PDA

View Full Version : Nadal to ever win a slam outside of the French Open?


federerfanatic
04-30-2007, 02:33 AM
Does anyone think Nadal will ever win a slam title outside of the French Open? I doubt it somewhat personally, but I think he might get lucky and sneak out 1 Australian when everyone of note gets upset.

wyutani
04-30-2007, 05:33 AM
unless the other 3 slams are converted to clay....

bluegrasser
04-30-2007, 05:48 AM
The AOpen is his best shot, a slower surface...

Pushmaster
04-30-2007, 05:51 AM
You guys always seem to forget that Nadal is only 20 years old and continues to improve on grass and hard courts. Noboby thought Nadal would get to the Wimbledon finals last year but he did. In fact he came alot closer to actually winning it than people may think, he had a great chance to win the 2nd set but let it slip away from him against Federer, along with the title. I think Nadal will win at least one of each slam before it's all said and done, because he certainly has the talent to do so.

grizzly4life
04-30-2007, 05:56 AM
surprised that huge majority think he won't (although i voted that way too).

nadal's play is pretty hard on him, although he has proven resilient.... and tons of guys are as good as him non-clay.... one thing that might help rafa, i do think we may have seen the peak of roger federer though. although i think it will be a long, slow decline.....

Morrissey
04-30-2007, 05:58 AM
You guys always seem to forget that Nadal is only 20 years old and continues to improve on grass and hard courts. Noboby thought Nadal would get to the Wimbledon finals last year but he did. In fact he came alot closer to actually winning it than people may think, he had a great chance to win the 2nd set but let it slip away from him against Federer, along with the title. I think Nadal will win at least one of each slam before it's all said and done, because he certainly has the talent to do so.

I think you seem to forget that most votes come from Fedfans. :roll:

Attila the tennis Bum
04-30-2007, 06:09 AM
Fed is 25 years old...how much more time do you think he has? Once he is gone Nadal will dominate.

caulcano
04-30-2007, 06:10 AM
You guys always seem to forget that Nadal is only 20 years old and continues to improve on grass and hard courts. Noboby thought Nadal would get to the Wimbledon finals last year but he did. In fact he came alot closer to actually winning it than people may think, he had a great chance to win the 2nd set but let it slip away from him against Federer, along with the title. I think Nadal will win at least one of each slam before it's all said and done, because he certainly has the talent to do so.

Yes, Nadal has improved on grass & HC, but so have others. If Nadal gets to a Wimbledon Final again, I'll be one of the first to post to congratulate him.


Back to the original question:

I'd say one but maybe 2 slams other than the FO with luck but it will have to happen in the next 2-3 years. There is evidence to suggest that clay-courters have less of a career, time-wise, than non clay-courters, so I don;t expect him to make a big impression on tennis when he gets nearer 25.

oscar_2424
04-30-2007, 06:14 AM
he'll win in australia.

Attila the tennis Bum
04-30-2007, 06:16 AM
Yes, Nadal has improved on grass & HC, but so have others. If Nadal gets to a Wimbledon Final again, I'll be one of the first to post to congratulate him.


Back to the original question:

I'd say one but maybe 2 slams other than the FO with luck but it will have to happen in the next 2-3 years. There is evidence to suggest that clay-courters have less of a career, time-wise, than non clay-courters, so I don;t expect him to make a big impression on tennis when he gets nearer 25.

Its no accident that Nadal made it to the finals of Wimbledon. The sport has intentionally been slowed down. Wimbledon is now using a thicker grass that is far slower than in years past.

The AO used to have a similar type of slower grass. Thats why Mats Wilander was able to win the AO on grass. Therefore if Mats did it then I am confident Nadal can as well.

gdsballer
04-30-2007, 06:20 AM
i think rafa will be able to win possibly a us open and an australian, not a wimbledon as logn as federer's around...a us open title was close in reach last year, but he was sick against youzhny

kingbishop
04-30-2007, 06:25 AM
Yes, Nadal has improved on grass & HC, but so have others. If Nadal gets to a Wimbledon Final again, I'll be one of the first to post to congratulate him.


Back to the original question:

I'd say one but maybe 2 slams other than the FO with luck but it will have to happen in the next 2-3 years. There is evidence to suggest that clay-courters have less of a career, time-wise, than non clay-courters, so I don;t expect him to make a big impression on tennis when he gets nearer 25.

Dude.. nadal is not just some blow joe clay courter... i admit he will have less of a carreer time than say sampras or agassi, but he will be strong until 25, and he will improve every year. He has a good chance of winning many other slams than just the french.

