PDA

View Full Version : safin says Federer = Sampras + Agassi!!


fed_rulz
10-14-2009, 02:02 PM
.. towards the end of the video (link courtesy VGP in a thread in FPP section):

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/2009/10/ATP-Uncovered-S1-E6-Pete-Sampras.aspx

Kafelnikov deflects the question, while Safin clearly thinks Fed is the GOAT :)

that makes four players (Safin, Agassi, hewitt and henman) who have played both players at their peaks, crowning Fed as the GOAT.

Sampras himself says that tennis now is tougher than the times when he played..

AndrewD
10-14-2009, 02:13 PM
that makes four players (Safin, Agassi, hewitt and henman) who have played both players at their peaks, crowning Fed as the GOAT.


Now, re-read that a few times, very carefully, and try to see what what's wrong.

I'll give you a hint - the term is 'Greatest of ALL time', not 'Greatest of the last 20 years'.

Bonus points if you picked that, of the players you listed, only Agassi and Henman could possibly have played both Sampras and Federer at their peak.

fed_rulz
10-14-2009, 02:17 PM
Now, re-read that a few times, very carefully, and try to see what what's wrong.

I'll give you a hint - the term is 'Greatest of ALL time', not 'Greatest of the last 20 years'.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Safin was asked who was the greatest of ALL TIME to which he replied. If you don't like it, go take it with safin (or any of those players that I mentioned) or the one that asked Safin the question in the first place.

statto
10-14-2009, 02:22 PM
Quoting Henman as a tennis authority! I'm English, but that's nuts. :)

fed_rulz
10-14-2009, 02:26 PM
Quoting Henman as a tennis authority! I'm English, but that's nuts. :)

why not? he's more qualified to comment on how good Fed/Sampras are than tennis analysts who base their opinions on just watching them play

settolove
10-14-2009, 02:30 PM
Quoting Henman as a tennis authority! I'm English, but that's nuts. :)

Henman has probably forgotten more about tennis than most people on this board will understand in their lifetimes. People seem to forget that he climbed to number 4 in the world and he wasn't the most talented junior that the UK produced. But because he never won Wimbledon, people (particularly uk ) are very dismissive of him. It isn't easy to win grand slams or even get into finals. I say this as someone who didn't particularly like Henman.

statto
10-14-2009, 02:32 PM
I'd still take the word of ex players who've won multiple slams and been world #1. There's no shortage of those who're willing to crown Fed GOAT without having to rely on "Tiger Tim".

aphex
10-14-2009, 02:33 PM
just watch the rafaela brigade come in here trying to discredit safin...

statto
10-14-2009, 02:34 PM
I'd still take the word of ex players who've won multiple slams and been world #1. There's no shortage of those who're willing to crown Fed GOAT without having to rely on "Tiger Tim".

To qualify my statement, I have a lot of respect for Tim as someone who did a great deal for British tennis, and on another board where he is frequently derided by my fellow Englishmen I stick up for him. But to say Fed is GOAT because Agassi, Hewitt, Safin and Henman say so. Let's just say it's not hard to spot the odd one out.

fed_rulz
10-14-2009, 02:36 PM
I'd still take the word of ex players who've won multiple slams and been world #1. There's no shortage of those who're willing to crown Fed GOAT without having to rely on "Tiger Tim".

Name other slam winners who have played both Fed & Sampras in their primes, and are willing to crown Fed as GOAT?

statto
10-14-2009, 02:40 PM
Name other slam winners who have played both Fed & Sampras in their primes, and are willing to crown Fed as GOAT?

Two of the players you mentioned didn't play them in their primes.

What do Kuerten, Rafter, Ferrero, Ivanisevic et al think?

fed_rulz
10-14-2009, 02:46 PM
Two of the players you mentioned didn't play them in their primes.

What do Kuerten, Rafter, Ferrero, Ivanisevic et al think?

All four that I mentioned have played Fed & Pete in their primes, unless you take Pete's prime to be 93-97.... And Rafter and Ivanisevic did not play Fed in his prime. i don't know if Ferrero played pete in his prime. I do not know of Kuerten's opinion on the GOATness..

Blinkism
10-14-2009, 02:47 PM
just watch the rafaela brigade come in here trying to discredit safin...

Why the paranoia?

Why would Nadal fans want to discredit Federer?

We cheer for a guy whose greatest achievements come from beating Federer...

Why would we suddenly want to knock Federer down?

I think you have Nadal fans confused with Federer haters.

fed_rulz
10-14-2009, 02:49 PM
just watch the rafaela brigade come in here trying to discredit safin...

no, it'll be more of the Pete-*****, and nostalgia-lovers.

TMF
10-14-2009, 02:50 PM
.. towards the end of the video (link courtesy VGP in a thread in FPP section):

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/2009/10/ATP-Uncovered-S1-E6-Pete-Sampras.aspx

Kafelnikov deflects the question, while Safin clearly thinks Fed is the GOAT :)

that makes four players (Safin, Agassi, hewitt and henman) who have played both players at their peaks, crowning Fed as the GOAT.

Sampras himself says that tennis now is tougher than the times when he played..


Santoro and Bjorkman played both played against prime Sampras in the 90s and prime Federer in this era, they both said Federer is the better player.

That makes six players.

TMF
10-14-2009, 02:54 PM
Quoting Henman as a tennis authority! I'm English, but that's nuts. :)

Agassi, Santoro and Bjorkman are all nuts too? Guess all the players playing in both decades must be nuts. LOL

fed_rulz
10-14-2009, 02:58 PM
Santoro and Bjorkman played both played against prime Sampras in the 90s and prime Federer in this era, they both said Federer is the better player.

That makes six players.

thanks, i had forgotten about santoro and bjorkman..

statto
10-14-2009, 03:02 PM
Agassi, Santoro and Bjorkman are all nuts too? Guess all the players playing in both decades must be nuts. LOL

I only questioned the inclusion of Henman with the other three mentioned in the OP. You'll have to point me in the direction of my post which says I don't think Fed is GOAT.

kOaMaster
10-14-2009, 03:55 PM
there is no doubt about fed being better than sampras now. why bother?

ksbh
10-14-2009, 05:02 PM
There is, else the Federer lovers wouldn't be telling us at every turn why he's greater than Sampras, this thread being the latest!

there is no doubt about fed being better than sampras now. why bother?

edberg505
10-14-2009, 05:07 PM
Now, re-read that a few times, very carefully, and try to see what what's wrong.

I'll give you a hint - the term is 'Greatest of ALL time', not 'Greatest of the last 20 years'.

Bonus points if you picked that, of the players you listed, only Agassi and Henman could possibly have played both Sampras and Federer at their peak.

And Santoro!

Connors
10-14-2009, 05:09 PM
Fed is clearly better than Sampras, if nothing else for one clear reason:

On clay's biggest stage, Federer has won a French, was a 3 time finalist and also a semi-finalist. In all four of his losses, he lost to the greatest clay courter we'll probably ever see in Nadal.

Sampras could but manage ONE semi in 13 tries at the French. When he got there, he was destroyed by Kafelnikov in sets 3 and 4--completely spent physically and nowhere even CLOSE to winning.

Right there, that settles it. GREATEST implies the ability to be great on all surfaces. Federer has been GREAT on clay. He also won the Italian Open don't forget and Hamburg as well.

OddJack
10-14-2009, 05:10 PM
Well, Safin knows more than most of you armchair pundits... sooo

President of Serve/Volley
10-14-2009, 05:23 PM
Fed is clearly better than Sampras, if nothing else for one clear reason:

On clay's biggest stage, Federer has won a French, was a 3 time finalist and also a semi-finalist. In all four of his losses, he lost to the greatest clay courter we'll probably ever see in Nadal.

Sampras could but manage ONE semi in 13 tries at the French. When he got there, he was destroyed by Kafelnikov in sets 3 and 4--completely spent physically and nowhere even CLOSE to winning.

Right there, that settles it. GREATEST implies the ability to be great on all surfaces. Federer has been GREAT on clay. He also won the Italian Open don't forget and Hamburg as well.

All of this is true, but one has to wonder if Tim Gullikson did not passed away, I think Pete would have won a FO.

Azzurri
10-14-2009, 05:26 PM
.. towards the end of the video (link courtesy VGP in a thread in FPP section):

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/2009/10/ATP-Uncovered-S1-E6-Pete-Sampras.aspx

Kafelnikov deflects the question, while Safin clearly thinks Fed is the GOAT :)

that makes four players (Safin, Agassi, hewitt and henman) who have played both players at their peaks, crowning Fed as the GOAT.

Sampras himself says that tennis now is tougher than the times when he played..

somehow I think Rafa would disagree. Until Fed has no equal in his OWN era he cannot possibly be GOAT.

Azzurri
10-14-2009, 05:43 PM
All four that I mentioned have played Fed & Pete in their primes, unless you take Pete's prime to be 93-97.... And Rafter and Ivanisevic did not play Fed in his prime. i don't know if Ferrero played pete in his prime. I do not know of Kuerten's opinion on the GOATness..

It is QUITE obviosu you know absolutely nothing about Pete. His prime was NOT 2000. Yes, it was 93-97. He won 2 majors in one season in 93, 95, and 97 and had 6 years of #1 ranking at years end(till 98).

Steve132
10-14-2009, 06:47 PM
All of this is true, but one has to wonder if Tim Gullikson did not passed away, I think Pete would have won a FO.

What's the basis for this claim? Sampras never came close to winning the French Open when Gullickson was alive.

fed_rulz
10-14-2009, 06:48 PM
It is QUITE obviosu you know absolutely nothing about Pete. His prime was NOT 2000. Yes, it was 93-97. He won 2 majors in one season in 93, 95, and 97 and had 6 years of #1 ranking at years end(till 98).

Lol. Both hewitt and safin have played Pete since 1998. do a fact check before shooting your mouth off :). So let me get this straight: Pete was not in his "prime", yet he ended the year at # 1 in 98.

President of Serve/Volley
10-14-2009, 06:50 PM
What's the basis for this claim? Sampras never came close to winning the French Open when Gullickson was alive.

In Sampras's book, Tim wanted to win the FO together with Pete.

