PDA

View Full Version : New Federer - Nadal Article


HollerOne5
05-22-2006, 02:54 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=Annw62w2Rnk_9iCgLUG3KSQ4v7YF?slug=reu-federerquotes&prov=reuters&type=lgns

Here's my favorite quote :

"Asked what more he needed to do to beat Nadal, Federer said: "Nothing more. I should have won. I was one shot away."


What a joke - Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda - If Federer should have won, then why didn't he - I'm not a fan of either of these players, and although I do admire Federer's off court demeanor usually, he is really getting to me these days. I know it must be frustrating that he keeps losing to Nadal, but just fess up to it, and stop making excuses and saying you should have won. If that was the case, then Nadal should be saying how he should have won the Miami final in 2005 and be up 6-0 to Federer, but I don't believe he ever said such things. Anyone else annoyed by Federer's recent arrogance?

jamauss
05-22-2006, 03:07 PM
Why do people keep creating these threads? Haven't we beaten this dead horse already?

And why is Federer saying he should have beat Nadal an excuse? I think something like "I got bad line calls" is an excuse. Saying he should have beat him sounds more like he's owning up to the fact that he didn't get the job done. How is this arrogant? It's just the truth.

David L
05-22-2006, 03:56 PM
When you have two consecutive match points, then make two unforced errors on the next two sitters and go on to lose the match, you really should have won. This would be true of anyone, but especially true of a 7 time Grand Slam winner with a reputation for rarely losing in finals. I don't believe Nadal had match points in Miami.

jamauss
05-22-2006, 03:57 PM
When you have two consecutive match points, then make two unforced errors on the next two sitters and go on to lose the match, you really should have won. This would be true of anyone, but especially true of a 7 time Grand Slam winner with a reputation for rarely losing in finals. I don't believe Nadal had matchpoints in Miami.
Exactly. Nice to see some common sense prevail around here.

pswami
05-22-2006, 04:00 PM
Why do people keep creating these threads? Haven't we beaten this dead horse already?

And why is Federer saying he should have beat Nadal an excuse? I think something like "I got bad line calls" is an excuse. Saying he should have beat him sounds more like he's owning up to the fact that he didn't get the job done. How is this arrogant? It's just the truth.
Beat me to it. +1.

Excuses are normally where one brings up something not in his/her control as the main reason he/she did not accomplish something. Federer saying he was one shot away is something he had control over. He admitted that he didn't execute properly.

I don't think it's arrogance. He didn't put down Nadal; didn't say that Nadal isn't good enough to handle him; didn't say that Nadal shouldn't have won any of the other matches they played because Nadal cheated or was coached or had bad line calls, etc. He does respect Nadal, that much is clear.

jamauss
05-22-2006, 04:03 PM
Am I in the opposite bizarro world or something? People actually agreeing that Federer isn't trying to make excuses, just stating the way things are? Wow...

arosen
05-22-2006, 06:18 PM
He called it what it was. He should have closed it with those FH matchpoints, and he admitted it. How much does one have to hate the guy to hold it against him?

superman1
05-22-2006, 06:21 PM
What's he supposed to say? "I shouldn't have won. Nadal deserved it more than me." Of course he should have won, everyone thought he had won. Nadal was hanging on by a thread, and Federer choked under the pressure. Notice that he never said he should have won against Safin, even though he also had a match point in that match. That's because Safin was the dominant player in that match. The match was on his racquet, just like this match was on Fed's racquet.

VamosRafa
05-22-2006, 06:25 PM
The match in Miami last year was on Nadal's racquet, too, but he lost it, even though he was one bad line call away from being up 0-40 on Roger's serve.

But later, he said, that line call didn't make the difference. He admitted he still had chances to win, and didn't do it.

Same thing with Roger in Rome.

He had chances, but didn't convert.

One could have said that after beating Rafa in Miami last year, he had figured Nadal out. But time has proven that they both have a few more tricks up their sleeves.

But one thing we know is that Rafa will go down swinging, and that's the kind of competition Roger isn't used to. "I'm a very confident player now," the Swiss said today. "I know my own game so well that Nadal can't break it down with a few victories against me. I definitely have the tools to dismantle any player." [Daily Telegraph]

So we shall see.

Vamos, Rafa!!!

Tennis_Goodness
05-22-2006, 06:29 PM
Miami wasn't exactly the same thing, Federer played in spurts and although Nadal was playing good, Federer was letting making a lot of stupid errors then started playing like he normally does and that's when he took control.

In Rome, Federer controlled the entire match and should have put it away but in the end could not convert.

I have to say Federer is one of the most confident players i've ever seen. He's like Jordan in that way!

VamosRafa
05-22-2006, 06:37 PM
Miami wasn't exactly the same thing, Federer played in spurts and although Nadal was playing good, Federer was letting making a lot of stupid errors then started playing like he normally does and that's when he took control.

In Rome, Federer controlled the entire match and should have put it away but in the end could not convert.

I have to say Federer is one of the most confident players i've ever seen. He's like Jordan in that way!

But he didn't get the W, just as Rafa didn't a year ago.

And that's what counts.

And I don't think that Roger controlled the whole match in Rome. In fact in the third set it looked as though Rafa may cruise through the rest of it. It turned out to be a real dog fight, but I didn't think until the end of the fourth set that Roger may indeed win. And then he didn't.

tlm
05-22-2006, 06:42 PM
Of course miami wasnt the same,nothing is ever the same when it comes to fed,its always different ya ya ********.

No matter how much he crys+makes up excuses like uncle tony was coaching wa wa its okay because it is sir roger.He can make his egomaniac statements+its okay.

No matter how obvious it is some of the fed fans can justify it.He reminds me of serena,she never really loses either!

FEDEXP
05-22-2006, 06:56 PM
"Of course miami wasnt the same,nothing is ever the same when it comes to fed,its always different ya ya ********.

No matter how much he crys+makes up excuses like uncle tony was coaching wa wa its okay because it is sir roger.He can make his egomaniac statements+its okay.