Fries-N-Gravy
04-30-2007, 07:22 AM
i think he will improve his serve and play more aggressively in the next few years. He is much younger than federer and has all the time in the world right now.

CyBorg
04-30-2007, 07:35 AM
Aussie and Wimbledon are his best chances.

I don't know why some are so convinced he can win the US Open. This is currently the fastest hardcourt around. Much faster than the grass even.

Attila the tennis Bum
04-30-2007, 07:55 AM
Aussie and Wimbledon are his best chances.

I don't know why some are so convinced he can win the US Open. This is currently the fastest hardcourt around. Much faster than the grass even.

But thats not saying much. The new blue surface at the US Open is far slower than it has been in years past.

Furthermore nadals record on hard courts against Fed are 2-2 and he completely destroyed Andy Roddick on hard courts as well.

crazylevity
04-30-2007, 08:02 AM
yeah...and then he loses to Djokovic in the next tournament.

People who accuse others of assuming Nadal won't improve are guilty of assuming others like Djokovic, Murray, Berdych and Gasquet won't improve. In that group 2 have beaten Nadal, and one came pretty close at this year's AO.

McStud
04-30-2007, 08:22 AM
I think that he has a decent change at winning in Australia some day. Then, I also see him winning at Wimbledon before the US Open. But I don't think that he will win either of those.

kingdaddy41788
04-30-2007, 08:25 AM
Yes he's only 20, but he'll retire at least by the time he's 27, I would think, because of his style of play. It's too hard on the body for him to continue to play like that. He won't win multiple other slams, and he'll be lucky to win one.

Nadal_Freak
04-30-2007, 09:11 AM
I would say Nadal's best chance of winning is Wimbledon. There are a lot of hard court specialists out there that make it tough on Nadal. I also think Nadal's spin is more effective than on the hard courts. Nadal actually did better at the US Open than he did the Australian Open imo. Maybe because he can slide a little at the US Open but you can't on rebound ace.

kingdaddy41788
04-30-2007, 09:14 AM
I would say Nadal's best chance of winning is Wimbledon. There are a lot of hard court specialists out there that make it tough on Nadal. I also think Nadal's spin is more effective than on the hard courts. Nadal actually did better at the US Open than he did the Australian Open imo. Maybe because he can slide a little at the US Open but you can't on rebound ace.

Wrong. If he wins Wimbledon with that extreme Western super-top-spin crap he does then Wimbledon needs to cut the grass shorter to make the court less slow, and the rest of the field should consider retiring out of embarassment.

p.s. Wimbledon already needs to stop slowing down their courts. If we wanted it slowed down, we'd watch hard or clay courts. It's SUPPOSED to be fast.

Nadal_Freak
04-30-2007, 09:22 AM
Wrong. If he wins Wimbledon with that extreme Western super-top-spin crap he does then Wimbledon needs to cut the grass shorter to make the court less slow, and the rest of the field should consider retiring out of embarassment.

p.s. Wimbledon already needs to stop slowing down their courts. If we wanted it slowed down, we'd watch hard or clay courts. It's SUPPOSED to be fast.
It makes it even more impressive that Nadal got so many aces at Wimbledon on the supposed slower courts. The unpredictable bounce is what makes it so hard to play Nadal on grass. Not as much the height but the topspin that makes it more unpredictable. Australian Open courts actually played fast this year and the bounces were low. I believe the bounces were actually higher at the US Open.

kingdaddy41788
04-30-2007, 09:28 AM
Right but the courts should play faster. They should play in such a way that super-top-spin crap gets obliterated because it never takes off the way it does on clay or hard courts. The ball shouldn't be able to grip the grass like that, it should just slide. So aside from aces, Nadal shouldn't win a point on his serve because his balls should just sit up, rather than taking off from the ground like they do on clay & hard courts.

caulcano
04-30-2007, 09:35 AM
Dude.. nadal is not just some blow joe clay courter... i admit he will have less of a carreer time than say sampras or agassi, but he will be strong until 25, and he will improve every year. He has a good chance of winning many other slams than just the french.


I asked myself if Nadal can continue to be as dominate on clay for another 5 years. I concluded from past clay-courters, that it is more likely he won't. To improve every year for the next 5 years on all other surfaces takes a super-human effort & I highly doubt it will happen. Also, he'll probably end up as the GOAT on clay (in my eyes).

I'm not trying to knock Nadal, because I believe he is the second most capable person of winning a different slam (we know who the most capable person).

