Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
just noticed your post. sorry for saying pretty much the same thing.
I'm sure mandy didn't mind. Sometimes Nadal fans need constant repetition to understand, and sometimes even that doesn't work. :shock:
just noticed your post. sorry for saying pretty much the same thing.
Not to take away from Nadal's tremendous achievement in winning multiple slams on each surface (something only one other person has been able to do - Mats Wilander), but I find it astonishing that Federer is tied for the Open Era record at three of the four slams. Simply incredible.
1 thing that Rafa has over Fed on top of the overall winning % in slams is the fact that he has more than 1 slam title on all 3 surfaces.
Gooooooooosh, wow , yeah gripping story. Particularly when you consider the fact that there are TWO HC majors (out of which one plays pretty much like clay). :shock:
Can you show me just one thread prior to Nadals AO victory that talks about the hard courts playing like clay?
1 thing that Rafa has over Fed on top of the overall winning % in slams is the fact that he has more than 1 slam title on all 3 surfaces.
How's about hewitt pleading with AO organizers as early as 2004 begging them to speed up the courts?
Hewitt was vocal that if they wanted to see a native aussie win, they would do well to speed up the court
How's about hewitt pleading with AO organizers as early as 2004 begging them to speed up the courts?
Hewitt was vocal that if they wanted to see a native aussie win, they would do well to speed up the court
Hewitt not TW.
Besides they speeded it up and still no complaints until afte Nadal won it.
If you think they sped the courts up at any time at the AO since 2004, you should probably just leave the boards.
If you think they sped the courts up at any time at the AO since 2004, you should probably just leave the boards.
Hard to tell how many he missed, don't trust the injury reports from his camp.
He could have played this years AO but had some stomach virus in December.
Some of these missed slams is probably his decision to not play, he wants to be fully fit.
If you think they sped the courts up at any time at the AO since 2004, you should probably just leave the boards.
OMG you have a Nadal avatar! I thought you hated him.
find the answer on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics#Singles_performance_timeline
if you have any questions please search it on wiki pedia before posting here
But then advances in racquet technology and polyester strings madr the game incredibly fast and was ruining the sport.
You don't think the hard courts at the AO are faster than
The rebound ace ?
What in the what??
They did?
Which Major was "ruined" by the said advances and why do you consider it ruined?
Please list your reasons for every Major.
Thanks!
P.S. Point at the year, after which you think a particlar Major was "ruined", so that we don't go here and there with our discussion.
What am I writing an essay for school?
For me nothing was more boring than watching a match between Sampras and Goran.....serve -ace- serve - ace....or serve-horrible return- volley-......it was like watching paint dry.
Now since they have slowed down the courts we have seen some of the most exciting matches in history !!!
Nadal Federer 2007 OMG !!!
Nadal Federer 2008.....OMG !!
Federer - Roddick......OMG !!!!
Joker Nadal USO .....OMG
Federer joker USO...both finals ....OMG!!!
Some of the most exciting matches of all time ....in fact to me the most exciting matches of all time are as follows:
-Nadal Federer -2008
- Borg Mcenroe ( Borg wins )
- Nadal Federer - 2007
- Joker Nadal - USO
- the last Federer Roddick -USO
There would be more but Federer matches against guys like philopusis or Andre grandp Agassi were unbelievably boring die to a lack of competition .
Why else would someone have such an unflattering pic of Nadal where he almost looks ill. Go figure.
So, apart from a couple of OMGs you were not able to answer to any of the questions, that I asked you.
I noticed also, that you missed one notable OMG. The AO 2012 final. Why would that be?
And, when you speak about the quality of the Federer - Agassi matches, please, be advised, that ignorant comments are not good for your credibility. Which is shot anyway by the substantial lack of knowledge about the quality of the game between Borg - Mac rivalry and Federer - Nadal - Djokovic rivalry.
I'm not your beatch ....if you want me to do research for you then pay me....I'm here to have some fun not to work.
You want me to list every major from the beginning of tennis? Sorry that's a bit much ....
But the technology' did in fact ruin majors In my opinion .....as I said matches between Sampras and Goran I found pretty boring .
The Wimbledon matches during that time period were terribly boring.
The USO was not nearly as bad but still not nearly as exciting as today's matches .
The AO actually was slower and more exciting on the rebound ace. The AO is actually the only tournament that has increased the speed . But since Fed lost to Nadal on this faster surface its classified as "slow" here at TW.
Technology, like racquets from 1984 and strings over a hundred years old and having been used for the duration of the tennis tour to that point.
Riiiight.
I'm not sure I understand you ? McEnroe was the last player to ever win wi,bled on with a wood racquet .
