PDA

View Full Version : Is there any doubt now Nadal is superior both Roddick and Hewitt on grass?


anointedone
07-10-2007, 01:15 PM
I am curious if there is anyone out there who still says Hewitt or Roddick are better grass court players then Nadal right now. The reason I ask this is I remember alot of people saying before this years Wimbledon that Roddick and Hewitt were still better then Nadal on grass.

I dont mean career wise, since for the time being career-wise, both are still above him I agree. However if you are talking about right now, after this years Wimbledon, I cant see anyway Nadal is not rated over both. He made the Wimbledon final 2 years in a row now, and badly outperformed Hewitt and Roddick 2 Wimbledons in a row now. Queens is nice, but nobody really cares about Queens compared to Wimbledon.

KBalla08
07-10-2007, 01:17 PM
ha well roddick made 2 wimby finals in a row as well, with a semi the year before... lets see nadal next year... i think if nadal played either one at wimbledon, barring stupid rain delays and stuff lol, he would probably lose. roddick's serve would win it for him. the hewitt match would be really close, prob. 5 sets.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 01:21 PM
ha well roddick made 2 wimby finals in a row as well, with a semi the year before... lets see nadal next year... i think if nadal played either one at wimbledon, barring stupid rain delays and stuff lol, he would probably lose. roddick's serve would win it for him. the hewitt match would be really close, prob. 5 sets.

Why would Roddick beat Nadal at Wimbledon when he couldnt beat Murray or Gasquet at Wimbledon the last 2 years, while Nadal gave Federer his toughest match by far in the final both years? Why would Hewitt beat Nadal at Wimbledon when he couldnt beat Baghdatis and Djokovic the last 2 years at Wimbledon. They were each taken out of Wimbledon the last 2 years by other newbies, other then Nadal, and Nadal is by far the kind of the new balls so far.

Yeah you are right on what Roddick in the past did on grass. That is why I said I acknowledge Hewitt and Roddick have slightly better "careers" on grass at this point, if you were rating their whole careers on grass I would rate them slightly ahead. However Nadal is better right now on grass. You have to go back to 2005 to see Roddick and Hewitt not be badly outperformed by Nadal at Wimbledon now.

logansc
07-10-2007, 01:28 PM
No you are right, Nadal is the best player ever, and you obviously being his biggest fan, that makes you the coolest tennis fan ever.

In all seriousness...yeah he made the final this year, being a better result than the other 2, but unless he, himself beat them, I don't see how you can say he is superior. It's all about results and head to heads. Each day is a different day and a new match up. I've noticed you infer things based on stats and in the world of sports stats only get you so far.

caesar66
07-10-2007, 01:34 PM
I would really like to see nadal v roddick on grass. The problem with grass is that its almost a no brainer who's best on it, but after that, you cant really assess the next best player because the season is so short. over time, you tell who dominates the surface and who doesnt. Clay for instance, has Nadal at the top , Fed next to him, and a slew of guys who rack up points on clay due to the length of the season. grass is less than a month long, with players really only having time to play one warmup tournament and then wimbledon. I think that if there were an extended grass season, roddick would be next best or third behind ancic. The match I really want to see is a really in form ancic v nadal on grass. that could be a nailbiter. For this grass season, I'd say the major players were Berdych, Roddick (winning the only tournaments other than wimbledon that matter on grass), Federer, and Nadal. One could argue Djokovic due to his wimbledon results, but that still may be a stretch. With no season though, its tough to think of who would actually be the rest of the top ten on grass below federer.

caesar66
07-10-2007, 01:37 PM
I also think that the "nadal gave federer a close match, federer beat gasquet, gasquet beat roddick, so nadal should be able to take out gasquet and thus roddick on grass" is invalid. Lets not forget that Roddick beat Mahut, who beat Nadal on grass. this is why I say that its unfair to really rank the next in lines when we dont have a long enough season for those people to really be ranked.

8PAQ
07-10-2007, 01:37 PM
I am curious if there is anyone out there who still says Hewitt or Roddick are better grass court players then Nadal right now. The reason I ask this is I remember alot of people saying before this years Wimbledon that Roddick and Hewitt were still better then Nadal on grass.

I dont mean career wise, since for the time being career-wise, both are still above him I agree. However if you are talking about right now, after this years Wimbledon, I cant see anyway Nadal is not rated over both. He made the Wimbledon final 2 years in a row now, and badly outperformed Hewitt and Roddick 2 Wimbledons in a row now. Queens is nice, but nobody really cares about Queens compared to Wimbledon.

Roddick and Hewitt are the past. No point talking about them. This not 2001-2004 anymore.

logansc
07-10-2007, 01:38 PM
Caesar that's well said for a Bulldog...I'm kind of impressed.

caesar66
07-10-2007, 01:42 PM
lol...we might not know football as well as we think we do at UGA, but I like to think we do alright when it comes to tennis ;)

anointedone
07-10-2007, 01:43 PM
In all seriousness...yeah he made the final this year, being a better result than the other 2, but unless he, himself beat them, I don't see how you can say he is superior. It's all about results and head to heads. Each day is a different day and a new match up. I've noticed you infer things based on stats and in the world of sports stats only get you so far.

I dont see how you can someone is superior based on head to head. Nadal is 2-2 vs Federer on hard courts, does that mean they are equal on hard courts, even though Federer has 6 hard court slams and Nadal has never been past the quarters of any hard court slam? Sampras had a losing head to head with Stich, Krajicek, and Haarhuis, was he inferior to them?

Head to heads often contradict each other. Nadal>Federer>Blake>Nadal, and up until Wimbledon this year Nadal>Federer>Berdych>Nadal. In 1996 in womens tennis it was Novotna>Seles>Sanchez>Novotna. Novotna always beat Seles, but Seles always beat Sanchez Vicario, but Sanchez Vicario always beat Novotna.

So no who is better cant be based on head to head play but overall results, which Nadal is clearly superior the last 2 years on grass to either Roddick or Hewitt.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 01:45 PM
I also think that the "nadal gave federer a close match, federer beat gasquet, gasquet beat roddick, so nadal should be able to take out gasquet and thus roddick on grass" is invalid. Lets not forget that Roddick beat Mahut, who beat Nadal on grass. this is why I say that its unfair to really rank the next in lines when we dont have a long enough season for those people to really be ranked.