No matter how obvious it is some of the fed fans can justify it.He reminds me of serena,she never really loses either!"
tlm

Posted like a true amateur....

VamosRafa
05-22-2006, 07:12 PM
"Of course miami wasnt the same,nothing is ever the same when it comes to fed,its always different ya ya ********.

No matter how much he crys+makes up excuses like uncle tony was coaching wa wa its okay because it is sir roger.He can make his egomaniac statements+its okay.

No matter how obvious it is some of the fed fans can justify it.He reminds me of serena,she never really loses either!"
tlm

Posted like a true amateur....

Posted like a true new user. ;-)

Sorry couldn't resist.

lucky leprechaun
05-22-2006, 07:14 PM
Well, don't let someone get two match points on ya, I've never met anybody on any level who's had a match point, let alone two say that he couldn't have won, which apparently is what all you guys want to hear.

Tennis_Goodness
05-22-2006, 07:15 PM
But he didn't get the W, just as Rafa didn't a year ago.

And that's what counts.

And I don't think that Roger controlled the whole match in Rome. In fact in the third set it looked as though Rafa may cruise through the rest of it. It turned out to be a real dog fight, but I didn't think until the end of the fourth set that Roger may indeed win. And then he didn't.

He didn't get the Win in Rome , but the match was still on Federer's raquet in Miami. Federer just raised his game, but in Rome, Federer should have won it and made some errors and his game dropped! The Rome match was on Federer's racquet as well!

VamosRafa
05-22-2006, 07:36 PM
He didn't get the Win in Rome , but the match was still on Federer's raquet in Miami. Federer just raised his game, but in Rome, Federer should have won it and made some errors and his game dropped! The Rome match was on Federer's racquet as well!

I've watched both matches a few more times than you have, perhaps.

Rafa should have won the one in Miami, and Roger should have won the one in Rome. So what. They didn't. And the record is still 5-1 for Rafa.

The key is that they both have showed they are champions. Roger has done it over the past several years, and Rafa has done it over the past year and a half.

Tennis_Goodness
05-22-2006, 07:55 PM
I've watch both of the matches and seen the Miami one quite a few times and Federer should have won that match and he did, and he should have won the Rome match and he didn't.

Yes they are both great champions but in those two matches, the match was on Federer's raquet!

They are not parrell matches and they are also not parrell players. People seem to be afraid to say someone is better then the other, but one is better then other, it's Federer. Just because Nadal won a close match and Federer lost a close match dosen't mean the matches were the same because in both instances, Federer was the one who was in control!

HollerOne5
05-22-2006, 09:24 PM
Miami wasn't exactly the same thing, Federer played in spurts and although Nadal was playing good, Federer was letting making a lot of stupid errors then started playing like he normally does and that's when he took control.

In Rome, Federer controlled the entire match and should have put it away but in the end could not convert.

I have to say Federer is one of the most confident players i've ever seen. He's like Jordan in that way!


I'd hardly call a match that went five sets, and 3 tie-breakers, a match that Federer controlled....what an idiot

HollerOne5
05-22-2006, 09:26 PM
I've watch both of the matches and seen the Miami one quite a few times and Federer should have won that match and he did, and he should have won the Rome match and he didn't.

Yes they are both great champions but in those two matches, the match was on Federer's raquet!

They are not parrell matches and they are also not parrell players. People seem to be afraid to say someone is better then the other, but one is better then other, it's Federer. Just because Nadal won a close match and Federer lost a close match dosen't mean the matches were the same because in both instances, Federer was the one who was in control!


If Federer should have won in Rome, why shouldn't Nadal have won in Miami? Federer had 2 matchpoints in the 5th set tiebreaker in Rome - Nadal had 5-3 in the 3rd set tiebreaker in Miami, already up 2 sets to none - puhleeez

Tennis_Goodness
05-22-2006, 09:32 PM
Federer in both of the matches was in control for most of the match. In Miami he just was shanking shot after shot and Nadal was playing good but when Federer kicked it up a gear, Nadal could not handle it.

In Rome Federer was playing good and Nadal could not do anything about it for the majority of the match. Federer blew some very important points and Nadal too advantage!

The two matches were not alike!

David L
05-22-2006, 09:35 PM
Who cares anyway? It's all academic now.

superman1
05-22-2006, 09:47 PM
The problem is that Federer SHOULD win every match he plays. He has all the tools to do it. Even when he loses, Federer has moments of brilliance that make you wonder why he doesn't always play like that.

But these guys are human, and they can't win everything.

The difference with Miami is that Federer was playing absolutely awful. Nadal is always a constant, it's Federer who you can never be sure about. He was playing well in Rome so he should have won it, but he didn't, so end of story. I don't know why we're not allowed to say "Federer should have won" without someone else saying "but he didn't, it's 5-1, so boohoo." Yeah, we know he didn't...we saw the same damn match.

VamosRafa
05-22-2006, 10:35 PM
The problem is that Federer SHOULD win every match he plays. He has all the tools to do it. Even when he loses, Federer has moments of brilliance that make you wonder why he doesn't always play like that.

But these guys are human, and they can't win everything.

The difference with Miami is that Federer was playing absolutely awful. Nadal is always a constant, it's Federer who you can never be sure about. He was playing well in Rome so he should have won it, but he didn't, so end of story. I don't know why we're not allowed to say "Federer should have won" without someone else saying "but he didn't, it's 5-1, so boohoo." Yeah, we know he didn't...we saw the same damn match.

As Federer himself said,

"I'm a very confident player now," the Swiss said. "I know my own game so well that Nadal can't break it down with a few victories against me. I definitely have the tools to dismantle any player."

Man, it's amazing how he's let some teenage kid get the best of him. I'm sure it won't happen again.

But that teenager is becoming a man himself, and who knows what will happen when he improves parts of his game.

He may lose a match, but he isn't going to hand it it to TMF.

