PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone truly hate federer's GAME?


joeri888
03-09-2012, 04:33 PM
Just what i was wondering. Federer is
Praised by Many and his playying style is one of THE reasons for his popularity. He plays agressive, takes balls early and is both smooth and elegant and has all the shots. His current main rivals are often Praised as well but also often criticized for being defensive and physical and spinny rather than purely technical with An offensive mindset.

My question is whether people have criticism of purely watching feds game And what you truly hate about it. Not antics or personality, but does Any tennisfan hate his game and why?

stringertom
03-09-2012, 04:42 PM
I hate that I'll never look so smooth on a tennis court! Seriously, only a masochist could express hatred for his game.

BrooklynNY
03-09-2012, 05:00 PM
hahahahah this might be the best topic ever.

No, I don't think you can truly hate his game. You can hate Federer, and everything else around him, (horrible competition, easy draws, arrogant statements,etc) but you got to say he does atleast play the game correctly/the way it's supposed to be played which is aggressive minded to some degree.

I wish he would play a more all court game and come in more, but I understand why he doesn't.

But yeah, I bet someone will come along and say they do.

roundiesee
03-09-2012, 05:17 PM
No, I think very likely no one can truly hate his game. But I think to a lot of people, it is not just Federer's style (which is great to watch), but also the fuss-free way he plays, without any histrionics and basically just getting on with the "job" without undue delays. I think this aspect of his game has not been mentioned enough.

ZeroSkid
03-09-2012, 05:49 PM
How can you hate God?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 06:02 PM
Most error-prone world number one I've ever seen. What's not to hate?

dh003i
03-09-2012, 06:07 PM
I hate that he doesn't come to the net more often and waited so long to start with more drop shots and open up more of his game.

But that's really saying I hate what has been done to the game.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 06:11 PM
I hate that he doesn't come to the net more often and waited so long to start with more drop shots and open up more of his game.

But that's really saying I hate what has been done to the game.

Not every player is good at the drop shot or net-charging. So they didn't do anything bad by not using those tactics, since they were only doing what they could. Federer can make those shots but refused to. So really Federer has 'done it' to the game.

dnj30
03-09-2012, 06:28 PM
I hate my game when i watch him, which in turn, makes me hate him. Does that count?

rommil
03-09-2012, 06:35 PM
Most error-prone world number one I've ever seen. What's not to hate?

That's why you like him, you *******.

Xizel
03-09-2012, 06:36 PM
Most error-prone world number one I've ever seen. What's not to hate?

And still winning as many titles and setting records as he did. How?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 06:40 PM
And still winning as many titles and setting records as he did. How?

A lazy player with natural ability. What's not to hate? I'm into the more hard working players. 'Titles' aren't something to like, regarding a players GAME.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 06:50 PM
A lazy player with natural ability. What's not to hate? I'm into the more hard working players. 'Titles' aren't something to like, regarding a players GAME.

What makes you think he's lazy? Lazy players don't become the most successful players in history.

No, I don't think you can truly and totally hate Federer's game IF you play tennis. As a tennis player, I am simply amazed how he makes a sport like tennis look so beautiful and graceful. Learning to play tennis is difficult and many people (most, I would say) don't look particularly nimble or graceful playing this sport. No one makes it look as easy as Federer. When you look at Nadal and Djokovic, they look like they're giving a full effort, sometimes like they're in pain. But not Federer. He's different. To make shots look so easy that we as amateurs have so much difficulty mastering is something that I truly appreciate in Federer's game.

As a player of the one of the most difficult sports in the world, I have to admire the man who makes it look so easy and beautiful.

rommil
03-09-2012, 06:58 PM
A lazy player with natural ability. What's not to hate? I'm into the more hard working players. 'Titles' aren't something to like, regarding a players GAME.

Awesome, you're a Djokovic fan!!!

So what do you think of this Mallorcan player who hasn't work hard enough that he has no titles for almost a year now, and the other pros have been playing this past few weeks? One lazy mofo he is.

FD3S
03-09-2012, 06:59 PM
Most error-prone world number one I've ever seen. What's not to hate?

Hey, now. Leave Safin out of this, he's got politics to worry about.

phnx90
03-09-2012, 07:02 PM
but you got to say he does atleast play the game correctly/the way it's supposed to be played which is aggressive minded to some degree.
The only "right" way of playing tennis is playing the game within the rules. Unless playing a defensive game is against the rules of tennis, the only place where playing offensively is "more right" than playing a defensive game is in your head.

I wish he would play a more all court game and come in more, but I understand why he doesn't.

Some people blame the the slowing of the surfaces, but I think Federer seems to have some kind of compulsion to prove to himself and everybody else that he is somehow better than Rafa and Nole from the baseline, which he plainly is not at the moment.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 07:03 PM
Awesome, you're a Djokovic fan!!!

So what do you think of this Mallorcan player who hasn't work hard enough that he has no titles for almost a year now, and the other pros have been playing this past few weeks? One lazy mofo he is.

Not sure who you are talking about. Nobody works harder than Nadal.

Djokovic (and Monfils) has a more athletic/flexible body than Nadal. This allows freak retrieving skills. Monfils doesn't have the tennis skills to match. Djokovic does.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 07:06 PM
Not sure who you are talking about. Nobody works harder than Nadal.

Djokovic (and Monfils) has a more athletic/flexible body than Nadal. This allows freak retrieving skills. Monfils doesn't have the tennis skills to match. Djokovic does.

This cannot be proven. Fact is, no one knows how hard these guys work. I almost never hear about anything Federer does off-court, but his results on court show that he works extremely hard.

Towser83
03-09-2012, 07:36 PM
Not sure who you are talking about. Nobody works harder than Nadal.

Djokovic (and Monfils) has a more athletic/flexible body than Nadal. This allows freak retrieving skills. Monfils doesn't have the tennis skills to match. Djokovic does.

how hard did he work after being beaten by Djokovic time after time? After 6 times he made an adjustment to his racquet (and stilllost,but at least he finally tried something new). Is that hard enough, soon enough?

Federer worked hard on his game and mental aproach early - he was a safin like player mentally to begin with. But all players can get somewhat lazy whan faced with changing a winning formular just to beat one player.

Cup8489
03-09-2012, 07:50 PM
Not sure who you are talking about. Nobody works harder than Nadal.

Djokovic (and Monfils) has a more athletic/flexible body than Nadal. This allows freak retrieving skills. Monfils doesn't have the tennis skills to match. Djokovic does.

Federer is not a lazy player, you're completely wrong there. He's among the hardest workers out there, don't blame the guy for not having that 'must retreive every single ball' mentality that Nadal has..

There's a reason why Federer has 16 majors, 12 of which were won since Rafa started winning majors: he knows how to play pretty well.

Netspirit
03-09-2012, 07:52 PM
He's a blessing to our sport.

Imagine tennis in 00s without Federer's game. Heck, imagine Youtube without Federer's tweeners.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 07:54 PM
If only Federer kept practicing his net game over the years. You'll never see Nadal lose skills over the years. Nadal will only add to his skills and thus set a new record for consecutive slam-winning years - Nadal is at 7 in a row now, and the record is 8 by Sampras, Federer, Borg.

Say Chi Sin Lo
03-09-2012, 07:55 PM
A lazy player with natural ability. What's not to hate? I'm into the more hard working players. 'Titles' aren't something to like, regarding a players GAME.

Yeah cause you know, going from a weak backhand to a respectable backhand happens overnight. Forget retrieving balls, he makes sure they don't come back.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 07:56 PM
Yeah cause you know, going from a weak backhand to a respectable backhand happens overnight. Forget retrieving balls, he makes sure they don't come back.

Yeah, don't come back or go into the net or sailing over the baseline...

dh003i
03-09-2012, 08:02 PM
Most error-prone world number one I've ever seen. What's not to hate?

Even if that were true -- I highly doubt it -- so what. It's the Winners-to-errors ratio that counts.

Cup8489
03-09-2012, 08:02 PM
Yeah, don't come back or go into the net or sailing over the baseline...

Lol. It's funny seeing ********* acting like Federer is a terrible tennis player.. but the guy has more weeks at number 1, more majors, more titles, more years in the top 10..

LOL.

Oh, and Rafa is going backwards, both his serve and backhand are not what they used to be, and he can't seem to beat a guy named Djokovic to save his life...

Sentinel
03-09-2012, 08:03 PM
I hate everything about Federer's game. I like him as a frank, honest and humble person but his game stinks.

I can't stand the excessive defense, standing 5 feet behind the baseline, moonballing every other ball, excessive topspin, groundies going 5 feet above the net and 5 feet within baseline, no variety or point construction, just mindlessly getting the ball back till the opponent makes an error.

But still I respect him as a person and appreciate him as ambassador for our sport.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 08:07 PM
If only Federer kept practicing his net game over the years. You'll never see Nadal lose skills over the years. Nadal will only add to his skills and thus set a new record for consecutive slam-winning years - Nadal is at 7 in a row now, and the record is 8 by Sampras, Federer, Borg.

Nadal's net game isn't exactly the best in the world either. Neither is his return game. Standing 7-8 meters behind the baseline to return a second serve is something he should have changed a long time ago, and yet he is still doing this.

If you want to maintain any credibility, please refrain from making statements similar to your last one. Nadal, so far, has not won a slam this year. While it's highly likely, it's not set in stone.

And, yes, Nadal's skills will diminsh with age eventually. There will come a point where he cannot improve his game any further, and that is when decline will firmly cement itself. It's funny how many Nadal fans say that his skills are already diminishing, and yet you maintain that he will continue to get better.

Cup8489
03-09-2012, 08:08 PM
Nadal's net game isn't exactly the best in the world either. Neither is his return game. Standing 7-8 meters behind the baseline to return a second serve is something he should have changed a long time ago, and yet he is still doing this.

If you want to maintain any credibility, please refrain from making statements similar to your last one. Nadal, so far, has not won a slam this year. While it's highly likely, it's not set in stone.

And, yes, Nadal's skills will diminsh with age eventually. There will come a point where he cannot improve his game any further, and that is when decline will firmly cement itself. It's funny how many Nadal fans say that his skills are already diminishing, and yet you maintain that he will continue to get better.

Well, ********* is nuts. lol.

sportsfan1
03-09-2012, 08:31 PM
He's a blessing to our sport.

Imagine tennis in 00s without Federer's game. Heck, imagine Youtube without Federer's tweeners.

And imagine tennis now, if Federer were to have retired. Yeah, Djoker and Nadal may still have been playing the FO 2011 final, and we would be immensely entertained watching towel offs and ball bouncing!!
Fed's personality may not be likeable to all, but there's no arguing against the game. That's one of the reasons he's the biggest draw at tournaments and on televised games, even though he's not the number one ranked player anymore.

BobFL
03-09-2012, 08:32 PM
If you don't like Fed, you don't like tennis in its purest form. Period.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 08:41 PM
And imagine tennis now, if Federer were to have retired. Yeah, Djoker and Nadal may still have been playing the FO 2011 final, and we would be immensely entertained watching towel offs and ball bouncing!!
Fed's personality may not be likeable to all, but there's no arguing against the game. That's one of the reasons he's the biggest draw at tournaments and on televised games, even though he's not the number one ranked player anymore.

Not saying everyone should like Federer's personality, but he doesn't really do anything which would warrant anyone to say he's a bad person. I think he comes off as arrogant when, actually, I think it's more of a cultural thing. Europeans are more direct in what they say, so the American "political correctness" doesn't make sense (I'm American and our nation's obsession with this is absurd). He's honest and I like listening to him speak. I don't find anything wrong with anything he says.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 08:43 PM
Well, ********* is nuts. lol.

Yeah right, and McEnroe ('Nadal has the best volleys on tour') is too. But you aren't....ok....

rommil
03-09-2012, 09:47 PM
Yeah right, and McEnroe ('Nadal has the best volleys on tour') is too. But you aren't....ok....

So explain to us senor Bul1*****ta, why the Nadal hasn't capitalized on his superb volleying skills to prevent the 7 and counting straight losses to Djokovic.

jayoub95
03-09-2012, 09:51 PM
How could anyone possibly hate Federers game. He has the best strokes and technique IMO and his footwork and light movement on the court is unbelievable. Oh, great mental strength as well. A gentlemen of the game of tennis.

TheTruth
03-09-2012, 09:54 PM
I don't hate his game, but it's not beautiful to me. For some reason his game makes me feel jittery. I only watch him when he plays Nadal.

There are some rare times where I've seen him play very efficient tennis, but it's not the tops for me.

I don't think Gasquet's game is beautiful either.

But, I find it amazing how some people seem to truly believe that he is the standard and everybody should love it.