I am not using that anology though. I am just saying Nadal is the only one who has given Federer real trouble at the last 2 Wimbledons. I am not saying player A vs player B vs player C so player C vs player A. I am saying Nadal not only made the final both years at Wimbledon, while Roddick and Hewitt lost to new balls players, but Nadal was the only one out of anyone both years to give Federer real trouble. That is something that distinguishes him as clearly the second best, being the only one who gave the best on the surface real trouble two years in a row. That is not using any philosophy of player A vs player B vs player C. It is is very apparent evidence of how strong Nadal is on grass.

RoddickAce
07-10-2007, 01:47 PM
Is the speed of the bounce on the grass at Queen's the same at Wimbledon? Maybe this year's slower grass courts at Wimbledon made it easier for clay courters, such as Gasquet to beat good grass court players, such as Roddick. Not sure though, but honestly, by the end of the tournament, the grass courts look more like a clay court at the baseline cuz the of the wear and tear...

clymb420
07-10-2007, 01:48 PM
No.
At this very exact moment in time, as in right now, otherwise called the present...nope, there is no doubt.

logansc
07-10-2007, 01:48 PM
Now you are just splitting hairs...AO I mean honestly, you are going to take one thing I say and the completely blow it up. It was you who did the whole, well Gasquet>Roddick and Murray> Roddick so Nadal> Roddick. And yes head to head does matter in tennis because match ups are very underrated. Nadal matches up with Fed very well hence why he is 2-2 against him. If Nadal played Fed in the finals of a hardcourt slam I think the results for Fed may be a little different. You asked if he was superior to 2 specific players, in that sense and considering the length of the season as originally mentioned by Caesar I believe you have to look at head to heads since there are a grand total of 4 grass tourneys a year and 2 of those occur at the same time. This year Roddick has 1 grass title and Nadal has 0. You didn't say better at Wimbledon, you said on grass. See how's that for splitting hairs and nitpicking? Annoying, yes?

anointedone
07-10-2007, 01:49 PM
I think the grass at Queens is faster and more real grass. However, right or wrong, Wimbledon is the more important event by far, so if you are the player doing better on the grass they use at Wimbledon, that makes you better on grass in todays game.

caesar66
07-10-2007, 01:51 PM
sorry for the misunderstanding, I wasnt accusing you, annointedone, of using head to heads and the like. I just wanted to put that disclaimer out there before the discussion took off so my stance on anyone using it would be known. I would agree with you that based only on the past two seasons, nadal is the second best grass courter in the world. I still stand by my statement that the grass "season" is way too short for a viable ranking for players on the surface past number one, which is federer on grass in my opinion. I still feel that if there were a real and appropriate season, nadal would have trouble from Roddick and Ancic. Hewitt not so much any more. But as we don't have a real grass season, if we are to rank players behind federer for the last two seasons on grass, nadals two final appearances do make him next in line. I just dont think we have a season that justifies grass court ratings.

caesar66
07-10-2007, 01:55 PM
also, with there being no sort of masters series on grass, we only really have one tournament that puts the worlds best against one another, and thats wimbledon. Queens and Halle basically split the best players in the world into one or the other. Roddick wins one, Berdych wins one. One has to weigh the importance of Rafa's final appearance against those actual titles. I'd still say rafa edges them based on this sort of season, but again, i think its invalid because there isnt really a season.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 01:57 PM
Now you are just splitting hairs...AO I mean honestly, you are going to take one thing I say and the completely blow it up. It was you who did the whole, well Gasquet>Roddick and Murray> Roddick so Nadal> Roddick.

Yes I did say that, but it wasnt in saying if a player beat another who beats nother that one is automaticaly better. It was in saying that Nadal getting to the last 2 Wimbledon finals, one with an easy draw, one with a very hard draw, and giving grass court king Federer so much trouble, is much superior to Hewitt or Roddick losing to unproven up and comers. It was not specificaly calculating who is better by how Nadal does vs Federer on grass, to Hewitt or Roddick vs Federer on grass. It was not specificaly calculating who is better by Nadal beating someone, Roddick and Hewitt lose to on grass.
It was overall accessing that Nadals performance at 2 Wimbledons in a row has been far superior to both Roddick and Hewitt.

And yes head to head does matter in tennis because match ups are very underrated.

You are right, but then you are talking about who is better in a head to head matchup, not neccessarily who is better point blank, which is a different topic altogether.

Nadal matches up with Fed very well hence why he is 2-2 against him.

Read above.

If Nadal played Fed in the finals of a hardcourt slam I think the results for Fed may be a little different.

What makes you think that. He averages 4 set losses to Nadal when they play at the French Open, which is his average performance vs him in a non-
French Open event, or even slightly worse. So no reason to think he would improve playing Nadal in a hard court slam, if they did play, vs his regular tournament performance vs Nadal on hard courts.

You asked if he was superior to 2 specific players, in that sense and considering the length of the season as originally mentioned by Caesar I believe you have to look at head to heads since there are a grand total of 4 grass tourneys a year and 2 of those occur at the same time.

Actually the shortness of the grass court season makes it even sillier for head to head to be a must to who is better, since it makes it less likely for players to meet head to head. It isnt Nadals fault that Roddick at last years Wimbledon, and Hewitt at the last 2 Wimbledons, were too weak to get far enough to play Nadal in the semis when they were in his half. With the shortness of the grass court season, and no Masters event on grass, your performance at Wimbledon is really the only thing that determines who the best grass players are.

[QUOTE]This year Roddick has 1 grass title and Nadal has 0. You didn't say better at Wimbledon, you said on grass. See how's that for splitting hairs and nitpicking? Annoying, yes?[/QUOTEç

What would a player rather have. Losing a classic Wimbledon final to Federer, or winning Queens before losing in the quarters of Wimbledon. Yeah that is a tough one. :p

anointedone
07-10-2007, 02:01 PM
sorry for the misunderstanding, I wasnt accusing you, annointedone, of using head to heads and the like. I just wanted to put that disclaimer out there before the discussion took off so my stance on anyone using it would be known. I would agree with you that based only on the past two seasons, nadal is the second best grass courter in the world. I still stand by my statement that the grass "season" is way too short for a viable ranking for players on the surface past number one, which is federer on grass in my opinion. I still feel that if there were a real and appropriate season, nadal would have trouble from Roddick and Ancic. Hewitt not so much any more. But as we don't have a real grass season, if we are to rank players behind federer for the last two seasons on grass, nadals two final appearances do make him next in line. I just dont think we have a season that justifies grass court ratings.

