Because everytime he plays them he ALREADY knows HOW THEY ARE GONA PLAY.
They just gona keep peppering his backhand all match long all federer has to do is adjust and BOOOOM he'll beat em both.
Anyone agree????
Not sure I agree 100%. If you listen to Roger's interview before the IW semi he said that Murray changes something everytime they play. Murray said after the match that 'I changed a couple of little things'. It's those little things that keep Roger guessing and gice Murray the edge at the moment.
Roger should be HONORED every time he plays Nadal. He should be grateful that he is able to share a court with the best player of his era. Roger knows he isn't talented enough to beat Nadal, but he has known this since the beginning when Rafa demolished him in Miami 2004.
Roger thought, "wow, here's a kid who came out of nowhere to destroy me with talent alone. I'm already World #1 and a multiple slam winner. My game won't get much better than this, and his game won't get much worse. Even his worst is better than my best. Wow. He can do so many things and make so many genius shots that a poor talentless clown like me could never do. Good thing he's still young - hopefully, I can get at least 5 wins off him before I'm through."
Good news for Roger: he's done that and more. He has 6 wins over a far superior player. Granted, those wins came before Nadal really found his game, but beating a man with much better abilities is an achievement nonetheless. Roger has tried many things over the years to try to compete with Rafa, but he lacks to abilities to execute at a level capable of getting a win. With sheer mental focus and willpower, Federer was able to steal a couple of matches from Nadal at Miami 05 and Wimby 07, and, really, that's all a guy like Federer can hope for. Nowadays, he should count his blessings every time Nadal honors his legacy by blasting passing shots and winners from all over the court against him. In his heart, Fed knows that losing to Nadal isn't really losing.
rubberduckies should be HONORED every time he posts in these boards. He should be grateful that he is able to post in a forum of the best player ever, Federer. rubberduckies knows he isn't talented enough to post decent posts, but he has known this since the beginning when joined in August 2008.
rubberduckies thought, "wow, here's a poster who came out of nowhere to destroy me with talent alone. I'm already World's worst poster and a multiple worst post award winner. My posts won't get much worse than this, and his posts are so much better. Even his worst is better than my best. Wow. He can do so many things and make so many genius posts that a poor talentless poster like me could never do. Good thing he's still young - hopefully, I can get at least 5 posts before I'm banned."
Federer should be happy he won so many slams during a weak era when Nadal and Murray weren't around.
Federer should be happy he won so many slams during a weak era when Nadal and Murray weren't around.
Federer should be happy that Nadal and Murray are beating him. Thus, creating more interest in tennis. The boring days of tennis are no more.
Firstly Murray is no legend yet. He has the capability to win a few slams, but hasnt done that yet. Second, roger has won 9 of his slams while Rafa has been no 2 in the world.
Third, when rafa wasn't around (2003 - early 05), Federer was beating the likes of Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt. Are you calling those three guys weak. Agassi needs no introduction. And Roddick and Hewitt have been the two youngest # 1's in history.
I hate how people call the "pre-Nadal" era weak. Just because presently only federer and nadal have 3+ slams, doesnt mean the era is weak. Go to the former player section and see Who would have won Federer's slams if he wasnt around. Without federer, Roddick would have around 5, same for Hewitt, Agassi could have a couple more, same for Safin. Unfortunetly federer had to dominate for 4 years like no one else in the games history had, so of course Sampras lovers had to say that competition was weak
I certainly wouldnt call Roddick or Hewitt "strong" competition when u look back at some of other eras. Sure they were solid.
But...
I dont how anyone would consider Fed's competition 04-06 strong. There were some good players in that era. But I would never call Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Nalbandian and down the line "great players" by any stretch of the imagination. And Agassi was around 35 years old at that point crippled with Sciatica.
In terms of being "boring," Nadal's style is very polarizing. Some people really like his grind it out, spin-everything style. Others find it very annoying to watch.Federer should be happy that Nadal and Murray are beating him. Thus, creating more interest in tennis. The boring days of tennis are no more.
Except Nadal has a lot more variety then you give him credit for. Read Roddick's comments on playing Nadal.In terms of being "boring," Nadal's style is very polarizing. Some people really like his grind it out, spin-everything style. Others find it very annoying to watch.
