Only Ferrer can Beat Nadal - Nadal makes a mince meat of Ferrer

First topic message reminder :

Ferrer's display of tennis was utter awesome, known for his fighting spirit he is playing with something to prove and in a form of life .

Its Vintage Rafa against Spirited Ferrer, Ferrer is the only guy capable of beating this Rafa at this current tournament, if Ferrer lets it go it could well be 7th RG title for Rafa.

Djokovic and Federer had a tough QF unlike Rafa, and one of them will be knocked out in the semi, on the other hand this Rafa would have knocked either of them out if he had to face them in the semi, so Djoko and Fed should have nothing to complain as Nadal will take a form beast in the semi.

For Djoko/Fed do the business in the semi and expect Ferrer to do the business in the other one, most likely Ferrer will do it.
Fed/Djoko fans should be happy that neither of their hero have to take on Rafa in the semi, so if Djoko or Fed cannot win the respective semi they simply dont deserve the title, the draw cannot become better for them now.

4 best players in the semi [nothing against Murray, but on clay Ferrer is miles ahead of him].

Go Ferrer go.

Edit -- Interesting lines in RG website - http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2012-06-07/201206071339090169485.html


Ask anyone here at Roland Garros how they see Rafael Nadal’s semi-final against David Ferrer turning out, and there isn’t too much variation in the replies. This answer is reasonably typical: “I think you can win a set from Rafa, but there is a difference between winning a set and winning a match. Winning a match against Rafa is almost impossible.” Sounds about right. So who spoke those words? Step forward David Ferrer, assessing his own task in the last four against his good friend Rafa Nadal.

----
Update

Nadal makes a mince meat of David Ferrer, Ferrer came up with his B-game and Nadal played his A-game in the first set after its was 2-2 which means a disaster for Ferrer and thats what happened in the end.

I for once thought Ferrer goes into the game with positive mind set, but he bowed down once he saw the glimse of Nadal's A-game. Well done David Ferrer for sticking with your words and an impressive fight.

Poor Nadal didnt even get a practice match before the finals, this is unfair on Nadal, he is now asked to defend his crown without even a practice match.

IC, I'm not discrediting Ferrer on anything. Yes he won that match. A win is a win.

But...are we to ignore any injury in any match no matter how obvious or critical as mitigation?
Are we to ignore the actual words of Ferrer himself taken IMMEDIATELY after the match on-court?
Are we to ignore that if we put that match aside that Nadal is 11-0 against Ferrer since 2007 and so clearly the injury must have had some effect on Nadal...given it was an EASY straights loss to Ferrer?

But more than that, you were the one who actually brought up the AO11 match as an example of Ferrer beating Nadal fair and square by saying...

invisiblecoolers wrote:Actually Ferrer will run Nadal out of stamina like he did in AO 2011

But the loss wasn't due to "running out of stamina" was it? Nadal won 9 games.

invisiblecoolers wrote:if one guy who will tire out after 3 sets its will be Nadal first, just watch AO 2011, Nadal was completely exhausted after playing brilliant game.

1. Nadal wasn't completely exhausted, he was completely injured...as references given to you by myself and IMBL point out. Ferrer could clearly see that...as could every other observer who said Nadal wasn't running for balls as early as the 4th game and wondered how long it would be before he retired from the match.
2. Nadal did not play a "brilliant game", unless you call a brilliant game not running for balls which is kind of an anathema to Nadal.

Ferrer does move players left and right, he's a great player, an under-appreciated player and he's a challenge for Nadal no doubt but we're taking about AO11 and the reasons you gave for that win are not supported by the observations and interviews. To be then accused or sour grapes and worshipping for pointing this out is ridiculous. Yes Ferrer won...credit of sorts for getting past the finish line...but everyone knew it was a hollow win hence why Ferrer himself immediately on-court acknowledged "it wasnt really a victory"! Just what more is there to say about that match?

Take that anomaly match out and Nadal is 11-0 since 2007. This is the reason I give Ferrer very little chance. But I don't underestimate the challenge nonetheless.

Very similar to Federer v Nadal @FO 2008 and Federer's health being a factor.

Like Murray's back being a factor against Ferrer, etc.

There is no way Ferrer is ever going to beat Nadal on clay. That will NOT happen. Nadal in this form is never going to lose as he is out there is a sense of purpose. He has a lot to prove after last year and he will not allow himself to fall short of overtaking Borg. With Federer's record vs Nadal on clay and Djokovic playing nowhere near the form he was a year ago where he was able to beat Nadal on clay, this title is Nadal's.

On the other hand, if you look back at history I notice that equalling a record and breaking it are two different things all together. Take Fed in 2008 Wimbledon. looking to break Borg's record Nadal stopped him. RG 2009, Nadal attempted to break Borg's record and he fell short. The 'Nadal' slam in early 2011 did not happen at the AO.

