PDA

View Full Version : Is Federer Still The Best?


Fischer76
06-19-2006, 10:33 PM
Read this from an interesting article...

A part of it....


It's debatable right now if Federer is actually even the best player in the world — he's not even the best player on the court when he stares across the net at the clay-court conquistador who has had his number so often it's the tennis equivalent of speed dial.



Read the full article here....

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=15537&bannerregion=


Please post your thoughts..

kooyah
06-19-2006, 10:39 PM
Is Federer Still The Best?

Yes.

tnig469
06-19-2006, 10:53 PM
Best right now?.....i would say yes......best of all time?.....we have to see

xtremerunnerars
06-19-2006, 10:59 PM
until nadal wins on every surface, then yes, he's still the best.

Virtuous
06-19-2006, 11:23 PM
It's debatable right now if Federer is actually even the best player in the world —
Bull sh%&

dh003i
06-19-2006, 11:31 PM
anyone who debates whether Fed's the best is a moron...

there are 3 surfaces, and 4 grand slams. Federer owns 2 of the 3 surfaces, and 3 of the 4 grand slams. Ranked #1 for past 2 years. #1 in ATP Race Points. Owns 3/4 last grand slams. He's the best player in the world. Period. End of discussion. Anyone who says elsewise is a moron.

Nadal's the best player on clay -- with Federer second best -- but being best in the world is about more than being best on clay. Nadal isn't even in the top 20 on grass. And he hasn't won a slam on any surface other than clay.

Fischer76
06-19-2006, 11:31 PM
I think Federer is still the best on tour right now. I'm not A Fed fan but watching the FO I noticed that after the ist set that the fight in him just seem to get out of him suddenly. He started shanking shots and didn't seem to care at all. I kinda felt for him. Must be so frustrating to play Nadal. You know, the way he "steals" the winners out of Fed. I mean the guy just doesn't seem to go away!!! Contrary to a lot of criticism of Feds play during that match, I admired him for keeping his head. A lot of players would've broken a lot of rackets when things are not only going their way but when their most reliable shots are simply not there. I wonder what Safin would've been like if it was him in Feds shoes in that match.

knasty131
06-19-2006, 11:32 PM
in nadals defense he is still a teenager...but i agree, federer is the best...and time will tell if you can put him as the GOAT...he just has to keep up the level he is playing right now and maybe get a french under his belt

fastdunn
06-19-2006, 11:49 PM
Guys, read the article until the end. The article does not exactly
suggest Federer is not the best. Very interesting and insightful article.

I think it explains well about what's going on between Federer and Nadal.
I liked the article.

The king of the jungle is being intimidated by a young lion.
And this is not insignificant challenge at all.
He may have to give up all of his multiple wives and leave the town
if he can not defeat this challenge.


Nadal is a chillingly smart young fellow. He knows it's not time
yet because he can't challenge Wimbledon yet.
He is martly keeping a low profile and quietly pressuring Federer.
However, he is in the process waiting for right moment to
take over the top spot..

superman1
06-19-2006, 11:51 PM
Easily the best in the world right now. By FAR. If you think differently you are deluding yourself.

But certainly not the best of all time, not yet. Even McEnroe has pushed Federer back a few spots in his top 10 list. I thought he said #7 after the FO Final but maybe he was joking.

fastdunn
06-20-2006, 12:10 AM
Federer certainly has the potential to be labeled as G.O.A.T.
That's part of what people have been excited about although
I think he has been benefited by slowed court surfaces at least
partly.

But I think people are also excited by the potential of Nadal
becoming serious challenge to Federer's regin. As everybody
knows, Nadal is not a serious challenge yet.

But Nadal is in the process, I think, very smartly and diligently.
And if it ever happens, Federer does not strike me as a guy
who would hang around the rounge as a #2 for a long while.

McEnroe hung around without winning a slam for 10 years
from 1985. I don't think Federer will do that.

PrestigeClassic
06-20-2006, 12:18 AM
Of his era, Federer is the best in the game. Even if half of the season was on clay, Federer would still be ahead in points. He's been seemingly sprinting through each of the last few seasons. Except Federer makes it look like he's on cruise control.

Now, for some perspective . . .

Sampras' rival was Agassi. On all surfaces, Agassi did a lot better than Nadal ever has so far; yet, who is saying that Agassi was better than Sampras? The only surface on which Agassi had a winning record against his rival was clay. So far, Nadal is 2-1 on Federer in non-clay matches. Pretty good. It's doesn't make him the best in the era.

Furthermore, Sampras, the man who is regarded as the best in his era, maybe ever, never got as far in his worst major, the French Open, as Federer already has in his worst major, the French Open.

If anything, all that Nadal has shown is that a clay court specialist can still beat a very good player, the best player in the game, but mostly on clay, the muggier conditions the better. And sometimes just barely. As in, facing multiple match points.

fastdunn
06-20-2006, 12:27 AM
Hmm, it seems that way in, say, quantitively.

But there's still something different about the way Nadal beats
Federer, IMHO: his game seems to fit right into Fed's weakness.
(Fed fans, don't get mad. He doesn't have weakness, I mean relative
relative weakness).

And exactly same mechanics seems to happen on hard courts.
Federer does a little better on hard courts but basically same
dynamics again and again on hard courts and then clay courts....

urban
06-20-2006, 12:37 AM
Bud Collins wrote similar thoughts on his webside, that Nadal is the real Nr. 1, although the numbers speak against it. Mac was 0-3 vs Landl in 81, when he was dominating Borg. Fact is, it is a problem for a Nr. 1, to get beaten constantly by the Nr.2, no question, and it is a real test for Fed. He should stop talking about 'figuring out' the 'one dimensional player' and improve his weaknesses.

Ivanišević
06-20-2006, 12:37 AM
Easily the best in the world right now. By FAR. If you think differently you are deluding yourself.

But certainly not the best of all time, not yet. Even McEnroe has pushed Federer back a few spots in his top 10 list. I thought he said #7 after the FO Final but maybe he was joking.
and who is 1st and 2nd on his list? i'm just curious...

PrestigeClassic
06-20-2006, 12:41 AM
You are such a dooochebag.....Top 20 on grass huh? Not that anyone cares about grass, but if he doesn't at least make the last 8 or last 4 at Wimbledon, I'd be suprised. Plus, to say Federer OWNS hardcourts is a bit of a joke. Nadal has wins over Federer on hard courts, wasn't even able to play in the Australian Open, and has only been shown to be vulnerable to James Blake on hardcourts (who he had to play at the US Open).

As of now, yes, you can say Federer is the best, but you might want to use an asterik to explain things like how the number 2 didn't even play the first grand slam, and now each have a slam in 2006, Federe is 1 for 2, Nadal is 1 for 1.

Actually, when the 2006 Australian Open rolled by, Nadal was on the ATP Tour. Why wasn't he ready for the tournament? Federer sure was ready. He was ready in 2005, too.

When you state both Federer's and Nadal's 2006 slam records together, you try to make it seem like Nadal has the better record. Federer reached the French Open final. I guess you can say that that's 2-for-2 for Federer in 2006 slam finals. What about Nadal?

What was Nadal doing while the Australian Open was going on? Could he have been practicing on clay? Could the extra clay court practice have helped him in clay matches?

"The Australian Open is too important a tournament for me to go to without having an option to win it." Now, who could have said this?

An asterisk? That's what ranking points are for. With 0 from the Australian Open, Nadal has a problem...until the next year. That is, if he will be ready yet. Not exactly befitting an asterisk. If a player loses because he's not ready and gets sick, does that get an asterisk, too? 6-3, 5-7, 0-3, ret. *but only because player got sick.

Hops
06-20-2006, 12:44 AM
in nadals defense he is still a teenager


not anymore.

Fischer76
06-20-2006, 01:07 AM
Bud Collins wrote similar thoughts on his webside, that Nadal is the real Nr. 1, although the numbers speak against it. Mac was 0-3 vs Landl in 81, when he was dominating Borg. Fact is, it is a problem for a Nr. 1, to get beaten constantly by the Nr.2, no question, and it is a real test for Fed. He should stop talking about 'figuring out' the 'one dimensional player' and improve his weaknesses.

Fed has not said anything about him closer to figuring out Nadal's game lately. In the FO finals, commentators during the match said that Fed should rethink about his comments on Nadal being one dimensional. Now he has added the word "grinder" to his description of his nemesis (not that there's anything wrong with that except of the connotation that Nadal is just muscle)There's no doubt that getting beaten by the #2 when being #1 is hard to accept. I think this "rivalry" goes beyond just mere forehands, backhands, and etc.. Fed surely has the game to beat Nadal. But I don't think it's just about that. In fact I believe Fed's problem is more psychological than anything. I think Fed is also getting annoyed by Nadal saying that Fed is the greatest player he has ever seen and etc.. while beating him practically every time they meet.

fastdunn
06-20-2006, 01:18 AM
I agree with urban on this. Federer comments have been
edgy and cranky and that is sign of certain weakness against
#2. Especially as #1, he should be careful about talking.
It does not help him in terms of mental part of the war.
Nadal is winning even in the public relation department, so to speak.
I can not believe Nadal was a teenager a few weeks ago...

crazylevity
06-20-2006, 07:35 AM
I have to agree with the article, that it is up to Federer to answer to Nadal's challenge. While he hasn't done so, I do not discount him never being able to do it. Until then the question of Nadal will be a black mark against Fed in his career.

At the same time though, he is still a more complete player at the moment, and until Nadal can take his other slams away, he is still a clear no.1

Tennis_Goodness
06-20-2006, 07:42 AM
This has happend many times in history and alot of the new and young tennis fans think that the number 2 player winning against the number 1 player is some huge event, it's not.

Many times the best players and even the greats had a player they were better then but for one reason or anohter they would often lose to them. It's the same case here.

Besides clay Nadal has not proven to be a serious threat to any other Slams. There was a lot of talk of Nadal becoming number 1 last year but of course he did not become number 1 and it was silly to think that. The same thing is going to happend this year. People are just excited becasue someone can challenge Federer on a certain surface. The expectations of him are greater then any other player I have ever seen. Some people were starting to expected him to become the greatest ever when he was only 23, incredible!

Rickson
06-20-2006, 08:02 AM
As long as Federer can play well on all surfaces, he's still the best. Rafa needs a lot of work on hard courts and even more work on grass so until he masters surfaces other than clay, he'll have to take a backseat to Federer.

BabolatFan
06-20-2006, 08:02 AM
Read this from an interesting article...

A part of it....


It's debatable right now if Federer is actually even the best player in the world — he's not even the best player on the court when he stares across the net at the clay-court conquistador who has had his number so often it's the tennis equivalent of speed dial.



Read the full article here....

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=15537&bannerregion=


Please post your thoughts..

Whatever everyone else thinks, he's the best.

