2018 Wimbledon men’s SF: Djokovic v Nadal

[monfed]

80 % djoker...come on brotha..thats so disrespectful. You are a little better than that

I don't take credit away from dull's Wim 08, he didn't drop an entire set in the tournament which had not happened in his previous runs, led Fed by 2 sets and so overall deserved to win that slam. I don't think you'll find many Fed fans who try to explain away Wim 08. In the 90s even on the quick grass, Drugassi did win it once who's mostly a baseline bot. So the reality is that there are editions in Wimbledon where the grass is drier and hence bouncier and slower giving a chance to baseliners although Drugassi is an aggressive baseliner but still. We saw that again this year.

However I do take issue with dull's USOs specially 2017. I feel Nadull didn't do anything special to deserve a USO. Prior to 2010, Nadull was getting routined by almost anyone, even his lapdog Mugray beat him in 2008. On a super quick USO, he'd have 0 USOs.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't take credit away from dull's Wim 08, he didn't drop an entire set in the tournament which had not happened in his previous runs, led Fed by 2 sets and so overall deserved to win that slam. I don't think you'll find many Fed fans who try to explain away Wim 08. In the 90s even on the quick grass, Drugassi did win it once who's mostly a baseline bot. So the reality is that there are editions in Wimbledon where the grass is drier and hence bouncier and slower giving a chance to baseliners although Drugassi is an aggressive baseliner but still. We saw that again this year.

However I do take issue with dull's USOs specially 2017. I feel Nadull didn't do anything special to deserve a USO. Prior to 2010, Nadull was getting routined by almost anyone, even his lapdog Mugray beat him in 2008. On a super quick USO, he'd have 0 USOs.

Nadal dropped a set to Gulbis in 08 and nearly a second one. I do take offense to Wimbledon 08 but still blame Roger for at best a very uneven performance. At worst a pathetic one yielding his favorite surface to a dude with an average serve who had done little off clay until that day. The garbage surface helps Nadal for sure but Roger should've still been able to take him. Fed was too weak that year, especially in the mental department.

Agassi is far different from Nadal. He was able to succeed on that lightning fast grass due to his amazing ROS and strong and flat groundstrokes off both wings. On that grass Rafa's topspin and extreme backswing would've been big weaknesses. Agassi was far more equipped to succeed on grass of that day than Rafa would have been.

 

[Moxie]

Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't believe any of these players have ever doped at any point. I don't see any evidence that the store tour is doping, like the Tour De France. And once these players got to the top it just seems too risky to their legacies. I also have some faith in the ATP, which seems to be trying.

Hi, Michael and welcome. I don't really believe the top guys do, either. All of my argument is for Front and Darth, who firmly believe Nadal has since 2005 and rarely miss an opportunity to sully his name. However, Federer finding the fountain of youth at 35 seems not the least surprising to them. It's the irony of their two positions that gets me.

 

[monfed]

Hi, Michael and welcome. I don't really believe the top guys do, either. All of my argument is for Front and Darth, who firmly believe Nadal has since 2005 and rarely miss an opportunity to sully his name. However, Federer finding the fountain of youth at 35 seems not the least surprising to them. It's the irony of their two positions that gets me.

What is ironic? Fed has god given talent, probably the most talented player ever. He can finish a match fast without much effort. Dull needs to put double the effort to win. I mean it's quite logical to me who needs the extra help.

 

[Moxie]

Are you actually for real with this? Roger changed to a much bigger racquet head but never got the time to practice with it properly which the time off due to injury rehab actually enabled him to get around to finally, but mostly the change was the coach. No coach before Ljubicic fixed the glaring hole in his game which was his backhand and Ivan made him hit it much earlier and with purpose off the return and in rallies.

New racquet with bigger head = way less shanks and now he's hitting it with purpose and earlier DOES NOT = increased strength. His forehand is weak as non alcoholic beer for years now so it's hardly increased strength. Funny as hell reading this from a fan of a player who went from being pretty muscular to having pretty much no muscle left except his quads and left bicep lol.

Btw, it's been well documented before that 2 of Nadal's best seasons (2010 and 2013) followed his PRP treatments which can be abused by shady doctors with HGH injections for very fast healing and this results in numerous performance enhancements, not least of all which is a strength increase. Quite a coincidence really. Feel free to think it was just a grip change though and he never ever used it again. Makes sense.