There is nothing on earth that everybody is supposed to agree on. That's what makes the sport beautiful. There are people in the stands to see #385 in the world. Different strokes...

sbengte
03-09-2012, 10:00 PM
So explain to us senor Bul1*****ta, why the Nadal hasn't capitalized on his superb volleying skills to prevent the 7 and counting straight losses to Djokovic.

Because Nadal wants to play on his terms and win standing 5 feet behind the baseline. Resorting to rely on his natural strengths like volleying would sound like desperation. That is not Nadal's style.

rommil
03-09-2012, 10:02 PM
I don't hate his game, but it's not beautiful to me. For some reason his game makes me feel jittery. I only watch him when he plays Nadal.

There are some rare times where I've seen him play very efficient tennis, but it's not the tops for me.

I don't think Gasquet's game is beautiful either.

But, I find it amazing how some people seem to truly believe that he is the standard and everybody should love it.


There is nothing on earth that everybody is supposed to agree on. That's what makes the sport beautiful. There are people in the stands to see #385 in the world. Different strokes...


Pick up a racket, go to the courts and try to play each style.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 10:03 PM
Some people blame the the slowing of the surfaces, but I think Federer seems to have some kind of compulsion to prove to himself and everybody else that he is somehow better than Rafa and Nole from the baseline, which he plainly is not at the moment.

+1

Federer wanted to beat Rafa at his own game(the baseline). He is a stubborn SOB.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 10:39 PM
So explain to us senor Bul1*****ta, why the Nadal hasn't capitalized on his superb volleying skills to prevent the 7 and counting straight losses to Djokovic.

You are one strike away from being on my ignore list.

And Nadal doesn't like coming to the net, regardless of his skill. Nadal said in an interview before this year's AO that he doesn't like serving at 130mph because he prefers more time to hit his first groundstroke. If he serves at 130mph the ball comes back faster, which he doesn't like. Same would apply to his volleys. He has great volley skills (just as he has the ability to serve big) but he doesn't feel as comfortable at the net as he does at the baseline so he decides not to come to the net (just as he decides not to serve fast).

rommil
03-09-2012, 10:54 PM
You are one strike away from being on my ignore list.
).

Please, I beg of you. Do not send me to a place full of sensible people. I could never bear not being able to interact with you. Please Buli*****ta, reconsider.:(

[d]ragon
03-09-2012, 11:09 PM
Federer is actually one of the hardest working players out there. It shows in 5 set matches when he's not huffing and puffing. Not chasing down every ball is part of this style, which only adds to his physical fitness. I remember some commentators saying that he invited a couple of up and coming junior players to train with him in Dubai (Ricardas Berankis was one). They said that Federer's fitness was so good that his training partners had to rotate with each other to rest. When he's warming up on courts where everyone can see him, he is very carefree and almost lazy. But when he's practicing away from the crowds, you can really see he's trying.
And, Nadal is actually a great volleyer. His form isn't the most natural looking and he doesn't come up to net much because that isn't his style. But if you've every seen him play doubles, he's pretty solid

monfed
03-09-2012, 11:15 PM
ragon;6379979']Federer is actually one of the hardest working players out there. It shows in 5 set matches when he's not huffing and puffing. Not chasing down every ball is part of this style, which only adds to his physical fitness. I remember some commentators saying that he invited a couple of up and coming junior players to train with him in Dubai (Ricardas Berankis was one). They said that Federer's fitness was so good that his training partners had to rotate with each other to rest. When he's warming up on courts where everyone can see him, he is very carefree and almost lazy. But when he's practicing away from the crowds, you can really see he's trying.
And, Nadal is actually a great volleyer. His form isn't the most natural looking and he doesn't come up to net much because that isn't his style. But if you've every seen him play doubles, he's pretty solid

Insightful indeed.

ThoughtCrime
03-09-2012, 11:31 PM
How can any one say that Federer or any of the top guys doesn't work hard? If you are at the top of the world in any sport, I'm pretty sure you have to bust your *** day in and day out just to keep ahead of the crowd.

Paul Murphy
03-10-2012, 12:19 AM
The most beautiful game I've ever seen - he can do it all - and do it with style and panache.
Nothing to hate here .... move on.

billnepill
03-10-2012, 01:36 AM
A lazy player with natural ability. What's not to hate? I'm into the more hard working players. 'Titles' aren't something to like, regarding a players GAME.

Nobody agrees with you. You must feel very small and insignificant right now lol

Rock Strongo
03-10-2012, 01:38 AM
I don't like him. I can't say I hate him, but I REALLY don't like him. Why you may ask? He was never appealing to me as a kid. Instead I liked the Roddick-type who hit every ball as hard as humanly possible or someone who served and volleyed on every point.

I don't like his demeanor either. I never got the impression that he interacted with the crowd, instead he was just like "..." after every point. (that said, I hate Hewitt with his c'mons)

I respect the guy though. He's brought great things to the game of tennis, influenced a lot of kids to pick up a racquet, he does great humanitarian work, and is certainly graphite GOAT.

I'm just nagging on I presume...

joeri888
03-10-2012, 01:52 AM
I don't like him. I can't say I hate him, but I REALLY don't like him. Why you may ask? He was never appealing to me as a kid. Instead I liked the Roddick-type who hit every ball as hard as humanly possible or someone who served and volleyed on every point.

I don't like his demeanor either. I never got the impression that he interacted with the crowd, instead he was just like "..." after every point. (that said, I hate Hewitt with his c'mons)

I respect the guy though. He's brought great things to the game of tennis, influenced a lot of kids to pick up a racquet, he does great humanitarian work, and is certainly graphite GOAT.

I'm just nagging on I presume...

It's okay, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But do you still now dislike his game? Letting go of his antics for a moment. Purely his playing style, is it still not appealing to you, because he does not S&V or hit the crap out of the ball?

Rock Strongo
03-10-2012, 01:57 AM
It's okay, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But do you still now dislike his game? Letting go of his antics for a moment. Purely his playing style, is it still not appealing to you, because he does not S&V or hit the crap out of the ball?

I think it's some Pavlovian thing because as a kid, whenever Fed played I thought "oh not again", and now it perhaps lies in my subconsciousness that whenever Fed plays, I either switch streams or stop watching. I don't know really...

Wilander Fan
03-10-2012, 02:09 AM
You are one strike away from being on my ignore list.

And Nadal doesn't like coming to the net, regardless of his skill. Nadal said in an interview before this year's AO that he doesn't like serving at 130mph because he prefers more time to hit his first groundstroke. If he serves at 130mph the ball comes back faster, which he doesn't like. Same would apply to his volleys. He has great volley skills (just as he has the ability to serve big) but he doesn't feel as comfortable at the net as he does at the baseline so he decides not to come to the net (just as he decides not to serve fast).

Sitting 3 feet from the net and hitting a volley is literally the easiest thing in tennis and anyone can get decent at it very quickly if they have good reflexes. The difference between a skilled net player and an opportunistic net rusher is the half volley. IMO, the half volley is now the most difficult shot in tennis and its been pretty much abandoned as no man's land. You need to have a good and accurate serve, anticipation and great footwork. You also need to actually send a volley into corners with pace by redirecting low topspin passing shots from your ankles at the service line. Nadal rarely S&V even as a surprise tactic and his net play is basically drop volleys. OTOH, Fed does still S&V consistently when he is on a fast hard surface and he is quite good at it.

syc23
03-10-2012, 02:17 AM
I don't hate Federer's game but dislike him more as a person as he could be quite arrogant towards his peers and preventing Murray from being a 2 time slam winner already.

However, he plays the most graceful and effortless tennis I've ever seen. I'm sure a lot of people would love to play with the artistry of Federer but it's easier to be a grinder like Nadal on the court working hard for every point. Well, I do anyway :)

Evan77
03-10-2012, 02:43 AM
Gosh, I absolutely love his game. I can watch his matches 24/7....but I hate his personality, his huge ego. I simply can't stand it. all the things he said about young Nole and Rafa... all excuses he gives after he loses a match.

based on his game I'd be probably the biggest fan but again his personality is a huge turn off. Fed should simply shut up and I will fall in love with him, lol.

abmk
03-10-2012, 02:45 AM
Most error-prone world number one I've ever seen. What's not to hate?

Hmm, not surprising as you've only been seeing tennis from 2008 onwards !

devila
03-10-2012, 03:13 AM
the more i see federer, the more glad i am to watch the news of his and roddick's losses and retirements.
fed can win 40 slams but it would make me enjoy djoker's dominant tennis & impersonation of federer and roddick's arrogant behavior.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:34 AM
If you don't like Fed's game, you don't like tennis in its purest form. Period.

I fixed it for you a bit. but you had it right essentially.

But ...playing devil's advocate...I can see where non Fed fans are coming from.

I couldnt *stand* Graf back in the day. She had zero personality, and I didnt like her because she beat my hero Navratilova repeatedly. I understood that Martina was in the twilight of her career but it still didnt make it any easier to accept.

And then I couldnt stand Graf because she mowed down everyone and everything. I still maintain that the early 90's was a fairly weak era for women's tennis..but the few players that were there that could go toe to toe with her she just intimidated to rubble.

It was only as Graf got older and started to wane herself that I appreciated her game. Her athleticism, her forehand and that gorgeous backhand slice, her all court game.

I was honestly rooting for her in the Wimby final against Davenport.

Another player that it took me a long while to appreciate was Hingis. Icouldnt stand her arrogance and that damn creepy chucky smile of hers.

But as 'big babe' tennis began to ascend, I appreciated her immense variety, her strategy, ..she was a technician on the court. And I felt bad that she basically got blasted out of the game once those big hitters figured out how to play and specifically how to play her.

I was happy when she made that mini comeback and almost got back to the top ten.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:36 AM
Sitting 3 feet from the net and hitting a volley is literally the easiest thing in tennis and anyone can get decent at it very quickly if they have good reflexes. The difference between a skilled net player and an opportunistic net rusher is the half volley. IMO, the half volley is now the most difficult shot in tennis and its been pretty much abandoned as no man's land. You need to have a good and accurate serve, anticipation and great footwork. You also need to actually send a volley into corners with pace by redirecting low topspin passing shots from your ankles at the service line. Nadal rarely S&V even as a surprise tactic and his net play is basically drop volleys. OTOH, Fed does still S&V consistently when he is on a fast hard surface and he is quite good at it.

so tired of fools trying to say Rafa is a great volleyer.

he is competent and a great opportunistic volleyer. Edbergesque, he aint.

TTMR
03-10-2012, 04:57 AM
I like Federer's game generally. I do find the Djokovic and Murray game more aesthetically pleasing (less jerky/"explosive", more fluid and/or flexible), but I realize this is all subjective.

His demeanor leaves something to be desired. When he is passionate he is fun to root for (although I only do against players I truly despise such as Berdych, Fish and a few others).

I think he is a good guy off the court. He could have had any super or glamour model but chose to be with the merely above average looking Mirka for many years. I didn't like how quickly he seemed to embrace the "greatest of all time" media chatter going as far back as 2005, and he seems to be a sour loser much of the time. But generally, he is a commendable sportsmen and I have no qualms with him.

I do have qualms with some of his "Federer as a religious experience" article-inspired fans, who are incapable of accepting the fact that Federer can lose a match to a player with an "inferior" playing style, and will generate all kinds of reasons to discredit the victor. You may say "oh every player/ team in the world has those kinds of fans", and while that may be true, they seem to be overrepresented among Federer and tennis fans as a whole based on my experience.

vernonbc
03-10-2012, 05:35 AM
ragon;6379979']Federer is actually one of the hardest working players out there. It shows in 5 set matches when he's not huffing and puffing.
Federer actually has a lousy 5 set record. He's 114th on the career list at 18-16. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-5th-Set-Record-Career-List.aspx Rafa has the best of active players at 15-4 and Novak is second at 15-5. Kohlschreiber, surprisingly, is 3rd.
I do have qualms with some of his "Federer as a religious experience" article-inspired fans, who are incapable of accepting the fact that Federer can lose a match to a player with an "inferior" playing style, and will generate all kinds of reasons to discredit the victor. You may say "oh every player/ team in the world has those kinds of fans", and while that may be true, they seem to be overrepresented among Federer and tennis fans as a whole based on my experience.
+1
I find many of his fans much more annoying than Federer himself. To me, Fed's game is rather boring but I acknowledge that he's very good and there's no denying he's been extremely successful. As you say though, seldom will the Fed fandom give his opponents credit and it's not only because I'm a Nadal fan and get annoyed that he doesn't get recognition for his wonderful game. It's always the 'match-up'. Well if Fed has such trouble with Rafa's left handed game, why do other left handers never give Fed trouble? Lopez and Verdasco are two who have never gotten even one win against Fed, Melzer's won one. And does almost every other player on the tour have a bad match-up against Nadal? I mean, he beats them all regularly. It's fine to love Federer's game but it would be nice if some of his fans were a little more fair and realistic.

jerriy
03-10-2012, 05:52 AM
A rabid Nadal or other palyer stan claiming to not like Fed's game is not credible at all.