But its highly unlikely Nadal will fail this year. RG is as predictable as Monte Carlo in my opinion.

What did Federer have vs Nadal FO 2008???
I think you are getting confused with AO 2008, where Fed said he was ill and had glandular fever.

Murray vs Ferrer... No its not really like that. Murray was moving really well in the match, his forehand UE let him down, not movement.

LF, completely disagree and I'm surprised you returned with that.
Nadal was visibly limping in that match from the 4th game...not running for balls.
Where were Federer and Murray so obviously affected early (or at all with injury) in those matches?
Where did the victor acknowledge it was a hollow victory after the match on-court?
Come on...you're stretching things far too much to link those 3 events.

If Ferrer is to stand any chance then he must mix up his play. Nadal is going to literally stretch him all across the court. Hanging in there with FH after FH or BH after BH is not enough. I think Ferrer has to use the slice to great effect. Deep length. Try and slice to wide court on his BH may win him a few points, provided Nadal doesn't resort to the inside out FH.

Ferrer really is facing his worst nightmare on any court.

Well Murray's back injury vs Ferrer is a bit similar to Nadal's foot injury in Wimbledon final last year.
For me both of these injuries were managed BEFORE the match and hence DON'T count as injury excuses. If you can see Wimby 2011 final Nadal is moving fine, meanwhile back injury wasn't really a factor yesterday, Murray 2nd serve was vulnerable and he didn't come up with the right game plan.
As for FO 2008, I think laver got confused with AO 2008 where fed had mono.

It Must Be Love wrote:Well Murray's back injury vs Ferrer is a bit similar to Nadal's foot injury in Wimbledon final last year.
For me both of these injuries were managed BEFORE the match and hence DON'T count as injury excuses. If you can see Wimby 2011 final Nadal is moving fine, meanwhile back injury wasn't really a factor yesterday, Murray 2nd serve was vulnerable and he didn't come up with the right game plan.
As for FO 2008, I think laver got confused with AO 2008 where fed had mono.

Not entirely true. The length of recovery even to this is not known. For me physically he didn't look with it until the US Open, though that said I don't think it would've changed the outcomes at the FO and Wimbledon that year.

legendkillarV2 wrote:If Ferrer is to stand any chance then he must mix up his play. Nadal is going to literally stretch him all across the court. Hanging in there with FH after FH or BH after BH is not enough. I think Ferrer has to use the slice to great effect. Deep length. Try and slice to wide court on his BH may win him a few points, provided Nadal doesn't resort to the inside out FH.

Ferrer really is facing his worst nightmare on any court.

No he isn't! Ferrer's worst nightmare by far is Federer. H2H 0-13. In all their meetings he has only won 3 sets. Most of the times they played it was a demolition.

Nadal is no nightmare. In fact he has had a few dream wins over him. Not another one on friday though... I hope.

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:If Ferrer is to stand any chance then he must mix up his play. Nadal is going to literally stretch him all across the court. Hanging in there with FH after FH or BH after BH is not enough. I think Ferrer has to use the slice to great effect. Deep length. Try and slice to wide court on his BH may win him a few points, provided Nadal doesn't resort to the inside out FH.

Ferrer really is facing his worst nightmare on any court.

No he isn't! Ferrer's worst nightmare by far is Federer. H2H 0-13. In all their meetings he has only won 3 sets. Most of the times they played it was a demolition.

Nadal is no nightmare. In fact he has had a few dream wins over him. Not another one on friday though... I hope.

He only beat Nadal on Hard!

His on clay success was when Nadal was 17

Ferrer has a positive H2H vs Nadal in slams
Let's see if Nadal can change that 2moro.

Well it's good that Rafa is at least up against a guy at the French that some think MIGHT give him a decent match.
However, have to agree with some of the posters that Rafa will come through. I doubt if Ferrer will even get a set. It could follow the pattern of the Almagro match - competitive to start with and then Rafa running away with it.
You have to reckon that the only guy likely to stop Rafa chalking up another RG triumph is not Ferrer but Djoko. But who knows, they may not even meet in the final.

I agree with the OP this far - Ferrer is a formidible SF opponent for Nadal, probably the most formidible SF opponent since Djoko in 2008 and there's a strong case for saying he's the worst possible SF opponent in the draw. Nadal's cakewalk draw is over, and he also got a nice little work out yesterday.

However, whilst Ferrer can match the stamina of a fit Nadal, he does not have the weapons or the 'been there done that' confidence of Nadal, so if Nadal has reasonable fitness he starts the match as very strong, even overwhelming, favourite in my view - the H2H shows that Ferrer has not beaten Nadal on clay since 2004 http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=F401, and his other wins over Nadal were late 2007 on HC when Nadal was still very much learning his HC trade and the 2010 Aus Open which, even assuming Nadal was fit, is not the same as RG.