No, I'm not being real, Front, and I told you. THIS would be the point, and way down at the bottom of the page would be you missing it. But to same end, it's amazing that you find ways to play doctor and tell us how you interpolate Nadal's treatments being manipulated, while at the same time finding it fully credible that Roger took 4 years to learn to play with his new racquet, and that the newly-retired, never-before coach Ljubicic was the answer to Roger's backhand, after all these years.

 

[monfed]

I can't think of a single non-clay slam where Nadull had to show some actual variety to win in non-clay slams. He just waits and waits for his opponents to be out of form, get cake draws, the surface to bounce like a yo-yo ball and then he simply applies his clay game standing 10 feet behind the baseline to draw errors. I don't know how he can even have fans playing that boring, ugly game tbh.

 

[DarthFed]

I can't think of a single non-clay slam where Nadull had to show some actual variety to win in non-clay slams. He just waits and waits for his opponents to be out of form, get cake draws, the surface to bounce like a yo-yo ball and then he simply applies his clay game standing 10 feet behind the baseline to draw errors. I don't know how he can even have fans playing that boring, ugly game tbh.

I've already tried to educate @Moxie about the reasons for Nadal's fanship

 

[monfed]

Nadal dropped a set to Gulbis in 08 and nearly a second one. I do take offense to Wimbledon 08 but still blame Roger for at best a very uneven performance. At worst a pathetic one yielding his favorite surface to a dude with an average serve who had done little off clay until that day. The garbage surface helps Nadal for sure but Roger should've still been able to take him. Fed was too weak that year, especially in the mental department.

Agassi is far different from Nadal. He was able to succeed on that lightning fast grass due to his amazing ROS and strong and flat groundstrokes off both wings. On that grass Rafa's topspin and extreme backswing would've been big weaknesses. Agassi was far more equipped to succeed on grass of that day than Rafa would have been.

I have come to realise over the years that there is a higher purpose for Nadull's existence. One wonders why such a ruthless brute who plays the ugliest game we have ever witnessed gets so much luck all the time? You would think that it should be the exact opposite so that the good prevails right? Nope.I think Nadull was created by the universe to be the opposing evil force to the good force that is Federer. In hinduism it is believed that god creates bad things to entertain himself. Afterall god needs to be entertained too. I think this is what happened to dull although most people think he was created by the devil.

 

[monfed]

I've already tried to educate @Moxie about the reasons for Nadal's fanship

It will be a fruitless pursuit unless Rafinas -

 

[Moxie]

What is ironic? Fed has god given talent, probably the most talented player ever. He can finish a match fast without much effort. Dull needs to put double the effort to win. I mean it's quite logical to me who needs the extra help.

The irony is that they speak out of both sides of their mouths. Let's be honest...both have loads of natural talent. But it was Nadal who started winning at an earlier age, and beating Fed early and often. Roger was nearly 3 years older than Nadal when he won his first Major, so who needed help, then? I know you have a huge blindspot where Rafa is concerned, but one guy wins 20 Majors squeaky clean and the other wins 17 fully dirty? I'm with @Michael;Kiwi in that I think the top players push the limits of what they can do legally, but don't cheat. I note that you've just decided that the purpose of Nadal is to organize the world in good and evil, but this isn't the Mahabharata or Game of Thrones...it's tennis.

 

[Moxie]

I've already tried to educate @Moxie about the reasons for Nadal's fanship

And I've told you that you're wrong. :lulz2:

 

[monfed]

The irony is that they speak out of both sides of their mouths. Let's be honest...both have loads of natural talent. But it was Nadal who started winning at an earlier age, and beating Fed early and often. Roger was nearly 3 years older than Nadal when he won his first Major, so who needed help, then? I know you have a huge blindspot where Rafa is concerned, but one guy wins 20 Majors squeaky clean and the other wins 17 fully dirty? I'm with @Michael;Kiwi in that I think the top players push the limits of what they can do legally, but don't cheat. I note that you've just decided that the purpose of Nadal is to organize the world in good and evil, but this isn't the Mahabharata or Game of Thrones...it's tennis.

True, something you know little about and too stubborn to learn as many posters before me have tried explaining you. You're the kind who will argue till you're blue in the face instead of just accepting the facts. I'm not interested in wasting energy on people who can't admit when they're wrong and are unwilling to accept basic facts.