There ought also be the same feeling towards Roger's game originating from a non-partisan/neutral person as well in order for it to be believable).

So based on that we can say the answer so far is that no one hates Fed's game :)

zagor
03-10-2012, 05:52 AM
Beauty is in the eye of Beholder, it's a matter of taste.

hahahahah this might be the best topic ever.

No, I don't think you can truly hate his game. You can hate Federer, and everything else around him, (horrible competition, easy draws, arrogant statements,etc) but you got to say he does atleast play the game correctly/the way it's supposed to be played which is aggressive minded to some degree.

I wish he would play a more all court game and come in more, but I understand why he doesn't.

But yeah, I bet someone will come along and say they do.

Tell me again how you're supposed to be a Fed fan, LOL! Amazingly, Fed with all his oh so easy draws never faced a 237 ranked journeyman in Wimbledon SF.

BTW. There's no "correct" way to play the game, especially when we're talking about pros whose various different games have proven to be effective on the highest level, you don't any extra points for style and/or beauty.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 05:59 AM
Hmm, not surprising as you've only been seeing tennis from 2008 onwards !

Federer was ranked number one most recently in early 2010. Should I disregard anything I saw of him and only focus on pre-2008? Even 2005-08 there were plenty of high-error performances. He actually dropped more sets at slams back in 2005-08. He has always played a bit loose.

zagor
03-10-2012, 06:01 AM
I like Federer's game generally. I do find the Djokovic and Murray game more aesthetically pleasing (less jerky/"explosive", more fluid and/or flexible), but I realize this is all subjective.

His demeanor leaves something to be desired. When he is passionate he is fun to root for (although I only do against players I truly despise such as Berdych, Fish and a few others).

I think he is a good guy off the court. He could have had any super or glamour model but chose to be with the merely above average looking Mirka for many years. I didn't like how quickly he seemed to embrace the "greatest of all time" media chatter going as far back as 2005, and he seems to be a sour loser much of the time. But generally, he is a commendable sportsmen and I have no qualms with him.

I do have qualms with some of his "Federer as a religious experience" article-inspired fans, who are incapable of accepting the fact that Federer can lose a match to a player with an "inferior" playing style, and will generate all kinds of reasons to discredit the victor. You may say "oh every player/ team in the world has those kinds of fans", and while that may be true, they seem to be overrepresented among Federer and tennis fans as a whole based on my experience.

I hear this quite often in this forum (from Fed's detractors usually) but really when did Fed embrace all this "greatest of all time" media talk" (like say Ali or Jordan did) ? I have not to date hear the man say he's even in the conversation for the ridiculous GOAT mantle, heck just recently he said he shouldn't be put even over Lendl let alone some other greats.

Sore loser, I can agree with (although that does get overblown around here).

jerriy
03-10-2012, 06:03 AM
^ Zilla dude, attacking style automatically has a higher rate of UEs than a defensive style (generally speaking). But you have not presented any indication that Fed specifically is more error prone than most or even many players out there, not counting Nadal and other more clearly defense oriented "high percentage" players
.

tusharlovesrafa
03-10-2012, 06:03 AM
I hate everything about Federer's game. I like him as a frank, honest and humble person but his game stinks.

I can't stand the excessive defense, standing 5 feet behind the baseline, moonballing every other ball, excessive topspin, groundies going 5 feet above the net and 5 feet within baseline, no variety or point construction, just mindlessly getting the ball back till the opponent makes an error.

But still I respect him as a person and appreciate him as ambassador for our sport.

Once upon a time kragster said that you are a "MURRAY ****",allthough initially i didnt believe but now it's been proven beyond doubt that u r a "murray hard"..:)

purge
03-10-2012, 06:05 AM
hating federers game means hating tennis ;P

ernestsgulbisfan#1
03-10-2012, 06:11 AM
delete poast

Hitman
03-10-2012, 06:58 AM
Federer is a lazy player? LOL! What the....

monfed
03-10-2012, 07:02 AM
I think the more relevant question is "How can anyone like ******'s GAME?"

abmk
03-10-2012, 07:11 AM
Federer was ranked number one most recently in early 2010. Should I disregard anything I saw of him and only focus on pre-2008? Even 2005-08 there were plenty of high-error performances. He actually dropped more sets at slams back in 2005-08. He has always played a bit loose.

How would you know considering you didn't even watch any tennis before 2008 ? :twisted:

yes, he's an aggressive player, which means he's going to make errors. He's not someone who's going to play 20ft behind the baseline, waiting for the other player to make error during the course of an endless rally !

He didn't drop more sets at slams back in 2005-08. You are showing yourself to be more dumber than what I thought earlier .....

abmk
03-10-2012, 07:12 AM
Federer is a lazy player? LOL! What the....

yes, some dumbos think that because he plays an "effortless" game, he doesn't work hard .....

joechiang
03-10-2012, 07:30 AM
I love effortless games.

Hitman
03-10-2012, 07:51 AM
yes, some dumbos think that because he plays an "effortless" game, he doesn't work hard .....

I think Roger should take it as a compliment. He makes the performance so good, it looks like he's not even trying. Nothing mechancial or ugly about his strokes. ;-)

purge
03-10-2012, 07:54 AM
we have a saying here that goes:
ein rudi völler.. es gibt nur ein rudi völler.. ein rudi vööööööölleeer.. es gibt nur ein rudi vööööller..

the same is true for roger federer :D

devila
03-10-2012, 07:57 AM
yes, some dumbos think that because he plays an "effortless" game, he doesn't work hard ..... no, nadal fans praise federer because there are fewer gimpy losers who are at roddick's highest infamous level.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 08:06 AM
How would you know considering you didn't even watch any tennis before 2008 ? :twisted:

yes, he's an aggressive player, which means he's going to make errors. He's not someone who's going to play 20ft behind the baseline, waiting for the other player to make error during the course of an endless rally !

He didn't drop more sets at slams back in 2005-08. You are showing yourself to be more dumber than what I thought earlier .....

Firstly, you are on my ignore list from now on.

2005 US Open: (6-4 4th set vs Kiefer R16, 6-3 4th set vs Hewitt SF)
R128 Ivo Minar (CZE) 77 W 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 Stats
R64 Fabrice Santoro (FRA) 76 W 7-5, 7-5, 7-6(2)
R32 Olivier Rochus (BEL) 29 W 6-3, 7-6(6), 6-2
R16 Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 38 W 6-4, 6-7(3), 6-3, 6-4
Q David Nalbandian (ARG) 11 W 6-2, 6-4, 6-1
S Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 4 W 6-3, 7-6(0), 4-6, 6-3
W Andre Agassi (USA) 7 W 6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1

2006 Australian Open: (5 setter vs Haas R16, 7-6 4th set vs Davy QF)
R128 Denis Istomin (UZB) 195 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-2
R64 Florian Mayer (GER) 69 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-0
R32 Max Mirnyi (BLR) 34 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-3
R16 Tommy Haas (GER) 41 W 6-4, 6-0, 3-6, 4-6, 6-2
Q Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 5 W 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(7), 7-6(5)
S Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 25 W 6-3, 5-7, 6-0, 6-2
W Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) 54 W 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2

2006 US Open: (6-4 4th set vs Blake QF)
R128 Jimmy Wang (TPE) 109 W 6-4, 6-1, 6-0
R64 Tim Henman (GBR) 62 W 6-3, 6-4, 7-5
R32 Vincent Spadea (USA) 84 W 6-3, 6-3, 6-0
R16 Marc Gicquel (FRA) 79 W 6-3, 7-6(2), 6-3
Q James Blake (USA) 7 W 7-6(7), 6-0, 6-7(9), 6-4
S Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 6 W 6-1, 7-5, 6-4
W Andy Roddick (USA) 10 W 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1

2007 US Open: (6-4 4th set vs Lopez R16)
R128 Scoville Jenkins (USA) 319 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
R64 Paul Capdeville (CHI) 120 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
R32 John Isner (USA) 184 W 6-7(4), 6-2, 6-4, 6-2
R16 Feliciano Lopez (ESP) 60 W 3-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-4
Q Andy Roddick (USA) 5 W 7-6(5), 7-6(4), 6-2
S Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 4 W 7-5, 6-1, 7-5
W Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4

In these 4 slams during his 'prime',
Federer dropped a total of 4 sets at R16 stage.
Federer dropped 2 sets at QF stage.
Federer dropped 1 set at SF stage.

Compared to Federer's 2 most recent slams-

2011 US Open: (Didn't drop a set until Djokovic)
R128 Santiago Giraldo (COL) 54 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-2
R64 Dudi Sela (ISR) 93 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
R32 Marin Cilic (CRO) 28 W 6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2
R16 Juan Monaco (ARG) 36 W 6-1, 6-2, 6-0
Q Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 11 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-3
S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 1 L 7-6(7), 6-4, 3-6, 2-6, 5-7

2012 Australian Open: (Didn't drop a set until Nadal)
R128 Alexander Kudryavtsev (RUS) 172 W 7-5, 6-2, 6-2
R64 Andreas Beck (GER) 93 W W/O
R32 Ivo Karlovic (CRO) 57 W 7-6(6), 7-5, 6-3
R16 Bernard Tomic (AUS) 38 W 6-4, 6-2, 6-2
Q Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) 11 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-2
S Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 7-6(5), 2-6, 6-7(5), 4-6

abmk
03-10-2012, 08:12 AM
no, nadal fans praise federer because there are fewer gimpy losers who are at roddick's highest infamous level.

nearly 1721 trolling posts for about ~8 years and yet not many respond to your trolling posts. Isn't it a sad existence for you at TTW , devila ?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-10-2012, 08:20 AM
Federer actually has a lousy 5 set record. He's 114th on the career list at 18-16. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-5th-Set-Record-Career-List.aspx Rafa has the best of active players at 15-4 and Novak is second at 15-5. Kohlschreiber, surprisingly, is 3rd.

+1
I find many of his fans much more annoying than Federer himself. To me, Fed's game is rather boring but I acknowledge that he's very good and there's no denying he's been extremely successful. As you say though, seldom will the Fed fandom give his opponents credit and it's not only because I'm a Nadal fan and get annoyed that he doesn't get recognition for his wonderful game. It's always the 'match-up'. Well if Fed has such trouble with Rafa's left handed game, why do other left handers never give Fed trouble? Lopez and Verdasco are two who have never gotten even one win against Fed, Melzer's won one. And does almost every other player on the tour have a bad match-up against Nadal? I mean, he beats them all regularly. It's fine to love Federer's game but it would be nice if some of his fans were a little more fair and realistic.

Give them Nadal's spin.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-10-2012, 08:21 AM
Federer was ranked number one most recently in early 2010. Should I disregard anything I saw of him and only focus on pre-2008? Even 2005-08 there were plenty of high-error performances. He actually dropped more sets at slams back in 2005-08. He has always played a bit loose.

What are the high error performances you speak of?

Djokodal Fan
03-10-2012, 08:27 AM
anyone should be crazy to say Federer was non-elegant.

Some of the new players just look ugly with their strokes! I don't wanna mention them!!

jakemcclain32
03-10-2012, 08:32 AM
Federer is James Bond...period. He's smooth and elegant, not a bullhorse that sweats at warmups.

Because of that, ********* thinks he's lazy. He's probably one of the hardest working players in the game. He just doesn't have to go all Tim Tebow and run through a wall to prove it.

devila
03-10-2012, 08:44 AM
the beauty must compensate for his cringe-inducing sloppy forehand, clay feet. bad drop shot, volley, backhand, overhead attempts, ugly angry staredowns, scowl, arrogant grin, dismissive attitude toward opponents and hawkeye line calls and smug promotion of his slams won on his feminine jacket.

devila
03-10-2012, 08:48 AM
nearly 1721 trolling posts for about ~8 years and yet not many respond to your trolling posts. Isn't it a sad existence for you at TTW , devila ?

i'm sure federer read all of your informative posts ever since he declined horridly,
and babysat his daughters for mirka

purge
03-10-2012, 08:50 AM
the beauty must compensate for his cringe-inducing sloppy forehand, clay feet. bad drop shot, volley, backhand, overhead attempts, ugly angry staredowns, scowl, arrogant grin, dismissive attitude toward opponents and hawkeye line calls and smug promotion of his slams won on his feminine jacket.

if you want to make a point about whats bad about his game then at least leave out the things at which hes hes actually the best ever lol

Shaolin
03-10-2012, 09:12 AM
To hate Federer's game is to hate thyself.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 09:34 AM
I like Federer's game generally. I do find the Djokovic and Murray game more aesthetically pleasing (less jerky/"explosive", more fluid and/or flexible), but I realize this is all subjective.