Graphite and larger sized racquets took over and changed the sport forever....since that time tennis officials have been trying to slow the game down .......
But boy have we digressed.....back to Nadal......
So I think we have settled on the fact that he missed 7 slams and Federer missed 0.
Sheds quite a bit of light on the 17 in my opinion.
Sampras used an 85. Ivanisevic used a 90.
And it doesn't shed light on 17. All it says is Nadal is apparent incapable of finishing an entire season, and is as a result no more deserving of any majors than those he already has.
You can if, and, and but your way all you want. it doesn't matter. Nadal is second best to Federer in the 2000's. End.
85 & 90 > than 70 ( or whatever they used prior )....
Lendls graphite was about 70 ....it played like a wood racquet . In fact he lost the FO to Borg who played with a wood racquet.
Nadals game is just so physical and the season is longer than it used to be . Yeah Feds game is more fluid and he can last longer .....but that doesn't mean that he is better....not by a long shot .
Federer is better. There is one single stat in which Nadal wins. The h2h. Federer has more weeks at number 1, more YE number 1, more titles overall, more majors overall, more major finals.
You're just making an excuse for Nadal. Djokovic was able to win WTF last year, and won 10 titles in 2011. During one of the slowest overall eras on courts in recent memory. Why didn't he fall to pieces like Nadal does EVERY SEASON?
Well we all have different ideas of what means "better".
Rankings to me is absolute B.S.....it's a joke .
Look at the Williams sisters they were ranked soooo low. Yet they came out and wiped the floor with everyone at the slams. Pete Sampras .....same thing.
Also Roddick was ranked #1 going into the FO.....I mean is that a joke or what?
Or you had # 1 like Jankovic and woznioki.....clearly Williams' were better.
Or take Boris Becker .....he beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat Lendl at the US open.....and guess what ....Lendl was #1.
The rankings are all about money . It forces you to play more
Tournaments so promoters make more money .
It doesn't necessarily mean you are actually the best.
Well we all have different ideas of what means "better".
Rankings to me is absolute B.S.....it's a joke .
Look at the Williams sisters they were ranked soooo low. Yet they came out and wiped the floor with everyone at the slams.
Pete Sampras .....same thing. Ranked really low and written off ....and he wins the USO !
Also Roddick was ranked #1 going into the FO.....I mean is that a joke or what?
Or you had # 1 like Jankovic and woznioki.....clearly Williams' were better.
Or take Boris Becker .....he beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat Lendl at the US open.....and guess what ....Lendl was #1.
The rankings are all about money . It forces you to play more
Tournaments so promoters make more money .
It doesn't necessarily mean you are actually the best
Fed fans tend to hang their hats on stats because that's all they have . But stats don't really mean "better ". Federer may have a better "record" in paper.....
But lets face it ......Nadal is the better player.
Well we all have different ideas of what means "better".
Rankings to me is absolute B.S.....it's a joke .
Look at the Williams sisters they were ranked soooo low. Yet they came out and wiped the floor with everyone at the slams.
Pete Sampras .....same thing. Ranked really low and written off ....and he wins the USO !
Also Roddick was ranked #1 going into the FO.....I mean is that a joke or what?
Or you had # 1 like Jankovic and woznioki.....clearly Williams' were better.
Or take Boris Becker .....he beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat Lendl at the US open.....and guess what ....Lendl was #1.
The rankings are all about money . It forces you to play more
Tournaments so promoters make more money .
It doesn't necessarily mean you are actually the best
Fed fans tend to hang their hats on stats because that's all they have . But stats don't really mean "better ". Federer may have a better "record" in paper.....
But lets face it ......Nadal is the better player.
I think it's cute that rather than make a sound argument, you report my post for saying that your logic was comical. Next time, make a decent argument. Not this drivel.
Well we all have different ideas of what means "better".
Rankings to me is absolute B.S.....it's a joke .
Look at the Williams sisters they were ranked soooo low. Yet they came out and wiped the floor with everyone at the slams.
Pete Sampras .....same thing. Ranked really low and written off ....and he wins the USO !
Also Roddick was ranked #1 going into the FO.....I mean is that a joke or what?
Or you had # 1 like Jankovic and woznioki.....clearly Williams' were better.
Or take Boris Becker .....he beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat Lendl at the US open.....and guess what ....Lendl was #1.
The rankings are all about money . It forces you to play more
Tournaments so promoters make more money .
It doesn't necessarily mean you are actually the best
Fed fans tend to hang their hats on stats because that's all they have . But stats don't really mean "better ". Federer may have a better "record" in paper.....
But lets face it ......Nadal is the better player.
TDK how is your argument any more meaningful?
Your argument is the equivalent of "Nadal is better because I say so, and only the statistics that make Nadal look good matter".