OK thanks for explaning what you meant with your initial head to head theories.

I agree with you that the grass court season is much too short, and it makes it hard to truly determine where players rank. They should have a longer grass court season for sure, so it more of a full season with players able to be evaluated in their performance over a more substained period. They should also put real grass in place. Right now the whole tour seems too hard court and clay court only oriented. Too many events on outdoor hard courts, then they make grass too much like clay. They need to bring back real grass, bring back carpet, have more indoor hard court events, and balance the play among all of clay, grass (old grass), outdoor hard courts, indoor hard courts, and indoor carpet. The way the season is set up now is all wrong.

However it is what it is. And under what it is now, and what you have to judge a player on I dont see how one can deny Nadal being the #2 grass court player now, and over both Roddick and Hewitt. Although you acknowledge that it seems.

logansc
07-10-2007, 02:02 PM
For the record I was saying the matchup on hardcourts would improve Nadal's chances, not Fed's. Also I believe as a player I enjoy winning tournaments...and if I had just went on a roll and took the 4th set 6-2 I would be supremely ****ed that I let the 5th one get away by the same score. So to answer your question, for some of us there is still some doubt. If you are so sure then that's great for you and I applaud you on your ability to be so sure of yourself.

FiveO
07-10-2007, 02:13 PM
As it is right now, at this very moment?................We don't know, because Nadal hasn't met either one, this year on grass.

Given the two specific match-ups? Hewitt is 4-3 v. Nadal with all three losses coming on red clay. In their only meeting on grass last year at Queens Club, Nadal retired after splitting two 6-3 sets. Right now, in this match-up Nadal is the superior clay court player and Hewitt the superior hard court player. Does that mean Hewitt is the better, faster court player right now? I don't know because they haven't played each other on current form.

Nadal v. Roddick on grass? Who knows. From their last meeting on hards I think Nadal is going to pose a real problem for Roddick in the future even though they are 1-1 in their career h2h on that surface. Clay forget about, which leads us to grass, which is different yet and on which these two players have never met.

That being said, both Hewitt and Roddick have shown they prefer and perform better on faster surfaces no matter what that surface is. With Wimbledon seeming to play slower each of the past few years it isn't moving in a favorable direction, speed wise, for either of those two perspective Nadal opponents.

Nadal gets the points and deserves the credit for repeating his appearance in the final. Those results, however, do not prove Nadal the better player on that surface than any other specific, proven grass court contender until he beats them on that surface.

Until we see them play out an entire match on grass we won't know, and any conclusion drawn on the results of a single tournament where these players have never met, is pure speculation. We simply won't know until they meet. If and when they eventually do meet, should Nadal win the conclusion is easier, if not, then the whole argument regarding being lucky to have avoided them at this venue these past two years will start anew.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 02:33 PM
Five0, as I said earlier how can you say Nadal has to beat Roddick or Hewitt head to head on grass to be considered superior. Like I said earlier head to heads often contradict each other. Lets say Nadal had beaten Federer this year at Wimbledon, but lost to Roddick at Queens. Well based on head to head would that show Nadal is superior to Federer, but Roddick superior to Nadal. Then how that could both those be true, since how could Roddick then be superior to Federer when he has lost to him many times in a row on grass.

How is it Nadals fault that Roddick and Hewitt could not perform well enough to reach a loss to Nadal at Wimbledon the last two years. Roddick and Hewitt should not be considered below Nadal on grass now, since they cant perform well enough to get far enough to play him. I dont agree with that at all.

caesar66
07-10-2007, 02:45 PM
Five0, as I said earlier how can you say Nadal has to beat Roddick or Hewitt head to head on grass to be considered superior.

I take issue with the word superior here. Superior, to me, means the better actual player. We dont know who is the actual better player without looking at head to heads, etc. Points wise, nadal is the number two grasscourter for the last two years. No getting around that, the points dont lie. But as far as who is the superior tennis player on grass, I think that there are too many variables and not enough tournaments to get an accurate assessment. Points wise, Nadal is #2 on grass. Talent/skill wise, we can argue till the sun goes down (and probably even then, argue more), but we cant really know past opinions and speculation.

pow
07-10-2007, 02:51 PM
I don't see Roddick beating Nadal on any surface anymore. Nadal blew past Roddick at Indian Wells convincingly enough for me to think this.

FiveO
07-10-2007, 02:55 PM
Five0, as I said earlier how can you say Nadal has to beat Roddick or Hewitt head to head on grass to be considered superior. Like I said earlier head to heads often contradict each other. Lets say Nadal had beaten Federer this year at Wimbledon, but lost to Roddick at Queens. Well based on head to head would that show Nadal is superior to Federer, but Roddick superior to Nadal. Then how that could both those be true, since how could Roddick then be superior to Federer when he has lost to him many times in a row on grass.

How is it Nadals fault that Roddick and Hewitt could not perform well enough to reach a loss to Nadal at Wimbledon the last two years. Roddick and Hewitt should not be considered below Nadal on grass now, since they cant perform well enough to get far enough to play him. I dont agree with that at all.

You posed a very, very narrow premise in your OP.

To paraphrase you asked the rhetorical question:

Is Nadal better than Roddick or Hewitt on grass?

Whether it was your intent or not, that's how it reads.

That is the premise I addressed with what I see as the only answer and a fairly non-comittal one at that: We don't know yet.

"Who had the second best results on grass this year or last?" is the rhetorical question you should have asked.

Nadal_Freak
07-10-2007, 03:11 PM
At Wimbledon, Nadal is the second best grass court player. Period. Who knows what a rested Nadal can do at Queens as he always comes in tired going into that event.

dukemunson
07-10-2007, 03:15 PM
its obviousaly subjective, but I put Nadal and Roddick as equal on grass with Hewitt having lost a step...

couch
07-10-2007, 03:27 PM
If the grass played like it used to then I would say no. But the way the grass at Wimbledon plays now I would say yes.

