PDA

View Full Version : More interesting to watch Federer or Nadal?


8PAQ
06-19-2006, 01:55 PM
Both players are dominating the rest of the ATP. Nadal is unbeatable on clay and Fed is unbeatable on grass and probably most hardcourts.
So lets say you are watching a match that you know Nadal or Federer will almost certainly win. Which match is more interesting?

It seems like people here say that watching Nadal is more exciting because Fed always wins. But now Nadal always wins on clay so that argument no longer works!

Most of Nadal's matches are not that exciting. Lets say he is playing Robredo on clay or Ferrero on any surface. You know that Nadal will win for sure. And after watching few of his great passing shots or his amazing defence gets it eventually starts to looks all the same. He just gets everything back and eventually the opponent makes the mistake. Sure some of his passing shots look unbelievable. But after seeing several of them it becomes repetitive. So how exactly are we supposed to be excited about seeing Nadal play?

On the other hand lets say Fed is playing one of his beeyatches. Lets say Ljubicic. Sure I know Fed will win and maybe even in straight sets. But at least I get to enjoy beautiful tennis that has more than just great defence and occasional passing shots. To me watching awesome winners is way more exciting than waiting for frustrated Nadal opponents to make a mistake.

malakas
06-19-2006, 02:00 PM
Exactly!Fed's game is so beautiful that his matches are exciting regardless of the outcome!:D

vive le beau jeu !
06-19-2006, 02:02 PM
yes, roger's game is esthetically wonderful ! :D

exruda
06-19-2006, 02:12 PM
Yes to all the above!
For me Federer is obviously more interesting to watch, and that's precisely because of his beautiful technique and shotmaking (and cat-like movements for more aesthetic pleasures:D, but that's beside the "technical" point).

fastdunn
06-19-2006, 02:12 PM
Federer has beautiful game to watch( it would be nicer to
have more net plays but it's not his fault).

But it's exciting to have Nadal whom Federer mysteriously
lose power againt, like a superman against kliptonite.

But I agree it would be nicer if they meet in Australian Open,
US Open and Wimbledon too.

Rickson
06-19-2006, 02:17 PM
Both players are dominating the rest of the ATP. Nadal is unbeatable on clay and Fed is unbeatable on grass and probably most hardcourts.
So lets say you are watching a match that you know Nadal or Federer will almost certainly win. Which match is more interesting?

Federer because of his backhand and movement. Nadal's heavy topspin game gets old very quickly.

VolklVenom
06-19-2006, 02:35 PM
i personally would love to see a player that is a mixture of Fed and Nadal.
(i.e. Fed backhand, forehand, serve and volley, but with more spin on most strokes).
The next great champion will be this type of player.

127mph
06-19-2006, 04:19 PM
federer is talented and has pretty strokes, actually has classical form, so he gets my vote for sure.

ShooterMcMarco
06-19-2006, 04:22 PM
Federer is always interesting to watch, even if he is crushing someone. His strokes and movement are just awesome to see and his shotmaking.

diegaa
06-19-2006, 04:34 PM
I dont even read more than the title. Theres no question about it: Fed all the way. And that is it.

Bassus
06-19-2006, 04:35 PM
Without question, its Federer.

His game is much more exciting because of his variety. And as an added bonus, with Federer you don't have the excessive grunting on every single shot, though that's more offensive to the ears instead of the eyes.

bluescreen
06-19-2006, 05:02 PM
i hear ya on the grunting.

superman1
06-19-2006, 05:04 PM
Nadal was fun to watch last year when he first came on the scene. Now he's just the same thing over and over. Always screaming, always hitting the ball the same way. Federer is hit and miss. He can play terrible and still win, or he can play unbelievable tennis that is just a sight to see.

However, in terms of match-ups, I'd rather see Nadal/Agassi or Nadal/Safin or Nadal/Nalbandian than Federer against those guys.

BabolatFan
06-19-2006, 05:07 PM
Absolutely Roger's fantastic. He's has a complete player with modern classic motions. Definitely more exciting than Pete. Pete always looks like he's drained out.
Nadal could be a great soccer player with his energy and athleticism.

malakas
06-19-2006, 05:14 PM
Absolutely Roger's fantastic. He's has a complete player with modern classic motions. Definitely more exciting than Pete. Pete always looks like he's drained out.
Nadal could be a great soccer player with his energy and athleticism.