8pNADAL
10-14-2009, 06:51 PM
federer = sampras + agassi - goat serve - goat volley - goat return

ubermeyer
10-14-2009, 07:09 PM
obviously he is though

ubermeyer
10-14-2009, 07:09 PM
federer = sampras + agassi - goat serve - goat volley - goat return

sampras had the goat serve? are you brain-dead?

he didn't have goat volleys either... although at least that is closer

JeMar
10-14-2009, 07:13 PM
federer = sampras + agassi - goat serve - goat volley - goat return

Federer at his prime was Sampras + Agassi with a great serve, great returns, and good volleys.

That's still a pretty damn good player.

Oh, and Sampras didn't have the best serve of all time, nor the best volleys. Agassi's claim for greatest return of all time is debatable, but I'd be willing to let that go. Sampras' serve and volleys, though... no dice. Karlovic's serve is better than Sampras' and I can name 5 players with better volleys than Pete.

fed_rulz
10-14-2009, 07:16 PM
somehow I think Rafa would disagree. Until Fed has no equal in his OWN era he cannot possibly be GOAT.

err.. rafa disagrees with you; he calls Fed the "greatest in history" repeatedly :)

8pNADAL
10-14-2009, 07:16 PM
thats funny that someone would think federer had a serve even close to sampras....sampras is the standard by which serving excellence is measured, and serve-volley too the highest standard (though the ease of the volley is helped by the freak serve)

viduka0101
10-14-2009, 07:17 PM
sampras had the goat serve? are you brain-dead?

he didn't have goat volleys either... although at least that is closer

i guess you like being a smartass?
i'm still waiting for an explanation on the calculus question you supposedly answered

8pNADAL
10-14-2009, 07:17 PM
last few wimbledons federer has missed some laughably easy volleys, that is the most glaring problem when he plays nadal at wimbledon

ksbh
10-14-2009, 08:18 PM
Why not? According to ******* logic, that is possible.

According to *******s, Federer is no longer at his peak though he's made the final of the last 7 grand slams, winning 3 of them. As a Federer fan, you should have known this! ROFL!

Lol. Both hewitt and safin have played Pete since 1998. do a fact check before shooting your mouth off :). So let me get this straight: Pete was not in his "prime", yet he ended the year at # 1 in 98.

Tennis_Monk
10-14-2009, 08:27 PM
All of this is true, but one has to wonder if Tim Gullikson did not passed away, I think Pete would have won a FO.

I like this concept.

Applying this, If i had started playing tennis when i was 5, i would have won 20 grandslams and probably be the GOAT.

If i didnt miss that bus few yrs ago, i would be Bill Gate's right man minting millions now...

ksbh
10-14-2009, 08:31 PM
So I take it that you concur with McEnroe that Sampras would beat Federer a majority of the time on fast courts ... because he knows 'more than most of you armchair pundits... sooo'?! ROFL!

Well, Safin knows more than most of you armchair pundits... sooo

varsity8993
10-14-2009, 08:38 PM
But what about tennis on other planets and possibly in other dimensions. Can't declare Federer anything until that question is answered.

TMF
10-14-2009, 08:46 PM
So I take it that you concur with McEnroe that Sampras would beat Federer a majority of the time on fast courts ... because he knows 'more than most of you armchair pundits... sooo'?! ROFL!

Mac never played Federer, but Safin played BOTH Fed/Pete in the biggest stage in mens' tennis. Safin knows more about their game than Mac?

8pNADAL
10-14-2009, 09:26 PM
mac has a more accurate perspective than safin, because safin can only judge based on the sampras v safin matchup, or based on the federer v safin matchup, so that is a head2head perspective which depends on the player's pespective, like federer hates playing nadal, yet blake didn't mind playing nadal etc., so mac has a more impartial pespective hence a better judge

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 04:23 AM
Lol. Both hewitt and safin have played Pete since 1998. do a fact check before shooting your mouth off :). So let me get this straight: Pete was not in his "prime", yet he ended the year at # 1 in 98.

do you have any idea what you read?? First off Marat played him ONCE prior to 2000 and that was in 1998 and Pete destroyed him. Pete was just not the same player by 2000. Yes he won W and made 2 more USO finals (losing them) before winning in 2002, but he was no longer in his prime and not the same player. You are utterly without clue.

Hewitt????? Lleyton did not beat Pete until 2000. So again, please wake up. Each player you mentioned played Pete ONE time in 98 and LOST. Prime Pete was no match for Lleyton/Marat. Get a clue.

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 04:25 AM
Federer at his prime was Sampras + Agassi with a great serve, great returns, and good volleys.

That's still a pretty damn good player.

Oh, and Sampras didn't have the best serve of all time, nor the best volleys. Agassi's claim for greatest return of all time is debatable, but I'd be willing to let that go. Sampras' serve and volleys, though... no dice. Karlovic's serve is better than Sampras' and I can name 5 players with better volleys than Pete.

Do you mean 1st serve?? I love when people bring in the goon Karlovic to try and bring down Pete's serve..give me a break.

wyutani
10-15-2009, 04:25 AM
agassi + federer = sampras.

JeMar
10-15-2009, 04:30 AM
Do you mean 1st serve?? I love when people bring in the goon Karlovic to try and bring down Pete's serve..give me a break.

Obviously I'm talking about first serves.

Gorecki
10-15-2009, 04:37 AM
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Safin was asked who was the greatest of ALL TIME to which he replied. If you don't like it, go take it with safin (or any of those players that I mentioned) or the one that asked Safin the question in the first place.

if the messenger distorts the message with a clear agenda, i believe he is bound to get shot too.. deserved might i add...

Gorecki
10-15-2009, 04:43 AM
There is, else the Federer lovers wouldn't be telling us at every turn why he's greater than Sampras, this thread being the latest!

i always wondered why the federetes start a new thread about his greatness and his "first player ever to win ________(insert random bs) while being ________(insert more BS) and having ____________(idem) whit closed eyes" records every friggin 30 seconds... but that is just me...


ps: insecurity comes to mind...

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 06:56 AM
Obviously I'm talking about first serves.

ok, but it was not obvious. You stated SERVE. there are 2 allowed per attempt. What does it matter that Karlovic has a better 1st serve?? What does it mean? Aaron Krickstein had a better BH than Pete, again what does it mean? Karlovic has done NOTHINg with that great 1st serve. Again, what is your point?

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 06:57 AM
if the messenger distorts the message with a clear agenda, i believe he is bound to get shot too.. deserved might i add...

when someone is as clueless as Fed its easy to distort anything.

borg number one
10-15-2009, 07:02 AM
Safin tends to have a very short memory, perhaps because he knows less about ALL the players that came before Sampras, which is not surprising.

If you accept that simplistic equation, it can just as plausibly be argued that Borg=Nadal (still chasing Borg at the French Open, has 1 Wimbledon, and is of course far behind Borg at the French) + Federer (has caught Borg at Wimbledon with 5 straight and just recently got 6 out of seven, but lacks the Clay Court record of Borg).

HellBunni
10-15-2009, 07:41 AM
somehow I think Rafa would disagree. Until Fed has no equal in his OWN era he cannot possibly be GOAT.

well you think wrong.
Rafa has stated many many times that Fed is the best ever.

ksbh
10-15-2009, 07:49 AM
ROFL, now you guys are hangin on to Rafa because he's sayin what you want to hear! Boy, you Federer lovers are a riot!

Pray tell ... how many times has Rafa played Laver, Borg, McEnroe or Sampras to make that kind of judgement? Rafa Nadal knows cra*p about GOAT!

well you think wrong.
Rafa has stated many many times that Fed is the best ever.

dropshot winner
10-15-2009, 07:51 AM
ROFL, now you guys are hangin on to Rafa's nuts because he's sayin what you want to hear! Boy, you Federer lovers are a riot!

Pray tell ... how many time has Rafa played Laver, Borg or McEnroe to make that kind of judgement? Rafa Nadal is an all time great himself but he knows cra*p about who is the GOAT!

No one has played every great player from Tilden to Federer at their respective peak, it doesn't mean that no one is qualified to give an opinion about the topic.

ksbh
10-15-2009, 08:00 AM
As ever, spot on Herr Gorecki!

In my opinion, it isn't just insecurity but the realization that in reality Federer isn't really a greater player than Sampras! And because of that realization, these fans will continue to start these annoying threads.

i always wondered why the federetes start a new thread about his greatness and his "first player ever to win ________(insert random bs) while being ________(insert more BS) and having ____________(idem) whit closed eyes" records every friggin 30 seconds... but that is just me...


ps: insecurity comes to mind...

ksbh
10-15-2009, 08:01 AM
Well then, suffice to say that I disagree with Rafa Nadal's opinion ... an uninformed one, if I may say so! And that is my 'opinion'!

No one has played every great player from Tilden to Federer at their respective peak, it doesn't mean that no one is qualified to give an opinion about the topic.

dropshot winner
10-15-2009, 08:04 AM
Well then, suffice to say that I disagree with Rafa Nadal's opinion ... an uninformed one, if I may so so! And that is my 'opinion'!

Fair enough.

ksbh
10-15-2009, 08:04 AM
And Safin never played Sampras at his peak. So using your logic, his opinion is faulty as well.

Mac never played Federer, but Safin played BOTH Fed/Pete in the biggest stage in mens' tennis. Safin knows more about their game than Mac?

ksbh
10-15-2009, 08:08 AM
Thank you DW for your objective responses! Any by the way, I realize that there are many rational Federer fans on this board, so my posts are not directed at all the Federer fans. Take it where it applies! :)

Fair enough.

HellBunni
10-15-2009, 08:09 AM
ROFL, now you guys are hangin on to Rafa because he's sayin what you want to hear! Boy, you Federer lovers are a riot!

Pray tell ... how many times has Rafa played Laver, Borg, McEnroe or Sampras to make that kind of judgement? Rafa Nadal knows cra*p about GOAT!

nope, not hanging on to that, was just correcting Azzuri

it's all an opinion, you can argue all day but if you've already made up your own nothing is going to change your opinion. Even if there was a time machine, where you can get them to play in their "prime", you can (probably will) make excuses if the results don't go you way (bad day, time travel lag, ....).

zagor
10-15-2009, 08:11 AM
In my opinion, it isn't just insecurity but the realization that in reality Federer isn't really a greater player than Sampras! And because of that realization, these fans will continue to start these annoying threads.

That's a matter of opinion,some people consider him to be greater than Sampras,others don't.

As for making these kind of threads(xy player said Fed is better than Pete)if we follow your logic than the poster who started thread "Mcenroe said Sampras is better than Fed on fast courts" is insecure as well because he realizes Sampras isn't really a greater player than Federer.