His demeanor leaves something to be desired. When he is passionate he is fun to root for (although I only do against players I truly despise such as Berdych, Fish and a few others).

I think he is a good guy off the court. He could have had any super or glamour model but chose to be with the merely above average looking Mirka for many years. I didn't like how quickly he seemed to embrace the "greatest of all time" media chatter going as far back as 2005, and he seems to be a sour loser much of the time. But generally, he is a commendable sportsmen and I have no qualms with him.

I do have qualms with some of his "Federer as a religious experience" article-inspired fans, who are incapable of accepting the fact that Federer can lose a match to a player with an "inferior" playing style, and will generate all kinds of reasons to discredit the victor. You may say "oh every player/ team in the world has those kinds of fans", and while that may be true, they seem to be overrepresented among Federer and tennis fans as a whole based on my experience.

This sums it up perfectly for me. Federer's style isn't ugly to me, but I do find it very jerky and it makes me feel jittery.

Agree with this as well. I don't understand people who think their opinion should override others rights to an opinion.

As a Nadal fan I don't expect everybody to see it the way that I see it. I like him for what he represents for me, but to try to beat others over the head with what I think seems rather immature.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 09:36 AM
Federer actually has a lousy 5 set record. He's 114th on the career list at 18-16. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-5th-Set-Record-Career-List.aspx Rafa has the best of active players at 15-4 and Novak is second at 15-5. Kohlschreiber, surprisingly, is 3rd.

+1
I find many of his fans much more annoying than Federer himself. To me, Fed's game is rather boring but I acknowledge that he's very good and there's no denying he's been extremely successful. As you say though, seldom will the Fed fandom give his opponents credit and it's not only because I'm a Nadal fan and get annoyed that he doesn't get recognition for his wonderful game. It's always the 'match-up'. Well if Fed has such trouble with Rafa's left handed game, why do other left handers never give Fed trouble? Lopez and Verdasco are two who have never gotten even one win against Fed, Melzer's won one. And does almost every other player on the tour have a bad match-up against Nadal? I mean, he beats them all regularly. It's fine to love Federer's game but it would be nice if some of his fans were a little more fair and realistic.

+1000

Entire post should be bolded.

tennis_pro
03-10-2012, 09:47 AM
I find many of his fans much more annoying than Federer himself. To me, Fed's game is rather boring but I acknowledge that he's very good and there's no denying he's been extremely successful. As you say though, seldom will the Fed fandom give his opponents credit and it's not only because I'm a Nadal fan and get annoyed that he doesn't get recognition for his wonderful game. It's always the 'match-up'. Well if Fed has such trouble with Rafa's left handed game, why do other left handers never give Fed trouble? Lopez and Verdasco are two who have never gotten even one win against Fed, Melzer's won one. And does almost every other player on the tour have a bad match-up against Nadal? I mean, he beats them all regularly. It's fine to love Federer's game but it would be nice if some of his fans were a little more fair and realistic.

Since when Lopez and Verdasco hit loopy heavy topspin forehands?

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 09:50 AM
Since when Lopez and Verdasco hit loopy heavy topspin forehands?

They don't. Nadal fans are just completely delusional and hypocritical.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 09:54 AM
I find many of his fans much more annoying than Federer himself. To me, Fed's game is rather boring but I acknowledge that he's very good and there's no denying he's been extremely successful. As you say though, seldom will the Fed fandom give his opponents credit and it's not only because I'm a Nadal fan and get annoyed that he doesn't get recognition for his wonderful game. It's always the 'match-up'. Well if Fed has such trouble with Rafa's left handed game, why do other left handers never give Fed trouble? Lopez and Verdasco are two who have never gotten even one win against Fed, Melzer's won one. And does almost every other player on the tour have a bad match-up against Nadal? I mean, he beats them all regularly. It's fine to love Federer's game but it would be nice if some of his fans were a little more fair and realistic.

I find many of his fans much more annoying than Nadal himself. To me, Rafa's game is rather boring but I acknowledge that he's very good and there's no denying he's been extremely successful. As you won't say though, seldom will the Nadal fandom give his opponents credit and it's not only because I'm a Federer fan and get annoyed that he doesn't get recognition for his wonderful game. It's always the 'injuries and fatigue, especially at the end of the year.' Well if Nadal has such trouble with the calendar, why do other players who play more matches in a year or are older not use the same excuse time and again? Djokovic, Tsonga, Federer, and Fish are four players who play just as much as Nadal or are older, yet they put up a better effort at the YEC. And does almost every other player on the tour play with a similar calendar under similar conditions? I mean, he beat them all outdoors. It's fine to love Nadal's game but it would be nice if some of his fans were a little more fair and realistic

laughingbuddha
03-10-2012, 09:57 AM
Djokovic, Del Potro, Roddick, Davydenko, and Hewitt, among many others hate his game.

tennis_pro
03-10-2012, 10:05 AM
Djokovic, Del Potro, Roddick, Davydenko, and Hewitt, among many others hate his game.

Haha and since they play so much different from each other, I think you just hate tennis.

vive le beau jeu !
03-10-2012, 10:46 AM
I find many of his fans much more annoying than Nadal himself. To me, Rafa's game is rather boring but I acknowledge that he's very good and there's no denying he's been extremely successful. As you won't say though, seldom will the Nadal fandom give his opponents credit and it's not only because I'm a Federer fan and get annoyed that he doesn't get recognition for his wonderful game. It's always the 'injuries and fatigue, especially at the end of the year.' Well if Nadal has such trouble with the calendar, why do other players who play more matches in a year or are older not use the same excuse time and again? Djokovic, Tsonga, Federer, and Fish are three who are three players who play just as much as Nadal or are older, yet they put up a better effort at the YEC. And does almost every other player on the tour play with a similar calendar under similar conditions? I mean, he beat them all outdoors. It's fine to love Nadal's game but it would be nice if some of his fans were a little more fair and realistic
awesome ! i agree ! so refreshing ! :)
you're the fuzziest poster !

Hitman
03-10-2012, 10:54 AM
I find many of his fans much more annoying than Nadal himself. To me, Rafa's game is rather boring but I acknowledge that he's very good and there's no denying he's been extremely successful. As you won't say though, seldom will the Nadal fandom give his opponents credit and it's not only because I'm a Federer fan and get annoyed that he doesn't get recognition for his wonderful game. It's always the 'injuries and fatigue, especially at the end of the year.' Well if Nadal has such trouble with the calendar, why do other players who play more matches in a year or are older not use the same excuse time and again? Djokovic, Tsonga, Federer, and Fish are four players who play just as much as Nadal or are older, yet they put up a better effort at the YEC. And does almost every other player on the tour play with a similar calendar under similar conditions? I mean, he beat them all outdoors. It's fine to love Nadal's game but it would be nice if some of his fans were a little more fair and realistic

LOL!!!!!!!!!! :)

TMF
03-10-2012, 11:08 AM
Djokovic, Del Potro, Roddick, Davydenko, and Hewitt, among many others hate his game.

They hate his game because he gave them trouble, not because they hate his style.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 11:10 AM
awesome ! i agree ! so refreshing ! :)
you're the fuzziest poster !

Hahahaha glad you liked it!

sureshs
03-10-2012, 11:15 AM
I don't hate his game, but find it too risky with little margin for error. I also don't like how he serves his way out of trouble without winning a groundstroke rally like a real man.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 11:21 AM
I don't hate his game, but find it too risky with little margin for error. I also don't like how he serves his way out of trouble without winning a groundstroke rally like a real man.

It's not his fault he serves like a man.

Cup8489
03-10-2012, 11:57 AM
I don't hate his game, but find it too risky with little margin for error. I also don't like how he serves his way out of trouble without winning a groundstroke rally like a real man.

Real men don't lose 7 straight matches to anyone.

FD3S
03-10-2012, 12:17 PM
Seriously how could a poster like that not be banned? All he/she does is pretty much brutally criticize Federer/Roddick in every post.

Didn't even have to go back to know that this was talking about devila :D Let's try and be him/her for a second:

'lol at pathetic whiny federer crying about (insert topic here)' or 'look at underachieving fat (insert one more negative adjective here or a crack about his wife or mom) roddick keep on playing'

Am I doing it right?

Telepatic
03-10-2012, 12:35 PM
I guess many Fed fans hate his BH when he's up against Rafito..

Cup8489
03-10-2012, 12:35 PM
I guess many Fed fans hate his BH when he's up against Rafito..

na, just find it annoying that Nadal does the same damn thing over, and over, and over.

kragster
03-10-2012, 01:04 PM
I think Feds game is great but my own personal attitude in life has always been to admire the folks who look like they were not blessed with all the skills but yet fought their way through. There's no doubt a champion like Fed is extremely hard working too but the very ' lazy elegance' that draws people to him is not endearing to me. Fed is like James bond, always cool and collected, everything under control. What attracts me to folks with games like rafa and djokovic is sort of the rockyesque attitude - the willingness to keep taking blows but standing up until the opponent has bowed to your will.

And for the record, just like it is irritating to hear Rafa fans make generalizations like ' everyone loves Rafas humility' it is equally irrititating to hear SOME ( see how to avoid generalizations?) fed fans claim that any real tennis fan loves Feds game.

DragonBlaze
03-10-2012, 01:09 PM
I think Feds game is great but my own personal attitude in life has always been to admire the folks who look like they were not blessed with all the skills but yet fought their way through. There's no doubt a champion like Fed is extremely hard working too but the very ' lazy elegance' that draws people to him is not endearing to me. Fed is like James bond, always cool and collected, everything under control. What attracts me to folks with games like rafa and djokovic is sort of the rockyesque attitude - the willingness to keep taking blows but standing up until the opponent has bowed to your will.

And for the record, just like it is irritating to hear Rafa fans make generalizations like ' everyone loves Rafas humility' it is equally irrititating to hear SOME ( see how to avoid generalizations?) fed fans claim that any real tennis fan loves Feds game.

Agree with your last sentence.

What I don't agree with is how people seem to think Nadal has no talent and just worked extremely hard. Dude has INSANE amounts of talent. Just working hard is NOT going to get you to the top of the tennis world.

kragster
03-10-2012, 01:38 PM
Agree with your last sentence.

What I don't agree with is how people seem to think Nadal has no talent and just worked extremely hard. Dude has INSANE amounts of talent. Just working hard is NOT going to get you to the top of the tennis world.

Oh definitely , I think it's important to remember that these assessments are somewhat relative to the highest standards. Fed is insanely hard working and nadal is insanely talented. But in just comparing the two it might be fair to say that fed is the more talented and Rafa is the more hardworking one.

TMF
03-10-2012, 01:48 PM
Agree with your last sentence.

What I don't agree with is how people seem to think Nadal has no talent and just worked extremely hard. Dude has INSANE amounts of talent. Just working hard is NOT going to get you to the top of the tennis world.

Both Fed and Nadal require talent and hard working to be where they are right now. But...

Rafa's achievements were due to his hard working, more than his talent. For Fed it's the other way around because he's more talented than Rafa.

sureshs
03-10-2012, 02:48 PM
Real men don't lose 7 straight matches to anyone.

Or have a losing H2H against Nadal

Cup8489
03-10-2012, 03:02 PM
Or have a losing H2H against Nadal

Well since Nadal doesn't count as a man, it's not really a big deal to have a losing h2h against him since he shouldn't be on tour anyway.

Sid_Vicious
03-10-2012, 03:16 PM
Delete post lol

laughingbuddha
03-10-2012, 03:29 PM
They hate his game because he gave them trouble, not because they hate his style.

You said they hate his game yet not his style? Please explain the difference. I said they hate his game so you seem to agree with me.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 03:31 PM
Oh definitely , I think it's important to remember that these assessments are somewhat relative to the highest standards. Fed is insanely hard working and nadal is insanely talented. But in just comparing the two it might be fair to say that fed is the more talented and Rafa is the more hardworking one.

how do you figure that?

Rafa has a grinding game that is based on retrieving every ball possible

Fed's is an attacking game that is based on hitting winners and ending the point at the first possible opportunity.

One appears harder working because his game is designed to be that way.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 03:56 PM
Agree with your last sentence.

What I don't agree with is how people seem to think Nadal has no talent and just worked extremely hard. Dude has INSANE amounts of talent. Just working hard is NOT going to get you to the top of the tennis world.

Plus it takes more unique and revolutionary talent to play the shots Nadal plays. Federer basically just copied the textbook.

On top of that, Nadal is right-handed and relearned tennis with his left-hand.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 03:58 PM
Plus it takes more unique and revolutionary talent to play the shots Nadal plays. Federer basically just copied the textbook.