Lleytian3
07-10-2007, 03:40 PM
I really do not think that nadal is better on grass than roddick and/or hewitt.

i do agree with the point that they could not make it to have a matchup against hewitt/roddick, but do not think that makes them junker than nadal.

hewitt had a very tough match with djokovic, that if any of you that were watching that match know hewitt should have won it, but novak played the bigger points better. hewitt had 3 set points in the 1st set. he served for the set in the 4th set. hewitt just could not come up with the big points, and give credit to novak where he played tremondously, and lets not forget novak is having a career year too.

i can say that if djokovic body held up, he wuld have beat nadal.

gasquet, well what can you say. roddick has never lost a 3rd set tiebreak, in all of his previous matches at this year WO he won his 3rd n decisive set in a tiebreak. there is reelie no excuse, roddick could not close out the match and like novak, gasquet played the bigger points.

roddick vs nadal on grass, that wuld be tricky seein as how nadal has been dismissing roddick as of late on hard courts. but roddick has been gettin back to form, if roddick and nadal meet on hard courts this year, whoever wins that matchup will win any grass/hard court matchup in my opinion.

hewitt vs nadal. i say on grass you wuld u have to give the edge to hewitt still. hewitt has not lost to nadal on any surface other than clay. hewitt did choke up n was not able to meet nadal in the semi's.

it is true that nadal truly gave fed a test in the final. but lets be serious now. if any of you watched the match you know nadal had the trophy practically in his hand. up 40-15 on 2 of federer's serves, and not bein able to beat him.
thats federer playing the big points better as we see with the hewitt-djokovic match and unfortuante circumstances as we can see in the roddick-gasquet match. since nadal could have went up 2 sets to 1, when he had a chance to put away an easy forehand at 5-6 15-30 on federer's serve in that 3rd set

anointedone
07-10-2007, 04:00 PM
it is true that nadal truly gave fed a test in the final. but lets be serious now. if any of you watched the match you know nadal had the trophy practically in his hand. up 40-15 on 2 of federer's serves, and not bein able to beat him. thats federer playing the big points better as we see with the hewitt-djokovic match and unfortuante circumstances as we can see in the roddick-gasquet match. since nadal could have went up 2 sets to 1, when he had a chance to put away an easy forehand at 5-6 15-30 on federer's serve in that 3rd set

You are just admitting that Nadal could have, and maybe should have, won the final over Federer. How on earth does not make it even more obvious he is better then Roddick and Hewitt. Either Roddick or Hewitt would have their asses handed to them by Federer if they played him, yet you are the one admitting yourself Nadal could have easily won the final. That just makes it even more obvious how he is clearly superior to both, even on grass now.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 04:04 PM
hewitt had a very tough match with djokovic, that if any of you that were watching that match know hewitt should have won it, but novak played the bigger points better. hewitt had 3 set points in the 1st set. he served for the set in the 4th set. hewitt just could not come up with the big points, and give credit to novak where he played tremondously, and lets not forget novak is having a career year too.

i can say that if djokovic body held up, he wuld have beat nadal.

How can you be so sure if Novak's body had held up he would have beaten Nadal? He has played Nadal twice on hard courts this year, and gotten beaten in straight once, won in straights once. So at best he plays Nadal even on hard courts, and with grass being slower today Novak has much more chance to beat Nadal on hard courts then he would on grass.

Hewitt lost the points to Novak? Part of that is being mentally weaker then he used to be, which he is, which is part of why he isnt as great a player anymore.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 04:05 PM
hewitt vs nadal. i say on grass you wuld u have to give the edge to hewitt still. hewitt has not lost to nadal on any surface other than clay. hewitt did choke up n was not able to meet nadal in the semi's.

Hewitt has not played Nadal anywhere except clay since the 2005 Australian Open. Nadal is a completely different player since then. Hewitt was a much better player then, then he is now. Last year they played at Queens, and Hewitt was losing until Nadal injured himself.

illkhiboy
07-10-2007, 04:12 PM
As it is right now, at this very moment?................We don't know, because Nadal hasn't met either one, this year on grass.

Given the two specific match-ups? Hewitt is 4-3 v. Nadal with all three losses coming on red clay. In their only meeting on grass last year at Queens Club, Nadal retired after splitting two 6-3 sets. Right now, in this match-up Nadal is the superior clay court player and Hewitt the superior hard court player. Does that mean Hewitt is the better, faster court player right now? I don't know because they haven't played each other on current form.

Nadal v. Roddick on grass? Who knows. From their last meeting on hards I think Nadal is going to pose a real problem for Roddick in the future even though they are 1-1 in their career h2h on that surface. Clay forget about, which leads us to grass, which is different yet and on which these two players have never met.

That being said, both Hewitt and Roddick have shown they prefer and perform better on faster surfaces no matter what that surface is. With Wimbledon seeming to play slower each of the past few years it isn't moving in a favorable direction, speed wise, for either of those two perspective Nadal opponents.

Nadal gets the points and deserves the credit for repeating his appearance in the final. Those results, however, do not prove Nadal the better player on that surface than any other specific, proven grass court contender until he beats them on that surface.

Until we see them play out an entire match on grass we won't know, and any conclusion drawn on the results of a single tournament where these players have never met, is pure speculation. We simply won't know until they meet. If and when they eventually do meet, should Nadal win the conclusion is easier, if not, then the whole argument regarding being lucky to have avoided them at this venue these past two years will start anew.

I don't think the match-up itself is all that important considering that some players just match-up awkwardly. For example, only a fool would have said Nadal is better than Federer on hardcourts when Nadal led Federer 2-1 on that surface for a while. The obvious answer to that would be, well Federer dominates the rest of the field when Nadal doesn't even come close. It's the same principle at play here. Nadal showed he could deal with Baghdatis (who beat Hewitt and Murray) and dangerous players like Berdych, Youzhny and Soderling.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 04:14 PM
You posed a very, very narrow premise in your OP.

To paraphrase you asked the rhetorical question:

Is Nadal better than Roddick or Hewitt on grass?

Whether it was your intent or not, that's how it reads.

That is the premise I addressed with what I see as the only answer and a fairly non-comittal one at that: We don't know yet.