If Mcenroe who never played Fed is allowed to give his opinion about Fed-Sampras debate than Safin who played both Fed and Sampras is certainly allowed to give his as well.Doesn't mean what he says is some golden truth,it's just his opinion.When you compare 2 greats from different eras who have similar accomplishments as Fed and Sampras do there's hardly one right answer there are just bunch different opinions.Although I personally find the coimparison of their achievements unfair until Fed finishes his career since Sampras has long finished his.

TMF
10-15-2009, 08:19 AM
And Safin never played Sampras at his peak. So using your logic, his opinion is faulty as well.

Weak reply.

Peak Pete or not, he was still a GS calibur, winning and losing in the GS during the period Safin was around. Safin actually played Pete while Mac(like all fans) are spectators. So Safin has a better understand and accurate judgement between Fed. vs Sampras.

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 08:20 AM
well you think wrong.
Rafa has stated many many times that Fed is the best ever.

funny how you believe what these pro's state. It is all P.R., Nadal knows he owns Fed and he is being classy by commenting Fed is best ever. He knows darn well calling Fed the best helps him personally and historically when you look at their h2h. think Bunni, think.

dropshot winner
10-15-2009, 08:23 AM
Thank you DW for your objective responses! Any by the way, I realize that there are many rational Federer fans on this board, so my posts are not directed at all the Federer fans. Take it where it applies! :)
You're welcome.

As every fanbase here has its share of delusional posters I definately won't feel addressed every time it's about Federer fans.

zagor
10-15-2009, 08:24 AM
Weak reply.

Peak Pete or not, he was still a GS calibur, winning and losing in the GS during the period Safin was around. Safin actually played Pete while Mac(like all fans) are spectators. So Safin has a better understand and accurate judgement between Fed. vs Sampras.

Mac played Pete as well,he never played Fed though,too big of an age gap.

mandy01
10-15-2009, 08:26 AM
I see Fed-detractors getting worked up and posting more in this thread than Federer fans themselves :D

TMF
10-15-2009, 08:26 AM
Mac played Pete as well,he never played Fed though,too big of an age gap.

Thanks for proving my point. Mac never played Fed while Safin played prime Fed.

HellBunni
10-15-2009, 08:38 AM
funny how you believe what these pro's state. It is all P.R., Nadal knows he owns Fed and he is being classy by commenting Fed is best ever. He knows darn well calling Fed the best helps him personally and historically when you look at their h2h. think Bunni, think.

haha, now you can read minds too uh?

there is always PR, all we can do is take what players, stars, politicians say with a grain of salt. We can't know for sure what they really think (most of the time).

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 09:29 AM
haha, now you can read minds too uh?

there is always PR, all we can do is take what players, stars, politicians say with a grain of salt. We can't know for sure what they really think (most of the time).

then you have no clue how these guys think. If you thibnk Nadal does not believe he is better than Fed then you have a bigger screw loose than I thought.

To confirm: Nadal goes into his matches thinking/knowing/feeling that Fed is the GOAT...LOL, LOl, LOL, HAAAAAA-HAAAAAAAAAA. That is so mind-numblingly stupid.

HellBunni
10-15-2009, 09:56 AM
then you have no clue how these guys think. If you thibnk Nadal does not believe he is better than Fed then you have a bigger screw loose than I thought.

To confirm: Nadal goes into his matches thinking/knowing/feeling that Fed is the GOAT...LOL, LOl, LOL, HAAAAAA-HAAAAAAAAAA. That is so mind-numblingly stupid.

and your opinion on how they think is better than me or anyone else here? what qualifications do you have?

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 10:01 AM
and your opinion on how they think is better than me or anyone else here? what qualifications do you have?

again, you are clueless. its been stated so many times by so many athletes. Its also logical. Seriously, you think Nadal thinks Fed is better?? You are unreal. Off you go, on my ignore list. I cannot take anyone that is so illogical, yet annoying at the same time.

helloworld
10-15-2009, 10:24 AM
Safin meant that Federer has great serve like Sampras and great baseline game like Agassi, but Safin didn't say Fed is better than either Sampras or Agassi. Remember, Sampras has better serve and Agassi has better groundstrokes. Fed may have both, but it's still not as good as the former two greats.

satishnadal
10-15-2009, 10:38 AM
safin is trying to get attention during his exit by commenting a lot .though this comment for time being may be correct but it is not over until the next 3 years of which what the great spaniard has in his arms , racket and above all mind .

Mick
10-15-2009, 10:52 AM
imo, federer has more agassi than sampras in him because he doesn't venture to the net very often despite having the skill to do so. it seems like he enjoys hitting winners from the backcourt more than from the net.

World Beater
10-15-2009, 03:19 PM
i think in more than one interview rafa has acknowledged that he always believes he can beat federer if he plays his best tennis. However, he does think based on records and h-h versus the field in general that federer is better than he is.

I remember one journalist posed this question to rafa in disbelief at how rafa does not acknowledge himself as better than federer especially with the h-h advantage.

Rafa retorted by asking a rhetorical question " do you think blake is better than me?"

Obviously rafa understands the game of matchups but he knows truly well that what matters is your record against the overall field. Isolated h-h against specific players are just footnotes at the end of the day.

But everyone has their own metric for greatness. Some will consider the h-h among two great players to better than the accumulation of a myriad of other records. To each their own.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 03:43 PM
again, you are clueless. its been stated so many times by so many athletes. Its also logical. Seriously, you think Nadal thinks Fed is better?? You are unreal. Off you go, on my ignore list. I cannot take anyone that is so illogical, yet annoying at the same time.



Nadal fans for about 100 pages tried to tell me the same thing. Nadal when he walks onto the court is probably the only player in the world that truly believes he is a better player than Federer.

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 03:55 PM
Nadal fans for about 100 pages tried to tell me the same thing. Nadal when he walks onto the court is probably the only player in the world that truly believes he is a better player than Federer.

exactly, how could Nadal have the attitude of "Fed is better than me"?? One reason why he owns Fed is because he knows he is better than Fed when they play each other. Nadal OWNS Fed.

luvly
10-15-2009, 04:01 PM
exactly, how could Nadal have the attitude of "Fed is better than me"?? One reason why he owns Fed is because he knows he is better than Fed when they play each other. Nadal OWNS Fed.

easily he could think that he is better than me so i have to play my best to beat him....

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 04:07 PM
easily he could think that he is better than me so i have to play my best to beat him....


This statement doesn't make any sense when you apply sports psychology to it. Confidence is inherently related to the belief in your own abilities. If you know or truly believe you are a better player than the other guy, than your performance will increase and be much higher than if you think the other guy is better than you.



That's the mentality of James Blake, and that is why he loses so often against Federer. Nadal's mentality is totally different. Not only is he not afraid of Federer and doesn't fear him; all of his body language points to that he feels that he in fact is the superior player on the court.

luvly
10-15-2009, 04:25 PM
This statement doesn't make any sense when you apply sports psychology to it. Confidence is inherently related to the belief in your own abilities. If you know or truly believe you are a better player than the other guy, than your performance will increase and be much higher than if you think the other guy is better than you.



That's the mentality of James Blake, and that is why he loses so often against Federer. Nadal's mentality is totally different. Not only is he not afraid of Federer and doesn't fear him; all of his body language points to that he feels that he in fact is the superior player on the court.


What I said still applies and I think it is more valid then the psychological point you applied. by believing that federer is better than him it allows him to continue to strive to be better thus he does not become complacent in his own talent, which psychologically would be better than him than just believing that he is the better player period.....

JeMar
10-15-2009, 04:26 PM
This statement doesn't make any sense when you apply sports psychology to it. Confidence is inherently related to the belief in your own abilities. If you know or truly believe you are a better player than the other guy, than your performance will increase and be much higher than if you think the other guy is better than you.



That's the mentality of James Blake, and that is why he loses so often against Federer. Nadal's mentality is totally different. Not only is he not afraid of Federer and doesn't fear him; all of his body language points to that he feels that he in fact is the superior player on the court.

Interestingly enough, if you read Strokes of Genius, they did a body language analysis of Federer when he plays against Nadal and when he plays against everyone else. They found that when Federer plays anyone but Nadal, he keeps his head high and displays body language that suggests superiority; however, when he plays Nadal, he automatically reverts to much more submissive body language, like keeping his eyes down.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 04:27 PM
What I said still applies and I think it is more valid then the psychological point you applied. by believing that federer is better than him it allows him to continue to strive to be better thus he does not become complacent in his own talent, which psychologically would be better than him than just believing that he is the better player period.....



Have you ever even taken a basic psychology class? What you are suggesting would never work in a million years.

luvly
10-15-2009, 04:35 PM
Have you ever even taken a basic psychology class? What you are suggesting would never work in a million years.

I think I have taken a basic psychology course considering that I have a degree or two in it...

Beyond that I believe that there is support for what I said. Nadal is reluctant to be the favorite, his remarks before the French open a few years ago, he even said when he was number one in the world that Federer was the better player and this is something that his camp around him (uncle toni) also states

so please give it a rest I did not claim that this was it for a fact I purposed an alternative explanation which I believe that there is support for so I am not going to back down from it


:)

David L
10-15-2009, 04:53 PM
This statement doesn't make any sense when you apply sports psychology to it. Confidence is inherently related to the belief in your own abilities. If you know or truly believe you are a better player than the other guy, than your performance will increase and be much higher than if you think the other guy is better than you.



That's the mentality of James Blake, and that is why he loses so often against Federer. Nadal's mentality is totally different. Not only is he not afraid of Federer and doesn't fear him; all of his body language points to that he feels that he in fact is the superior player on the court.
No, Blake loses because Federer is a better player than him.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 05:03 PM
No, Blake loses because Federer is a better player than him.


Do you think that's all there is to it? Blake loses way more often than he really should because of his weak mentality. Nadal in fact has very little weapons outside of his topspin forehand against Federer, yet he drills him into the ground in the majority of their matches, because Nadal is simply not afraid of Federer from a psychological standpoint.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 05:04 PM
I think I have taken a basic psychology course considering that I have a degree or two in it...

