


Daniel Says:

Note that the #1 ranking changed 3 of the last 4 times after Wimby.

- Nadal emerged in August in 2008
- Fed got it back a day after Wimby 2009
- Nadal got it back a day after RG 2010
- Djoko emerged a day after Wimby 2011

There is a long time the ranking doesn’t shift post US Open


trufan Says:

Regarding Competition – people forget important details.

SAMPRAS – counting Becker, Edberg, Lendl as the “great” players he had to face is stupid. They were done, washed out by the time Sampras starting winning in 1993. Beckers peak came early in 1989. Edberg around the same time. Lendl perhaps 1988. Mcenroe peaked in 1984. Wilander peaked in 1988. So who did he face at THEIR peak? Only Agassi, but for a short time, since he goofed off 1996-98, when Sampras won almost half his slams.

Sampras benefited from the same thing that NAdal has benefited from – beating up on older players. Nadal made hay in 2008 and 2010, largely beating up on a 5 year older player (Federer) – largely on clay though. NOw he is getting to face an opponent one year younger – Djoke – and look what happened – 7 consecutive final losses, 3 consecutive slam final losses – something that has never happened in tennis history before.

Mind you, I am only including multiple slam winners as relevant competition (at least 4).

Nadal should thank his luck that his uncle made him a lefty (although he is right handed) – otherwise he would have never dominated even on clay. And he should thank heavens that until last year, his main competition was a player 5 years older, past his peak, with a one-handed backhand. Gosh, so many things had to fall in place for Nadal to win his 6 french and 4 other slams!


skeezerweezer Says:

Anyone seen this article?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577265832373170456.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Now there is something new to talk about ;)


El Flaco Says:

Many of the top ranked singles players are also playing dubs.

Djokovic
Nadal
Murray
Ferrer
Tsonga
Berdych
Fish
Simon
Raonic
Isner
Almagro


El Flaco Says:

Nice link Skeez. Federer may be stringing more loosely than he was 8 years ago, but I remember one of the commentators during the 2010 winter indoor stretch mentioning that Annacone convinced Fed to go a little tighter on the tension.


Dave Says:

Daniel: “(Federer) just needs to do a,little bit better, even his HxH in the year with top 4 and wins 1 Major (Wimby or US Open) and as Dave says, considering the post 2011 US Open until 2012 US Open spam, Fed is the one with more points and more titles, and he is 2-1 against top 4 (win again Nadal in WTF 11′, lost to Nadal’ in AO12 and win against Murray in Dubai 12′ ).”

You’re right, you understand clearly what Federer has to do. And you see it without the blinders that the naysayers have on.

Tennis Mag’s Steve Tignor has sound advice for these detractors (even those who claim to be Fedfans): “No reason to rationalize Federer’s losses…many in the sport wonder again if he’ll ever get No. 17. It will be a struggle, no doubt, and he may need some luck to break his way. But what may be more notable than his recent defeats at the big events is how close Federer remains to winning them. He hasn’t exhibited any of the increased inconsistency that you might expect from an aging champ. Even two years after his last Slam win, he’s still an upset of Djokovic or Nadal away from being the favorite at any major he plays. If Federer hasn’t set his sights any lower, or begun to rationalize his losses, there’s no reason for his supporters or detractors to, either. He’s still in the hunt, and I doubt he’d want us to think of him any other way. Federer already has redefined how dominant a tennis player can be at his mid-20s peak. Now we’ll see if he can redefine how well one can play, and how much he can win, after that peak has passed.”
http://espn.go.com/tennis/blog/_/name/tennis/id/7658918/no-reason-rationalize-roger-federer-losses

Federer has won 5 titles from 7 tourneys over the past 6 months. There is little room for error going forward the next 6 months: he must win at least 3 to 5 titles (including 1 to 2 slams plus 1 to 2 Master’s 1000) depending on how Djokovic and the other contenders are doing. This year Roger has to expect 3 to 6 players hitting hot patches throughout the season. Fed’s calm “in the zone” state — which helped him coast to many streaks during 2004 — 2007 — is going to be necessary to carry him through everything.

You’re right that French Open is probably the toughest, and Roger probably needs Rafa to lose, play poorly and/or Roger play the tennis of his life. However, Federer showed last year that it wasn’t outside the realm of possibility. Not only did Federer reach the final after the incredible effort to stop Novak at his peak, Roger created 15 breakpoints against Nadal (the same as Rafa against Roger). The difference between Nadal and Federer was that Rafa converted 7/15 BPs to Roger’s 5/15. And Nadal won 143/273 to Fed’s 130/273 points. A number of stats in that FO match were uncannily similar to their 2012 AO match, such as total points (273 to 276) and match time (220 mins to 222 mins). Nadal wasn’t at his best throughout the French Open, but played just enough to win his matches including the final (at the AO, Nadal played his best tennis of the tourney against Federer). Just 1 to 2 % more confidence and “in the zone” ability — or drop from Nadal — might have been enough for Federer to have taken that FO match. Who knows what would have happened had Federer converted setpoint of that first set.

Many felt Federer was the best player of the French Open, even though Nadal won the championship. E.g., Eurosport’s Simon Reed: “Superb Federer back to stunning best. Rafael Nadal might be leaving Roland Garros with the trophy, but when I look back at the French Open all I can see in my mind’s eye is Roger Federer. Roger played absolutely outstanding tennis over the last two weeks. He was really rolling back the years, playing as well as he did back in 2007 and 2008 when he was at his incredible best….. (Federer) still played the best tennis of the tournament, during the semi-final against Novak Djokovic. That match was, for me, far and away the match of the tournament. It was tennis to make you laugh: simply so brilliant that it left everyone watching with a huge grin on their faces.”
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/simon-reed/superb-federer-back-stunning-best-6276.html


Angel Says:

You are right Trufan. Nadal is a lucky cretin but he just run out of luck.


Dave Says:

Nirmal Kumar: “Dave says: Losing AO is not critical for Roger to get to No1, considering the past era’s results. Here is why Winning AO is critical. Looking at last 10 years of Roger’s era, it’s certain than to be a No 1 player, they need to win atleast 2 GS and few Masters tournament to get to No.1. For Roger his best chance of winning GS are at AO, Wim and USO. Now one is already gone.”

It’s certain??? Nope. Nothing is “certain”. The past does not have to be the future. You are talking the language of the fundamentalist and you are speculating based on your fundamentalist views.

There are always several scenarios as any real, big thinking pluralist will tell you. For example, here’s just one scenario: the slams majors could be won by four diferent players. More than any previous year, it is conceiveable where this could be the year where several players (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray, Delpo, Raonic, Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga, Ferrer, etc.) could hit peak and/or blossom at different times of the year to take big titles or knock off the front runners. If this YTD ranking chart had started just at the end of the US Open, Federer would be on top ahead of Djokovic.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/YTD-Singles.aspx

You don’t have to worry about Federer’s schedule or speculate about whether “his health hold good without any niggles till then for him to peak between Wim and USO”. Federer was able to play 19 tourneys during his mononucleosis year in 2008. Yet crafty Federer played just 16 tourneys last year, his lowest since 2007. Federer should be able to play 20 to 21 tourneys this year if he feels he is still in the hunt. Federer’s break after the US Open (skipping Shanghai etc.) was designed to enable him to go full trottle for his next 11 tourneys (12 if he decides to add Monte Carlo) over the next six months until the US Open. In hindsight, Federer’s light tourney schedule last year and playing Rotterdam this year was likely designed to help him take off over the next 6 months. I predicted in the middle of last year that 2012 will be Federer’s last hurrah as a full season, where he will put in his maximum effort for one last great year (and thereafter continue at a reduced 14 to 16 tourney workload in future years) — and so far he seems to be doing just that this year.

Federer recently won 3 tourneys in 4 weeks and then 2 tourneys in 3 weeks. Among top players, Federer has the best track record of resilience and keeping himself relatively healthy and less injured. It’s so typical that serial naysayer-fundamentalists have to take the ‘glass half empty’ view to speculate that Federer’s health could suffer and that he needs to skip 3 tourneys. It’s more rational, logical and factual, based on their track recors, to predict both Nadal and (lesser extent) Djokovic’s bodies breaking down before Federer.

Since we’re speculating, “winning AO” and “relaxing” could have been the worst thing that could have happened to Federer this year. Federer’s track record since 2007 Australian have shown many patches where he took his foot off the pedal after a significant win or two, instead of maintaining his momentum and consolidating his gains over his rivals. It’s not unexpected — with the greater level of distractions competing for Federer’s attention, he is trying to juggle several priorities at once. Thus the current pressure that Federer feels might just be the right medicine he needs to focus on his tennis over the next six months. Thank goodness he lost the AO.

Nirmal “If Rafa or Novak dominate IW and Miami, it’s pretty much case closed for Roger.” Nonsense. That’s the fundamentalist view. Using your principle of “looking at last 10 years of Roger’s era”, it wasn’t case closed in 2009, why should it be now?

Nirmal “Excellent and fair comment by Roger for his Title woes in outdoor HC… for Roger fanatics who stupidly believe Roger is losing because of his kids and him being President of players council in ATP should get some idea why he lost those critical matches.”

You can watch this part of Federer’s interview in the clip in my previous post. It appears that Federer was replying directly to a reporter’s question so you have absolutely no idea what the context of the question was. You should not jump to conclusions just because Federer did not mention his kids or ATP Council president because he was not asked a question on those things. That’s so… fundamentalist in thinking. Furthermore, it makes no sense federer mentioned Murray first, even though he has not played him since 2010 Shanghai and has beaten Andy in their next two matches at 2010 WTF and 2012 Dubai.

Btw, is it coincidence that Federer is saying these things from a position of strength? What excellent and fair perspective of Federer to admit recently that he had lost some matches last year due to confidence of him and his opponents — an admission he made just as his confidence is back to a high level again. Now Federer says he lost tough matches on hard courts PARTLY due to the “strength of Murray, Djokovic and Nadal” — an admission he makes just as he is winning more matches than the other Big Four. If Federer continues to beat Murray, Djokovic and NAdal going forward, just remember that Federer defeated them despite their “strength” :)


dari Says:

Thanks for the article skeezer- its restring time, maybe I have something to think about. I already string a little on the loose side…


mem Says:

trufan & angel,

what a pair!

too bad matches are not played on blogs and paper too bad we don’t the results until after the matches are played. i’m sorry, but that’s what happens in the real world.

here we go again, if nadal wasn’t a left handed player, if roger wasn’t five years older, if all tournaments were played on faster surfaces, if the grass of wimbledon wasn’t slowed down, if most of roger vs rafa wasn’t played on clay, if roger’s draw wasn’t so tough, if the organizers had stopped play in the wimbledon 2008 final, if nadal hadn’t come along, if roger had closed out novak in uso semis, if, if, if ,if , if,,,

if i was oprah, i would be a billionaire, but i’m not. silly, silly, silly!


alison hodge Says:

mem yeah i completely agree,if not for novak playing lights out tennis last year,and winning the ao at the start of this year,then rafa would have two career grand slams,shame really,would haves,could haves,should haves,and ifs and buts,dont amount to doodle squat in the real world.


Gordo Says:

Mem – too true.

My father used to say, “if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.”

😃


Humble Rafa Says:

My father used to say, “if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.”
—-
Uncle Toni says the same thing.


Wog boy Says:

Gordo, you beat me.

We have same saying , instead of aunt it is grandmother.
This is how it sounds in Serbian:

“Kada bi BABA
Imala M.DA
Bila bi DEDA”

It is actually a ryhm :-)


Mark Says:

@Angel. Who r u calling a cretin? the cretin as u so refer to Rafa is a 10 time grand slam winner. You r the cretin!!!!!


tennisfan Says:

Roger Federer seems to be in great confidence anf form…is his 17th GS in sight?.

Roger Federer and the Critics! http://bit.ly/AhnkaX


grendel Says:

Of course, a fundamentalist has no idea what a pluralist is. That’s because he is a fundamentalist. Having almost no insight into himself, he doesn’t even know what a fundamentalist is.

It’s appalling the way Federer has been virtually messianised and, in the service of this bizarre worship, his main rivals traduced and spat upon. This has nothing to do with ordinary fandom. But there is nothing new here to those who have observed political and religious fanaticism. Pity it should attach itself to a tennis blog, though.


trufan Says:

These are not “if’s”. these are facts.

