Federer should be HAPPY everytime he PLAYS NADAL or MURRAY!!!
- Thread starter wow246
- Start date
batz
G.O.A.T.
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.
Bhagi Katbamna
Legend
The fact that they don't do anything new and he knows what's coming and still loses is why they've gotten into his head.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Murray and Fed's head to head would look a little different if they met on grass and clay, Roger would thrash Murray on those surfaces but Murray isn't good enough to go deep into clay tourenments.
vtmike
Banned
Yeah but thats the thing...Nadal says "here is what I am going to do before the match begins...lets see if you can stop me!"
Fed's timing on his backhand is off and is very unreliable now...As soon as he fixes that, he will beat Murray comfortably...Don't know about Nadal though...because with Nadal its more mental
Fed's timing on his backhand is off and is very unreliable now...As soon as he fixes that, he will beat Murray comfortably...Don't know about Nadal though...because with Nadal its more mental
RoddickAce
Hall of Fame
That's the thing that allowed Federer to dominate, variety. He kept his opponents guessing, wrongfooting them, not letting his opponents read his shots. Now, his execution of the shots aren't as consistent and the other players have started to get used to his style of playing. Roger should realize that he should never stop innovating and improving himself.
rubberduckies
Professional
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.
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.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Sorry but i dont think you are right. Firstly i ama Nadal / roddick fan defending Federer becuase i have seen him tear apart both guys like chicken stu
When Federer and Nadal played in 2004, Federer was hardly in his best form. He was number 1, but he had just taken that role, and at that time, many people thought he was on a really hot streak. While definitely the best player at the time. Over the course of 2004and 2005 he improved immensly. By 2004, Nadal was the biggest young gun the game had. He had beaten Moya, made the 3rd round of a major twice and was in the top 50. He definitely did not come out of no where. At the same time, i dont think in March 2004 that anyone thought Rafa Nadal would be the undisputed no 2 in the world in one year.
When Fed lost to rafa that year, im pretty sure everyone thought that Federer was playing out of his mind, and just came down to earth for a game against a rising star.
Right now we clearly all know that there H2H is so one sided because of the numerous clay matches they have played. If they played more on hard court from 2005 - 2007 we all know it would be closer.
Federer didnt steal Miami, he used his experience to grind out the young Nadal, and stepped it up when it mattered. At Wimby 07 Federer won it. While watching the match i earned a lot of respect for Roger because we all know it was Nadal had fought way harder than fed to get to the final, and outplayed him for most of the match, but then Fed stepped it up.
In the end, Nadal has reached his prime right when Fed is starting to fall. That has hurt fed in the H2H. I really hope Nadal does greater things then Fed in the future, but right now Federer is still the legend, and Nadal is still the protege.
GameSampras
Banned
Fed knows the style of game Nadal is going to play obviously.. But can he do anything about it at this point is the question. So far he has shown he cant
P_Agony
Banned
fixed it for you.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Federer should be happy he won so many slams during a weak era when Nadal and Murray weren't around.
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
D
Deleted member 25923
Guest
Federer should be happy he won so many slams during a weak era when Nadal and Murray weren't around.
Hmm, can you enlighten me on who was in the last GS final. Thanks.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
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.
P_Agony
Banned
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.
The boring days of tennis are just starting. Hopefully Federer will return to his former self and show the world once more what tennis is.
GameSampras
Banned
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. Safin and Nalby were as inconsistent as inconsistent could get though both had great talent.
Hewitt's wheels fell of pretty quickly due to injuries. Roddick... well hes been a consistent player. But its no secret the kid has always had many holes in his game to exploit.
Nadal at that time could maintain a #2 ranking in the world and making a name for himself on clay the majority of the time while many aspects of his game left much to be desired.
Now that he has tweaked his game and has become a multi-surfaced player. He is the best in the world. Its no coincidence.
Prime Nadal is 10 times a more formidable opponent than Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, Ljubicic, Blake, Baghaditis, Gonzales ever were.