8PAQ
06-20-2006, 08:51 AM
If Nadal is the best then he will win Wimbledon, USO and maybe even TMC this year. No excuses! Why? Because that's what the best do. Fed did it several times so why not the supposedly best Nadal?

Shabazza
06-20-2006, 09:26 AM
This discussion is based on what??? Their h2h?!
Give me a break. :rolleyes:

nViATi
06-20-2006, 09:28 AM
Current INDESIT ATP Ranking - Singles:1
What do you think?

Docalex007
06-20-2006, 09:30 AM
Federer is still the best tennis player right now. He's had the best year so far so why would you not say he's the best still?

textbook strokes
06-20-2006, 09:39 AM
Those who talks about records are missing the point. It‘s about how Roger will react in the future, considering he is clearly intimidated by Nadal rigth now.
I really hope Fed changes his mental attitude towards Nadal, or the matches are going to be even worse than the FO final.

127mph
06-20-2006, 09:44 AM
anyone who debates whether Fed's the best is a moron...

there are 3 surfaces, and 4 grand slams. Federer owns 2 of the 3 surfaces, and 3 of the 4 grand slams. Ranked #1 for past 2 years. #1 in ATP Race Points. Owns 3/4 last grand slams. He's the best player in the world. Period. End of discussion. Anyone who says elsewise is a moron.

Nadal's the best player on clay -- with Federer second best -- but being best in the world is about more than being best on clay. Nadal isn't even in the top 20 on grass. And he hasn't won a slam on any surface other than clay.
this is totaly accurate and should end this whole nadal is the best player right now fuzz

Rabbit
06-20-2006, 09:51 AM
I think there is a bit of a downward spiral in Fed's game right now. If you look at his results on what is clearly his best surface, grass, he's been challenged of late. He's been challenged uncharacteristically by some players who really aren't of his caliber. He faced match points in more than one match at the Halle tournament.

Does this mean that he's not the best out there right now? Certainly not. What it does indicate is that he's beginning to see the rest of the field make inroads into his game. Whether it's because he can't maintain the level that he had throughout last year (not suprising) or if it's because the rest of the pack doesn't see him as intimidating is the real question. Of course, it could all be that Federer is human after all and this is just something that happens. :)

Federer faced half the competition at Halle that he's going to see at Wimbledon. Right now he's the heavy favorite, but it wouldn't suprise me in the least if he faltered in an early round. If his opponent can play through the obvious tendency to choke away the upset, then Federer could lose before the final 8 at Wimbledon.

Historically, it's near impossible to win Wimbledon 4 times in a row. Borg's streak at Wimbledon may be something that we never see repeated.

Moose Malloy
06-20-2006, 10:00 AM
Rabbit,
Federer only struggled at Halle because he was exhausted from the French. Hardly any FO finalists(or winners) from the last 25 years have even played prior to W because they need the rest. McEnroe was the last FO finalist to win a grass event prior to W.
Fed would still be a huge favorite had he lost early at Halle(Sampras rarely won any grass events prior to W, but still won W 7 times)

Fed is not declining, he seems to getting better. He just reached his 15th straight tour final(last time he failed to reach a final was the French last year, amazing consistency) He lost only 4 times last year(3 times before W), has already lost 4 times this year. If you look at how well he plays the 2nd half of the year the last 2 years, its possible for him to go undefeated the rest of the year. Since he always makes the final & fast courts are the rest of the season, odds are good for him to do that.

If Fed starts losing before finals, & to players he normally owns(Ljubicic, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin) then I'll consider he's declining.

Fed is a 1-2 favorite to win W this year. Roddick is the 2nd favorite & is only 12-1! There is still a huge gap between Fed & the rest of the field. And their really aren't that many quality grasscourt players these days, so I don't like the "field's" chances vs him.

Historically, it's near impossible to win Wimbledon 4 times in a row

Sampras won 4 in a row('97-'00) And he lost early at Queens in '97 & '98.

Virtuous
06-20-2006, 10:02 AM
I think there is a bit of a downward spiral in Fed's game right now. If you look at his results on what is clearly his best surface, grass, he's been challenged of late. He's been challenged uncharacteristically by some players who really aren't of his caliber. He faced match points in more than one match at the Halle tournament.
2006? he only faced mps in his match against rochus. He saved mps against soderling at halle in 2005, so was his game declining then? Having tough matches on grass having not played on it for a year and transitioning immediately from clay is hardly indicative of a 'downward spiral.'

lucky leprechaun
06-20-2006, 10:06 AM
I swear roger is such a victim of his own success.

HollerOne5
06-20-2006, 10:07 AM
Actually, when the 2006 Australian Open rolled by, Nadal was on the ATP Tour. Why wasn't he ready for the tournament? Federer sure was ready. He was ready in 2005, too.

When you state both Federer's and Nadal's 2006 slam records together, you try to make it seem like Nadal has the better record. Federer reached the French Open final. I guess you can say that that's 2-for-2 for Federer in 2006 slam finals. What about Nadal?

What was Nadal doing while the Australian Open was going on? Could he have been practicing on clay? Could the extra clay court practice have helped him in clay matches?

"The Australian Open is too important a tournament for me to go to without having an option to win it." Now, who could have said this?

An asterisk? That's what ranking points are for. With 0 from the Australian Open, Nadal has a problem...until the next year. That is, if he will be ready yet. Not exactly befitting an asterisk. If a player loses because he's not ready and gets sick, does that get an asterisk, too? 6-3, 5-7, 0-3, ret. *but only because player got sick.


You make it sound like Nadal was playing tournaments around the time of the Australian Open and opted not to go, although he was 100% healthy. This is not the case, so you should get your facts straight please. And, you would also have to agree that the Rebound Ace surface would make Nadal just as much as a favorite as Federer. I'm suprirsed no one mentioned the interview in which Federer stated that the people who only say Nadal can play on clay don't know anything about tennis. I have to agree with him there.

urban
06-20-2006, 10:10 AM
I wouldn't call it decline, but what i noticed in Fed' game since the USO last year, is the lack of a certain freshness, crispness or explosiveness. He is playing it safe, a bit on routine, not adventurous, as in 2003 or 2004, often going through the motions, until coming to the tiebreakers. OK, he wins most of the time, he has all the shots, but the real sparkle is a bit gone. Maybe it is his defensive approach, which disturbes me a bit.

Thunderbrat
06-20-2006, 10:37 AM
[QUOTE=dh003i]anyone who debates whether Fed's the best is a moron...
QUOTE]

That's kind of harsh but it's also true.

However...

Is it possible that even though Fed is better Nadal should be recognized as the favorite in a head to head meeting with Fed? Sometimes it's about the matchup and Rafa's high-kick topspin, especially on his forehand and his wide ad-court serve (both to Federer's backhand) give him a very slight advantage head to head.

Nadal has a solid edge head to head on Clay.
Federer has a solid edge head to head on Grass.
Nadal has a very slight edge on all other surfaces.
Nadal has a slight edge overall.
---their head to head record supports this.

fastdunn
06-20-2006, 10:52 AM
I have to agree with the article, that it is up to Federer to answer to Nadal's challenge. While he hasn't done so, I do not discount him never being able to do it. Until then the question of Nadal will be a black mark against Fed in his career.

At the same time though, he is still a more complete player at the moment, and until Nadal can take his other slams away, he is still a clear no.1

Hmm, Is he really more complete ? He surely plays net plays occasionally
but does it matter for the outcome of a match ?
I think the crux of the problem is that Federer plays baseline against
Nadal and he doesn't have answer in both baseline and net game.

So far he did try net game at Dubai and failed badly.
He did it at Rome but couldn't close out (he tried to finish it
from baseline, going for forehand too much....)

dh003i
06-20-2006, 12:22 PM
HollerOne,

The fact that Nadal was injured doesn't matter. Staying healthy is a part of the sport. Tough ****. Federer's game makes it very likely that he can stay healthy and fresh long enough to win many many grand slams -- possibly 14.

If Nadal can't stay healthy enough to win another few grand slams, no-one is going to be talking about him as one of the greats. He chose his playing style -- he has the responsibility for whatever results. And if he can't stay healthy enough to win 14 grand slams -- and diversify to win on other surfaces -- no-one's ever ever ever going to mention his name as a candidate for the greatest ever: You either need 14+ GS, or a calendar year Grand Slam.

The Pusher Terminator
06-20-2006, 01:44 PM
Read this from an interesting article...

A part of it....


It's debatable right now if Federer is actually even the best player in the world — he's not even the best player on the court when he stares across the net at the clay-court conquistador who has had his number so often it's the tennis equivalent of speed dial.



Read the full article here....

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=15537&bannerregion=


Please post your thoughts..

You better watch it. The moderators are all Fed fans,

fastdunn
06-20-2006, 01:47 PM
Fed is not declining, he seems to getting better.
.

It's certainly possible that Federer's getting better since competition(Nadal)
usually forces one to improve.

Some tangible changes I notice is that Federer plays more conservatively
cutting down some flash shots.

I also notice his serving perfomance went down a little compared to
2003 - 2004 (maybe in the same context of becoming more conservative).

And I think he is a bit slower than 2003-2004. He had that foot injury
from later part of 2005. As I know, that injury he had is not serious
but not easy to be completely cured...

These do not necessarily translate to a decline but just some of tangible
changes I'm seeing lately..

FiveO
06-20-2006, 02:27 PM
Is Federer Still The Best?

Right now? Clearly. As the holder of every major except for RG there is nobody even close.

Anything in the future is conjecture. Can Nadal significantly improve his performances at Wimbledon and US Open? Can Fed repeat? IMO the odds for both are not good. Repeating is an extremely hard endeavor. Many here assume Roger will win Wimbledon but like Rabbit pointed out it's been almost impossible to four-peat there. If the committee there further slows conditions it will make it even less likely. The grass hasn't played like the grass that even Sampras won his titles on in several years.

Can Nadal take advantage of that? We don't know yet. IMO it is unlikely. IMO it is unlikely he will at the US Open. However give him a quarter of the draw with the other slow courters and he can go far. He has proven he is the better on faster courts than any of the other clay courters. So he could go farther than expected simply due to luck of the draw. I think that reality will set in against the first quality fast courter he faces in either event. I don't think he can win either, but no one thought Borg could win Wimbledon BEFORE he won five in a row.

I feel Nadal's second best chance at a major will be the AO which was good for several players having there best results at the RG.

What will be interesting is if Nadal can improve his performances enough at the two remaining majors and Masters to amass enough points to challenge Fed even if Fed defends. I don't know if it is mathematically possible, but could you imagine the guy winning 3 majors being supplanted by Nadal on points?

