Who Will Win Wimbledon?

Who do you think will win Wimbledon? If you think it will be someone not included in the poll please say who. I have put Roddick in the poll as he has been in 3 Wimbledon finals, beaten Federer this year, has important wins over Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and has just won a tournament on grass.

I voted with my heart (unsurprisingly) so Fed. My head says Djokovic in 5 tough sets with Nadal but I'd like to see how Wimbledon go for the two top seeds before I'm sure of that assessment.

I voted Nadal. He will ride his momentum and the structural advantage he has been afforded of possibly only playing one top 3 player on his way to winning the title while Djokovic again will have to most likely beat 2 top 3 players to win the title. Just like Nadal rode this huge advantage in the draw afforded him to titles at RG in 2011 and 2012 he will do it again at wimby.

social, as usually polluting every thread with cr@p against Nadal and excusing Djoko for his loses.

Same old tune, new GS, stay tunned for same stuff if Djoko does not win W.

I tipped Djokovic as it goes.

socal1976 wrote:I voted Nadal. He will ride his momentum and the structural advantage he has been afforded of possibly only playing one top 3 player on his way to winning the title while Djokovic again will have to most likely beat 2 top 3 players to win the title. Just like Nadal rode this huge advantage in the draw afforded him to titles at RG in 2011 and 2012 he will do it again at wimby.

Socal I haven´t studied the draw in detail but does Rafa not meet Tsonga on his "way to the final" you know who I mean ?? yeah ?? the player that nearly took your boy out in the quarters (I believe) of the FO.. or have I got it wrong again ;)

Murray. You never know. Not the worst draw ever, a lot of big servers which, on grass, is very difficult but Murray is the joint best returner and that will suit him. And he'll give Ferrer a pasting in the quarter finals for revenge.

TSC wrote:Murray. You never know. Not the worst draw ever, a lot of big servers which, on grass, is very difficult but Murray is the joint best returner and that will suit him. And he'll give Ferrer a pasting in the quarter finals for revenge.

I like your logic.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TSC wrote:Murray. You never know. Not the worst draw ever, a lot of big servers which, on grass, is very difficult but Murray is the joint best returner and that will suit him. And he'll give Ferrer a pasting in the quarter finals for revenge.

I like your logic.

Me too!!

Although I did vote for Nole

Jahu wrote:social, as usually polluting every thread with cr@p against Nadal and excusing Djoko for his loses.

Same old tune, new GS, stay tunned for same stuff if Djoko does not win W.

I've never noticed 'social' polute any thread and his support of Nole is so subtle I'm only mildly aware of it. We could do with a lot worse in terms of fan worship than this (talking of which where exactly is Tenez

There is an argument that Nadal has had one or two kind draws at Wimbledon and this is certainly another and when we're evaluating the Top 2, who are so close in ability - that can make all the difference and so is a relevant discussion

banbrotam wrote:
I've never noticed 'social' polute any thread

Yes I agree with you. SoCal can be quite enthusiastic at times (as do many others ) but he, in my mind, debates in a friendly manner and conducts himself well.
That doesn't mean I don't disagree with him from time to time

socal1976 wrote:I voted Nadal. He will ride his momentum and the structural advantage he has been afforded of possibly only playing one top 3 player on his way to winning the title while Djokovic again will have to most likely beat 2 top 3 players to win the title. Just like Nadal rode this huge advantage in the draw afforded him to titles at RG in 2011 and 2012 he will do it again at wimby.

This for example. I can't understand this post. It states basically Nadal will ride his huge advantage in the draw to afford him to win the title here.
What can we deduct from this? Well by the tone and later comments we can see that Socal, although he appreciates Nadal has momentum, thinks this draw in his mind is the turning point. That before this draw Socal though Nadal might not win and after the draw it means Socal is sure Nadal will win.

I think that is frankly ridiculous. Let's be brutally honest here if Nadal is to win the tournament he is going to have to beat his arch-nemesis Djokovic. So we can assume SoCal thinks Nadal will beat Djokovic when they play, that he is playing well enough to beat Djokovic. If we look at the finals last year and this year we can see that Djokovic is the toughest draw for Nadal. If he is playing well enough to beat Djokovic, surely in SoCal's mind the semi draw for Nadal will be irrelevant? If he can beat Djoko then surely he topple Federer and Murray, no?
I can't fathom how SoCal thinks the draw has changed the situation. IMO Nadal has the hardest quarter, and if SoCal thinks Nadal can beat Djoko in the final then he should be playing well enough to beat Federer. If he is not playing well enough to beat Federer in the semis (if he had drawn him) then he would never have beaten Djokovic simple as.

socal1976 wrote:I voted Nadal. He will ride his momentum and the structural advantage he has been afforded of possibly only playing one top 3 player on his way to winning the title while Djokovic again will have to most likely beat 2 top 3 players to win the title. Just like Nadal rode this huge advantage in the draw afforded him to titles at RG in 2011 and 2012 he will do it again at wimby.