Many of you guys crib about less competition or more competition for one player or the other. While judging that, you have to account for FACTS. Or does it touch a raw nerve?

The fact is – though it needs tremendous luck, someone wins the lotto every few weeks. But we don’t go around idolizing them saying that they are as rich as Steve Jobs, so they are as GOOD as Steve Jobs (or someone else who MADE their money, not won it in a lotto).

Nadal did win a bit of a small lotto. OF course, he worked very hard, and is a damn good player, especially on clay. BUt how he stacks up against the greats in tennis must include all relevant facts.


carlo Says:

grendel, are you talking in general or did I miss some posts about fundamentalists v pluralists? I agree with what you are saying and glad to hear you say something.

I said something last sunday about a sermon going on but what I said wasn’t tactful – it was in exasperation.


Steve 27 Says:

trufan, your statement is maliciously ridiculous, meaningless and do a disservice to defending Federer. Why Swiss fans can not accept reality, or is so painful that his idol ever again be a major champion?
Speaking of age, trufan, Federer had the advantage in the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, including in 2008, was only 26 years at Wimbledon and you talk about age?. Please do not be ridiculous and appreciates he won 3 majors more between Roland Garros 2009 and Australia 2010, thanks to Nadal (injury) to Rodick (missing head) and Murray (big choker)


carlo Says:

Ajet. Thanks for saying what you did about Delpo’s GS win. :) very fair and balanced of you!


Brando Says:

@Grendel:

Brilliant post at 6.47.

Pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as what the recent most post have REALLY been about.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Dave..Nothing you write seems to make any sense. Next time try to write something meaningful when you respond.


rave Says:

Grendel. I like reading your post, but your post at6:47 has me scratching my head. I seem to recall reading a lot of posts here from the fandom of players other than Roger, traducing and spatting upon Roger. Some extremely vicious and insulting.

And Madmax, I agrre with your post at 4:01 150%, and ther was no hint of whinning at all except in your head Jane.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Dave says :Tennis Mag’s Steve Tignor has sound advice for these detractors (even those who claim to be Fedfans): “No reason to rationalize Federer’s losses…many in the sport wonder again if he’ll ever get No. 17

How irrelevant and stupid to point this article (as well as Simon’s)when the discussion is about Roger getting to No1. Infact Tignor never talks about Roger getting back to No1 in this article. He is a smart writer. All he expects is for Roger to win one more slam before he retires, which is very much possible.

Dave..When will you post something relevant? There are millions of articles talking about Roger. If your agenda is to keep providing the links to all of them, it sounds pathetic.


rave Says:

Nirmal Kumar,I am waiting for you to post something relevant.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Ok, let’s educate Dave again and try to implement some common sense in him.

Learning 1: Roger need not win 2 slams to get back to No1.

If Roger does not win 2 slams, it means either Nadal or Novak would be the No1, as Nadal would be dominating the clay masters and Novak or Murray most likely the HC masters. So Roger would be at a comfortable position at either 3 or 4. Roger may again make a push at the end of the year which will help him not to get out or Top 4. As part of educating Dave I have said these talk would become more meaningful once the US HC masters get over.

Learning 2: Roger need not take a break

Again Ignorant Dave claims wrongly that Roger need not take a break. Just look back at post US11. Roger smartly took a break from Asian swing, so what did he do? He went on a tear and won all the remaining tournaments. It proved to be his best year end performance.

Leraning 3: Roger should not take his pedal off the momentum

For ignorant Dave, Roger did not take any pedal off last year not in 2007 which you had claimed. Basically he continued playing all the tournaments and lost in early rounds of IW and Miami (2007). So just by playing all the tournaments has not helped Roger win much. Infact taking a break has proved to be much more fruitful for him.

Learning 4: Thank goodness Roger did not win AO.

You just proved certain important funcions in your body are not working as expected :-)

Learning 5: Roger understood his opponents strength.

Yes, he did even before AO. Infact he agreed at the end of the year that other 2 players were very strong. But it did not help him to beat Nadal in AO. Even Berdych and Tsonga understand that the Top 4 are very strong, but will that help them to win a Slam or get back to No1? Hmmm.

After all this enlightening to Dave, now I expect could of links posted in 2006 and 2009 praising Roger to my response to show how those experts praising Roger will get him back to No1.

Dave..can you post those links please?


Nixon Says:

Eurosport’s Simon Reed: “Superb Federer back to stunning best. Rafael Nadal might be leaving Roland Garros with the trophy, but when I look back at the French Open all I can see in my mind’s eye is Roger Federer. Roger played absolutely outstanding tennis over the last two weeks. He was really rolling back the years, playing as well as he did back in 2007 and 2008 when he was at his incredible best….. (Federer) still played the best tennis of the tournament, during the semi-final against Novak Djokovic. That match was, for me, far and away the match of the tournament. It was tennis to make you laugh: simply so brilliant that it left everyone watching with a huge grin on their faces.”
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/simon-reed/superb-federer-back-stunning-best-6276.html

Dave,

Simon Reed says Federer was at his best in 2007 and 2008. It is contradicting your favorite claim that Federer was not at his best in 2008.
Its time to attack Simon Reed…..dont leave him…..go and fill his blog with your usual junk….LOL.


Ajet Says:

HEIGHT OF DELUSION = Dave thinking Fed not winning AO 12(his 17th slam) is actually good

————————-

”Learning 4: Thank goodness Roger did not win AO.

You just proved certain important funcions in your body are not working as expected :-)”

YOU NAILED IT NIRMAL! But don’t ask him to stop! Am enjoying Dave’s hilariuos posts to the core, you also enjoy, hehehe ;)


Ajet Says:

@Grendel:

Brilliant post at 6.47.


Master Ace Says:

dave has bulldozed nirmal and ajet 6-0, 6-1, 6-0. Even grendel’s obvious coaching, support and stoking the flames hasnt helped these two diehards. Boys, give it up, your positons are hopeless. dave is giving you the death of s thousand cuts


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Ajet says : But don’t ask him to stop! Am enjoying Dave’s hilariuos posts to the core, you also enjoy, hehehe ;)

The real fun is how serious Dave takes his post when we have a good laugh at it.


Courbon Says:

My prediction:
Djokovic beats Murray
Federe beats Nadal
Djokovic beats Federer in final….


Ajet Says:

Dave Says:

”Tennis Mag’s Steve Tignor has sound advice for these detractors (even those who claim to be Fedfans): If Federer hasn’t set his sights any lower, or begun to rationalize his losses, there’s no reason for his supporters or detractors to, either. He’s still in the hunt, and I doubt he’d want us to think of him any other way.””

Idiot dave, did you see that tignor actually said that it’s within the realms of possbility that fed’s losses will be rationalized not only by his detractors, BUT EVEN SUPPORTERS!

and well, the issue isn’t that if federer can beat djoker or murray if they come in path, last two years suggest that fed has OK chances to beat these two guys when it matters(at slams), but the last two years did show that against rafa, he seemingly has no or very little chances, and at the same time, there is possiblity that many times, federer may havr to beat either of the in-form guys in the frm of djoker/nadal to win a big tournament so that he inches close to no.; with djoker, history doesn’t show much unfavourabity, but against nadal, it’s an unenviable record since 2008, and shows little favourablty towards fed.

”Federer has won 5 titles from 7 tourneys over the past 6 months. There is little room for error going forward the next 6 months: he must win at least 3 to 5 titles (including 1 to 2 slams plus 1 to 2 Master’s 1000) depending on how Djokovic and the other contenders are doing.”

Is it very easy to do for federer? i wonder!

”This year Roger has to expect 3 to 6 players hitting hot patches throughout the season.”

Federer is more rational than dave to keep dreaming of something like this to happen.

”You’re right that French Open is probably the toughest, and Roger probably needs Rafa to lose, play poorly and/or Roger play the tennis of his life. However, Federer showed last year that it wasn’t outside the realm of possibility. Not only did Federer reach the final after the incredible effort to stop Novak at his peak, Roger created 15 breakpoints against Nadal (the same as Rafa against Roger). The difference between Nadal and Federer was that Rafa converted 7/15 BPs to Roger’s 5/15. And Nadal won 143/273 to Fed’s 130/273 points. A number of stats in that FO match were uncannily similar to their 2012 AO match, such as total points (273 to 276) and match time (220 mins to 222 mins). Nadal wasn’t at his best throughout the French Open, but played just enough to win his matches including the final (at the AO, Nadal played his best tennis of the tourney against Federer). Just 1 to 2 % more confidence and “in the zone” ability — or drop from Nadal — might have been enough for Federer to have taken that FO match. Who knows what would have happened had Federer converted setpoint of that first set.”

not as simple as an idiot might think, the situation in the FO 11 final. The fact is woulda/shoulda is of no use. Fed had always lacked that little belief against nadal since 2007, that in the end is enough to make a difference. How about saying that nadal lacked that much belief only against djoker in AO 12 as fed lacked against him in FO 12, to make the difference??? And the very fact that a stunningly great loooking federer(as per you and simon reed) couldn’t beat a nadal below his best (again, as per your claim) makes that loss that much more worth worrying. And while you claim that a 1-2% difference in confidence and play by fed might have altered the result, I would say it works both ways! What if somebody says: IMAGINE what would nadal do if he was at his obliterating best against fed in FO-11!!!

”Many felt Federer was the best player of the French Open, even though Nadal won the championship.”

Keep consoling yourself like that, but the fact is NADAL WON IT AND THAT TOO BY BEATING FEDERER! I’d take anyday federeer beating nadal over simon reed or anyone else claiming ”even though nadal won it, federer was the best player”!

”E.g., Eurosport’s Simon Reed: “Superb Federer back to stunning best. Rafael Nadal might be leaving Roland Garros with the trophy, but when I look back at the French Open all I can see in my mind’s eye is Roger Federer. Roger played absolutely outstanding tennis over the last two weeks. He was really rolling back the years, playing as well as he did back in 2007 and 2008 when he was at his incredible best….. (Federer) still played the best tennis of the tournament, during the semi-final against Novak Djokovic. That match was, for me, far and away the match of the tournament. It was tennis to make you laugh: simply so brilliant that it left everyone watching with a huge grin on their faces.””

But I doubt any sincere fed fan would be grining after what happened in that final! Fed gave the first set and with it the match away to nadal. And simon reed or anybody else might say 100000 things in praise of fed for looking competetive in that final, just like numerous people all over praised nadal for his fighting AO 12 final, but the end result in the form of victory/defeat is more important than consolation that you were complmented for fighting well; coz no mattewr what, the victor will be more complimented and deservedly so.

————————————–

”Dave Says:
Nirmal Kumar: “Dave says: Losing AO is not critical for Roger to get to No1, considering the past era’s results. Here is why Winning AO is critical. Looking at last 10 years of Roger’s era, it’s certain than to be a No 1 player, they need to win atleast 2 GS and few Masters tournament to get to No.1. For Roger his best chance of winning GS are at AO, Wim and USO. Now one is already gone.”

It’s certain??? Nope. Nothing is “certain”. The past does not have to be the future. You are talking the language of the fundamentalist and you are speculating based on your fundamentalist views.”

Just because someone differs from you, doesn’t make him fundamentalist. and stop using the words of grendel and links of other writers, don’t you got anything original of your own to present here???

”There are always several scenarios as any real, big thinking pluralist will tell you. For example, here’s just one scenario: the slams majors could be won by four diferent players. More than any previous year, it is conceiveable where this could be the year where several players (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray, Delpo, Raonic, Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga, Ferrer, etc.) could hit peak and/or blossom at different times of the year to take big titles or knock off the front runners. If this YTD ranking chart had started just at the end of the US Open, Federer would be on top ahead of Djokovic.”

It’s funny that you accuse others of speculating when it’s you, whose speculation, it seems, is running wild since ever, and would continue to run so FOREVER.
And believe me, novak or nadal cannot be crying about federer winning dubai/year end tournaments so long as they’re winning the BIGGEST THINGS(the slams).
And sadly, the YTD cannot start at started end of US Open coz it cannot leave out slams just for the sake that roger hasn’t won one since two years.