Tennis_Goodness
05-22-2006, 10:39 PM
The problem is that Federer SHOULD win every match he plays. He has all the tools to do it. Even when he loses, Federer has moments of brilliance that make you wonder why he doesn't always play like that.

But these guys are human, and they can't win everything.

The difference with Miami is that Federer was playing absolutely awful. Nadal is always a constant, it's Federer who you can never be sure about. He was playing well in Rome so he should have won it, but he didn't, so end of story. I don't know why we're not allowed to say "Federer should have won" without someone else saying "but he didn't, it's 5-1, so boohoo." Yeah, we know he didn't...we saw the same damn match.

EXACTLY, pretty much every match is up to Federer in a way. He's that good. He's not perfect but he's starting to figure Nadal out and even though Nadal is young, he's not a Federer. He's got one really good style of play and he's not going to become something that he is not!

I don't think it's amazing that Nadal beat Federer. Nadal could become the greatest clay court player of all time and Federer is on the verge of beating him on CLAY. That's just crazy. Nadal is becoming a man, but he is not going to become leaps and bounds better. He does not have an all court game, that's just not the way he was brought up playing!

I really don't think Nadal is the player that is going to knock Federer off of number and take control of tennis. I actually think it will be somebody that will come out of the blue. Somebody with an all court game because if you can't play on every surface and win the big matches, then you will never be able to catch up with Federer.

travlerajm
05-22-2006, 10:49 PM
I saw the Miami match. It was a case of Federer being in better shape than Nadal. But I think Nadal got himself in better shape after that match, and it's paying off this year. Fed and Nadal seem to be equals fitnesswise now.

Tennis_Goodness
05-22-2006, 10:51 PM
Nadal might be a little better fitness wise. It all comes down to there playing styles though and Federer uses much less energy and is a tactician on the court. Nadal is like Agassi or Hewitt in a way, tough, fast, and very phsycial.

superman1
05-22-2006, 10:55 PM
More like a Hewitt. Agassi beats the stuffing out of the ball (but with perfect control) and makes the other guy run around. That's why he's had longevity - he is physically stronger than ever, so he can hit the ball harder and he doesn't have to run as much. If Nadal wants to last long in tennis, he'll have to change his style eventually to save his legs.

antontd
05-22-2006, 10:56 PM
VamosRafa, get a life. I don't know what ****es me off more - Nadal's tennis, Nadal's look, or your maniacal obsession with him.

Tennis_Goodness
05-22-2006, 10:58 PM
Yeah but I don't think Nadal can or will change his style. That's why he is so good. He's quick, powerful, and strong. When you get older you lose alot of that. Agassi is the blacksheep, but even the young Agassi was not this physcial and strong and did this much grinding!

Nadal is looking great right now but I see trouble down the road! More so then any top player right now. If he gets a step slower or loses a little pop, then alot of what makes him good will be gone!

fastdunn
05-22-2006, 11:07 PM
Federer could have answered some questions more politically
like he answered about women's pay at Wimbledon.

I think Federer is trying to be optimistic which does not hurt.

Anyway, Federer seems to be much more vocal about the
match-up between him and Nadal.

The teenager Nadal is the one who is relatively quite and keep
kinda low profile about the whole rivarly thing. Maybe he is
intimidated by Federer ? Or more quiet confidence ?

But it's generally smarter to keep it quiet or low profile
about very anticipated match ups...

VamosRafa
05-22-2006, 11:40 PM
VamosRafa, get a life. I don't know what ****es me off more - Nadal's tennis, Nadal's look, or your maniacal obsession with him.

Take your pick -- makes no matter to me.

Not that there are any Fed obsessed people around here, at all. No way, no how. Just me and my Nadal obsession. *rofl*

In response to fastdunn, Nadal is already in Fed's head, and now Fed is trying to get into Rafa's head.

It's a good ploy on his part, will be interesting to see if it works, or if it backfires. Because Rafa's game may be one-dimensional, but his head isn't. ;-)

Will be interesting to see if Fed's latest comments get Rafa even more fired up. I doubt they will be sending SMS messages to each other any time soon.

antontd
05-23-2006, 01:15 AM
Not that there are any Fed obsessed people around here, at all. No way, no how. Just me and my Nadal obsession. *rofl*


Obviously there are some people obsessed with Federer, but you... you... I think you need to be hospitalized. ;)

unjugon
05-23-2006, 02:56 AM
I think many Fed fans are missing the whole point.

The POINT is that if Rafa -and 90% of players on tour- was in the position of Federer, having had 2 match points and not converting them, he would say at the end: "Federer was the better player on the day". This is, as Fed surely knows judging his answer to the question about pay for women at Wimbledon, a POLITICAL answer.

Fed didnīt say that Nadal was the better player on the day, he freakin said: "I should have won the match".
Now, I am not sure here whether half of you are blind or just biased as hell, but I canīt remember such arrogant comments in the world of sports. Not even ONE compliment for Nadal or Nadalīs play since the Rome final, how long is that? like 10 days... :(

Dunno what type of mind game Fed is playing, but surely he is losing respect all around.

superman1
05-23-2006, 03:04 AM
I don't think it was necessary for him to say that Nadal was better on that day. Federer actually paid him a bigger compliment by having that "I've gotten one step closer" attitude. For him, it goes without saying that Nadal is the best claycourter in the world, but he's getting closer and closer.

Q. Can you talk about your emotions after that match and the experience.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I mean, it was very close, no, I mean, from start til the finish. The result obviously reflects that, too.

Well, I guess it's a big pity for me because I came back well and in the end I should have won. He caught me right on the finish line, so that was a pity in a way.

But, you know, that's all I could do, fight hard and try and play as well as I could. It was a pity in the end.

Q. Did your performance today, Roger, make you think that he's more beatable than you originally thought?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I mean, obviously, I would have liked to win, but I already knew after Monaco I was extremely close. I think this is another step closer because I got even closer to the win today than back then.

