Is a part of Federer's success cemented on Nadal's failure

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by YouCantBeSerious, Aug 1, 2012.

  1. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Yes, that's basically my point. I didn't mean that Federer is to blame for anything, just that part of his success is due to Nadal's failure to mature and go deep in those surfaces earlier.

    Another of my points though is that the same cannot be said of Nadal's resume. He didn't have that type of benefit from a stronger rival just not making it deep enough when he was in the final.
     
    #51
  2. Sartorius

    Sartorius Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,471
    I think this is the beginning and the end of your hypothetical journey. And it is so incredibly absurd (harsher words could be used) to "trade slam titles for H2H wins", a discussion isn't really worth it. The only upside upon deliberating such, one should understand how H2H matters so little in the big picture.

    Federer's success is cemented on himself. Nothing more, nothing less.
     
    #52
  3. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Riddle nothing. Rosol got lucky once. It was a one time deal. The same can be said of Soderling in 09. Look what happened to him the next year. He got destroyed by a healthy Nadal in the final. And then again in 2011 before the final. Don't compare that to a player (like Nadal) who has demonstrated consistent superiority against Federer.
     
    #53
  4. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Thank you for your ruminations on this matter, Professor.

    By the way, you need to re-read my post (if you can suffer to do so). I never claimed trading H2H for slams is desirable. I only claimed it might be desirable in the mind of some people.
     
    #54
  5. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,794
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Dude...just stop with the nonsense with this thread.
     
    #55
  6. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,804
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    But, how can this possibly be true? Nadal has proven from a very early age, that he is a force on HC. He beat Federer on HC when he was 17, remember?

    No, it is just, that Nadal was afraid to meet Federer in HC finals during Federer's prime.

    :shock:
     
    #56
  7. FlashFlare11

    FlashFlare11 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,328
    Location:
    Philadelphia, United States
    A point maintained by Nadal fans and Federer haters alike that I do not understand is the constant usage of Nadal as a sort-of measuring stick for greatness. For example, 90's Clay's post about Federer's 03-07 being weaker due to no Nadal is confounding. Is Nadal a great player? Yes. But should we knock Sampras or Laver for "not having to play Nadal?" No. In fact, it sounds downright ridiculous.

    If anything, today's game should be marked down for the lack of a consistent, prime Federer. If anyone should be used as a meter stick for greatness, it should be Federer, not Nadal.
     
    #57
  8. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,794
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    its all the more baffling when you consider that fed only had a 2 year head start on nadal when it came to the slam tally..they have played mostly the same field for their careers..and much of that time nadal has spent either number 2 to nadal or number 2 to fed

    yet its somehow fed's fault they didnt play each other after wimbledon most years, lol
     
    #58
  9. Sartorius

    Sartorius Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,471
    I was responding to that assumption. And your opening post...

    ...doesn't really fall far from that assumption.
     
    #59
  10. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    That's a good point, and I see your logic. Since Federer is the most accomplished player ever, he is the reference for all other players.

    The point I'm making has to do with Federer vs Nadal and the implications of Nadal's failure outside clay (mainly in HCs) and its contribution to Federer's success. You can obviously extend it to other events like RG and Wimbledon in 09, where Nadal was the favorite (overwhelmingly so in RG, and less of a clear favorite in Wimbledon while still being ahead).
     
    #60
  11. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    No. You are confused. You didn't understand my first post. I never said it was Fed's fault.
     
    #61
  12. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,970
    Location:
    New York
    Maybe he is... at least in certain events. Look at Wimbledon for instance: since 2008: Rafa makes final in 2010 and 2011, Fed loses early. Rafa is nowhere around in 2009 and 2012 and Fed makes final both times. Now USO: Fed made every single final from 2004 to 2009, Nadal makes none. Then Nadal makes 2 finals in a row: 2010 and 2011 and Fed loses both times in semi despite serving for the match both times. Coincidences? Maybe, maybe not. But it's intriguing to see what will happen in 2012 if Nadal doesn't make the final...
     