Nadal_Freak
04-30-2007, 10:23 AM
Right but the courts should play faster. They should play in such a way that super-top-spin crap gets obliterated because it never takes off the way it does on clay or hard courts. The ball shouldn't be able to grip the grass like that, it should just slide. So aside from aces, Nadal shouldn't win a point on his serve because his balls should just sit up, rather than taking off from the ground like they do on clay & hard courts.
There is no surface in which topspin is not effective. Sure if Nadal relies only on topspin on grass he could be in trouble. Nadal puts a lot of power on his shots now so they aren't exactly sitting up. The key to winning on grass is a big serve, good volleys, slices, and topspin. Also you need great reflexes. It is hard to take the ball early on grass as you will probably make many errors. These are the type of players that bother Nadal on hard courts hence why I think Nadal has a better chance at Wimbledon.

kingdaddy41788
04-30-2007, 10:28 AM
topspin isn't supposed to be effective on grass. It is now because they cut the grass that way.

Nadal_Freak
04-30-2007, 10:34 AM
Take out the bad bounces and yes topspin isn't that effective. Indoors is the worst surface for Nadal for that reason.

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
04-30-2007, 11:00 AM
when federer retires, nadal will win all the grandslams, he will end up with like 12

fastdunn
04-30-2007, 11:04 AM
People say contrasting styles, contrasting style.

But Federer and Nadal are not so different from each other: baseliners.
Now baseliners can win Wimbledon.

In fact, baseliners can win on anything. Nadal will win Wimbledon and hard
court events. You at pro levels, the surface speed can be a crucial factor.
Wimbledon is very *slow* compared to past.
There isno reason why Nadal can not win on grass and hard courts...

Attila the tennis Bum
04-30-2007, 11:15 AM
yeah...and then he loses to Djokovic in the next tournament.
.

But he beat Djokovic twice before that. Don't forget that Nadal is only 20...he is just getting started. Federer was no way near as good of a player as nadal is at 20.

I know you hate the dude...but give him a break. he has done an awful lot by age 20.

CyBorg
04-30-2007, 11:22 AM
But thats not saying much. The new blue surface at the US Open is far slower than it has been in years past.

Furthermore nadals record on hard courts against Fed are 2-2 and he completely destroyed Andy Roddick on hard courts as well.

If the US Open hardcourt slows down further Nadal will have a shot. But it's still way too fast for him in my opinion. He played terribly on it. Whereas on grass he's not perfect but seems to get a sufficient bounce.

edmondsm
04-30-2007, 11:24 AM
You guys always seem to forget that Nadal is only 20 years old and continues to improve on grass and hard courts. Noboby thought Nadal would get to the Wimbledon finals last year but he did. In fact he came alot closer to actually winning it than people may think, he had a great chance to win the 2nd set but let it slip away from him against Federer, along with the title. I think Nadal will win at least one of each slam before it's all said and done, because he certainly has the talent to do so.

He got a pretty smooth run to the final of Wimby. Didn't have to face a Roddick or a Hewitt. Was a point away from a straight sets loss to Robert Kendrick in the 2nd round. There are just to many people that can beat him on fast surfaces in best of 5 matches; Youzny, Berdych, Blake, Federer, Djokovic........his game needs to adapt.

Baghdatis72
04-30-2007, 11:25 AM
I believe that he will manage to win other GS too and not only the French Open every year. Last year he was close to winning Wimbledon and I think that slowly he will improve on hard courts too and start winning more events on this surface.

fastdunn
04-30-2007, 11:37 AM
If the US Open hardcourt slows down further Nadal will have a shot. But it's still way too fast for him in my opinion. He played terribly on it. Whereas on grass he's not perfect but seems to get a sufficient bounce.

Yeah, actually this has been told as the key difference of current grass court
compared to past: top spin bounces much higher now.

DueSouth
04-30-2007, 11:47 AM
I think he can win atleast two outside of the french.....maybe an AO and possibly a wimbledon,but im still waiting to see if last year was a fluke:)

federerfanatic
04-30-2007, 11:48 AM
But Federer and Nadal are not so different from each other: baseliners. Now baseliners can win Wimbledon.

They are different types of baseliners totally. Hence why Federer struggles on clay-although makes all the finals since field on clay is a joke, and is amazing on every other surface; while Nadal is a regular quarterfinal loser on every other surface, and dominates on clay. That is not similar at all.

In fact, baseliners can win on anything.

Show the proof? Sorry it isnt there.

Nadal will win Wimbledon and hard court events.

Winning Wimbledon when Tonya Harding wins Mrs. Universe perhaps. Winning hard courts events, he already does, just not the U.S Open(maybe an Australian if he gets lucky though).