Against that, it's the biggest singles match of Ferrer's career - he's been to two Slam SF's before but never on the surface where he poses the greatest threat; he's 30 and in a magnificent run of form - you've got to hope he gives it a super-human effort and really pushes Nadal.

I'd like to see Ferrer do it but have little hope for him. If he can't the next best is to see him drain down Nadal's batteries in a marathon 4-5 setter giving us the chance of a more open final - I so want the winner to come from the other half of the draw which has provided pretty much all of the best entertainment this RG.

lydian wrote:LF, completely disagree and I'm surprised you returned with that.
Nadal was visibly limping in that match from the 4th game...not running for balls.
Where were Federer and Murray so obviously affected early (or at all with injury) in those matches?
Where did the victor acknowledge it was a hollow victory after the match on-court?
Come on...you're stretching things far too much to link those 3 events.

I am not offering any excuses for losses. If you show up in the court with a racquet and play ball, there is not such thing as not being fit. If a player is not, they should just give a W/O, a la Federer in Doha 2012 v Tsonga, IIRC. 2009 W, Nadal withdrew when he was not ready, for any number of reasons, including injuries.

Take a look at this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAHCy5WkZzw (It has been posted several times on v2, IIRC).

It Must Be Love wrote:As for FO 2008, I think laver got confused with AO 2008 where fed had mono.

No, I did not. Where are Ancic and Soderling today with GF?

As I have said earlier, if you show up in the court with a racquet, there are no excuses.

Not sure whether this side-bar is in spirit of this thread though.

I would agree that outside of Nadal, Ferrer is in the best form of those remaining. However I still think that Djokovic has the best chance of stopping Nadal.

Its not because I think Djokovic is better than Fed on clay but i just feel that Fed has had so many chances and has never managed to pull it off or even take it to 5 sets. I think if Djokovic can reach the final (a lot of work to do yet) the hunger of going for four in a row could push him to an exceptional level.

Of course on the other hand the expectations will be so high but if he could pull out a career clay performance, i definitely think he can beat Nadal. He has fond memories of their past 3 grand slam final meetings and that can never be overlooked and would certainly be in Nadals mind if they met on Sunday. Exciting times ahead, i just hope Nadal and Djokovic both make the final.

That being said, would hold nothing against Ferrer, have so much respect for him. what a fantastic competitor he is

Yes I agree LF; a win is a win. In the records it is counted as a win, that is that.

But when discussing the predictions for Friday, when analysing AO 2010 rather than saying this means Ferrer can easily win, surely we have to consider the injury...?

I mean if Nadal faces Ferrer in RG tomorrow but then falls over and twists his ankle Ferrer would win... and I would be the first to congratulate him and acknowledge a win is a win.
But would that mean when they next face next year in RG would Ferrer be favourite as he had won their last meeting in RG, or would we consider that Nadal was injured when he lost...

legendkillarV2 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:If Ferrer is to stand any chance then he must mix up his play. Nadal is going to literally stretch him all across the court. Hanging in there with FH after FH or BH after BH is not enough. I think Ferrer has to use the slice to great effect. Deep length. Try and slice to wide court on his BH may win him a few points, provided Nadal doesn't resort to the inside out FH.

Ferrer really is facing his worst nightmare on any court.

No he isn't! Ferrer's worst nightmare by far is Federer. H2H 0-13. In all their meetings he has only won 3 sets. Most of the times they played it was a demolition.

Nadal is no nightmare. In fact he has had a few dream wins over him. Not another one on friday though... I hope.

He only beat Nadal on Hard!

His on clay success was when Nadal was 17

The thing is Ferrer has beaten Nadal on clay! How many players can say that. Ferrer is a member of this very select club. He is also a member of the "taken a set off Nadal on clay" club and the "got to 5 games in a set against Nadal" club. This makes him one of the biggest challenges that the ATP can come up with for Nadal on clay.

It's not Nadal's fault that no challenge is considered tough enough for him. Look at the French Open entry list and try and fix a draw that would be considered tricky. Isner in the first round? No done that. And no he can't play Djokovic before the final (because of the seeding this year)... although he's done that too a few times.

laverfan wrote: As I have said earlier, if you show up in the court with a racquet, there are no excuses.

I almost 100% agree with that - fit enough to play, fit enough to lose, give your opponent credit, and shut up about it. A sports career is about getting yourself in the right shape at the right moments; if you don't you lose and someone else wins and you may as well reflect on how you can avoid a recurrence. Top tennis players are lucky, they get 4 shots at glory a year, not one shot every 4 years.