    #62
  13. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,330
    I wouldn't call Fed the most "accomplished" as there is another guy named Laver who can lay claim to that title. But its not a knock of Roger during 2003-2007 with his success by calling it a "weak era". I don't necessarily think that was a completely weak era as there were some very good players around. It was just to state the fact that Nadal had not matured into the phenomenon he would later become.

    During that time period, Nadal couldn't even each a HC slam semifinals and was still maturing and improving on grass. Really he didn't do a whole lot outside of clay during that time.

    If Fed had more success on the big stage vs. Rafa we wouldn't even be having this discussion.. But the fact is, on the big stage we know who the man has been between these two more times then not.

    No its not Fed's fault again, that he came around when he did and Nadal had not matured.. But if people don't think that Nadal not maturing into a major all surface threat until 2008 didn't HELP Roger, they don't have a clue.. It obviously helped Roger... Hell its still helping him. Maybe Subconsciously it helps Roger knowing he doesn't have Nadal waiting in the weeds even now..

    Fed seems to play much more relaxed and confident, and at a higher level when Nadal isn't around.

    Is it a coincidence, Fed (in 2009 and even in the last few tournaments), has been playing some of the best tennis we have seen from him since 2009 when Nadal was out injured then and even now?


    I just don't think its something to be proud of if I was some Crazy Fed fan, thinking and hoping, "Man I hope Nadal gets injured again, or Fed avoids him". Thats not how I would want things to be for my favorite. I would want him to beat the best and meet the BEST. Not avoid the best or hope he gets injured. ROFL. Especially if my guy is a GOAT candidate.


    So has Fed' success been dependent somewhat on the absence of Nadal early on or through the injury issues he has had over the years.. To me thats a resounding YES!!!

    Heck some of the best tennis Ive seen Fed play, was when he knew Nadal wasn't lying wait in his path to a big title
    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
    #63
  14. Lsmkenpo

    Lsmkenpo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,915
    Yes, Nadal is the bestest, you should offer to have his baby.
     
    #64
  15. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,409
    Location:
    USA
    Why is it this forum is suddenly infested with Nadal tards right after Federer wins Wimbledon and #1?
     
    #65
  16. FlashFlare11

    FlashFlare11 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,328
    Location:
    Philadelphia, United States
    If Nadal had more than 5 USOs or 4 AOs, then maybe this argument would hold more ground. However, he doesn't. Nadal is not the most accomplished HC player of the current generation and, therefore, isn't necessary to be in the final of HC tourneys in order for other players to "prove themselves" as many make it sound. On HCs, beating Nadal is not a measurement of greatness.

    Federer has a winning H2H with Nadal on grass and his Wimbledons shouldn't be diminished simply because Nadal needed time to mature. Federer was playing competent grass-court players before the '06 final and by '07, Nadal was ready to challenge Federer on grass. Just because he didn't win that match doesn't mean he wasn't ready. Even with his 2012 win, Federer beat defending champion Djokovic in the semis, but, for some reason, his Wimbledon win doesn't count because he didn't beat Nadal. What the heck does Nadal have to do with Federer winning Wimbledon if he's not even the defending champion or record-holder of most Wimbledon titles won?

    The only time you could say Federer "won by a fluke" was RG2009 where Nadal, a four-time and defending champion, was knocked out early. No where else does Nadal have the credentials over Federer that the statement "if Nadal had been there, Federer would not have won" is said with absolute truth.
     
    #66
  17. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    People are looking at this backwards. It reflects negatively on Nadal that he didn't do as well on hardcourts and grass when he was younger, not on Federer.
     
    #67
  18. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,970
    Location:
    New York
    2 to 1 is not that significant (and both wins happened before Nadal made it to #1). They simply haven't played enough on grass for the h to h to be very decisive. An edge of 1 match is not particularly impressive. The only stat where Fed clearly dominates Rafa is indoor hard: 4-0, that's decisive. Everything else goes Rafa's way by a comfy margin. Clay: 12-2 Nadal overall, 5-0 Nadal in the slam. Outdoor hard: 5-2 Nadal overall, 2-0 Nadal in slams.
     