On top of that, Nadal is right-handed and relearned tennis with his left-hand.

And how many players have mastered the textbook?

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:00 PM
And how many players have mastered the textbook?

dont bother with this guy. roflmao.


yes, Rafa revolutionized moonballing to the next level.

Sid_Vicious
03-10-2012, 04:02 PM
http://i42.tinypic.com/35n8r2u.jpgAnd how many players have mastered the textbook?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-10-2012, 04:02 PM
And how many players have mastered the textbook?

Probably a thousand. But of course, most of them make more unforced errors than Federer (though Federer makes an awful lot of unforced errors anyway).

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:03 PM
http://i42.tinypic.com/35n8r2u.jpg

sage words my friend.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 04:50 PM
dont bother with this guy. roflmao.


yes, Rafa revolutionized moonballing to the next level.

Yeah, I should probably stop. But I have one more question for him.

Probably a thousand. But of course, most of them make more unforced errors than Federer (though Federer makes an awful lot of unforced errors anyway).

Do you play tennis?

Cup8489
03-10-2012, 04:55 PM
Plus it takes more unique and revolutionary talent to play the shots Nadal plays. Federer basically just copied the textbook.

On top of that, Nadal is right-handed and relearned tennis with his left-hand.

Rafa didn't relearn anything. He played two handed and decided to use a lefty forehand LOL.


*********failsagain.

Cup8489
03-10-2012, 04:59 PM
Probably a thousand. But of course, most of them make more unforced errors than Federer (though Federer makes an awful lot of unforced errors anyway).

does making an unforced error immediately mean you lose a match if you do it? because if not, who cares?

Federer has been more successful than Nadal with his game... so if i have to make alot of unforced errors to get 16 majors instead of making few errors to get 10.. no thinking needed. I'll take the 16

Do you play tennis, *********? Because you'll realize that there's different strokes, playing styles, and approaches to tennis for different people.

You'd probably be surprised that I play more like Nadal than Federer , with steady and consistent play until i get a window to go for a bigger shot, because I can't hit someone off the court; but if I could have a choice between Rafa's game and Fed's game, it'd be Fed's, no doubt.

Telepatic
03-10-2012, 05:07 PM
na, just find it annoying that Nadal does the same damn thing over, and over, and over.

Actually they both do the same damn thing over and over otherwise Fed wouldn't be abused. :)

I dunno, I find that flaw on his BH side only thing I "hate" about his game.

kragster
03-10-2012, 07:11 PM
how do you figure that?

Rafa has a grinding game that is based on retrieving every ball possible

Fed's is an attacking game that is based on hitting winners and ending the point at the first possible opportunity.

One appears harder working because his game is designed to be that way.

Oh I wasn't referring to effort during the match but rather to the prep hours put in. I may be wrong but many reports/ commentators talk about how intense and long Rafas training sessions are compared to other players and how he is out practicing even after just finishing a match while most other players take time off.

rommil
03-10-2012, 09:21 PM
Plus it takes more unique and revolutionary talent to play the shots Nadal plays. Federer basically just copied the textbook.

On top of that, Nadal is right-handed and relearned tennis with his left-hand.

Nadal doesn't know his right from his left.

phnx90
03-10-2012, 09:25 PM
Nadal doesn't know his right from his left.

I think you have Rafa confused for George W Bush

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-10-2012, 09:54 PM
Plus it takes more unique and revolutionary talent to play the shots Nadal plays. Federer basically just copied the textbook.

On top of that, Nadal is right-handed and relearned tennis with his left-hand.

LOL..... He wrote the new edition of the textbook. You think it's a coincidence that players began improving all aspects of their game after watching him?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-10-2012, 09:59 PM
does making an unforced error immediately mean you lose a match if you do it? because if not, who cares?

Federer has been more successful than Nadal with his game... so if i have to make alot of unforced errors to get 16 majors instead of making few errors to get 10.. no thinking needed. I'll take the 16

Do you play tennis, *********? Because you'll realize that there's different strokes, playing styles, and approaches to tennis for different people.

You'd probably be surprised that I play more like Nadal than Federer , with steady and consistent play until i get a window to go for a bigger shot, because I can't hit someone off the court; but if I could have a choice between Rafa's game and Fed's game, it'd be Fed's, no doubt.

If Rafa could have a choice between his game and Federer's it would be Federer's. I can't see how people can say they don't want Federer's game. It's sort of like asking people would you rather have Shaqs game(an extremely effective one) or an elegant game like Kobe's? Nadal will be remembered for his incredible athleticism and Federer will be remembered for pulling amazing shots that most would only try on a practice court like that one insane forehand in the 2004 USO final where Federer hit it ridiculously short and it double bounced before Hewitt could get it.

Nathaniel_Near
03-10-2012, 10:04 PM
'...like that one insane forehand in the 2004 USO final where Federer hit it ridiculously short and it double bounced before Hewitt could get it.'

Heh heh, I know the point. It was a brilliant shot.

DragonBlaze
03-10-2012, 10:19 PM
'...like that one insane forehand in the 2004 USO final where Federer hit it ridiculously short and it double bounced before Hewitt could get it.'

Heh heh, I know the point. It was a brilliant shot.

Link guys?

I can't remember.

monfed
03-10-2012, 10:22 PM
I hate Fed's game AT TIMES cause my heart is usually in my mouth. :(

Xizel
03-10-2012, 10:43 PM
Link guys?

I can't remember.

Whew, was curious and found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfb2PDlIc3o&t=6m32s

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-11-2012, 12:08 AM
LOL..... He wrote the new edition of the textbook. You think it's a coincidence that players began improving all aspects of their game after watching him?

Where is the proof of that? All we've seen in the last 10 years is fewer and fewer players coming to the net. Federer virtually gave up on serve-volley/net-charging when Hewitt owned him. The only way for Federer to beat Hewitt was by sticking to the baseline. It worked, but Federer decided to stay at the baseline vs everyone else too. If only we had Goran, Sampras and Rafter in the last 10 years....

Nadal is the revolutionary of the 21st century. Nadal is the player who lifted tennis to a level beyond anything we've seen before. The physicality Nadal brought to tennis has changed it forever. Just ask Agassi. And of course we've never seen a forehand like Nadal's lasso forehand. Though nobody will be able to copy that. Nadal's backhand running passing shots are unmatched today, another example of pushing tennis to the physical limits. And Djokovic followed him to those limits and they will push each other to even greater levels over the coming years.

vernonbc
03-11-2012, 12:58 AM
Nadal is the revolutionary of the 21st century. Nadal is the player who lifted tennis to a level beyond anything we've seen before. The physicality Nadal brought to tennis has changed it forever. Just ask Agassi. And of course we've never seen a forehand like Nadal's lasso forehand. Though nobody will be able to copy that. Nadal's backhand running passing shots are unmatched today, another example of pushing tennis to the physical limits. And Djokovic followed him to those limits and they will push each other to even greater levels over the coming years.
Yep.

Nadal will be remembered for his incredible athleticism and Federer will be remembered for pulling amazing shots that most would only try on a practice court like that one insane forehand in the 2004 USO final where Federer hit it ridiculously short and it double bounced before Hewitt could get it.
Nadal will be remembered for his incredible athleticism AND his amazing shots. Like this one against Fed at this year's AO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAP2Gn2NqcI

Or this running FDTL against Berdych:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc3ZCwq8Hk0&feature=relmfu

Or this banana shot against Kholschreiber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4Ahm-6CU0

Or this forehand against Verdasco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuXsWt53cHs

I could go through YouTube and find hundreds of amazing, insane shots from Nadal just as you could find many from Federer. Those of you who refuse to acknowledge Nadal's fabulous tennis playing ability and incredible shots are just being petty and spiteful. It doesn't matter if you prefer Federer's style and I prefer Nadal's but you should at least try to be fair and realistic about the fact that Nadal is an absolutely marvelous tennis player too.

Rozroz
03-11-2012, 01:18 AM
best Nadal shot EVER. tops Fed in every way possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJtBsnehFZs&feature=relmfu

zagor
03-11-2012, 08:21 AM
Nadal will be remembered for his incredible athleticism AND his amazing shots. Like this one against Fed at this year's AO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAP2Gn2NqcI

Or this running FDTL against Berdych:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc3ZCwq8Hk0&feature=relmfu

Or this banana shot against Kholschreiber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4Ahm-6CU0

Or this forehand against Verdasco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuXsWt53cHs

I could go through YouTube and find hundreds of amazing, insane shots from Nadal just as you could find many from Federer. Those of you who refuse to acknowledge Nadal's fabulous tennis playing ability and incredible shots are just being petty and spiteful. It doesn't matter if you prefer Federer's style and I prefer Nadal's but you should at least try to be fair and realistic about the fact that Nadal is an absolutely marvelous tennis player too.

Have to agree, I always considered Nadal to be one of the best shotmakers on tour despite his grinder mentality. His actual talent is underrated IMO, even among a number of his fans.

celoft
03-11-2012, 08:27 AM
Unlikely. Maybe jealous people.

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 08:37 AM
Where is the proof of that? All we've seen in the last 10 years is fewer and fewer players coming to the net. Federer virtually gave up on serve-volley/net-charging when Hewitt owned him. The only way for Federer to beat Hewitt was by sticking to the baseline. It worked, but Federer decided to stay at the baseline vs everyone else too. If only we had Goran, Sampras and Rafter in the last 10 years....

Nadal is the revolutionary of the 21st century. Nadal is the player who lifted tennis to a level beyond anything we've seen before. The physicality Nadal brought to tennis has changed it forever. Just ask Agassi. And of course we've never seen a forehand like Nadal's lasso forehand. Though nobody will be able to copy that. Nadal's backhand running passing shots are unmatched today, another example of pushing tennis to the physical limits. And Djokovic followed him to those limits and they will push each other to even greater levels over the coming years.

Oy vey..
Logic is not one of your strong suits, is it.

WHY do you think Nadal took the game to the level he did? There was a guy named FEDERER in his way..it's long been discussed that rafa would've been number 1 for a longer period of time had Federer not had such a stranglehold on the ranking... and Nadal had to continually work at raising his game until it was finally good enough to take number 1 from Fed in 2008. No fed, he has no one to chase from 2006 on, and so who's to say he raises his game to the levels of 2008? No reason to assume he'd have been able to if he was already number 1, as we've seen both times he's BEEN number one he overplays and burns himself out trying to hold it.

But, I suspect you'll say that even though he was clearly raising his level to match Federer's, that Federer somehow didn't make that happen by being the most dominant number 1 in history.

Or some other BS about it being a weak field despite Rafa being unable to dominate it himself.

Gorecki
03-11-2012, 08:38 AM
Nadal is the revolutionary of the 21st century. Nadal is the player who lifted tennis to a level beyond anything we've seen before. The physicality Nadal brought to tennis has changed it forever. Just ask Agassi. And of course we've never seen a forehand like Nadal's lasso forehand. Though nobody will be able to copy that. Nadal's backhand running passing shots are unmatched today, another example of pushing tennis to the physical limits. And Djokovic followed him to those limits and they will push each other to even greater levels over the coming years.



http://redfizz.com/rf/usrimg12345%5C8330.jpg

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-11-2012, 08:40 AM
Oy vey..
Logic is not one of your strong suits, is it.

WHY do you think Nadal took the game to the level he did? There was a guy named FEDERER in his way..it's long been discussed that rafa would've been number 1 for a longer period of time had Federer not had such a stranglehold on the ranking... and Nadal had to continually work at raising his game until it was finally good enough to take number 1 from Fed in 2008. No fed, he has no one to chase from 2006 on, and so who's to say he raises his game to the levels of 2008? No reason to assume he'd have been able to if he was already number 1, as we've seen both times he's BEEN number one he overplays and burns himself out trying to hold it.

But, I suspect you'll say that even though he was clearly raising his level to match Federer's, that Federer somehow didn't make that happen by being the most dominant number 1 in history.

Or some other BS about it being a weak field despite Rafa being unable to dominate it himself.

Federer was only 'in Nadal's way' on grass. And Nadal had only played 4 grassccourt matches before 2006, so it was no surprise :lol:

Nadal only ever lost 1 match on outdoor hardcourts to Federer. And dominated Federer on clay. So Federer wasn't 'in Nadal's way'. Nadal began his career even more physical than he plays today. It had nothing to do with Federer. If Federer never came along, Nadal would still have been reliant on brilliant athleticism. Would still be using a lasso forehand etc.

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 08:48 AM
Federer was only 'in Nadal's way' on grass. And Nadal had only played 4 grassccourt matches before 2006, so it was no surprise :lol:

Nadal only ever lost 1 match on outdoor hardcourts to Federer. And dominated Federer on clay. So Federer wasn't 'in Nadal's way'. Nadal began his career even more physical than he plays today. It had nothing to do with Federer. If Federer never came along, Nadal would still have been reliant on brilliant athleticism. Would still be using a lasso forehand etc.