The one caveat is if you have an accident during the match which KO's you - I guess even then there's the question of whether it was caused by you over-stretching yourself in the face of a superior opponent - so let's say if the umpire's chair falls on you during a changeover or a ballboy lets slip a ball which you turn your ankle on, then there's an excuse, no?

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes I agree LF; a win is a win. In the records it is counted as a win, that is that.

But when discussing the predictions for Friday, when analysing AO 2010 rather than saying this means Ferrer can easily win, surely we have to consider the injury...?

I mean if Nadal faces Ferrer in RG tomorrow but then falls over and twists his ankle Ferrer would win... and I would be the first to congratulate him and acknowledge a win is a win.
But would that mean when they next face next year in RG would Ferrer be favourite as he had won their last meeting in RG, or would we consider that Nadal was injured when he lost...

Each match is different. We, the statisticians, start building correlations based on past history and use that to predict the future. H2H come into the picture, we count sets, BPs, court conditions, injuries, weather, etc. and try to build a model that uses past performance to predict the future. Look at Djokovic's 2011 vs 2012, for example.

Yes I agree with that too Barrystar; i'm not talking about excuses but surely when you are analysing for their next match you have to take previous circumstances into account.
See my FO example, if Nadal had badly twisted his ankle last year and then lost to Ferrer in RG, surely we would consider when trying to predict this year's result that Ferrer's win was not significant in terms of analysis (but he still deserves credit for winning).

barrystar wrote:

laverfan wrote: As I have said earlier, if you show up in the court with a racquet, there are no excuses.

I almost 100% agree with that - fit enough to play, fit enough to lose, give your opponent credit, and shut up about it. A sports career is about getting yourself in the right shape at the right moments; if you don't you lose and someone else wins and you may as well reflect on how you can avoid a recurrence. Top tennis players are lucky, they get 4 shots at glory a year, not one shot every 4 years.

The one caveat is if you have an accident during the match which KO's you - I guess even then there's the question of whether it was caused by you over-stretching yourself in the face of a superior opponent - so let's say if the umpire's chair falls on you during a changeover or a ballboy lets slip a ball which you turn your ankle on, then there's an excuse, no?

... or when something like this happens... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNeAzJeXmiA

laverfan wrote: I am not offering any excuses for losses. If you show up in the court with a racquet and play ball, there is not such thing as not being fit. If a player is not, they should just give a W/O, a la Federer in Doha 2012 v Tsonga, IIRC. 2009 W, Nadal withdrew when he was not ready, for any number of reasons, including injuries.

Yes but you said the 3 events were "very similar". I disagree.

Yes if you show up of course you're deemed fit - no-one limps onto court with a pulled hamstring to start with. Nadal's injury happened during the match, it wasnt pre-existing, so discussion about a W/O is not relevant here.

Nadal experienced the injury early in the match. That is clear. But whether that is caused by Ferrer or not is not really relevant either. Nadal simply had an injury early in the match that stopped him from competing. You talk of trends...clearly the 11-0 trend (exc. AO11) tells us that the injury clearly hampered Nadal...and it wasnt a loss casued by stamina to go back to the OP. The trend tells us that Nadal is the overwhelming favourite too.

HE...you seem to be contradicting yourself to a degree, on the one hand you're saying Ferrer is Nadal's greatest challenge and you fear him...on the other hand you wrote on another thread that Ferrer is emotionally/mentally brittle. So you think in a French Open semi (his first) against the best player ever on clay he's not going to be nervous or even choke if he got an early lead - especially knowing what Nadal usually does to him?

I just dont see a win here for Ferrer...unless Nadal ironically pulls another hamstring!

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes I agree with that too Barrystar; i'm not talking about excuses but surely when you are analysing for their next match you have to take previous circumstances into account.
See my FO example, if Nadal had badly twisted his ankle last year and then lost to Ferrer in RG, surely we would consider when trying to predict this year's result that Ferrer's win was not significant in terms of analysis (but he still deserves credit for winning).

I'd agree with that approach in the context of predicting the outcome of a forthcoming match, for sure. There's nothing in the Nadal/Ferrer H2H which suggests to me that the latter can beat a fit Nadal tomorrow - he can, however, make Nadal work very hard for the win and if Nadal has any fitness concerns that ability might make itself felt in the course of their match or the final.

lydian wrote:

laverfan wrote: I am not offering any excuses for losses. If you show up in the court with a racquet and play ball, there is not such thing as not being fit. If a player is not, they should just give a W/O, a la Federer in Doha 2012 v Tsonga, IIRC. 2009 W, Nadal withdrew when he was not ready, for any number of reasons, including injuries.

Yes but you said the 3 events were "very similar". I disagree.

Yes if you show up of course you're deemed fit - no-one limps onto court with a pulled hamstring to start with. Nadal's injury happened during the match, it wasnt pre-existing, so discussion about a W/O is not relevant here.

