Delpo will beat Nadal

First topic message reminder :

Having beaten Nadal in a semi before and now fitter than before, I reckon that Delpo will come triumph in the last 16 encounter with Nadal.

Delpo has a respectable 3-5 h2h against him and with few matches under his belt, he is gaining back his old confidence which helped him in winning the 2010 US open by beating Nadal and Fed.

It will be good for the sport if Delpo wins tomorrow as it will open the race to no. 1 wide open.

Let's hope and pray for the best.

I read yesterday that Del Potro was still complaining about the time violation Nadal was given during his medical timeout but in between i'm sure he also complained about when the MTO was taken but as Del Potro found out, it's in the disgression of the umpire to allow it. Doesn't make sense for Nadal to fake injury after hitting a great shot to bring up a set point and not be bothered to fight for it. Not to forget, he was down 3-0 when the tie break started so unless it was a masterplan by Nadal to get Del Potro to 3-0 up before reaping the benefit of the unfair MTO, I have no idea what else was the plan.

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:If Nadal can't play the quarter final, is it going to be regarded that he is still undefeated at Wimbledon since 2007?

I already disagree with the statement that because he wasn't able to defend the title in 2009, he remained undefeated as injury is part of the game and players have to compete with it as well as other players. If he had been forced to retire during the first round he would have gone down as defeated.

Don't get me wrong, to win Wimbledon twice in three years as he did is a great achievement whether you can't play in between the victories or lose if you do, but I disagree with the perception that is given of being him undefeated. When people look back at the record books, the winner's name will be all they see, not who was or wasn't absent.

Haven't you heard? According to his fans he's not actually lost anywhere for about 4 years.

Is it just me who gets the feeling that Boris Baker doesn't really like Nadal? He very rarely picks Rafa to win any majors - that is fine but i see him get little excited when the opponents gets better of rafa. If it is just me - then sorry

superochog wrote:Is it just me who gets the feeling that Boris Baker doesn't really like Nadal? He very rarely picks Rafa to win any majors - that is fine but i see him get little excited when the opponents gets better of rafa. If it is just me - then sorry

Probably he is a friend of Tenez

Didn't a 14 year old Rafa beat Boris? Think Boris himself mentioned it once. If I dreamt that then what Haddie said

No I dont fink so... he beat Pat Cash and Carlos Moya when he was 14 ... not so sure about Boris

Dont bliddy blame Me cats

No that was Pat Cash. Who cares whether Becker likes Nadal or not? Becker doesn't speak much highly of him but he is not a bad commentator so that is a positive.

I was unsure about how Becker viewed Nadal but this is a direct quote from the big man taken from BBC Sport:

"Nadal is a worthy Wimbledon champion and a worthy world number one. In all my years in tennis I have rarely seen player of his calibre. I really admire him."

Can't understand the fuss on here re the injury, Nadal clearly felt pain when he hit the forehand down the line and also had momentum at that point. I thought it had been a fine first set up until then.

Also, how is it that these allegedly feigned injuries and subsequent medical time-outs favour Nadal? If, as claimed by some renowned anti-Nadal posters, the Spaniard is only at the top of the game due to his superior fitness how is it that he finds his timing and groove more quickly than his 'more naturally talented' opponent(s)? Could it be that the ten-time slam champion IS truly talented?

Oh wow !!!!! wait for it...!!!!

bogbrush wrote:

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:If Nadal can't play the quarter final, is it going to be regarded that he is still undefeated at Wimbledon since 2007?

I already disagree with the statement that because he wasn't able to defend the title in 2009, he remained undefeated as injury is part of the game and players have to compete with it as well as other players. If he had been forced to retire during the first round he would have gone down as defeated.

Don't get me wrong, to win Wimbledon twice in three years as he did is a great achievement whether you can't play in between the victories or lose if you do, but I disagree with the perception that is given of being him undefeated. When people look back at the record books, the winner's name will be all they see, not who was or wasn't absent.

Haven't you heard? According to his fans he's not actually lost anywhere for about 4 years.

I was actually referring to the repeated mention of this on the BBC. I am not talking about his fans versus his critics, only the question of whether injury should be included or excluded from undefeated runs. The fact that it is Nadal is incidental to the argument. Since only he and Federer have have sustained success at slams in recent years the choice of player was limited, especially as Nadal seems to have had more injuries than Federer.

Schrodinger's

It's a bit of a difficult one - I guess the point of the BBC highlighting the fact is that it shows how very difficult to beat Rafa has been at Wimbledon over the last several years (as I mentioned in another thread, he is now at a record of 30 wins to 2 losses since 2006, with both losses being in finals to Federer, and is unbeaten for his last 18 matches).