It's all relative. If a player dominates, he gets "weak era" label almost by default. If Michael Jordan hadn't retired and let someone else (Hakeem Olajuwan) take the spotlight from under him, everyone would claim that the 90s basketball was really weak, even though it clearly wasn't the case.In no way am i comparing Roddick and Hewitt to Sampras, Courier, Wilander, Edberg, Becker
What i am saying is that these guys success's and hardware have certainly been limited a lot by federer. And Agassi was still playing great tennis through 2005. He could hold his own against prime federer and almost prime Nadal.
and where did Blake and Nalbandian come up? Blake especially. roddick and Hewitt have been making slam finals and semis for years.
And you wouldnt call people like Hewitt and roddick great players becuase youl probably jsut look at stats in the future, and you will forget that they were dominated by the second greatest player in the games history (behind Laver).
The strength of an era is not defined by the number of slams that each player has, but by the ability that the top players had. And i can tell you that from 2003 - 2005, roddick and Hewitt could play
In no way am i comparing Roddick and Hewitt to Sampras, Courier, Wilander, Edberg, Becker
What i am saying is that these guys success's and hardware have certainly been limited a lot by federer. And Agassi was still playing great tennis through 2005. He could hold his own against prime federer and almost prime Nadal.
and where did Blake and Nalbandian come up? Blake especially. roddick and Hewitt have been making slam finals and semis for years.
And you wouldnt call people like Hewitt and roddick great players becuase youl probably jsut look at stats in the future, and you will forget that they were dominated by the second greatest player in the games history (behind Laver).
The strength of an era is not defined by the number of slams that each player has, but by the ability that the top players had. And i can tell you that from 2003 - 2005, roddick and Hewitt could play
I never said Nadal had a no variety. I said his style is a lot more defensive and grinding than most of the other players.Except Nadal has a lot more variety then you give him credit for. Read Roddick's comments on playing Nadal.
If they played in the 90s, 80s, or 70s, they would spank the field with their superior rackets.How many slams do u really think Roddick or HEwitt would have gotten in the 90s, 80s and 70s? Not many IMO. IF ANY!!!
I would give Hewitt as many as he is sitting with now. 2 slams going back 30 some years. Hes good.. Not great.
Its all assumptions of course.
Yet Nadal hit like twice the winners Murray did in the finals. Nadal's offensive game is not given enough credit. Don't let him get control of the points. That's why players try to attack Nadal because they don't want Nadal attacking them. He'll yo-yo you around the court.I never said Nadal had a no variety. I said his style is a lot more defensive and grinding than most of the other players.
It's all relative. If a player dominates, he gets "weak era" label almost by default. If Michael Jordan hadn't retired and let someone else (Hakeem Olajuwan) take the spotlight from under him, everyone would claim that the 90s basketball was really weak, even though it clearly wasn't the case.
I, for one, see no evidence that the era Federer dominated was any weaker than any other era. The guys of the late 90s weren't exactly beating up on guys like Roddick or Hewitt either.
1.) Murray's a counterpuncher himself.Yet Nadal hit like twice the winners Murray did in the finals. Nadal's offensive game is not given enough credit. Don't let him get control of the points. That's why players try to attack Nadal because they don't want Nadal attacking them. He'll yo-yo you around the court.
Nadal is recognized as playing both styles equally well. He doesn't always play aggressive tennis but he definitely has it a lot of the time. He gets in trouble when he doesn't play like that on hardcourts. I'm looking forward to some aggressive tennis from him tonight.1.) Murray's a counterpuncher himself.
2.) It's one match. In the past, Murray has gotten just as many, if not more, winners against Nadal as vice versa.
I'm not sure why this is even a point. A lot of people, in general, like to see proactive, attacking tennis, rather than defensive, reacting tennis, which is what players like Nadal and Murray prefer to play. Sure, they have offensive aspects of their game, but their best tennis and recognizable styles are not usually played this way.
That's why a player like Nadal is polarizing to the tennis audience. Some people, believe it or not, are genuinely bored when watching Nadal play.
thank you, and for GameSpampras, how do you know Roddick and Hewitt would not have competed for majors, give some support to back up your case
Becuase for me, i see one of the great severs we will ever see, and also in his prime, a counter puncher who could go from defence to offence in no time
Do you guys know what Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg, etc did to the second and third best players of their own era? It was often a "BLOODBATH."Do u guys have any idea what Lendl, Mcenroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg would do to Roddick? Ohh it would be a BLOODBATH
To his credit, he has gotten more aggressive, and that's improved his game. But look at his matches against some of the bigger hitters. Whenever he's in trouble, he retreats ten feet behind the baseline and reverts to fetching every ball.Nadal is recognized as playing both styles equally well. He doesn't always play aggressive tennis but he definitely has it a lot of the time. He gets in trouble when he doesn't play like that on hardcourts. I'm looking forward to some aggressive tennis from him tonight.