Thats a dig at Nadal and an unwaranteed one. If this kind of logic is valid, I have a few of mine:

1) Fed was the better player in last year's US open semis. Djoker won because his wild swing at match point somehow kissed the line and Fed bottled up. The match was in Fed's racquet...he lost it, Djoker did not win it.

2) Nadal's personal isses off court and past-his-prime Fed were contributing factors to Djoker's success.

3) Djoker was lucky to meet Murray instead of Fed at AO this year.

Any reasonable person would not call this an 'argument.'

Its an entirely different matter if someonw were to say I wish Djoker would not have to play Federer before the finals because Fed's game mathces up very well and even past his prime Fed has a decent chance of beating Joker.

The regularity of Fed and Novak in the same half is getting a bit silly but I don't see it as a huge disadvantage to Novak anymore.

Novak is a supremely fit, 25 year old world number 1 in the prime of his career. If his chances of victory over 5 sets are seriously diminished by being paired with a player, however great, who is nearly 31, then what does that say about his credentials as #1 and aspirations to be one of the greats?

Novak has won six of the last seven matches against Fed. Four of those victories were straight sets. Yes, a victory for Fed is quite possible. But surely we have to see Novak as the strong favourite should they meet?

Have gone for Rafa. He's the form guy of the big four at the moment.

Federer or Djokovic.

Nadal has not won any tournament off clay in 2 years so he is not a proper prediction.

So, Federer or Djokovic.

daltond wrote:Federer or Djokovic.

Nadal has not won any tournament off clay in 2 years so he is not a proper prediction.

So, Federer or Djokovic.

Remind m when was Federer´s last slam on ANY surface.. forgotten sorry

Haddie-nuff wrote:

daltond wrote:Federer or Djokovic.

Nadal has not won any tournament off clay in 2 years so he is not a proper prediction.

So, Federer or Djokovic.

Remind m when was Federer´s last slam on ANY surface.. forgotten sorry

Pathetic comment from the blue clay hater.

A truthful comment - lets be honest. Nadal won the last slam whilst Federer's last slam win came two and a half years ago.

Yea, Murrays last slam came....

errrrm, Never.

Rafa Nadull the best cure for insomniacs will win again I fear. Attritional tennis always wins these days and Djoko seems to have loosened his vulcan grip on Nadal which is a shame but then again.......

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Yea, Murrays last slam came....

errrrm, Never.

And errrr what has Murray got to do with this?

Haddie-nuff wrote: Remind m when was Federer´s last slam on ANY surface.. forgotten sorry

Interestingly there was an article on the Wimbledon iPhone app which asked if Djokovic and Nadal will make it 10 in a row. I thought back to myself and said have they contested all the grand slams finals? No, but have they won all 9 previous slams? Yes. It did underline the challenge Federer is facing. Fortunately he has a very good draw (until the semis)and this is on grass. However, it would be silly to write off Djokovic or Nadal, they are by far the favourites just going on recent form.The slams split like this since the beginning of the decade (2010):

Nadal: 5
Djokovic: 4
Federer: 1

When it comes down to Wimbledon, Nadal's record is remarkable: from entering just the second time he made the final (2006) and has since been in every final he's participated in, winning twice. His recent record is only second to Federer's but fortunately he's 5 years younger. So Nadal is definitely the favourite ahead of Federer despite having the tougher draw. Imagine it, to win Nadal might have to go through Tsonga, Murray and then Djokovic or Federer. You can be fairly sure that if Federer had that line up he wouldn't get to the final. Sure he could face off to Murray probably but Tsonga and Djokovic? Not so sure. Hence why I'll be happy with Fed making the semis and naturally I'd be delighted if he gets further but I don't expect it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Yea, Murrays last slam came....

errrrm, Never.

:8)

And errrr what has Murray got to do with this?

Well you will find there are those amongst us Craig that cannot stick to the topic .. not if it is going to wind you up that is.l ;)

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Yea, Murrays last slam came....

errrrm, Never.