"Who had the second best results on grass this year or last?" is the rhetorical question you should have asked.

Well my way of thinking is the player who had the second best results on grass the last two years in a row now, not just one so the aberration or fluke theories should be dead now, should be regarded as the 2nd best player on grass currently.

Lleytian3
07-10-2007, 04:46 PM
You are just admitting that Nadal could have, and maybe should have, won the final over Federer. How on earth does not make it even more obvious he is better then Roddick and Hewitt. Either Roddick or Hewitt would have their asses handed to them by Federer if they played him, yet you are the one admitting yourself Nadal could have easily won the final. That just makes it even more obvious how he is clearly superior to both, even on grass now.

Really now?!? if federer lost to nadal in the WO final. And if i am saying that roddick or hewitt could have beaten nadal, then that means that either roddick or hewitt could have won the WO.

federer was not playing as great in the final. anyone coudl have given fed a stern test, look at ferrero taking a set of fed in the quarters

Lleytian3
07-10-2007, 04:50 PM
How can you be so sure if Novak's body had held up he would have beaten Nadal? He has played Nadal twice on hard courts this year, and gotten beaten in straight once, won in straights once. So at best he plays Nadal even on hard courts, and with grass being slower today Novak has much more chance to beat Nadal on hard courts then he would on grass.

Hewitt lost the points to Novak? Part of that is being mentally weaker then he used to be, which he is, which is part of why he isnt as great a player anymore.

the way novak has been playing this year, i would have said that novak probably would have won that match

well then are you saying that nadal is mentally weaker than federer. since nadal did not take advanatage of those 4 break points in the 5th set. hewitt may not as be as good, but hewitt is still mentally strong as ever

jkonecne
07-10-2007, 04:59 PM
Nadal has a ways to go to prove he's better than Roddick or Hewitt.

Lleytian3
07-10-2007, 04:59 PM
Hewitt has not played Nadal anywhere except clay since the 2005 Australian Open. Nadal is a completely different player since then. Hewitt was a much better player then, then he is now. Last year they played at Queens, and Hewitt was losing until Nadal injured himself.

exactly. hewitt could have lost to nadal in straight sets, instead nadal had to retire, and if memory serves me right, didnt hewitt go on to win queens that year?;)

anointedone
07-10-2007, 05:03 PM
Really now?!? if federer lost to nadal in the WO final. And if i am saying that roddick or hewitt could have beaten nadal, then that means that either roddick or hewitt could have won the WO.

federer was not playing as great in the final. anyone coudl have given fed a stern test, look at ferrero taking a set of fed in the quarters

Federer would have thumped either Roddick or Hewitt if one of the had played him in the finals or semis. Maybe you have been in a coma for alot of years now, but Federer crushes those two over and over and over again, it is like groundhog day. When one of them wins a set and loses in four, it is a monumental huge victorious day for them. Roddick or Hewitt should just pull their pants down whenever the play Federer.

Nadal on the other hand was extremely close to maybe beating Federer, and you say yourself. If you are also saying Roddick or Hewitt could have, I will ignore that part since it is just a statement of complete ignorance to suggest Roddick or Hewitt have more then a faint hope of ever beating Federer in a grand slam again.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 05:04 PM
the way novak has been playing this year, i would have said that novak probably would have won that match

well then are you saying that nadal is mentally weaker than federer. since nadal did not take advanatage of those 4 break points in the 5th set. hewitt may not as be as good, but hewitt is still mentally strong as ever

Federer came up with great serves on those break points. Too bad for Hewitt he doesnt have a great serve like Federer to save himself in that situation.

Lleytian3
07-10-2007, 05:16 PM
Federer would have thumped either Roddick or Hewitt if one of the had played him in the finals or semis. Maybe you have been in a coma for alot of years now, but Federer crushes those two over and over and over again, it is like groundhog day. When one of them wins a set and loses in four, it is a monumental huge victorious day for them. Roddick or Hewitt should just pull their pants down whenever the play Federer.

Nadal on the other hand was extremely close to maybe beating Federer, and you say yourself. If you are also saying Roddick or Hewitt could have, I will ignore that part since it is just a statement of complete ignorance to suggest Roddick or Hewitt have more then a faint hope of ever beating Federer in a grand slam again.

i hope you are not one of those people that think federer is the GOAT of tennis. and i really hope you dont think federer is a tennis GOD

would you give canas a even remote hope of beating federer on hard courts TWICE this year alone. would you give a chance to a nobody named volandri to beat federer, the 2nd best clay courter in the world on clay. cmon now.

seeing the ppl fed lost to this year, roddick and hewitt has more than a faint hope of beating federer. ignorance you say, b*tch please.

Lleytian3
07-10-2007, 05:17 PM
Federer came up with great serves on those break points. Too bad for Hewitt he doesnt have a great serve like Federer to save himself in that situation.

your right, federer does have a great serve and came up wit big ones on those points.

hewitt may not have as good as serve like fed's, but hewitt can place it, which makes him a decently good server

anointedone
07-10-2007, 05:31 PM
i hope you are not one of those people that think federer is the GOAT of tennis. and i really hope you dont think federer is a tennis GOD

would you give canas a even remote hope of beating federer on hard courts TWICE this year alone. would you give a chance to a nobody named volandri to beat federer, the 2nd best clay courter in the world on clay. cmon now.

seeing the ppl fed lost to this year, roddick and hewitt has more than a faint hope of beating federer. ignorance you say, b*tch please.

It does not matter that Canas beat Federer twice on hard courts, since Canas does not have a long history of having his *** handed to him by Federer like Roddick and Hewitt do. Federer is one of the GOAT in tennis, and his achievements back that up. If that is considered calling him a god then so be it. Either way what I do know is Hewitt and Roddick are his little bi%ch toys to smack around and have been seemingly forever now.

Federer has won his last 9 matches with Hewitt. Federer has won 24 sets and Hewitt 3 in those 9 matches. Hewitt has not beaten Federer since 2003.

Federer has won his last 9 matches with Roddick. Federer has won 22 sets and Roddick 9 in those 9 matches. Roddick has not beaten Federer since 2003.

