Federer soon to be ATP # 2

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

If Fed regains #1, will he be the second oldest player in the open era to be ranked #1?

Yes, behind Agassi. Agassi was 33 years and 5 months when he was last ranked world number 1.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by brickner_damage

It must be scary for Federer to think he can beat Nadal 2 out of 3 times yet the match in the middle of those 3 was a 4 set loss at the Australian Open (and Federer won the 1st set). It's like no matter what Federer does in the non-slams vs Nadal he can never be confident at the slams..

I would not say that. It is only on clay Nadal completely owns Federer in slams or out.

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by Atherton2003

Nadal is the only player to have a winning record, head-to-head with Federer. Fed has never figured out his nemesis Nadal.

Nadal plays hideous tennis. His chapter will always be less significant than Roger's. Deal with it.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by Atherton2003

Nadal is the only player to have a winning record, head-to-head with Federer. Fed has never figured out his nemesis Nadal.

acually, Kuerten also has a winning record vs Federer, as I'm sure many other players do.

But that is what we like about the mentally challenged,,,,, there attention to detail.

[TeflonTom]

Originally Posted by joeri888

I think Sampras regained it multiple times? I think you are mistaking it for Rog and Raf the only 2 to ever reclaim YE no. 1. Roger needs to finish the year at no. 1 to break that tie

sampras lost n regained the #1 ranking a bunch o times, but he finished ye#1 in six years n they were all consecutive (1993-1998 )

lendl, nadal n fed are the only 3 players to be year end #1 in non-consecutive years

lendl: 1986-1987, 1989
federer: 2004-2007, 2009
nadal: 2008, 2010

[fednad]

Originally Posted by Atherton2003

Fed can be #2 primarily because he hasn't played Nadal too much lately....cause he rarely can beat Nadal.

Nadal can fire aces now primarily because he hasn't played the best returner Jimmy Connors too much lately....cause he rarely can beat J.
immy Connors

[brickner_damage]

Originally Posted by DeShaun

Nadal plays hideous tennis. His chapter will always be less significant than Roger's. Deal with it.

Yes disgraceful isn't it....playing tennis in athletic fashion..

[fednad]

Originally Posted by brickner_damage

Yes disgraceful isn't it....playing tennis in athletic fashion..

Who is that mug in your avatar?
Reminds me of a serial killer I saw on TV years back.

[brickner_damage]

Originally Posted by fednad

Who is that mug in your avatar?
Reminds me of a serial killer I saw on TV years back.

The father of Novak Djokovic..

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by TeflonTom

sampras lost n regained the #1 ranking a bunch o times, but he finished ye#1 in six years n they were all consecutive (1993-1999)

lendl, nadal n fed are the only 3 players to be year end #1 in non-consecutive years

lendl: 1986-1987, 1989
federer: 2004-2007, 2009
nadal: 2008, 2010

Have a little math problem there, brah? Sampras was 93-98 dood.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Atherton2003

Nadal is the only player to have a winning record, head-to-head with Federer. Fed has never figured out his nemesis Nadal.

The only reason for the head to head disparity is the high number of times they have played on clay. Why is that important? Well Nadal is recognized as the best player ever on clay. What about Federer - well clay is his worst surface. Who wants to face the best player ever on a surface - when it is your worst surface? And wouldn't be a shame if that was the majority of times you have played - it really wouldn't be truly representative would it?

Head to head is even if you take into account surface

Grass - Federer leading
Indoor Hard - Federer leading
Outdoor hard - Nadal leading
Clay - Nadal leading.

So Nadal is just better on slow high bouncing surfaces whereas Federer is better on fast lower bounching ones. The unfortunate fact is there has been an imbalance of the number of times they have played on the slow high bounching surfaces vs the faster lower bouncing surfaces. It's just that simple.

And before you mention the Australian Open - remember that surface is nearly as slow and high bouncing as the French Open now.

