PDA

View Full Version : Who is better Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer?


tr0ni0
07-25-2006, 09:09 AM
Rafael Nadal currently has the upperhand on Federer 6-2. But it is obvious who is better. Roger may lose to Nadal but Rafa, unlike Roger, actually loses to other players (Clement, Blake, Moya, Hewitt). So I guess the real question is if they played each other 100 times who would have more wins?

MonkeyPox
07-25-2006, 09:10 AM
This is a new topic, who is better, Federer or Nadal. I've never thought about that. Let's discuss. After that, we can start a thread on Seles vs. Graf. I don't think that's been covered either.

d_frank
07-25-2006, 09:15 AM
his 1st post is about this. that might be a record.

snoflewis
07-25-2006, 09:21 AM
This is a new topic, who is better, Federer or Nadal. I've never thought about that. Let's discuss. After that, we can start a thread on Seles vs. Graf. I don't think that's been covered either.

and then we can compare federer/sampras, and then safin's temper/ivanicevic's temper, and then rdx500/rds001, and so on!!!!

Mick
07-25-2006, 09:22 AM
Rafael Nadal currently has the upperhand on Federer 6-2. But it is obvious who is better. Roger may lose to Nadal but Rafa, unlike Roger, actually loses to other players (Clement, Blake, Moya, Hewitt). So I guess the real question is if they played each other 100 times who would have more wins?

it depends on the court surfaces.

Clay courts - Nadal will have more wins
Grass & Hard courts - Federer will have more wins

tr0ni0
07-25-2006, 09:26 AM
everyone needs to chillax! Got it? Good.

chinese dragon
07-25-2006, 09:29 AM
this is a stupid thread because you cant compare the two...theres really no way to actually prove whos better...its all in your opinions

dandy2fast
07-25-2006, 09:36 AM
theres really no way to actually prove whos better...

Aren't the results in slams, and rankings, here to prove who is better?

DMich
07-25-2006, 09:38 AM
Why are we even entertaining this?

The Pusher Terminator
07-25-2006, 09:40 AM
Slams won by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Roger: 0

World records held by the age of 20:

Nadal: 1

Fed: 0

Highest ranking by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Fed: I dont think he was in the top 10.

dandy2fast
07-25-2006, 09:49 AM
Slams won by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Roger: 0

World records held by the age of 20:

Nadal: 1

Fed: 0

Highest ranking by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Fed: I dont think he was in the top 10.

The question is not who is/was the best 20 years old player, the question is "who is the best".

The Pusher Terminator
07-25-2006, 10:10 AM
The question is not who is/was the best 20 years old player, the question is "who is the best".

Then you agree at 20 Nadal was better than Fed at 20?

chinese dragon
07-25-2006, 10:13 AM
you cant compare the two, roger is getting close to his prime and nadal is just starting...maybe you can compare after they both retire...just a suggestion

Nadal-inator
07-25-2006, 10:15 AM
agree with chinese dragon all the way

InvisibleSoul
07-25-2006, 10:37 AM
Then you agree at 20 Nadal was better than Fed at 20?
Yes.

Does it mean anything in the big picture? No.

Nadal being better at 20 does not mean he will end up with a better career than Federer.

Breaker
07-25-2006, 10:44 AM
Slams won by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Roger: 0

World records held by the age of 20:

Nadal: 1

Fed: 0

Highest ranking by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Fed: I dont think he was in the top 10.

So by your criteria Chang should have been the GOAT :rolleyes: .

Gilgamesh
07-25-2006, 11:03 AM
Then you agree at 20 Nadal was better than Fed at 20?

Becker was better than Fed at 20.

But who is better Becker or Fed at 25 or career wise?

monfils
07-25-2006, 11:27 AM
If Nadal 6-2 in the head to head then he is better than Federer. Nadal leads head to head on hard and clay. Federer leads on grass. Nadal was injured for the first three months of the year. Nadal is clearly the better 20 year old, infact nadal is argubly the best 20 year old.

Eviscerator
07-25-2006, 11:32 AM
everyone needs to chillax! Got it? Good.

LOL @ chillax. I am guessing it is a new word coming out of middle school?:mrgreen:

Try using the search feature on this subject. Assuming your CPU does not overload and blow up, you might find that this subject has been discussed a few times already.:roll:

The Pusher Terminator
07-25-2006, 12:43 PM
Yes.

Does it mean anything in the big picture? No.

Nadal being better at 20 does not mean he will end up with a better career than Federer.