”I predicted in the middle of last year that 2012 will be Federer’s last hurrah as a full season, where he will put in his maximum effort for one last great year (and thereafter continue at a reduced 14 to 16 tourney workload in future years) — and so far he seems to be doing just that this year.”

Again speculation.

”Federer recently won 3 tourneys in 4 weeks and then 2 tourneys in 3 weeks. Among top players, Federer has the best track record of resilience and keeping himself relatively healthy and less injured.”

Well, you know what, djoker overcoming the fed-nadal dupoly or nadal overcoming his title drought in 2010 to win 3 slams is also a kind of resilience. And resilience in strictest sense of the term, is best recognised and valued most when shown in form of a slam victory when people have written you off(like fed showed in FO-09). that’s RSELIENCE of HIGHEST ORDER. Winning minor tournaments is resilience of generally lower order.

”It’s so typical that serial naysayer-fundamentalists have to take the ‘glass half empty’ view to speculate that Federer’s health could suffer and that he needs to skip 3 tourneys. It’s more rational, logical and factual, based on their track recors, to predict both Nadal and (lesser extent) Djokovic’s bodies breaking down before Federer.”

What’s the problem if someone sees the glass half-empty, if it is indeed so??? And federer’s glass was indeed full in 2004-07, while it now is indeed half-empty! ANd moreover, it seems you’re more wishful than realistic, as you always obviuosly are, whe you say that djoker or nadal would break down earlier than fed, when the fact is fed is 5 years older than rafa and 6 years older than djoker! Nobody knows when a old-looking body may suddelnly break down! That said, I just would love federer to remain always fit and play as long as and as well as possible.

”Since we’re speculating, “winning AO” and “relaxing” could have been the worst thing that could have happened to Federer this year. Federer’s track record since 2007 Australian have shown many patches where he took his foot off the pedal after a significant win or two, instead of maintaining his momentum and consolidating his gains over his rivals. It’s not unexpected — with the greater level of distractions competing for Federer’s attention, he is trying to juggle several priorities at once. Thus the current pressure that Federer feels might just be the right medicine he needs to focus on his tennis over the next six months. Thank goodness he lost the AO.”

This last sentence makes you a winner of THE COMICAL ENTERTAINER OF THE YEAR( and there’s every possibilty that this lone last sentence would eventually get you THE TENNIS-X COMICAL ENTERATINER OF THE MILLENIUM AWARD!!!
ANd not just that. if fed comes to know of you thanking goodness for his AO loss, then he’d sure feel that he’s much better off if such wishes of fans like you are not woth him for the rest of the life!

”Nirmal “If Rafa or Novak dominate IW and Miami, it’s pretty much case closed for Roger.” Nonsense. That’s the fundamentalist view. Using your principle of “looking at last 10 years of Roger’s era”, it wasn’t case closed in 2009, why should it be now?”
May be coz there’s a heaven and hell difference between the novak of 2009 and Novak of now in terms of confidence and level of play! Fed’s alomst always bound to meet at least one of these two in latter stages, or most probably even both of those! And add to it, Murray who’s looking much more threatening now than ever before wih his booming FH and calmer attitude! I can definitely see why nirmal would say so!


Ajet Says:

Master Ace:

I’m not surprised brain-dead people like you exhilarate at seeing dave’s post! You may as well join dave’s comedian club!


Ajet Says:

courbon:

I would love to see first prediction go wrong and your second prediction come true, and would love to see murray beat fed in final for a change. federer beating nadal is the greatest boost that fed needs right now, hope he gets it.


Sienna Says:

Can someon explain to me why Federer needs to win 2 slams in order to reach #1.
It could go easiley the way Dave suggests that all slam are won by 4 different players.
In the mean time Fed is in the best possible position to attack the two frontrunners. Novalk clearly is lesser player then last year he stands to loose points until US Open. EVen Nadal will have to do very well to maintain all his points.
Fed only wants to have weeks #1 after US Open.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Sienna: Looks like you have started watching tennis from 2012. It’s quite hard to understand your ignorance on how things shape up between March – July.

Typically it’s Nadal who dominates in this time period and Novak did in 2011. Having Novak and Murray in the picture along with Nadal, there is hardly a chance for Roger to win any Masters in this period. Even If Roger has to win only GS (most unlikely..which one he will win?) how is he going to be a No 1 player. It’s increasingly getting difficult for Roger to get to Finals, forget about winning them.

Post 2010 AO, Roger has reached only one Finals ie FO 11 and hardly few masters in outdoors. How do you expect him to start winning few masters and one GS now.

As I noted above, it will be more clear once the IW and Miami are over. If Roger can dominate there, then he is in the mix for No1.


Sienna Says:

I understand what youre saying No need to add that I watch tennis from 2012. But dont you undertsand that it is possible for Fed to take over al beit for a few weeks after US open when He wins only 1 slam.
If he wins wimbledon 1 Nadal wins Garros and Murray cracks US Open.
That is not a hard scenario to follow.

And it could put Fed just in with enough points to get the #1 rank.
I really cannot see why you would argue over statements like this.


Sienna Says:

Besides
This year has shwion us that M<urray is well in the mix Last year he nearly got Nadal at Claymasters. With Federer and Murray in a stronger position. It will be harder for Nadal to win the clay masters. Esp Madrid is better suited for Fed. He will be the favorite against Nadal if they meet and they are in their current forms.


Steve 27 Says:

Federer is only favorite against Nadal in indoors, Sienna.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Sienna..Simple fact that tennis is played in tennis courts, not on paper makes the difference. It’s much easier to put few options on paper and say why it won’t work, but the reality is tennis matches are decided elsewhere.

Let’s look at wimbledon, where you assumed Roger can win. When did Roger win at Wimbledon. what was his previous years results? Did you count these in you analysis before assuming Roger would win wimbledon. Infact Wimbledon has been his worst grandslam in the last 2 years.

Take FO, one thing most certain is Nadal to be in the finals. Will Roger ever beat Nadal on Clay.

Take AO, Roger has not been in finals again for last 2 years. He has Novak, Rafa, Murray to fight there. As you noted correctly, Murray has a much bigger chance there along with Novak. We can’t count out Nadal too there. So where is Roger’s chance in USO.

Looking at the above options, there is hardly seems to be an opening for Roger to get thru, unless something like 2009 happens where Nadal is taken out early in FO, or Novak and Murray to go out early in other slams.

But wise thing would be to assume if all play well, what will be Roger’s chance in winning. All the other guys Roger competing are in their Primes, so it’s fair to assume they are going to reach atleast Semis. Can Roger beat two of them in the consecutive matches (Semis and Finals). That’s a big IF.


Sienna Says:

The opening is already there. If 1 match can turn the tables on the ramkings with your opponent then it is there. Rafa losing to Roger is not such a great streatch after lastyears final. Whose not to say thta he is a little closer again this year and that just might do it for Garros. And if not and WImbledon fails, he has a shot at US open.
Surely you dont think given recent years that he can’t beat Djoker or Nadal there? Djoker and Nadal already proven that they are below 2011. Fed and Murray are up on 2011.
The race for #1 is on and only ignorant people would see just a two horse race.

SO that leaves Murray to win Wimbledne. It really is not far fetched and well within teh tennis shown by the topplayers during the first part of this year.


Dave Says:

Nirmal Kumar, you shouldn’t make un-called for snarky comments to Sienna when your speculations are chockfull of dubious assumptions and ignorance. Compared to Sienna, looks like you have started watching tennis for the first time just minutes ago, and your information came from the internet.

Nirmal: “Dave..Nothing you write seems to make any sense. Next time try to write something meaningful when you respond.” OK, let’s try again. This time try to read slowly.

When you said: “Looking at last 10 years of Roger’s era, IT’S CERTAIN than to be a No 1 player, they need to win atleast 2 GS and few Masters tournament to get to No.1.”

This was basically my response: It’s certain??? Nope. Nothing is “certain” in the chaotic world of human life. The past does not have to be the future. You are talking the language of the fundamentalist and you are speculating based on your fundamentalist views. Your uncritical certitude at the expense of the facts is a symptom of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism means strict adherence to a set of basic/fundamental beliefs, ideas or principles. Any form of knowledge that is claimed to be “certain” or absolute ceases to be knowledge — it becomes a form of faith for the fundamenatlist.

The facts and the big picture prove my case. In the open era (since 1968), the No. 1 player won only one slam in 16 different years, as my link proves. In other words, in almost 40% of the years in the open era the No. 1 player won just one slam. Your dogma that winning at least two slams is necessary/essential to achieving the No. 1 ranking in the Federer era is flawed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions#Champions_by_year

Now I appreciate that your fundamentalist mindset precludes you from comprehending the meaning of my comment. But don’t worry, the rest of us here (except ajet and your few cheerleaders like grendel) understand the meaning of what I posted. They’re not dumb.

Nirmal: “Dave..When will you post something relevant? There are millions of articles talking about Roger.”

Hmmm, maybe this is more relevant to you: “Roger Federer and the Critics!”
http://www.10sballs.com/2012/03/06/roger-federer-and-the-critics/

Nirmal: “How irrelevant and stupid to point this article (as well as Simon’s) when the discussion is about Roger getting to No1. Infact Tignor never talks about Roger getting back to No1 in this article. He is a smart writer. All he expects is for Roger to win one more slam before he retires, which is very much possible.”

Actually it is really your comment that is irrelevant and stupid as the discussion is not about Roger getting to No1 — this thread is about “Indian Wells Draw: Federer Lands With Nadal, Murray Gets Djokovic Again”.

Listen, I appreciate you are a Lampost that has been pee-ed on a lot, but I posted that quote in my post to Daniel, NOT to you. Who are you to dictate what I should or should not discuss in my conversation with Daniel? Oh, I forgot, you’re a fundamentalist who dictates what we can and cannot say. No wonder grendel found you illuminating.

Stop lying that “All (Tignor) expects is for Roger to win one more slam before he retires”. He NEVER said that, so stop using the half-truth of your partial quote to put words into his mouth to mislead us. As well, your disingenous, meaningless comment “Tignor never talks about Roger getting back to No1 in this article” can be countered with Tignor did not idiotically preclude Roger getting back to No1 in this article.

Indeed, what Tignor wrote was illuminating (but not to fundamentalists): “Federer is playing better, more efficient and complete tennis than he was in his late 20s. All of which fits with an era when tennis breakthroughs are happening later in players’ careers than they ever have… what may be more notable than his recent defeats at the big events is how close Federer remains to winning them. He hasn’t exhibited any of the increased inconsistency that you might expect from an aging champ. Even two years after his last Slam win, he’s still an upset of Djokovic or Nadal away from being the favorite at any major he plays… (Now we’ll see if he can redefine how well one can play, and how much he can win.” However, the fundamentalist in you sees the glass half empty and pontificates based on your biases.

Nirmal: “let’s educate Dave again and try to implement some common sense in him.” Hey, I’m all for learning, development and improvement, I always strive to be better. But first, you to educate yourself and develop common sense. I don’t want my promising life as a poster of facts, logic and reason to be screwed up by your fundamentalist education and cow sense, lol.

Like I said, I have an open mind, so let’s review your intensive program of learning for me…
- Nirmal: “Learning 1: Roger need not win 2 slams to get back to No1.”
- Nirmal: “Learning 2: Roger need not take a break”
- Nirmal: “Learning 3: Roger should not take his pedal off the momentum”
- Nirmal: “Learning 4: Thank goodness Roger did not win AO.”
- Nirmal: “Learning 5: Roger understood his opponents strength”

wow, it sounds like you plagiarized what I said earlier. But that’s Ok. Your learnings just confirm that I have already been educated and always had common sense.


Sienna Says:

Madrid plays like a fast indoor HC. SO he is favorite there.


Dave Says:

Nirmal Kumar: I see you wrote other stuff that requires YOU to be educated and taught common sense.