[TeflonTom]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Have a little math problem there, brah? Sampras was 93-98 dood.

just a typo brah. thanx 4 the heads up my man.

lemme kno when u get back 2 my post bout umps. coupla other posters had the same question, we were sorry to see u run away

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Yes, behind Agassi. Agassi was 33 years and 5 months when he was last ranked world number 1.

Yep - Federer would just sneak ahead of Connors on that list. Connors was last number 1 about 2 months before his 31st Birthday (Federer if he wins Wimbledon would be 1 month before his 31st Birthday).

But we will have to wait and see if it pans out.....

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by brickner_damage

Yes disgraceful isn't it....playing tennis in athletic fashion..

If it were this simple, his play would not be disgraceful.
Not only did Pete and Roger play athletically, but Rafa was not the first guy to raise the fitness bar. That had been done before, by Borg.

Rafa deserves credit for heavily junk balling opponents with lefty bolo forehands as often as he can behind his awesome, game improvement frame-enhanced defense.

Rafa is extremely quick--I've never seen anyone quicker--and his footwork is usually impeccable and he can turn defense into offense on a dime, but his game is hideous to watch because it's so formulaic and lacks any surprise, being all about power power and more power which is boring when wielded in the same way over and over. There's got to be a balance between results and style. Take Dolgopolov for instance. Now his game is too stylistic because it does not get him those top shelf wins; contrarily, Rafa's game is too results-oriented and has no style.

This is just my opinion.

[TeflonTom]

dood dolgopolov is one of the ugliest mofos goin around game-wise

u see him play tomic at the ao? man that was some borin ****. gimme nadz's grindin over the slice n dice show any day.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 3fees

Actually its not,,heres the rest of it,latest atp rankings are posted this monday-lol

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...ay2-Diary.aspx

Cheers
3fees

Nope. Sorry, but you're wrong. The points from last year's Wimby haven't been taken off yet, so Nadal is still #2 as of now. Come Monday, however, Federer will either be #2 or #1, depending on whether he wins the tournament or not...

[WhiskeyEE]

Originally Posted by timnz

The only reason for the head to head disparity is the high number of times they have played on clay. Why is that important? Well Nadal is recognized as the best player ever on clay. What about Federer - well clay is his worst surface. Who wants to face the best player ever on a surface - when it is your worst surface? And wouldn't be a shame if that was the majority of times you have played - it really wouldn't be truly representative would it?

Head to head is even if you take into account surface

Grass - Federer leading
Indoor Hard - Federer leading
Outdoor hard - Nadal leading
Clay - Nadal leading.

So Nadal is just better on slow high bouncing surfaces whereas Federer is better on fast lower bounching ones. The unfortunate fact is there has been an imbalance of the number of times they have played on the slow high bounching surfaces vs the faster lower bouncing surfaces. It's just that simple.

And before you mention the Australian Open - remember that surface is nearly as slow and high bouncing as the French Open now.

Nadal is only leading the outdoor hard h2h because almost all of those matches were at IW/Miami/AO, which are basically clay. Not real HC events like Cinci and USO.

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by TeflonTom

dood dolgopolov is one of the ugliest mofos goin around game-wise

u see him play tomic at the ao? man that was some borin ****. gimme nadz's grindin over the slice n dice show any day.

I agree. His game is one-dimensional. It emphasizes over-articulated looking strokes with needless embellishing ornamentation, but it seems to possess a flow which can sooth an audience. On the other hand, it does not sooth to watch Rafa or, likewise, something like this coming at me http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl...r:10,s:0,i:170

[TeflonTom]

idk what da farque u talkin bout man. nobody likes watchin dolgo's game, it ugly

his matches r only interestin cos he plays different 2 every1 else on tour. tennis is best when it clash of styles

**** lookin player tho. some1 like dimitrov much nicer to watch.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by cc0509

He's defeated Nadal the last two out of three times they have played. Indian Wells anybody?

Nadal fans conveniently forget that.