There isno reason why Nadal can not win on grass and hard courts...

Sure there is. There are many others who will beat him on grass and hard courts who dont beat him on clay. Look at Berdych's 3 matches with Nadal on hard courts, and his 2 matches on clay and you will see what I mean.

federerfanatic
04-30-2007, 11:51 AM
He got a pretty smooth run to the final of Wimby. Didn't have to face a Roddick or a Hewitt. Was a point away from a straight sets loss to Robert Kendrick in the 2nd round. There are just to many people that can beat him on fast surfaces in best of 5 matches; Youzny, Berdych, Blake, Federer, Djokovic........his game needs to adapt.

Fed also played like crap in the Wimbledon final and still comfortably beat Nadal playing his best. If Fed played that awful vs Nadal on clay he would have lost 6-2, 6-0, 6-1.

edmondsm
04-30-2007, 11:58 AM
Fed also played like crap in the Wimbledon final and still comfortably beat Nadal playing his best. If Fed played that awful vs Nadal on clay he would have lost 6-2, 6-0, 6-1.

I agree. Sometimes when Fed is playing Nadal he looks incredibly unmotivated.

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-30-2007, 12:15 PM
If Nadal gets to a Wimbledon Final again, I'll be one of the first to post to congratulate him.

Same here, but in relation to the topic, I do not see Nadal ever winning anything else outside of the FO.

Attila the tennis Bum
04-30-2007, 02:14 PM
Fed also played like crap in the Wimbledon final and still comfortably beat Nadal playing his best. If Fed played that awful vs Nadal on clay he would have lost 6-2, 6-0, 6-1.

Did ya ever notice that everytime Nadal plays against federer the fed fans always say :

"Federer played like crap...he had so many unforced errors"

The truth is that after 10 matches you can't keep using the same old excuse. Sooner or later you have to realize that nadal simply makes federer look bad.

KingOfTennis
04-30-2007, 02:35 PM
i rekon he will win multiple slams. Just remember guys he is no.2 and is very capable of winning to any1 in the ATP

Andres
04-30-2007, 02:40 PM
He got a pretty smooth run to the final of Wimby. Didn't have to face a Roddick or a Hewitt. Was a point away from a straight sets loss to Robert Kendrick in the 2nd round. There are just to many people that can beat him on fast surfaces in best of 5 matches; Youzny, Berdych, Blake, Federer, Djokovic........his game needs to adapt.
No, not Blake. Blake can't win a 5 setter not even if his life depended on it! :mrgreen:

federerfanatic
04-30-2007, 03:06 PM
Did ya ever notice that everytime Nadal plays against federer the fed fans always say :

"Federer played like crap...he had so many unforced errors"

The truth is that after 10 matches you can't keep using the same old excuse. Sooner or later you have to realize that nadal simply makes federer look bad.

First of all moron I never said Federer played like crap everytime he played Nadal. I said he played like crap in that particular match. It was their only match on grass, and Federer happened to play probably his worst match in all 10 of his matches vs Nadal, and one of his worst of the year, and still won comfortably vs Nadal at his best. So Fed playing just a decent match would slaughter Nadal on grass no matter what Nadal did. If you were not too stupid to read where I said if Fed had played that bad in a match with Nadal on clay he would have lost 6-2, 6-0, 6-1 you would not have even posted your response anyway.

3 or 4 of the 5 times Federer played Nadal on clay he played very well, Nadal is just the better player on that surface, the surface Federer is half the player he is on other surfaces. Because 5of their 10 matches are on clay, and only 1 of 10 on grass, it skews their head to head. Their head to head on neutral hard court surface is 2-2, and that meeting was their only one on grass.

edmondsm
04-30-2007, 03:52 PM
No, not Blake. Blake can't win a 5 setter not even if his life depended on it! :mrgreen:

I said "best of 5". Read again and you will realize that Blake beat Nadal at the USO in 05'.

Attila the tennis Bum
04-30-2007, 05:27 PM
First of all moron I never said Federer played like crap everytime he played Nadal. I said he played like crap in that particular match. It was their only match on grass, and Federer happened to play probably his worst match in all 10 of his matches vs Nadal, and one of his worst of the year, and still won comfortably vs Nadal at his best. So Fed playing just a decent match would slaughter Nadal on grass no matter what Nadal did. If you were not too stupid to read where I said if Fed had played that bad in a match with Nadal on clay he would have lost 6-2, 6-0, 6-1 you would not have even posted your response anyway.