Although my predictions have ALMOST always been correct...you are right....I cannot see into the future. I can only predict based on current facts.

Therefore following that line of logic at the rate of grandslams Nadal is winning per year we can pretty much count on about another 7 French opens by the time he is 27. Thats 9 grand slams!! If he wins a US open or a Australian or even a Wimby the numbers go up even more!!

Furthermore, when Nadal is 27 Fed will be 31 years old and most probably retired. Nadal will then have the whole field open to him and will be winning even more slams.

dandy2fast
07-25-2006, 12:45 PM
Then you agree at 20 Nadal was better than Fed at 20?

Of course I do, isn't it obvious enough to suffer no contradiction?

But it simply doesn't say anything about how their carreer records will compare when they will both be retired.

Tchocky
07-25-2006, 12:47 PM
Could someone please creat a poll for this topic?:D

bluescreen
07-25-2006, 12:52 PM
Furthermore, when Nadal is 27 Fed will be 31 years old and most probably retired. Nadal will then have the whole field open to him and will be winning even more slams.

but the chances r slim that roger and nadal will be the only 2 extremely dominating players for the next seven years, w/ no others players coming to the fore. as they get older, they wear down. i would think nadal's game would deteriorate some in the next seven years, ginving an opening for other players to win on clay and any other surface.

dandy2fast
07-25-2006, 12:59 PM
Although my predictions have ALMOST always been correct.....

BULLSHI.T



Therefore following that line of logic at the rate of grandslams Nadal is winning per year we can pretty much count on about another 7 French opens by the time he is 27. .../... Furthermore, when Nadal is 27 Fed will be 31 years old and most probably retired. Nadal will then have the whole field open to him and will be winning even more slams.

Therefore following the exact same line of logic than yours, at the rate Nadal get injured due to his playing style asking too much too his body, we can pretty much consider that Nadal will be a retired player at a much younger age than 27.

Here is an other way to follow the same kind of logic as yours : Since his arrival as a top player Nadal wins 1 slam per year, compare to Federer who wins an average of 2.54 slams per year since he reached the #1 spot, then let's assume that they will both retire at the same age, and choose any age you want for their retirement, do the math yourself and you will see that the stats are in Federer's favor, by far.

The Pusher Terminator
07-25-2006, 01:16 PM
Therefore following the exact same line of logic than yours, at the rate Nadal get injured due to his playing style asking too much too his body, we can pretty much consider that Nadal will be a retired player at a much younger age than 27.
.

interesting analysis...but sadly mistaken. There has never been a player like Nadal before. He has the legs of a soccer player (because he really played soccer semi-professionally) and the upper body of a football player. Nadal is no stringbean and his body was made to last.

The only comparison I can make is Borg. Although not nearly as strong as Nadal, Borg was probably the most fit player of his day and he also had a very physical style. Borg retired at 26 ranked #2 in the world...but not because he was physically tired.....but mainly because he could not stand being ranked #2 in the world. By analogy, If Fed had lost Wimby I think he would have crumbled as well...not physically but mentally.

Therefore, following that line of logic...if Borg lasted physically then clearly nadal can as well. The difference between Borg and Nadal however is that Nadal is the new kid on the block with absolutely nothing to lose. Therefore he will last mentally while if Roger rests for a minute he will fall to #2 and crack just as Borg did. I would rather be in nadals shoes....I would always rather be the hunter than the hunted. Fed cannot rest...he better watch out at the US Open...his career depends on it....here is the analogy:

Mcenroe is to Borg as Nadal is to Federer...

the names and faces have changed...but the fight is still the same. The first time around the serve and volleyer won but this time around its the baseliners turn.

dandy2fast
07-25-2006, 01:20 PM
interesting analysis...but sadly mistaken. There has never been a player like Nadal before. He has the legs of a soccer player (because he really played soccer semi-professionally) and the upper body of a football player. Nadal is no stringbean and his body was made to last.

Nadal's body was made for last?:confused:

The fact that he is so often injured proves the opposite.

The Pusher Terminator
07-25-2006, 01:24 PM
Nadal's body was made for last?:confused:

The fact that he is so often injured proves the opposite.

time will tell...Didnt everyone also predict Roddick would throw his arm out?

dandy2fast
07-25-2006, 01:31 PM
The only comparison I can make is Borg. .

Therefore, following that line of logic...if Borg lasted physically then clearly nadal can as well.