Nadal experienced the injury early in the match. That is clear. But whether that is caused by Ferrer or not is not really relevant either. Nadal simply had an injury early in the match that stopped him from competing. You talk of trends...clearly the 11-0 trend (exc. AO11) tells us that the injury clearly hampered Nadal...and it wasnt a loss casued by stamina to go back to the OP. The trend tells us that Nadal is the overwhelming favourite too.

Del Potro played a 5-set match with Federer and lost, with a pre-existing injury. From my perspective, it makes no difference when you are injured.

Another example, that each match is different, Madrid 2012. Verdasco v Nadal. IIRC, Verdasco won 5 games at the trot.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=V306

The previous h2h (before Madrid was 13-0), yet Verdasco managed a win, reversing a trend. There was no injury to Nadal. Was it the blue clay? Other player(s) played and won on the same surface.

Can Ferrer reverse the trend? Yes, he can!. I would love to see Ferrer once in a slam final, even if he has a Runners Up trophy.

Weather forecasting is very similar.

CommonSense wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

lydian wrote:Aggressive? lol. Perhaps you would like being called "a core worshipper" when all you did was simply repeat something that was commonly accepted fact and reported as such clearly and widely both in immediate post-match, on-court interviews and subsequently by other observers in the media? As you watched the AO11 match you'll have clearly heard Ferrer say in the interview afterwards....

Thats the respect Ferrer gives to his opponents, but you robbed Ferrer's win by citing thats the only reason he won, I see that as worshiper finding excuse for his/her hero's loss.

On that day Ferrer would have won Rafa whether he was injured or not, that was the performance of Ferrer on that day, and to still claim he can't win was just a rubbish excuse.

I don't mind even if you say Ferrer have no chance come Friday , that's entirely your opinion which is fine and perfectly acceptable, but to say what a result happened in the past is asterisked is ultra kiddish.

Invisiblecoolers: Well-argued, power to you !!

Lydian: Sour-grapes, shame on you !!!

Thanks for prevailing some common sense into this topic Common Sense

lydian wrote:IC, I'm not discrediting Ferrer on anything. Yes he won that match. A win is a win.

But...are we to ignore any injury in any match no matter how obvious or critical as mitigation?
Are we to ignore the actual words of Ferrer himself taken IMMEDIATELY after the match on-court?
Take that anomaly match out and Nadal is 11-0 since 2007. This is the reason I give Ferrer very little chance. But I don't underestimate the challenge nonetheless.

Lyd Nadal ran out of breath in that particular match, even in USO 2007 Ferrer made Nadal sweat and thats prime Nadal we talking about when comes to stamina not the game.

Nadal is a better player than Ferrer in clay without a doubt, but we talking about stamina, and Ferrer equal Nadal there if not better it .

Take the anomaly match, and Nadal is 11-0, [If this is not taking credentials away from Ferrer's win, I am sorry you are clearly confused], so if Ferrer wins its anomaly match right , your contradicting yourself Lyd, at first line you said a Win is a Win and later you say its an anamoly match and hence Nadal 11-0 after 2007, Lyd take some beer and chill yourself off, Ferrer deserved that win Fair and square, on that given day Ferrer was the better player and hence rightly deserver the win.

Coming back to Friday, I am not saying Ferrer gonna win Nadal , I am just saying he is the best equipped in this current tournament to take Nadal down, he is in form, he is full of belief and full of stamina, Nadal will not have an easy ride and this unless Nadal plays his A-game through out Ferrer might pull an upset and do the favors for Nole/Fed.

The 2 best equipped guys to take out Nadal before Djokovic or Federer were taken out yesterday.

One was Murray

The other was Almagro...we know how that ended

Invisible Coolers:
'Actually Ferrer will run Nadal out of stamina like he did in AO 2011.'
'To add more I saw the match but I bet you didn't, coz no ways an injured guy could move like Nadal did in 2nd and 3rd set, go watch the match first'
'If one guy who will tire out after 3 sets its will be Nadal first, just watch AO 2011, Nadal was completely exhausted after playing brilliant game.'

BBC Sport live text:
Nadal 1-3 Ferrer*
After gingerly returning to his baseline, Rafa opens game four by dumping a groundstroke into the net. The 24-year-old is struggling badly and, despite picking up a point, Ferrer reels off a couple of winners that Nadal doesn't even move for. So two break points to the man from Javea and he takes the first with a backhand down the line. Ferrer breaks to restore his early advantage. For how long Rafa will continue is anyone's guess.
* denotes next server

Ferrer:
"This is one big victory for me, but it's not like a victory really," seventh-seeded Ferrer said on court after the match. "He was playing with injury...and I had luck. But I played my game."