And errrr what has Murray got to do with this?

Yeah Josiah what has it got to do with anything? We'e getting to the stage where Fed's Slams victories and their worth over his chances in comparison to Murray's are getting as about as relevant as Hewitt's or Roddick's. In other words, I don't see Fed's chances particularly greater than Murray's. Marginally more becasue he's on the better form, but any indication that Fed can be assumed to always turn up for the Slams and win them, are getting more silly which each passing event

For the main Joasiah you sound like a mature debator, but as usual when it comes to sticking the knife in Murray your resort to the language of the playground. We of course empathise with you only being 23 - but do try better

Oh banbotram sorry to correct you but Andy isnt the only one who gets the knife so does Rafa.. so you are in good company my friend.

banbrotam wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Yea, Murrays last slam came....

errrrm, Never.

And errrr what has Murray got to do with this?

Yeah Josiah what has it got to do with anything? We'e getting to the stage where Fed's Slams victories and their worth over his chances in comparison to Murray's are getting as about as relevant as Hewitt's or Roddick's. In other words, I don't see Fed's chances particularly greater than Murray's. Marginally more becasue he's on the better form, but any indication that Fed can be assumed to always turn up for the Slams and win them, are getting more silly which each passing event

For the main Joasiah you sound like a mature debator, but as usual when it comes to sticking the knife in Murray your resort to the language of the playground. We of course empathise with you only being 23 - but do try better

Well talking of "sticking the knife in". I would say comparing Rogers chances of winning a slam to Hewitt's or Roddick's does just that and maybe twists it a little too. But you never said. Who do you think will win Wimbledon (obviously not Roger...)

No disrespect meant to either Hewitt or Roddick (particularly Roddick) but I'm sure they would both understand.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Oh banbotram sorry to correct you but Andy isnt the only one who gets the knife so does Rafa.. so you are in good company my friend.

Why oh why does Fed have a signiifcant proportion of fans (not all by any means) who are so anal? The biggest laugh of recent weeks is them wetting their pants over him getting to No.1 if he wins Wimbledon. Which will be the ultimate in irony, as this won't be because Fed's won two or three Slams or rather that he won a few events where some of his three rivals were missing.

Ironic of course, because we were told, back in 2009, when Murray was busy winning these events that they didn't matter. Now apparantly they do.

.......Unless he loses them, like Halle for instance!!!

hawkeye wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Yea, Murrays last slam came....

errrrm, Never.

And errrr what has Murray got to do with this?

Yeah Josiah what has it got to do with anything? We'e getting to the stage where Fed's Slams victories and their worth over his chances in comparison to Murray's are getting as about as relevant as Hewitt's or Roddick's. In other words, I don't see Fed's chances particularly greater than Murray's. Marginally more becasue he's on the better form, but any indication that Fed can be assumed to always turn up for the Slams and win them, are getting more silly which each passing event

For the main Joasiah you sound like a mature debator, but as usual when it comes to sticking the knife in Murray your resort to the language of the playground. We of course empathise with you only being 23 - but do try better

Well talking of "sticking the knife in". I would say comparing Rogers chances of winning a slam to Hewitt's or Roddick's does just that and maybe twists it a little too. But you never said. Who do you think will win Wimbledon (obviously not Roger...)

No disrespect meant to either Hewitt or Roddick (particularly Roddick) but I'm sure they would both understand.

Hawkeye, please don't get so excited. I've not compared Fed's chances to the former Slam winners, what I did was point out that it's ridiculous for fans of his to dine out on his Slam wins, when he's nearly 31 and his last one was early 2010. My point is that such fans should show a bit of humility and in order to get them to do this, I went to the other extreme - showing them that having won Slams doesn't mean that you're always going to win them

I've also voted for the person I expcect to win so why do I need to declare it. Incidentally it wasn't Andy!!

Hardly Banbotram. Djokovic would have become No.1 last year regardless of whether he won Wimbledon last year, and he only had one slam (in the rankings table) to his name last year prior to the Wimbledon final.

As for you're attack (which is more or less what it is) on Fed's credentials to be No.1: of the 4 big tournaments Fed won since the USO last year, 2 of them (WTF & IW) drew all of the top 4 seeds, in the other 2, only Nadal (@ Paris) and Murray (@ Madrid) were absent. Fed only becomes No.1 immediately if he wins Wimbledon and given Djokovic was in the same position last year regardless of if he won Wimbledon or not, there's nothing suspect in it at all. Suggesting it might be is strange.

