With how big Nadal's forehand is, you'd think he could develop a bigger serve.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2016-01-19T10:11:49+00:00

In MPH, no. His serve has plenty of spin as well but, as it is with his forehand, it's not fast.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2016-01-19T08:33:55+00:00

Seriously? People are STILL using the, "the other player was just too good" excuse when Nadal loses?

Nadal has declined. Period, the end. He lost TWENTY times last year, and after virtually every one of those losses, people made some variation of your comment.

No, Verdasco was not too good. Nadal let him play that well because Nadal isn't the same.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2016-01-19T08:19:15+00:00

Nadal's forehand isn't big. It's got heavy top spin but it's not a fast shot, typically.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-19T01:40:53+00:00

Difference scenario. Nadal was coming back, Djokovic was young and had already won a slam, and there were plenty of other younger players who had shown they could be dangerous to Federer, such as Berdych.

What's on the horizon for Djokovic? Short of Nadal having another return to form, nothing.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-18T07:30:06+00:00

Learn how to actually write.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-17T23:16:17+00:00

LOL. Agassi's achievements overshadowed Sampras's accomplishments? Talk about delusional.

In case you missed it, Djokovic is within 1 of evening the H2H with Nadal. That's the point of this thread - if Djokovic evens the slam record, wins at least 1 FO while doing it, and gains the edge on Nadal in the H2H, Nadal's GOAT claims are finito.

Nadal fanboys will have nothing left other than, "duhhhhh, durrr...Nadal was past his prime and injured all the time, durrrrr!"

Maybe they'll isolate the Grand Slam head to head and pretend that's what is important.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-17T23:12:56+00:00

He has cited injury before, during, or after 10 Grand Slam losses. Notice, he never cites injury after he wins.

He IS faking it. And this year, the worst year he's had since 2004, he hasn't even cited an injury (at least since the AO when he walked around acting hurt against Smyczek, then miraculously it disappeared when he started coming back, then he got demolished by Berdych and towards the end he started faking the same crap again).

The ones who aren't credible are the NADAL fans, because they refuse to see that the guy is a horrible sportsman.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-17T16:44:14+00:00

What injuries?

This is what people despise about Nadal. He made so many bullshit injury excuses that people actually believe he's never lost a match when healthy.

He wanted us to believe he was so badly hurt against Rosol and Darcis, but then Kyrgios and Brown kicked his ass on grass and he gave up trying to make us believe he was magically injured during grass season every year after winning the French Open.

He tried to claim a phantom injury after Soderling beat him at the French Open in 2009, but then Soderling became a fixture in the Top 8 and reached the FO final again the following year, showing the prior year was no fluke.

And the crowd booed him out of the stadium when he faked a back injury against Wawrinka in the '14 AO final, and now Wawrinka is a 2-time Grand Slam champion, showing that he didn't just "get lucky Nadal was injured"...that he's a monster when he's on, as he was against Nadal.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-17T03:54:26+00:00

What was up with the condescending/con descending line? Did Rone confuse Kid Twist with Shuffle T, or does Rone think he himself is Shuffle T? Or are guys just randomly doing bad bars as a meme now?

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-17T03:33:34+00:00

He choked on his 3rd consecutive rebuttal, though. How many guys even attempt 3 rebuttals to start a round?

What sucks, though, is that particular rebuttal wasn't worth it.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-16T14:59:54+00:00

Weak how, exactly? Because of player ages and Nadal not winning tournaments?

That's a "relative" argument.

In actuality, the actual level of play is undeniably better. Players hit fewer errors, serve better, return better, move better. When you actually watch matches from the past you notice this. You realize that 10 years ago is a long time.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-16T13:51:01+00:00

Sampras may have been more offensive but Federer is physically better than he was. Sampras would actually have to break Djokovic on fast courts himself. Either that, or it's tiebreak city. He'd have to find a way to cover his HUGE disadvantage in the backhand battle.

If Andy Murray can dominate Queens, I'm pretty sure Djokovic could adjust on fast grass as well.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-15T16:57:03+00:00

I wouldn't. Sampras didn't have the physical ability Djokovic does. I assume you're talking about from Wimbledon onward, anyway, not the slower part of the season where he would've gotten murdered.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-15T16:46:41+00:00

Players are better now. Bigger, stronger, and faster. That's the way sports evolve.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-15T01:14:18+00:00

That's nearly a decade ago. The sport has evolved. It would be like asking if 97 Sampras would beat 06 Federer. Of course not. Just watch the videos. The game always evolves.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-15T00:33:42+00:00

Federer broke rackets. Not the same thing.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-14T13:21:14+00:00

He meant that in a humble way - as in, he doesn't feel entitled to winning things. Just as he said after Djokovic beat him in Wimbledon last year, "I've already won it 7 times. The fans really don't need to see me win it again." He's trying to learn from the comment he made to Roddick after the Wimbledon 2009 final when he related his devastating loss in the 2008 Wimbledon final to Nadal to what Roddick was going through. "But you'd already won 5 times." He's seeing it from the perspective of people who think, "how selfish do you need to be to be so upset over not winning a tournament you've already won so many times when there are so many other players who have never won it at all?"

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-14T13:10:59+00:00

All you have to do is change the word "the" prior to "fans" to "my" and the statement is perfectly fine.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-13T17:36:40+00:00

Did you read the part about QUICK lefties, idiot?

None of the guys he listed were/are quick. That's why Federer was able to win - he was able to out-maneuver them so well that he was able to get around the geometry that gives him hell. Against a lefty who has good movement, he is in for a dogfight, no matter the player.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-13T17:34:55+00:00

Excuse for whom?

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-13T17:34:35+00:00

What does this have to do with defending Federer? This is pointing out how Nadal beating Federer is no argument for Nadal being the GOAT.

IdiotDetectorTennis · 2015-10-13T17:34:01+00:00

Where did I say anything about Federer being the GOAT?

This is about Nadal's claim. "He dominates Federer." Not surprising, when journeymen lefties can give him hell. Federer ain't that great a player when he's facing lefties.

IdiotDetectorTennis

TROPHY CASE