- Nirmal: “If Roger does not win 2 slams, it means either Nadal or Novak would be the No1, as Nadal would be dominating the clay masters and Novak or Murray most likely the HC masters.” Your speculation is built on assumption upon assumption, lol. First, last year it was Djokovic who dominated the clay masters, not Nadal. This year Nadal will probably be challenged on clay by Djokovic, Federer, Lendl-Murray and others. Second, Federer won 1 to 2 Masters (1 clay, 3 hard court) in each of the past three seasons but he’s playing better now than he had in those years. Third, assuming the four slams go to four different players, Nadal and Djokovic will still have to overcome their 2,930 points gap and 2,070 points gap respectively with Federer. Thus Federer is effectively the equivalent of 2 to 3 Masters 1000 titles ahead of Djokovic and Nadal, without even winning a Masters title yet! I tried in vain to educate some common sense into you earlier with “Since after 2011 US Open, Federer (4,810 points) has built up a 2,070 points gap over Djokovic (2,740 points) and 2,930 points gap over Nadal (1,880), plus or minus non-countable tourneys if any.” For example, to draw level with Roger (since after the 2012 US Open), Djokovic has to win both Indian Wells and Miami.

It’s stupid to presume that the future is a simple linear extrapolation of the past. This is human life — it’s chockfull of chaos and unpredicted variances. Like Steve Tignor said, there is NO reason to rationalize Federer’s losses.

- Nirmal: “Again Ignorant Dave claims wrongly that Roger need not take a break. Just look back at post US11. Roger smartly took a break from Asian swing, so what did he do? He went on a tear and won all the remaining tournaments. It proved to be his best year end performance.” Wrong. Federer’s best year end performance was 2006 (won four titles: Tokyo, Madrid, Basel, World Tour Finals worth 3,500 points today) without taking a long break after US Open. In 2010 Federer played 5 tourneys worth 3,210 points, enabling him to wiin 210 more points than he did in 2011 (won 3 tourneys worth 3,000 points). You parroted Fed’s sound bite without using education or common sense.

- Nirmal: “For ignorant Dave, Roger did not take any pedal off last year not in 2007 which you had claimed. Basically he continued playing all the tournaments and lost in early rounds of IW and Miami (2007).” I suppose you can’t comprehend the meaning of “take your foot off the pedal” which means to relax and make less effort. Federer played 16 tourneys in 2007 and 2008, down from his average of 17 tourneys per year since 2004. In 2007, after a sizzling phase where he won 36 matches and 6 tourneys, culminating in the 2007 Australian Oen without dropping a set, Federer returned from his February vacation looking a bit undercooked at Dubai, where he dropped two sets and struggled against a weak field (including against a 19-year old Djokovic). Federer then spent a couple of days playing with Pete Sampras at his LA home, instead of practising at Indian Wells. Roger lost his first match in straight sets to Guillermo Canas. Federer won less matches and titles compared to the previous three years. In 2011, for example federer looked undercooked and underprepared at Canada and Cincinnati. I was right to say “Federer’s track record since 2007 Australian have shown many patches where he took his foot off the pedal after a significant title or two” — I said “patches”, I never said Federer relaxed for the entire year.

- Nirmal: “You just proved certain important funcions in your body are not working as expected” My body has no funcions.

- Nirmal: “he agreed at the end of the year that other 2 players were very strong” That’s not what he really said (e.g., on Djokovic, Fed actually said: “Novak was the Player of the Year, which goes without saying. A guy who can win 40 matches in a row from the start of the season completely deserves it till the very end of it”). And Fed also said in the same comment “I thought Andy played a very good season this year, Murray. Just unfortunate he couldn’t finish here strong. Other than that I thought he’s going to be very tough to beat next year…. I think right now we have great quality within the top 10, even within the top 20, 25 actually. I’m looking forward to a tough season next year.” Yup, Fed’s already beaten Murray, Delpo and other top 25 players, actually, lol.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Sienna says: Rafa losing to Roger is not such a great streatch after lastyears final.

I’m not sure which match you are talking about. If it’s FO, then it does not make sense. Rafa in one of his worst form and Roger at his best form. Still Roger looses.

Sienna : Surely you dont think given recent years that he can’t beat Djoker or Nadal there

Recent years, he has only lost to them I’m not sue how it suggests he is going to beat them. It baffles me. Though he has a better chance at USO against Novak, but the format can kill him in the Finals. Unless Roger has a easy 3-setter, I cannot see him compete a tough Semi and Final in 2 days unless the final is on Monday.

Sienna says : Djoker and Nadal already proven that they are below 2011

I don’t think so. Nadal beat Roger in 4 sets, but in 2009 it took him 5 sets. So it does not give much hope. Also everyone who say AO mostly agree that Rafa is playing much better tennis this year compared to last year. He is swinging his DTL FH much more and also upped his serve compared to last year. Novak was not as good as last year. But ultimately he won the title. If we can give Roger a bigger chance who lost in the semis, it’s only common sense that you give much bigger chance to the winner of a GS.

Sienna says: The race for #1 is on and only ignorant people would see just a two horse race.

I don’t think anyone will deny it’s a 4 way race. But all the 4 does not have equal percentage to be No1. If we order the 4 per percentage, it should be Novak -40%, Nadal – 30%, Roger -15%, Murray -15%. Just because all four are in the race, they do not have same chance to be No1. Chances of Top2 are much higher than the bottom 2.


Sienna Says:

Does it really baffles you when a player who had matchpoints two years running to get that break and win the next match. He proved last year he can stil beat Djokovic something Nadal is not able to do for 16 months. If he does and give the form Fed is and Djokovic is then I fancy him to overtake Djokovic at US Open.

35%
30%
25%
10%

These are the % you are looking for Djoker, Fed, Nadal, Murray in that order.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Does it really baffles you when a player who had matchpoints two years running to get that break and win the next match.

No, it does not baffle me. Read my comment properly. I said he has a better chance to beat Novak. But what’s the guarantee he will meet Novak. He can meet NAdal too, in which case, we can safely assume Roger will lose, unless I see something in the next 6 months which changes my opinion. But based on past results, it’s much safer to give benefit of doubt to Nadal.

He proved last year he can stil beat Djokovic something Nadal is not able to do for 16 months.

On the other hand, Novak proved that he can beat Nadal in the GS finals, which Roger has not done for past 3 years. There is no doubt Roger can beat anyone outside Nadal, but the numbers may still be in favour of Novak or Murray. The conditions play a big role in Roger’s victory. As Murray noted, if the courts are as faster as it was in the later half of the year or as in Dubai, Roger definitely has a much better chance. But the conditions in which they would be playing for next 5 months are not suitable for him.

If he does and give the form Fed is and Djokovic is then I fancy him to overtake Djokovic at US Open.

I wish it comes true. But Roger has not proved anything yet. He has not won a slam yet. The most criticaly tournament of the year yet, he lost in the semis. Let’s wait till the end of IW and Miami to define if he has proved his form. If he can win one of them, then we can rejoice about his chances.

As far as %, it’s absolutely a personal opinion. But I believe Rafa has much bigger chance to overtake Novak, considering he lost almost every finals. I expect Nadal to add few more points and Novak to lose few. So the net gainer could be Nadal along with Murray. I will not be too surprised if Roger is ranked No 4 for the next GS depending on his results in US Masters.


alison hodge Says:

rave march 8th 11.10pm, dont get me wrong i love madmaxs posts,are love her passion for roger,but i have to say i disagreed with your post,with regard to jane whos one of the best, most intelligent,unbiased and farest posters on this forum,who only said in reply to madmax that everyone is entitled to an opinion,sorry but in what way was that concidered as whining?


Sienna Says:

There is one thing you do not take in youre view and that is Rafa’s state of mind. He is either rebelling or he feels the heat is on. The way he ried to put Fed down and the way he immediately reacts to an interview where Fed raised the timeissue, He could have walked away from it.
But he is agitated and not in a good place atm in his life. Relations with T is not as good as once before. Losing streak to Djoker keeps on stretching. He is at a [pivital moment of his career and the odds and signs are no good for him to overcome. He will falter eventually. Fed only needs 1 victoire to seal the deal where Nadal can only gain more stature in the tennis history by upstaging others and not at Garros.


skeeaeweezer Says:

Yawn.


alison hodge Says:

skeezer your names spelt different unless its another poster.


skeezerweezer Says:

alison,

Typing while riding a bike never works well ;)


Skorocel Says:

trufan: „Sampras benefited from the same thing that NAdal has benefited from – beating up on older players.“

Then we can say Federer beat a washed up Sampras at Wimby & even more washed up Agassi for his USO 2005 & WTF 2003 titles, can’t we?

==========

dave: „If this YTD ranking chart had started just at the end of the US Open, Federer would be on top ahead of Djokovic.“

If this YTD ranking (or any ranking) was based on number of cons. slam semifinals & quarterfinals or number of indoor titles won, Federer would be No. 1. Luckily, it is based on more than that…

==========

Sienna: „Rafa losing to Roger is not such a great streatch after lastyears final. Whose not to say thta he is a little closer again this year and that just might do it for Garros.“

If the FO 2011 final was a 5-setter or if Fed had, say, a MP, your post would not look as stupid as it actually is. But the fact is: Roger, in no less than 5 tries, hasn’t been able to take Nadal not even into a 5th set at RG, yet alone had a MP… Anyway, 5th set or not, consider this: if he can’t convert a setpoint against a more than sub-par Nadal (as it was the case last year in the 1st set), then can you imagine what would’ve gone through his head had he, by some miracle, reached a matchpoint? I personally can’t…

==========

Sienna: „Esp Madrid is better suited for Fed. He will be the favorite against Nadal if they meet and they are in their current forms.“

Exactly. Even Nadal will be saying this before the match should they meet there ;-)

==========

„Federer recently won 3 tourneys in 4 weeks and then 2 tourneys in 3 weeks.“

Yet he’s only third in the rankings… How come, dave? ;-)

==========

Ajet: „I’d take anyday federeer beating nadal over simon reed or anyone else claiming ”even though nadal won it, federer was the best player”!“

Same here…


Ajet Says:

”skeezerweezer Says:
alison,

Typing while riding a bike never works well ;)”

LOL ;)


Sienna Says:

As far as I am concerned that setpoint might just well have been the matchpoint. Nadal is declining so it is a matter of time before Nadal has declined more so then Fed. This year will be again closer then last year.


trufan Says:

Skorocel,

Fed didn’t win the 2001 wimbledon where he beat Sampras, so that is irrelevant.

Yes, he did beat up a washed up Agassi in 2005 USO.

But he did face extremely stiff competition from two players who ended there careers with at least 5 and 10 slams (Djoke and Nadal, and who knows where they end up). And he faced this competition starting 2008, realistically. But he still won slams till at least 2010. Sampras never faced any such champion later on in his career (1996 onwards).


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Sienna says : There is one thing you do not take in youre view and that is Rafa’s state of mind. He is either rebelling or he feels the heat is on.

Yeah, with a pretty bad state of mind, Rafa had beaten up Roger in 4-sets. The match did not even go to 5 sets. So what is the proof that Nadal’s game is being affected.

Sienna says: He is at a [pivital moment of his career and the odds and signs are no good for him to overcome. He will falter eventually. Fed only needs 1 victoire to seal the deal where Nadal can only gain more stature in the tennis history by upstaging others and not at Garros.

I’m not sure based on what scenario you are predicting his failure. If you take out Novak, there is hardly anyone who beats Rafa in a slam. If you are talking about general stature of Nadal with Roger, yeah Nadal is not even in conversation for that. Let him atleast get to 14 slams, before we compare his status with Roger.


Sienna Says:

Nirmal Kumar
A Fed win over Nadal in this part of his career would seal the deal completely. Nadal winning against Fed just adds 1.
Nadalwill needs to win 16 to compare with Fed.


Sienna Says:

Sampras has 14 and he can hardly be compared to Fed. So Nadal with much lesser weeks at #1 and WTF’s surely must equal his slamcount first and he should do so by adding a few others then Garros.


Dave Says:

Nirmal Kumar, you should heed Sienna’s big picture view: “The race for #1 is on and only ignorant people would see just a two horse race.” Simple fact is tennis is played on tennis courts — not on the horse track in your fundamentalist mind — that makes the difference.