It's usually consistency and at least a slam that gives you the No.1 spot, hence why Fed held the No.1 spot in 2008 despite Nadal winning RG and Wimbledon, Fed only lost it when he exited Canada in R2 and Cinci in R3 yet he only had one slam and Nadal 2. Players don't usually get to be No.1 just for winning 2 or 3 of the slams. Consistency at many tournaments is the key, something Fed has had regardless of if tournaments have drawn a full slate of top seeds or not. As for Murray, winning those tournaments like Cinci or Canada or Shanghai: it isn't enough to become No.1 winning these alone. Usually you need a slam. These tournaments matter if you want that No.1 ranking.

Agree Banbro, I shouldn't single out Murray for his slamless run. I only put that as Craig was having a dig, and we know how much he lusts for Murray.

Think it's best that I finally put Craig on the blocked list so I don't get in a pickle..

Feel free to block away JM but it is a bit rich for you to accuse anyone of being a wind up merchant. Besides all I posted was a fact in that Nadal is a more recent slam winner than Federer and it was you that went off on one about Murray when the discussion had nothing to do with him.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Feel free to block away JM but it is a bit rich for you to accuse anyone of being a wind up merchant. Besides all I posted was a fact in that Nadal is a more recent slam winner than Federer and it was you that went off on one about Murray when the discussion had nothing to do with him.

:clap:

I don't need to see his comments quoted thank you haddie, unlike you I don't wear fan boy tinted glasses.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I don't need to see his comments quoted thank you haddie, unlike you I don't wear fan boy tinted glasses.

That's one of your best jokes, ever. You're quite the young comedian

banbotram

Yes they dont get much better than that do they ..

luciusmann wrote:Hardly Banbotram. Djokovic would have become No.1 last year regardless of whether he won Wimbledon last year, and he only had one slam (in the rankings table) to his name last year prior to the Wimbledon final.

As for you're attack (which is more or less what it is) on Fed's credentials to be No.1: of the 4 big tournaments Fed won since the USO last year, 2 of them (WTF & IW) drew all of the top 4 seeds, in the other 2, only Nadal (@ Paris) and Murray (@ Madrid) were absent. Fed only becomes No.1 immediately if he wins Wimbledon and given Djokovic was in the same position last year regardless of if he won Wimbledon or not, there's nothing suspect in it at all. Suggesting it might be is strange.

It's usually consistency and at least a slam that gives you the No.1 spot, hence why Fed held the No.1 spot in 2008 despite Nadal winning RG and Wimbledon, Fed only lost it when he exited Canada in R2 and Cinci in R3 yet he only had one slam and Nadal 2. Players don't usually get to be No.1 just for winning 2 or 3 of the slams. Consistency at many tournaments is the key, something Fed has had regardless of if tournaments have drawn a full slate of top seeds or not. As for Murray, winning those tournaments like Cinci or Canada or Shanghai: it isn't enough to become No.1 winning these alone. Usually you need a slam. These tournaments matter if you want that No.1 ranking.

You misunderstand me - the attack isn't on the GOAT, it's on his arrogant fans who dismiss his three rivals - whilst fogetting that Fed has shown himself to be very mortal during the last 29 months

I actually stated before, that if it's a hot Wimbledon then I favour Fed and then Murray, as for me these two have proven themselves to the best player on the very fast conditions (which Wimby would be if hot). Sadly it's set to be average at best - so Nole and Nadal are favoured

It would just be good if fans like Josiah stopped their petty disparaging comments about the ability of other players. I've never stated that Fed is finished for instance of ever questioned his ability. Indeed, as I've also stated many times, I admire the way he's happy to have half a ton of enforced errors, so he can stay true to his principles

Hence, such a post always need putting in context - it's designed to cool the ardour of the fervent Fed fans, who think he can still rock up at Slams and win as though he's shelling peas

banbrotam wrote: You misunderstand me - the attack isn't on the GOAT, it's on his arrogant fans who dismiss his three rivals - whilst fogetting that Fed has shown himself to be very mortal during the last 29 months

I actually stated before, that if it's a hot Wimbledon then I favour Fed and then Murray, as for me these two have proven themselves to the best player on the very fast conditions (which Wimby would be if hot). Sadly it's set to be average at best - so Nole and Nadal are favoured

It would just be good if fans like Josiah stopped their petty disparaging comments about the ability of other players. I've never stated that Fed is finished for instance of ever questioned his ability. Indeed, as I've also stated many times, I admire the way he's happy to have half a ton of enforced errors, so he can stay true to his principles

Hence, such a post always need putting in context - it's designed to cool the ardour of the fervent Fed fans, who think he can still rock up at Slams and win as though he's shelling peas

Ahh, okay, I understand now. Josiah is more excitable than deliberately disparaging if anything. Usually he does so in a way which you can't take too seriously, so it's not too bad. Since there are so many Fed fans, there's only a few fervent ones who are not open to reason and we usually know which ones those are.