No you can't compare borg and Nadal, their game were different, Borg was the one who used to control the center of the court and made his opponants run away from side to side chasing down the balls, Nadal on the other side is almost always the one who madly run to chase down the balls, he almost never control the center of the court. That is why Nadal's game is clearly more demanding than Borg's

I would rather be in nadals shoes....I would always rather be the hunter than the hunted.

I'd rather be the #1 than the #2 :cool:


Mcenroe is to Borg as Nadal is to Federer...

the names and faces have changed...but the fight is still the same. The first time around the serve and volleyer won but this time around its the baseliners turn.

No the first time around the baseliner won <Borg>, don't forget that Borg won more slams than Mac Enroe, and is considered higher in the hierarchy of the greatests players of all times. Get the facts straight please.

Marat Safinator
07-25-2006, 01:39 PM
Slams won by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Roger: 0

World records held by the age of 20:

Nadal: 1

Fed: 0

Highest ranking by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Fed: I dont think he was in the top 10.

wtf? thats the past, this i the present, who is no.1? FEDERER

Shamo
07-25-2006, 01:51 PM
interesting analysis...but sadly mistaken. baseliners turn.
judging from your language you try to sound like a smart tennis analyst but you are not, instead you are pretty much a federer hater and nadal lover, instead of giving more facts for your theory, wich is pretty valid, you just tell us how beautiful his legs are and how his "hunting" federer meaby you are gay for him wich is not a problem but could you then post in a nadalfanclub forum or something instead of here? and the same goes to the federer lovers

mileslong
07-25-2006, 02:12 PM
interesting analysis...but sadly mistaken. There has never been a player like Nadal before. He has the legs of a soccer player (because he really played soccer semi-professionally) and the upper body of a football player. Nadal is no stringbean and his body was made to last.

even though i hate wasting time shooting down your ridiculous logic time after time i feel compelled again to make you a laughing stock.

your obsession with nadals body has been catalogued on these boards for a long time, but the fact is that most pro athletes have long term career ending type problems due to ligaments, tendons and skeletal issues not muscle issues.

there are plenty of body builder pro football players that can hardly walk because of no cartilage left in their knees, blown out ligaments, torn tendons etc. athletes are either prone to injury or they are not. thats why guys like federer hardly ever get hurt, he is flexible and lean.

even if you are a weight gym rat and bulk up to 250 lbs of solid muscle, your ACL is still the same size as it was before but now it has to carry more weight than it was naturally designed for and when you play sports that require cutting and fast changes of direction then that is just more mass to put on them, the same holds true of ankles as well. the point is that having bigger muscles doesnt translate into fewer injuries. proper strengthening can help take some of the load off of joints but it has to be the right type of muscle development not just more bulk.

the looser your tendons and ligaments are the less likely you are going to have severe injuries to them. thats pure luck more than any particular muscle development.

as far as your other asinine point about nadals wins at 20 years old or under has nothing to do with anything. you CANT project numbers using what he has done now and just use the same number of wins now and then multiply that by the number of years he MIGHT play. its stupid, plus every player doesnt always get better with age, not in tennis thats for sure. he might be at his peak right now. his physical game will take its toll. only time will tell, i am willing to bet however that he doesnt play at as high a level as fed has and will to the same age. mcenroe said that he can see fed playing at a high level for another 10 years due to the style of his game. the same cant be said for nadals game which is only successful due to his uncanny ability to run down shots. one step slower for him is suicide...

thanks for playing pusher terminated now run along...

cshokraii
07-25-2006, 04:07 PM
Federer is the better player. He has more skill than anyone ever, even Nadal admits that!!!

quest01
07-25-2006, 04:13 PM
Federer is better then Nadal.

cricri
07-25-2006, 05:43 PM
Overall Federer is better than Nadal

The Grand Slam
07-25-2006, 05:45 PM
Nadal leads 2-1 on hardcourt.
Nadal leads 4-0 on clay.
Federer leads 1-0 on grass.

You can't really tell. They haven't played each other enough times.

Mick
07-25-2006, 05:51 PM
"I have a tough opponent waiting for me, he has a great future"
[on playing Rafael Nadal]

-- Roger Federer

"If he doesn't play very, very well and I play one of my best matches, I have a little bit of a chance"
[on his Master final appearance vs Roger Federer]

-- Rafael Nadal


source:
http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/jobquotes/tennis

helloworld
07-25-2006, 11:55 PM
I can't say who's better, but if I lost to someone 5 times in a row, I'd have enough 'balls' to atmit that he's a better player.

OrangeOne
07-26-2006, 12:10 AM
I can't say who's better, but if I lost to someone 5 times in a row, I'd have enough 'balls' to atmit that he's a better player.