Without technic there is very little chance you can ever reach a top level in footbal also.;)

emcee
06-19-2006, 05:29 PM
Nadal get boring after a while. Heavy topspin shots, that fist pump and "Vamos!", and the capris. Always the same. Roddick was more exciting cause he had the serve, but Nadal doesn't even have that.

Fed's shots are pretty and he can both play from the baseline and net. No question Fed is more fun to watch.

BabolatFan
06-19-2006, 05:30 PM
Without technic there is very little chance you can ever reach a top level in footbal also.;)

Good point. You said football. How cute. :p

nViATi
06-19-2006, 05:31 PM
Nadal. I love his spirit and his toughness. Fighting for every single point like life and death.

8PAQ
06-19-2006, 07:17 PM
I think Nadal might have been more exciting to watch when he was 17 or 18. In those days when he was winning titles for the 1st time it really was quite interesting to see him develop. Just like Roddick was exciting in 2001. You just can't help but cheer for the underdog. These days Nadal's matches with Fed are of course very important and I would also love to see him play Nalbandian or maybe Roddick at USO again. But I don't ever want to see him play another claycourter.

conjunctivitis
06-19-2006, 09:08 PM
Nadal's more spontaeneous, and he shows emotion

OrangeOne
06-19-2006, 09:14 PM
Another fed vs. nadal thread? Just what the board needed!

Then again, I guess it's just what the bored need too, because I'm bored enough to reply :).

Federer plays the game like no-one else I've ever seen. For this reason alone, I love watching him play. Nadal plays the game well too, but to me he is an improved version of many players I've seen before.

Rataplan
06-19-2006, 10:13 PM
First of all, these Fed/Nadal threads are seriously boring and cluttering up this message board. Why can't more people simply enjoy both players instead of starting yet another thread to try and establish that player X more handsome, beautiful, talented,...than player Y, that the game of player X is more exciting, beautiful, elegant,...
What's the point and is a thread like this really going to influence somebody out there? Wait, this poll on that message board shows that most people there prefer player X...right, I better stop enjoying player Y then?

Secondly, asking this particular question in this particular message board is as pointless as asking the same question in a message board for a Federer fansite.

edberg505
06-20-2006, 02:01 PM
Ok, I'm going to agree with the vast majority of the people in here and say Federer. I mean I can watch Federer play anybody and be in awe in some of the shots that he hits. But I gotta tell ya, watching Nadal play another claycourter is a total snooze fest. I saw him play David Ferrrer last year sometime, I don't remeber which tournament. But that was without a doubt some of the most boring stuff I ever had to sit throught. I could only sit through 4 games then i had turn the tv. Every ball had like a 7ft clearence above the net and the ralleys were insanely long. It was like watching boy's 10's in a national junior event.

araghava
06-20-2006, 02:04 PM
Another way to think about this. Would a Nadal vs Nadal match be interesting. Not for me. Fed vs Fed (ultimate match).

vive le beau jeu !
06-20-2006, 02:10 PM
Fed vs Fed (ultimate match).
i'm really wondering whom i would be supporting ;)

Simon Cowell
06-20-2006, 03:06 PM
Nadal brings excitement to the game. He is a true warrior out there and never gives up.

alienhamster
06-20-2006, 05:08 PM
Well, a somewhat complex response to the OP, since I've found myself liking one or the other in different contexts:

(1) I love watching Fed best on clay because you see him *really* working hard to construct points, doing everything he can to play his best on his weakest surface.

(2) I like watching Nadal best on grass for reasons similar to (1).

On other surfaces, I actually like watching both of them unless it's a complete beat-down.

simi
06-20-2006, 05:20 PM
This past year, I've absolutely loved watching Nadal and Federer play against each other. You know that Nadal will win, and you know that Federer can win. Just watching Federer this year as he tries to solve the riddle of Nadal has been an experience. Each match (except for the last), gets closer and closer; and at the same time, Nadal fights and fights, never giving up, until he prevails.