Regarding conditions, it's difficult to decide: damp and wet conditions might be equally good for Fed because it makes retrieving the lower bouncing balls harder which wouldn't help excellent retrievers like Nadal and Djokovic. Whereas hot conditions also help Fed because the ball travels faster through the air. I'd have thought either would help. Since rain is forecast later in the week, that probably would be good for Fed. The conditions could change in the second week, is it known what the weather might be like then? More rain?

"Who Will Win Wimbledon?"

Andy Murray will win at Wimbledon, when the Olympics start in July!

banbrotam wrote:

Jahu wrote:social, as usually polluting every thread with cr@p against Nadal and excusing Djoko for his loses.

Same old tune, new GS, stay tunned for same stuff if Djoko does not win W.

I've never noticed 'social' polute any thread and his support of Nole is so subtle I'm only mildly aware of it. We could do with a lot worse in terms of fan worship than this (talking of which where exactly is Tenez

There is an argument that Nadal has had one or two kind draws at Wimbledon and this is certainly another and when we're evaluating the Top 2, who are so close in ability - that can make all the difference and so is a relevant discussion

Well thank banbro, I have in life realized you can't please everyone or respond to every stupid comment you hear. In short of course it is relevant that Nadal has had the easier semi DRAW FROM THE OUTSET in 8 of the last 9 semis. And again in regards to who wins this wimbeldon he has gotten it again. This makes it much easier for him potentially than his rival.

IMBL, I appreciate the support but honestly these are the facts that don't bear speculation. A. Roger is the harder semi draw B. In 8 of the lasat 9 slams Novak has drawn Roger C. This is a big advantage for Nadal.

Not necessarily. I have explained in big detail on a post yesterday on my thread showing the H2H in Slams and showing that for Nadal, both Federer and Murray are really similar propositions. (which btw you have not replied to yet.. )

And can you also combat my post on this thread and explain why you thought Nadal would win after seeing the draw but not before it.

Thanks

10IS I repeat I do not speculate it is a fact. Roger federer is the tougher semi final opponent. He beat Djoko at RG last year and had him at death's door at USO this year. And Djoko has gotten the tougher semi draw at the outset 8 out of 9 times. Now IMBL and other Nadal fans can pretend that this isn't a huge structural advantage and this is just a reflection of my pro-djoko bias or anti-nadal bias. But it is no such thing. I am stating an obvious fact that bears little or no argument. The rest of the arguments you made to satire my arguments 10IS where laughable. What exactly is laughable by saying that getting federer at the outset in your half 8 out of 9 times when you should get him 50 percent of the time is a huge disadvantage?

It's really not.
Federer hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007. Djokovic found it easier in the FO SF this year compared to AO semi, no?

Anyway you are not addressing my posts at all.
I earlier asked you this:

socal1976 wrote:I voted Nadal. He will ride his momentum and the structural advantage he has been afforded of possibly only playing one top 3 player on his way to winning the title while Djokovic again will have to most likely beat 2 top 3 players to win the title. Just like Nadal rode this huge advantage in the draw afforded him to titles at RG in 2011 and 2012 he will do it again at wimby.

This for example. I can't understand this post. It states basically Nadal will ride his huge advantage in the draw to afford him to win the title here.
What can we deduct from this? Well by the tone and later comments we can see that Socal, although he appreciates Nadal has momentum, thinks this draw in his mind is the turning point. That before this draw Socal though Nadal might not win and after the draw it means Socal is sure Nadal will win.

I think that is frankly ridiculous. Let's be brutally honest here if Nadal is to win the tournament he is going to have to beat his arch-nemesis Djokovic. So we can assume SoCal thinks Nadal will beat Djokovic when they play, that he is playing well enough to beat Djokovic. If we look at the finals last year and this year we can see that Djokovic is the toughest draw for Nadal. If he is playing well enough to beat Djokovic, surely in SoCal's mind the semi draw for Nadal will be irrelevant? If he can beat Djoko then surely he topple Federer and Murray, no?
I can't fathom how SoCal thinks the draw has changed the situation. IMO Nadal has the hardest quarter, and if SoCal thinks Nadal can beat Djoko in the final then he should be playing well enough to beat Federer. If he is not playing well enough to beat Federer in the semis (if he had drawn him) then he would never have beaten Djokovic simple as.