Nirmal: “It’s quite hard to understand your ignorance on how things shape up between March – July. Typically it’s Nadal who dominates in this time period and Novak did in 2011. Having Novak and Murray in the picture along with Nadal, there is hardly a chance for Roger to win any Masters in this period.” Federer just beat Murray in straight sets, doh. If he could do it in Dubai, he could do it at a Masters tourney. Federer’s overall actual draw in Dubai (no. 40, No. 34, No. 15, No. 10, No. 4) was tough and certainly comparable more or less to a Masters 1000 draw. A major British newspaper noted: “The temptation to regard (Dubai) as a minor title ought to be resisted because, even though it carries only 500 ranking points, Rafael Nadal was the only notable absentee.”

Nirmal: “It’s increasingly getting difficult for Roger to get to Finals, forget about winning them.” Since the US Open, Federer has reached 5 finals in 7 tourneys. No other top player has come close. A major British newspaper noted: “(Federer) has not won a grand slam title in more than two years but the odds on him adding to his glittering collection of 16 are shortening by the tournament. At 30, he is in the golden autumn of his career. Since he leapfrogged Murray into third in the world late last year, he has returned to near his best – and that is a daunting prospect for his contemporaries.”"

Nirmal “Post 2010 AO, Roger has reached only one Finals ie FO 11.” The same Tignor wisdom that you pretend is irrelevant is so relevant to you: “Federer is playing better, more efficient and complete tennis than he was in his late 20s… what may be more notable than his recent defeats at the big events is how close Federer remains to winning them… Even two years after his last Slam win, he’s still an upset of Djokovic or Nadal away from being the favorite at any major he plays.”

Nirmal “Let’s look at wimbledon, where you assumed Roger can win. When did Roger win at Wimbledon. what was his previous years results? Did you count these in you analysis before assuming Roger would win wimbledon. Infact Wimbledon has been his worst grandslam in the last 2 years.” In 2011 Wimbledon, Federer lost to a red hot Tsonga who — at the “playing with nothing to lose” level he played that day — might have beaten Nadal or Djokovic. A set was taken off Djokovic with Tsonga at a lower “playing with something to win” level. Tsonga twice beat Nadal in 2011, including at London Queens Club grass tourney. In 2010 wimbledon, Federer was hobbled by an injury he had picked up in the Halle semifinals — this was evident since his first round, when he nearly lost in three sets to Alejandro Falla, a clay court player he had rolled over on French Open clay just three weeks earlier. Federer was so vulnerable he could not take advantage of the grass on centre court (the grass is slickest on the first match of the championships) over a journeyman clay courter. Something was not right about Federer at 2010 Wimbledon.

Nirmal “Will Roger ever beat Nadal on Clay.” Federer has twice beaten Nadal on clay — at Madrid 2009 and Hamburg 2007. Federer didn’t go down without a fight at FO 2011 — Federer had setpoint on first set, and both Roger and Rafa each created 15 breakpoint opportunities (Nadal converted 7 to Federer’s 5 conversions).
http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2012/01/26/federer-went-down-but-not-without-a-fight/


Dave Says:

Nirmal, what’s certain is that you keep claiming to be certain about the future: “Take FO, one thing most certain is Nadal to be in the finals.” This ‘Most Certain Nadal’ certainly failed to reach the 2009 final, losing in the R16. He was taken to five sets in the first round of 2011 FO. This year he is going to face more challengers with the potential of beating him before the final. Nothing is 100% CERTAIN in human life, only fanatical fundamentalists think like that. At most you can say it is 85% ‘highly likely’ Nadal will be in the final.

Nirmal “Take (US Open), Roger has not been in finals again for last 2 years.” Each time, Federer was one of two swings away from goign to the final.

Nirmal “If it’s FO, then it does not make sense. Rafa in one of his worst form and Roger at his best form. Still Roger looses.” Both Federer and Nadal each had 15 breakpoint opportunities, so what separated winner from loser were Nadal winning the extra two points that gave him 7 breaks to Federer’s five breaks. The entirematch might have been very different had Federer put away that relatively easy setpoint in the first set instead of going for the drop shot.

Nirmal: “Recent years, he has only lost to them I’m not sue how it suggests he is going to beat them. It baffles me.” Recent years? Big Four H2H since 2009 Cincinnati Masters 1000 (Djokovic leads other Big Four 18-10, Federer leads other Big Four 13-12, Nadal losing to other Big Four 13-15, Murray losing to other Big Four 7-14):

- Federer leads Djokovic 6-5

- Federer leads Murray 5-2

- Djokovic leads Nadal 2-10

- Djokovic leads Murray 3-2

- Nadal leads Murray 6-3

- Nadal leads Federer 5-2 , involves three clay matches (5-3 if 2009 Madrid included, four clay matches)

nirmal: “Also everyone who say AO mostly agree that Rafa is playing much better tennis this year compared to last year.” Nadal is also 9-2 this year just as he was at the same stage last year. But last year he was trying to pass off his losses to claimed illness and claimed injury, whereas this year his losses occured while he was healthy. Nadal really shone in only three matches (he was spotty against Berdych and Djokovic) but was so-so in his first 7 matches. To pronounce that Nadal is playing better tennis this year based on only three matches is premature.

nirmal: “If we can give Roger a bigger chance who lost in the semis, it’s only common sense that you give much bigger chance to the winner of a GS.” Had Federer and Djokovic met in the semifinals, there’s a good probability Federer could have beaten a Djokovic below last year’s level. Coach Patrick Mouratoglou assessed the AO final as “average level of play”: “They were better in the last US Open final: Spaniard Nadal played very short all match, and his Serbian opponent was not able to take advantage of this enough. Rafa was far below the level he reached during the matches against Tomas Berdych and Roger Federer…Nole wasn’t at his best during this match,”
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/patrick-mouratoglou/learnt-final-165905505.html


alison hodge Says:

whos to say fed wont win more slams or get back to number 1,but then again whos to say that the same thing wont also happen to rafa,the only thing we know for sure,is that we know nothing,sienna correct me if im wrong but rafas only played 1 tourney this year and actually made the final in that,surely its a bit too soon to talk about decline,lets see how the rest of the year pans out 1st,alot can happen between now and then.


jane Says:

I think this stat “Djokovic leads other Big Four 18-10″ is a large part of why Nole is number 1 now, or why he got to number 1. Because before he kept getting stopped at the semis stages or so of slams and Masters. It’s winning over Fed and Nadal that changed everything for him and allowed him to climb to the top. Especially Nadal, because prior to beating Nadal at IW last year he hadn’t won a final versus him, and prior to beating Nadal at Wimbledon, he’d never won a slam match versus him. And prior to AO this year he’d never won a 5 setter versus Rafa. So those wins over Fed and Rafa in slams, at the USO last year back-to-back, really made all the difference for him. He had to do SO MUCH to earn number one, not just win one slam. It was quite the momentous climb imo. Loved watching it happen.


jane Says:

I agree with alison that it’s a little too early in the year to make any calls about form. She has a point – since people are saying Nole’s form is bad or Rafa’s form is questionable, it’s worth noting, as others have that if anything Rafa looked IMPROVED at the AO, as did Murray I might add. And even though Nole struggled, he nonetheless won the thing. So it seems a lot has yet to be determined. No script is written. It’s exciting -but it makes picking the brackets difficult. Have no idea who’ll win IW!


alison hodge Says:

jane yeah should have included,nole staying at no 1,for the rest of this year ,in that senario too,but i get your drift anything can happen,and thats what makes tennis so exciting,good luck with your bracket whomever you pick,never done it as yet,too late this time i know,but ill give it a go next time,sounds like it could be good fun.


Dave Says:

alison hodge:”whos to say fed wont win more slams or get back to number 1,but then again whos to say that the same thing wont also happen to rafa,the only thing we know for sure,is that we know nothing…lets see how the rest of the year pans out 1st,alot can happen between now and then.” Jane: “I agree with alison that it’s a little too early in the year to make any calls about form.” Absolutely right. Anything is possible at this point. Federer, Murray, Delpo or Raonic could easily turn out to be the biggest surprise of the season as much as Djokovic or Nadal are predicted to fight for No. 1. At most, we can speculate scenarios. No one can say they are ‘certain’ that this scenario will happen or that scenario won’t happen, regardless what happened in the past. Otherwise Djokovic’s 2011 would never have happened. As I proved before, Novak was fourth on the list to win the 2011 Australian Open according to top bookmakers.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/YTD-Singles.aspx

Nirmal: “If you take out Novak, there is hardly anyone who beats Rafa in a slam.” During Nadal’s prime 2008 to 2012 (17 slam tourneys), he has lost 10 matches in the 17 grand slam tourneys to tsonga, murray, delpo, sodeling, DNP, murray, ferrer, djokovic, djokovic, djokovic. So it is myth that Nadal hardly loses in a slam.

Nirmal: “what’s the guarantee he will meet Novak. He can meet NAdal too, in which case, we can safely assume Roger will lose” Your speculations are based on your assumption this will be only a two horse race. You are stuck in the mud of your fundamentalist worldview while Sienna is open to various possibilities.

Nirmal: “The conditions play a big role in Roger’s victory…But the conditions in which they would be playing for next 5 months are not suitable for him.” Wow, how did Federer manage to reach 102 finals, win 72 titles including 22 major championships and break all those records? Must have all happened outside March to September, when conditions were not suitable for him.

Nirmal’s irrelevant response “On the other hand, Novak proved that he can beat Nadal in the GS finals, which Roger has not done for past 3 years” to Sienna’s assessment “Does it really baffles you when a player who had matchpoints two years running to get that break and win the next match. He proved last year he can stil beat Djokovic something Nadal is not able to do for 16 months. If he does and give the form Fed is and Djokovic is then I fancy him to overtake Djokovic at US Open.”

Nirmal: “The most criticaly tournament of the year yet, he lost in the semis.” Hmmm, let’s apply your standards to you and ajet: you’ve both lost your debates in the most critical last few days, so therefore we are 100% certain you both have no chance in future debates. We know from your past speculations that your future speculations are going to be as bad or worse.

Nirmal: “I believe Rafa has much bigger chance to overtake Novak, considering he lost almost every finals. I expect Nadal to add few more points and Novak to lose few.” Nadal lost ALL 7 finals, not “almost every finals”. Now we can apply your double standards to Federer: I believe Federer has much bigger chance to beat Nadal in grand slam matches, considering he lost almost every match (8 of 10 matches). I expect Federer to add few more points and Nadal to lose few.

Nirmal: “Nirmal: “So what is the proof that Nadal’s game is being affected” His 17 losses since January 2011 (7 consecutive finals to Djokovic and 10 matches to others)


jamie Says:

alison hodge Says:
mem yeah i completely agree,if not for novak playing lights out tennis last year,and winning the ao at the start of this year,then rafa would have two career grand slams,shame really,would haves,could haves,should haves,and ifs and buts,dont amount to doodle squat in the real world.

__________________

Nadal with 2 career slams?! GTFO. That would be the end of tennis as a credible sport.

Thank goodness for Nole.


alison hodge Says:

jamie uugh had to look twice as i thought for a minute it thought it said jane at the top of the post,should have known better really jane would never make a tasteless comment like that,i notice you went missing after your dodgy prediction about djokovic beating roger at dubai last week.


Ajet Says:

Dave:

how long really it takes you to get that you’ve lost credibity is what is amusing me, hehehe!

And btw, just because someone believes contrary to you that nadal has bigger chance of overtaking novak while you believe fed may overtake, doesn’t make him a fundamentalist.

Clowns like you don’t get anything doesn’t mean all are brainless. In this case, what you fail to get is that while roger used to win on non-clay surfaces prior to 2008, against nadal, nadal reversed the trend and has dominated federe also on non-clay surfaces sonce 2008; whereas with djoker, it wasd just the opposite, he used to beat nadal basically on only hard, but since 2011 thee tred has reversed and djoker is now dominating him on all surfaces! SO IT’S THERE FOR ALL TO SEE roger is heading in which direction w.r.t. his rivalry with nadal and djoker in heading in which!

moreover, djoker could beat fed at only slower hard court formerly, but now he has started beating fed even on fast hard and clay(including slow)! formerly, djoker was expected to upset fed, now it reads in most places that fed upset nole! May be you still cannot see the difference, lol!

so, yeah, in your dreams, you can all imagine that fed is in ideal situation, but in reality, he’s not! of course, that may change! but for now, it’s the world of djoker and nadal, and it’s safe to bet on them like it was safe to bet on fed in his heydays!

and scarily, 2011 was the first year that nadal reached all masters finals that he played in the 1st half of the season, beating fed twice enroute in masters itself, and am not even counting nadal’s beating of fed at the beginning of year at cash-rich event held in gulf in 2011! and nadal didn’t lose to anyone at those masters events except djoker! quite a trend! shows nadal was more consistennt last year than he has ever been! hardly encouraging considering the age of federer!

and btw, learn to accept reality a bit more, or else don’t blame that others didn’t warn you against being foolish, in case your predictions go wrong. Of course, it’s another thng that your predictions are what i am hoping for, i.e. for fed to reagin no.1 and win a slam or two; but i certainly am not expecting it heavily!