5

RiosTheGenius
06-20-2006, 02:51 PM
I just have one word for this - Sensationalism - people and the press have this compulsive thing about making extreme statements depending on who is the player of the week.
people are saying this things about Federer only based on his head-to-head record against Nadal and Nadal's great season.
but players match up differently depending on surfaces and other factors.. there's players who can't beat Federer but can beat Nadal. go figure
I think people need to relax a little, Federer #1 7260pts , Nadal #2 4545pts, until the ranking says otherwise Roger Federer is still the best player right at the moment.

Moose Malloy
06-20-2006, 03:39 PM
Many here assume Roger will win Wimbledon but like Rabbit pointed out it's been almost impossible to four-peat there.

That's a gamblers fallacy. What has happened with other players in the past has no correlation with events happening now. And just an FYI, since Fred Perry'34-'36 only Borg, Sampras, & Federer have 3-peated. And we know Borg & Sampras did 4 peat as well, so why not Fed? He already did the near impossible with a 3 peat.

If the committee there further slows conditions it will make it even less likely. The grass hasn't played like the grass that even Sampras won his titles on in several years.


I think the slow grass makes Federer even more of a lock, he can't be served off the court like so many were in the 90s. W now plays a lot like a hardcourt. And Fed is the best hardcourt(slow, fast, whatever) player out there.

FiveO, what happened to that borg thread? I liked those stats you posted there.

Simon Cowell
06-20-2006, 03:55 PM
Nadal is the best tennis player in the world. Fact. Federer is the 2nd best right now.

simi
06-20-2006, 03:56 PM
FiveO, what happened to that borg thread? I liked those stats you posted there.

Some real good posts in that thread, but probably deleted due to the confrontational nature of certain posters in that thread. Too bad it isn't possible to just delete various posts instead of the whole thread.

fastdunn
06-20-2006, 04:12 PM
Nadal's chances at Wimbledon are not that slim,IMHO.
He certainly do not have chances as fat as at FO or AO but
recent trend is that power players are declining on fast
courts. Roddick and Safin, for example.
Importance of defense game increased at Wimbledon lately.
Federer weathered Roddick and Fliper. Hewitt in similar way
and still winning a warm-up tournament...

Simon Cowell
06-20-2006, 04:21 PM
It's only a matter of time before Nadal conquers Wimbledon. Aus/French are locks for him, The U.S. will be a tough one for him though.

GugaGuga
06-20-2006, 04:42 PM
In a word... yes.

FiveO
06-20-2006, 05:15 PM
That's a gamblers fallacy. What has happened with other players in the past has no correlation with events happening now. And just an FYI, since Fred Perry'34-'36 only Borg, Sampras, & Federer have 3-peated. And we know Borg & Sampras did 4 peat as well, so why not Fed? He already did the near impossible with a 3 peat.

Valid point regarding odds. Fed enters as the odds on favorite and deservedly so. However there are no guarantees. It's sport. This is by no means a prediction, I just feel that in almost anything, sports in particular, streaks are meant to end. Recent example being the Masters final last year, where despite being dinged Fed entered that final heavily favored. Everything pointed toward a Fed win. The streak of finals, a chance to match Mc, even the career h2h with Nalby, having drubbed an opponent 0 and 0 in the round robin, everything pointed to a Fed win. Then they played it. Streaks almost invariably end. (I'm also slightly superstitious and reluctant to make grand predictions for a player or team I like or support.)

I think the slow grass makes Federer even more of a lock, he can't be served off the court like so many were in the 90s. W now plays a lot like a hardcourt. And Fed is the best hardcourt(slow, fast, whatever) player out there. Slow grass may help against some but hurts against more I think.

FiveO, what happened to that borg thread? I liked those stats you posted there.

I don't know but thanks. That thread seemed to be on simmer though one of the contributors seems to be starting to spiral downward. I didn't see a flashpoint if there was any.

We'll all see how it plays out in a couple of weeks.

PrestigeClassic
06-20-2006, 06:58 PM
You make it sound like Nadal was playing tournaments around the time of the Australian Open and opted not to go, although he was 100% healthy. This is not the case, so you should get your facts straight please. And, you would also have to agree that the Rebound Ace surface would make Nadal just as much as a favorite as Federer. I'm suprirsed no one mentioned the interview in which Federer stated that the people who only say Nadal can play on clay don't know anything about tennis. I have to agree with him there.

No, I never wrote that Nadal was playing other tournaments, just practicing. It's not like there's anything else decent for him to play during a Slam anyway? Never wrote that he was injured. Just that he wasn't ready. That's his problem. And yes, not being ready for the Australian Open makes some players sick.

Yes, I agree that Rebound Ace would tip the table toward Nadal. But Nadal himself said he felt like he wouldn't have been a contender. It sounds like he took a break in the off-season, like many do. If anything, that's nothing to be defensive about.

Yeah, Nadal is also great on hard. Is he as good on hard/grass as Federer is on clay?

8PAQ
06-20-2006, 07:14 PM
Nadal is the best tennis player in the world. Fact. Federer is the 2nd best right now.


I take above as you saying that Nadal is better than Fed without any questions and excuses.



It's only a matter of time before Nadal conquers Wimbledon. Aus/French are locks for him, The U.S. will be a tough one for him though.

Now since you just said that Nadal is better than Fed right now that would imply that Nadal will get farther than Fed at Wimbledon, USO and the TMC this year. By the end November we will see if you are correct or if you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

mileslong
06-20-2006, 07:16 PM
the only thing nadal fan can claim is head to head which is beyond stupid. that means that blake is better than nadal right? RIGHT? thats what i thought...

if nadal would get his *** past the first few rounds of any other tournament then he could play fed on something other than clay...

let nadal win something other than the french open and then get back to me. nadal will never pass fed overall, fed is the best player in the world on every surface except clay wher is is the second best. nadal is around top 15 at best on every other surface. there is more likely for him to get hurt before he starts winning wimbly or us opens...

tennisjunkiela
06-20-2006, 07:30 PM
To say Federer OWNS hardcourts is a bit of a joke. Nadal has wins over Federer on hard courts, wasn't even able to play in the Australian Open, and has only been shown to be vulnerable to James Blake on hardcourts (who he had to play at the US Open).

I agree with you totally. i am a total federer fan and nadal fan too so, i think it's a bit dishonest and perhaps dislusional of the fed-only fans to say that federer OWNS hardcourts??

nadal and fed both have won master series tourneys on hard courts and nadal has beaten federer twice on hard courts, once in straight sets! a clay court specialist is not supposed to thrash a hard court specialist (who also happens to be one of the all-time greats) in straight set on his best surface??

and it is also unfair to compare these 2 based solely on grand slams won. nadal is just exiting his teenage years and is full four years younger than fed, so of course he's not going to have as many grand slams as fed??

a better comparison, but one sure to give the already angst-ridden fed-only fans even more angst, is to compare what these 2 have accomplished at the same age. at age 20, nadal has already won 2 grand slams. at age 20, federer was just entering the elite ranks. nadal's first master series title came almost 2 years before federer earned his first one. and as we all know, federer didn't become federer the dominator until well into his 20's while nadal is already dominating so, it's kind of scary to think how good he can become.

so in conclusion, to the fed-only fans: please stop trying to twist the facts to diminish what nadal has accomplished by saying that he's "only a clay court specialist" and that "fed owns hardcourts". the facts don't support this manipulation of facts (a 1-6 losing record speaks for itself).

i believe there will be a time when us fed fans will see nadal getting beaten by fed and i can hope then that the nadal-only fans will give credit where credit is due! we are witnessing 2 great men in tennis at the same time competing head to head - who could ask for more???


,

RiosTheGenius
06-20-2006, 10:50 PM
I think by the time we see the US open final we can start making statements, too early yet

Fischer76
06-20-2006, 11:15 PM
I think by the time we see the US open final we can start making statements, too early yet

True. As much as I like that Fed and Nadal meet there to validate/answer some questions, this is a surface that anyone can beat anyone. I'm quite sure that Fed would go deep in the draw. I hope that Nadal can too but I doubt it. Unless of course Nadal learns to hug the baseline and flatten his shots a bit more and serve a little bit "bigger". But then again if he does that, he won't be able to retrieve as many balls. So, it's quite a dilemma. I don't know maybe it's just me.

ShooterMcMarco
06-20-2006, 11:34 PM
It's only a matter of time before Nadal conquers Wimbledon. Aus/French are locks for him

I don't see how the AO is a lock for him quite yet.

arosen
06-21-2006, 12:14 AM
Rafa's best chances lie at the Australian. Gilbert was wondering about Rafa's lost opportunity there this year, given how slow the surface was and how high the balls were bouncing - perfect conditions for Rafa. US Open plays fast, and so does Wimby. As high as Rafa's hopes may be right now, he has no chance at all to win those, too much difference from clay.

Luca
06-21-2006, 12:47 AM
a better comparison, but one sure to give the already angst-ridden fed-only fans even more angst, is to compare what these 2 have accomplished at the same age. at age 20, nadal has already won 2 grand slams. at age 20, federer was just entering the elite ranks. nadal's first master series title came almost 2 years before federer earned his first one. and as we all know, federer didn't become federer the dominator until well into his 20's while nadal is already dominating so, it's kind of scary to think how good he can become.

so in conclusion, to the fed-only fans: please stop trying to twist the facts to diminish what nadal has accomplished by saying that he's "only a clay court specialist" and that "fed owns hardcourts". the facts don't support this manipulation of facts (a 1-6 losing record speaks for itself).

i believe there will be a time when us fed fans will see nadal getting beaten by fed and i can hope then that the nadal-only fans will give credit where credit is due! we are witnessing 2 great men in tennis at the same time competing head to head - who could ask for more???

,

I completely agree with u. Both players are great. Fed has demostrated he ´s number one right now and Nadal has demostrated he has to be seriously considerated to be a future number one, after winning 2Grand Slams with just 20 years old..
I can ´t understand why some Nadal-haters says that´s not good enough and that means nothing..2GS and 17 titles with just 20 years old??bah! He should have won the four GS to be compared to Fed. Please!!

superman1
06-21-2006, 12:54 AM
We are witnessing two great players (one is among the greatest ever) playing at the same time, yet one of them is getting dominated and most of the matches are pretty low quality. It could be better. Federer's place in history will continue to drop until he can beat Nadal.

brucie
06-21-2006, 02:42 AM
Sure fed is only 2nd best clay courter! He isnt SUPERHUMAN as we may have thought but he is still the best, these topics are popping up quite alot if you arent sure that hes the world #1 GO CHECK THE RANKINGS!

brucie
06-21-2006, 02:46 AM
Nadal is the best tennis player in the world. Fact. Federer is the 2nd best right now.

