Has tennis been missing excitement without Nadal?

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

And that's exactly the reason why ****s want to see him dead and burried..

I think this merits some thought. You are on to something here.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

And if that happened Federer would not even be considered a top 3 player in history, because everyone knows Sampras is better than Federer on grass and arguably hardcourt too. 26 slams for Federer would just prove that he's in the weakest era in history. Nadal has saved Federer's legacy by giving Federer some relevance - although its common knowledge that we are at least in the weakest grasscourt era ever. We are in the best baseliner era ever, hence the best clay era ever. But the level on grass has been horrific since top dogs Rafter, Goran and Sampras disappeared.

Interesting view point. I guess you could spin things different ways. Somebody could say that Federer would have done even better in a less baseline intensive era. But you got some interesting points though.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Please, don't compare Nalbandian with Nadal. Their situations are completely different. And Nadal relies on his physique far more than Nalbandian (Nalbandian at one point was so fat that his arse had its own Zip Code), so it's to be expected he has been more affected by the layoff. And Nalbandian's layoff has been around 2 months shorter than Nadal's.

I can't remember the last time you showed any positive attitude towards Nadal. It can get a little tiring. If, on the other hand, you are anti-jinxing him, congratulations. I guess you weren't trying hard enough during Wimbledon.

Once he gives me something to be positive about I will be. Right now losing to mugs and clowns on his best surface isn't giving me very much hope for the future. Or do you think losing a set to a guy who has a losing record in challengers, who is ranked outside the top 100, and hadn't played an ATP level tournament in his entire career is something to be thrilled about? Not to mention losing the Chile final to a guy ranked 73 in the world. Nadal made him look like Sampras his return was so bad. There is absolutely nothing that tells me Nadal will get better. I'd rather he retired than continue on like this.

[Towser83]

Until he is playing in the same draw with the other top players and is posing a threat, its not like he is even back. Nadal playing and losing a 250 final is not something to be over the moon about. If he is back in the top 4 and playing well then yes its good to see him back. tight now its quite bizarre.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Once he gives me something to be positive about I will be. Right now losing to mugs and clowns on his best surface isn't giving me very much hope for the future. Or do you think losing a set to a guy who has a losing record in challengers, who is ranked outside the top 100, and hadn't played an ATP level tournament in his entire career is something to be thrilled about? Not to mention losing the Chile final to a guy ranked 73 in the world. Nadal made him look like Sampras his return was so bad. There is absolutely nothing that tells me Nadal will get better. I'd rather he retired than continue on like this.

Are you still feeling that guy who said Nadal at the moment isn't playing better than a 150 ranked player, was being ridiculous?

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

And if that happened Federer would not even be considered a top 3 player in history, because everyone knows Sampras is better than Federer on grass and arguably hardcourt too. 26 slams for Federer would just prove that he's in the weakest era in history. Nadal has saved Federer's legacy by giving Federer some relevance - although its common knowledge that we are at least in the weakest grasscourt era ever. We are in the best baseliner era ever, hence the best clay era ever. But the level on grass has been horrific since top dogs Rafter, Goran and Sampras disappeared.

So wait a second, if Federer had 26 slams it would prove this is the weakest era ever but Nadal winning every clay tourney in sight proves its a strong clay era? Really?. And we should thank Nadal for Federer's legacy? and quite frankly the only evidence that this might be a weak grass era is that Nadal actually won Wimbledon twice. But I chalk that up to the slowing of the courts.

[NadalDramaQueen]

I'm happy Nadal is back, partly because of what he brings to the tour, but mostly because it brought you, YouCantBeSerious, back from the Racquets and Gear forum.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by mariecon

So wait a second, if Federer had 26 slams it would prove this is the weakest era ever but Nadal winning every clay tourney in sight proves its a strong clay era? Really?. And we should thank Nadal for Federer's legacy? and quite frankly the only evidence that this might be a weak grass era is that Nadal actually won Wimbledon twice. But I chalk that up to the slowing of the courts.

You're not supposed to point out the hypocrisy, it makes him nervous!

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by mariecon

So wait a second, if Federer had 26 slams it would prove this is the weakest era ever but Nadal winning every clay tourney in sight proves its a strong clay era? Really?. And we should thank Nadal for Federer's legacy? and quite frankly the only evidence that this might be a weak grass era is that Nadal actually won Wimbledon twice. But I chalk that up to the slowing of the courts.

Well, let's look at things under a different perspective.

Federer was believed to be destined to become the GOAT with or without Nadal's interference. If he had won 26 slams without Nadal, he wouldn't have been any better than he is now, he would simply not have had the opposition. On the other hand, Nadal was always the underdog, but strangely enough, when everything was said and done, the balance of the rivalry favors Nadal immensely. Leaving clay aside, Nadal has defeated "the GOAT" in slam finals in grass and hardcourt. Federer has defeated Nadal only on grass. He should have defeated him on hard if the H2H were more ample in the big stages, but that is not the point. Nadal is untouchable on clay, and able to inflict damage to Federer elsewhere. Federer can't say the same.

And I'm not saying Nadal is a better player overall than Federer.

[WhiskeyEE]

Yes. The only thing that keeps me alive is watching Nadal lose.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Well, let's look at things under a different perspective.

Federer was believed to be destined to become the GOAT with or without Nadal's interference. If he had won 26 slams without Nadal, he wouldn't have been any better than he is now, he would simply not have had the opposition. On the other hand, Nadal was always the underdog, but strangely enough, when everything was said and done, the balance of the rivalry favors Nadal immensely. Leaving clay aside, Nadal has defeated "the GOAT" in slam finals in grass and hardcourt. Federer has defeated Nadal only on grass. He should have defeated him on hard if the H2H were more ample in the big stages, but that is not the point. Nadal is untouchable on clay, and able to inflict damage to Federer elsewhere. Federer can't say the same.

And I'm not saying Nadal is a better player overall than Federer.

No he's not.

Off topic, but has anyone ever seen Federer look up at his coach before or after any point ever? I haven't.

[Paul Murphy]

Much better having a top four rather than a top three.
Could have used him to give Djok some decent opposition at the AO in the semis, rather than the virtual training run he got against Ferrer.
No disrespect to Ferrer - he's a fine man and a great competitor but just isn't up to taking on the big boys.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by PureTennis

Off topic, but has anyone ever seen Federer look up at his coach before or after any point ever? I haven't.

Doesn't he look at Mirka often?

[Magnetite]

Tennis is definitely better with Nadal in the mix.

Any true player/fan would think so.

[RAFA2005RG]

That's why he's being paid $2million just to play Brazil.

[Tafmatch]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

That's why he's being paid $2million just to play Brazil.

And this is ofcourse completely different from your attacks on a different player who likes to receive such insane sums as well, just to show up. This doesn't mean Nadal is exposed right?

[zagor]

I do but less because of his fighting spirit (though I have to admit he does bring the greatest intensity on court since Hewitt in his younger days) and more because IMO he matches-up better with both Novak and Murray individually than they do with each other (not that I think Novak-Murray matches are terrible mind you, I'm not judging their rivalry solely on their last slam final meeting).

Originally Posted by Magnetite

Tennis is definitely better with Nadal in the mix.

Any true player/fan would think so.

Ehm, this kinda sounds like those people saying that if you're a fan of tennis you have to be a fan of Fed.

[Magnus]

I think the OP's name is the correct answer to the thread title.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by Tafmatch

And this is ofcourse completely different from your attacks on a different player who likes to receive such insane sums as well, just to show up. This doesn't mean Nadal is exposed right?

Stop making things up, I never criticized any player for appearance fees. You are pathetic and don't deserve to post in this forum.