    #68
  19. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,681
    Location:
    In The City
    I would not call Nadal's lead in HC slams to be significant or decisive either. They first met on a HC slam in 2009, which was certainly after the time frame in which Federer played his best HC tennis.
     
    #69
  20. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    I don't make much of Federer's loss to Nadal at the Australian this year, but he definitely should have won their 2009 encounter. Nadal overcoming Federer at Wimbledon was a long time coming and well-earned from Nadal, but Federer really blew the Australian match despite being the better player in all of the first four sets. He was the hard court king at that point in time, winning 6 of the last 7 hard court slams and 8 of the last 10, while Nadal was in his very first final.
     
    #70
  21. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,681
    Location:
    In The City
    Every win counts. Nadal did very well to win that title even though Federer was the favorite.

    My point is that, even though Federer was the favorite in that match, he was still past his best on HC, especially AO. The prior year he got straight setted by Djokovic. He barely squeezed by Berdych at AO 2009 on his way to the final.
     
    #71
  22. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    You are not contributing to the discussion, you are just trolling.
     
    #72
  23. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,804
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    HAHAHA.

    You never fail to deliver.

    Are you that detached from reality?
     
    #73
  24. Voxshall

    Voxshall New User

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    63
    Peoples opinions are all based on perception and assumption not factual knowledge and are all going to differ. Many people who don't know much about tennis might know who Federer is but not Nadal, so think Fed is better. Other people might only watch the French open so think Nadal is the best. What does it really matter?

    As a Federer fan I'm glad Nadal is playing tennis. The rivalry makes tennis more interesting to watch and gives drama to the sport. When the Joker started beating Nadal it made the sport even more exciting.

    All these woulda/coulda/shoulda discussions are meaningless, saying if Nadal made more finals this would mean Fed would look less successful, is as silly as saying if courts speed up rather than slowed down in recent times, or all slams had a roof earlier or Poly strings weren't invented or Nadal played right handed - Nadal wouldn't have one single slam to his name.

    Just enjoy the talent, celebrate the different styles of play in tennis and be thankful the different style match-ups make viewing tennis more entertaining.
     
    #74
  25. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Your facts are pretty funny.

    Miami 2005: Federer wins
    Dubai 2006: Nadal wins
    AO 2009: Nadal wins
    WTF 2010: Federer wins

    Looks like ATP World Tour website facts disagree with yours. :roll:
     
    #75
  26. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    So Nadal is not an utter failure then, he's a moderate failure, got it.

    A couple of things regarding certain 1-2 AOs.

    Fed won all but one of his AO titles on rebound ace, Nadal never reached even a SF on that surface, I know baby Rafa etc. but the fact remains that Nadal couldn't reach SF at AO until they switched to plexicushion so we'll never know how non-baby Rafa would have done on rebound ace.

    Furthemore, just because Nadal beat Fed in 2009 AO doesn't automatically mean that:

    a) He would have beaten say 2007 Fed (that version of Fed wasn't down 2-0 in the early rounds and made a career high # of DBFs for a single tourney like 2009 AO Fed did) even on plexicushion let alone on rebound ace.

    b) He would have beaten even 2009 AO Fed on rebound ace.


    Regarding 2009 Wimbledon, Fed leads Nadal 2-1 in Wimbledon finals with one sole Nadal win being 9-7 in the 5th, to make him an automatic win over Fed is to ignore the facts. Yes Fed had trouble with his "pigeon" Roddick in the final but the way Roddick was serving (he nearly matched Goran's numbers from 2001) everybody would have.

    As for USO, whether Nadal beats a 30+ year old Fed there this or next year bears no significance (regarding this topic) as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't have favoured Nadal over Fed even if they met in 2008 USO F (I would have called it 50-50) let alone against 2004-2007 Fed.