Early-mid 00's was one of the more weaker era's in history in terms of great players. THis era is shaping to be more promising.. But again. As of now. There are still only 2 great players IMO. Fed-Nadal. Since they are the two at this point who bring their A games to the slams and wins when it matters most. Djoker was on the right track. Hes plummeting a bit. Murray has yet to prove his worth at the slams
Last edited:
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
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
ChanceEncounter
Professional
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.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Except Nadal has a lot more variety then you give him credit for. Read Roddick's comments on playing Nadal.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
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.
GameSampras
Banned
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. At his peak or prime 01-02 or a little after. He was a tough counterpuncher. But lacked weapons
Its all assumptions of course.
Last edited:
ChanceEncounter
Professional
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.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
If they played in the 90s, 80s, or 70s, they would spank the field with their superior rackets.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
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.
GameSampras
Banned
As for Roddick. Its no secret the holes in his game would be exploited by ANY GREAT PLAYER in the last 20-30 years
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
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
ChanceEncounter
Professional
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.
GameSampras
Banned
Do u guys have any idea what Lendl, Mcenroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg would do to Roddick? Ohh it would be a BLOODBATH
Nadal_Freak
Banned
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.
GameSampras
Banned
Roddick's serve can be taken apart if you can anticipate. As Fed has shown. Why do u think a player with good anticipation such as Fed could so easily handle Roddick's 140-150 mphs serve time and time again? Because he doesnt possess the ability to disguise his serve.
And when you take apart Roddick's serve, whats left? His Volleying skills? NOPE.. He has a limited ability at the net.. Hes no Edberg. His BH? Not really. His FH? Thats disappeared over the years.
The guy has more holes in his game than a pin cushion. You have to be BLIND not to see that.
Andre could handle Roddick with ease. Pete dismantled Roddick at 31 years old etc.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
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?
ChanceEncounter
Professional
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.
It works, and he's the best player in the world, but don't act like that's not true.
GameSampras
Banned
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
He lacks too many elements in his game to be a multi-time champion
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Courier and Edberg. Hahahaha. You could argue they had thier peak in an even worse time. Lendl was getting old, Connors and Mcenroe were done, and Agassi and Pete were just emerging
and i see you are picking on Roddick, im assuming becuase his big weapon is his serve, and his ground game is not as good as agassis. Like i said he doesnt have more slams becuase he is being beaten by Nadal and Federer, two guys who you could argue could beat Lendl, Macenroe, borg and Pete in their prime
Last edited:
GameSampras
Banned
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.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
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.
GameSampras
Banned
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
ChanceEncounter
Professional
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.
GameSampras
Banned
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
ChanceEncounter
Professional
So if it wasn't a weak era, how did McEnroe go 82-3 one year?
I love to see you point out when ALL of these players were in their primes at the same time.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Going to a guy named Roger Federer, because he is/was that good on grass.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
right now you yourself are talking about two different eras. Im pretty sure courier and Becker didnt play in the same era as Mcenroe. So get your dates straight.
And Ljubiicic and Gonzalez and Blake should be replaced by Djokovic, Murray, Kuerton.
GameSampras
Banned
And Roddick was going to beat Sampras at Wimbeldon? A player EVER MORE DOMINANT on grass than Roger? LOL
P_Agony
Banned
Actually Roddick had all it took to win Wimbeldon. The big serve, the forehand, good movement, decent backhand at times. Problem is he also had Federer. Had it not been for Federer I think Roddick would have won Wimbeldon, maybe more than once.
GameSampras
Banned
Mac had a dominant season in 84, because he was JUST THAT GOOD. Roddick, Hewitt, and any other player from 04-07 dont even compare to Johnny Mac during that time. These guys cant even sniff Johnny Mac's jockstrap Im sorry
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
why do you keep mentioning Nalbandian, Blake, Lubicic.
They arent even the top of thier own era.
Why dont i mention Yannick Noah, jose Hiegueras, Juan agulera
They arent even the top of thier own era.
Why dont i mention Yannick Noah, jose Hiegueras, Juan agulera
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Why are you comparing a secondary player (Andy Roddick) to the primary player (Pete Sampras) in an argument of eras?
Do you have to resort to straw man now?
Similar threads
- Poll