Well lets see what you say when fed adds to his grand slam tally at wimbledon! remember fed won aus this year so far 1 grandslam to fed 1 to nadal, unless fed, hewitt, roddick,ljubichich (cant spell), grosjean, henman and other good grass courters all die or retire or something nadal isnt going see the final.

ksbh
06-21-2006, 05:26 AM
Strange as it seems, Blake is indeed better than Nadal. If you thought otherwise, what are your reasons? They played twice(?) and Blake won easily on both occasions.

the only thing nadal fan can claim is head to head which is beyond stupid. that means that blake is better than nadal right? RIGHT? thats what i thought...

if nadal would get his *** past the first few rounds of any other tournament then he could play fed on something other than clay...

let nadal win something other than the french open and then get back to me. nadal will never pass fed overall, fed is the best player in the world on every surface except clay wher is is the second best. nadal is around top 15 at best on every other surface. there is more likely for him to get hurt before he starts winning wimbly or us opens...

Rataplan
06-21-2006, 06:09 AM
Why do you guys have to bicker about this?

I understand the defensive reaction of Federer fans. The man has accomplished so much already. It's ludicrous to doubt his greatness all of a sudden (but I don't think that many are doing that).
On the other hand, what Rafael Nadal has accomplished at his age also deserves a lot of respect.

Roger is the clear number one and has proven himself on all surfaces: at the age of 24, he has 38 ATP titles, including 7 slam titles.

Rafael is a solid number two and at the age of 20, he has 17 titles including 2 slam titles (on one surface...shoot him) and 6 Masters series titles (on more than one surface...and yes, they do count).

You can twist and turn this around but we have two great champions here. I simply can't understand why some of you need to pick sides here. Why can't more people simply enjoy the both of them at work instead of the endless bickering back and forth?

You can point to the h2h and come to the conclusion that Rafael Nadal is better or you can point to the slam results and conclude that Nadal is only a midget compared to Federer but in my opinion, neither viewpoint is fair at this point in their careers.

Also, I notice that a lot of people speculating about burn-out, physical break-down, injuries taking their toll,...: this is more a matter of wishful thinking right now. As long as you're aware of that...feel free to speculate about it.

Rabbit
06-21-2006, 07:44 AM
OK, it was not my intent to denigrate Federer. I clearly indicate that he's still the best out there. His performance at Halle was not as impresive this year as last. In the four matches he played, 8/14 sets were decided by tiebreak. I apologize for my error regarding match points. I thought he faced one against Gasquet, but was wrong in that assertion. I also discount the theory that he was tired from his performance at Roland Garros. He made the semis last year and faced Nadal. One more round isn't going to drain him that much more.

Federer is facing more competition from the field. His results on grass speak directly to this. He won, but like I said before, the other pros are starting to make inroads into his game. This is a natural consequence of competition, otherwise old champions would never fade.

Also as I indicated, he is the clear favorite to win Wimbledon. However, it wouldn't suprise me if he didn't win and lost prior to the quarters. I also discount the gambler's argument. Gambler or no, it's damn near impossible to win Wimbledon 4 times in a row. Only two guys have done it since 1968. The odds are clearly not in Federer's favor and the two guys who did do it struggled mightily the further they went. In short, it ain't a cake walk.

fastdunn
06-21-2006, 10:37 AM
I think Federer is a bit more tired than last year. This year, he made
extra efforts for the entire clay court season. He really aimed at
beating Nadal.

But I also think Federer is getting a bit more competitions from top players.
Beginning this year, the scores with some of top players are getting close.

The tennis guy
06-21-2006, 02:58 PM
Hmm, it seems that way in, say, quantitively.

But there's still something different about the way Nadal beats
Federer, IMHO: his game seems to fit right into Fed's weakness.
(Fed fans, don't get mad. He doesn't have weakness, I mean relative
relative weakness).

And exactly same mechanics seems to happen on hard courts.
Federer does a little better on hard courts but basically same
dynamics again and again on hard courts and then clay courts....

To group hardcourt together is ridiculous. Miami hardcourt is so different from US Open hardcourt. If Nadal starts to dominate Federer on hardcourt the second half of the year - by design of ATP, second half of year courts are medium or fast except a few clay events - then Federer needs to be worried about Nadal seriously.

The tennis guy
06-21-2006, 03:01 PM
I think Federer is a bit more tired than last year. This year, he made
extra efforts for the entire clay court season. He really aimed at
beating Nadal.

But I also think Federer is getting a bit more competitions from top players.
Beginning this year, the scores with some of top players are getting close.

Why? Because he played two or three extra matches on clay this year? He played same amount of tournaments on clay this year as last year. The only effort he made was to hitting more kick to his serve according to him. Now he says he needs to adjust his serve back to flat and slice again. Grass can get his backhand back due to low bounce.

Shabazza
06-21-2006, 03:16 PM
OK, it was not my intent to denigrate Federer. I clearly indicate that he's still the best out there. His performance at Halle was not as impresive this year as last. In the four matches he played, 8/14 sets were decided by tiebreak. I apologize for my error regarding match points. I thought he faced one against Gasquet, but was wrong in that assertion. I also discount the theory that he was tired from his performance at Roland Garros. He made the semis last year and faced Nadal. One more round isn't going to drain him that much more.

Federer is facing more competition from the field. His results on grass speak directly to this. He won, but like I said before, the other pros are starting to make inroads into his game. This is a natural consequence of competition, otherwise old champions would never fade.

Also as I indicated, he is the clear favorite to win Wimbledon. However, it wouldn't suprise me if he didn't win and lost prior to the quarters. I also discount the gambler's argument. Gambler or no, it's damn near impossible to win Wimbledon 4 times in a row. Only two guys have done it since 1968. The odds are clearly not in Federer's favor and the two guys who did do it struggled mightily the further they went. In short, it ain't a cake walk.
You contradict yourself, so he is the clear favorite, but you wouldn't be surprised if he loses prior to the QF's. Doesn't make sense.
He is 49:0 against all other pro's and only lost to Nadal this year, which is a better start than in every other year he played (excluding Nadal's matches) despite his problems with Nadal, I don't see him getting more competition from the rest of the field. He struggled in Halle last year, too, facing MP's in the first round, but had is best and most dominant Wimbledon performance ever 1 week later!

Nothing you said indicates, that he could easily be beaten in a 5 setter in Wimbledon this year. He made the final in every tournament he entered for a year now. Tell me how does that make you believe he gets more competition, just because he had a few tough matches after his best and longest clay-court season ever!? Don't make me laugh!

fastdunn
06-21-2006, 04:19 PM
To group hardcourt together is ridiculous. Miami hardcourt is so different from US Open hardcourt. If Nadal starts to dominate Federer on hardcourt the second half of the year - by design of ATP, second half of year courts are medium or fast except a few clay events - then Federer needs to be worried about Nadal seriously.

I agree we do not have enough data on hard courts.

But hasn't Federer suffered surprsingly more than expected
on those hard courts ?

The Pusher Terminator
06-21-2006, 04:21 PM
Fed will win Wimbledon...but he is in serious danger of losing the US open to nadal. Clearly if Nadal wins the US OPEN then you will have to admit that Nadal is the best this year. He has completely dominated Fed. In fact if I had to put my money on a player, my money would always go on Nadal except on grass.

fastdunn
06-21-2006, 04:24 PM
Why? Because he played two or three extra matches on clay this year? He played same amount of tournaments on clay this year as last year. The only effort he made was to hitting more kick to his serve according to him. Now he says he needs to adjust his serve back to flat and slice again. Grass can get his backhand back due to low bounce.

So you're saying Federer is not tired and other players are getting better ?
I was addressing why Federer suffered more this year at Halle....

The Pusher Terminator
06-21-2006, 04:29 PM
So you're saying Federer is not tired and other players are getting better ?
I was addressing why Federer suffered more this year at Halle....

NADAL

Speak4FedEX
06-21-2006, 04:33 PM
Hello TT.

I appreciate so many of your concern for my oncourt domination. Moreover, i love reading from my fans and those criticize me.

What can I say? I am the No. 1 tennis player in the world; I dont go out on to the courts saying "I am the best in the world", rather I say that "I will play my best, both mentally and physically."

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. If many of you think I am not best, that's fine, I am not gonna lose my sleep over it. Mirka and I had a big fight on the night before the FO finals, we havent talked yet. Its kind of funny how stupid the fight was. I have a thing where the night before the match, I always sleep on the right side of bed. Mirka got upset when I pushed her over because she wouldnt stopped hounding me about how stupid was my superstition about sleeping on the right side and wanted to prove me wrong.

Well, I hope you guys/girls least watch me play at wimbeldon with others. I may not be the best, but gosh-darnet, I will put on a tennis show for each of my matches. Looking forward to it.

Sincerely,
Federer

p.s. Mirka, I know you read these boards so please I am apologizing front of everyone. If you want to sleep on the right side, that's fine. I will even do that "bedroom trick" you always wanted me to do.

HollerOne5
06-21-2006, 04:33 PM
OK, it was not my intent to denigrate Federer. I clearly indicate that he's still the best out there. His performance at Halle was not as impresive this year as last. In the four matches he played, 8/14 sets were decided by tiebreak. I apologize for my error regarding match points. I thought he faced one against Gasquet, but was wrong in that assertion. I also discount the theory that he was tired from his performance at Roland Garros. He made the semis last year and faced Nadal. One more round isn't going to drain him that much more.

Federer is facing more competition from the field. His results on grass speak directly to this. He won, but like I said before, the other pros are starting to make inroads into his game. This is a natural consequence of competition, otherwise old champions would never fade.

Also as I indicated, he is the clear favorite to win Wimbledon. However, it wouldn't suprise me if he didn't win and lost prior to the quarters. I also discount the gambler's argument. Gambler or no, it's damn near impossible to win Wimbledon 4 times in a row. Only two guys have done it since 1968. The odds are clearly not in Federer's favor and the two guys who did do it struggled mightily the further they went. In short, it ain't a cake walk.

Does anyone else think it would be good for tennis if Federer and Nadal both lost early in Wimbledon? I do.....

Fischer76
06-21-2006, 08:33 PM
Does anyone else think it would be good for tennis if Federer and Nadal both lost early in Wimbledon? I do.....

A new face would definitely be more interesting. But I doubt it. Fed will go on to win this one again. Except if Hewitt does rain on his parade. Still even that is a long shot.

127mph
06-21-2006, 08:37 PM
It's only a matter of time before Nadal conquers Wimbledon. Aus/French are locks for him, The U.S. will be a tough one for him though.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

please look at his results then compare his results to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal

i think youll notice the 3rd and forth round finishes for wimbledon and australian for nadal.

127mph
06-21-2006, 08:41 PM
Fed will win Wimbledon...but he is in serious danger of losing the US open to nadal. Clearly if Nadal wins the US OPEN then you will have to admit that Nadal is the best this year. He has completely dominated Fed. In fact if I had to put my money on a player, my money would always go on Nadal except on grass.

yea nadal certainly can challange federer on us open, ill have you know that his best result at flushing is 3rd round. federer would worry more about nalbandian at us open than nadal because nalbandian can actually play on hardcourts.

quest01
06-21-2006, 09:07 PM
Federer is definitely the best tennis player in the world right now. He is pretty much unstoppable. The only person that can beat Federer is Nadal and that happens on clay. The problem with Nadal is he can lose to a handful of players such as Blake and Moya, while Federer's only nemesis is Nadal.