So, no, I'm on the right track. I think, again, you know, I improved a few things again for this match. So, yeah, it was good to play him already three times this year. Definitely helps me.

ksbh
05-23-2006, 04:57 AM
And you Antontd, need to get a life or better, learn to write good posts. You haven't made one informative post in this thread but seem content to simply dismiss someone else's views as being obsessive.

The more I read Fed's remarks about Nadal, the more it seems that Nadal has gotten under his skin. All I'm hearing Fed talk about is how he has figured Nadal out and how he can't be broken down. We've heard it and understood it. Move on! All said, it's perhaps the journalists that just keep asking the same questions about Nadal!

Obviously there are some people obsessed with Federer, but you... you... I think you need to be hospitalized. ;)

Brettolius
05-23-2006, 05:12 AM
And you Antontd, need to get a life or better, learn to write good posts. You haven't made one informative post in this thread but seem content to simply dismiss someone else's views as being obsessive.

The more I read Fed's remarks about Nadal, the more it seems that Nadal has gotten under his skin. All I'm hearing Fed talk about is how he has figured Nadal out and how he can't be broken down. We've heard it and understood it. Move on! All said, it's perhaps the journalists that just keep asking the same questions about Nadal!
Hey 23 posts, what's up? Just poppin' in here to tell you that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about and what Antond is referencing.

ksbh
05-23-2006, 05:23 AM
Brett, dear Brett, you do know that this forum allows 'guests' to read without signing up? In other words, someone could be visiting the forum for years without having to sign up.

Maybe now that I've signed up, I should spend the next few weeks propping up my post count, so people like Brett can stop telling me I haven't the faintest idea of what I'm talking about? That's 24 now, by the way! :)

Hey 23 posts, what's up? Just poppin' in here to tell you that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about and what Antond is referencing.

Brettolius
05-23-2006, 06:31 AM
Brett, dear Brett, you do know that this forum allows 'guests' to read without signing up? In other words, someone could be visiting the forum for years without having to sign up.

Maybe now that I've signed up, I should spend the next few weeks propping up my post count, so people like Brett can stop telling me I haven't the faintest idea of what I'm talking about? That's 24 now, by the way! :)

Well then I think that reflects worse on you now, doesn't it? If you've been here long (years?) then you should know better and not make asinine comments.

ksbh
05-23-2006, 07:09 AM
This is getting too personal for my taste. Antontd could make the same comment about my last few posts (useless non-tennis related banter) as I made about his . So I'll stop here.

Well then I think that reflects worse on you now, doesn't it? If you've been here long (years?) then you should know better and not make asinine comments.

HollerOne5
05-23-2006, 08:06 AM
I saw the Miami match. It was a case of Federer being in better shape than Nadal. But I think Nadal got himself in better shape after that match, and it's paying off this year. Fed and Nadal seem to be equals fitnesswise now.

That is insulting to Nadal's fitness and body. Its clearly obvious who is in supreme physical condition, as everyone talks about Nadal's physique and fitness. I mean, half the people on the boards think the kid is on steroids, which is obviously not true. On the other hand, Federer seems as if he does nothing other than play and practice tennis to get in shape. For one, his body is nasty and is developing a small gut, obviously it doesn't affect his play though.

Tennis_Goodness
05-23-2006, 09:19 AM
Federer is in great shape. He is lean and strong and probablly one of the most if not the most well conditoned athlete on tour. Looks are decieving. Nadal I think has a little better fitness but just a little! You got to remember Federer is one of the fastest as well!

fastdunn
05-23-2006, 10:02 AM
Federer used to praise a lot about Nadal's game.
He often commented some aspects of Nadal's game people
did not notice. It was when he had only 1 odd loss to Nadal.
Now it's somewhat different. He is kinda on a challenger's side.

Sampras, for example(sorry had to bring up his name yet again),
was very cool(and political) about his opponents who challenged
him. Typical comments were "It came down to just a handful
of points. It could have gone either way. I'm happy to have
come out as winner... He will win this title someday"...

However, he did blunder one time against Rafter. In one season,
Rafter was challenging him pretty closely and beat him once.
Plus Rafter won US Open when Sampras got knocked out of
semi-final. Rafter was a marked man. Sampras played very
violent game against Rafter in davis cup. He often flexed
lots of fire power against Rafter and one time punchered
a hole in Rafter's racquet with his serve (went thru the string bed!).

At one time, Sampras was so furious about the umpire's
over-ruling on a line-call in a tie-breakerof a match with rafter.

Mostly Sampras commented violently about the match and the
over-ruling. But one time in the heat of the moment, Sampras
did rate Rafter's game as 1 tenth of his game. Rafter totally
dis-respect Sampras after that incident.

One firey blip in Sampras' coolness. Other than that Sampras
never lost his coolness simply because he never was really
challenged for about a decade....

David L
05-23-2006, 10:13 AM
That is insulting to Nadal's fitness and body. Its clearly obvious who is in supreme physical condition, as everyone talks about Nadal's physique and fitness. I mean, half the people on the boards think the kid is on steroids, which is obviously not true. On the other hand, Federer seems as if he does nothing other than play and practice tennis to get in shape. For one, his body is nasty and is developing a small gut, obviously it doesn't affect his play though.

I think Federer was fitter in that Miami match, unless Nadal was suffering from heatstroke, like Federer in the previous years encounter, or had not consumed enough water. In any case, Nadal is a lot fitter than he was. It's not an insult to state fact. They are both now in very good shape.

I would hardly call Federer's body nasty, but each to their own. He simply has a leaner frame than Nadal.

David L
05-23-2006, 10:17 AM
One firey blip in Sampras' coolness. Other than that Sampras
never lost his coolness simply because he never was really
challenged for about a decade....

I actually saw him lose his cool a number of times, and quite a bit of gloating too.

fastdunn
05-23-2006, 10:36 AM
I actually saw him lose his cool a number of times, and quite a bit of gloating too.