Beyond that I believe that there is support for what I said. Nadal is reluctant to be the favorite, his remarks before the French open a few years ago, he even said when he was number one in the world that Federer was the better player and this is something that his camp around him (uncle toni) also states

so please give it a rest I did not claim that this was it for a fact I purposed an alternative explanation which I believe that there is support for so I am not going to back down from it


:)



Where is your support? The general consensus is that my explanation is right, while yours is wrong. Since you are the one making the claim going against the general consensus, you have to prove your claim to have any validity.

luvly
10-15-2009, 05:23 PM
Where is your support? The general consensus is that my explanation is right, while yours is wrong. Since you are the one making the claim going against the general consensus, you have to prove your claim to have any validity.

General consensus...yeah sure if you say so.

Nadal is confident in the matches that he wins, I don't think so in the matches he loses...but really I just think that is tennis players in general. Body language is up and down with one’s game.


I clearly showed support in my previous post citing that I was consider his off court behavior as well as his on court behavior but you never cited any evidence but general consensus.....

HellBunni
10-15-2009, 05:35 PM
Where is your support? The general consensus is that my explanation is right, while yours is wrong. Since you are the one making the claim going against the general consensus, you have to prove your claim to have any validity.

there are still a lot of unknowns to how the human mind works and what makes certain ppl do certain things or what motivates some ppl.

what works on 1 person doesn't mean the same method will work on another.
so even if what you support (i'm better and should win thinking) is true most of the time vs the other (i'm not better overall, but i can win if i do my best), it doesn't mean it's 100% always your way.

and general consensus DOES NOT = right
it was general consensus that the earth was flat for awhile, but that doesn't mean it was right.

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 05:42 PM
I think I have taken a basic psychology course considering that I have a degree or two in it...

Beyond that I believe that there is support for what I said. Nadal is reluctant to be the favorite, his remarks before the French open a few years ago, he even said when he was number one in the world that Federer was the better player and this is something that his camp around him (uncle toni) also states

so please give it a rest I did not claim that this was it for a fact I purposed an alternative explanation which I believe that there is support for so I am not going to back down from it


:)

how many degrees in psychology can one have?

luvly
10-15-2009, 05:49 PM
how many degrees in psychology can one have?

as many as you like, you can a BA/BS and then once you get to a MA and Ph D you can get a focus area and since there many different areas you can have several different degrees. BA/BS are usually in general psychology and the grad level you would specialize in say social psychology, or cognitive, clinical, development, comparative etc. You would do the same thing when getting your Ph D. Getting a Ph d in Social psychology would not allow me to be psychologist so if i want to that I would have to have a degree in clinical and so forth people. Not to mention that you can get a psy. d.....

Azzurri
10-15-2009, 06:08 PM
as many as you like, you can a BA/BS and then once you get to a MA and Ph D you can get a focus area and since there many different areas you can have several different degrees. BA/BS are usually in general psychology and the grad level you would specialize in say social psychology, or cognitive, clinical, development, comparative etc. You would do the same thing when getting your Ph D. Getting a Ph d in Social psychology would not allow me to be psychologist so if i want to that I would have to have a degree in clinical and so forth people. Not to mention that you can get a psy. d.....

i see, thanks for the clarification. :)

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 06:12 PM
General consensus...yeah sure if you say so.

Nadal is confident in the matches that he wins, I don't think so in the matches he loses...but really I just think that is tennis players in general. Body language is up and down with one’s game.


I clearly showed support in my previous post citing that I was consider his off court behavior as well as his on court behavior but you never cited any evidence but general consensus.....



General consensus as in the whole world of Sports Psychology. If you actually have a degree in Psychology you would know the basic fundamental success in sports is directly related to confidence.



The most successful elite athletes have an abundant amount of confidence that is borderline arrogant. Good examples are Lance Armstrong, Usanin Bolt, and Pete Sampras (who did came off a little cold sometimes). They don't go out there believing anyone is better than they are; they go out there believing they are the best, and they perform like it.




You haven't proven anything or used any support. Nadal's offcourt behavior is easily seen through as a front that he puts up (for whatever reason). Anyone with common sense knows that Nadal doesn't truly believe he has to play his best to beat the guy he is 8-0 against does he?

David L
10-15-2009, 06:16 PM
Do you think that's all there is to it? Blake loses way more often than he really should because of his weak mentality. Nadal in fact has very little weapons outside of his topspin forehand against Federer, yet he drills him into the ground in the majority of their matches, because Nadal is simply not afraid of Federer from a psychological standpoint.
Nadal is also a better player than Blake, especially on clay. It's not just belief which is responsible for his success. Belief will only take you so far. You have to have game. Nadal has more than just a topspin forehand, plus he's a lefty, plus he is a better player on clay (where most of their matches have occurred) than Federer. Belief has to come with the game to win.

When he was playing, no one had more belief than Sampras, but that did not prevent him from losing matches, even against players who expressed their chances were slim. Ultimately, pros at this level set out to do their best to win and will always feel they have a chance. Also, unless you are telepathic, it's impossible to measure the level of someone's belief. There is always going to be one winner and one loser, so if they believe or disbelieve in equal measure, who is to say whose belief was the stronger or weaker, unless it is patently obvious? Maybe one player is simply better or played better or got luckier or less nervous etc. Blake can believe all he wants, but he simply does not have the kind of game to compete with Nadal on clay, for example. I mean, such a thing as being a better player or playing a better match does exist.

luvly
10-15-2009, 06:30 PM
General consensus as in the whole world of Sports Psychology. If you actually have a degree in Psychology you would know the basic fundamental success in sports is directly related to confidence.



The most successful elite athletes have an abundant amount of confidence that is borderline arrogant. Good examples are Lance Armstrong, Usanin Bolt, and Pete Sampras (who did came off a little cold sometimes). They don't go out there believing anyone is better than they are; they go out there believing they are the best, and they perform like it.




You haven't proven anything or used any support. Nadal's offcourt behavior is easily seen through as a front that he puts up (for whatever reason). Anyone with common sense knows that Nadal doesn't truly believe he has to play his best to beat the guy he is 8-0 against does he?



I never said that my focus was sport psychology, its social but beyond that. Have you ever heard of upward social comparison? Of course players have to have a general sense of belief and confidence in their abilities but they will still compare themselves to other players regardless of how they feel about their game.

When using self report you have to take what people say with a grain of salt some people do say what they think the research wants to hear, known fact. So I will repeat that I am purposing an alternative explanation that does not have to take away from the point that you made but confidence is not everything especially since it is contingent on other things.


Now Nadal can be confident in his own ability but still believe that federer is a better player than him, but if he believes that playing his best will give him the best shot at beating federer he can have belief in himself and still hold his beliefs about federer avoiding cognitive dissonance.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 06:57 PM
I never said that my focus was sport psychology, its social but beyond that. Have you ever heard of upward social comparison? Of course players have to have a general sense of belief and confidence in their abilities but they will still compare themselves to other players regardless of how they feel about their game.

When using self report you have to take what people say with a grain of salt some people do say what they think the research wants to hear, known fact. So I will repeat that I am purposing an alternative explanation that does not have to take away from the point that you made but confidence is not everything especially since it is contingent on other things.


Now Nadal can be confident in his own ability but still believe that federer is a better player than him, but if he believes that playing his best will give him the best shot at beating federer he can have belief in himself and still hold his beliefs about federer avoiding cognitive dissonance.



Do you disagree though that when Nadal believes he is a better player than Federer (and truly believes it), that will impact his performance in a positive way though? I sure can't find a way to prove that statement false.


I'm not saying confidence is everything, but confidence is probably the most important factor in an athlete's success.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 06:58 PM
Nadal is also a better player than Blake, especially on clay. It's not just belief which is responsible for his success. Belief will only take you so far. You have to have game. Nadal has more than just a topspin forehand, plus he's a lefty, plus he is a better player on clay (where most of their matches have occurred) than Federer. Belief has to come with the game to win.

When he was playing, no one had more belief than Sampras, but that did not prevent him from losing matches, even against players who expressed their chances were slim. Ultimately, pros at this level set out to do their best to win and will always feel they have a chance. Also, unless you are telepathic, it's impossible to measure the level of someone's belief. There is always going to be one winner and one loser, so if they believe or disbelieve in equal measure, who is to say whose belief was the stronger or weaker, unless it is patently obvious? Maybe one player is simply better or played better or got luckier or less nervous etc. Blake can believe all he wants, but he simply does not have the kind of game to compete with Nadal on clay, for example. I mean, such a thing as being a better player or playing a better match does exist.



No one ever said you will win, but believing that you are the better player (and truly believing it) will have a positive impact on your performance. That's just basic sports psychology. When you believe you are better, you are more confident. When you are more confident, you play better. It's that simple.

HellBunni
10-15-2009, 07:02 PM
Do you disagree though that when Nadal believes he is a better player than Federer (and truly believes it), that will impact his performance in a positive way though? I sure can't find a way to prove that statement false.


I'm not saying confidence is everything, but confidence is probably the most important factor in an athlete's success.

it might, it might not

he could believe that and thus not bring his A game, since he is better and doesn't need it. Or not improve his game. Overconfidence can cause down falls.

or feel frustrated when not winning against someone he is better then, and starts playing worse.

David L
10-15-2009, 07:08 PM
No one ever said you will win, but believing that you are the better player (and truly believing it) will have a positive impact on your performance. That's just basic sports psychology. When you believe you are better, you are more confident. When you are more confident, you play better. It's that simple.
Players do not need to delude themselves. They can know and believe they are capable of winning any match, without genuinely believing they are the best player in the world.

luvly
10-15-2009, 07:13 PM
Do you disagree though that when Nadal believes he is a better player than Federer (and truly believes it), that will impact his performance in a positive way though? I sure can't find a way to prove that statement false.


I'm not saying confidence is everything, but confidence is probably the most important factor in an athlete's success.

nadal believing he is a better play can have two outcomes in my opinion he will either believe he is the better player and play like the better player (to the best of his abilities) or he will believe he is the better player thus federer is not and not play to the best of his abilities because he doesnt need to (being the better player) this can result in a lost we have all seen from several players

what i am saying is that he does not believe that he is the better player but he wants to win so he plays to the best of his abilities (which benefits him because it motivates him)

it is similar to what you believe james blake does when he plays fed but has the opposite effect you are saying james blake believes that federer is the better player and thus does not try

i am saying that one can believe that someone is a better player and this can actually be motivating....