Uh, yeah. congratulations on stating the obvious. You still didn't address the fact that in order to be number one/win wimbledon, Nadal's two greatest goals, he had to go through Federer AT Wimbledon, which he didn't do until 2008.

He would probably have beaten anyone BUT Federer in 2007 Wimbledon, but because Federer was in the way, he had to raise his level further to take what he wanted most.

Or don't you understand that? LOL.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-11-2012, 08:53 AM
Uh, yeah. congratulations on stating the obvious. You still didn't address the fact that in order to be number one/win wimbledon, Nadal's two greatest goals, he had to go through Federer AT Wimbledon, which he didn't do until 2008.

He would probably have beaten anyone BUT Federer in 2007 Wimbledon, but because Federer was in the way, he had to raise his level further to take what he wanted most.

Or don't you understand that? LOL.

You ignore my point, that Nadal revolutionized the game more than anyone, because of his physicality. Nadal didn't "UP" his physicality to beat Federer at Wimbledon. Nadal had that physicality from the beginning. All Nadal did different in 2008 was learn how to play on grass. He couldn't learn with just 2 years of experience obviously. So the qualities that made Nadal special, his physical game, would have existed regardless of whether Federer was born or not.

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 08:56 AM
You ignore my point, that Nadal revolutionized the game more than anyone, because of his physicality. Nadal didn't "UP" his physicality to beat Federer at Wimbledon. Nadal had that physicality from the beginning. All Nadal did different in 2008 was learn how to play on grass. He couldn't learn with just 2 years of experience obviously. So the qualities that made Nadal special, his physical game, would have existed regardless of whether Federer was born or not.

Uh, again, No. There's been PLENTY of guys who focused heavily on the physical aspect of the game before Nadal. He didn't 'revolutionize' anything. Except that silly reverse forehand.

Rozroz
03-11-2012, 08:57 AM
You ignore my point, that Nadal revolutionized the game more than anyone, because of his physicality. Nadal didn't "UP" his physicality to beat Federer at Wimbledon. Nadal had that physicality from the beginning. All Nadal did different in 2008 was learn how to play on grass. He couldn't learn with just 2 years of experience obviously. So the qualities that made Nadal special, his physical game, would have existed regardless of whether Federer was born or not.

physical shmysical...
not such a big "revolution"- Connors did that already.
anything else?

abmk
03-11-2012, 09:19 AM
You ignore my point, that Nadal revolutionized the game more than anyone, because of his physicality. Nadal didn't "UP" his physicality to beat Federer at Wimbledon. Nadal had that physicality from the beginning. All Nadal did different in 2008 was learn how to play on grass. He couldn't learn with just 2 years of experience obviously. So the qualities that made Nadal special, his physical game, would have existed regardless of whether Federer was born or not.

no, clueless. He didn't revolutionize game through his physicality. The likes of borg, vilas, lendl, muster etc did it MUCH before him - they knew and did play physical game as and when required !

Gorecki
03-11-2012, 09:51 AM
how strange that Bulzilla is so resembling to King of Aces...

but compare that to Nadals and you dont have near the intensity and ferociousness of his forehand.

Nadals bull whip is far more extreme.

What I meant is TonI & Nadal invented hitting the reverse forehand regularly.


Nadal is naturally right-handed. But early on, Toni decided his protégé should play with his left hand to impart unusual southpaw spin. Toni then encouraged, or perhaps failed to correct, the extreme grip Nadal uses, and the unusual way he swings his racquet.

Nadal created quite a few RPMs against

TahoeTennis
03-11-2012, 10:41 AM
Funny post actually. Those that truly hate Fed's game also hate the Beatles. Even though both are GOAT and the haters must recognize that none before or after will be as great/influential/remembered.
I'm not a personal fan of Fed, but his game is pure grace.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 10:42 AM
Yep.


Nadal will be remembered for his incredible athleticism AND his amazing shots. Like this one against Fed at this year's AO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAP2Gn2NqcI

Or this running FDTL against Berdych:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc3ZCwq8Hk0&feature=relmfu

Or this banana shot against Kholschreiber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4Ahm-6CU0

Or this forehand against Verdasco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuXsWt53cHs

I could go through YouTube and find hundreds of amazing, insane shots from Nadal just as you could find many from Federer. Those of you who refuse to acknowledge Nadal's fabulous tennis playing ability and incredible shots are just being petty and spiteful. It doesn't matter if you prefer Federer's style and I prefer Nadal's but you should at least try to be fair and realistic about the fact that Nadal is an absolutely marvelous tennis player too.

Agreed. To pretend Nadal doesn't make amazing gets and only moonballs is beyond inane.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 10:47 AM
Oy vey..
Logic is not one of your strong suits, is it.

WHY do you think Nadal took the game to the level he did? There was a guy named FEDERER in his way..it's long been discussed that rafa would've been number 1 for a longer period of time had Federer not had such a stranglehold on the ranking... and Nadal had to continually work at raising his game until it was finally good enough to take number 1 from Fed in 2008. No fed, he has no one to chase from 2006 on, and so who's to say he raises his game to the levels of 2008? No reason to assume he'd have been able to if he was already number 1, as we've seen both times he's BEEN number one he overplays and burns himself out trying to hold it.

But, I suspect you'll say that even though he was clearly raising his level to match Federer's, that Federer somehow didn't make that happen by being the most dominant number 1 in history.

Or some other BS about it being a weak field despite Rafa being unable to dominate it himself.

Nadal was at a level to beat Fed when they first met on a tennis court and at that time he was a strict clay courter. He raised his game to elevate his game to other surfaces. How has Nadal emulated anything from Federer. He has his own unique style since the day he came onto the scene.

Federer has been one of the most dominant #1's in history, but from the time Nadal came on the scene he has been unique, and still is.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 10:48 AM
Federer was only 'in Nadal's way' on grass. And Nadal had only played 4 grassccourt matches before 2006, so it was no surprise :lol:

Nadal only ever lost 1 match on outdoor hardcourts to Federer. And dominated Federer on clay. So Federer wasn't 'in Nadal's way'. Nadal began his career even more physical than he plays today. It had nothing to do with Federer. If Federer never came along, Nadal would still have been reliant on brilliant athleticism. Would still be using a lasso forehand etc.

Absolutely.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 10:50 AM
Uh, yeah. congratulations on stating the obvious. You still didn't address the fact that in order to be number one/win wimbledon, Nadal's two greatest goals, he had to go through Federer AT Wimbledon, which he didn't do until 2008.

He would probably have beaten anyone BUT Federer in 2007 Wimbledon, but because Federer was in the way, he had to raise his level further to take what he wanted most.

Or don't you understand that? LOL.

Did you forget that Nadal had no experience on grass and still took sets against Federer in his infancy? The third time was the charm in the 2008 final, the greatest match ever. That was once he gained the experience.

Surely, you can see that. :confused:.

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 10:53 AM
Nadal was at a level to beat Fed when they first met on a tennis court and at that time he was a strict clay courter. He raised his game to elevate his game to other surfaces. How has Nadal emulated anything from Federer. He has his own unique style since the day he came onto the scene.

Federer has been one of the most dominant #1's in history, but from the time Nadal came on the scene he has been unique, and still is.

I didn't say Nadal emulated federer, but rather was forced to raise his game to be number 1. I didn't say he had to raise his game to beat Fed, since obviously he was doing it right from the get go, but rather he had to match Federer's overall level of play against the field in order to become number one; my point was that because of how dominant Federer was, Nadal had to chase him for a longer period than anyone else in history *hence the longest period of time at number 2 ever.

I recognize Nadal has a unique game, but I'd say the only thing he's really revolutionized is being able to defend all day long, but also be able to turn that defense immediately to attack, something only Djokovic currently does better.

But ********* constantly claimed Nadal's physicality is revolutionary, which is simply not true, as you've got guys like Borg, Lendl and Agassi who all focused tremendously on being at the absolute maximum level of fitness.

But Nadal had to raise his game to overtake Federer, because Federer himself had raised the bar to a new level by being so dominant, and so Nadal, who probably wouldve been number one by summer of 07 if he was in a race with anyone OTHER than Federer, was forced to work extremely hard to get the two things he wanted most, namely the top ranking and Wimbledon.

That's why I believe Rafa may never have become as good of a player as he is without Federer, and this is the point I was trying to make.

abmk
03-11-2012, 10:55 AM
^^

too much logic in that post. Not allowed on TTW :mrgreen:

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 11:07 AM
I didn't say Nadal emulated federer, but rather was forced to raise his game to be number 1. I didn't say he had to raise his game to beat Fed, since obviously he was doing it right from the get go, but rather he had to match Federer's overall level of play against the field in order to become number one; my point was that because of how dominant Federer was, Nadal had to chase him for a longer period than anyone else in history *hence the longest period of time at number 2 ever.

I recognize Nadal has a unique game, but I'd say the only thing he's really revolutionized is being able to defend all day long, but also be able to turn that defense immediately to attack, something only Djokovic currently does better.

But ********* constantly claimed Nadal's physicality is revolutionary, which is simply not true, as you've got guys like Borg, Lendl and Agassi who all focused tremendously on being at the absolute maximum level of fitness.

But Nadal had to raise his game to overtake Federer, because Federer himself had raised the bar to a new level by being so dominant, and so Nadal, who probably wouldve been number one by summer of 07 if he was in a race with anyone OTHER than Federer, was forced to work extremely hard to get the two things he wanted most, namely the top ranking and Wimbledon.That's why I believe Rafa may never have become as good of a player as he is without Federer, and this is the point I was trying to make.

Oh, OK. Now that you've explained it I see where you're coming from. But, this is not what I was commenting to. Your previous post was vague, but now I understand what you meant to say.

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 11:12 AM
Oh, OK. Now that you've explained it I see where you're coming from. But, this is not what I was commenting to. Your previous post was vague, but now I understand what you meant to say.

It's not a big deal, I probably should've elaborated. I just tend to speak as plainly as possible with *********, because typing it out as i've just done is largely a waste of time with him.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 11:19 AM
It's not a big deal, I probably should've elaborated. I just tend to speak as plainly as possible with *********, because typing it out as i've just done is largely a waste of time with him.

Not a problem. I do it all the time, too. You know what you mean in your mind and sometimes you don't translate all the thoughts on paper. I like to hear how people come to their conclusions. It's interesting, and in the end none of this really matters.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-11-2012, 11:55 AM
Yep.


Nadal will be remembered for his incredible athleticism AND his amazing shots. Like this one against Fed at this year's AO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAP2Gn2NqcI

Or this running FDTL against Berdych:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc3ZCwq8Hk0&feature=relmfu

Or this banana shot against Kholschreiber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4Ahm-6CU0

Or this forehand against Verdasco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuXsWt53cHs

I could go through YouTube and find hundreds of amazing, insane shots from Nadal just as you could find many from Federer. Those of you who refuse to acknowledge Nadal's fabulous tennis playing ability and incredible shots are just being petty and spiteful. It doesn't matter if you prefer Federer's style and I prefer Nadal's but you should at least try to be fair and realistic about the fact that Nadal is an absolutely marvelous tennis player too.

Of course Nadal is an incredible tennis player. None the less, Nadal will be remembered for his physical ability allowing him to get to those balls. When I talking about crazy shots I am talking about ones like the last shot in this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=OCo4eC7Vz_8#t=1m16s

When people look back they will look at a lot of astonishing shots from both, but they will still look at Nadal's athleticism as the main strength of his game.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-11-2012, 11:57 AM
You ignore my point, that Nadal revolutionized the game more than anyone, because of his physicality. Nadal didn't "UP" his physicality to beat Federer at Wimbledon. Nadal had that physicality from the beginning. All Nadal did different in 2008 was learn how to play on grass. He couldn't learn with just 2 years of experience obviously. So the qualities that made Nadal special, his physical game, would have existed regardless of whether Federer was born or not.

Nadal revolutionized the going at 110% to beat Federer and burning out. Evidence is there. 2008 and then boom injury in 09. Can't argue with logic Steerzillz part deuce.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-11-2012, 11:59 AM
Agreed. To pretend Nadal doesn't make amazing gets and only moonballs is beyond inane.

That actually supports what I was saying. Thanks for helping. Nadal will be remembered for his athleticism rather than his shotmaking.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 12:03 PM
That actually supports what I was saying. Thanks for helping. Nadal will be remembered for his athleticism rather than his shotmaking.

Guess we'll have to go into the future to see how today's exploits are measured.

See you there!

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-11-2012, 12:05 PM
Guess we'll have to go into the future to see how today's exploits are measured.