Sienna Says:

Of course no one can look in the future and say with absolute certainty that this or this is going to happen. I feel however that Fed is in a very strong mental and fysical position to attack the next 6 months.

I also feel he has not taken any time of from his training after WTF. He is in a much fitter shape then last year. He ran out of steam after FO.
I think the Fed of last year would have gotten beaten by Murray or Del Potro.

I think this is the first year since many that he is as fresh as a daisy this time around.

Even after 2010 didnt he got lung infection so that really set him back.
2009 he had back problems. I remember him hammering those rackets.
Last year I feel he took lots of time of for resting his body after WTF.

SO this might just be his first real chance he has at one of his TMFlike years.


jamie Says:

That was my prediction, not the psychic’s.


rave Says:

I guess some of you think you are some kind of braniacs, posting long commentaries and dissertations with insults interjected now and then in your posts. Yawn, that is even more boring than the Nadal-Djokovich AO match. But, hey, if that makes you happy, go for it. Round and round we go in this never ending discussion, and round and round I go reading this never ending discussion. I guess I am as crazy as any of these posters.


Skorocel Says:

Dave: „In 2011 Wimbledon, Federer lost to a red hot Tsonga who — at the “playing with nothing to lose” level he played that day — might have beaten Nadal or Djokovic. A set was taken off Djokovic with Tsonga at a lower “playing with something to win” level.“

So against Federer, he (Tsonga) plays as if he had „nothing to lose“, yet against Djokovic he plays as if he had „something to win“ – hence the loss? Poor boy Roger – even though he’s only the 3rd best player right now, whenever he plays against the likes of Tsonga (or any other lesser ranked player for that matter), they always have nothing to lose and therefore play good, whereas when they play against Djokovic or Nadal, they suddenly have something to win, and therefore it is much tougher for them to win, LOL ;-) Doesn’t matter if losing a slam quarterfinal leading 2 sets to love equals choking – if it’s Roger, he lost because his opponent was playing with „nothing to lose“ ;-)

===========

Dave: „Both Federer and Nadal each had 15 breakpoint opportunities, so what separated winner from loser were Nadal winning the extra two points that gave him 7 breaks to Federer’s five breaks. The entirematch might have been very different had Federer put away that relatively easy setpoint in the first set instead of going for the drop shot.“

It might have been different had Roger converted one of these 2 setpoints at 5-1 in the 1st set of their Hamburg 2008 final, or brought home these 3-0 & 4-1 leads in both sets of their MC 2008 final, or converted one of those 2 MPs in their Rome 2006 final, or converted more than just 1 BP of a total of 17 BPs in their FO 2007 final, or converted one of those 5 BPs which he had at the end of the 3rd set of their AO 2009 final (at 1 set apiece), or had his dropshot at 4-2 in the 2nd set tiebreak of their Madrid 2010 final didn’t hit the netcord, or or or or or or… Doesn’t that sound familiar to you? All these chances, yet all blown up… If you’ve followed the Fedal „rivalry“ from their very first match in Miami 2004 (judging from your posts I guess you did), you should’ve known that, from all their 27 meetings thus far, you could count as much as 3 matches where Federer really took advantage of pretty much every chance that presented itself – Madrid 2009, WTF 2010 & WTF 2011 (or make that 4 if we add their WTF 2007 semi). All his other wins were more often than not very hard fought for, and the rest – well, you know it… Whenever there was a slight chance to really turn the match around in his favor, Roger, more often than not, sh.t in his pants… That’s not „it might have been different“ – that’s pure FEAR & CHOKING. After seeing Fed failing so many times against Nadal in these crucial stages, only a complete idiot would call it otherwise…

But you know what, Dave? It „might have been different“, but only if Roger had as much balls as Djokovic has when he plays Nadal. I for one still regret that Federer beat the Serb in that FO 2011 semifinal… Not only because Federer turned all that great effort from this match into nothing when he once again screwed up against Nadal, but also because, had Djoker won that one, he would still have had a chance to beat that McEnroe’s streak, but MOST IMPORTANTLY, he would’ve showed to Roger and every person with blinders like you HOW it is to play when someone really believes in himself and doesn’t sh.t in his pants whenever there’s an chance to get a firm grip on the outcome of the match… That „might have been different“ indeed…

===========

Dave: „As I proved before, Novak was fourth on the list to win the 2011 Australian Open according to top bookmakers.“

Yeah, and Nadal was a 1-50 underdog to win that semifinal against Roger, LOL ;-)

===========

jane: „It’s winning over Fed and Nadal that changed everything for him and allowed him to climb to the top. Especially Nadal, because prior to beating Nadal at IW last year he hadn’t won a final versus him, and prior to beating Nadal at Wimbledon, he’d never won a slam match versus him. And prior to AO this year he’d never won a 5 setter versus Rafa. So those wins over Fed and Rafa in slams, at the USO last year back-to-back, really made all the difference for him. He had to do SO MUCH to earn number one, not just win one slam. It was quite the momentous climb imo.“

Unbelievable how quickly times can change, isn’t it? Prior to IW 2011 no final won against Nadal – now 7 in a row… Prior to Wimby 2011 no slam win over Nadal – now 3 in a row… Enjoy the success of your guy while it lasts – he really had to fight for it!


jane Says:

Thanks Skorocel: it’s been great though I don’t know how long it’ll last. But whatever – so nice to see him reach number 1.

Dave, after Wimbledon Tsonga, when asked to compare how he played versus Fed versus how he played versus Nole, Tsonga said “today I would have beaten anyone except Djokovic” and he called Nole the best player in the world at the moment. If you watched the Nole/Tsonga match, it was fantastic. And Tsonga said what set Nole apart was his return (he neutralized Tsonga’s serve or pressured it) and his running; he was “everywhere” in Tsonga’s opinion. By contrast, I have read here some Fed fans even saying that Fed was strangely passive during Tsonga’s come back from two sets down. He didn’t fight enough. I don’t know if that is true, but I do know what I heard straight from the player’s mouth, i.e., Tsonga’s.

http://m.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/2011/06/Wimbledon/Wimbledon-2011-SF-Interview-Tsonga.aspx


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Mr Dave being a poor student as he is, will little knowledge on tennis, except crawling around internet to find what experts say about Roger without even understanding the context needs few more tennis lessons as well as how to apply common sense (which he lacks, but we will try to improve it).

Lesson 1 for Dave: During Nadal’s prime 2008 to 2012 (17 slam tourneys), he has lost 10 matches in the 17 grand slam tourneys to tsonga, murray, delpo, sodeling, DNP, murray, ferrer, djokovic, djokovic, djokovic. So it is myth that Nadal hardly loses in a slam.

We can always twist the timeline as we want right? The talk here was for last 2 years ie starting 2010 when Rafa really had a great season and next year though it was great, it was spoiled only by Novak. So yeah, he rarely lost to anyone outside Novak. And even the only tournament he played this year, he lost only to Novak. So nothing much has changed. There is no point in talking about 2008 or 2005. Let’s be more relevant.

Lesson 2 for Dave : Your speculations are based on your assumption this will be only a two horse race. You are stuck in the mud of your fundamentalist worldview while Sienna is open to various possibilities

Again misinterpretation and lack of common sense here. In my conversation with Sienna we had exchanged the possibility of all 4 with what percentage chances they have. So it is never a 2 horse race, except Roger is most likely (almost certain in GS) to lose to Nadal compared to other 2. He definitely has chances against other 2 players (Murray , Novak)

Lesson 3 for Dave :Wow, how did Federer manage to reach 102 finals, win 72 titles including 22 major championships and break all those records? Must have all happened outside March to September, when conditions were not suitable for him.

Again an irrelevant and stupid stat. We are talking about the timeline when both Rafa and Novak had hit their peak ie from 2010. Please do the counting and get back to me.

Lesson 4 for Dave : “The most criticaly tournament of the year yet, he lost in the semis.” Hmmm, let’s apply your standards to you and ajet: you’ve both lost your debates in the most critical last few days, so therefore we are 100% certain you both have no chance in future debates. We know from your past speculations that your future speculations are going to be as bad or worse.

Absolute nonsense.

Lesson 5 for Dave : Nadal lost ALL 7 finals, not “almost every finals”. Now we can apply your double standards to Federer: I believe Federer has much bigger chance to beat Nadal in grand slam matches, considering he lost almost every match (8 of 10 matches). I expect Federer to add few more points and Nadal to lose few.

Did Rafa not win FO and MC masters. So “almost” applies perfectly for Rafa. Also last stat I understood for Roger about 0-4 from 2008 and 0-1 in 2011. Not sure what chances Roger has against Rafa in what context.

Lesson 6 for Dave : His 17 losses since January 2011 (7 consecutive finals to Djokovic and 10 matches to others)

Yes. But who cares. We wins the most important ones are get to the finals of most important ones. If Rafa was mentally affected, is it not a shame that a mentally strong Roger lost to mentally disturbed Rafa in a GS semis. So Rafa’s mental disturbance does not have any effect on him beating others when it matters except Novak.
Many may even argue that he played better finals against Novak this AO compared to his other matches. But i’m not part of that group. It was basically a 80% Novak with 100% NAdal, hence the close contest. But still Nadal proves to be plenty for others outside Novak.

Lesson 7 for Dave : Let’s wait till end of March to talk how Roger’s form has improved compared to previous years, relatively his chances of getting to No1.


Ajet Says:

well, thoughtful and analyical posts from nirmal and skorocel make dave again look idotic as ever!

and also thanks jane for showing the link to dave as to what tsonga had to say w.r.t. his matches agsinst fed and djoker; dave may learn a thing or two or more from the posts of you people.

that said, roger of 2011 was definitely not looking primed to win wimby(unlike the fed of yore), thus no surprise he was beaten by tso. nobody should be surprised if fed cannot beat the guys all the time t reach final or semi in slams, it’s only expected after how long federer dominated tennis that the tour would finally take its toll o him, and he’d klose more and more matches. but at least he’s trying, and i won’t be surprised even if fed wins a slam beating everybody includong even nadal, coz for what we all know, if anybody can do it better than the rest, it’s ROGER FEDERER!!!
ALLEZ FEDERER!!!


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Ajet, you are right. But my concern for Roger is not about his form. It’s about wimbledon conditions. Last year, Martina N made a comment immediately after FO, when everyone was raving about Roger’s form and his prospects of winning Wimbleedon. She immediately put it down, saying the balls used in Wimbledon are almost 6 times heavier, and it gives much less chance for Roger’s style of play. I did see Roger timing in Wimbledon was way off from the begining. Infact his match against Youzny was way more competitive than it should have been (he is a good player though).

So I’m not sure if these conditions are killing Roger’s chances or the opponents. I believe it’s the combination of both.


Ajet Says:

I mean lose more and more matches in my prior post and not klose


Ajet Says:

nirmal:

all i can say about the balls getting heavier is IT’S KILLING ME! How can they do such stupid things! are they bent on destroying agressive tennis for the snoozefests like Anadal-djoker AO matches!


jane Says:

They should keep the balls more consistent across the board, imo. It is better for the players to be accustomed to a particular ball and to avoid injuries from the switch (e.g., one ball for clay masters last year then switched for FO).

Thanks Ajet. I am sure Fed can likely win another slam. I don’t see why not as he is still a contender at all the slams, reaching the QFs or better all the time.


Sienna Says:

Well there really is nohingmuchto say. I have two children 5 and 3 and when they go on a tear with their respected logic. Well nothing but just nothing can take anything away from them. It is a good quality to have but unfortunately they tend to be stuck in their (still) limitedview. The same can be said of Nirmal and Ajet.
To not see the possibilities that has been put forward and the logic is just a shame.