    Of course I'll give you 2009 FO, if Soderling didn't beat Nadal that year I"m positive Fed wouldn't have won the title but hey if you make 4 FO finals in a row (which is quite a rare feat) your chances of catching a lucky break increase, the way I see it Fed made his own luck with his great consistency even on his worst surface but of course I'm a biased Fed worshipper (not open minded as other experts here) so take that with a grain of salt.


    Right, because he's the only one. Fed had mono (most likely fake I know but I'll give him the benefit of a doubt) in 2008 that made a mess out of his training schedule, had an ankle injury in 2005 and still had to wear an ankle bracelet (I'm guessing not as a fashion statement) in 2006 AO and Dubai, has a chronic back injury dating back to 2003, muscle tear in 2004 etc.

    Novak had a shoulder injury which affected his serving big time in 2009 and 2010 and we all know about his breathing issues.

    Murray got sidelined for the whole year (not just missing a single tourney) because of a wrist injury, same for Delpo who had wrist sugery and has yet to capture the form he had in 2009 (when he beat Nadal 6-2 6-2 6-2 in USO SF and Fed in the F).

    Fact is, injuries are a part of the game and many of Nadal ones are a direct consequence of his style of play which brought him so much success in the 1st place.

    So about a year and a half overall all things considered.

    Anyone who really understand the game, the current opposition/conditions/Nadal's history as a player and similar certainly wouldn't bet on Nadal being done (not yet), regardless of how he does at Cincy I'd be very surprised if he loses before USO SF.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
    #76
  27. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Made me LOL but reality is Fed actually does better against Nadal than most of the field, the only person who beat Nadal more than two times in slams is Novak and as far as I know Fed is the only one beside Novak to have double digit wins against Nadal.

    Of course it's a knock on Fed that he didn't do better given his status in the game (and the undisputed GOAT nonsense a portion of his fanbase shouts so often) but he's not as easy of an opponent for Nadal as people claim.
     
    #77
  28. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    I think Federer only served for the match in 2011 (he had 15-40 on Djokovic's serve in 2010 at 5-4*). Disappointing, as the hard-court slam H2H could be 4-0, with 2-0 at both hard-court slams, and beating Federer in the final of all four grand slams, and with a 10-2 slam H2H overall (and with a slam count of 13). I was still satisfied with the finals that were played though, we got more Djokovic vs Nadal, one of the greatest rivalries of all time (which Nadal leads 19-14, only one win away from mirroring the Sampras-Agassi H2H, which was 20-14 in favour of Sampras).
     
    #78
  29. MariaRafael

    MariaRafael Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Time at No.1 champions are:

    1. Pancho Gonzales - 8 years
    2. Rod Laver - 7 years
    2. Bill Tilden - 7 years
    followed by Ken Rosewall, Pete Sampras and Federer (6)

    The other "records" can also be checked.
     
    #79
  30. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,804
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Oh, yeah, Nadal's fans are going so desperate, as to claim a comparison between two uncomparable eras.

    Citing an era, where the top players were regularly playing on the highest level deep into their 30ies and even early in their 40ies is exactly the same as tennis nowadays, that is why their years on top are exactly the same thing. Right.

    :roll:
     
    #80
  31. MariaRafael

    MariaRafael Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    She gave you hard facts and indisputable figures. Since you can't disprove them, you write this non-sensical crap. Is it really necessary?
     
    #81
  32. MariaRafael

    MariaRafael Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Oh, when Federer fans can't provide any positive proof, they start speaking about eras, quarterfinals won, etc.
     
    #82
  33. Sartorius

    Sartorius Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,471
    Do you think there is something in veroniquem's post that needs disproving?

    Fed makes final between this year and that, Nadal doesn't.. Then Nadal does, Federer doesn't.. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

    Yeah, that's a fantastic piece of argument with hard facts... In fact, maybe we can actually say that for Nadal, he's been avoiding Federer? They were actually trying or wanting to avoid one another...