Maybe in small scale. But I don't think I ever witnessed him showing
any frustration due to major challenge to him for extended period
of time. I think everyone agrees Sampras has this image of
cold as ice thing...

inyourface
05-23-2006, 10:41 AM
ok Fed, Rafa give you the half of the match, today 4.5-1.5 in head to head.:)

Tennis_Goodness
05-23-2006, 11:37 AM
Nadal knows how great of a guy Federer is too, before Nadal made his breakthrough Federer actually invited him to practice with him!

inyourface
05-23-2006, 11:44 AM
Nadal knows how great of a guy Federer is too, before Nadal made his breakthrough Federer actually invited him to practice with him!
can I invit to you to practice?

inyourface
05-23-2006, 11:54 AM
Fed invit to Nadal to figure how can to beat Nadal,that is the only reason.:)

VamosRafa
05-23-2006, 06:16 PM
And you Antontd, need to get a life or better, learn to write good posts. You haven't made one informative post in this thread but seem content to simply dismiss someone else's views as being obsessive.

Agreed.

FedererUberAlles
05-23-2006, 06:39 PM
Agreed.

I thought you didn't care about Antond's thoughts of you?

VamosRafa
05-23-2006, 06:42 PM
I thought you didn't care about Antond's thoughts of you?

Excuse me. I just agreed with someone else's view, thank you very much.

antontd
05-23-2006, 07:19 PM
Say no bad word about Rafael Nadal or VamosRafa(and some other maniacally biased followers) will hunt you down and kill you. This man, no, this god is clearly an example of what all of us should dream to be.

VamosRafa
05-23-2006, 07:52 PM
Say no bad word about Rafael Nadal or VamosRafa(and some other maniacally biased followers) will hunt you down and kill you. This man, no, this god is clearly an example of what all of us should dream to be.

I agreed with the person above, but I disagree with you. I think it's much harder to be a Nadal fan on this site than it is a Fed fan. If there is someone worshipped on this board, and I think there is, it isn't Nadal.

tlm
05-24-2006, 03:53 PM
There is no doubt about that vamosrafa,you are exactly right.

superman1
05-24-2006, 04:35 PM
Yeah, it must be so hard for you, tlm. Bashing people all day long for defending a player is such hard work.

tlm
05-24-2006, 06:30 PM
hey superman i am just agreeing with vamos,defending a player+making up lame excuses are 2 different things.I just call it like i see it,if you dont agree thats fine with me.

It seems to me you are pretty good at bashing other peoples opinion when they dont agree with you.

There is a endless supply of weak excuses for fed on this site.Some are beyond belief, just because i comment on them doesnt mean i am bashing people all day long.

I believe there are a lot more fed backers on this site than any other player,isnt that obvious.

superman1
05-24-2006, 07:45 PM
Learn punctuation, then maybe people will listen to you.

The reason I'm sick of you is you ONLY post about Fed/Nadal. You have nothing to contribute except for negative comments towards anyone who suggests that Nadal isn't better than Federer.

tlm
05-24-2006, 08:15 PM
I contribute to other subjects especially on stringing+racquets. Are you so critical that you have to play punctuation police?

It is not about someone saying nadal isnt better than fed.Its about these never ending excuses for fed losing.

You are a chief contributor to a lot of them,wasnt it you that saw the ball was out when fed challenged a call, even though fed was pointing to the wrong mark.

You +fed could see the ball was out even though shotspot confirmed it was in.You can actually argue something that is clear as day+backed up with video!

This is proof of your tilted view,i just look at the facts not fantasy.

Tennis_Goodness
05-24-2006, 09:14 PM
Federer has made mistakes in the past pointing to the wrong mark. His actions in tennis matches in the past and present have proven that he is not a cheat and would not even consider it. I've watchd matches where he pointed to the wrong mark accidently and another match where he gave the point to the opposing player because he thought the ball was in, he was wrong it was out.

I think a lot of people need to stay on topic and it seems like there are a lot of children or young teenagers posting!

welcome2petrkordaland
05-24-2006, 09:53 PM
In Rome, Federer controlled the entire match and should have put it away but in the end could not convert.

I have to say Federer is one of the most confident players i've ever seen. He's like Jordan in that way!

___________________________________

Tennis Goodness, Federer controlled the "entire match," huh? What match were you watching? Nadal was up two sets to one, remember?

And although Fed's got clear record-breaking potential and an all court game that may be the best (and is a joy to watch) ever, your comparison to Jordan seems a bit ill-timed considering he choked something fierce in the fifth set. Reminded me more of a Jana Novotna than MJ.

dh003i
05-25-2006, 07:53 AM
The comparison to Jordan is rather correct. Federer is the best tennis player today, without a question -- except in the minds of some very delusional Nadal fans who think that head-to-head is more important than slams, ranking, and win%.

Yes, Federer should have won the Rome final, but didn't put it away. He had two match-points, and lost.

That hardly precludes a comparison to Jordan. You know, Jordan didn't hit every game-winning shot he ever attempted. It was more like 50%, or as he said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't attempt.

welcome2petrkordaland
05-28-2006, 12:44 AM
The comparison to Jordan is rather correct.

Yes, Federer should have won the Rome final, but didn't put it away. He had two match-points, and lost.

That hardly precludes a comparison to Jordan.
______________________________________________

dhoo3i, federer's downright ridiculous and will probably break sampras' record; i just said the comparison to jordan was ill-timed, considering the outcome of the match and horrendous forehands fed hit during crunch time against nadal. please try to refrain from grouping me as a delusional nadal fan, although looking at head-to-heads as less important than majors, masters series, points, etc. seems strange. tennis is a 1 on 1 sport, isn't it? if a player wins 83% of the time against another, you could logically conclude that he/she is "better," now couldn't you?

fact: federer is 1-5 against nadal. that's 17%, yes, he's batting .170 against nadal and this is basically in his prime. while i do think this domination of federer will end, it is starting to put a huge blemish on what may become the legacy of the greatest tennis player ever, don't you think? fed needs to raise up and "bring it" upstairs when he plays nadal.

superman1
05-28-2006, 12:48 AM
He definitely does need to step it up another level against Nadal. 2 match points in the 5th set is not enough, he shouldn't even be getting pushed that far.