 

[Moxie]

True, something you know little about and too stubborn to learn as many posters before me have tried explaining you. You're the kind who will argue till you're blue in the face instead of just accepting the facts. Knock yourself out, I ain't interested in wasting energy on people who are unwilling to accept the truth.

Your "truth" is that Roger is God, and that he's the only acceptable answer to tennis. It is also that Nadal is the Anti-christ of tennis. That you accept this as a "fact," to be followed by others, isn't just cultish, it's delusional. As one of the prime energy-Vampires on this forum, I'd be perfectly happy if you'd stop wasting your time on me. What you call "truth" is merely opinion. It's just a sport, mate.

 

[monfed]

Your "truth" is that Roger is God, and that he's the only acceptable answer to tennis. It is also that Nadal is the Anti-christ of tennis. That you accept this as a "fact," to be followed by others, isn't just cultish, it's delusional. As one of the prime energy-Vampires on this forum, I'd be perfectly happy if you'd stop wasting your time on me. What you call "truth" is merely opinion. It's just a sport, mate.

Pot kettle black. Enjoy your delusions.

 

[monfed]

Maybe I'm just nieve, but I don't believe any of these players have ever doped at any point. I don't see any evidence that the store tour is doping, like the Tour De France. And once these players got to the top it just seems too risky to their legacies. I also have some faith in the ATP, which seems to be trying.

Yes you're naive if you think a guy like Nadal who never gets tired in a match no matter how long, can go back to back 5 hours in matches and still be fresh, who plays the most physical game ever and has been on tour winning slams and still going strong 15 years since he won his first slam. Just pause and think. 15 YEARS! No grinder lasts that long. No grinder in history has lasted that long. Name me one. You can't.
You're also naive if you think the corrupt ATP will expose him when he's bringing in money, as much of a sad reality as that is.

 

[Moxie]

Pot kettle black. Enjoy your delusions.

What, in your opinion, is my delusion? That Nadal has talent? That he has actual fans, and loads of them, that like him for the way he plays tennis? That somehow he didn't just "luck" into 17 Majors?

 

[Horsa]

What, in your opinion, is my delusion? That Nadal has talent? That he has actual fans, and loads of them, that like him for the way he plays tennis? That somehow he didn't just "luck" into 17 Majors?

The fact I can't see the comment you're responding to tells me who you're talking to. I will answer your question. You're not delusional. I think that the person you're talking to has views & an imagination that would make a great work of fiction if he had the writing ability to make use of these views & that imagination. I find some of his views hilarious. I don't think he's worth arguing with but that's your choice at the end of the day.

 

[monfed]

What, in your opinion, is my delusion? That Nadal has talent? That he has actual fans, and loads of them, that like him for the way he plays tennis? That somehow he didn't just "luck" into 17 Majors?

I think you should stop baiting Fed fans with rhetorical questions you don't want the answers to.

 

[Moxie]

Yes you're naive if you think a guy like Nadal who never gets tired in a match no matter how long, can go back to back 5 hours in matches and still be fresh, who plays the most physical game ever and has been on tour winning slams and still going strong 15 years since he won his first slam. You're also naive if you think the corrupt ATP will expose him when he's bringing in money(as much of a sad reality as that is).

I believe we've already established that Nadal does get tired. That's an old trope. And the fact that he trains hard escapes your notice. It also escapes your notice that he had no reason to initially start doping, since he was rising well in the ranks since turning pro, at 15, and was the last teenager to win a Major on the men's side. I've asked this question many times with no sufficient answer from either Front or Darth. Perhaps you'll give it a go: why would Nadal have started doping, and when? Darth says early '05, because he has to say that...it fits his agenda. But Nadal was beating past #1's and FO winners at 16. He beat Roger, already #1 at 17. On HCs, and in straights. Nadal needed no bump from his already amazing level even at 16. He won RG at 19 +2 days, and he'd beaten Federer in the SFs. So when did he start doping? And why? Most would admit it's not obvious.

 

[Moxie]

I think you should stop baiting Fed fans with rhetorical questions you don't want the answers to.

Those might be rhetorical questions, to me, but I thought they weren't to you. You think Nadal has no talent and no fans. And you do think he has "lucked" into a lot of his wins. You say it all the time. I'm perfectly happy if you answer.