With all due respect, and I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet you're not a pro-player, at least not one of the top few in the world :). Life is different up there, players are doing a job, earning a living, meeting sponsors' commitments, etc etc.

It's widely acknowledged that the mental aspect of tennis increases with ranking, and that the difference between the top bunch is largely mental. Sure - it seems Fed and Nadal are a step above again - but even so, the mental approach and confidence mean so much for those guys. For Federer to come out and say that Nadal is a better player would be to concede a lot of mental ground, it not common for such things to be done, especially by the current 'number 1'.

Disclaimer: In no way am I weighing-in to any debate saying who's actually better, and this post is also not a slight on Federer for holding the mental ground he is by saying what he's said, or a slight on Nadal for choosing to still frame himself as the underdog.

I respect the game of both players, and look forward to the next few years watching them both and seeing which of the current bunch can step up to challenge them, and also seeing who 'new' comes to challenge them, and how they respond to all of those challengers.

The Pusher Terminator
07-26-2006, 04:51 AM
I can't say who's better, but if I lost to someone 5 times in a row, I'd have enough 'balls' to atmit that he's a better player.

AWESOME!

Nadal leads 2-1 on hardcourt.
Nadal leads 4-0 on clay.
Federer leads 1-0 on grass.

You can't really tell. They haven't played each other enough times.

ARE YOU KIDDING? Lets just try and crack this very difficult question. hmmmmm.....seems that the score is 6-2 in favor of Nadal. Hmmmmmmm......I can't figure it out. Hmmmmmm.....lets see Nadal has dominated Fed...that must mean Fed is the better player! ......NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shamo
07-26-2006, 05:04 AM
Pusher take it out:(

TrueAce
07-26-2006, 07:52 PM
Are the people that win this argument 10 years from now going to throw a party that they were right?????

NamRanger
07-26-2006, 08:22 PM
Slams won by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Roger: 0

World records held by the age of 20:

Nadal: 1

Fed: 0

Highest ranking by the age of 20:

Nadal: 2

Fed: I dont think he was in the top 10.


Who beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, one of the greatest players in mens tennis on his own homecourt? Oh wait, that would be Roger Federer at the age of 19?! Unbelivable.


Plus head-to-head means jack. It's how you do against the rest of the tour overall. Guess what, Roger Federer is undefeated against them all, and recently pounded Nadal at Wimbledon pretty badly (despite what Nadal fans say).


Nadal has loses to many opponents who are suppose to be "subpar" compared to him. Examples? Although I'd say James Blake is up there in talent with him, we'll use quite a suprising one, Carlos Moya. He's old, doesn't move as well as before, and a subpar backhand. All he has for him is his serve and forehand, and he really can't utilize his forehand so much because he really can't run around shots to hit it. Nadal in 10 matches should not lose to Carlos Moya, but he does on the ocassion.



Plenty of other players I could name that Nadal should not lose to, but he does.

Swissv2
07-26-2006, 08:28 PM
The_Pusher_Terminator, if you read Grand Slam's post carefully (which you didn't) you would notice it had a bit of sarcasm in it. Stop trying to think one dimensional for a second, please.

There are two ways to look at this. If you look at this head-to-head statistics then you can say Rafa is better at 6-2 stats. But if you look at the stats side by side on WIN vs LOSS record

Nadal 2006 record: 44-5
Nadal 2005 record: 79-10
Nadal 2004 record: 29-18

Federer 2006 record: 56-4
Federer 2005 record: 81-4
Federer 2004 record: 75-6

then Federer wins.

Chang
07-26-2006, 08:30 PM
AWESOME!



ARE YOU KIDDING? Lets just try and crack this very difficult question. hmmmmm.....seems that the score is 6-2 in favor of Nadal. Hmmmmmmm......I can't figure it out. Hmmmmmm.....lets see Nadal has dominated Fed...that must mean Fed is the better player! ......NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You love Nadal so much don't you? Put it this way, James Blake has a 2-0 lead over Nadal, doesn't that make him a better player than Nadal? Federer has a 4-0 lead over Blake so does that mean he is better than Nadal?

Head to head is not a reliable way to compare players. Every player has strengths and weaknesses and fortunately for Nadal, his lefty topspin forehand is the answer as it exploits Federer's backhand.

Big Fed
07-27-2006, 11:34 AM
Wow stop making these threads.....

ROGER FEDERER

TrueAce
07-27-2006, 12:30 PM
Who beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, one of the greatest players in mens tennis on his own homecourt? Oh wait, that would be Roger Federer at the age of 19?! Unbelivable.