Like I said Roddick or Hewitt should just pull their pants down whenver they play Federer. Do I think Roddick and Hewitt have more then a faint hope to beat Federer at a Grand Slam? No I think they dont even have a faint hope. Saying they have a faint hope is much too generous to either of them, their hope is something about 100 levels below faint of beating Federer in a Grand Slam event ever again.

superman1
07-10-2007, 05:55 PM
Tennis is all about match-ups. Most people don't match up well against Federer. Nadal does. That doesn't mean Nadal is better than "most people."

Hewitt won Wimbledon once. Nadal is not a better grasscourter than him, in his prime.

Roddick was in two Wimby finals, 1 semifinal, and won Queen's what, 4 times? He's a more accomplished grasscourter than Nadal.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 06:01 PM
It does not matter if Nadal is a better grass court player then Hewitt in his prime or not. He is a better grass court player right now, and has clearly done enough to prove that. Anyway Hewitt won his Wimbledon title before Federer became Federer, otherwise Hewitt would have 0 Wimbledon titles like Nadal currently has. Hewitt won his Wimbledon title beating a then green Nalbandian in the final.

Roddick has a more accomplished career on grass then Nadal at this point. He has not been more accomplished on grass the last 2 years though. Nadal's performance at the last 2 Wimbledons in a row now compared to Roddick's, clearly sets him apart as the better grass courter right now.

FiveO
07-10-2007, 06:15 PM
So extending the "logic" of the original post in this thread, we should conclude that MaliVai Washington was the second best grass court player in the world in 1996.

Former winners like Agassi, Stich, Becker and some guy named Sampras were in the draw and he, Malivai, didn't beat any of them but would be deemed better than them because of a result. Interesting.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 06:51 PM
So extending the "logic" of the original post in this thread, we should conclude that MaliVai Washington was the second best grass court player in the world in 1996.

Former winners like Agassi, Stich, Becker and some guy named Sampras were in the draw and he, Malivai, didn't beat any of them but would be deemed better than them because of a result. Interesting.

MaliVai Washington did not ever make the Wimbledon final two years in a row though did he. Nadal has. Completely different. Washington did not outperform the best on grass more then once as far as a result. Nadal has clearly outperformed the supposed best, outside of Federer, of the current field on grass 2 Wimbledons in a row now. Roddick, Hewitt, and the rest have been completely outdone by Nadal 2 Wimbledons in a row now, not just 1 fluke final showing or something.

Heck Washington could not even stay healthy enough to play Wimbledon ever again after 1996. His showing there was a complete fluke. Nadal though is a champion player, not some career journeyman with one nice run like Washington, who has shown he has now mastered all surfaces including grass.

If you want to break it down even further though, Stich and Sampras happened to be in Krajiceks half of the draw, and they happened to lose to Krajicek himself. It is not as if they were in Washingtons half and Washington still made it through. Becker had to withdraw from the event with an injury in an early round, he wasnt actually taken out by someone. Even though he ended the year barely in the top 10, and made 2 slam semis (getting murdered by Chang in both) 1996 was clearly not a year of particularly good tennis for Agassi. It was the start of his freefall to the ultimate low at the end of 97, before another comeback. I dont think it would be shocking if one were to even suggest Washington might have been better then a slumping Agassi on grass that particular year.

Washington did not give Krajicek his best match of the tournament in the final, heck not even close. Sampras and Stich were both much tougher matches. Nadal though made the Wimbledon final two years in a row with Roddick in his half 1 of the 2 years, and Hewitt in his half 2 of the 2 years. Nadal gave Federer by far his toughest match of the tournament both years, and was clearly the 2nd best player at the tournament both years, which isnt as easily said for Washington in even the one year he made the final.

Eviscerator
07-10-2007, 07:00 PM
I don't remember Roddick playing heads up against Nadal, so the point is mute.

I certainly don't think Hewitt is a great grass court player despite having won the year they changed everything in favor of grinding baseliners. Funny how that is the year he managed to win it.

saram
07-10-2007, 07:12 PM
I am curious if there is anyone out there who still says Hewitt or Roddick are better grass court players then Nadal right now. The reason I ask this is I remember alot of people saying before this years Wimbledon that Roddick and Hewitt were still better then Nadal on grass.

I dont mean career wise, since for the time being career-wise, both are still above him I agree. However if you are talking about right now, after this years Wimbledon, I cant see anyway Nadal is not rated over both. He made the Wimbledon final 2 years in a row now, and badly outperformed Hewitt and Roddick 2 Wimbledons in a row now. Queens is nice, but nobody really cares about Queens compared to Wimbledon.

this year's wimbledon did not play like the grass did when hewitt was more dominant on the surface. ball bounces and sits up a lot higher now. you would have to take them all back in time, let them play on actual grass and not the stuff i have in my front yard to decide the debate.

anointedone
07-10-2007, 07:13 PM
this year's wimbledon did not play like the grass did when hewitt was more dominant on the surface. ball bounces and sits up a lot higher now. you would have to take them all back in time, let them play on actual grass and not the stuff i have in my front yard to decide the debate.

I see your point, but since this is what grass is now shouldnt we talk about it as what now constitutes grass court tennis, whether we like it or not. Otherwise we are stuck talking about an imaginery surface that does not exist anymore, the grass of old that is.

dave333
07-10-2007, 07:16 PM
If it was fast grass, roddick would be a lot better, just because of his serve.

Lleytian3
07-11-2007, 04:36 PM
It does not matter that Canas beat Federer twice on hard courts, since Canas does not have a long history of having his *** handed to him by Federer like Roddick and Hewitt do. Federer is one of the GOAT in tennis, and his achievements back that up. If that is considered calling him a god then so be it. Either way what I do know is Hewitt and Roddick are his little bi%ch toys to smack around and have been seemingly forever now.

Federer has won his last 9 matches with Hewitt. Federer has won 24 sets and Hewitt 3 in those 9 matches. Hewitt has not beaten Federer since 2003.

Federer has won his last 9 matches with Roddick. Federer has won 22 sets and Roddick 9 in those 9 matches. Roddick has not beaten Federer since 2003.

Like I said Roddick or Hewitt should just pull their pants down whenver they play Federer. Do I think Roddick and Hewitt have more then a faint hope to beat Federer at a Grand Slam? No I think they dont even have a faint hope. Saying they have a faint hope is much too generous to either of them, their hope is something about 100 levels below faint of beating Federer in a Grand Slam event ever again.