But while you can say he has a 1-5 record against Nadal, you can also compare their points, 7010-4545. And Nalbandian has 3065, so you can see how far away Federer is from the rest, including Nadal.

zhuk
05-28-2006, 03:26 AM
Am I in the opposite bizarro world or something? People actually agreeing that Federer isn't trying to make excuses, just stating the way things are? Wow...

Federer is a weeping wuss. No, make it a Weeping Wuss. The mother of all wusses. And only a wuss can be his fan.
Sure, he can play tennis. But whiny wankers are a dime a dozen.
That is why most of his fanbase are schmaltzy fat-and-ugly chicks.
Oh, and Mary "I'm so full of myself I'll never shut up" Carillo. :rolleyes:

artworks
05-28-2006, 04:53 AM
Nadal is inside Federer's head and Federer's Fans head.

That is not hard to figure out. :mrgreen:

inyourface
05-28-2006, 06:29 AM
compare Fed with Jordan?you are insulting the best sportman of the history,JORDAN,you want to know the different?,one example,ROMA, if Jordan have a match point he win.FED choqued.

dh003i
05-28-2006, 05:18 PM
inyourface,

I consider Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time, but he didn't even have half of the championships of Bill Russel (he had almost half, 6/13ths). Federer has half the slams of Sampras. I'd say the comparison isn't in any way slanderous to Jordan.

Comparing basketball to tennis requires a little more thought. If Nadal played Federer on grass, he would have been cremated in straight sets every time they played. Alot of Nadal's great record against Federer is just an artifact of the fact that he sucks on grass, and gets knocked out early non-French slams.

welcome2,

Tell ya what, if Nadal ever gets far enough at the Wimbledon or US Open to be destroyed by Federer in the final, then maybe we can make a good case on head-to-head. Until then, he's a one-dimensional player.

There is a reason why the rankings exist, and why grand slams are the measuring stick. That's because it's stupid to say "X is a better player than Y, because of their head to head record". What matters most is ranking, rank-ponts, win%, and grand slams. In every of those essential categories, Federer is miles ahead of Nadal.

No one cares that Jimmy Connors had a 3-0 record vs. Rod Laver. Rod Laver is a candidate for the designation, "Greatest of all time". Jimmy Connors is not. Likewise, Sampras isn't worried about Nadal breaking his record, and Rod Laver isn't talking about Nadal being one of the greatest ever. Hmm...

The best player in tennis now is Roger Federer. Period. End of discussion. He's the holder of the last 3 slams (and 3 of the last 4). Case open, closed, and shut. And if Nadal finishes this year with a perfect record against Federer, but less slams, Federer was the better player this year as well. Again, end of discussion.

People seem to forget that Federer once had a woeful record against Hewitt, but hasn't lost to him since the 5-set match that he lost very closely. Interesting coincidence, given this 5-set loss of Federer to Nadal at Rome.

Let me just give a little example for why your "logic" about head-to-head determining who's the "best player":
1. Nadal is better than Federer (5-1).
2. Blake is better than Nadal (2-0).
3. Federer is better than Blake (4-0).
4. Therefore: well, therefore, what? Who's the best player?

Is it Blake, because he's better than Nadal, who's better than Federer?

Is it Nadal, because he's better than Federer, but worse than Blake, who Federer is better than?

Is it Federer, because he's better than Blake, but worse than Nadal, who is worse than Blake?

This is a very simple example that illustrates the stupidity of using head-to-head comparisons to determine who's the best player. They result in irresolvable contradictions, because they are not sound determinants of who the best player is.

Until Nadal wins more (or as many) as Federer does, I don't care if he's not the better player than Federer. I'm sure he would have won clay-court matches against Sampras, had he played Sampras in his day. And ya know what, he would go down as a footnote to Sampras' greatness. Sorry, that's reality.

Not winning the French would be a blemish on Federer's career. It hardly precludes him from greatest-ever, as Sampras is a condentor, and never won the French. It happens to be that if Federer doesn't win the French, it'll probably be because of Nadal. But if Federer wins the French, and never again beats Nadal, it will be more like a minor annoyance, and not a blemish.

Would not winning the French (probably over Nadal) be a blemish on the career of Roger? Yes, of course. Just like not winning the French was a blemish on Sampras' career. But it doesn't preclude you from being considered the greatest ever. And a player (Nadal) cannot be considered "better" than the greatest ever, or even a candidate for the greatest ever, merely by causing a blemish for one of the greatest ever players.

tennisfreak412
05-28-2006, 06:08 PM
It seems to me like everyone here is under the impression that Federer has been in control of every single match played against Nadal. If any of you saw the Dubai match, that is simply not true. I'm not saying that Nadal is a better player then Federer, I don't think he is at this moment. But I think we have to remember that he is only 19, and like it or not, he will change his game over time. He has to in order to succeed. Look at James Blake: before his career alterting year, where he didn't play tennis at all, he was really a go for broke player who would get a few big wins every once in a while. However, he soldified his backhand and second serve, and changed up his play in order to better suit his strengths in accordance with today's players. Nadal will do the same. Will he ever be better than Federer? I doubt it. Can he beat him? He's proved it to us time and again. If you really think about it, every match is a matter of a few points. A point here and a point there, and the momentum changes. However, to blatantly state that Federer is vastly superior to Nadal, and that it should be 5-1 the other way, if not for a few points, is just absurd. But, I do think that should they play at Roland Garros, Federer will win this one. He's getting too close not to.

dh003i
05-28-2006, 07:15 PM
tennis,

Don't know about others, but I'm not saying Federer should have won 5 of his matches against Nadal. My only point is that head-to-head does not determine the better player.

jhhachamp
05-28-2006, 07:54 PM
Federer in both of the matches was in control for most of the match. In Miami he just was shanking shot after shot and Nadal was playing good but when Federer kicked it up a gear, Nadal could not handle it.