Plus head-to-head means jack. It's how you do against the rest of the tour overall. Guess what, Roger Federer is undefeated against them all, and recently pounded Nadal at Wimbledon pretty badly (despite what Nadal fans say).


Nadal has loses to many opponents who are suppose to be "subpar" compared to him. Examples? Although I'd say James Blake is up there in talent with him, we'll use quite a suprising one, Carlos Moya. He's old, doesn't move as well as before, and a subpar backhand. All he has for him is his serve and forehand, and he really can't utilize his forehand so much because he really can't run around shots to hit it. Nadal in 10 matches should not lose to Carlos Moya, but he does on the ocassion.



Plenty of other players I could name that Nadal should not lose to, but he
does.

Um Roger beat Pete then loses to Tim Henman in the next round. This showed that he had tremendous talent at 19 but doesn't even compare to Nadal in maturity and mental toughness at the same age. If Nadal took out the defending champion at a tournament he sure wouldn't make the same mistake and lose the next round. It's true Nadal could have peaked at an earlier age but we'll see when he comes into his true prime. Also at the same age I think Roger was losing more and to lesser players than Nadal does.

Shamo
07-27-2006, 01:15 PM
Um Roger beat Pete then loses to Tim Henman in the next round. This showed that he had tremendous talent at 19 but doesn't even compare to Nadal in maturity and mental toughness at the same age. If Nadal took out the defending champion at a tournament he sure wouldn't make the same mistake and lose the next round. It's true Nadal could have peaked at an earlier age but we'll see when he comes into his true prime. Also at the same age I think Roger was losing more and to lesser players than Nadal does.

I am getting sick of this maturity and mental toughness ********

listen, in wich way should have nadal proved his mental toughness against federer

he was never considered the favourite in these matches!

federer has in fact to deal with the pressure

In fact he trys constatly to give the pressure to him by saying **** like he's the underdog and he has to play the best match of his life to beat him and he has to find a way to beat federer not the other way around.

so why this mental toughness talk all the time from the fanboys???

best example is wimbledon federer had everything to loss and still did it that's mental tough

tough is when you perform every day good as number one and favourit against your contenders like sampras did and now federer.

mentally toughness has nothing to do with jumping around and screaming vamos after every point

monfils does the same is he now mentaly tougher than others???

I mean he choked in the second set of the wimbeldon final even with no pressure

TrueAce
07-27-2006, 02:25 PM
I am getting sick of this maturity and mental toughness ********

listen, in wich way should have nadal proved his mental toughness against federer

he was never considered the favourite in these matches!

federer has in fact to deal with the pressure

In fact he trys constatly to give the pressure to him by saying **** like he's the underdog and he has to play the best match of his life to beat him and he has to find a way to beat federer not the other way around.

so why this mental toughness talk all the time from the fanboys???

best example is wimbledon federer had everything to loss and still did it that's mental tough

tough is when you perform every day good as number one and favourit against your contenders like sampras did and now federer.

mentally toughness has nothing to do with jumping around and screaming vamos after every point

monfils does the same is he now mentaly tougher than others???

I mean he choked in the second set of the wimbeldon final even with no pressure

You need to learn to interpret better. I'm not talking about them playing each other right now. Roger lost to nobodies a lot more than Nadal does now when he was the same age. Roger had tremendous talent at 19 by beating Pete but he ends up losing the next round. Also to counter your argument Nadal was the favorite at the French this year without a doubt and he still won. Just like Federer was the favorite at Wimbledon where he won like he was supposed. I'm fans of both but in my opinion Nadal is the better player when they're both 19. We'll see when he moves into his prime if hes peaked or not.

Shamo
07-27-2006, 02:54 PM
You need to learn to interpret better. I'm not talking about them playing each other right now. Roger lost to nobodies a lot more than Nadal does now when he was the same age. Roger had tremendous talent at 19 by beating Pete but he ends up losing the next round. Also to counter your argument Nadal was the favorite at the French this year without a doubt and he still won. Just like Federer was the favorite at Wimbledon where he won like he was supposed. I'm fans of both but in my opinion Nadal is the better player when they're both 19. We'll see when he moves into his prime if hes peaked or not.

most of the year he was a nobody himself!

and the favourite in the french open match was for many experts and nadal himself federer

In fact it was even not sure and that after nadal had a 59 match streak on clay

Watcher
07-27-2006, 02:56 PM
What does what experts predict have to do with anything? "Experts" thought that Donald Young would beat Giorgio whatshislastname in the US Open round one last year.

fastdunn
07-27-2006, 02:57 PM
Has Nadal peaked or not ?