I give credit to Ferrer for being so determined and so focused... I have said many times Ferrer is the last person Nadal would want to play when injured, he is a fearsome competitor

laverfan wrote:
From my perspective, it makes no difference when you are injured.

Really!

So if Federer breaks his finger and has to quit his match with Djokovic due to injury... 'it makes no difference.'
Or if he plays on with a broken finger and loses 6-0 6-0 6-0 'it makes no difference.'

Of course it makes a difference.

It Must Be Love wrote:Ferrer has a positive H2H vs Nadal in slams
Let's see if Nadal can change that 2moro.

Thats a nice stats , I wont be surprised if Lyd enter the discussion and say all those wins are not counted citing reasons like
1] Nadal had a knee problem,
2] Nadal was a teen
3]Nadal didn't sleep the previous night

etc,. etc,..

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:
From my perspective, it makes no difference when you are injured.

Really!

So if Federer breaks his finger and has to quit his match with Djokovic due to injury... 'it makes no difference.'
Or if he plays on with a broken finger and loses 6-0 6-0 6-0 'it makes no difference.'

Of course it makes a difference.

Roger would have to leave his brain at home if he played with a broken finger!

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:
From my perspective, it makes no difference when you are injured.

Really!

So if Federer breaks his finger and has to quit his match with Djokovic due to injury... 'it makes no difference.'
Or if he plays on with a broken finger and loses 6-0 6-0 6-0 'it makes no difference.'

Of course it makes a difference.

It makes no difference, it will go down as a loss simple, its only fans who come up with excuses .

Here is this one man standing against all his expectations beating the World No.4 enroute to face the King of clay, give him credit for his achievement, even if you don't Ferrer won't say he won't play, indeed he will make the game harder and harder.

I dont mind who ever wins the 1st set but would love to see the 2nd set go Ferrer's way, it will be a different ball game altogether after it, I won't be surprised if Nadal calls for a medical trainer after it.

LK I know right. It was just an example


IC- it's all well and good you trying to put words in Lydians mouth... but you have to address my post at 15:52. You said Nadal played a brilliant match and moved so well 'that no injured guy' could. That was simply wrong.
Plus I do not believe that Ferrer and Nadal have played enough GS matches for the GS H2H be a real barometer... One unexpected event here and there can dramatically change the percentages.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:
From my perspective, it makes no difference when you are injured.

Really!

So if Federer breaks his finger and has to quit his match with Djokovic due to injury... 'it makes no difference.'
Or if he plays on with a broken finger and loses 6-0 6-0 6-0 'it makes no difference.'

Of course it makes a difference.

It makes no difference, it will go down as a loss simple, its only fans who come up with excuses .

So if Fed lost 6-0 6-0 6-0 to Djokovic playing with a broken finger you think the broken finger would make'no difference;' even if then Djokovic comes out and said he was lucky Fed had a broken finger
Would Djokovic then be classed as a 'core Federer worhipper' (just like you labelled Lydian) who is coming up with excuses...

Edit: Well actually you labelled Lydian a core Nadal worshipper but you get the point.

It Must Be Love wrote:LK I know right. It was just an example


IC- it's all well and good you trying to put words in Lydians mouth... but you have to address my post at 15:52. You said Nadal played a brilliant match and moved so well 'that no injured guy' could. That was simply wrong.
Plus I do not believe that Ferrer and Nadal have played enough GS matches for the GS H2H be a real barometer... One unexpected event here and there can dramatically change the percentages.

I have addressed that already, if Nadal was unable to move he should have quit the match, life is more important than a tennis match, when Nadal knows the outcome already what the point in risking his body for a tennis match? Nadal did move great in the 2nd set, go watch the match, even after the injury time out, Nadal did move well at the closing stages of the 1st set.

If Nadal is so hampered that he can't move? r u crazy to say to say he should have played the match risking further injury? no idea what you want me to address there.

I watched the complete match, you can search the youtube for it, wait I will find the link for you since you can do it by yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsb1FSiBp_4

Look at the way he moved at 10.30 onwards , go watch the match yourself.

Yes he aggravated it, he had to take a few months off after that match.
His next match after that was Indian Wells IIRC.

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:
From my perspective, it makes no difference when you are injured.

Really!

So if Federer breaks his finger and has to quit his match with Djokovic due to injury... 'it makes no difference.'
Or if he plays on with a broken finger and loses 6-0 6-0 6-0 'it makes no difference.'

Of course it makes a difference.

It makes no difference, it will go down as a loss simple, its only fans who come up with excuses .

So if Fed lost 6-0 6-0 6-0 to Djokovic playing with a broken finger you think the broken finger would make'no difference;' even if then Djokovic comes out and said he was lucky Fed had a broken finger
Would Djokovic then be classed as a 'core Federer worhipper' (just like you labelled Lydian) who is coming up with excuses...