3 or 4 of the 5 times Federer played Nadal on clay he played very well, Nadal is just the better player on that surface, the surface Federer is half the player he is on other surfaces. Because 5of their 10 matches are on clay, and only 1 of 10 on grass, it skews their head to head. Their head to head on neutral hard court surface is 2-2, and that meeting was their only one on grass.

There is no need to be so rude ...especially when you are wrong.
If you read carefully I never said that you said that fed played badly in every match. But I am not calling you a moron even though you deserve to be called a moron.

Secondly if you read other posts you will see that in all of Feds losses to nadal there is always some Fed fan that says: "Fed was playing badly".

The truth is that Nadal just makes fed look like he is having an off day in all 10 of their matches. Thats his style...he chases everything down until you make an error!

Thats the truth ....deal with it.

Chip n' charge
04-30-2007, 06:18 PM
The truth is that Nadal just makes fed look like he is having an off day in all 10 of their matches. Thats his style...he chases everything down until you make an error!

Thats the truth ....deal with it.


You hit the nail right on the head.

Tennis_Maestro
04-30-2007, 06:55 PM
Fed is 25 years old...how much more time do you think he has? Once he is gone Nadal will dominate.

Well done for applying some common sense to the thread, a lot the fools that voted no obviously failed to do this.

Federer will probably at most be around until he is 32, another 7 years basically, by which time, Nadal will be 27 and right at his PRIME!

I fancy Nadal to win Wimbledon and the Austrlian or US Open some day.

Tennis_Maestro
04-30-2007, 06:56 PM
There is no need to be so rude ...especially when you are wrong.
If you read carefully I never said that you said that fed played badly in every match. But I am not calling you a moron even though you deserve to be called a moron.

Secondly if you read other posts you will see that in all of Feds losses to nadal there is always some Fed fan that says: "Fed was playing badly".

The truth is that Nadal just makes fed look like he is having an off day in all 10 of their matches. Thats his style...he chases everything down until you make an error!

Thats the truth ....deal with it.

Let's not go over board, Nadal is by far a pusher. Or are you confusing him for Canas?

Morrissey
04-30-2007, 06:57 PM
There is no need to be so rude ...especially when you are wrong.
If you read carefully I never said that you said that fed played badly in every match. But I am not calling you a moron even though you deserve to be called a moron.

Secondly if you read other posts you will see that in all of Feds losses to nadal there is always some Fed fan that says: "Fed was playing badly".

The truth is that Nadal just makes fed look like he is having an off day in all 10 of their matches. Thats his style...he chases everything down until you make an error!

Thats the truth ....deal with it.

Dont worry about him. Hes the Fedfan equivalent of Simon Cowell (Nadal fan). Sometimes I think he just says outrageous things to get attention. But sometimes I truly believe hes mentally unstable.

Attila the tennis Bum
04-30-2007, 07:38 PM
Let's not go over board, Nadal is by far a pusher. Or are you confusing him for Canas?

He is no pusher but he is fast as hell. Nadal is probably the tyPe of player Borg would be if Borg played today.

-Both Borg & Nadal are fast as all hell.

-Both hit with huge topspin.

-Both were one of the greatest 20 year olds of all time.

Although, Nadal has one dimension that Borg never had: Nadal is a lefty.

Defcon
04-30-2007, 08:06 PM
I believe you misspelled the title of your poll - it should read 'Nadal fanboys, reveal yourself!" :)

Its fun watching these threads, as the result, regardless of the actual content, is oh so predictable!

Nadal_Freak
04-30-2007, 08:56 PM
Let's not go over board, Nadal is by far a pusher. Or are you confusing him for Canas?
True. In their last match Nadal had the same amount of winners as Federer. 18 each.

pow
04-30-2007, 09:34 PM
Problem with Nadal is that he doesn't fare too well against flat hard hitters on surfaces other than clay. Players like Berdych, Blake, and Youzhny give him too much trouble.

federerfanatic
04-30-2007, 09:38 PM
Federer will probably at most be around until he is 32, another 7 years basically, by which time, Nadal will be 27 and right at his PRIME!

Nadal in his prime at 27. ROTFL!!!! You Nadal fanboys get more hilarious all the time. Nadal has maybe a 2.7% to not be retired at 27.

welcome2petrkordaland
04-30-2007, 11:58 PM
bad news for fed fanatics (as opposed to fed fans). if you think rafa'll sustain multiple injuries and retire early, go ahead and google Miguel Angel Nadal, who is Rafa's uncle who played football for Barcelona as well as for the Spanish Nat'l Team for many, many years. I think he finally retired around the age of 35. he was a hellaciously gritty defender. and if you didn't know, soccer is a pretty rough sport on the body. bottom line: rafa'll be around for a while (despite some of the posters on this board who research the longevity of clay courters in hopes of seeing signs of early retirements and abbreviated careers.

either rafa or djokavic'll be the next #1 . . . bet. murray'll challenge too.

and to respond to the thread, rafa will end up with around 10 grand slams including a coupla aussies and either a usopen or wimby or two. why? among many other reasons, his athleticism, mental toughness, and dedication are so over the top.

