Wimbledon 2010!

David Jimerson said:
And if you want pwnage, check Nadal's record against any of them.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia has the Murray/Nadal record at 3-7.

In Murray's post-match interview earlier today, he said "We've played four times in slams and it's two-all."

Does anyone have the Google-fu chops (or Rainman skills) to flesh out the chronology, and identify the surfaces of those ten matches?
 
They're mostly hard court. At least two of Murray's three wins are, and one of those is because Nadal had an injury and retired from the match.

Edit: The third Murray win was hard court, too. Also against an injured Nadal. In fact, that was the injury which kept him out of most of '09.
 
It'll all be settled in the next few days. And it's really irrelevant anyway -- since I smack-talked Nadal, he will now win. My track record is pretty much 100% on that.
 
Blue_Food said:
Wikipedia has the Murray/Nadal record at 3-7.

In Murray's post-match interview earlier today, he said "We've played four times in slams and it's two-all."

Does anyone have the Google-fu chops (or Rainman skills) to flesh out the chronology, and identify the surfaces of those ten matches?
Click to expand...
Grand Slams:
2007 Australian, Nadal won in 5 sets
2008 Wimbledon, Nadal won in 3 sets
2008 US Open, Murray won in 4 sets
2010 Australian, Murray won in 2 sets and up 3-0 in the third when Nadal retired

Other matches are 5 ATP Masters tournaments, with Nadal winning all of those in two sets, and the 2009 Rotterdam, won by Murray in three sets. If there was any way for Murray to spin the story, he could say "well, I lost the earlier matches, but I won the last two times we met, so my current streak is 2-0." Of course, Nadal could counter with "last time we played at Wimbledon, I spanked you in straight sets."

So Andy says it's 2-2, but that seems a little optimistic, Rafa does seem to have some significant Scottish pwnage.
 
Wonder what it all says about Fed, anyway. He's now been dismissed in the quarters two Slams in a row. No titles after the Australian, either. I think this is a worse year for him than 2008.

But, you know, he's a father now; priorities change.
 
The problem is that in 2008, he was out of shape, sporting a gut; he was ill for part of the year, and probably distracted from the game. He fixed that.

But now he's in shape, quite fit. Just seems to have lost some of the edge. It's true there are counterexamples, but 28 is pretty senior for a tennis player. Sampras was done at Wimbledon when he was 30.

But, who knows? Agassi notwithstanding, it's still true that ends often come very quickly, not least because former dominant players don't really want to hang in the middle of the pack. But then, he still came back from his 2008 slump.
 
He wouldn't be the first player to decide he doesn't want to keep playing if he's not his former glory.

Though, if he were going to go that route, he'd probably want to do it after winning a major, like Pete.
 
I guess it depends on how badly he wants it.

Pete still has a hefty stack of records to beat, some just as significant to being declared the GOAT, if not moreso, than the number of majors. As for Wimbledon, Fed getting 7 looks quite iffy and 8 even looks out of the question. And even if he makes 7, he'll still have the asterisk that Pete got there at a younger age with fewer stumbles along the way.

But who knows? The books are filled with unlikely stories.
 
What I'm saying is that if Fed is to be the undisputed GOAT, he's still got some work to do.

Weeks at #1
Years ended at #1
Number of years in the top 10

Etc.

Plus, come on -- Fed's house is Wimbledon; how can he be the GOAT if he's not the top guy there?

And, I gotta go back to what John said -- a GOAT isn't owned, and Nadal owns Fed.

No, I never said he wouldn't win a French.
 
I don't get where belittling Nadal makes the case for Roger being the GOAT. There's only one stat of Nadal's which is relevant, and it ain't the number of majors Nadal has won. (Besides, you're on a pretty rickety bridge when you do, considering Fed only won his French because Nadal was injured and out of form. So, what's good for the goose . . . )

I also never said Roger wasn't one of the top GOATs. Of course he is. But the undisputed, singular GOAT? No. The highest number of majors alone doesn't get him there, and all the "yeah, buts" on the records he still has to match don't actually give him those records -- any moreso than saying "yeah, but, the rest of the field sucks" doesn't mean he didn't win all those majors.

Oh, Fed himself says Wimbledon is his house.

So, all I'm sayin' is, Fed does not stand alone.

(And none of the male greats are in the same company as the female greats, anyway.)

Anyway, as to Nadal -- I know you're trash-talking, and I'm not very good at sports trash -- he cashiered Murray today with some absolutely phenomenal grass court play. He certainly looks good to win, and if he does, he'll have 8 majors at age 24. He only needs the US open for the career slam.
 