The only reason people like canas and people like volandri never have a long history of losing to federer , is cuz they never do consisently well to play federer.

hewitt and roddick has.

federer's accomplishments does speak for himself. but he is not himself this year, losing to people like volandri and canas. and gettin pushed to 5 sets nearly losin WO to a clay courter to say the least. although nadal does not play like a clay courter.

ill say this. ill be suprise if federer wins the us open. nuf said

NadalForever
07-11-2007, 05:00 PM
Most Federer fans on this website are insane. Even if Nadal gets to the number one ranking and wins the next 15 slams then Federer fans will still refuse to accept that Nadal has any talent.

Chang
07-11-2007, 06:37 PM
I think Nadal has shown some improvement in his all-court play. I'm sure he can beat Hewitt cause he's not so good anymore and Hewitt doesn't have anything to hurt Nadal. Roddick, because of his serve will be a harder opponent. but I'd say as long as Nadal can hold his own serves against Roddick which I think he can and try to break him at every opportunity, he should be able to beat him.

Breaker
07-11-2007, 08:13 PM
I think Nadal has shown some improvement in his all-court play. I'm sure he can beat Hewitt cause he's not so good anymore and Hewitt doesn't have anything to hurt Nadal. Roddick, because of his serve will be a harder opponent. but I'd say as long as Nadal can hold his own serves against Roddick which I think he can and try to break him at every opportunity, he should be able to beat him.

Did you watch Hamburg? Hewitt was whipping inside out forehands and down the line backhands all day long to almost take the match ON CLAY. Hewitt's worst surface and Rafa's best so he certainly has his own strategies that can push Nadal on clay.
Compare that to Indian Wells where Roddick was absolutely manhandled by Rafa, their baseline games aren't even on the same level at this point. Roddick is a much better matchup for Nadal than Hewitt.

ACE of Hearts
07-11-2007, 08:21 PM
Nadal is not better then Hewitt on fast grass, slow grass, maybe.

Lleytian3
07-12-2007, 12:09 PM
Nadal is not better then Hewitt on fast grass, slow grass, maybe.

THANK YOU!

we finally have a sane person on this forum ;)

Marius_Hancu
07-12-2007, 12:13 PM
Not until he wins W, will he be better than Hewitt.
A champion is a champion.

NadalForever
07-12-2007, 12:27 PM
Not until he wins W, will he be better than Hewitt.
A champion is a champion.

With this statement you clearly hate Nadal just like most nerds on this website.

Marius_Hancu
07-12-2007, 12:30 PM
No, I'd say he may BEAT Hewitt on grass now.

But get a W title first and then we talk about CAREER success on grass.

Nadal_Freak
07-12-2007, 12:31 PM
Nadal is not better then Hewitt on fast grass, slow grass, maybe.
Didn't Hewitt lose in the first round at Queens?

anointedone
07-12-2007, 12:39 PM
Didn't Hewitt lose in the first round at Queens?

2nd round but 1st match. No real difference. Nadal was also beating Hewitt last year on the faster grass of Queens, before injurying his shoulder and having to withdraw. I honestly think Nadal would be favored over Hewitt at this present time on even faster grass instead of the Wimbledon grass.

Lleytian3
07-12-2007, 04:13 PM
2nd round but 1st match. No real difference. Nadal was also beating Hewitt last year on the faster grass of Queens, before injurying his shoulder and having to withdraw. I honestly think Nadal would be favored over Hewitt at this present time on even faster grass instead of the Wimbledon grass.

It was split-set when nadal retired. hence nadal was not beating hewitt.

get your facts straight.

if hewitt and nadal were to play, nadal would be the favorite, because he is in his prime and playing the best tennis of his career. would i think nadal would win. probably not. i would think hewitt would win, but i would not be suprised if nadal won.

i think on surfaces other than clay you would have to give the edge to hewitt, since hewitt has not lost to nadal other than clay even though it was 2 years ago. btw, hewitt has give nadal a stern test whenever they played on clay, which is hewitt's worst surface

anointedone
07-12-2007, 04:45 PM
It was split-set when nadal retired. hence nadal was not beating hewitt.

Nadal began dealing with the shoulder pain in the 2nd set according to him. Read his interview after the match. He also began getting treatment in the 2nd set. In the first set when he was healthy he was outplaying Hewitt and won the set. They were even when Nadal retired, but Nadal was already coping with the injury before that.

if hewitt and nadal were to play, nadal would be the favorite,

You are darn right he would be.

because he is in his prime and playing the best tennis of his career. would i think nadal would win. probably not.

You think wrong then.

i think on surfaces other than clay you would have to give the edge to hewitt, since hewitt has not lost to nadal other than clay even though it was 2 years ago. btw, hewitt has give nadal a stern test whenever they played on clay, which is hewitt's worst surface

Hewitt has not given Nadal a stern test everytime they played on clay. They played 3 times on clay. 1 was a stern test, the event in Hamburg were Nadal had clearly hit a physical wall and lost the final set to Federer 6-0. Of course Nadal had to lose at some point on clay, and Federer as likely a person as anyone to end the streak. However when a player with an 81 match win streak on clay wins only 2 games in the last 2 sets, and 0 games in the last set, even to Federer, you know something is not normal. Nadal would never surrender that easily under normal circumstances.

The other 2 times they played on clay were not stern tests. The 2006 French Open encounter was 4 sets, but still a very comfortable match overall for Nadal. This years French was a very lopsided straight sets win for Nadal, with only one competitive set.

Hewitt generally is still a much easier opponent for Nadal on clay, then Federer is to Nadal on clay, yet Nadal is still able to push Federer hard and almost beat him on grass, and beat him on hard courts.

since hewitt has not lost to nadal other than clay even though it was 2 years ago.

I love how dismissive you are of the little sidenote Hewitt has not had a completed match with Nadal outside of clay since over 2 years ago. That is the point of everything here. It wasnt since the 2005 Australian Open, pre the real Nadal we started seeing in the Spring of 2005. Hewitt has never had a completed match vs this Nadal on a non clay surface, that is the reason he hasnt lost to him. He even barely managed to scrape past that Nadal in a rugged 5 setter by a toenail, with Nadal suffering cramps, and the home crowd giving every ounce of their energy to help save Hewitt.