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 07:16 PM
nadal believing he is a better play can have two outcomes in my opinion he will either believe he is the better player and play like the better player (to the best of his abilities) or he will believe he is the better player thus federer is not and not play to the best of his abilities because he doesnt need to (being the better player) this can result in a lost we have all seen from several players

what i am saying is that he does not believe that he is the better player but he wants to win so he plays to the best of his abilities (which benefits him because it motivates him)

it is similar to what you believe james blake does when he plays fed but has the opposite effect you are saying james blake believes that federer is the better player and thus does not try

i am saying that one can believe that someone is a better player and this can actually be motivating....



That doesn't seem as plausible to me though, especially from the body language Nadal gives off. His body language to me appears as though he feels that he is the superior player on the court, while what he says off the court is different.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 07:17 PM
Players do not need to delude themselves. They can know and believe they are capable of winning any match, without genuinely believing they are the best player in the world.



Players DO need to delude themselves to win. A successful elite athlete has an abundance of confidence that borderlines arrogance. That is the difference between the Lance Armstrong's and the other bikers. It is the difference between Federer, Nadal, and the rest of the field. If you don't believe you will not win a match, why even go out there?

luvly
10-15-2009, 07:26 PM
That doesn't seem as plausible to me though, especially from the body language Nadal gives off. His body language to me appears as though he feels that he is the superior player on the court, while what he says off the court is different.
I think we are talking about separate psychological phenomena I really do. Confidence and motivation are different and have different psychological effects.

It could very well be that when on the court he believes that he is the better player. As it could also be that off the court he believes he is not so that he can become a better player. these dueling beliefs in my opinion would truly cause dissonance and I think that the downplaying of his on skills is more beneficial as it motivates him both on and off the court and still allows him to be confident in his abilities while also preventing him from getting over confident....

David L
10-15-2009, 07:31 PM
Players DO need to delude themselves to win. A successful elite athlete has an abundance of confidence that borderlines arrogance. That is the difference between the Lance Armstrong's and the other bikers. It is the difference between Federer, Nadal, and the rest of the field. If you don't believe you will not win a match, why even go out there?
They can know and believe they are capable of winning any match, without genuinely believing they are the best player in the world.

The difference between Armstrong, Federer, Nadal and the others, is that they combine enough qualities to be better, but you, as someone who is not telepathic, cannot know that belief is the difference. There are many other more or equally important aspects which go toward making one player more successful than another and belief is probably the least measurable of the lot.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 07:40 PM
They can know and believe they are capable of winning any match, without genuinely believing they are the best player in the world.

The difference between Armstrong, Federer, Nadal and the others, is that they combine enough qualities to be better, but you, as someone who is not telepathic, cannot know that belief is the difference. There are many other more or equally important aspects which go toward making one player more successful than another and belief is probably the least measurable of the lot.



Belief and Confidence are the single most important factors to an elite athletes success. If you do not believe this, you don't know anything about sports. Confidence is the belief in one's own abilities to win. If you think Nadal goes out there thinking he won't win, you are sorely mistaken. Nadal goes out there thinking he will win every match. Period.



What separates Nadal and Federer most of the time is not technical skill. In fact, I think Federer is the FAR superior technical player. However, Nadal plays more confident most of the time in the crucial moments, and that is why he wins the majority of their matches. Between us and an elite athlete, there is a huge level of gap in skill. However, between the elites, there is very little. And what separates them most of the time is confidence.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 07:43 PM
I think we are talking about separate psychological phenomena I really do. Confidence and motivation are different and have different psychological effects.

It could very well be that when on the court he believes that he is the better player. As it could also be that off the court he believes he is not so that he can become a better player. these dueling beliefs in my opinion would truly cause dissonance and I think that the downplaying of his on skills is more beneficial as it motivates him both on and off the court and still allows him to be confident in his abilities while also preventing him from getting over confident....


I think your hypothesis could be right. He could be doing both in a way to prevent himself from being overconfident. However, I think his body language on the court, truly shows that he believes he is the superior player out there, and that he believes he will win (not just that he can) every match.

luvly
10-15-2009, 07:50 PM
I think your hypothesis could be right. He could be doing both in a way to prevent himself from being overconfident. However, I think his body language on the court, truly shows that he believes he is the superior player out there, and that he believes he will win (not just that he can) every match.

Could be highly confident when he first steps on the court but what happens on the court effects confidence.

He looked frustrated in the soderling match at the FO and during the Fed match at Madrid. I didn't see the entire semi at Madrid but he was up and down in the parts of the match I saw.

Federer clearly got frustrated in the Djokovic match at IW (or was it Miami…)despite his confidence in his forehand which he kept going to despite missing it and it back fired and I think led to his withdrawal from the match (actually i think he does this a lot bad mix of confidence and stubbornness really)

David L
10-15-2009, 08:11 PM
Belief and Confidence are the single most important factors to an elite athletes success. If you do not believe this, you don't know anything about sports. Confidence is the belief in one's own abilities to win. If you think Nadal goes out there thinking he won't win, you are sorely mistaken. Nadal goes out there thinking he will win every match. Period.



What separates Nadal and Federer most of the time is not technical skill. In fact, I think Federer is the FAR superior technical player. However, Nadal plays more confident most of the time in the crucial moments, and that is why he wins the majority of their matches. Between us and an elite athlete, there is a huge level of gap in skill. However, between the elites, there is very little. And what separates them most of the time is confidence.
Belief is one of many important ingredients. Belief and confidence also come from ability. It's also my belief that the vast majority of pros out there believe in their ability and have the confidence to succeed, that includes Blake. The only problem is there can only be one winner, even if they all believe equally. As I said, belief is not measurable and many other attributes are required for success, not just technical skill.

Nadal has won the majority of his matches with Federer because he is a better claycourt player and most of their matches have been played on clay. In addition to that, he is good on other surfaces and matches up better against Federer than he would if he played with his right hand. These things are much clearer than being able to verify that Nadal has more belief than Federer.

I agree the difference between elite athletes is not huge, but there are still discernible differences. We can see who has better forehands, backhands, serves, movement, consistency etc. These things have a very tangible effect on the outcome of matches and are not hidden, like belief. Pros just perform at a much higher level than amateurs, but they are still subjected to a hierarchy of abilities.

World Beater
10-15-2009, 10:29 PM
i dont think it is so far fecthed to believe that you have the favorable matchup.

like nadal im sure believes that he is better than federer...but this doesnt make him a better player overall against the field. even he realizes this.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 10:30 PM
i dont think it is so far fecthed to believe that you have the favorable matchup.

like nadal im sure believes that he is better than federer...but this doesnt make him a better player overall against the field. even he realizes this.



That's the whole point though; Nadal believes he indeed is the best player in the world. There's no way he couldn't IMO.

World Beater
10-15-2009, 10:39 PM
That's the whole point though; Nadal believes he indeed is the best player in the world. There's no way he couldn't IMO.

well. i think there is a difference in what you are saying.

let me explain.

prior to any match - no doubt nadal believes he can win. doesnt matter whether its federer or blake or del potro...who cares.

but then there is nadal taking a third person role objectively analyzing results - like an analyst nadal realizes that even with his belief and his abilities - he doesnt have the best results. He pretty much confirms it as such - this doesnt mean he doesnt "believe". he just knows that what federer achieved is superior and is thus a "better" player.

So it just boils down to a matchup thing. Like blake used to own nadal - now its del potro..clearly they are not "better players" than nadal, and if u asked del potro and blake - they would not say they are better. - only a fool would.
but they certainly believe that on any given day in any match they can always win.

but it is hard to say who doesn't and who does believe - some are easy to assess and then there are borderline cases. It is one of the most difficult variables to measure.

David L
10-15-2009, 10:46 PM
i dont think it is so far fecthed to believe that you have the favorable matchup.

like nadal im sure believes that he is better than federer...but this doesnt make him a better player overall against the field. even he realizes this.
I'm sure Nadal believes he can beat any player in the world, including Federer, but I don't think he believes he is better than Federer overall, apart from on clay.

World Beater
10-15-2009, 11:10 PM
I'm sure Nadal believes he can beat any player in the world, including Federer, but I don't think he believes he is better than Federer overall, apart from on clay.

yeah i agree.

i dont think any of us are really disagreeing.

i think the main point of contention which i think has not been communicated well is that "nadal perhaps believes more than other players". But belief is also proportionate to ability -if u r better->you will have more confidence and belief in ur abilities. Some people think its only belief though. Hard to say.

helloworld
10-16-2009, 12:18 AM
Nadal is better than Federer because he's a bad match up for Federer, but that doesn't make him the better player overall. Federer has a much more versatile game which allows him to handle almost any type of opponent. Nadal on the other hand, does not possess a game as versatile as Federer.

Steve132
10-16-2009, 01:10 AM
Safin tends to have a very short memory, perhaps because he knows less about ALL the players that came before Sampras, which is not surprising.

If you accept that simplistic equation, it can just as plausibly be argued that Borg=Nadal (still chasing Borg at the French Open, has 1 Wimbledon, and is of course far behind Borg at the French) + Federer (has caught Borg at Wimbledon with 5 straight and just recently got 6 out of seven, but lacks the Clay Court record of Borg).

FAIL

Federer: Five consecutive U.S. Opens and three Australian Open titles.

Borg: Zero U.S. or Australian Opens.

Your comparison works only if you ignore two of the four majors.

TheTruth
10-16-2009, 01:48 AM
Do you think that's all there is to it? Blake loses way more often than he really should because of his weak mentality. Nadal in fact has very little weapons outside of his topspin forehand against Federer, yet he drills him into the ground in the majority of their matches, because Nadal is simply not afraid of Federer from a psychological standpoint.

I agree. You're dead on, and Blake loses not because Federer is better than him, but because he believes Federer is better than him. A losing proposition.

TheTruth
10-16-2009, 01:59 AM
Belief and Confidence are the single most important factors to an elite athletes success. If you do not believe this, you don't know anything about sports. Confidence is the belief in one's own abilities to win. If you think Nadal goes out there thinking he won't win, you are sorely mistaken. Nadal goes out there thinking he will win every match. Period.



What separates Nadal and Federer most of the time is not technical skill. In fact, I think Federer is the FAR superior technical player. However, Nadal plays more confident most of the time in the crucial moments, and that is why he wins the majority of their matches. Between us and an elite athlete, there is a huge level of gap in skill. However, between the elites, there is very little. And what separates them most of the time is confidence.

Absolutely awesome post.

TheTruth
10-16-2009, 02:23 AM
Several points of contention.

IMO:

It's obvious Nadal feels he's just as good as Federer. I don't like to say better, because better implies superiority and only a fool (with most things being equal all the top ranked players can hit and retrieve most balls and therefore only have miniscule differences in their ability to achieve-confidence, ability to adjust, etc.) resorts to such a simplistic explanation.