See you there!

Shall I meet you at Doc Brown's house? :)

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 12:10 PM
Shall I meet you at Doc Brown's house? :)

Come on over, we're havin a few beers; need some fuel after all!

TennezSport
03-11-2012, 12:19 PM
Once again a topic gets reduced to a ridiculous comparison for Fed and Nads, it's like comparing diamonds to fire wood.

Feds game is a mutifaceted talented game that cannot be taught, just fine tuned, it's natural. The problem with this sort of game is too many options and takes longer to get control of. Fed even at the age of 30 still has the pure talent, grace and ability to challange the field with fluidity.

Rafa's game is a one dimentional game that is highly practiced. The good thing about this sort of game is that there are not many options and therfore little to go wrong. Add Rafa's mental toughness and you have a winning combination. Rafa based his game in percentage tennis (nothing new there) with an emphasis on spin and speed (first used in the 1920's by Walter Wingate; the buggywhip, lasso hehehe ) . It's his mental toughness that wins him matches because he never gives in, which frustrates his opponents in errors. The physical part was pioneered by Vilas, Lendl, Muster and Courier long before Rafa so nothing new there. Check Rafa stats and you will find low number of winners but a high number of UEs from his opponents; percentage game based on mental toughness. Also, playing left handed helps along with the poly strings. Take the poly string away and there is no Rafa.

Another way to look at it is players with natural talents are rarely injured because they more well within the bodies ability, maximizing the outcome. Players with less ability are consistently muscling the ball and tend to develop injuries because they are playing outside of their bodies ability. There are far more players who play in the second method.

Look what hapens to Rafa when you take away the high bouncing spin option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JusXFp4mE7M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIMvd-318tc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUt3RbdxhCk

I know this is going to tick a number of you off but it's the pure facts without emotion or hype up speak from fans. Technically Fed is far superior, even Rafa knows this and stated it many times, end of story.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 12:24 PM
Shall I meet you at Doc Brown's house? :)

Nah. Doc's pretty weird. Meet me at the big clock in town.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 12:27 PM
Strangely, Tsonga has spent more time off with injuries than Rafa.

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 12:28 PM
Strangely, Tsonga has spent more time off with injuries than Rafa.

Some people just get unlucky with injuries; Tsonga is a big guy with alot of weight on his frame, and that means he's more susceptible to injuries than Rafa.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 12:32 PM
Some people just get unlucky with injuries; Tsonga is a big guy with alot of weight on his frame, and that means he's more susceptible to injuries than Rafa.

Agree. It has very little to do with "talent." Ergo, Haas, who isn't a big guy, or Malisse who also has spent a large time off the tour due to injuries.

Cup8489
03-11-2012, 01:01 PM
Agree. It has very little to do with "talent." Ergo, Haas, who isn't a big guy, or Malisse who also has spent a large time off the tour due to injuries.

Ah, poor Haas :(

Rock Strongo
03-11-2012, 02:01 PM
I hate Fed's game AT TIMES cause my heart is usually in my mouth. :(

I'm deeply concerned for you. You should really check with a doctor. Last time that happened to me I almost bit through my heart.

jackson vile
03-11-2012, 02:14 PM
You mean a reality check, sports are not serious business for observers.


I'm deeply concerned for you. You should really check with a doctor. Last time that happened to me I almost bit through my heart.

Fate Archer
03-16-2012, 12:39 AM
Nadal was at a level to beat Fed when they first met on a tennis court and at that time he was a strict clay courter. He raised his game to elevate his game to other surfaces. How has Nadal emulated anything from Federer. He has his own unique style since the day he came onto the scene.

Federer has been one of the most dominant #1's in history, but from the time Nadal came on the scene he has been unique, and still is.

Well, to be accurate, there are elements on Nadal's technique that resemble Federer's somewhat. Though I don't expect you or most of the feminine Nadal fandom that probably doesn't have much experience playing or studying the sport to be aware of this.

Nadal hits with an extended or straight arm on his forehand, that can be better observed when he finishes across his body.

Federer came earlier and has been one of the main proponents of this technique.

Uncle Toni also has mentioned that they studied Federer's footwork on grass at some point or something of the same effect.

Aside from technicalities, and more to the point, Federer has raised the game to a certain standard of dominance that Nadal and then Djokovic nowadays have tried to aim themselves.
Fed basically pushed the game to a standard hardly if not ever seen. Nadal and Djokovic followed his lead.

Did you forget that Nadal had no experience on grass and still took sets against Federer in his infancy? The third time was the charm in the 2008 final, the greatest match ever. That was once he gained the experience.

Surely, you can see that. :confused:.

This is myth perpetuated by many Nadal fans for a long time.

Lets debunk this.

First time Nadal played on grass that I'm aware of was at the Junior's Wimbledon Championships in 2002 and he made the semifinal there already. That's not bad at all for a junior playing on grass for the first time on a competitive tournament.

At this interview he mentions that although he doesn't dislike clay, he used to like even better grass and some fast courts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib2DQLtCfCo&feature=related#t=4m59

Next time he plays a competitive grass court tourney he is playing in the main draw of Wimbledon in 2003, beating a player of a very good grass pedigree in Mario Ancic on the very first round. He advanced on his next round and then proceeded to lose to Paradorn Srichapan in straights.

For some reason he skipped Wimbledon on the next year, 2004, but played again in 2005, winning convincingly his first round but falling on the next against Gilles Muller, who can be a dangerous player on grass.

2006 was the year he made his first final and seemingly what many Nadal fans perceive as Nadal's first try at Wimbledon. This notion that Nadal never played on grass or had any experience on grass prior 2005-2006 is a false one. Given that grass is a very rare surface on tour, his profile shows that he had enough match experience in competitive tournaments by the time he made his first final, and even more surprising, some very unexpected results early on, like making a semifinal on one of the firsts, if not THE first competitive grass court tournament he ever played and even advancing to the 3rd or second rounds of the main Wimbledon draw already, beating Mario Ancic on the way of his 3rd round exit, which is a very good result for a then nobody on grass. How many young players advance to the 2nd or even 3rd round of a GS on their 1st or 2nd tries?

No one would have guessed, but looking retrospectively, the signs of a good grass courter were there, hidden, in some of his early results.

When he won in 2008 he said something of the effect that he always liked grass too. Fact is, he has been competing in a draw of the Wimbledon Championships as early as 2002, missing only 2004.

Anyway, this myth has come a long way and hopefully this will be informative.

Eternity
03-16-2012, 12:53 AM
No one would have guessed, but looking retrospectively, the signs of a good grass courter were there, hidden, in some of his early results.


He actually talked about this a couple of days ago:

Q. If I could, your ability to go from Roland Garros to grass and Wimbledon, is that something that you're particularly proud of that you were able to make that transition in your game and triumph?
RAFAEL NADAL: But I will tell you something on that. Sure, I am happy that I improved my game on grass, but don't forget that the people who always said that I will be in trouble on grass probably are you. (Laughter.)
Because I played in grass in 2002 probably, the juniors, having two years less with 16 years old, and I did the semifinals with good chance to be in the finals. Was on grass and not on clay.
I did Wimbledon semifinal with two years less, and the first Grand Slam that I played, if I don't remember bad, was Wimbledon was 2003, and I won against grass court specialist like Mario Ancic the first round. I win against Lee second round from England, so they know how to play on grass.
So I did the third round with 17 years old, so wasn't bad result. So that means that my level on grass and my ability to play on grass wasn't a disaster when I started on the this tour.
So that's true I improved my serve to play better on grass; that's true that I am able to play more aggressive, to slice better, to go to the net better than before; but one of the most important things on grass is the movement, and probably in 2003 I had fantastic movements, too.
So I understand how to play the grass, and most important thing is believe that you can do it well there and enjoy the surface and understand the surface. Don't go against the surface. If the surface says that you have to play aggressive, you have to play aggressive.
But nothing crazy, because at the end of the day you have your game so you can do something ‑‑ I don't gonna go to grass and play serve and volley because it's not my game. I will do it, yeah, five more times than in the rest of the surfaces, yes. But not every time.
And that's something that in the past probably or today some players forget. You have to do your game understanding how to play that surface.
But most important thing is believe that you gonna do it well there, and enjoy the feeling.

Fate Archer
03-16-2012, 01:07 AM
^ Fantastic, that's a great excerpt to reinforce the point.

Thanks for bringing it up, I was not aware of this excerpt, and it's essentially what I was trying to convey.

Much better coming from Nadal's own mouth than some random forum poster I guess.

DragonBlaze
03-16-2012, 01:23 AM
^ Fantastic, that's a great excerpt to reinforce the point.

Thanks for bringing it up, I was not aware of this excerpt, and it's essentially what I was trying to convey.

Much better coming from Nadal's own mouth than some random forum poster I guess.

It's amazing how you said pretty much the exact same thing Nadal did. Well researched post that one!

Eternity
03-16-2012, 01:27 AM
It's amazing how you said pretty much the exact same thing Nadal did. Well researched post that one!

Yes it is. Fate Archer's post reminded me of that interview I had read earlier.

monfed
03-16-2012, 01:42 AM
It's unimaginable for a tennis player to hate Fed's game. But you know there are always exceptions. :lol:

Nathaniel_Near
03-16-2012, 01:45 AM
Andy Roddick?

Feather
03-16-2012, 03:48 AM
If you don't like Fed, you don't like tennis in its purest form. Period.

I agree !

10chars

Feather
03-16-2012, 04:22 AM
Once again a topic gets reduced to a ridiculous comparison for Fed and Nads, it's like comparing diamonds to fire wood.

Feds game is a mutifaceted talented game that cannot be taught, just fine tuned, it's natural. The problem with this sort of game is too many options and takes longer to get control of. Fed even at the age of 30 still has the pure talent, grace and ability to challange the field with fluidity.

Rafa's game is a one dimentional game that is highly practiced. The good thing about this sort of game is that there are not many options and therfore little to go wrong. Add Rafa's mental toughness and you have a winning combination. Rafa based his game in percentage tennis (nothing new there) with an emphasis on spin and speed (first used in the 1920's by Walter Wingate; the buggywhip, lasso hehehe ) . It's his mental toughness that wins him matches because he never gives in, which frustrates his opponents in errors. The physical part was pioneered by Vilas, Lendl, Muster and Courier long before Rafa so nothing new there. Check Rafa stats and you will find low number of winners but a high number of UEs from his opponents; percentage game based on mental toughness. Also, playing left handed helps along with the poly strings. Take the poly string away and there is no Rafa.

Another way to look at it is players with natural talents are rarely injured because they more well within the bodies ability, maximizing the outcome. Players with less ability are consistently muscling the ball and tend to develop injuries because they are playing outside of their bodies ability. There are far more players who play in the second method.

Look what hapens to Rafa when you take away the high bouncing spin option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JusXFp4mE7M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIMvd-318tc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUt3RbdxhCk

I know this is going to tick a number of you off but it's the pure facts without emotion or hype up speak from fans. Technically Fed is far superior, even Rafa knows this and stated it many times, end of story.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

Fantastic, loved it a lot

TheTruth
03-17-2012, 01:30 AM
Well, to be accurate, there are elements on Nadal's technique that resemble Federer's somewhat.

Not to me.

Though I don't expect you or most of the feminine Nadal fandom that probably doesn't have much experience playing or studying the sport to be aware of this.

No comment.

Nadal hits with an extended or straight arm on his forehand, that can be better observed when he finishes across his body.

Federer came earlier and has been one of the main proponents of this technique.

Uncle Toni also has mentioned that they studied Federer's footwork on grass at some point or something of the same effect.

Studying it doesn't mean you emulated it. You could be analyzing it for strategic purposes.

Aside from technicalities, and more to the point, Federer has raised the game to a certain standard of dominance that Nadal and then Djokovic nowadays have tried to aim themselves.

I disagree, Nadal was a tennis prodigy in his early youth, long before Federer became dominant. Surely as he began his dream Federer could not have been first and foremost on his mind. Once he came on tour, you have no choice but to chase the leader if you want to excel, so I don't buy into that theory at all.

Fed basically pushed the game to a standard hardly if not ever seen. Nadal and Djokovic followed his lead.


This is myth perpetuated by many Nadal fans for a long time.
Lets debunk this.

Nadal fans did not start this. This was heavily reported all over the web when Nadal first announced his desire to win Wimbledon (his lack of grass pedigree). For this reason many people thought Nada would never win Wimbledon, even old posts on TTW will attest to this sentiment.

First time Nadal played on grass that I'm aware of was at the Junior's Wimbledon Championships in 2002 and he made the semifinal there already. That's not bad at all for a junior playing on grass for the first time on a competitive tournament.