I think Fed is in his peak right now from 2005.

Shamo
07-27-2006, 03:15 PM
What does what experts predict have to do with anything? "Experts" thought that Donald Young would beat Giorgio whatshislastname in the US Open round one last year.

experts opinions are pretty valid for reflection of the most likely outcome of the match so also when you bet for example

and experts haven't been proven wrong with young it's to early to say that at least now.

Swissv2
07-27-2006, 04:19 PM
If Rafa wins more GS than Federer, than I can say hes better than Federer. Rafa still has 5 more years to go to match Federer. I just think tennis fans have it pretty good to see a new rivalry between great players that we once enjoyed between Agassi and Sampres, Borg, Lendl, Mac, etc.

TrueAce
07-27-2006, 06:57 PM
most of the year he was a nobody himself!

and the favourite in the french open match was for many experts and nadal himself federer

In fact it was even not sure and that after nadal had a 59 match streak on clay

I guess I didn't hear from many of the experts. All I heard leading up to the match is Nadal is the best clay courter in the world and was the favorite...In my eyes he was the favorite and won the match just like Roger at Wimbledon. I remember Federer himself saying something like Nadal probably felt the same pressure at the French as he did at Wimbledon because they were both defending champions etc.

The Pusher Terminator
07-28-2006, 06:29 AM
NADAL 6 AND FED 2...this is not a tough decision guys.

Rabbit
07-28-2006, 07:03 AM
Nads 2 Grand Slam Titles and Fed 8.....I don't know, the plot thickens....

simi
07-28-2006, 07:04 AM
NADAL 6 AND FED 2...this is not a tough decision guys.

BLAKE 2 AND NADAL 0 ... yup, not a tough decision at all.

The Pusher Terminator
07-28-2006, 07:18 AM
BLAKE 2 AND NADAL 0 ... yup, not a tough decision at all.

good point! Finally a worthy opponent! Ouch that hurt!

I would have to admit that Blake is definitely the player on hard courts this year...but not on Clay or grass.

By analogy Nadal is better than Fed on clay (0-4), better on hard courts (1-2). But Fed has the advantage on grass. (1-0)....for now.

The Pusher Terminator
07-28-2006, 07:19 AM
Nads 2 Grand Slam Titles and Fed 8.....I don't know, the plot thickens....

fed has had more time....what do you want Nadal to do? Would you have him turn pro at 12??

The Pusher Terminator
07-28-2006, 07:48 AM
Brad Gilbert says Nadal is better than Fed. Check out his rankings:

http://www.bradgilberttennis.com/index2.html

scroll down to: "scaps rankings"

crazylevity
07-28-2006, 07:56 AM
Does anyone here take Brad Gilbert seriously? :p

harryz
07-28-2006, 08:11 AM
What is better? The question about Nadal or Federer is about as inane. Worse even than watching Fox news or listening to Rush Limbaugh, and that's really bad... Give it a rest, already.

The Pusher Terminator
07-28-2006, 09:18 AM
Does anyone here take Brad Gilbert seriously? :p

ANDRE AGASSI, ANDY RODDICK AND NOW MURRAY AND ENGLAND

dandy2fast
07-28-2006, 02:58 PM
ANDRE AGASSI, ANDY RODDICK ... They take him so seriously that they dumped him...:rolleyes: , and it won't take more than 1 or 2 years for Murray to do so...

dandy2fast
07-28-2006, 03:02 PM
I would have to admit that Blake is definitely the player on hard courts this year...but not on Clay or grass.

Give us a break!

How many slams on hardcourts for blake in 2006? 0/1
How many slams on hardcourts for Federer in 2006? 1/1

How many master series won on hard for blake in 2006? 0/2
How many master series won on hard for Federer in 2006? 2/2

Do you want to insist about Blake beeing the player of the year on hardcourts? Or do I have to remind you the Blake Vs Federer head to heads?

Chang
07-29-2006, 01:35 AM
Give us a break!

How many slams on hardcourts for blake in 2006? 0/1
How many slams on hardcourts for Federer in 2006? 1/1

How many master series won on hard for blake in 2006? 0/2
How many master series won on hard for Federer in 2006? 2/2

Do you want to insist about Blake beeing the player of the year on hardcourts? Or do I have to remind you the Blake Vs Federer head to heads?

And you can remind him about Blake and Nadal head to heads.