So can you explain why you thought Nadal will only win Wimbledon due to the draw? He will still have to beat Djoko in the final, and if he can beat Djoko he can deal with both Murray and Federer, no? I can't see any holes in my logic, can you?

IMBL, I like a little weed myself occassionally what are you smoking that is potent that makes you make weird statements that federer isn't the more dangerous opponent, and can I get some? I am going to make it short and sweet and please, I appreciate your knowledge and enthusiasm but refrain from super long posts that are densly packed requiring a term paper length answer.

H2H:

Murray v. Nadal: 5 wins 13 losses
FEd v. Nadal: 10 wins 18 losses
ferrer v. Nadal: 4 wins 16 losses

End of story IMBL, Fed is the more dangerous semi opponent. No need for 400 word logical exercises in futility, the proof is in the pudding. Numbers my friend, hard numbers.
ferrer v. Nadal:

Ferrer only comes into the picture for clay Anyway who can beat Nadal on clay (apart from Djokovic)?
Funny you give the overall H2H but not the slam ones where Nadal has a worse record against Murray compared to Federer.

But you are right throughout his career in Slams Federer has still been more dangerous then Murray for Nadal in slams, for experience and belief if not anything else.
But lately with Fed ageing I feel both players have similar difficulty for Nadal in Slams.
Firstly the last time Fed beat Nadal in a Slam was 2007, while Murray has won twice since 2008 against Nadal in Slams.
Also these days both players have similar performances against Nadal in slams, in USO, AO and Wimby all went to 4 sets.

And lastly, a point which you have cleverly managed to ignore (and am sure you will try to do again ) is that does it make a difference to Nadals' chances of winning a slam?
In the last 4 slams he has had to face Djokovic in the finals, and will probably have to do so if he reached the finals in the next slams too. If he can't beat his semi-final opponent, either Federer or Murray, then he can't beat Djokovic. If he is playing well enough to beat Djokovic and win the slam he should be able to beat Fed or Murray in the semis.
End of Story.

socal1976 wrote:I voted Nadal. He will ride his momentum and the structural advantage he has been afforded of possibly only playing one top 3 player on his way to winning the title while Djokovic again will have to most likely beat 2 top 3 players to win the title. Just like Nadal rode this huge advantage in the draw afforded him to titles at RG in 2011 and 2012 he will do it again at wimby.

I do find that weird reasoning. After all weren't we in the same case scenario last summer at Wimbledon? And didn't Djokovic beat Nadal in the final? And don't forget that Djokovic this year goes into Wimbledon on the back of a better showing at RG than he had last year.

socal1976 wrote:IMBL, I like a little weed myself occassionally what are you smoking that is potent that makes you make weird statements that federer isn't the more dangerous opponent, and can I get some? I am going to make it short and sweet and please, I appreciate your knowledge and enthusiasm but refrain from super long posts that are densly packed requiring a term paper length answer.

H2H:

Murray v. Nadal: 5 wins 13 losses
FEd v. Nadal: 10 wins 18 losses
ferrer v. Nadal: 4 wins 16 losses

End of story IMBL, Fed is the more dangerous semi opponent. No need for 400 word logical exercises in futility, the proof is in the pudding. Numbers my friend, hard numbers.
ferrer v. Nadal:

Social. But if the facts don't take into account relatively current events then they become meaningless. In the majors, since the beggining of last year - there has been no more of threat from Fed than Murray or perhaps let's say there has been a marginally bigger threat (i.e. Fed had match points against Nole). It certainly isn't the case that he is obviously the most dangerous opponent

Take 2010 stats into the picture then he's more of a favourite

Go back from 2007 and then he is far more dangerous

Go back to June 2003 and he merely has to turn up

I just think we have to be careful about using all the stats of someone's career, particularly when they are at their tail end

Who cares about stats? We don't need tennispedia nerds 24/7.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Who cares about stats? We don't need tennispedia nerds 24/7.

What do we need then?
It's a tennis forum, so clearly tennis stats are relevant. If you personally don't need them, then don't read them, and don't comment disparagingly on them. We certainly don't need pointless negative comments 24/7.

I'd rather post opinions than mere stats julie. Anyway, I have a fondue reserved with my name on it. Laters julie