tennis_hand
Hall of Fame
Every year I pray this. The surface is just not pleasing to the eyes.
Yes *******s probably wouldn't enjoy seeing Fed get owned. Fed is actually a very good clay courter but Nadal has the answer for Fed.
Yes *******s probably wouldn't enjoy seeing Fed get owned. Fed is actually a very good clay courter but Nadal has the answer for Fed.
Every year I pray this. The surface is just not pleasing to the eyes.
And *********s must crawl back into their little holes until next year.
btw, Federer had a 65-50 edge in winners over Nadal at that Wimbledon.
Face it, he is just the more talented player, period. Grass should exemplify that, but it's been ruined.
Whatever they can do to get more S&V, they should do. They better get rid of this crappy horribly excuse for grass, and put in fast low-bouncing grass.
I love how the OP posts something that refers to neither nadal or fed, then the trolls just come out to play. I'm also happy to see the dirt go away, but I'm happy to see any tennis on tv, including clay.
And *********s must crawl back into their little holes until next year.
Seriously. After reading what the OP posted I was thinking of how ugly red clay is (it reminds me of red clay in South Carolina), but people just assumed that the OP is a Fed fan.
Me too DH.I am curious to see how it will fare this year.The rallies last year where insane.The fact that Ferrero took a set from Roger at wimbledon is ridiculous.
Yes *******s probably wouldn't enjoy seeing Fed get owned. Fed is actually a very good clay courter but Nadal has the answer for Fed.
If hypocritical *******s like yourself got their way, the clay-court season wouldn't be over until after Wimbledon, because Wimbledon would basically be green clay. Oh wait, it already basically is. See Federer S&V-ing less now than in '03, and good grass-courters being knocked out before the QF with clay-court specialists getting that far.
He's been losing to the boy since the boy was a teenager and still hasn't evened up the h2h. That's the part I love. Four years and he still hasn't figured him out. I think he should. It's embarrassing!
He's won all of their non-clay meetings for the last several years.
Nadal should be more worried about Djoker gaining up on him.Djoker is an all-court player, something that Nadal i still searching for when it comes to all the slams!
He's won all of their non-clay meetings for the last several years.
If you mean several years as in Dubai 2006 I guess that's quite a way to look at it.
You should worry about him too, especially in the hardcourt slams.
And hope Roger doesn't run into Fish at Wimbledon while you're at it!
When you admitted you hadn't seen Edberg and Rafter's volley I ceased taking you seriously as a poster.
Yea, when there's a significant turn-around in a rivalry, a clear dividing line, that is a reasonable way to look at it. Sort of like when Federer started beating Nalbandian most of the time, or Hewitt, or Agassi, etc.
You mean as in the losing 6-10 h2h turnaround?
Right, because he can't have slump, after 4 years of essentially getting to the final of almost every event he entered. One can hardly name all the players Nadal has lost to on HC.
I'll take that as a compliment, since anyone a paranoid nutcase like you takes seriously, must be a joke.
And I didn't say I hadn't seen their volleys. You're just being deceitful and distoring, which of course I'd expect. I said I haven't seen enough to contest the statement that they're much better than Federer in that. I would need to see many many matches -- not just highlights, or replayed matches -- to make an informed comparison. It's called being honest, something I know you're averse to.
Anyone who hasn't been watching tennis consistently over the last 20 years or so, can't really make a statement -- from their first-hand experience -- about who's a better volleyer; because then, unless they specifically dug up a lot of matches, and not just great matches, but average run-of-the-mill matches too.
If someone's seen a most of Edberg's matches, and most of Federer's matches, they can make an informed comparison from first-hand experience. Alternatively, if they've seen a significant number (50 to 100 or more) of randomly selected matches from each player, in retrospect, they can make that statement. I'm sure the concepts behind this -- that is, statistics -- are entirely beyond your comprehension, though.
I'll take that as a compliment, since anyone a paranoid nutcase like you takes seriously, must be a joke.
And I didn't say I hadn't seen their volleys. You're just being deceitful and distoring, which of course I'd expect. I said I haven't seen enough to contest the statement that they're much better than Federer in that. I would need to see many many matches -- not just highlights, or replayed matches -- to make an informed comparison. It's called being honest, something I know you're averse to.
Anyone who hasn't been watching tennis consistently over the last 20 years or so, can't really make a statement -- from their first-hand experience -- about who's a better volleyer; because then, unless they specifically dug up a lot of matches, and not just great matches, but average run-of-the-mill matches too.
If someone's seen a most of Edberg's matches, and most of Federer's matches, they can make an informed comparison from first-hand experience. Alternatively, if they've seen a significant number (50 to 100 or more) of randomly selected matches from each player, in retrospect, they can make that statement. I'm sure the concepts behind this -- that is, statistics -- are entirely beyond your comprehension, though.
btw, Federer had a 65-50 edge in winners over Nadal at that Wimbledon.
Face it, he is just the more talented player, period. Grass should exemplify that, but it's been ruined.
Whatever they can do to get more S&V, they should do. They better get rid of this crappy horribly excuse for grass, and put in fast low-bouncing grass.
You're backtracking and you call me deceitful?
Exactly! I never watched Rod Laver, Lew Hoad, Don Budge, et al. I would never say what Nadal could do as opposed to them. You see what I'm saying? I would feel like an imbecile making a claim like that!
P.S.-Are you saying you watched Edberg and skipped Rafter?
You know those winners include aces right? Off the ground Nadal was superior, and I believe Federer himself alluded to that...
By the way this thread is ridiculous.
You guys really shouldn't care THIS much about who wins or loses...how on earth does this affect your lives?
You guys really shouldn't care THIS much about who wins or loses...how on earth does this affect your lives?
Q. Following on this question, he says that if somebody can win Wimbledon against Federer, he says you can. You played a beautiful final, and that you could have won. The match was very close. Other people would think that you're basically a clay court player. What would you say?
RAFAEL NADAL: When people say positive things about you it's always good. It shows that you're doing something good. So I'd like to thank Borg for everything he says about me.
Now, for those who think I'm just a clay player means that they're not watching the other tournaments.
He's been losing to the boy since the boy was a teenager and still hasn't evened up the h2h. That's the part I love. Four years and he still hasn't figured him out. I think he should. It's embarrassing!
If you mean several years as in Dubai 2006 I guess that's quite a way to look at it.