Rabbit
07-29-2006, 03:28 PM
fed has had more time....what do you want Nadal to do? Would you have him turn pro at 12??

From the looks of you and Granny Nads posts, he should have!

Let him at least equal Federer before all this ra ra BS.

shawn1122
07-29-2006, 05:33 PM
fed has had more time....what do you want Nadal to do? Would you have him turn pro at 12??
Federer has slams on two different surfaces. So far Nadal has only proven himself a champion on one surface.

TrueAce
07-29-2006, 10:07 PM
In terms of tennis history Federer is better but right now but Nadal is better head to head period....Nadal has figured out Fed's game better than Fed has figured out Nadal's...Even at our various levels here on the board theres none of this BS debating with our rivals.... all the other guy has to say is I've defeated you more than you've defeated me and the argument is over.

Tennis_Goodness
07-30-2006, 12:07 AM
Federer is the much better overall player, if somebody wanted to be a tennis player they would be Roger Federer!

The Pusher Terminator
07-30-2006, 03:26 AM
There is no need to debate because the US open will decide who is the better player this year once and for all

Shamo
07-30-2006, 07:53 AM
There is no need to debate because the US open will decide who is the better player this year once and for all

it would not, they would have each 2 salms this year IF nadal would win, so again a fanboy comment;)

Shamo
07-30-2006, 08:17 AM
Brad Gilbert says Nadal is better than Fed. Check out his rankings:

http://www.bradgilberttennis.com/index2.html

scroll down to: "scaps rankings"

WTF??? where exactly does he say nadal is better than federer????:confused:
this ranking is based on improvment and actual achievement of a player and because nadal at that moment played his best tennis his up there and federer played like always.

also this ranking wasn't updated since after the french so stop with your false facts, like when you said tracy austin said nadal is all-courter without any source that proves that, fanboy:mad:

The Pusher Terminator
07-30-2006, 08:55 AM
WTF??? where exactly does he say nadal is better than federer????:confused:
this ranking is based on improvment and actual achievement of a player and because nadal at that moment played his best tennis his up there and federer played like always.

also this ranking wasn't updated since after the french so stop with your false facts, like when you said tracy austin said nadal is all-courter without any source that proves that, fanboy:mad:

it says Nadal #1 and Fed #2...to me that means that Nadal is better.

Secondly I already proved Tracy Austins statement...go see that string. If you have a counter argument then say it otherwise shut up.

Finally are you fat or something? Why did you name yourself after a whale?

Tennis_Goodness
07-30-2006, 09:10 AM
No one actually thinks Nadal is the best except the fanboys. The greats and tennis experts know what they are talking about!

Shamo
07-30-2006, 09:23 AM
it says Nadal #1 and Fed #2...to me that means that Nadal is better.

you say it, to you,

I didn't know gilbert makes the atp entry rankings LOL

I gave you my counter argument by explaining you on what this rankings a based

am I right or did nadal never reach the number 1 ranking???:confused: I wonder why?;)

so why can someone who never was number 1 be it for you? ah! I know you are a fanboy;)

Shamo
07-30-2006, 09:26 AM
Finally are you fat or something? Why did you name yourself after a whale?

Is your girlfriend named shamo else I don't know why you would talk of a whale????:confused:

The Pusher Terminator
07-30-2006, 09:38 AM
Is your girlfriend named shamo else I don't know why you would talk of a whale????:confused:

Havnt you ever heard of shamo the whale? Why do you use that tag?

Shamo
07-30-2006, 09:38 AM
Secondly I already proved Tracy Austins statement...

I didn't see any proof???:confused:

Shamo
07-30-2006, 09:48 AM
Havnt you ever heard of shamo the whale? Why do you use that tag?

It's based on the titel of a book a like, where the hero(more anti-hero) is nicknamed "shamo" the symbolism of this nickname is explained in the book but as I know it has nothing to do with a whale???:confused:

search in google when you want

the whale in this book you say is probably named like that because of the same reason

wimble10
07-30-2006, 10:24 AM
I think Fed is better but it will be important to see how Nadal does at the US Open.

TrueAce
07-30-2006, 04:19 PM
Shamo Nadal didnt play in the Australian which Fed was lucky he didn't. He would have most likely lost due the the nature of the court being similar to clay high bounces etc. Fed should win the US Open since it suits his game more if he doesn't that would be a big blow since a lot of people are predicting Nadal at next years aussie. They would have 2 slams a piece with Nadal not competing in one so thats not a fair comparsion..