Sadly, we will not get to see them against each other very often in the rest of this season. Let's hope we do. It's the best drama going on in tennis this year. Will Federer finally solve how he should play Nadal and earn a win, or will Nadal continue to get into Federer's head and defeat him before the match even starts? Stay tuned kiddies.

DashaandSafin
06-20-2006, 05:30 PM
Oh wow guys. Its a freaking opinon. Don't state your opinion likes its fact.

Oh, since I'm God, Federer is tEh BeSt!!!11!!!
(thats a fact!)

FedererUberAlles
06-20-2006, 05:53 PM
Federer is aesthetically pleasing, and so is Nadal: picking wedgies, getting dirty, screaming :p

Nadal is fun to watch too, but it does get annoying occasionally to see some of the antics.

kaiotic
06-20-2006, 06:30 PM
Federer because of his backhand and movement. Nadal's heavy topspin game gets old very quickly.
I share the same view, but Nadal can and will blast those balzing flat groundies past opponents when need be. I have to admit that Fed's game is beautiful to watch. i often practice swing my rackets while watching Fed play. Text book, effortless perfection, especially those Sampra-esque running backhands down the line.

FEDEXP
06-20-2006, 07:17 PM
Thanks Bassos for mentioning the Nadal constant grunt; I thought about posting on it but all this Nadal/Federer stuff has been so polarizing I didn't. In a very real sense he's the male Sharapova.

ksbh
06-21-2006, 04:54 AM
Roger Federer obviously. He plays fluidly, very smooth.

Both players are dominating the rest of the ATP. Nadal is unbeatable on clay and Fed is unbeatable on grass and probably most hardcourts.
So lets say you are watching a match that you know Nadal or Federer will almost certainly win. Which match is more interesting?

It seems like people here say that watching Nadal is more exciting because Fed always wins. But now Nadal always wins on clay so that argument no longer works!

Most of Nadal's matches are not that exciting. Lets say he is playing Robredo on clay or Ferrero on any surface. You know that Nadal will win for sure. And after watching few of his great passing shots or his amazing defence gets it eventually starts to looks all the same. He just gets everything back and eventually the opponent makes the mistake. Sure some of his passing shots look unbelievable. But after seeing several of them it becomes repetitive. So how exactly are we supposed to be excited about seeing Nadal play?

On the other hand lets say Fed is playing one of his beeyatches. Lets say Ljubicic. Sure I know Fed will win and maybe even in straight sets. But at least I get to enjoy beautiful tennis that has more than just great defence and occasional passing shots. To me watching awesome winners is way more exciting than waiting for frustrated Nadal opponents to make a mistake.

Sadyv
06-21-2006, 09:30 AM
HAve enjoyed watching Nadal more recently.

Federer matches can be pretty ugly to. Watching Federer play mediocre tennis, and then hitting one great winner which leads to his intimidated/scared opponent then giving him 3 or 4 points on errors is not an exciting event.

Federer played better before everyone was scared of him. It was great watching him when he first matured.

I think the domination has hurt his game, and is the reason Nadal can beat him so consistently. After so long of playing against guys that fold up for a set after Roger plays a few brilliant points, Roger can't deal with someone who just keep forging ahead with their game and gameplan, regardless of how well Federer is playing.

Matthew
06-21-2006, 12:21 PM
Most of Nadal's matches are not that exciting. Lets say he is playing Robredo on clay or Ferrero on any surface. You know that Nadal will win for sure. And after watching few of his great passing shots or his amazing defence gets it eventually starts to looks all the same. He just gets everything back and eventually the opponent makes the mistake. Sure some of his passing shots look unbelievable. But after seeing several of them it becomes repetitive. So how exactly are we supposed to be excited about seeing Nadal play?

Sounds to me that you are taking Nadal's talents for granted, no? Just because he hits A LOT of ridiculous shots, doesn't mean they still aren't ridiculous shots that you can appreciate. Here is an example...

I'm watching Roger Federer play. He hits a forehand DTL for a winner on the dead run. I sit there shaking my head uttering "this guy is amazing".

Now I'm watching Rafael nadal play. He runs down a high angled approach shot to his backhand and "bunts" it back for a crosscourt passing shot. I jump out of my seat screaming "there's no way!".

My point? I personally have more fun watching Nadal play. I appreciate both and understand Federer has a better looking game, but Nadal provides more excitement.