When it comes to whos the best player of all time its a toss up between Sampras and Federer. Sampras had the tougher rivals while Federer is a little better on clay. Personally i like Sampras more because hes an american.

Rabbit
06-22-2006, 06:21 AM
You contradict yourself, so he is the clear favorite, but you wouldn't be surprised if he loses prior to the QF's. Doesn't make sense.

You clearly don't understand the term favorite versus the term lock. Just because a player is favored to win it doesn't guarantee that he will win. That's why the play it out. I think Federer is susceptible this year. IMO, get it?


He is 49:0 against all other pro's and only lost to Nadal this year, which is a better start than in every other year he played (excluding Nadal's matches) despite his problems with Nadal, I don't see him getting more competition from the rest of the field. He struggled in Halle last year, too, facing MP's in the first round, but had is best and most dominant Wimbledon performance ever 1 week later!

So, his prior year's performance is a guarantee of this year's? Now who's making who laugh?


Nothing you said indicates, that he could easily be beaten in a 5 setter in Wimbledon this year. He made the final in every tournament he entered for a year now. Tell me how does that make you believe he gets more competition, just because he had a few tough matches after his best and longest clay-court season ever!? Don't make me laugh!

You'd have to go back and do a little research prior to saying this is his best and longest clay court season ever. I don't know that to be true. How many clay court titles did he win last year? The year before? The year before? I would imagine that he won more clay court titles prior to the emergence of Nadal.

Shabazza
06-22-2006, 07:42 AM
You clearly don't understand the term favorite versus the term lock. Just because a player is favored to win it doesn't guarantee that he will win. That's why the play it out. I think Federer is susceptible this year. IMO, get it?
I get your point, but I can't follow your reasoning for thinking that he is susceptible at this years Wimbledon. If he had lost to anyone besides Nadal this year I would be concerned, but he was tired and exhausted both mentally and physically coming to Halle and still won the tournament! If his opponents can't beat him in this state in a best of 3 tournament on grass, how does it make you believe he could be beaten in a 5 setter in Wimbledon, when he has time to recover this week?
Imo, being the clear favorite means, that no one is expecting him to lose before the QF's, in fact, he din't lose before the QF since Athen 2004 and yes these stats indicate that Federer is as good as a lock for the quarters in Wimbledon!


You'd have to go back and do a little research prior to saying this is his best and longest clay court season ever. I don't know that to be true. How many clay court titles did he win last year? The year before? The year before? I would imagine that he won more clay court titles prior to the emergence of Nadal.

Yes it was his best clay-court season, imo - reaching every final he played, including FO and if you get to a final, winning or losing doesn't make a difference physically. Imo, these losses must have taken their toll on Federer mentally and made him more exhausted than last year.


So, his prior year's performance is a guarantee of this year's? Now who's making who laugh?
Still, it is a better reasoning for him doing well at Wimbledon, than a subjective opinion, based on on a few matches in Halle, where he shouldn't have played in the first place as his fitness-trainer suggested!

The tennis guy
06-22-2006, 05:44 PM
I agree we do not have enough data on hard courts.

But hasn't Federer suffered surprsingly more than expected
on those hard courts ?

At Australia Open, yes, but not at Indian Wells and Miami. Australia Open slowed down the court more this year, and they started to use slow ball from Wilson (used to use Slazenger before). On those slow and very high bouncing court, Federer is more vulnerable, no question about that.

The tennis guy
06-22-2006, 05:55 PM
I think there is a bit of a downward spiral in Fed's game right now. If you look at his results on what is clearly his best surface, grass, he's been challenged of late. He's been challenged uncharacteristically by some players who really aren't of his caliber. He faced match points in more than one match at the Halle tournament.

Does this mean that he's not the best out there right now? Certainly not. What it does indicate is that he's beginning to see the rest of the field make inroads into his game. Whether it's because he can't maintain the level that he had throughout last year (not suprising) or if it's because the rest of the pack doesn't see him as intimidating is the real question. Of course, it could all be that Federer is human after all and this is just something that happens. :)

Federer faced half the competition at Halle that he's going to see at Wimbledon. Right now he's the heavy favorite, but it wouldn't suprise me in the least if he faltered in an early round. If his opponent can play through the obvious tendency to choke away the upset, then Federer could lose before the final 8 at Wimbledon.

Historically, it's near impossible to win Wimbledon 4 times in a row. Borg's streak at Wimbledon may be something that we never see repeated.

Did you watch his play last year at Halle? He struggled there also. Last year he had 3 days of practice on grass before his first match, this year, just one day.

You need to put Federer record this year in perspective. Relative to last year at this point, he is actually doing better this year. About same time this year, I remembered I heard the same murmur, including you, that Federer's game is declining. What happenned, he won three straight majors.

I actually think he is playing better this year on his worst surface, high bouncing slow court, he is dealing the high bounce better than last year.

The tennis guy
06-22-2006, 06:00 PM
Rabbit,
Federer only struggled at Halle because he was exhausted from the French. Hardly any FO finalists(or winners) from the last 25 years have even played prior to W because they need the rest. McEnroe was the last FO finalist to win a grass event prior to W.
Fed would still be a huge favorite had he lost early at Halle(Sampras rarely won any grass events prior to W, but still won W 7 times)

Fed is not declining, he seems to getting better. He just reached his 15th straight tour final(last time he failed to reach a final was the French last year, amazing consistency) He lost only 4 times last year(3 times before W), has already lost 4 times this year. If you look at how well he plays the 2nd half of the year the last 2 years, its possible for him to go undefeated the rest of the year. Since he always makes the final & fast courts are the rest of the season, odds are good for him to do that.

If Fed starts losing before finals, & to players he normally owns(Ljubicic, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin) then I'll consider he's declining.

Fed is a 1-2 favorite to win W this year. Roddick is the 2nd favorite & is only 12-1! There is still a huge gap between Fed & the rest of the field. And their really aren't that many quality grasscourt players these days, so I don't like the "field's" chances vs him.



Sampras won 4 in a row('97-'00) And he lost early at Queens in '97 & '98.

Sorry I replied to Rabbit's post before I saw yours. I agree with you 100%. I actually think he is playing better this year. The lower bouncing courts are coming the second half of the year, he plays much better on them than on slow high bouncing court, especially from the backhand side. He actually improved that aspect of his game this year. I think people only remember his play from second half of last year.

Bassus
06-22-2006, 06:14 PM
Of his era, Federer is the best in the game. Even if half of the season was on clay, Federer would still be ahead in points. He's been seemingly sprinting through each of the last few seasons. Except Federer makes it look like he's on cruise control.

Now, for some perspective . . .

Sampras' rival was Agassi. On all surfaces, Agassi did a lot better than Nadal ever has so far; yet, who is saying that Agassi was better than Sampras? The only surface on which Agassi had a winning record against his rival was clay. So far, Nadal is 2-1 on Federer in non-clay matches. Pretty good. It's doesn't make him the best in the era.

Furthermore, Sampras, the man who is regarded as the best in his era, maybe ever, never got as far in his worst major, the French Open, as Federer already has in his worst major, the French Open.

If anything, all that Nadal has shown is that a clay court specialist can still beat a very good player, the best player in the game, but mostly on clay, the muggier conditions the better. And sometimes just barely. As in, facing multiple match points.


You're right on for the most part, but in shooting for the honor of being the greatest of all time, it won't matter one bit that Federer lost in a French final versus a semifinal for Sampras. To have a generally undisputed claim to being the greatest of all time, Federer MUST WIN the French Open.

The tennis guy
06-22-2006, 06:14 PM
It's certainly possible that Federer's getting better since competition(Nadal)
usually forces one to improve.

Some tangible changes I notice is that Federer plays more conservatively
cutting down some flash shots.

I also notice his serving perfomance went down a little compared to
2003 - 2004 (maybe in the same context of becoming more conservative).

And I think he is a bit slower than 2003-2004. He had that foot injury
from later part of 2005. As I know, that injury he had is not serious
but not easy to be completely cured...

These do not necessarily translate to a decline but just some of tangible
changes I'm seeing lately..

You are right with those subtle changes in Federer's game since 2005. The first two are actually by design from Tony Roche. Tony asked Federer to play more conservatively because the courts are slower and bouncing higher. Federer agreed it would improve his consistency. Tony also asked Federer to serve with more kick the first half of the year for both Australia Open and French. Federer said he doesn't need to adjust too much for grass except his serve. He needs to get back to his flat and sliding serve the rest of the year.

I haven't noticed he is a bit slow. I actually thought he plays defense now better than any time in his career. In today's overall slowdown on ATP, you have to play defense to be on top.

Bassus
06-22-2006, 06:19 PM
I think Federer is still the best on tour right now. I'm not A Fed fan but watching the FO I noticed that after the ist set that the fight in him just seem to get out of him suddenly. He started shanking shots and didn't seem to care at all. I kinda felt for him. Must be so frustrating to play Nadal. You know, the way he "steals" the winners out of Fed. I mean the guy just doesn't seem to go away!!! Contrary to a lot of criticism of Feds play during that match, I admired him for keeping his head. A lot of players would've broken a lot of rackets when things are not only going their way but when their most reliable shots are simply not there. I wonder what Safin would've been like if it was him in Feds shoes in that match.

Yeah, it was nice that he didn't behave like an *** on the court as the French slipped away from him, but as you say, the fight seemed to go out of him as soon as he blew that 40-0 game early in the second, and considering what was at stake, that was hard for me to stomach as a Federer fan.

Even when he got a second chance by somehow getting into that 4th set tiebreak, he seemed to put forth a very poor effort. It was almost heartless.

I'm a Federer fan, and to answer the question at hand, yes, he is still the best player in the world overall. But I came away from that French Open final thinking that he would never win the French, and that would be a shame because he would just be the latest, supremely talented player to be undone there.

Bassus
06-22-2006, 06:22 PM
At Australia Open, yes, but not at Indian Wells and Miami. Australia Open slowed down the court more this year, and they started to use slow ball from Wilson (used to use Slazenger before). On those slow and very high bouncing court, Federer is more vulnerable, no question about that.


Why would they do that at the Australian? Slowing it down would hurt the only native hope -- Hewitt -- and it was completely unnecessary in terms of the quality of tennis. The Aus has been a bit unlucky in terms of the quality of the finals, but the matches leading up to it are often some of the best of the year.

Gilgamesh
06-22-2006, 06:33 PM
Of course Federer is the best right now.

He is the most consistent player on every surface. The man has reached every final of every tournament he has entered this season. Not to mention he has appeared in the finals of the last four GS.