Lleytian3
07-12-2007, 05:27 PM
I love how dismissive you are of the little sidenote Hewitt has not had a completed match with Nadal outside of clay since over 2 years ago. That is the point of everything here. It wasnt since the 2005 Australian Open, pre the real Nadal we started seeing in the Spring of 2005. Hewitt has never had a completed match vs this Nadal on a non clay surface, that is the reason he hasnt lost to him. He even barely managed to scrape past that Nadal in a rugged 5 setter by a toenail, with Nadal suffering cramps, and the home crowd giving every ounce of their energy to help save Hewitt.[/QUOTE]

Well facts are facts.

Nadal has not beaten hewitt on a hard/grass court. nadal has been fortunate he hasnt run into hewitt, but his luck will soon run out. if hewitt and nadal meet in a late round of any tournement this hard court season coming up, then nadal will have his work cut out for him. when hewitt starts gettin wins under his belt and being able to make the QTRF and SF consistenly, and if he meets up with nadal, i will be very suprised if hewitt doesnt win that match.

we can argue as match as we like, about who is better than who.

but for know, all we can do is specualte, we have to wait and see them play an actual match and go from their

lambielspins
07-17-2007, 04:24 PM
I dont like Nadal, but it is time to acknowledge he is the best or second best player in the World on every single surface.

Lleytian3
07-17-2007, 05:14 PM
I dont like Nadal, but it is time to acknowledge he is the best or second best player in the World on every single surface.

Is that a fact now??

then you can answer the question on why hasnt he gotten any farther than the quarterfinals of either the AO or the USO in the last two years???

successortt
07-17-2007, 07:15 PM
Is that a fact now??

then you can answer the question on why hasnt he gotten any farther than the quarterfinals of either the AO or the USO in the last two years???


This means nothing, he's does have a nice amount of hard court titles

If you ask anyother pro on tour I'm sure they'd agree.

Lleytian3
07-17-2007, 09:02 PM
This means nothing, he's does have a nice amount of hard court titles

If you ask anyother pro on tour I'm sure they'd agree.

really now?!?

so if we ask djkovic, roddick, blake, daydenko, hewitt all of this they would all admit that nadal is the 2nd best player in the world on every surface.

so quick to judge. if you think those pros that i have just mention think that nadal has a chance to beat them on any other surface than clay, i kno they would not admit they r goin to lose. they wouldnt even admit they r goin to lose against fed, cuz anythin can happen, esp in tennis.

do not forget that the clay court season is equally as long as the hard court season. nadal is the king on clay right now and no one is disputing that point, which is no suprise how he racks up a lot of points. and you were right he does have a nice selection of hard court titles as well, but that does not mean he is the 2nd best on hard court

in tennis we let the results speak for themselves, and as for now, nadal hasnt made it past the qtrf of the AO or USO. that will probabaly change this year. but as of matter of right now he hasnt. thats the facts. plain and simple

pow
07-17-2007, 09:04 PM
You have to define grass. Since Wimbledon slowed down their grass, Nadal does show more dominance at Wimbledon grass but if you take the Queen's Club as an example, his vulnerability to faster courts begin to show.

Federer_pilon
07-18-2007, 12:08 AM
tell me Lleytian3....why do u consider Djorkovic to be better than Nadal on hard court (you and some other ppl on the forum)? Has he achieved more on hard than Nadal has??? lol I don't get this -.-

Federer_pilon
07-18-2007, 12:12 AM
ppl keep saying how Berdych, Djorkovic, Blake, Youzhny are all better than Nadal on hard courts. Do they base this on what they have all achieved on HC?? I'm not even gonna bother check who has won how many titles on hard courts -.-

Federer_pilon
07-18-2007, 12:16 AM
When was the last time one of them has even come close to beating Federer on hard (the best player on hard courts for the past few years)? -.-

Lleytian3
07-18-2007, 01:21 AM
tell me Lleytian3....why do u consider Djorkovic to be better than Nadal on hard court (you and some other ppl on the forum)? Has he achieved more on hard than Nadal has??? lol I don't get this -.-

maybe because if djokovic body held up he would have played federer in the final and not nadal.

also because novak is having a career year.

if you remember youhnzy was also up 2 sets to 0 agaisnt nadal at WO but ran out of gas.

blake has consisentely beat nadal last year at the USO and year end championships

im not shur if berdych has beat nadal on HC yet, but he can give nadal a lot of trouble since he starting to play better tennis now.

i wasnt trying to prove that all these players r better than nadal on HC. i am just proving a point that nadal is certainly not the 2nd best player on any surface

Rhino
07-18-2007, 01:48 AM
It was split-set when nadal retired. hence nadal was not beating hewitt.

get your facts straight.

Are you saying that nadal would've beaten Hewitt had he been fit?
I think it's more likely that Djokovic would've been Wimbledon finalist had he not been tired. In fact if Youzhny didn't have a bad back, there are very few honest people who believe Nadal would've won that match either.
It's a shame we never got to see Nadal vs Hewitt at Wimbledon, I think it could've been a classic, I'd say they would be evenly matched.

peleshot
07-18-2007, 05:35 AM
The grass isn't the same as before. It has become slower. So for me, it's not the "real" grass that I know.. Nadal, being good in slow courts, would obviously benefit from this. As we all know, grass it supposed to be a fast-paced court with low-bouncing balls. If the real grass(fast) was present Nadal wouldn't have reached the finals and Roddick and Hewitt will be the better players.

Forehand Forever
07-18-2007, 05:38 AM
maybe because if djokovic body held up he would have played federer in the final and not nadal.

also because novak is having a career year.

if you remember youhnzy was also up 2 sets to 0 agaisnt nadal at WO but ran out of gas.

blake has consisentely beat nadal last year at the USO and year end championships

im not shur if berdych has beat nadal on HC yet, but he can give nadal a lot of trouble since he starting to play better tennis now.

i wasnt trying to prove that all these players r better than nadal on HC. i am just proving a point that nadal is certainly not the 2nd best player on any surface

I don't think that Blake played Nadal at the USO last year.