In Rome Federer was playing good and Nadal could not do anything about it for the majority of the match. Federer blew some very important points and Nadal too advantage!

The two matches were not alike!

What a biased perspective. I disagree completely with you and I am a Fed fan!

Nadal should have won in Miami, he outplayed Federer and should have won that third set and the match. Likewise Federer outplayed Nadal for the majority of Rome, but choked it away at the end. I think you are not seeing things clearly because you are being hindered by that ridiculous bias!

jhhachamp
05-28-2006, 08:12 PM
The comparison to Jordan is rather correct. Federer is the best tennis player today, without a question -- except in the minds of some very delusional Nadal fans who think that head-to-head is more important than slams, ranking, and win%.

Yes, Federer should have won the Rome final, but didn't put it away. He had two match-points, and lost.

That hardly precludes a comparison to Jordan. You know, Jordan didn't hit every game-winning shot he ever attempted. It was more like 50%, or as he said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't attempt.

I don't think the comparison is valid at this point. Jordan made his reputation by making so many clutch shots at key moments. Federer is very dominant, but hardly clutch at least as compared to Jordan. Look up his 5 set record, it isn't pretty. I can remember 4 matches off the top of my head where he had match points and lost, has he ever come back to win after saving match points?

This is not a knock on how good Federer is. I realize that these close matches he has lost are basically the only matches he has lost in the last few years. If he had the mental toughness of Sampras or Jordan, he would have only lost one of those 4 matches he lost last year, and that is the match in the French he lost to Nadal. He may have lost another to Nadal if he had beaten Gasquet, however.

Federer is an amazing tennis player, and may become the greatest ever. However, at this point in his career, I would have to say he is somewhat mentally fragile as compared to past greats. He choked against Safin, Gasquet, and Nalbandian last year and Nadal this year in Rome. If he had the mental toughness of Sampras, he probably would have only lost one of those matches at most. I hope he improves in this aspect of his game.

jhhachamp
05-28-2006, 08:17 PM
I consider Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time, but he didn't even have half of the championships of Bill Russel (he had almost half, 6/13ths). Federer has half the slams of Sampras. I'd say the comparison isn't in any way slanderous to Jordan.

Meaningless IMO because total championships won is much different as a factor in individual versus team sports. Bill Russell was not even the dominant player of his generation, Wilt Chamberlain was.

I do agree with everything else you wrote in that long post however.

dh003i
05-28-2006, 08:38 PM
Steve,

Fair enough. I, however, would note that that goes against the universal opinion of commentors, who constantly note Federer's mental toughness and focus. That's why he's a better player now than when he beat Sampras at 19 (he isn't a better so much because his shots got better).

I mean, countless times, the guy pulls out his best tennis when he needs to.

Can Federer improve on his performance under pressure? Sure. The mental aspect of the game is probably the aspect with the most potential for improvement for all players, since the mind is unlimited. However, to say that he can improve isn't to say he's deficient in the category.

PS: In sports in general, "clutch" is important, because there are close situations. But it is I think over-considered. Yes, Michael Jordan was clutch. But arguably, Reggie Miller was more clutch, and no-one considers Miller a better player than Jordan. Why? Because he just wasn't as good all-around.

In basketball, Robert Horry has been called "the greatest bad player ever," because he hangs out for 3 quarters, then comes alive in the 4th. He was a valuable member of the Lakers and Spurs, but no-one in their right mind would call him "great".

Before the points we call "clutch", there are all of the other tough points that put you in a position to have a shot at the "clutch" points to begin with; or all fo the other points that put you ahead so far that you don't have to face that. They're just as important.

dh003i
05-28-2006, 08:43 PM
Steve,

Btw, thanks for the positive feedback on the rest of my post. It's nice to know that some people can think clearly about what determines "who's best".

Regarding Bill Russel vs. Wilt Chamberlain, Wilt was certainly the better player, the more talented player, and could play Russel's role better than Russel himself did (Russel even said so while wathcing Wilt play for the Lakers, and that in the middle of a feud between the two).

However, Bill Russel was by far the greater player. I think that Bill Russel wanted individual glory over team-success in his earlier years. It was only when he focused almost purely on defense and the team concept that he got a championship. He probably could have had more, had he adhered to the concept throughout his career. He has even said after the fact that he always wondered whether or not he should stop scoring so much to focus on defense; this, despite the fact that such is what got him a championship.

jhhachamp
05-29-2006, 08:42 AM
Steve,

Fair enough. I, however, would note that that goes against the universal opinion of commentors, who constantly note Federer's mental toughness and focus. That's why he's a better player now than when he beat Sampras at 19 (he isn't a better so much because his shots got better).

I mean, countless times, the guy pulls out his best tennis when he needs to.

Can Federer improve on his performance under pressure? Sure. The mental aspect of the game is probably the aspect with the most potential for improvement for all players, since the mind is unlimited. However, to say that he can improve isn't to say he's deficient in the category.

PS: In sports in general, "clutch" is important, because there are close situations. But it is I think over-considered. Yes, Michael Jordan was clutch. But arguably, Reggie Miller was more clutch, and no-one considers Miller a better player than Jordan. Why? Because he just wasn't as good all-around.

In basketball, Robert Horry has been called "the greatest bad player ever," because he hangs out for 3 quarters, then comes alive in the 4th. He was a valuable member of the Lakers and Spurs, but no-one in their right mind would call him "great".

Before the points we call "clutch", there are all of the other tough points that put you in a position to have a shot at the "clutch" points to begin with; or all fo the other points that put you ahead so far that you don't have to face that. They're just as important.

I think Federer is a very mentally tough player most of the time, as he nearly always wins even when he is not playing his best, but in that rare moment when the match actually gets really tight, he has not played his best and not on the same level as Sampras and other greats, and even Nadal. This is not to say that he is deficient at all in this area, I would still say that he is above average for the ATP top 10 or whatever you like, but he can be seen as deficient because of the greats he is being compared against.