Minus Nadal, it could even be said that Federer would be the undisputed best player on clay, hardcourt, and grass on the today's tour. That is how much Federer's clay game has improved over the last few seasons and if it were not for Nadal he probably would have won every clay tournament he entered this year. People make it sound like losing to Nadal is shameful. Please. Losing to the best clay player of probably this generation and arguably the best clay courter ever (especially if he can continue his reign for several more years) on his surface is no shame. If Nadal beats Federer on grass then YEAH that would be shameful.

But Federer can't be the best of all-time if he can't figure a way to solve Nadal. Does anybody know if Laver, Budge, Tilden, and Sampras has a losing record against a significant opponent?

I also like the "cute" comparison the author made to Wlad. Please Wlad didn't solve anything. He still has a suspect chin and got knocked down by Peter several times. The reason why Peter lost is because Peter doesn't know how to box. Anybody who has watched Peter before his Wlad match could see that. He is a power puncher with VERY RAW technical skills almost like a more unpolished version of Jeff Lacy. Peter would have only won that match with a boxer's lucky punch. I gotta give credit for Wlad for getting up though because he was destroyed by Corrie Sanders. Wlad's stamina is still questionable, it is not hard to go long distance with a boxer who did nothing in the ring (i.e. Sam Peter) but throw one punch here and there. As for the match with Byrd. C'mon. Who didn't think Wlad would win? Wlad destroyed Byrd in their first meeting. Not to mention although Byrd is a polished boxer (with *cough* controversial technique *cough*) he has NO power whatsorever. Many of the questions about Wlad still exists today.

The tennis guy
06-22-2006, 07:30 PM
Why would they do that at the Australian? Slowing it down would hurt the only native hope -- Hewitt -- and it was completely unnecessary in terms of the quality of tennis. The Aus has been a bit unlucky in terms of the quality of the finals, but the matches leading up to it are often some of the best of the year.

I agree with you. I have no idea why. The head of Australia Open quit after it ended this year because of heavy criticism of his decision to slow down Australia Open this year by Australia players. The only guess I have is he was going with the trend of ATP, slowing down court speed.

I also agree with you about the quality of Aussie Open. The court used to be medium with fast ball. It was a fair court for both attacking and defensive players. Now it is slow with heavy Wilson ball. They used to use firmer Slazenger ball.

urban
06-22-2006, 11:11 PM
Tilden's nemesis was Henri Cochet. He lost many important major and DC matches to him, including the infamous Wim semi of 1927, when he led 5-1 in the third. As amateur, head to head was ca. 1-5. As pros Tilden could handle past prime Cochet in the 30s. Budge had problems with Bobby Riggs, who beat him for the pro crown 46 and 47. Gonzales lost his first 7 matches vs. Ted Schroeder, before he beat him US 1949, and his first match-tour vs. Kramer as a new pro (27-96). Also a new pro, Laver lost first 8 matches to Hoad in January 1963, in 1963 for the whole is was 5-11. In 1964 Laver got a positive record vs. Hoad, as well as vs. Rosewall (12-3).

Chang
06-23-2006, 02:00 AM
Read this from an interesting article...

A part of it....


It's debatable right now if Federer is actually even the best player in the world — he's not even the best player on the court when he stares across the net at the clay-court conquistador who has had his number so often it's the tennis equivalent of speed dial.



Read the full article here....

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=15537&bannerregion=


Please post your thoughts..

Even though Nadal, has beat Fed on hard and clay. Fed has made at least the finals, in all his tournaments so far this year. Nadal hasn't.

Statistically Fed is still the best so far.

Moose Malloy
06-23-2006, 01:38 PM
I also like the "cute" comparison the author made to Wlad. Please Wlad didn't solve anything. He still has a suspect chin and got knocked down by Peter several times. The reason why Peter lost is because Peter doesn't know how to box. Anybody who has watched Peter before his Wlad match could see that. He is a power puncher with VERY RAW technical skills almost like a more unpolished version of Jeff Lacy. Peter would have only won that match with a boxer's lucky punch. I gotta give credit for Wlad for getting up though because he was destroyed by Corrie Sanders. Wlad's stamina is still questionable, it is not hard to go long distance with a boxer who did nothing in the ring (i.e. Sam Peter) but throw one punch here and there. As for the match with Byrd. C'mon. Who didn't think Wlad would win? Wlad destroyed Byrd in their first meeting. Not to mention although Byrd is a polished boxer (with *cough* controversial technique *cough*) he has NO power whatsorever. Many of the questions about Wlad still exists today.

What are your thoughts on Baldomir-Gatti & Mosely-Vargas?

Think Wlad could beat Rahman or Toney?

fastdunn
06-23-2006, 03:08 PM
I haven't noticed he is a bit slow. I actually thought he plays defense now better than any time in his career. In today's overall slowdown on ATP, you have to play defense to be on top.

If I compare thesae days with matches in 2004-beginning of 2005,
he appears to be a bit slow. I think he was faster 2 years ago and
his center of gravity was tad lower. For example, at 2005 Master's final,
Nabandian moved him around laterally and he barely made those
running forehands. He had an ankle brces on his right foot.

And in 2006 AO, players increasingly exploited his lateral movements
and gave Federer closer matches. Of course, Nadal repatedly exploits
it with his lefty spin and Federer struggles to cover ground for his
forehand...

rrhstennis
06-23-2006, 04:55 PM
"The Spaniard has won six out of seven from Federer and actually it could have very easily been a perfect seven had he not blown a two sets and a break lead in the Key Biscayne final last year."


I quit reading here. After all, "actually it could be 2-5 if Fed hadn't "blown" his set lead in Rome. It could be 3-4 if he hadn't "blown" that and his set lead in Dubai. Hell, it could be 7-0 if he'd won every time! What a novel concept.. :rolleyes:

Speculative writing in the opener is a bad form of writing. Scoop Malinowski had better go back to English, grade 11 and brush up his persuasive writing technique.

ShooterMcMarco
06-23-2006, 05:28 PM
If people didn't have clay court season tunnel vision this discussion would be over real fast.

Robbie_1988
06-23-2006, 06:52 PM
To answer the original question in this thread: YES

The tennis guy
06-23-2006, 08:13 PM
If I compare thesae days with matches in 2004-beginning of 2005,
he appears to be a bit slow. I think he was faster 2 years ago and
his center of gravity was tad lower. For example, at 2005 Master's final,
Nabandian moved him around laterally and he barely made those
running forehands. He had an ankle brces on his right foot.

And in 2006 AO, players increasingly exploited his lateral movements
and gave Federer closer matches. Of course, Nadal repatedly exploits
it with his lefty spin and Federer struggles to cover ground for his
forehand...

At 2005 master, he just came back from a partial torn of ligament on his ankle. He only practiced two days before the tournament in 4-6 weeks. It's amazing he could get to final, and went to 5 sets in the final if you look at that way.

His lateral movement at Australia was due to the slower and higher bouncing court this year, similar to clay. He needed a little bit extra time to recover from his backhand side on those high balls. That happens to many one-handers. If you watched Federer's match on slower courts in 2004, he had same problem, actually more problem. He doesn't have that problem on faster court because he recovers quickly off his backhand.

sliceroni
06-23-2006, 08:29 PM
2 months out of the yr Nadal is better, Fed is still the fav all other non-clay tournaments. Nadal has to make it to the finals to meet him, Fed met him in the finals oh his fav surface and came close.

tennis-n-sc
06-24-2006, 04:45 AM
All you Rafa wannabees got excited last year when he won the French and then what. He couldn't get to the finals of any other majors. This year will be a repeat of that performance. And Fed will be projected to be in the finals of Wimby and the Open. Nadal is best on clay. That's it. There are lots of players that can beat him on other surfaces and Fed is the clear favorite on these other surfaces. For him to lose would be a major upset. And anyone who puts a lot of stock in Bud Collins' articles must have some bright pants in their closet.

Roger is Boring
06-24-2006, 01:11 PM
federer cannot be the best if there is another player out there who beats him in finals all the time and that player is rafael nadal!vamoooosssssss!!!!

The tennis guy
06-24-2006, 06:54 PM
federer cannot be the best if there is another player out there who beats him in finals all the time and that player is rafael nadal!vamoooosssssss!!!!

Unless that player is more likely NOT to get to the final when it is played on surface other than clay.

Nadal in the past year on surface other than clay:

Wimbldeon (2nd round), Montreal (winner), Cincinatti (1st round), US Open (3rd round), Beijing (winner), Madrid (winner), Marseille (semi), Dubai (winner), Indian Wells (semi), Miami (1st round), Queens (quarter).

4 out of 11 in final. He needs to get to final more often on other surfaces.

Chang
06-24-2006, 11:52 PM
federer cannot be the best if there is another player out there who beats him in finals all the time and that player is rafael nadal!vamoooosssssss!!!!

That's if he gets to the finals of surfaces other than clay which doesn't happen very often.

Chang
06-25-2006, 12:00 AM
Roger is Boring? What about Nadal, he's hardly got variety

MasterTS
06-25-2006, 12:15 AM
No fed is not the best. Gasquet is set to bet federer in r1.

Lets see the so called worlds best go out in the first round of wimbledon!

GroundMaster
06-25-2006, 01:18 AM
At this very particular point in time, yes, Federer is the best. But I do agree that Nadal is lurking in the background and has the ability to take more titles away.

Tennis_Goodness
06-25-2006, 04:33 PM
Next year around this time, Federer is still going to be far and away the number 1 player in the world.

The media will say Nadal is Federer's roadblock for the French Open but that's gonna be it. The media are going to town about the rivalry right now but Federer is so much better then him on other surfaces that I think once some time passes, people will acknowledge Federer is clearly Number 1 again!

Bassus
06-25-2006, 08:09 PM
Next year around this time, Federer is still going to be far and away the number 1 player in the world.

The media will say Nadal is Federer's roadblock for the French Open but that's gonna be it. The media are going to town about the rivalry right now but Federer is so much better then him on other surfaces that I think once some time passes, people will acknowledge Federer is clearly Number 1 again!


With regards to the French, the media would be 100% correct in saying Nadal is Federer's roadblack. If there were no Nadal, Federer would almost certainly have two French Opens, and talk of him being the greatest ever would have merit. There is of course no shame in losing to Nadal -- on any surface, but especially clay -- but at this point there is clearly something mental about the matchup. And while one should be careful not to minimize Nadal's game, or to take credit from him, Federer simply did not compete well against him in the French final. As a Federer fan used to seeing him find an extra gear when he needs it, I was stunned by his lame, hopeless, defeated effort in that 4th set tiebreak. Physically, Federer has 2, maybe 3 yrs left of his prime. If he doesn't win it next year, then his chances are going to fade rapidly.

In the end, being number one for ten straight years wouldn't mean as much to Federer's place in history as winning one French Open.