Tennis_Maestro
05-01-2007, 02:33 AM
Nadal in his prime at 27. ROTFL!!!! You Nadal fanboys get more hilarious all the time. Nadal has maybe a 2.7% to not be retired at 27.

Do you realise actually how physically fit and healthy that guy is? So what if a lot of his game involves running around the court like a headless chicken and blasting forehands at opponents, just look at Canas at age 30. (And please no one give me the steroids saga)

PS: I'm not a Nadal fanboy. ;)

Tennis_Maestro
05-01-2007, 02:36 AM
He is no pusher but he is fast as hell. Nadal is probably the tyoe of player Borg would be if Borg played today.

-Both Borg & Nadal are fast as all hell.

-Both hit with huge topspin.

-Both were one of the greatest 20 year olds of all time.

Although, Nadal has one dimension that Borg never had: Nadal is a lefty.

He is very much like Byorg, however i don't believe he has the tactical nowise of Byorg, probably just the style of play.

wyutani
05-01-2007, 02:58 AM
No, not Blake. Blake can't win a 5 setter not even if his life depended on it! :mrgreen:

the same thing was said about gaudio. but look at him! he won the roland garros. not bad for a 5 setter eh?

Andres
05-01-2007, 04:16 AM
the same thing was said about gaudio. but look at him! he won the roland garros. not bad for a 5 setter eh?
Enlighten me, Yut.
When was it said it? and by whom?

caulcano
05-01-2007, 04:25 AM
Nadal in his prime at 27. ROTFL!!!! You Nadal fanboys get more hilarious all the time. Nadal has maybe a 2.7% to not be retired at 27.

Yeah, I was laughing at that absurd statement too.


Nadal is in his prime now!

caulcano
05-01-2007, 04:43 AM
Do you realise actually how physically fit and healthy that guy is? So what if a lot of his game involves running around the court like a headless chicken and blasting forehands at opponents, just look at Canas at age 30. (And please no one give me the steroids saga)

PS: I'm not a Nadal fanboy. ;)

Most tennis players are physically fit and healthy.

Do you honestly believe Nadal will maintain & improve his form for what would be 7+ years in total at the top of a very physical & intense sport. It would be amazing but I doubt it very much.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-01-2007, 05:23 AM
Problem with Nadal is that he doesn't fare too well against flat hard hitters on surfaces other than clay. Players like Berdych, Blake, and Youzhny give him too much trouble.


Only on hard courts. Lets not forget that he was the only player to take a set off of Fed at last years Wimby . In fact he almost won two sets from Fed taking Roger to a tie breaker. That set could have easily gone nadals way as well and if that happened Nadal wouldhave been the Wimbledon Champion.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-01-2007, 05:26 AM
Most tennis players are physically fit and healthy.

Do you honestly believe Nadal will maintain & improve his form for what would be 7+ years in total at the top of a very physical & intense sport. It would be amazing but I doubt it very much.

Nadal is stronger than any player I have ever seen in the history of tennis. No one has ever been built like Rafa. The dude is a mack truck.

His Uncle was called "the Beast"...obviously Nadal has some good genes.

TennezSport
05-01-2007, 05:56 AM
I think that Rafa is in great shape and improving his game slowly; he will win other majors outside of the FO, but not many.

His problem will be the other young guns who have no fear of Rafa. Youzhny, Berdych, Djokovic and Murray are all around Rafa's age and improving faster. Their games are also more versatile and much less physically taxing.

Yes, Raf is only twenty, but already wearing custom made shoes to protect his damaged feet. Has already had torn chest, arm and stomach muscles and patella knee injuries. This will not get any better as he gets older, as he will have to play even harder against the new young guns. His uncle may have had a long career, but he did not have to play his sport alone.

Another problem is that Wimbledon, US and AO have already started work on speeding up their respective surfaces in order to try and bring S&V tennis back a little. We already saw what happened at last years USO as my buddy told me they were putting less sand in the top coat to help the American boys. AO has already sped up it's surface to help Hewitt and Wimbly is currently working on the grass to speed the courts up again.

Even with all of that, I think that Rafa can and will win a major outside of the FO, but it will take a lot out of him.