I also disagree with the it's only clay position. If I'm not mistaken Nadal beat Federer in their first hard court match. Surely, he didn't go in thinking I can only beat him on clay, or my best chance is on clay. He came in thinking he could beat him, and he did. Since then he has beat him on grass and hard court. If he felt Federer was superior to him, it stands to reason he would have had reservations about going into the AO having played the longest match in their history against him. But even exhausted, he came and conquered. Similar to how Henin came into one of the grand slams exhausted after playing Capriati and still believed she could beat Clijsters. And she did. No way Henin believes Clijsters is better than her, regardless of the obligatory PR she has to spout.

The fact that he has beat him on every surface points to his belief in his ability. He also has the skills.

Regarding the "superiority," how can anyone try to compare a 23 year old to an almost 28 year old? Nadal still has a lot to learn regardless of what he's achieved, and that is what we all have to look forward to proving or disproving.

Case in point. If you took Agassi at 23 and wrote him off based on what you currently saw, you missed the boat.

No one knows the heart of a person, nor their desire, will, or ambition.

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 06:17 AM
I'm sure Nadal believes he can beat any player in the world, including Federer, but I don't think he believes he is better than Federer overall, apart from on clay.


Nadal does not believe he can beat any player. Nadal believes he should, and that he will beat any player in the world. That's the difference. If you asked Sampras today if he could take Nadal or Federer during his prime, he would say of course. That's just how athletes are.

statto
10-16-2009, 06:27 AM
FAIL

Federer: Five consecutive U.S. Opens and three Australian Open titles.

Borg: Zero U.S. or Australian Opens.

Your comparison works only if you ignore two of the four majors.

To be fair, Borg did ignore the Australian Open, and he retired at 25.

All in all, Borg and Fed have a very similar record at Wimbledon.
Borg's French record is similar to Roger's US Open record.
Roger's French record is similar to Borg's US Open record.
We have no point of reference for Australia (other than Fed has won it multiple times, though it's not hard to argue Borg would have too given the surface).

borg number one
10-16-2009, 07:08 AM
Thanks Statto, I was going to reference the information above in my response.

You can also throw in much less "surface variability" these days relative to the 70's, 80's, and even the 90's.

Also, neither Nadal or Federer faces the kind of "competition at the top" that Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl faced. The SF and Final rounds is when "the rubber meets the road" for these all time greats, and Borg and the other guys mentioned above faced tougher competitors in those rounds than either Nadal or Federer.

Borg was dangerous anytime, anywhere, and has a truly impressive track record of winning. He was great on grass, the BEST on Clay, made 4 US Open finals on hard courts and won many hard court tournaments, and won a TON on fast indoor courts, so he was supremely dangerous on all surfaces, displaying more versatility than Federer or Nadal, for example.

In terms of Grand Slam Finals, his ONLY losses came at the hands of either McEnroe and Connors. Federer has lost to Nadal on grass and the AO (Hard Court), and also to Del Potro on a U.S. Open Hard Court, so I wouldn't be so quick to claim that he is head and shoulders above all other past greats.

Also, just using the word "Fail" is catchy and easy, but it actually cries out "I disagree but I really would not like to be forced to defend my position in detail".

Yet, as I have stated before, both he and Nadal are already all time greats, but let's have some perspective. So, are Sampras, Borg, and Rod Laver, among several others, with Borg, Laver, Sampras, and Federer in the top tier in my opinion.

David L
10-16-2009, 10:07 AM
Nadal does not believe he can beat any player. Nadal believes he should, and that he will beat any player in the world. That's the difference. If you asked Sampras today if he could take Nadal or Federer during his prime, he would say of course. That's just how athletes are. Whether Nadal believes he can or should beat another player, he has lost enough to know that nothing is guaranteed, which is why he often acknowledges that while he can win, he can lose too. This is a basic fact that all players recognize. Whether they believe they can, should or will beat another player, no player is so confident that they will bet their life they can go through a year, let alone a career, undefeated. They know very well they will experience losses, they just cannot predict far in advance when they will come. There are no draws in tennis, so even if they all believe they can, should or will beat everyone else, there will still be players losing in the 1st round and not ranked No.1. In such a scenario, belief would not come into because their belief would be the same. Other things would separate them.

Steve132
10-16-2009, 11:53 AM
To be fair, Borg did ignore the Australian Open, and he retired at 25.

Sorry, but Borg does not get any points for what he "might have done" if he had not retired early. Players are judged on the basis of what they achieved, not what some fans think they might have achieved if only....

Moreover, as has been pointed out in some other recent posts in this forum, there is no guarantee that Borg would have won much more. If in December 1984 someone had stated that McEnroe would never win another major most people would have laughed at such a prediction. All the more reason why we rely on accomplishments rather than woulda, coulda, shoulda arguments in evaluating players.

All in all, Borg and Fed have a very similar record at Wimbledon.
Borg's French record is similar to Roger's US Open record.
Roger's French record is similar to Borg's US Open record.

No. Federer has a title at Roland Garros. Borg never won the U.S. Open. That is a MAJOR difference.

We have no point of reference for Australia (other than Fed has won it multiple times, though it's not hard to argue Borg would have too given the surface).

Another woulda, coulda, shoulda argument. Federer actually won the Australian Open three times. Maybe Borg would have won it. Maybe he would not. But you can't credit Borg for what he "might have done" as though that hypothetical is equivalent to actual achievements. And eliminating the Australian Open from the comparison omits a significant part of Federer's total achievement.

In any event, at best your post shows that Borg's career is comparable to Federer's. This is a long way from the OP's original argument that Borg = Federer + Nadal.

fed_rulz
10-16-2009, 12:00 PM
Why not? According to ******* logic, that is possible.

According to *******s, Federer is no longer at his peak though he's made the final of the last 7 grand slams, winning 3 of them. As a Federer fan, you should have known this! ROFL!

Really dude, do you ROFL every time you read a post on this board? Wow, you must have some great sense of humor :).

Anyways, there was a thread sometime back which made a distinction b/n "prime" & "peak". Fed is no longer at his peak; but he is certainly in his prime. Plus mono screwed Fed's 2008, so I won't base my judgment on whether he is in his prime or not based on 2008.

fed_rulz
10-16-2009, 12:05 PM
do you have any idea what you read?? First off Marat played him ONCE prior to 2000 and that was in 1998 and Pete destroyed him. Pete was just not the same player by 2000. Yes he won W and made 2 more USO finals (losing them) before winning in 2002, but he was no longer in his prime and not the same player. You are utterly without clue.

Hewitt????? Lleyton did not beat Pete until 2000. So again, please wake up. Each player you mentioned played Pete ONE time in 98 and LOST. Prime Pete was no match for Lleyton/Marat. Get a clue.

i didn't know you had to WIN before you can make an assessment of a player's game. geez, here I thought just playing against the player was sufficient.

FACT: both players HAVE played Pete in 1998, so are well-positioned to make some sort of judgment on his game.

And how do you know Prime pete would have beaten Lleyton/Marat in their primes? Let me answer it for you: you DON'T! Must love the Pete-***** for ******** logic and conjuring hypothetical match-ups.

fed_rulz
10-16-2009, 12:07 PM
if the messenger distorts the message with a clear agenda, i believe he is bound to get shot too.. deserved might i add...

i might have an agenda, but prove that i distorted the message. if you cannot, then I expect you to STFU

DRII
10-16-2009, 12:09 PM
Santoro and Bjorkman played both played against prime Sampras in the 90s and prime Federer in this era, they both said Federer is the better player.

That makes six players.

Unfair comparisons!!!

Most of those players played a prime Sampras during their own relative primes. They played Federer during their declines, or starting to decline, periods.

Tongueincheek
10-16-2009, 12:12 PM
Federer is better. He is better at getting angles thru his spin ..I never ever imagined seeing someone as good as Pete i must admit .. when he was peaking like at Wimby i though like , ok, thats the goat .. but IMO the Fed si jsut a little bit better. Pete trajectories were not as vicious.

DRII
10-16-2009, 12:15 PM
Federer is better. He is better at getting angles thru his spin ..I never ever imagined seeing someone as good as Pete i must admit .. when he was peaking like at Wimby i though like , ok, thats the goat .. but IMO the Fed si jsut a little bit better. Pete trajectories were not as vicious.

Yeah, but you're talking just about the groundies.

Pete's serve is much better than Federer's. So one has the better ground game, and one has the superior serve.

Which takes it? Thats the question. I lean towards Sampras. His net play is better than Federer's.

Chadwixx
10-16-2009, 01:49 PM
Pete's serve is much better than Federer's.

Negative. Hewitt/safin steps in on pete's and struggle with fed's. The reason pete's appears bigger is because of the lightning fast surfaces he played on.

Pete's serve on clay wasnt nearly what it was on grass/hard. If you were to put his serve on todays surfaces, it would be as effective as it was at roland garros.

Cup8489
10-16-2009, 01:52 PM
Unfair comparisons!!!

Most of those players played a prime Sampras during their own relative primes. They played Federer during their declines, or starting to decline, periods.

so they most definitely can't tell the difference, right? they can't tell, even though theyre right there, which one is better?

just because they played during their decline doesn't mean that federer is being swelled by these men. they probably don't care much about match statistics or how badly they lost. i'm sure they could tell when federer was able to attack a particular shot that sampras would have trouble with, and the formidability of his game wouldn't swell just because they don't necessarily play as well themselves.

Steve132
10-16-2009, 05:28 PM
Unfair comparisons!!!

Most of those players played a prime Sampras during their own relative primes. They played Federer during their declines, or starting to decline, periods.

This is obviously not true of Hewitt or Safin.

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 05:50 PM
Whether Nadal believes he can or should beat another player, he has lost enough to know that nothing is guaranteed, which is why he often acknowledges that while he can win, he can lose too. This is a basic fact that all players recognize. Whether they believe they can, should or will beat another player, no player is so confident that they will bet their life they can go through a year, let alone a career, undefeated. They know very well they will experience losses, they just cannot predict far in advance when they will come. There are no draws in tennis, so even if they all believe they can, should or will beat everyone else, there will still be players losing in the 1st round and not ranked No.1. In such a scenario, belief would not come into because their belief would be the same. Other things would separate them.