Still, Federer is still the best player overall because there are 3 other majors, and he has been dominant at all three of them.

Fischer76
06-25-2006, 10:40 PM
With regards to the French, the media would be 100% correct in saying Nadal is Federer's roadblack. If there were no Nadal, Federer would almost certainly have two French Opens, and talk of him being the greatest ever would have merit. There is of course no shame in losing to Nadal -- on any surface, but especially clay -- but at this point there is clearly something mental about the matchup. And while one should be careful not to minimize Nadal's game, or to take credit from him, Federer simply did not compete well against him in the French final. As a Federer fan used to seeing him find an extra gear when he needs it, I was stunned by his lame, hopeless, defeated effort in that 4th set tiebreak. Physically, Federer has 2, maybe 3 yrs left of his prime. If he doesn't win it next year, then his chances are going to fade rapidly.

In the end, being number one for ten straight years wouldn't mean as much to Federer's place in history as winning one French Open.

Still, Federer is still the best player overall because there are 3 other majors, and he has been dominant at all three of them.

Nice insight. My reply to the last sentence... At least so far. His draw this year at Wimbledon tho' is by far the toughest. Coming off from a tough loss from the FO might play a factor on how things play out at Wimby. Then again, his win at GW might just be what he needs to gun for his 4th.. I think this is one time in Fed's career that is exceptionally interesting to watch. THe USO is also good gauge as to whether Fed still dominates the field.

Gilgamesh
06-25-2006, 11:31 PM
What are your thoughts on Baldomir-Gatti & Mosely-Vargas?

Think Wlad could beat Rahman or Toney?

Ah another boxing fan I see. :D

Wlad is arguably the most skilled boxer in the HW division. I think he is even more naturally talented than his brother but two weaknesses haunt Wlad and that are his stamina and his suspect chin. Lucky for him the HW division is garbage today.

As for Wlad vs Rock. This all depends on Wlad's chin. Wlad can outbox Rock. The question is can he handle Rock's punches? I really want to see this fight because I think it is the best HW fight out there but there are rumours Wlad will face Briggs (don't ask me why? there is someone who is affiliated with Brigg's promotion that posts at boxrec.com forums).

Wlad vs Lights Out is intriguing but Wlad is too big and too strong for Toney. Not to mention Toney is a fatass but his technical ability and defense is amazing. If Toney can fight close with Wlad he will have a chance but like I said Wlad is way too strong for that to happen. Plus, IMO Toney is still an unproven HW. Sure he beat Ruiz but c'mon. He beat a completely shot Evander...so what and looked ugly against Rock. Toney is a legend but he is a B-level HW IMO.

Another intriguing fight would be the giant Valuev against Wlad. This is more of a comical fight for me though.

Wlad is good but he was vastly overhyped by HBO much like Michael Grant once was until Lewis destroyed him. I give Wlad credit though because unlike Grant he managed to fight his way back to the top but like I said the HW division right now is complete crap.

Gatti is overrated. He is exciting but overrated. But this will be an interesing fight because Baldomir beat Zab and I think Zab can beat Gatti any day of the week. It should be competitive and with Gatti you know his face will be bruised up so there will be a lot of excitment.

Mosley vs Vargas. Their last fight was boring IMO. I wouldn't pay to watch another round even though it was competitive. Vargas' eye did look UGLY during that match though but this matchup would have been more exciting 5 years ago when Vargas was still ferocious and Mosley was arguably the best P4P in the world. To me this is just two over the hill fighters trying to pretend primetime. At least it is not as bad as Roy who I heard recently attributed his Tarver beating to his trying to discredit his dad. Man, has he fallen some.

The fight I am most excited about is...

Morales (one of my all-time favs) vs Pac-Man

I also want to see Arthur Abraham shut Miranda's big mouth.

But the fight I REALLY want to happen is...

PBF vs Hatton.

Moose Malloy
06-26-2006, 09:41 AM
Gatti is overrated. He is exciting but overrated. But this will be an interesing fight because Baldomir beat Zab and I think Zab can beat Gatti any day of the week. It should be competitive and with Gatti you know his face will be bruised up so there will be a lot of excitment.

Mosley vs Vargas. Their last fight was boring IMO. I wouldn't pay to watch another round even though it was competitive. Vargas' eye did look UGLY during that match though but this matchup would have been more exciting 5 years ago when Vargas was still ferocious and Mosley was arguably the best P4P in the world. To me this is just two over the hill fighters trying to pretend primetime. At least it is not as bad as Roy who I heard recently attributed his Tarver beating to his trying to discredit his dad. Man, has he fallen some.


I'm in a boxing pool(with like 5 other people), we only have 2 fights left & I'm only a few points behind the leader. I was the only one who picked Taylor over Wright, too bad it was a draw.

What's your pick for those fights-MoselyVargas & GattiBaldomir(winner, by decision or KO, etc)?

I was a bit disappointed by Joel Julio on Sat, I had heard a lot about him(kinda reminded me of Trinidad)

I can't believe the crappy fights that are on PPV in the coming weeks(Vargas, Roy Jones, Rahman-Maskaev???)

Gilgamesh
06-26-2006, 02:27 PM
I'm in a boxing pool(with like 5 other people), we only have 2 fights left & I'm only a few points behind the leader. I was the only one who picked Taylor over Wright, too bad it was a draw.

What's your pick for those fights-MoselyVargas & GattiBaldomir(winner, by decision or KO, etc)?

I was a bit disappointed by Joel Julio on Sat, I had heard a lot about him(kinda reminded me of Trinidad)

I can't believe the crappy fights that are on PPV in the coming weeks(Vargas, Roy Jones, Rahman-Maskaev???)

Winky should have won that fight. Taylor is a good boxer, outstanding athlete. Winky is a classic boxer. He will give any opponent headaches. I picked Winky for that match and I scored it for Winky but a draw is understandable. I didn't like Winky's boasting between rounds though. Who does he suddenly think he is? Roy Jones? Roy in his prime would destroy Taylor and Winky.

Didn't catch the Julio fight but comparing him to Tito is a tall order. Tito was a lethal WW and had one of the best lefthooks I have ever seen. Julio also padded his record IMO against less than stellar opponents.

As for who I would pick in those fights you named:

Mosley vs. Vargas

Mosley by stoppage before the 10th.

Gatti vs. Baldomir

This one is tough because I haven't seen Baldomir enough. But if Baldomir can survive Zab's power he can survive Gatti's power. Baldomir is also not known for his power so I can't see Gatti losing by stoppage. In the end, I gotta go Baldomir with a decision (7 rounds to 5).

Good luck on your pool!

Moose Malloy
06-26-2006, 02:37 PM
Didn't catch the Julio fight but comparing him to Tito is a tall order.

Well, stylistically they are a little similar. Head hunters who like targets, but if you don't stand in front them, they can have trouble.

thanks for your picks

Tennis_Goodness
06-26-2006, 09:58 PM
Julio is overrated at this point. I called people out about hyping him A LONG TIME AGO, but people finally saw I was right on Saturday.

He also lost to a very slick good fighter too.

Julio might turn out to be good but he's not Tito or anybody super great!

mowcopian
06-27-2006, 01:20 AM
yes basically

mowcopian
06-27-2006, 01:22 AM
he is the best on every surface by a country mile, accept clay(which is 2nd best on) and i think he is catching up on nadal and i think he will win roland garros one day.

mowcopian
06-27-2006, 05:50 AM
no doubt he will be the best for at least the next 5 years i would say!!!

Pomeranian
06-27-2006, 07:12 AM
no doubt he will be the best for at least the next 5 years i would say!!!

Mark my words, his time will come within 5 years, the time he won't be the number one player. Less than 5 years, way less. A setback from something, someone, or age will push him down from the spot permanently. You can tell I'm a Roger fan right? ;)

It's undebatable that he's the number one player in the world as of now, there is a reason he's ranked #1. But of all time is questionable. If we could get all the greatest players from different time eras and bring them into a tournament to decide. That would be the best way to decide.

Some people will try to guess how the match will come out based on past results of the players and past matchups, that doesn't work. If we could accurately do that there would be no point of watching tennis.

Others will bring up the player's record. That's also not a great way to determine who is the best player because of the different eras of players, maybe some better players are in this era and such. Right now "Federer Still Is The Best", but like I said, I think is greatness will end, and soon.

The Pusher Terminator
07-04-2006, 11:31 AM
Mark my words, his time will come within 5 years, the time he won't be the number one player. Less than 5 years, way less. A setback from something, someone, or age will push him down from the spot permanently. You can tell I'm a Roger fan right? ;)

It's undebatable that he's the number one player in the world as of now, there is a reason he's ranked #1. But of all time is questionable. If we could get all the greatest players from different time eras and bring them into a tournament to decide. That would be the best way to decide.

Some people will try to guess how the match will come out based on past results of the players and past matchups, that doesn't work. If we could accurately do that there would be no point of watching tennis.

Others will bring up the player's record. That's also not a great way to determine who is the best player because of the different eras of players, maybe some better players are in this era and such. Right now "Federer Still Is The Best", but like I said, I think is greatness will end, and soon.

Oh its completely debatable. Nadal would destroy Fed on any sirdace except grass. In fact if they met on grass Nadal might even win there because psycologically Fed is completely destroyed.

Simon Cowell
07-04-2006, 04:32 PM
1)Nadal (Whole other level)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2) Federer
3- Rest of field)

That pretty much sums it up.

Marat Safinator
07-04-2006, 04:34 PM
oh please. safin and federer at there best would hammer anyone else.

The Pusher Terminator
07-05-2006, 10:14 AM
oh please. safin and federer at there best would hammer anyone else.

Safin did pretty poorly against Santoro.

dh003i
07-05-2006, 11:25 AM
Pusher,

You're a moron. Any psychological advantage you talk about is pure bull. Federer had lost to, for example, Hewitt numerous times -- didn't cause any psychological problems.

Federer's the best player in the world, and the best on every surface except clay, where he's second best. On grass, he's simply out of this world. Hasn't lost a set yet at Wimbledon; only lost serve twice. Simply unbelievable. He's on the level of Pete Sampras on grass. Sorry, he will destroy Nadal if they meet on grass, just like Sampras would destroy some clay-court pretender on grass.

d_frank
07-05-2006, 11:38 AM
The only reason theres any debate at all right now is because the French Open just got over. Last year the same thing happened. Nadal won and everyone was like "omgz nadal > fed lol amirite?!?" Then federer **** all over the field at wimbledon and through the US Open series and the US open and everyone was like "omgz fed > world" again. The hype surrounding nadal will die out when he gets knocked out and it will be revived again next year when the clay season starts.

dh003i
07-05-2006, 11:45 AM
d rank,

Exactly right. People can be so stupid.