Edit: Well actually you labelled Lydian a core Nadal worshipper but you get the point.

Does it change the result? it doesn't matter anything, Djoko would indeed come and say those lines but what can Djoko do if Fed plays with an injured finger? will it be his mistake?

If Fed is adament is to play with injured finger then he should not come and throw excuse after his loss that he played with an injured finger, if he does then oblivious its kiddish.

Defending Nadal's loss there is exact same. No wonder Nadal worshipers believe Nadal can never lose a match when he is fit , there are so many false belief in the world this is just one.

Even after FO 2008 Nadal felt more or less same about Federer , do that mean Fed would have won Nadal in FO 2008 had he not had the GF?

Accept the fact and move on.

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes he aggravated it, he had to take a few months off after that match.
His next match after that was Indian Wells IIRC.

Did you see the video clip I posted? Nadal moved in the first and 2nd set with ease, no ways an injured guy could move like that, he indeed won a great point at 11.03, so stop all these injury excuses to take credit away from Ferrer's win, Ferrer was the better man that day and rightfully deserved the win.

Yesterday, Murray lost to Ferrer. Should I mention Murray's bad back, which is a pre-existing condition, but could have flared up during the match as a 'hollow victory' for Ferrer?

Nadal has had knee issues in the past, does it count as a 'pre-existing' injury, and hence should be discounted?

Nadal lost a match, but world did not end. He has lost on clay, so what? Ferrer has won a match against Nadal, and he is capable of winning. We can argue about the percentages till cows come home, and then some more.

BTW, Errani, just beat Stosur and now look at this h2h.

http://www.wtatennis.com/headtohead/samantha-stosur_2255881_7941/0,,12781~7941~10077,00.html

PS: Post-match interviews. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ0ER5ZdhKs

laverfan wrote:

The previous h2h (before Madrid was 13-0), yet Verdasco managed a win, reversing a trend. There was no injury to Nadal. Was it the blue clay? Other player(s) played and won on the same surface.

Can Ferrer reverse the trend? Yes, he can!. I would love to see Ferrer once in a slam final, even if he has a Runners Up trophy.

I thought someone might bring up Verdasco's first win over Nadal and the blue clay.

What can we learn about future Nadal/Verdasco match ups from this particular match? When they meet in future will it affect who is more or less likely to win? IMO because of the way Nadal has been so dominant on clay and so dominant in the H2H match up Verdasco's win in Madrid was a surprise and unexpected. That it was played on an experimental suface that Nadal and others had questioned BEFORE the match makes me think it was the surface that lead to the odd result rather than the odd result being meaningful in predicting results of these two players future matches and Nadal's dominance on red clay. Of course Verdasco still gets to claim a win over Nadal.

The same goes when a player gets a win over an injured opponant that they would usually lose to. They can claim a win but how much the win is valid in predicting how future matches will go is open to speculation to say the least.

Huh! What's the point of seeing Ferrer in a slam final only to be a sacrificial lamb for Federer or Djokovic because IMHO that is what he would be. I would imagine most neutrals and balanced obsevers would want a more interesting final? Of couse it's understandable that those that dislike Nadal wouldn't mind this result.

LF, of course Ferrer is capable of winning

Invisible- Can you please stop labelling me and Lydian 'Nadal worshippers; all I did was quote BBC live text and Ferrer's interview, if you do not think Nadal was injured in his match that is your opinion

Hawkeye- Great post

It Must Be Love wrote:LF, of course Ferrer is capable of winning

Invisible- Can you please stop labelling me and Lydian 'Nadal worshippers; all I did was quote BBC live text and Ferrer's interview, if you do not think Nadal was injured in his match that is your opinion

Hawkeye- Great post

IMBL, Whether Nadal was injured or not was irrelevant, what was relevant is that Ferrer won and was the better man the given day , the quicker you accept the fact and move on the discussion ends.

Lyd came up with another excuse for Nadal's loss on USO 2007, citing Nadal was still maturing in HC, now see whenever Ferrer wins Nadal its an excuse and his wins are discredited rather accept like a grown up man than the opponent deserved the win.

Soderling won his first match against Federer in FO after how many attempts? before the match started not many gave Sod a chance but he went on to prove he could win that match? Berdych won Fed in Wimby , after the match Fed said his back wasn't great, do that mean Berdy didnt deserve the win?

Sports is a simple thingy, the last man standing after the match by the score line is the winner, history will say Ferrer won Nadal on both slams and not excuses.

@ IMBL
Btw , this was my following line

Defending Nadal's loss there is exact same. No wonder Nadal worshipers believe Nadal can never lose a match when he is fit , there are so many false belief in the world this is just one.