At this interview he mentions that although he doesn't dislike clay, he used to like even better grass and some fast courts.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib2DQLtCfCo&feature=related#t=4m59

I know that too.

Next time he plays a competitive grass court tourney he is playing in the main draw of Wimbledon in 2003, beating a player of a very good grass pedigree in Mario Ancic on the very first round. He advanced on his next round and then proceeded to lose to Paradorn Srichapan in straights.

For some reason he skipped Wimbledon on the next year, 2004, but played again in 2005, winning convincingly his first round but falling on the next against Gilles Muller, who can be a dangerous player on grass.

2006 was the year he made his first final and seemingly what many Nadal fans perceive as Nadal's first try at Wimbledon. This notion that Nadal never played on grass or had any experience on grass prior 2005-2006 is a false one.

People who watched tennis knew all this, but playing a junior tournament in 2002, going three rounds in 2003, skipping Wimbledon in 2004, 2nd matches in 2005 before making your first final does not constitute a grass pedigree, imo. We'll simply have to disagee because I feel that you're actually proving my point.

Given that grass is a very rare surface on tour, his profile shows that he had enough match experience in competitive tournaments by the time he made his first final, and even more surprising, some very unexpected results early on, like making a semifinal on one of the firsts, if not THE first competitive grass court tournament he ever played and even advancing to the 3rd or second rounds of the main Wimbledon draw already, beating Mario Ancic on the way of his 3rd round exit, which is a very good result for a then nobody on grass. How many young players advance to the 2nd or even 3rd round of a GS on their 1st or 2nd tries?

He was a tennis prodigy. Lleyton did some pretty impressive things as a teenager too.

No one would have guessed, but looking retrospectively, the signs of a good grass courter were there, hidden, in some of his early results.

When he won in 2008 he said something of the effect that he always liked grass too. Fact is, he has been competing in a draw of the Wimbledon Championships as early as 2002, missing only 2004.

Anyway, this myth has come a long way and hopefully this will be informative.

I respectfully disagree with your entire post. I have been watching tennis for a long time and am a voracious reader to boot. I actually spend more time reading about tennis than I do watching it. Nothing in your post is new to me. Tennis for me didn't begin with Nadal and Federer my tennis viewership came many years before they even came on the scene.

Cup8489
03-17-2012, 06:28 AM
I respectfully disagree with your entire post. I have been watching tennis for a long time and am a voracious reader to boot. I actually spend more time reading about tennis than I do watching it. Nothing in your post is new to me. Tennis for me didn't begin with Nadal and Federer my tennis viewership came many years before they even came on the scene.

truthfully, there's no way to respond to your post. Nothing you said really makes any sense, particularly your statement that you could study the footwork but not emulate it.

Federer is one of the best at court positioning on grass, and Nadal definitely worked to emulate similar positioning after the 2006 final. Just because you refuse to accept this doesn't make it untrue, and I'll leave it at that.

W/r to Nadal chasing Federer versus anyone else, I'll give you that he would've had to chase the top player on tour regardless; Fate Archer's post seems to have been completely lost on you. He never said that Nadal knew right from Federer's apperance on tour that he would be so dominant, and it wouldn't matter if he had. The fact is that by the time Nadal became number two in the rankings, Federer was extremely dominant, especially over Wimbledon. So in order for Nadal to gain the two things he wanted most on tour, namely the #1 ranking and a Wimbledon trophy, he had to beat Federer at Wimbledon and match his performances overall vs the field, or surpass him to get the ranking. Since Federer was so dominant, Nadal spent a very long time at number two, many times having enough ranking points that had he played in an era before Federer, he might've already been number one. If you can't understand this, then I've nothing more to say.

w/r to grass pedigree.. What, in your mind DOES constitute a grass pedigree? Nadal himself said he was a good player on the surface and figured out how to win on it long before his first final, and you still can't accept it?

hoodjem
03-17-2012, 06:38 AM
Just what i was wondering. Federer is
Praised by Many and his playying style is one of THE reasons for his popularity. He plays agressive, takes balls early and is both smooth and elegant and has all the shots. His current main rivals are often Praised as well but also often criticized for being defensive and physical and spinny rather than purely technical with An offensive mindset.

My question is whether people have criticism of purely watching feds game And what you truly hate about it. Not antics or personality, but does Any tennisfan hate his game and why?I really like his game: the one-handed backhand, the occasional forays to the net, the great footwork, the formerly astounding forehand angles.

But I would never say he "has all the shots."

rommil
03-17-2012, 07:26 AM
One thing I noticed watching Roger live over the years is the variable degree of spin he employed on his shots to get the desired angle and depth to set up for the next shot. For some reasons, it was more noticeable than watching it on TV.

TheTruth
03-17-2012, 10:07 AM
truthfully, there's no way to respond to your post. Nothing you said really makes any sense, particularly your statement that you could study the footwork but not emulate it.

I feel the same way about your post. Nothing you said makes any sense to me as well. Players study tapes of other players all the time, not to emulate but to see tendencies. What's so hard to understand? And why would he can be studying the footwork to emulate it when they both play such different styles? Also, how do you know what other players' tapes he and his team watch in order to determine who Nadal emulates?

Federer is one of the best at court positioning on grass, and Nadal definitely worked to emulate similar positioning after the 2006 final. Just because you refuse to accept this doesn't make it untrue, and I'll leave it at that.

This is your opinion, not a fact.

W/r to Nadal chasing Federer versus anyone else, I'll give you that he would've had to chase the top player on tour regardless; Fate Archer's post seems to have been completely lost on you. He never said that Nadal knew right from Federer's apperance on tour that he would be so dominant, and it wouldn't matter if he had. The fact is that by the time Nadal became number two in the rankings, Federer was extremely dominant, especially over Wimbledon. So in order for Nadal to gain the two things he wanted most on tour, namely the #1 ranking and a Wimbledon trophy, he had to beat Federer at Wimbledon and match his performances overall vs the field, or surpass him to get the ranking.

How does this support your argument? I'm not sure what you're trying to answer here. Prodigies play their own game and that would have happened regardless of who was at the top.

Since Federer was so dominant, Nadal spent a very long time at number two, many times having enough ranking points that had he played in an era before Federer, he might've already been number one. If you can't understand this, then I've nothing more to say.

This doesn't fit in the debate at all. Again, what does this reply to, because it sure isn't in response to the question at hand?

w/r to grass pedigree.. What, in your mind DOES constitute a grass pedigree? Nadal himself said he was a good player on the surface and figured out how to win on it long before his first final, and you still can't accept it?

Did you count the number of matches played that constituted a grass pedigree? Here's an example: Nadal beat Federer the first time they played on hardcourt. He also beat many other players. Did that also give him a hardcourt pedigree, because that's essentially what you're saying. If you played a few tournaments and won about four matches at the tour level, then bingo! You've earned your pedigree :confused:.

joeri888
03-18-2012, 02:14 AM
Did you count the number of matches played that constituted a grass pedigree? Here's an example: Nadal beat Federer the first time they played on hardcourt. He also beat many other players. Did that also give him a hardcourt pedigree, because that's essentially what you're saying. If you played a few tournaments and won about four matches at the tour level, then bingo! You've earned your pedigree :confused:.

How did this thread get to this stuff?


Federer's game was beautiful again last night. Don't think anybody hated his game, but just the fact he won maybe :)

jerriy
03-18-2012, 05:02 AM
Federer's game was beautiful again last night. Don't think anybody hated his gameYou're too naive about the pathology of some strains of the Nadalitis virus and it's effect on the human brain.

SLD76
03-18-2012, 05:16 AM
You're too naive about the pathology of some strains of the Nadalitis virus and it's effect on the human brain.

*slow claps*

lol

Polvorin
03-18-2012, 08:49 AM
Guess we'll have to go into the future to see how today's exploits are measured.

See you there!

To be fair, he made some impressive forehand winners...down a set and 2-5.

I guess it's at that point that he switches out of his usual defend-and-wait-for-errors mode and into agro-world-beater-vamos mode.

Polvorin
03-18-2012, 09:05 AM
Plus it takes more unique and revolutionary talent to play the shots Nadal plays. Federer basically just copied the textbook.


It's kind of sad that Djokovic is better at playing Nadal's game than he is himself. I guess it's not that unique and revolutionary after all...

Which textbook did Fed learn his game from exactly? Agassi's, I suppose (take the ball as early as possible and control the point with a aggressive baseline game)?? But if that is so, how did he end up with a one handed backhand, a mostly defensive return game, the best slice ever played and a tiny racket headsize? No, sir. He not only mastered the textbook, he added his own chapters to it.

Anyway, I'll just finish by saying Nadal's game isn't that much different from Carlos Moya's and Alex Corretja's, except uglier and more effective.

TheTruth
03-18-2012, 04:48 PM
How did this thread get to this stuff?


Federer's game was beautiful again last night. Don't think anybody hated his game, but just the fact he won maybe :)

Fed played awesome. I have no problem saying that. He also played great against del Potro.

My post was related to a poster saying Nadal had a grass pedigree before the 2008 Wimbledon tournament based on 5-6 matches.

To the Bolded:

I hope you're not making an assumption about me. I believe in everybody getting their wins. Federer, Nadal, or anyone else winning or losing doesn't affect me that way. I wish all fans felt that way and could celebrate their fave's without being so mean-spirited, don't you?

Although you're right. Some people do get too attached to their faves.

Cup8489
03-18-2012, 04:52 PM
Did you count the number of matches played that constituted a grass pedigree? Here's an example: Nadal beat Federer the first time they played on hardcourt. He also beat many other players. Did that also give him a hardcourt pedigree, because that's essentially what you're saying. If you played a few tournaments and won about four matches at the tour level, then bingo! You've earned your pedigree :confused:.

I'm not even going to respond to this, you're basically saying what I said myself.

TheTruth
03-18-2012, 04:55 PM
To be fair, he made some impressive forehand winners...down a set and 2-5.

I guess it's at that point that he switches out of his usual defend-and-wait-for-errors mode and into agro-world-beater-vamos mode.

Nadal not beating Federer the other night doesn't bother me. We're in an era where we have the privilege of watching two all time greats go at it. It was good for Fed to get a win because it adds more fuel to the fire. When we get to the place where there's no suspense in their rivalry, that will be the death of a golden era.

Over the years I've learned to appreciate what these two bring to the game (once I myself stepped back from the Rafa vs. Roger debate). But time is slipping away and soon these guys will be gone. I don't know if we'll ever experience quite like what we've been able to witness over the last seven years. I'm trying to be grateful for this period in tennis history.

TheTruth
03-18-2012, 04:58 PM
I'm not even going to respond to this, you're basically saying what I said myself.

No we did not, but it stops here, lol.

Cup8489
03-18-2012, 04:59 PM
No we did not, but it stops here, lol.

Okay, can you clarify for me what you were saying then? I was saying that Nadal had enough grasscourt pedigree to be in the positions he was, just as he had enough hardcourt pedigree to beat Federer the first time they played.

What's your stance on it?

Bjorn99
03-18-2012, 05:38 PM
I like Federer's game generally. I do find the Djokovic and Murray game more aesthetically pleasing (less jerky/"explosive", more fluid and/or flexible), but I realize this is all subjective.


I hate rude people who attack others. But I have to say this is the stupidest thing I have ever read on a sports board ever. MURRAY, fluid? Aesthetically appealing? Have you ever seen him serve or hit a forehand.

I am sorry, but you must like pink polka dot shirts. U have to.

Towser83
03-18-2012, 05:49 PM
Okay, can you clarify for me what you were saying then? I was saying that Nadal had enough grasscourt pedigree to be in the positions he was, just as he had enough hardcourt pedigree to beat Federer the first time they played.

What's your stance on it?

well I have to agree with 2 Wimbledon finals he had enough grass pedigree in 2008. I mean he won RG on his first attempt (so did Wilander) and Becker won Wimbledon in his second year as a pro, having only played something like 9 grass matches as a pro prior to 1985 (and that's only cos the AO was on grass too, otherwise it would have been more like 5) so it's not how much you played on a surface, it's how good you are on it. 2 Wimbledon finals? I'd say good enough.

Towser83
03-18-2012, 05:51 PM
I like Federer's game generally. I do find the Djokovic and Murray game more aesthetically pleasing (less jerky/"explosive", more fluid and/or flexible), but I realize this is all subjective.


I hate rude people who attack others. But I have to say this is the stupidest thing I have ever read on a sports board ever. MURRAY, fluid? Aesthetically appealing? Have you ever seen him serve or hit a forehand.

I am sorry, but you must like pink polka dot shirts. U have to.

yeah I scratched my head over that one too... like saying you like Gene Kelly better than Fred Astaire because Astaire was too explosive and jerky and Kelly was more gracefull and fluid.