Like I said, expectations and results are different. However, results and performance are in fact directly related (according to sports psychology) to expectations and confidence. If you think that's false, will, try go telling that to the world of sports psychology, and not me.



It is true that sometimes skill does differentiate players, but at the very top of the mountain, the players are so even, that what separates them is really confidence.

David L
10-16-2009, 06:16 PM
Like I said, expectations and results are different. However, results and performance are in fact directly related (according to sports psychology) to expectations and confidence. If you think that's false, will, try go telling that to the world of sports psychology, and not me.



It is true that sometimes skill does differentiate players, but at the very top of the mountain, the players are so even, that what separates them is really confidence.
Given, according to you, it's only a matter of confidence at this level, naturally all the players will know this because it is in their interests to know and they will have the best information and sports psychology money can buy. So, since everyone is playing at the highest level of expectation and confidence already, what separates them?

Steve132
10-16-2009, 06:20 PM
Thanks Statto, I was going to reference the information above in my response.

You can also throw in much less "surface variability" these days relative to the 70's, 80's, and even the 90's.


What exactly does "surface variability" have to do with a comparison across generations? Borg's contemporaries had to deal with the same variability that he encountered, just as Federer's and Nadal's contemporaries face the same variability they deal with.

Also, neither Nadal or Federer faces the kind of "competition at the top" that Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl faced. The SF and Final rounds is when "the rubber meets the road" for these all time greats, and Borg and the other guys mentioned above faced tougher competitors in those rounds than either Nadal or Federer.

Ah yes, the "strong competition" argument. Sampras fans make exactly the same claim - not just against the current decade, but against Borg's period as well. You can't both be right.

This leads to the question: how do we know that one period has stronger competition than another? How can we measure this variable? Some weeks ago a poster started a thread on this subject in the Former Pro Player forum. Unfortunately, the only people who responded were those who were skeptical of the whole "weak era/strong era" distinction. None of the posters who claim to be able to identify weak and strong eras was willing to specify the criteria used for making such a distinction. Until someone provides plausible criteria, I will continue to agree with John123's view that "As for assessments of level of competition, I think they're mostly used to argue on behalf of a favorite player against the weight of the evidence."

Borg was dangerous anytime, anywhere, and has a truly impressive track record of winning. He was great on grass, the BEST on Clay, made 4 US Open finals on hard courts and won many hard court tournaments, and won a TON on fast indoor courts, so he was supremely dangerous on all surfaces, displaying more versatility than Federer or Nadal, for example.

No one doubt that Borg was versatile, but what exactly makes him more versatile than Federer? On grass, Federer has won six Wimbledons, is the only player since the abolition of the Challenge Round to have made seven consecutive finals and has the Open era longest winning streak of 65 matches. On hard courts Federer has won more majors than anyone else (8 ) and also has the Open era's longest winning streak (56 matches). On clay Federer has a French Open title, is one of only four men in the Open era to have reached four consecutive finals and has won more Masters series events than anyone other than Nadal and Muster.

Federer has a career Slam; Borg does not because he never won either the Australian or the U.S. Open. Borg might get a pass for the Australian on the grounds that during the 1970's it was not considered as important a tournament as the other majors. This argument, however, most emphatically does not apply to the U.S Open, a tournament that Borg failed to win despite nine attempts. With all due respect to Borg's achievements, it's hard to see what makes him more versatile than Federer.

In terms of Grand Slam Finals, his ONLY losses came at the hands of either McEnroe and Connors. Federer has lost to Nadal on grass and the AO (Hard Court), and also to Del Potro on a U.S. Open Hard Court, so I wouldn't be so quick to claim that he is head and shoulders above all other past greats.

I certainly did not make such a claim and I don't in fact believe that to be the case. The other point is that I don't know what follows from listing the players that Borg and Federer lost to in major finals. Nadal already has six majors, one less than McEnroe and two behind Connors. Del Potro just turned 21, so it's hardly surprising that his career statistics are less impressive than are those of players who have already retired.

Also, just using the word "Fail" is catchy and easy, but it actually cries out "I disagree but I really would not like to be forced to defend my position in detail".

I did not JUST state that the post was a fail but I explained why that was the case. To reiterate: you made a comparison between Borg's, Federer's and Nadal's results in majors but ignored two of the four majors in your comparison. If you want to make a claim such as Borg = Federer + Nadal you need to look at all the recognizably relevant evidence rather than cherry pick one or two results that support your claim.

Yet, as I have stated before, both he and Nadal are already all time greats, but let's have some perspective. So, are Sampras, Borg, and Rod Laver, among several others, with Borg, Laver, Sampras, and Federer in the top tier in my opinion.

We agree on this.

Azzurri
10-17-2009, 08:46 AM
Negative. Hewitt/safin steps in on pete's and struggle with fed's. The reason pete's appears bigger is because of the lightning fast surfaces he played on.

Pete's serve on clay wasnt nearly what it was on grass/hard. If you were to put his serve on todays surfaces, it would be as effective as it was at roland garros.

you are unreal. thanks for the new sig you twit.

TheTruth
10-17-2009, 08:51 AM
Like I said, expectations and results are different. However, results and performance are in fact directly related (according to sports psychology) to expectations and confidence. If you think that's false, will, try go telling that to the world of sports psychology, and not me.



It is true that sometimes skill does differentiate players, but at the very top of the mountain, the players are so even, that what separates them is really confidence.

Agree. Confidence, belief. Same thing.

borg number one
10-17-2009, 10:40 PM
Steve 132, first let me say that I stated that in many ways, though it is true that Safin is referring to Federer being able to effectively being able to play in the front court and serve very well, like Sampras, while also being able to play from the baseline as well as Nadal, I was pointing out that just using the formula Federer= Sampas + Agassi, is way too simplistic.

I pointed out that IF were to accept such a formula, then Borg=Nadal + Federer would also have to work in some ways, such as Borg's dominance on both the very slowest surface around (red clay) and the fastest surface (especially true of grass at Wimbledon from the late 70's-80).

As far as "surface variability", it is simply a fact that Borg dealt with more variance in terms of court speeds relative to Borg.

In terms of the Australian Open, you must acknowledge that in the years Borg was competing, the Australian was a very different event in terms of prestige/depth of competition. The year end Masters and the year end WCT Championships were both considered much bigger prizes at the time, and Borg did quite well in those tournaments indoors, instead of playing the Australian Open.

Also, though Federer won 1 French Open, I don't buy the argument that he was a better clay court player than Borg was a hard court player. Borg won a ton of tournaments on hard courts, while Federer has gotten hammered in several French Open finals by Nadal. Plus Federer has not won nearly as much on Clay versus Borg on hard courts. His win at last years French Open was impressive, but he did take advantage of a great Draw once Nadal was out of the picture. Just look at who he had to beat to win the French Open versus Borg's competition in the final rounds of each of the US Opens he lost in, while making 4 finals and playing 2 of them injured, with no complaints.

In terms of "strength of competition", please compare Sampas' top rivals (especially when it came down to the Semifinals and Finals) and Federer's top rivals to Borg's. Borg faced Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl to some degree (81 French Final). Federer has had to primarily contend with Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, and an aging Andre Agassi. Sampras fought off Agassi, Rafter, Edberg and Becker primarily. I give the nod to Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl for being more clutch and more accomplished than the other competitors when comparing "level of competition" in those critical final rounds.

Yet, I am glad to hear that you would place Borg in the top tier of players though by recognizing that there are arguments to be made for players other than Federer, such as Sampras, Laver, and Borg.

lawrence
10-17-2009, 11:10 PM
so they most definitely can't tell the difference, right? they can't tell, even though theyre right there, which one is better?

just because they played during their decline doesn't mean that federer is being swelled by these men. they probably don't care much about match statistics or how badly they lost. i'm sure they could tell when federer was able to attack a particular shot that sampras would have trouble with, and the formidability of his game wouldn't swell just because they don't necessarily play as well themselves.

NO! You're wrong. TT posters always know more than ATP tour players. All the ATP tour players do all day is sit on an internet forum arguing over hypothetical situations, while the TT posters are out there actually playing against the greats and have first hand experience.

Baikalic
10-18-2009, 12:39 AM
Given, according to you, it's only a matter of confidence at this level, naturally all the players will know this because it is in their interests to know and they will have the best information and sports psychology money can buy. So, since everyone is playing at the highest level of expectation and confidence already, what separates them?

I think what changes is how strong that confidence holds as the match goes on. And that is where the mental part comes in. Thinking is not the same as believing, although they are interrelated.

David L
10-19-2009, 08:06 PM
I think what changes is how strong that confidence holds as the match goes on. And that is where the mental part comes in. Thinking is not the same as believing, although they are interrelated.
Naturally, confidence fluctuates. Confidence is also a product of ability, as well as an enabler. The more able you are, the more confident you will be and the more confident you are, the better you will be able to execute. It's a reciprocal relationship that just snowballs the more successful you are, but you have to have that base of ability to succeed in the first place and overcome set-backs. You had some people here arguing it is only about confidence and that technical, physical or ability differences were negligible and insignificant at this level, which is false. Of course, being more confident is going to help you play better, but so is being more able. It's not a mutually exclusive relationship. The more things you have going for you, the greater chance you have of winning. It doesn't make sense to say there are no attributable physical or technical differences between players at this level which affect outcomes, when there clearly are. What's more, it makes even less sense to argue about the absence of clear visible differences we can see with are eyes, while acknowledging vague mental differences we are not privy to.

As if on cue, the two finalists in Shanghai, in their post-match press conferences, said exactly what I was saying in this thread.

Q. What's the difference for you playing Nadal and Federer?

NIKOLAY DAVYDENKO: Completely different games. Federer always have good serve, play fast. He didn't make so long rally. He just try to make winners, and you need always running with him. It's much more difficult. Nadal always play long rally, a little bit more slow and you have always chance to control ball. You have always chance to play long line across, always fighting with him. That's was -- and he play -- yeah, that's was maybe I have more priority play against Nadal, winning, beat him.
Against Federer, if he very good feeling, have very good confidence, it's not so easy to beat him. If I have many chance like in Paris, Roland Garros, I play also good, but, you know, have always chance to win first, second or third set, but I didn't realize, because he was better after, you know, good concentration and did well job. But really, I don't know if I play today against Federer what's can happen. (laughter.) Really, it's a different situation, you know. I was really happy it was not Federer today. (laughter.)