I never mentioned you as a Nadal worshiper , I just addressed Nadal worshipers in general don't believe their hero can lose a match when he is fit.

At which point did I not say Ferrer was the better man on the day
Obviously he was the better man on the day, he won without dropping a set

My view on the Ferrer-Nadal Grand Slam H2H was this (I posted this earlier):
Plus I do not believe that Ferrer and Nadal have played enough GS matches for the GS H2H be a real barometer... One unexpected event here and there can dramatically change the percentages.

As for the match tomorrow I believe Ferrer can win, but he is not favourite and faces a tough challenge as long as Nadal is fully fit.

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ IMBL
Btw , this was my following line

Defending Nadal's loss there is exact same. No wonder Nadal worshipers believe Nadal can never lose a match when he is fit , there are so many false belief in the world this is just one.

I never mentioned you as a Nadal worshiper , I just addressed Nadal worshipers in general don't believe their hero can lose a match when he is fit.

Who? Can you name me one Nadal fan who currently posts on this site/ has posted before who believes that.

Of course Nadal has lost matches when he is fit... whoever says otherwise is frankly blinkered.

@Hawk

There is not garuntee somebody is a winner before the match ends , so if Ferrer enters a final he might start the massive underdog but there is no guarantee he will lose to Djoko/Fed.

Secondly just coz he can't win the other two doesn't mean he should not go for the win against King of Clay, the more he gets big wins the more he will get confident and who know whats in store for him in the future.

Nobody gave DP a chance in USO 2009, he was a massive underdog in it, but what confidence did in the end, Fed on other day might have won it 10/10 if replayed, but on that day it was DP the better man and hence the result.

hawkeye wrote:I thought someone might bring up Verdasco's first win over Nadal and the blue clay.

What can we learn about future Nadal/Verdasco match ups from this particular match? When they meet in future will it affect who is more or less likely to win? IMO because of the way Nadal has been so dominant on clay and so dominant in the H2H match up Verdasco's win in Madrid was a surprise and unexpected. That it was played on an experimental suface that Nadal and others had questioned BEFORE the match makes me think it was the surface that lead to the odd result rather than the odd result being meaningful in predicting results of these two players future matches and Nadal's dominance on red clay. Of course Verdasco still gets to claim a win over Nadal.

Yet, other players played on the same surface. What does it say about adaptability? The surface was 'bad', yes, it was. Some players handled it better than others. Remember the 'pothole' on which Benneteau broke a bone at MC.

hawkeye wrote:The same goes when a player gets a win over an injured opponant that they would usually lose to. They can claim a win but how much the win is valid in predicting how future matches will go is open to speculation to say the least.

So you are now questioning the validity of a fact, based on some subjective criteria?

hawkeye wrote:Huh! What's the point of seeing Ferrer in a slam final only to be a sacrificial lamb for Federer or Djokovic because IMHO that is what he would be.

If he is the better player, he should be in the final. If Verdasco can reverse a 13-0 h2h, so can Ferrer against Federer (0-13) or win a match against Djokovic (5-8).

For example, Soderling was beaten by Nadal at Rome 2009 6-1, 6-0, yet managed a win at FO 2009.

hawkeye wrote: I would imagine most neutrals and balanced obsevers would want a more interesting final? Of couse it's understandable that those that dislike Nadal wouldn't mind this result.

Hence the implication is that a person making an argument against Nadal winning does dislike Nadal, and hence would not mind the result. (Classic derivation of An enemy of my enemy is my friend).

There is no willingness to say that Ferrer can win, whatever the percentage be.

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ IMBL
Btw , this was my following line

Defending Nadal's loss there is exact same. No wonder Nadal worshipers believe Nadal can never lose a match when he is fit , there are so many false belief in the world this is just one.

I never mentioned you as a Nadal worshiper , I just addressed Nadal worshipers in general don't believe their hero can lose a match when he is fit.

Who? Can you name me one Nadal fan who currently posts on this site/ has posted before who believes that.

Of course Nadal has lost matches when he is fit... whoever says otherwise is frankly blinkered.

First of all I like Nadal too even though I am not a fan of his game style, but I always appreciate his brillant wins and hard work to over come great opponents on his least favored surfaces, I don't complain all Nadal fans are worshipers but there are some blindfolded ones for who Nadal cannot lose to anyone when he is fit and they end up defending his every loss with excuse.

We have seen that to extreme in 606, luckily this forum is not infected by them, but still there are some who do give excuse for his every loss, Lyd cited two excuses for Nadal's slam losses already and claimed it as 11-0 h2h from 2007 rather than accepting the fact the h2h is 4-15.

invisiblecoolers

My post was a response to laverfan who said she would love Ferrer to get to the final even if he meant he would come away with the runners up trophy.

Of course all 4 players still have a chance of winning... how big a chance is open to debate.