But anywayz Djoker and Nadal will know and have already felt the change in Murray, Fed and maybe DelPotro so they know that in order to stay at the top of the mountain they need to get better.
Clay seasoun has unofficially been opened by the start oif Indian Wells lets see how things unfolled.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Sienna says: To not see the possibilities that has been put forward and the logic is just a shame.

Don’t you think the same applies to you also, who keeps coming back with the same logic again and again.


Ajet Says:

”Nirmal Kumar Says:
Sienna says: To not see the possibilities that has been put forward and the logic is just a shame.

Don’t you think the same applies to you also, who keeps coming back with the same logic again and again.”

DITTO. And who knows, may be the kids would grow up to be much more intelligent than Sienna, who usually keeps coming back with her imaginary drivel forecasting some quick possibl decline of nadal and djoker while predicting the sudden revival of federer’s fortune, even though everyuthing in the last two years have pointed to the contrary.


jamie Says:

I would like to see Murray winning IW.


Dave Says:

Nirmal Kumar, it’s easy to prove your blissful ignorance that “even the only tournament (Nadal) played this year, he lost only to Novak”: Nope. Rafa also lost 3-6, 4-6 loss to Gael Monfils at Doha. As well Nadal struggled in 3 sets against Kohlschreiber in Doha and could have lost to Berdych at the Australian Open. Nadal’s best match of the year was against Federer, and his next best matches (Djokovic, Berdych) were spotty.

Applying your own standards proves you are twisting the timeline when you said “The talk here was for last 2 years ie starting 2010 when Rafa really had a great season and next year”. Fact is Sienna never talked about the last 2 years starting 2010. Sienna really talked about performance since 2011 (including slams and Masters), at most until Nadal’s last win over Djokovic and his contact lens at 2010 WTF 16 months ago (Sienna said “Djoker and Nadal already proven that they are below 2011″ as well as “(Federer) proved last year he can stil beat Djokovic something Nadal is not able to do for 16 months”).

As well, your partial argument “If you take out Novak, there is hardly anyone who beats Rafa in a slam” ignores that Sienna’s discussion went beyond the Slams — also to Masters as well as overall performance to reach No. 1.

Nadal in his prime has proven himself to be more vulnerable to losses, so it’s quite possible he could lose before the finals even at slams, like he did at 2010 AO and 2011 AO. Since his last win over Djokovic at 2010 WTF, Nadal lost 18 matches. This includes 6 major matches (2010 WTF and 2011 WTF RR to Federer, 2011 AO QF to Ferrer, as well as 2011 Wimbledon, 2011 US Open and 2012 AO to Djokovic) and 13 other matches (Davydenko, Djokovic, Djokovic, Djokovic, Djokovic, Tsonga, No. 41 Dodig, Fish, Murray, No. 23 Mayer, Tsonga, Monfils). In 2011, Nadal lost 4 of the 8 mandatory Masters 1000 events before the final (R2, R3, QF, DNP). Since 2010 WTF, Federer lost only 14 matches to top 19 players (Federer has not lost to a player ranked lower than No. 19 since 2010 Halle).

Contrary to your view “There is no point in talking about 2008″, it’s stupid to extrapolate Nadal’s 2010 to 2011 results to pretend “if you take out Novak, here is hardly anyone who beats Rafa in a slam” as if top 5 players like Ferrer and Murray are “hardly anyone”, lol. Given Nadal’s 18 losses since he last beat Djokovic at 2010 WTF, it’s prudent to consider the bigger picture of Nadal’s win-loss at slams to see through your misleading perception that Nadal is almost invincible at slams outside Djokovic. Nadal can be beaten by players other than Djokovic, and the law of law numbers suggest he is due for losses this year.

- Nadal’s prime 2008 to 2012 (17 slam tourneys) proves it is myth that Nadal hardly loses in a slam: in 17 grand slam tourneys, Rafa won only 7 grand slam titles and has lost 10 GS matches to tsonga (2008 AO SF), murray (2008 USO SF), soderling (2009 FO R4), DNP (2009 Wimbledon), delpo (2009 USO SF), murray (2010 AO QF), ferrer (2011 AO QF), djokovic (2011 Wimbledon), djokovic (2011 USO), djokovic 2011 AO). Four players who have never won a slam have beaten Nadal.

- Federer from 2003 Wimbledon to 2007 US Open in 18 slam tourneys, Roger won 12 grand slam titles and lost only 6 GS matches to only multiple GS champions and one GS finalist: Nalbandian (2003 USO R4), Kuerten (2004 FO R3), Safin (2005 AO SF) and Nadal (2005 FO SF, 2006 FO F, 2007 FO F). Federer’s incredible 67% slam winning rate during that period (which was the best in men’s and women’s tennis history) was replicated again in the middle of Nadal’s prime between 2008 USO to 2010 Australian Open when he won the equivalent of a career grand slam in those 4 titles from just 6 slam tourneys, losing 2 matches only to Nadal and Delpo. Now Federer is a person who hardly lost to anyone

Regardless it’s never prudent to presume that the immediate past of 2011 is the best indicator of 2012 results. tennis is chockfull of examples that show why such linear thinking is never “certain”: E.g., Djokovic’s mediocre 2010 did not portend his exceptional 2011. Thus an argument like “If you take out Novak, there is hardly anyone who beats Rafa in a slam”


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Dave..all the rubbish about NAdal losing to many players is nil and void when we look at the big picture.

Except that your load of rubbish how dominant Roger was in 2004-07 is understood by everyone even without your ignorant posts.

Let’s look at the next 3 slams (FO, Wim, USO). Starting 2010, how many players have beaten Nadal in these three slams? I don’t care about AO, since it’s already done and also NAdal has excelled in AO12 compared to his previous years.

How funny is to take Doha loss as something serious? It’s a tournament Rafa and Roger play for appearance fees.

They why not say Roger again lost to Rafa in Abu Dhabi exo. Doha is nothing more than a exo for these guys. You think Roger would have retired from any serious tournament midway?


Dave Says:

Jane, your argument (March 9th 5:34 pm) is irrelevant to my point that Tsonga played at a higher level against Federer in the quarterfinal than he played against Djokovic in the semifinal (yet Tsonga still took a set off Novak playing at a lower level). What Tsonga actually said in his interview after losing to Djokovic in the Wimby semifinal was: Q. “What was the main difference today from the match against Federer?” JO-WILFRIED TSONGA: “I think today I played well. I can beat everybody today, but not Djokovic, because he just played unbelievable. He was everywhere. He returns unbelievable all the time on his baseline, so is tough. That’s it.” (In response to other questions Tsonga said that on grass he preferred playing Nadal to Federer and Djokovic. As well, Tsonga said that on hard courts Federer, Djokovic and Nadal “are all good. No, they are just big champion, and that’s it. Every week is different. One week it’s Roger, one week it’s Novak, and one week it’s Rafa. You never know.”)
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=72485

What Tsonga said and how he actuallly played indicates that Tsonga played at a higher level (especially in the final three sets) against Federer than he did against Djokovic in the semifinal (expect for the fourth set). After beating Federer, Tsonga said he played perfect tennis in the zone (“I was just perfect today. I don’t know. Every time I was feeling like a dream”) that’s how players in the zone often describe their mindset. Tsonga never said anything like that about his next match against Novak, other than “I think today I played well.”

I said the red hot Tsonga in the quarter who beat Federer — by “playing with nothing to lose” — could have beaten Nadal or Djokovic. Tsonga said in the same interview that on grass courts he preferred to play Nadal (rather than Federer or Djokovic) so he was more confident of beating Nadal (and he did beat Nadal at both London Queens Club and again at WTF that year). Against Djokovic, Tsonga played as if he had a chance to win and that caution was enough to let Novak take the first two sets. Only in the third set (with his back against the wall) did Tsonga throw the kitchen sink at Djokovic but Tsonga was possibly too tired from his five setter quarterfinal to win any more sets from Djokovic.

Btw, in the quarterfinal Federer still played at a very high level in the third set to win more return points than Tsonga but couldn’t string together enough returns to create more breakpoint opportunities.Tsonga took his cuts and some on them landed on the at the right time to break Fed’s serve. By the fourth and fifth sets Federer hunkered down trying to play conservative tennis that appeared passive. In hindsight, it’s easy to criticize Federer for being conservative. But there’s a good reason for what Fed did: he probably never expected Tsonga to keep it up for five sets. Remember, Federer easily straight-setted Tsonga in their previous three matches, including a grand slam semifinal in 2010 Australia, so he never expected that sustained superhuman effort from Tsonga. Neither does Tsonga’s career history have many of such come backs.


Dave Says:

Nirmal Kumar, the most famous example of (a) a player becoming No. 1 without winning any slams and (b) a player going from one season winning multiple slams to the next season without winning even one slam (or reaching even one slam final)… is the great Rod Laver. In 1969, Laver won all four grand slam titles as well as many other titles in what was arguably the greatest or second greatest season in tennis history. In 1970, Laver failed to win a single slam, for various reasons. Howveer, in 1970 no player dominated the season (four diffent players shared the four slams) and Laver was still considered the No.1 (or co-No. 1 with Rosewall and Newcombe) as Laver won 14 to 15 other tournaments (many as big or bigger than today’s Masters 1000 events in importance) outside the four slams. Laver (with his 11 grand slam titles and 8 pro slam titles) was no Caroline Wozniacki, but was No. 1 in a similar situation. Such a scenario — one of many alternative scenarios, of course — is within the realm of possibility this year. A player could win one or no slams, yet still gain the highest points for No. 1 ranking at some point in the year (as long as no other player wins more than two slams). In such situations, it is possible the ITF and ATP might disregard computer rankings in awarding best player (eg., Borg-Conners, Becker-Lendl) but Connors and Lendl both ended those years with the highest computer points in No. 1 ranking.

You love to repetitively spew the word “rubbish” “rubbish” to provide the smokescreen for you to repeat your flawed comments. Fact remains, when you look at the big picture, that Nadal lost to more players than to “hardly anyone” as you falsely claim.

- Fact remains, when you look at the big picture, that Federer’s dominance was in 2004-07 was legitimized when several players from that era beat Nadal or Djokovic and contnued to win titles during the Nadal-Djokovic years. Even past his peak Federer won 4 grand slam titles and 2 WTF titles since 2008 USO. Since 2008, Nadal has a losing record not just to Djokovic but also to Davydenko. David Ferrer has beaten Nadal in grand slams. Year to date, 14 of the last 22 ATP tourneys have been won by players active during the Federer’s 2004 to 2007. Etc, etc.

- Your comment that loss at Doha is not serious or that the Abu Dhabi exhibition is as serious as a real ATP tourney like Doha — simply because appearance fees are paid — is ludicrous and irrational. If that’s the case, then why did Nadal try his hardest for threr hours to lose 6-0, 6-7(8), 4-6 to his nemesis Davydenko at the 2010 Doha final or bother to show up to the 2011 Doha semifinal to allow Davydenko to crush him and increase his career winning record over Nadal? You might as well say that Nadal’s wins at 2010 Barcelona and 2010 Tokyo were not serious as he was paid appearance money. It’s been rumoured that Nadal had been paid appearance fees to play Monte Carlo since it lost its mandatory status, so his last two titles are also not serious. You need to think harder beforee typing.

- Nirmal: “You think Roger would have retired from any serious tournament midway?” First, Federer did not retire, he withdrew. Second, you think 2008 Paris Masters 1000 was not a serious tournament (Federer gave a walkover to James Blake in the quarterfinals). Federer’s Doha match against Andreas Seppi indicated something was not right.

nirmal: “I understood for Roger about 0-4 from 2008 and 0-1 in 2011.” Nonsense. Federer and Nadal are 2-2 in finals since 2009 Madrid, while Nadal lost 7 consecutive finals to Novak (Fed won 2009 Madrid clay final and 2010 WTF hardcourt final, while Rafa won 2010 clay final and 2011 French Open clay final). Thus we CAN apply to Federer-Nadal nirmal’s brilliant principle “I believe Rafa has much bigger chance to overtake Novak, considering he lost almost every finals. I expect Nadal to add few more points and Novak to lose few.” Now we can apply your double standards to Federer: I believe Federer has much bigger chance to overtake Nadal, considering he split the last four finals. I expect Federer to add few more points and Nadal to lose few. You show your double standards if you deny this.