The only statistic that matter to me is the slam finals situation which is 6-2 and it's barely that .....the two pathetic Federer wins only came as Nadal was developing and only on grass.
The truth is on slams Nadal has beaten Federer in slam finals on every surface ....grass, hard , clay ......
Federer was only able to beat Nadal on grass when he was still known to the world as a clay court specialist.
In my book it's really 6-0.
To say Federer is the goat when he has been so utterly dominated in slam finals.....no wait that's not strong enough....let me restate that ...
To say Federer is the greatest of all time when he has the worst slam final record against a rival in the history of tennis defies all
Logic.
How the hell can he be such a whipping boy and then be called the greatest of all time .....it's doesn't make sense......
The only thing that makes sense is that Federers victories .....many of them were not the highest quality victories.
Seriously can you even remember any great Federer slam
Finals ? Sure there were a couple but by and large they were a joke .....
I mean seriously .....bagdatis is the best you got ? 500 year old Agassi? Shall I go on ?
So on paper Feds the greatest....but 6-2 in slam finals??? That's the greatest of all time ???? Impossible .
It's quality vs quantity .....
I've said it before and I'll say it again .....
Although there is more of Mirka I would rather have Brooklyn Decker . In this case quality over quantity .....
Nadals victories mainly came against Federer while Feder beat a lot of lower players .....so in this case 11> 17 on the quality scale.
Nadals victories mainly came against Federer while Feder beat a lot of lower players .....so in this case 11> 17 on the quality scale.
As long as you are happy now, then this discussion is closed. Live and let live. You prefer the 11 slams. The majority of the world prefers 17 slams. Everyone is happy.
But even you have to admit that using your logic that Djokovic's 6 slams have even better quality than Nadal's 11. There is no doubt about it, Djokovic victories came against Federer, Prime Nadal and Prime Murray....so in this case 6 > 11 on the quality scale.
First of all I am more than happy to be in the elite group of intellectuals rather than the majority of the sheep in the world .
Secondly although Federer may be considered by the masses as the best player ever that is not so among the pros......I don't think any of them think that Federer is better than Nadal.....not one
They all think he has a better record but none if the pros ex or current think Federer is better ......not even Djokovic himself .
Now as far as Joker .....well I'm torn on that . It's a close call ......but Joker has the same problem as Federer......until either of them actually go through Nadal at the FO neither can make the claim as the greatest.
Now if Joker had won the FO last year I would have to say he was the best player of all time hands down . Regardless of Feds trumped up 17 slams.
And Joker may be the best and if he wins the FO this summer And beats Nadal he may be the best player of all time
He is very very close and 6 is almost as good as Nadals 11. He is just missing Roland Garros.
First of all I am more than happy to be in the elite group of intellectuals rather than the majority of the sheep in the world .
Secondly although Federer may be considered by the masses as the best player ever that is not so among the pros......I don't think any of them think that Federer is better than Nadal.....not one
They all think he has a better record but none if the pros ex or current think Federer is better ......not even Djokovic himself .
Now as far as Joker .....well I'm torn on that . It's a close call ......but Joker has the same problem as Federer......until either of them actually go through Nadal at the FO neither can make the claim as the greatest.
Now if Joker had won the FO last year I would have to say he was the best player of all time hands down . Regardless of Feds trumped up 17 slams.
And Joker may be the best and if he wins the FO this summer And beats Nadal he may be the best player of all time
He is very very close and 6 is almost as good as Nadals 11. He is just missing Roland Garros.
If you were a true intellectual you would entertain the possibility that you were wrong.
My favorite part of his rant was the about fed's " trumped up" 17 slams.
Never mind that fed played the same field rafa could t seem to get past (off clay)
Well they some were trumped up don't you think?
Can you give me a memorable moment from the incredible Federer vs Philopusis match? Boy that was a real nail biter.....
Or how about that incredible match against Agassi on a wheel chair....can you remember any of it?
Better yet the amazing Baghdatis match now that was really special.
Federer ....roddick...... The last one was good but once again Nadal skipped that Wimbledon and then won the next year.....doesn't that tell you something? That without Nadal all Fed had was roddick......that's why 4 of his wimbys were against roddick.....rinse and repeat again !
How about that stunning Hewitt match.....what do you reme,bee from that one?
Now I can't say that all of his slams were sub par.....but even you have to admit that some of them were not exactly as high quality completion as Nadal had to face......
Nadal had to face Federer at least 9 times in slams. But Federer had quite a few slams without Nadal.....7 slams Nadal missed due to injury.....and then there were the slams Nadal was not even around for not to mention the ones where he was still a clay court specialist.
Face itt, in no universe is nadal superior to fed , except on clay