Good points of how being clutch is not everything. I would say that Sampras was more clutch than Federer up to this point in his career, but that does not mean that Federer cannot have a more successful career than Sampras, even if he fails to improve in this clutch aspect. If he continues to dominate and win a couple slams a year while choking in a few close matches, he will easily outdo Sampras, especially if he manages a French.

Your points on Russell and Chamberlain are well taken. I am not really too knowledgeable about them since I wasn't nearly born yet, but just basing on what I have heard about them. It seems that both Russell and Chamberlain both are deserving to be included among the greatest ever in basketball along with Jordan.

dh003i
05-29-2006, 09:07 AM
Steve,

Fair enough. And in actuality, it's a great thing that he can improve in that area, as it's much more possible to improve in that area than in areas of physical shot-making as one gets older.

federerhoogenbandfan
05-29-2006, 11:26 AM
I think Federer is a very mentally tough player most of the time, as he nearly always wins even when he is not playing his best, but in that rare moment when the match actually gets really tight, he has not played his best and not on the same level as Sampras and other greats, and even Nadal. This is not to say that he is deficient at all in this area, I would still say that he is above average for the ATP top 10 or whatever you like, but he can be seen as deficient because of the greats he is being compared against.

Good points of how being clutch is not everything. I would say that Sampras was more clutch than Federer up to this point in his career, but that does not mean that Federer cannot have a more successful career than Sampras, even if he fails to improve in this clutch aspect. If he continues to dominate and win a couple slams a year while choking in a few close matches, he will easily outdo Sampras, especially if he manages a French.

Your points on Russell and Chamberlain are well taken. I am not really too knowledgeable about them since I wasn't nearly born yet, but just basing on what I have heard about them. It seems that both Russell and Chamberlain both are deserving to be included among the greatest ever in basketball along with Jordan.

I think you are right actually. In this moments vs a player like Nadal he always seem to come up just short, so probably would have vs somebody like Sampras as well. Still he is above average for a top 10 player in that area like you said, so not bad at all, but not at the very optimum point. Hopefully he will gain that as time goes.

Tennis_Goodness
05-29-2006, 01:37 PM
Everybody is so use to seeing Federer win that when he loses some close matches everybody attacks him, but he is one of the most mentally tough players on tour.

He's only lost 3 times this year to the same person, only one man has beaten him in the world. What Federer is doing is remarkable and I do think he's going to become the greatest player in the history of the game and will be recongized that way.

He's doing a good job and is improving!

Gilgamesh
05-29-2006, 03:18 PM
He's only lost 3 times this year to the same person, only one man has beaten him in the world.

That is even more remarkable IMO.

Nadal is Fed's kryptonite.

malakas
05-29-2006, 03:31 PM
Kryptonite? Hmmm..Red or green?:mrgreen:

Gilgamesh
05-29-2006, 03:34 PM
Regarding Bill Russel vs. Wilt Chamberlain, Wilt was certainly the better player, the more talented player, and could play Russel's role better than Russel himself did (Russel even said so while wathcing Wilt play for the Lakers, and that in the middle of a feud between the two).

However, Bill Russel was by far the greater player. I think that Bill Russel wanted individual glory over team-success in his earlier years. It was only when he focused almost purely on defense and the team concept that he got a championship. He probably could have had more, had he adhered to the concept throughout his career. He has even said after the fact that he always wondered whether or not he should stop scoring so much to focus on defense; this, despite the fact that such is what got him a championship.

Not sure but you kind of contradicted yourself.

Wilt was considered the greater player, Russell was the greater winner.

When Russell won some of his MVPs...Wilt was the one named to the FIRST team all-NBA NOT Russell.

Not to mention some of Wilt's greatest games including his 51 rebound effort came against Russell.

Also, I don't know if Russell would win more if he focused on defense. The guy was the epitome of defense. The 60s Celtic teams were built around Russell's defense which would triggered their fastbreak offense ran to perfection by Cousy. Plus, the guy won 11 rings in 13 seasons. He also won his first NBA championship in his rookie year. One of the two years when Russell did not collect a ring was the Wilt-led 67' Sixers destroyed the Celtics.

It is also interesting to note that Wilt was on 2 of the 3 greatest teams (in terms of regular season record) ever.

Gilgamesh
05-29-2006, 03:45 PM
Kryptonite? Hmmm..Red or green?:mrgreen:

The one that kills Superman. Is that both?

malakas
05-29-2006, 03:50 PM
The green one...The red just makes him emotionally unstable.....Like choke..;)

Gilgamesh
05-29-2006, 05:09 PM
The green one...The red just makes him emotionally unstable.....Like choke..;)

I'm more of a batman than superman guy.

Anyways, didn't know that but it makes tha analogy even better now!

Nadal is Fed's red kryptonite.

He is in his head. I still can't believe Fed couldn't close out their last match.

Tennis_Goodness
05-29-2006, 05:20 PM
I think he is in his head somewhat, but it's not all the mental aspect. Nadal is a very good player and is looking to be one of the best clay courters in history!

Saying that though, Federer does have the ability and talent to even eclipse Nadal on clay. So while right now he is having trouble with him I do think Federer in the end is going to get over his Kyroptonite problem.

slice bh compliment
05-29-2006, 05:22 PM
Wilt was considered the greater player, Russell was the greater winner....

All the ladies will agree.

ALL of 'em.

Gilgamesh
05-30-2006, 03:47 PM
All the ladies will agree.

ALL of 'em.

In that case, Wilt was also the greatest winner. ;)

Gilgamesh
05-30-2006, 03:48 PM
Saying that though, Federer does have the ability and talent to even eclipse Nadal on clay. So while right now he is having trouble with him I do think Federer in the end is going to get over his Kyroptonite problem.

This is why if they meet in the FO finals the hype for this match would be the highest in male tennis for quite some time.