We're lucky to have Federer and Nadal at this time

[IvanYentl]

So Nadal blisters Federer on clay yesterday, big surprise.

Clearly Nadal is headed toward all-time greatness. Even if he never wins a slam other than the French Open, his form of dominance is worthy of the "all time great" label.

Federer, despite his recent slow-down, remains on pace to break Sampras' slam record. Even if Roger settles into a slow decline, we must consider that he has a reasonable chance to win the 2008 wimbledon and US Open, as well as the 2009 AO, wimbledon and USO. If he goes 3 for 5 (a fair assumption, I think) with these opportunities, he breaks Sampras' record.

When Nadal first came on the scene, I couldn't stand him, mostly because I am not a fan of his type of game. But as time has gone on and his dominance on clay has grown, I have learned to appreciate his game as well as his off-the-court demeanor. He seems like a genuinely nice guy, he's a killer competitor, and he respects the game and his opponents. What's not to like?

[cknobman]

Originally Posted by IvanYentl

What's not to like?

I know. He fights so damn hard that it ****es me off but gains my respect at the same time. You just cant hate the guy.

[Alexio92]

What would we be without federer and nadal?

Davydenko would have been number 1 for 2 years running and we would be having a djokovic davydenko rivalry for the number 1 spot right now.

[montx]

I like to see Fed come back...it would be awesome.

[daddy]

Originally Posted by Alexio92

What would we be without federer and nadal?

Davydenko would have been number 1 for 2 years running and we would be having a djokovic davydenko rivalry for the number 1 spot right now.

Your assumption is falacious because the world nr3 - nr4 in this reality under these circumstances would probably not be world nr1 in other case. I can imagine Roddick having at least 6-8 majors ( mostly Wimbledon and Us Open ) and probably being very dominant in general terms. Davy would have accounted for maybe one slam or no slams ( RG ). You can guess that we would have a variety of Grand Slam winners like Baghdatis and Gonzales probably ( just an example, if Rog was not as dominant to stop both of their runs .. ).

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by IvanYentl

Federer, despite his recent slow-down, remains on pace to break Sampras' slam record. Even if Roger settles into a slow decline, we must consider that he has a reasonable chance to win the 2008 wimbledon and US Open, as well as the 2009 AO, wimbledon and USO. If he goes 3 for 5 (a fair assumption, I think) with these opportunities, he breaks Sampras' record.

The problem with this in my mind is that Nadal and Djokovic are both getting better while Fed is not. As much of a Fed fan as I am, I can't see him winning more than 1 or 2 slams between now and ending 2009. I can see Fed routinely getting to SF and F rounds but losing to Djoker and Nadal in these rounds.

[IvanYentl]

Originally Posted by raiden031

The problem with this in my mind is that Nadal and Djokovic are both getting better while Fed is not. As much of a Fed fan as I am, I can't see him winning more than 1 or 2 slams between now and ending 2009. I can see Fed routinely getting to SF and F rounds but losing to Djoker and Nadal in these rounds.

good points on the improvement of the others. it is certainly realistic to think that Federer ends up with 14 slams and ties Sampras, especially if things go the way they are currently going.

however, I believe Federer will mount one last charge to put him over the top and secure 15 slams total. It is entirely possible Federer gets to 15 without having to play Djokovic or Nadal in a GS final because one or the other of them is injured.

[flyer]

Originally Posted by Alexio92

What would we be without federer and nadal?

Davydenko would have been number 1 for 2 years running and we would be having a djokovic davydenko rivalry for the number 1 spot right now.

well we did kind of have that before federer and nadal, we had hewitt, roddick, and on occasion safin, and we are lucky because that was boring as he11

[danb]

Originally Posted by IvanYentl

So Nadal blisters Federer on clay yesterday, big surprise.

Clearly Nadal is headed toward all-time greatness. Even if he never wins a slam other than the French Open, his form of dominance is worthy of the "all time great" label.

Federer, despite his recent slow-down, remains on pace to break Sampras' slam record. Even if Roger settles into a slow decline, we must consider that he has a reasonable chance to win the 2008 wimbledon and US Open, as well as the 2009 AO, wimbledon and USO. If he goes 3 for 5 (a fair assumption, I think) with these opportunities, he breaks Sampras' record.

When Nadal first came on the scene, I couldn't stand him, mostly because I am not a fan of his type of game. But as time has gone on and his dominance on clay has grown, I have learned to appreciate his game as well as his off-the-court demeanor. He seems like a genuinely nice guy, he's a killer competitor, and he respects the game and his opponents. What's not to like?

Right on the money !!! I like them both. Good post.

[A.Davidson]

Nadal is the ultimate story.

He started out as nothing and - get this - made something of himself. Not just something, something incredible.

He's never lost during his four year reign at Roland Garros. That's insanity. Even Federer has lost at Wimbledon, his 'best Slam'.

In a way, that guy is unlike anything else seen before. He works so hard and gets results.

Great player. He's great for tennis.

[fgzhu88]

Yes, completely concur.

Federer and Nadal will both go down as GOAT's (different kinds but nevertheless) and great sportsmen. Not only are they great players but their respect for each other is...respectable! And their rivalry (on clay and maybe grass) will be one of the biggest.

Thank God these two are in the 1 and 2 spots. They really deserve it!