The Pusher Terminator
07-31-2006, 06:37 AM
Does anyone here take Brad Gilbert seriously? :p

ANDRE AGASSI, ANDY RODDICK AND NOW MURRAY AND ENGLAND


They take him so seriously that they dumped him...:rolleyes: , and it won't take more than 1 or 2 years for Murray to do so...

Are you freaking kidding me? Look these are the facts

Andre Agassi pre Gilbert...not even in the to 30 I believe.

Agassi with Gilbert: French Open winner and #1 in the world

Agassi Post Gilbert: Not even in the top 10 and no grand slams since the French

Roddick Pre Gilbert: No grand slams

Roddick w/Gilbert... US open, #1 in the world & 2 wimby Finals losing only to Fed

Roddick post Gilbert: Not even in the top 10


You better take Gilbert seriously

Breaker
07-31-2006, 06:41 AM
ANDRE AGASSI, ANDY RODDICK AND NOW MURRAY AND ENGLAND




Are you freaking kidding me? Look these are the facts

Andre Agassi pre Gilbert...not even in the to 30 I believe.

Agassi with Gilbert: French Open winner and #1 in the world

Agassi Post Gilbert: Not even in the top 10 and no grand slams since the French

Roddick Pre Gilbert: No grand slams

Roddick w/Gilbert... US open, #1 in the world & 2 wimby Finals losing only to Fed

Roddick post Gilbert: Not even in the top 10


You better take Gilbert seriously

Roddick didn't get to any Wimbledon finals with Gilbert and is in the top 10 atm, and I think Agassi racked up a few more slams too if I'm not mistaken.

The Pusher Terminator
07-31-2006, 07:19 AM
Roddick didn't get to any Wimbledon finals with Gilbert and is in the top 10 atm, and I think Agassi racked up a few more slams too if I'm not mistaken.

I believe Roddick played against Fed in a Wimbledon final and Gilbert was his coach. Please correct me if I am wrong.

In any event the fact is that Gilbert revamped their careers and without Gilbert they have fallen wuite a long way.

Breaker
07-31-2006, 07:31 AM
Yep my bad I thought he fired him at the end of 03 but it was indeed the end of 04. Gilbert may be a coaching genius and understands how to play the game well but sometimes I think he just talks for the sake of hearing himself talk, if he can take Murray to the top then I'll respect and listen to every word the man says. Until then it's hard to take him seriously because of some of the outlandish claims he makes in his commentating. For example,

"Andy is takin' Murray to da woodshed today!"
"I can feel it, here comes the break, a breeze over my left shoulder is telling me"
"And when I coached Roddick..."
"Oh yeah and when I coached Agassi"

He may be a great coach and ok analyst but sometimes he talks WAY too much.

crazylevity
07-31-2006, 07:32 AM
Isn't the whale Shamu? not Shamo?

And why are we talking about whales again?

Breaker
07-31-2006, 07:33 AM
Because we want to take some time to think of our underwater friends, and no I don't mean the U.S of good ol A.

crazylevity
07-31-2006, 07:35 AM
heh...strange...I know the name of the whale in an American theme park when I'm halfway around the world, and these guys got it wrong. *teehee*

The Pusher Terminator
07-31-2006, 07:44 AM
Yep my bad I thought he fired him at the end of 03 but it was indeed the end of 04. Gilbert may be a coaching genius and understands how to play the game well but sometimes I think he just talks for the sake of hearing himself talk, if he can take Murray to the top then I'll respect and listen to every word the man says. Until then it's hard to take him seriously because of some of the outlandish claims he makes in his commentating. For example,

"Andy is takin' Murray to da woodshed today!"
"I can feel it, here comes the break, a breeze over my left shoulder is telling me"
"And when I coached Roddick..."
"Oh yeah and when I coached Agassi"

He may be a great coach and ok analyst but sometimes he talks WAY too much.

Agreed! Gilbert is not a very likeable guy. In fact he is a complete jerk that sems to only care about money. You are also right about him never shutting up....Andre nicknamed him "motormouth"......but his results are truly awesome! I have to respect him even though he has a terible personality. Its the same with Mcenroe...he is a complete jerk...but what an artist!

The Pusher Terminator
07-31-2006, 07:46 AM
Isn't the whale Shamu? not Shamo?



That depends...have you seen a picture of Shamo?

Marat Safinator
07-31-2006, 09:24 AM
Federer is no.1, nadal is no.2. simple

The Pusher Terminator
07-31-2006, 01:58 PM
Federer is no.1, nadal is no.2. simple

and Safin is ????????????????....completely finished...lol