Oh, and as for points for Fed to defend -- he's got the finals at the US Open to defend. Neither Nadal nor Djoko have that. If Djoko makes it to the semis and Nadal makes it to the finals, Fed could win and still not regain #2, let alone #1. Plus, Murray's in the mix. P-Mac said earlier today that he thinks Fed's headed for #4. P-Mac's usually right.
 
I'm not implying anything. I'm outright saying that Federer doesn't have the undisputed, singular claim to GOAT.

Berdych looked good. Surely not counting him out. But Djoko tanked, too.

"A few clay tournaments." He has 7 majors and is a favorite for 8 before the weekend is up. And it's a little clay tournament that Roger has never beaten him in, not for the lack of opportunity, whereas Nadal took to Fed on his own turf. And, as these things usually go, he's got his best playing years still ahead of him. Give him another 4-5 years and you may find yourself insisting HE isn't the GOAT. :evil:
 
You've never said Nadal was pretty good. You've never done anything but dismiss him as a flash in the pan.

And Nadal's record still doesn't have anything to do with Fed being the GOAT, except that Nadal owns Fed, and in his own house. Not just the turf, but the house.

But as for Nadal being a clay player only, who, other than Fed (and maybe not even anymore on that one) is better on grass?
 
Barry_Green said:
You notice how many of them DON'T?
Click to expand...

It's a significantly smaller list than the spammage would suggest. :)

And some of 'em are kinda fluffy. Why not list "only man to win the US Open wearing tuxedo pants?"

(Am I picking up the sports trash-talk thing?)


And how many of them say "Nadal"?
Click to expand...
So what if none of them do?


It's like Fed vs. Sampras -- I think on grass and hardcourts, they're probably equal. But Sampras never mastered the dirt, and Federer has; he's easily the second-best claycourter on the tour.

So Sampras had 2/3 of the greatest game ever, but Federer has all that, and more. So when you count it all together, I don't think that Sampras' additional Wimbledon title means anything, as compared to Fed's French.
Click to expand...
But it's about more than just majors. And Pete isn't the only one with a claim, as you point out. It's not just about Pete.


So yes, there may have been others in history who have accomplished a few of the things Fed has, and there may even be a couple who have an individual record or two more... but in the aggregate, taken as a whole, how can anyone make a reasonable argument against GOATness?
Click to expand...
?

I've been doing it this whole thread. And I'm not the only one who does.

And even some people willing to give him the title still say Nadal's ownage of him is an asterisk. And, without that, I'd be more willing to say so myself.

And I still don't know what trashing Nadal gets you. It's not like he's my guy. I don't even have a guy. All my guys retired years ago. J-Mac. Connors. Becker. Edberg. Wilander. Courier. Sampras, Agassi. Flip.
 
Barry_Green said:
That is an incorrect statement.


That is incorrect. I do think that in the overall scheme of things he'll go down as more of a Chang or Agassi than a Sampras or Federer, and I do think that his game is way way biased towards one surface. But he is an excellent player and undoubtedly the best clay courter alive today, and perhaps the best clay player in history.
Click to expand...

Well, you never said it to me.


So, let's see -- Federer's record against Nadal in Wimbledon is 2 to 1. And that somehow means that Nadal owns Fed, and in his own house, and the turf too? Not following that logic. Seems to me a 2:1 advantage means Federer owns Nadal when it comes to Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't mean Nadal has dominated Fed at Wimbledon, but does mean he's claimed Fed's crown from him in his own house. In fact, Nadal has beaten Fed at a major (finals, no less) on every surface. Fed has only done the same to Nadal on one. So, within that particular head-to-head, who's the one-trick pony?


Nadal would actually have to play on grass in order for us to find out. He doesn't voluntarily play *any* grass tournaments. He plays in Wimbledon because he's required to; all top-ranked players *must* play in the grand slams. Nadal won't play grass other than Wimbledon. I think he played one grass tournament other than Wimbledon in his whole career. He's only played on grass 42 times, and has a total record of 34-8, with 2 titles.
Click to expand...
Anyone else made four consecutive* Wimbledon finals? Are you saying that's a fluke?

Federer, on the other hand, has played grass over 109 times, has a record of 95-14, and has 11 titles.

Other than Federer, I don't know who (if anyone) has a better record than Nadal on grass, but his grass record ain't a pimple on Roger's grass record's butt.
Click to expand...
He's also been playing considerably longer. As it stands, Nadal has the better consecutive* match streak, which, by all appearances, is likely to extend into next year.

As for Nadal being #1, considering that there's no one on the tour he DOESN'T own (except maybe someone he's never played or only played once or something), I'd say it's legit.






*Yes, yes, taking last year into account and all that.
 
In all seriousness, though, while Berdych has had a fantastic run, Nadal has to be the heavy favorite to win. I mean, Zina Garrison beat Seles in the quarters and then beat Steffi (in her prime) in the semis, but no one seriously expected she could win against Martina.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top