Do u guys have any idea what Lendl, Mcenroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg would do to Roddick? Ohh it would be a BLOODBATH
Do you guys know what Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg, etc did to the second and third best players of their own era? It was often a "BLOODBATH."
Again, I see no evidence to suggest that the guys Federer played against were weaker than the guys played against by other champions. Federer clearly was heads and shoulders better than everyone else in the field, and that made the era look weak in comparison, but that doesn't mean the era lacked dangerous players.
McEnroe won 80+ matches in one season, does that mean his era was weak too?
Yes and I get annoyed when he starts doing that. He is too good to just play all defense. He should be stepping into the court more but I guess you got to change things up if you aren't striking the ball well that day.To his credit, he has gotten more aggressive, and that's improved his game. But look at his matches against some of the bigger hitters. Whenever he's in trouble, he retreats ten feet behind the baseline and reverts to fetching every ball.
It works, and he's the best player in the world, but don't act like that's not true.
Do you guys know what Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg, etc did to the second and third best players of their own era? It was often a "BLOODBATH."
Again, I see no evidence to suggest that the guys Federer played against were weaker than the guys played against by other champions. Federer clearly was heads and shoulders better than everyone else in the field, and that made the era look weak in comparison, but that doesn't mean the era lacked dangerous players.
McEnroe won 80+ matches in one season, does that mean his era was weak too?
You don't need to be a great all-around player to have multiple slams. Wimbledon is always tailor made to players who can play very fast. The French Open is always going to favor players who can retrieve every ball and grind out wins.It boggles my mind why anyone could possibly fathom that Roddick would be a multi-time slam winner in any era from the 70s on. The guy is just NOT THAT GREAT.
He lacks too many elements in his game to be a multi-time champion
You don't need to be a great all-around player to have multiple slams. Wimbledon is always tailor made to players who can play very fast. The French Open is always going to favor players who can retrieve every ball and grind out wins.
What's the difference between a champion that plays 1 championship-level hard-court specialist, 1 championship-level clay-court specialist, and 1 championship-level grass specialist versus someone that plays 1 or 2 guys that are all-around championship level players?
The guy that beats the all-around guys may 'seem' to have the stronger resume, even though in both cases, it's probably just as hard to win slams.
So if it wasn't a weak era, how did McEnroe go 82-3 one year?Of course the 80s wasnt a weak era. It was one of the strongest ever. And Roddick isnt even in the same area code with Mac. Johnny was the superior all around tennis player.
So youre saying a field that consisted of Edberg, Courier, Mac, Lendl, Becker and down the line isnt a stronger field than Nalbandian, Blake, Ljubcic, Gonzales, old man agassi, Safin, Roddick, Hewit?
OMG!!!
Whats the point of arguing if you dont even realize this
Going to a guy named Roger Federer, because he is/was that good on grass.What Wimbeldons are Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Blake etc going to win in the 90s, 80s, or 70s enlighten me.
You say Wimbeldon favors the big server? Well where the hell are Roddick's Wimbeldon titles? The point is.. You need more than ust a serve to get it done at wimbeldon. You needed a solid all around game. Roddick doesnt have this
So youre saying a field that consisted of Edberg, Courier, Mac, Lendl, Becker and down the line isnt a stronger field than Nalbandian, Blake, Ljubcic, Gonzales, old man agassi, Safin, Roddick, Hewit?
OMG!!!
Whats the point of arguing if you dont even realize this
Going to a guy named Roger Federer, because he is/was that good on grass.
What Wimbeldons are Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Blake etc going to win in the 90s, 80s, or 70s enlighten me.
You say Wimbeldon favors the big server? Well where the hell are Roddick's Wimbeldon titles? The point is.. You need more than ust a serve to get it done at wimbeldon. You needed a solid all around game. Roddick doesnt have this
Why are you comparing a secondary player (Andy Roddick) to the primary player (Pete Sampras) in an argument of eras?And Roddick was going to beat Sampras at Wimbeldon? A player EVER MORE DOMINANT on grass than Roger? LOL