There are 4 grand slams. Right now, Federer holds 3 of them. There is no "debate", because anyone who argues that Federer isn't the best tennis player is simply a moron. Nadal is the best clay-court player, Federer the 2nd, but there are 3 non-clay slams.

Marius_Hancu
07-05-2006, 11:49 AM
He might well be. I just like his game much less than in 2003: retreating at the baseline.

whealben
07-05-2006, 12:43 PM
Federer was utterly sublime this afternoon.

Anyone who says he isn't the best in the world is talking s****. Ancic has the game to challenge him, but he barely dented Fed's performance. He broke Fed's serve which is an achievement, but Rog looks unstoppable.

The Pusher Terminator
07-05-2006, 01:11 PM
Pusher,

You're a moron. Any psychological advantage you talk about is pure bull. Federer had lost to, for example, Hewitt numerous times -- didn't cause any psychological problems.

Federer's the best player in the world, and the best on every surface except clay, where he's second best. On grass, he's simply out of this world. Hasn't lost a set yet at Wimbledon; only lost serve twice. Simply unbelievable. He's on the level of Pete Sampras on grass. Sorry, he will destroy Nadal if they meet on grass, just like Sampras would destroy some clay-court pretender on grass.

Nadal leads fed 2-1 on hard courts. Id say Nadal is a better player on hard courts as well.

If Nadal makes the finals Fed's knees will oscilate with fear, and the resulting resonance will crumble his foundation. Game, set, match, Nadal. Just as it always goes. Except for one time, Fed got lucky, once.

Simon Cowell
07-05-2006, 01:16 PM
Nadal has no trouble disposing of Roger on fast surfaces, hence his win over him in Dubai this year. You think the slow Aussie courts would give him problems? Think again. Lets start talking Grand-Slam (All 4) for Nadal in 2007.

harryz
07-05-2006, 01:33 PM
The match in Dubai was 6-4 in the third, which is only one break. Fed had two match points in Rome on red clay, and will beat Nadal on that surface before long. I have two words for you-- record books. Fed is 24 and has 7 slams. At the same age, Sampras had 5. Fed has multiple slams on grass and hard courts. Let's see what Nadal has by the same age. If Nadal has no trouble with Fed on hard courts at the Open, should they meet, that would be quite something. Let's keep our finger's crossed.

Incidentally, Sampras had trouble with lefties until Gullikson helped him. And then he turned it around. Fed just has too much game for Nadal long term. Better serve, better volleys, close enough off of the ground, just as fast, better touch and just as much guts, or more. A rivalry for the ages, not one sided as you seem to think. They're just starting, too. Besides, I recall that Blake gave Nadal quite an *** whooping at the Open last year, so my money is still on Fed.

dh003i
07-05-2006, 05:38 PM
Simon, Pusher,

Federer holds a 3-1 lead over Nadal in the past 4 grand slams. Enough said. Federer is the better player on hard-courts too, you stupid morons. Ranking and Grand Slams determine who the best player is -- not head-to-head. And before you start *****ing about unfair comparisons, I'm only comparing GS over the past year -- perfectly fair.

mileslong
07-05-2006, 09:05 PM
Nadal leads fed 2-1 on hard courts. Id say Nadal is a better player on hard courts as well.
you say so many stupid things its hard to keep them all straight, you would need an ibm server to store all the data of stupid things you have uttered on this board...

The Pusher Terminator
07-06-2006, 01:30 AM
I have two words for you-- record books. Fed is 24 and has 7 slams. At the same age, Sampras had 5. Fed has multiple slams on grass and hard courts. Let's see what Nadal has by the same age.


As a blind fed fan you are purposefully ignoring the obvious question:

WHAT DID FED EVER DO AT NADALS AGE ???????

ahhhh...the sweet sound of silence.

Chang
07-06-2006, 01:50 AM
Nadal leads fed 2-1 on hard courts. Id say Nadal is a better player on hard courts as well.

Head 2 Head doesn't matter. Fed had the major edge over Safin at the Aussie Open but Safin still beat him. Wins and points don't lie. Fed has an almost 3000 points lead over Nadal. He's the best at the moment and by far.

The Pusher Terminator
07-06-2006, 01:52 AM
I have two words for you-- record books. Fed is 24 and has 7 slams. At the same age, Sampras had 5. Fed has multiple slams on grass and hard courts. Let's see what Nadal has by the same age.


As a blind fed fan you are purposefully ignoring the obvious question:

WHAT DID FED EVER DO AT NADALS AGE ???????

ahhhh...the sweet sound of silence.


still silent?

brucie
07-06-2006, 01:56 AM
to be the best in the worldyou must be better than everyone or the vast majority fed is but does struggle to nadal, nadal struggles against blake etc and many ther players fed will give beatings.

The Pusher Terminator
07-06-2006, 02:05 AM
I have two words for you-- record books. Fed is 24 and has 7 slams. At the same age, Sampras had 5. Fed has multiple slams on grass and hard courts. Let's see what Nadal has by the same age.


As a blind fed fan you are purposefully ignoring the obvious question:

WHAT DID FED EVER DO AT NADALS AGE ???????

ahhhh...the sweet sound of silence.


still silent?

harryz
07-06-2006, 01:52 PM
at 20. When Sampras had won 4 in a row. What's your point? If you're saying that Nadal is better at the same age, I would suggest that he's simply a better clay court player at the same age. Hard courts are still too close to call, and clay is not a walkover by any means.

The fact is that different players mature at different rates. Federer and Nadal are both great players, and Federer has proven to be better on all surfaces except clay based upon major titles won and his overall record. Facts are facts. Nadal has won two French opens but no slams (yet) on hard courts or grass. He is surely to do so by Fed's age.

Federer is 216-14 or something obscene the past 3-4 years, with almost half of those losses coming to Nadal. When Fed beats Nadal once or twice in a row and regains his confidence, the tide may turn. For example, it took Lendl a number of years to beat McEnroe, but once he did once or twice, that was that.

Other players typically need tie breakers or five sets to have a chance to beat Federer, like Gasquet, Safin and Nalbandian (when Fed was ill) last year. Nadal lost to Blake at last year's US Open, to Hewitt on grass recently (albeit by withdrawing) and others who Fed would likely have beaten.

Isn't it enough to simply acknowledge that both are great players and will go down in history? You seem to think that Nadal is the better of the two; I think not. That's all.

The Pusher Terminator
07-06-2006, 03:56 PM
at 20. When Sampras had won 4 in a row. What's your point? If you're saying that Nadal is better at the same age, I would suggest that he's simply a better clay court player at the same age. Hard courts are still too close to call, and clay is not a walkover by any means.
.

I cannot believe how pathetically blind you fed fans are. WHO THE HELL IS TALKING ABOUT SAMPRAS!~!!!!!! Read the quote...I think this is now the third time I have asked the same question with absolutely ZERO response.:


As a blind fed fan you are purposefully ignoring the obvious question:

WHAT DID FED EVER DO AT NADALS AGE ???????

ahhhh...the sweet sound of silence.

Simon Cowell
07-06-2006, 03:58 PM
I cannot believe how pathetically blind you fed fans are. WHO THE HELL IS TALKING ABOUT SAMPRAS!~!!!!!! Read the quote...I think this is now the third time I have asked the same question with absolutely ZERO response.:

There is a tendency amongst Federer fans to dodge the question and facts and bring up something totally irrelevant. It's kind of like talking to a small child who doesn't know any better.

harryz
07-09-2006, 03:21 PM
says it all. BTW, I'm a tennis fan, not a Federer fan (although I prefer his tennis to Nadal's)

95nCode95
07-09-2006, 03:40 PM
OF COURSE HE IS, nadal's game does not has as much variety as Federer, federer can do EVERYTHING nadal can only hit top spin, hes fast, and can pass amazingly, but his serve is a big let down. Federer is amazing on everything where Nadal is amazing on most things.

Rhino
07-09-2006, 04:07 PM
As a blind fed fan you are purposefully ignoring the obvious question:

WHAT DID FED EVER DO AT NADALS AGE ???????

ahhhh...the sweet sound of silence.
This question is not relevant because players often peak at different ages. Boris Becker won Wimbledon at age 17, then again at 18. At the time nobody would have believed that he would only win it one more time (at age 21). Perhaps Nadal only has one more FO title left in him, who knows? Michael Chang won the French Open when he was 17 and then never won it again. Roddick peaked winning the US at 21. Hewitt peaked at 20/21. For all we know Nadal may not even be winning slams at Federers age.

127mph
07-09-2006, 04:23 PM
8 slams and counting

federerforever
07-09-2006, 04:38 PM
Bjorn Borg is without doubt the greatest of all time because he was able to win French Open and Wimbledon back to back unlike the choker Nadal or choker Federer. Think about it in 1978 Born Borg beat G. Vilas in French Open final and Jimmy Connors in Wimbledon final. It is simply unbelivable. The poor choking performance from Nadal even though Federer has generously offered Nadal a win with his poor performance and what does Nadal do he chokes in crucial games and points. The reason why Bjorn Borg retired early is because he had no idea that Sampras was on the horizon. He has proven to everyone at that time that he is the greatest of all time and I guess had too many personal problems in his life to spend time on tennis. But Bjorn Borg is simply the best. Period.

Dilettante
07-09-2006, 04:40 PM
Federer is the best in the world right now, I don't see how could anybody think in other way. I respect all opinions, but Federer this year did beat EVERYBODY. He only lost to Nadal... and Nadal according to facts is the second best right now.

That is: we have a #1 that usually loses only to #2. I call this an astounding dominance. He gets to the finals on every surface. He gets to the finals in every single tournament he plays.

I mean: Nadal's dominance over the majority of players would make him #1 in another moment. The fact that a player like him is far from reaching the #1 spot, that talks about what kind of dominance exerts Rogelio.

And talking in a more subjective way, in my opinion Federer's style is so complete and many times technically near to perfection, that I wouldn't mind to consider him as one of the main candidates to be called the most talented player ever.

nadal can only hit top spin

That's plain and simple not true.

mileslong
07-09-2006, 04:42 PM
brilliant post rhino. the nadal fanboyz are missing the point. in tennis often the younger you are the better you play. for a lot of pros they only have a small window where they play their very best. just because you get older doesnt always mean you get better in tennis. there are too many examples to list.

macenroe said that he though federer could easily play another 10 years with his style of play. effortless motion and incredible anticipation and racket control. nadal uses every once of energy in his body to win matches. can he keep that up for 10 years? will opponants start to figure out his game liek they have done roddicks? only time will tell. he is a real gutsy player, i dont like his antics but i respect his heart.

you nadal fanatics really need to get a grip however...

ta11geese3
07-09-2006, 04:48 PM
I honestly don't think you can "figure out" Nadal's game... unlike Roddick, just about every part of his game is sound- there isn't much to pick on. Except perhaps for the fact that his game is very physically exerting.