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=59851


Q. Yesterday after losing the semifinal, Novak just give us three-minutes press conference after three-hours tennis, actually, because he tends to give one-sentence answer to every question. But you always handle loss very well, including press conference, which we really appreciate. My question is we all know how win means to players, but could you tell us what lose means to you?

RAFAEL NADAL: Well, every lose is different, and every moment is completely different. So the important thing is, in my opinion, is when you go on court, you have to know you can win and you can lose. So if you know that before the match, is easier to accept that after both things, no? The thing is you must accept the victories with the same calm than the losers. So if you win, you win, you are more happy, you feel you are the best of the world. You think something like this is where this is gonna be more difficult to be there and still winning more time. And if you lose, anyway, you can be angry or doesn't matter, but everyone has different character, and that's part of the character. So for me today is a lose but is a positive lose. Sometimes I have a negative lose. I never was very angry, no? But, no, that's character, and I know I can lose every match and I can win every match. Later you be here, and that's part of the work, and happy to be here and happy to be in the tour, to be playing, you know, another time with no problems. Just thinking about tennis, so that's very good news for me. I expect to be here for a long time I play without problems for a few more years.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=59852

ksbh
10-20-2009, 10:08 AM
^^^ David's post shows exactly why Davydenko is Federer's shoe shiner. The guy is beat before he steps on court against Federer. With a lack of self confidence, he stands no chance.

Namranger got it spot on. It's not all about the game. Guys like Davydenko & Blake stand no chance against Federer because they have no self-belief. Therefore they are relegated to the master series and obscure tournaments while guys like Rafa & Juan MDP rack up grand slam titles!

David L
10-20-2009, 10:31 AM
^^^ David's post shows exactly why Davydenko is Federer's shoe shiner. The guy is beat before he steps on court against Federer. With a lack of self confidence, he stands no chance.

Namranger got it spot on. It's not all about the game. Guys like Davydenko & Blake stand no chance against Federer because they have no self-belief. Therefore they are relegated to the master series and obscure tournaments while guys like Rafa & Juan MDP rack up grand slam titles!
I don't see anything that indicates Davydenko is beat before he steps on court.

BounceHitBounceHit
10-20-2009, 10:56 AM
I'd still take the word of ex players who've won multiple slams and been world #1. There's no shortage of those who're willing to crown Fed GOAT without having to rely on "Tiger Tim".

Agreed.

I think it's pretty clear that the CONSENSUS amongst the most accomplished other pros who are still alive to speak about the topic (NOT that there is UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT!) is that Fed is the GOAT. ;)

BHBH

zagor
10-20-2009, 11:03 PM
^^^ David's post shows exactly why Davydenko is Federer's shoe shiner. The guy is beat before he steps on court against Federer. With a lack of self confidence, he stands no chance.

Namranger got it spot on. It's not all about the game. Guys like Davydenko & Blake stand no chance against Federer because they have no self-belief. Therefore they are relegated to the master series and obscure tournaments while guys like Rafa & Juan MDP rack up grand slam titles!

But according to you Fed is mentally weak and Nadal is a better player than him so why does Davydenko has so little confidence against the Fed yet always seems to give Nadal plenty of troubles and believes he can beat him? It doesn't really make sense.

As for Blake,Davydenko's record against Blake is 0-7(heck he can't even beat Blake on clay)yet Nadal is light years better player than Blake so why is Davydenko Blake's "shoe shiner" as well? Why does he lack confidence against a guy like Blake but has it against mental juggernaut Nadal?

Maybe it's because there's more to it than just confidence,maybe how players's game match-up to one another also plays a big factor at this level competition.Also how you game matches-up against another player affects your confidence level,if you know your game can expose certain weaknesses in opponent's game you'll have more confidence against that particular player.

ksbh
10-21-2009, 04:18 AM
Zagor ... I agree! :)

IMO ... Federer is mentally weak only in reltive terms. Among the GOAT candidates, he's relative weak but overall, he's certainly quite good. In the current field, his mental weakness is only exposed against Rafa.

What about Roddick? He's definitely Federer's shoe shiner for nothing else but 'not minding losing to Federer in 8 finals! :)

But according to you Fed is mentally weak and Nadal is a better player than him so why does Davydenko has so little confidence against the Fed yet always seems to give Nadal plenty of troubles and believes he can beat him? It doesn't really make sense.

As for Blake,Davydenko's record against Blake is 0-7(heck he can't even beat Blake on clay)yet Nadal is light years better player than Blake so why is Davydenko Blake's "shoe shiner" as well? Why does he lack confidence against a guy like Blake but has it against mental juggernaut Nadal?

Maybe it's because there's more to it than just confidence,maybe how players's game match-up to one another also plays a big factor at this level competition.Also how you game matches-up against another player affects your confidence level,if you know your game can expose certain weaknesses in opponent's game you'll have more confidence against that particular player.

namelessone
10-21-2009, 05:02 AM
I can't believe how much some people are having the confidence to beat one player(in this case Fed) with the game to do it. Want to know why more players have a easier beating Nadal(especially on HC) as opposed to Federer? Because Federer,as even Rafa has said,can do more on court and that panicks players. Basically in the 03-09 stretch Federer has had constant trouble with only one guy playing a very unique game: Rafael Nadal. The rest of the players he has pretty much figured out. In stark contrast,Rafa Nadal hasn't been able to solve his flat hitter on HC problem. It is no coincidence that 2/3 of Nadal's beatdowns have come on HC against such players,whether tall or not.

Beating Federer requires two things:

1)the mental capacity to believe in yourself,in your game and to stay focused in the tough moments.
2)a good enough game to take Federer out of his comfort zone.

Usually players fail in the first category and aren't solid enough in the second. It's very tough to take Fed out of his comfort zone because he can get out pretty easy on a good day and you have to play a near perfect game to do that. Haas played very good up until the Fed forehand at BP which gave Roger confidence back and suddenly he was back in the comfort zone while Haas panicked because he knew he either takes Fed in 3 or he doesn't take him at all.

Most players,including Nadal,know that they have to keep Federer out of his comfort zone long enough to win a match and that is tough to do because Federer is very slippery and he knows all the shots in the book. Everybody though Nadal discovered "the magic formula" with the high topspin to BH combo and other tried to hit to Roger's BH but forgot to bring the mental ability than Rafa has along with that and usually lost. Nadal has a unique combination to beat Federer: Lefty+great fh+solid BH+terrific mover+strong will to win. In short he has the game AND the mind.

Davy KNOWS that he doesn't have the game to beat Federer because he has seen him in action and so have most of the top players in tennis. It's tough to build confidence against the guy when he spanks you silly. Davydenko can beat Nadal(let's take the miami match for reference) because he knows he can do something to Nadal,especially on HC. He has a safe zone,he has a go-to zone and this applies to all players.He knows that if he hits flat against Nadal and takes the ball on the rise, he has a good chance. He doesn't know what to do against Federer except go out there,hit some angles and hope for the best.

Once you meet one guy for a certain amount of times you see his weaknesses. He doesn't have this safe zone with Federer(few players do) because,as the title of the thread implies,Federer combines some of the best qualities from Sampras and Agassi so he is very tough to beat.

But I do agree with ksbh about Fed's mental toughness. Federer is tough overall and has confidence due to his near complete game.As a friend of mine said,you can have all the confidence in the world,if you are not a great returner while facing a great server,you will lose because the match will be out of your hands.
But Fed is not a match player in my opinion in the sense that if you can stay near him he can crumble like anyone else. Look for Fed's meltdowns in AO and USO this year in the 5th when the match was at its tighest. But the tough part is just to stick around long enough for him to crumble. That's the bit most players have trouble with.

ksbh
10-21-2009, 07:03 AM
Awesome post, NLO! Agree 100% :)

I can't believe how much some people are having the confidence to beat one player(in this case Fed) with the game to do it. Want to know why more players have a easier beating Nadal(especially on HC) as opposed to Federer? Because Federer,as even Rafa has said,can do more on court and that panicks players. Basically in the 03-09 stretch Federer has had constant trouble with only one guy playing a very unique game: Rafael Nadal. The rest of the players he has pretty much figured out. In stark contrast,Rafa Nadal hasn't been able to solve his flat hitter on HC problem. It is no coincidence that 2/3 of Nadal's beatdowns have come on HC against such players,whether tall or not.

Beating Federer requires two things:

1)the mental capacity to believe in yourself,in your game and to stay focused in the tough moments.
2)a good enough game to take Federer out of his comfort zone.

Usually players fail in the first category and aren't solid enough in the second. It's very tough to take Fed out of his comfort zone because he can get out pretty easy on a good day and you have to play a near perfect game to do that. Haas played very good up until the Fed forehand at BP which gave Roger confidence back and suddenly he was back in the comfort zone while Haas panicked because he knew he either takes Fed in 3 or he doesn't take him at all.

Most players,including Nadal,know that they have to keep Federer out of his comfort zone long enough to win a match and that is tough to do because Federer is very slippery and he knows all the shots in the book. Everybody though Nadal discovered "the magic formula" with the high topspin to BH combo and other tried to hit to Roger's BH but forgot to bring the mental ability than Rafa has along with that and usually lost. Nadal has a unique combination to beat Federer: Lefty+great fh+solid BH+terrific mover+strong will to win. In short he has the game AND the mind.

Davy KNOWS that he doesn't have the game to beat Federer because he has seen him in action and so have most of the top players in tennis. It's tough to build confidence against the guy when he spanks you silly. Davydenko can beat Nadal(let's take the miami match for reference) because he knows he can do something to Nadal,especially on HC. He has a safe zone,he has a go-to zone and this applies to all players.He knows that if he hits flat against Nadal and takes the ball on the rise, he has a good chance. He doesn't know what to do against Federer except go out there,hit some angles and hope for the best.

Once you meet one guy for a certain amount of times you see his weaknesses. He doesn't have this safe zone with Federer(few players do) because,as the title of the thread implies,Federer combines some of the best qualities from Sampras and Agassi so he is very tough to beat.

But I do agree with ksbh about Fed's mental toughness. Federer is tough overall and has confidence due to his near complete game.As a friend of mine said,you can have all the confidence in the world,if you are not a great returner while facing a great server,you will lose because the match will be out of your hands.
But Fed is not a match player in my opinion in the sense that if you can stay near him he can crumble like anyone else. Look for Fed's meltdowns in AO and USO this year in the 5th when the match was at its tighest. But the tough part is just to stick around long enough for him to crumble. That's the bit most players have trouble with.