Nirmal: “In my conversation with Sienna we had exchanged the possibility of all 4 with what percentage chances they have.” LOL, stop pretending to be even handed. What’s clear is that you repeated speculated that that the overwhelming likelihood is that the slams and masters between March – July will overwhelmingly be won by Nadal, Djokovic and maybe Murray — except Federer. You saw little chance of Federer winning much and you ignored the possibility of players (Delpo, Raonic, Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Nishikori) outside the Big Four getting hot and either winning titles or knocking off Nadal or Djokovic. Sienna and I have considered these other scenarios. You arrogantly put down Sienna’s scenario’s with “it’s quite hard to understand your ignorance on how things shape up between March – July” based on your fossilized, fundamentalist mindset.

Nirmal: “Starting 2010, how many players have beaten Nadal in these three slams?” and “We are talking about the timeline when both Rafa and Novak had hit their peak ie from 2010.” Incredibly you pretend if if I haven’t exposed that YOU tried to frame the argument in the 2010-2012 timeframe, but not really Sienna. So stop using “we”. Regardless, repeatedly you parrot this line of linear thinking, stuck in that mindset. You presume the past will repeat into the future. Tennis history has many examples where a player’s results one year fail to repeat the following year. As well, the law of large numbers tends to work against such results continuing to repeat. In modern tennis history only one male player has managed to sustain his success at such a level. The odds are therefore overwhelmingly against both Nadal and Djokovic continuing at such a level, despite their successes since 2010.

On the other hand, when I sarcastically said “wow, how did Federer manage to reach 102 finals, win 72 titles including 22 major championships and break all those records? Must have all happened outside March to September, when conditions were not suitable for him” I suggested it remains within the realm of possibility for Federer for Federer to do it.

Nirmal retorted “Absolute nonsense.” in response to Dave’s “We know from your past speculations that your future speculations are going to be as bad or worse.” Lol, you keep proving my case, even though you lack self-awareness.

nirmal’s “Yes. But who cares.” in response to “(Nadal’s) 17 losses since January 2011 (7 consecutive finals to Djokovic and 10 matches to others)”. Nadal cares. His 10 losses, under possible mental distress, to players other than Djokovic lose him valuable points to reduce the gap with Novak and put pressure on him. In a battle against such a dominant player as Djokovic, Nadal knows from his experience with Federer that even 500 level tourneys do matter.

Yes. But who cares. We wins the most important ones are get to the finals of most important ones. If Rafa was mentally affected, is it not a shame that a mentally strong Roger lost to mentally disturbed Rafa in a GS semis. So Rafa’s mental disturbance does not have any effect on him beating others when it matters except Novak.

nirmal: “Many may even argue that he played better finals against Novak this AO compared to his other matches…It was basically a 80% Novak with 100%”

More a 75% to 80% Djokovic (compared to his 100% peak in first half 2011) against a 85% to 90% Nadal. Nadal was at 95% to 100% against Federer. As coach Patrick Mouratoglou noted: “Average level of play… the match wasn’t 100 per cent satisfying regarding the level of play”
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/patrick-mouratoglou/learnt-final-165905505.html


Sienna Says:

Ajet Says
DITTO. And who knows, may be the kids would grow up to be much more intelligent than Sienna,

LOL thank youI wish just the same. I am suren that they will be more intelligent and smarter then me.


Sienna Says:

Dave
Your post are again so damned good and right on the moneyy.
It is just electric reading them.

Anywayzz Nadal has never had aTMF like year. His winloss ratio has neve come close to the djoker laste year or any of the year Fed had during TMF.

2010 is considered his best year yet he was not able to keep the losscount down to become a member of the greatest players tennis has produced.

He still can become on of the top elite but not yet and the wy thing are looking and losing he is not going to get there.


Sienna Says:

Nirmal Kumar Says:
How funny is to take Doha loss as something serious? It’s a tournament Rafa and Roger play for appearance fees.

They why not say Roger again lost to Rafa in Abu Dhabi exo. Doha is nothing more than a exo for these guys. You think Roger would have retired from any serious tournament midway?

This bit is the evidence we need to see that you absolutely have got not a slight idea what those guys are trying to do. This is if you really believe it an absolute and utter fault. You are kidding mee?

How dare you suggest that those champions treath an atp tourney like an exho? Exho are for fun and they are treated that way. Just hit a few balls and make some noise. ATP tourney whichever it is are meant to be won. But not at all costs if it is a 205 etc… But they are not considered a joke by the player top or low performers.
Grow up!


Ajet Says:

nadal’s win-loss ratio in 2010 may not have matched federer’s or djoker’s, but he certainly also outdid both of them in one aspect and that’s winning FO(clay)-WIM(grass)-USO(fastest HC slam of the era) consecutively.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Dava says ” the most famous example of (a) a player becoming No. 1 ..crap..crap … etc”

Absolutely irrelevant to the current tennis scenario. There is so much I can write why it’s irrelevant, but will defer it.

Dave says “Fact remains, when you look at the big picture, that Federer’s dominance was in 2004-07 ..blah blah with loads of known information”

Absolutely irrelevant talking about Roger’s domination in 2004-07. Again my question about NAdal’s loss was for three slams in the last 2 years, which I made it clear. No one has beaten him other than Novak.

Dave says “Your comment that loss at Doha is not serious or that the Abu Dhabi exhibition is ….”

Yep, Nadal should have played Barcelona and MC only for appearance fee, nothing else. Also see, look at where Nadal scores the points in the last 6 years. It’s during the clay season. So he may try to get as much point there just like Roger does post USO. For Doha, yeah it’s a terrible loss for Rafa :). We all could clearly see how much it has affected his AO performance :) YEah Rafa’s loss to Monfils is much bigger loss than Roger’s loss to Rafa. I think people who know tennis understands it.

Dave Says ““You think Roger would have retired from any serious tournament midway?”

Yeah, Paris was a tournament Roger mostly skipped after his peak years. I believe he skipped it for 3 years or so. He skipped Paris, only because he did not want to hurt himself too badly for WTF. We know how seriously Roger takes the WTF tournaments. Also Roger’s backpain in 2008 was much more serious as we came to know later, compared to Doha. Doha he skipped as a precaoution, whereas in Paris he had a serious injury. It was so unfortunate, as we saw Roger play some best tennis of 2008 in Basel, but had to winid down his year because of back pain. Also I’m surprised Dave does not know a difference between Doha (250) with Paris Masters (1000) and thinks both are same.

“I understood for Roger about 0-4 from 2008 and 0-1 in 2011.” Nonsense. Federer and Nadal are 2-2 in finals since 2009 Madrid

Again irrelevant and typed without common sense. We are getting into the period of the year, where Rafa has either been the No 1 player in accumulating the points or No 2 (worsst case). Roger has always been behind Rafa in this period for past 4 years. Maybe 2009 was an exception. It’s more likely that Rafa could gain points than lose them. When did Roger did more than one masters in this period. He won Madrid in 2009, what did he win in 2010 and 2011. Typically the masters ratio would be like 4:1 for Rafa. How come suddenly Roger is going to turn it on now.

Ok, let’s look at from 2009, just for your convenience. Is 2-2 in GS finals. Then it would be more relevant. But unfortunately in GS it’s 1-0 for Nadal. I think that’s the stat more relevant. Also in outdoors where tennis is going to be played in next 6 month it would be 3-1 (including semis also..why only finals? for Nadal. It becomes even more pathetic if we go back and include 2008. What does this proves? Rafa is supreme in their H2H in outdoors.

Except in Madrid finals (where Rafa came after near 4 hr 3-setter with Novak), there has been nothing for Roger in outdoors.

Dave says : “In my conversation with Sienna we had exchanged the possibility ….”

Again, little bit of tennis knowledge is required to understand this. Though there is a possibility of someone like Tsonga (excellent clay court player or Nishikory who has won many MAsters already) has a chance, but unless Rafa or Novak falter, I have to see to believe it.

Dave says ” Starting 2010, how many players have beaten Nadal in these three slams..fill with emotional crap from Dave”

YEas, let’s see how the odds work against Nadal. Only time will tell.

Dave says : On the other hand, when I sarcastically said “wow, how did Federer

Elaborate what has been proved. Need some valid data.

Dave says : “(Nadal’s) 17 losses since January 2011

Yes. But who cares. He wins the most important ones are get to the finals of most important ones. If Rafa was mentally affected, is it not a shame that a mentally strong Roger lost to mentally disturbed Rafa in a GS semis. So Rafa’s mental disturbance does not have any effect on him beating others when it matters except Novak.

Dave missed an important point in my note “So Rafa’s mental disturbance does not have any effect on him beating others when it matters except Novak.” as I said in the matches which matters. So except Novak others don’t seem to disturb him. Also note, Rafa loses in the tournament which he always loses early in his career. If it happens that he loses in any of clay masters in the quarters or in FO, then it would be alarming. But the losses he takes are pretty much routine ones he takes in his career. There is no proof to say these loses have come because of his mental disturbance as it claims to be.

Dave says “More a 75% to 80% Djokovic ..”

Since Dave does not have his own intelligence, he has to depend on someone to define it. But any objective fan would know how the players are playing with their experience. So the percentage will differ for each individual.

Also note, the Roger allows NAdal to play his best tennis, whereas Novak does not allow Nadal to play his best tennis. That’s why it’s called a matchups in tennis.

So to say Rafa did not play like he played against Roger is absolute crap. Part of your play is also dictated by the opponent. That’s the difference between Rafa’s game between semis and finals. Insipte of this, Rafa did play great tennis, just that Novak can diffuse them.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Sienna says “This bit is the evidence we need to see that you absolutely have got not a slight idea what those guys are trying to do”

Yeah, I’m quite baffled by your tennis knowledge. You think Top players specially the ones like Roger, Rafa, Novak treat the 250 tournament same as GS? Those tournaments are there for them to experiment on some of their trainings in the training block, nothing more. They are more cautious about getting out of those tournaments without getting injured.


Steve 27 Says:

4 Majors
9 master 1000
1 WTF
1 Olympics

The other tournaments, who cares,Sienna?
Hahhaha


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Not sure it it’s specific to Murray’s form or probably having faster court in Dubai could prove to be a bane for those who had success in the tournament. Let’s see how Roger and DelPo perform. It will give an indication.


Sienna Says:

Yes who cares. The players they care more about atp 250 then exho. That was the whole idea of Nirmal.He thionks an exho is of the same intensity level as an ATP 250. Roger puts more effort in his traing then in the exho so he thinks that the losses at Abu Dhabi meant something. Just stupid ingnorance.


Sienna Says:

and my english could be better.


Sienna Says:

I never said they treat a 250 tournement the same as a slam. That is just stupid. The tryw to get ready and in absolute peak form for the slams In order to get there they use the smaller events. But when they have reached the semis of a smaller event and everything is according to plan they will put up a fight to win the damn thing. Even precious Rafa. Exho on the otherhand are not treated the same way. You are kidding! Toclaim something like that completely shows your lack of tennis knowledge. I am sorry but you so called self proclaimed masters degree in tennis has just been revoked.


Nirmal Kumar Says:

Sienna says : I am sorry but you so called self proclaimed masters degree in tennis has just been revoked.

Yeah, this should be the darkest day in my life.

For the rest, looks like you are emotionally disturbed. I will let you go.


Sienna Says:

look whos talking? With your outrageous long stupid posts which are filled with lies, half lies and childish attemps to outwing Dave or anybody else who give praise to Federer.
Just pathetic.

Top story: Eugenie Bouchard And Coach Nick Saviano Split
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Nov 24 WTA - Nov 24
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Roger Federer2 Maria Sharapova
3 Rafael Nadal3 Simona Halep
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Petra Kvitova
5 Kei Nishikori5 Ana Ivanovic
6 Andy Murray6 Agnieszka Radwanska
7 Tomas Berdych7 Eugenie Bouchard
8 Milos Raonic8 Caroline Wozniacki
9 Marin Cilic9 Angelique Kerber
10 David Ferrer10 Dominika Cibulkova
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.