As a general thing, I don't think absence from a tournament because of injury is considered as interupting a streak of wins (after all, Djokovic withdrew from at least one tournament during his streak at the start of the season), but I also think that winning consecutive (Wimbledon)tournaments carries a greater kudos than a long period unbeaten if you were only playing every other year.

Nadal's injury scare is over. He has declared that he is fit to play against Mardy Fish. This is going to be a tight encounter.

MIghty Fish can beat Nadal

wow wrote:Nadal's injury scare is over. He has declared that he is fit to play against Mardy Fish. This is going to be a tight encounter.

MIghty Fish can beat Nadal

You have to get it right at some stage wow, but like your last prediction I think this one will go the same way

Fish to be left floundering and all at sea I'm afraid.

dummy_half wrote:Schrodinger's

It's a bit of a difficult one - I guess the point of the BBC highlighting the fact is that it shows how very difficult to beat Rafa has been at Wimbledon over the last several years (as I mentioned in another thread, he is now at a record of 30 wins to 2 losses since 2006, with both losses being in finals to Federer, and is unbeaten for his last 18 matches).

As a general thing, I don't think absence from a tournament because of injury is considered as interupting a streak of wins (after all, Djokovic withdrew from at least one tournament during his streak at the start of the season), but I also think that winning consecutive (Wimbledon)tournaments carries a greater kudos than a long period unbeaten if you were only playing every other year.

Correct above - I remember Agassi having a big streak at the AO in the early 2000s, but one year in the middle he didn't play at all.

We all know Fish is anenome of Nadal, but will that leave Rafa angling for a plaice in the semi's ?

Jubbahey wrote:We all know Fish is anenome of Nadal, but will that leave Rafa angling for a plaice in the semi's ?

Here we go - Rafa will batter Fish and have a whale of a time doing it

sportslover wrote:

wow wrote:Nadal's injury scare is over. He has declared that he is fit to play against Mardy Fish. This is going to be a tight encounter.

MIghty Fish can beat Nadal

You have to get it right at some stage wow, but like your last prediction I think this one will go the same way

I know SL. Delpo prediction was more in hope but fish is just wishful thinking.
But.., I am very sure that Murray will definitely beat Nadal

wow wrote:

sportslover wrote:

wow wrote:Nadal's injury scare is over. He has declared that he is fit to play against Mardy Fish. This is going to be a tight encounter.

MIghty Fish can beat Nadal

You have to get it right at some stage wow, but like your last prediction I think this one will go the same way

I know SL. Delpo prediction was more in hope but fish is just wishful thinking.
But.., I am very sure that Murray will definitely beat Nadal

What worries me with your predictions is you keep saying Andy will win wimbe, lets hope you get that one right as well.

wow wrote:Nadal's injury scare is over. He has declared that he is fit to play against Mardy Fish.

Cool! I was afraid he was injured, for a while.

Tom_____ wrote:Correct above - I remember Agassi having a big streak at the AO in the early 2000s, but one year in the middle he didn't play at all.

Yep. According to Rios, he had tested positive for Nandrolone and flew back to the US the following day he arrived in Australia....or something like that.

dummy_half wrote:Schrodinger's

It's a bit of a difficult one - I guess the point of the BBC highlighting the fact is that it shows how very difficult to beat Rafa has been at Wimbledon over the last several years (as I mentioned in another thread, he is now at a record of 30 wins to 2 losses since 2006, with both losses being in finals to Federer, and is unbeaten for his last 18 matches).

As a general thing, I don't think absence from a tournament because of injury is considered as interupting a streak of wins (after all, Djokovic withdrew from at least one tournament during his streak at the start of the season), but I also think that winning consecutive (Wimbledon)tournaments carries a greater kudos than a long period unbeaten if you were only playing every other year.

In that case is is correct to regard Djokovic's streak as an unbeaten streak? Basically you can keep a streak going by withdrawing before a tournament, but if you have to retire injuring during a tournament, even if it is a pre-existing injury you lose your streak. That doesn't seem right to me.

By the BBC's reasoning, I am unbeaten at Wimbledon for longer than any professional player in history!

Jubbahey wrote:We all know Fish is anenome of Nadal, but will that leave Rafa angling for a plaice in the semi's ?

Mods - surely that deserves a permanent ban

Cod only knows what will happen if we don't stop these puns. I would hake for this plaice to end up talking pollocks all the time.

Enforcer wrote:Cod only knows what will happen if we don't stop these puns. I would hake for this plaice to end up talking pollocks all the time.

Nice one - how long did it take you to come up with it

What can I say? Too much time on my hands obviously!

Just don't hake a halibut of it

I've haddock-nough of these puns...

Ok that one was really terrible!

To quote Paul Merton: all these fish puns are giving me a haddock!