    Really? There's nothing to disprove or argue about that. It's hogwash.
     
    #83
  34. Tombers

    Tombers New User

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    I suppose in a way, Nadal did contribute to federer's 2004-2007 success. People tend to forget that Nadal is 5 years younger than his rival and was not in contention on the hardcourt prior to 2008. Nadal's lack of consistency away from the clay affected there head to head.
     
    #84
  35. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,804
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Do you even understand what you read?

    She claims, that Federer is avoiding Nadal on purpose. That is as delusional as it gets. Only a person detached from reality would even assume such a thing.

    I laughed hard at your "she gave you hard facts". Do you even make a difference between citing stats and connecting them to the point you are trying to make. Because she failed to do that.

    But it is all good. Nadal fans at their finest.

    But, but, but .... you failed to give any adequate answer as to how the two eras in question are comparable.

    Don't worry, I do not expect answer from you on that one. I know that you cannot give such, but even if you could, it won't be in your favour.
     
    #85
  36. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,804
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Exactly.

    We can play that game all day long.

    How about, Nadal was competent player on HC and he avoided Federer on purpose during Federer's peak years. He beat Federer on HC, when he was 17, so how was he not able to dominate the other players on Tour, when Federer was dominating them?

    Nah, he was afraid of Federer.

    See. We can do that too.
     
    #86
  37. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,100
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    OP if you want to generalize like that then here is my take on it:

    Federer has a matchup problem against Rafa

    where

    Rafa has a general problem with any given player on any given day (especially outside of clay courts).
     
    #87
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    hey, clueless , fed made it deep into many CC events and lost vs rafa. What makes you think he'd avoid rafa on surfaces that favour him more ?????? Oh wait, I forgot you can't 'think' !!!

    bah !!!!

    regarding USO 2010 and USO 2011, yeah, he wanted to tank and djoker helped him by hitting winners so close to the lines , jeez, make it all dramatic to go till MPs and then lose .....oh and fed wasn't serving for it in the USO 2010 semifinal ...

    and rafa was there in wimbledon 2012 and got bullied around by rosol and lost ......>> already turned delusional due to this loss and trying to pretend it didn't happen ????

    actually it was rafa who avoided fed on the faster courts , see his record in the second half of the year ( after FO ) - 1-6 vs fed .....
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
    #88
  39. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    Because Federer blatantly tanked when Djokovic hit a screaming forehand return winner.
     
    #89
  40. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    Was Nadal avoiding Federer at Wimbledon and Olympics?
     
    #90
  41. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,804
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    This thread should be called: "Is Federer's success part of the Vamos Brigade failure"

    So much EPIC FAIL on behalf of the Vamos Brigade.

    :lol:
     
    #91
  42. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,214
    He did it at Wimbledon in 2009 too.
     
    #92
  43. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    Good point. Nadal is yet to break the 8 FO titles of Max Decugis as well. And people think he is the greatest FO champion. What a joke right?
     
    #93
  44. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    Omg my generalisations from the other thread couldn't be more right
     
    #94
  45. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    Standing ovation for this post.

    Should pop up when one opens Nadal News thread every single time
     
    #95
  46. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    Not to mention 2004 - 2007. What a wise thing. Saving his legacy by losing as early as possible. What a mastermind
     
    #96
  47. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    What was Federer doing age 17-21? Winning multiple majors?
     
    #97
  48. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,214
    Fed is a late bloomer. During his teenage he was losing to Nalbanian, Hewitt, Andre, so if you suggesting Fed was avoiding from the best players you're wrong..
     
    #98
  49. tank_job

    tank_job Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    991
    The whole point of playing sports is to deny others of success.

    That's how I would think if I were a tennis player. I wouldn't give a cr@p about winning anything myself, but I'd damn sure draw satisfaction from making Federer, Murray, Nadal and Djokovic cry.
     
    #99
  50. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,804
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    :roll:

    10uselessNadtards
     

Share This Page