TennezSport :cool:

Attila the tennis Bum
05-01-2007, 06:56 AM
Another problem is that Wimbledon, US and AO have already started work on speeding up their respective surfaces in order to try and bring S&V tennis back a little. We already saw what happened at last years USO as my buddy told me they were putting less sand in the top coat to help the American boys. AO has already sped up it's surface to help Hewitt and Wimbly is currently working on the grass to speed the courts up again.

Even with all of that, I think that Rafa can and will win a major outside of the FO, but it will take a lot out of him.

TennezSport :cool:

Really??? I have played on the courts at the US Open and they are slow as all hell. Even if they speed them up a little bit I dont see it ever being as fast as they used to be.

I did not hear anything about Wimbledon speeding up their surface. In fact I heard the opposite. Apparently they are now using a thicker grass that has slowed the game down considerably. Navratilova was very upset.

As far as the AO i do think you are right. The rubberized material they were using was refered to by hewit as "hard green clay". I am not sure what they will resurface with but i also think that it will be something that is a bit faster.

TennezSport
05-01-2007, 07:23 AM
Really??? I have played on the courts at the US Open and they are slow as all hell. Even if they speed them up a little bit I dont see it ever being as fast as they used to be.

Well, if you played at the USO in 2005 and then again in 2006, you would have noted that they played faster. They have been adding less sand to the top coat to speed up play to help Roddick and Blake.

I did not hear anything about Wimbledon speeding up their surface. In fact I heard the opposite. Apparently they are now using a thicker grass that has slowed the game down considerably. Navratilova was very upset.

Yes, Navratilova, Sampras, and other players have stated their dissapointment in the way the courts are playing at Wimbly. John Lloyd stated that the plan for this year is to speed the courts up to help S&V tennis.

TennezSport :cool:

Attila the tennis Bum
05-01-2007, 07:40 AM
Well, if you played at the USO in 2005 and then again in 2006, you would have noted that they played faster. They have been adding less sand to the top coat to speed up play to help Roddick and Blake.

I did. I live in NY and grew up in Queens. I played on the green courts before they changed to the blue surface as well. They are unbelievably slow! I really see no difference from 2005 & 2006.....but that means nothing. I will say however that the blue courts even today are way slower than the the old green courts. They may very well not be as fast as the original blue courts but they are both way slower than the old green courts. I think we both can agree on that?



Yes, Navratilova, Sampras, and other players have stated their dissapointment in the way the courts are playing at Wimbly. John Lloyd stated that the plan for this year is to speed the courts up to help S&V tennis.
TennezSport :cool:

John Loyd may have that "plan" but as far as I can see as it stands today Wimbledon is slower than it was in the past. They are using the same exact thick grass that was used last year.

latinking
05-01-2007, 10:05 AM
Fed can't keep wining them all, its impossible, and other than Fed who else? Safin, Roddick? I would put my money on Nadal. So yeah. Not many slams, but 2 sure.

Morrissey
05-01-2007, 11:50 AM
I did. I live in NY and grew up in Queens. I played on the green courts before they changed to the blue surface as well. They are unbelievably slow! I really see no difference from 2005 & 2006.....but that means nothing. I will say however that the blue courts even today are way slower than the the old green courts. They may very well not be as fast as the original blue courts but they are both way slower than the old green courts. I think we both can agree on that?




John Loyd may have that "plan" but as far as I can see as it stands today Wimbledon is slower than it was in the past. They are using the same exact thick grass that was used last year.

I have to agree with you on the speed. They are slow as hell. I've been playing leagues there for a few years and every year they seem slower. I also used to play when the courts were green and they were faster then. Ever since they used blue courts they are definitely slower. I have to string lower on the slow courts to make sure the pace of shot doesn't decrease too much. On a faster court I string tighter because the speed of the court does most of the work. But the US Open courts are not that fast. They were much faster in the 90's.

Roger_Federer.
05-01-2007, 02:44 PM
I think he will win atleast Wimbledon once

federerfanatic
05-01-2007, 07:43 PM
Only on hard courts. Lets not forget that he was the only player to take a set off of Fed at last years Wimby . In fact he almost won two sets from Fed taking Roger to a tie breaker. That set could have easily gone nadals way as well and if that happened Nadal wouldhave been the Wimbledon Champion.


Nadal at his best couldnt even come close to beating Federer playing one of his crappiest matches ever in the Wimbledon final. He would not have even been in the final if he didnt have a creampuff draw, which will be proven this year. You cant say any of those players who beat Nadal on hard courts wouldnt on grass, since he didnt play any of them at Wimbledon which is the only reason he was in the final, only to play his heart out out and lose easily to Federer playing his worst tennis. Get your head out of clouds, and go to your room and french kiss your Nadal posters.

Morrissey
05-01-2007, 10:05 PM
Nadal at his best couldnt even come close to beating Federer playing one of his crappiest matches ever in the Wimbledon final. He would not have even been in the final if he didnt have a creampuff draw, which will be proven this year. You cant say any of those players who beat Nadal on hard courts wouldnt on grass, since he didnt play any of them at Wimbledon which is the only reason he was in the final, only to play his heart out out and lose easily to Federer playing his worst tennis. Get your head out of clouds, and go to your room and french kiss your Nadal posters.

Dude, just do us all a favor and join Simon Cowell and come out when your favorite player wins something again. You're really bringing everyone down with your constant whining and hatred. Get a stinking life.

lambielspins
05-01-2007, 10:12 PM
Dude, just do us all a favor and join Simon Cowell and come out when your favorite player wins something again. You're really bringing everyone down with your constant whining and hatred. Get a stinking life.

Your telling someone else to get a life. You are the biggest loser and troll on this forum. You should be getting your stinky diaper changed rather then posting on an adult internet forum.

Werent you the one saying people were stupid to vote for Youzhny and Gonzalez to beat Nadal in quarterfinals of events this year? Then look what happened. What a loser.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-02-2007, 05:06 AM
Nadal at his best couldnt even come close to beating Federer playing one of his crappiest matches ever in the Wimbledon final. He would not have even been in the final if he didnt have a creampuff draw, which will be proven this year. You cant say any of those players who beat Nadal on hard courts wouldnt on grass, since he didnt play any of them at Wimbledon which is the only reason he was in the final, only to play his heart out out and lose easily to Federer playing his worst tennis. Get your head out of clouds, and go to your room and french kiss your Nadal posters.


Typical.......If you do a search you will find a ton of posts that say "Nadal won the French because Federer had a bad day".

But this is the first time I ever heard anyone say: "Nadal almost took two sets from Federer at Wimbledon because Federer had a bad day"

This "bad day" excuse is getting about as old as : "My dog chewed up my homework".

You know you can still love Federer while at the same time admire Nadals talent.

GOD_BLESS_RAFA
05-02-2007, 05:19 AM
I think he will win atleast Wimbledon once
Yes I think he can

Morrissey
05-02-2007, 05:46 AM
Your telling someone else to get a life. You are the biggest loser and troll on this forum. You should be getting your stinky diaper changed rather then posting on an adult internet forum.

Werent you the one saying people were stupid to vote for Youzhny and Gonzalez to beat Nadal in quarterfinals of events this year? Then look what happened. What a loser.

Me? Wow you must have your lines crossed. After he lost I offered up no excuses and gave praise to the opponent. I even made a thread about it. My arguments with Fedtrolls have been considered trolling by them because I simply dispute their inability to ever give credit whenever he wins or when their boy loses. I call them out on that. I never said they were stupid (though some are). Point out where I said those words. I disagreed mainly because the ones who said those things were known to be rabid Fed fans. Gee, can someone see the link there? Especially when they were saying it in such a nasty and dismissive way? You only seem to see one side of the story but if I was angry it wasn´t for no reason. Now two wrongs don´t make a right but sometimes when I read such vindictive and instigating posts you can´t help but get into it.

Butters!
05-02-2007, 05:53 AM
Lambiel. Aren´t you the guy who says ¨Federer sucks¨everytime he loses a match and you call yourself a fan of his? During his match with Canas I remember seeing you totally go off on Roger almost as if you were fan of someone else. If you think he´s terrible I wonder why you´re giving Morrissey a hard time when he´s been saying nothing but good things at least since I´ve been around. You may be perhaps the last person to give him a lecture on class.

Butters!
05-02-2007, 05:58 AM
Typical.......If you do a search you will find a ton of posts that say "Nadal won the French because Federer had a bad day".

But this is the first time I ever heard anyone say: "Nadal almost took two sets from Federer at Wimbledon because Federer had a bad day"

This "bad day" excuse is getting about as old as : "My dog chewed up my homework".

You know you can still love Federer while at the same time admire Nadals talent.

Im a fan of both players and I really enjoy the game when they play each other, but of the fans of both players the fans of Roger seem to be the most bitter when hes defeated. Now fans of Rafa are no angels but some of the stuff thats written by fans of Roger seem to have the most excuses and hatred behind their posts. Why so much hatred people? Theyre both great players and clearly respect each other. You guys need to have some perspective.