A video?, his results speak for themselves. Yeah, the courts... I've seen haters like you talking here in 2006 saying how the clay specialist Nadal would be beaten by the first decent grass player in Wimbledon, and then how he'd never win the USO. But of course, once he won them they were suddenly just like clay, lol.
Must have been hard for you.
RAfa is 5 years younger, he reached those finals in HIS prime.
Oh, and Fed was the lucky one that Nadal got too nervous in that 2007 final (not to mention the way the scheduling went).
.
If Nadal is one-dimensional, then Federer is zero-dimensional. Federer is to Nadal as a puppy is to its owner.
I don't think that Rafa is one dimensional and I do consider him a great. It's funny when Roger haters talk about luck. The slowing down of grass hurt Roger the most and benefitted Rafa the most in the Roger - Fed rivalry. When the grass is fast in the first week, Rafa is busy playing five setters with nobodies in second or third round. I think 2008 and 2011 are the only two times he cruised without playing five setters in second or third round. And you talk about luck, lolz haters gonna hate only
Find me one video of Nadal hitting a proper drive volley (not the pushy ones he plays all the time when his opponent is 10 miles off court) and I'll change mind. He doesn't have any power on his volleys whatsoever, he just hits smart approach shots, that's all there is to it.
LMAO! That analogy made me laugh so hard..If Nadal is one-dimensional, then Federer is zero-dimensional. Federer is to Nadal as a puppy is to its owner.
[/B]
The question is, can that puppy cry ? ..................:twisted:
I don't think that Rafa is one dimensional and I do consider him a great. It's funny when Roger haters talk about luck. The slowing down of grass hurt Roger the most and benefitted Rafa the most in the Roger - Fed rivalry. When the grass is fast in the first week, Rafa is busy playing five setters with nobodies in second or third round. I think 2008 and 2011 are the only two times he cruised without playing five setters in second or third round. And you talk about luck, lolz haters gonna hate only
And yeah, Nadal did choke in that match.
What Clarky said about this. Fed has indeed been quite lucky in more than one respect.
And yeah, Nadal did choke in that match.
LMAO! That analogy made me laugh so hard..
Ooops! Don't go below the belt,dude.
Grass isn't that bad on your kness either, so why is he supposedly skipping Wimbledon too?i think he is a great all court player. it is just unfortunate that he's put his body through all that at such a young age. hopefully by cutting down on hard courts and playing more on clay it will prolong his career.
Nadal has proven beyond a doubt his abilities outside clay when you compare it vs the vast majority of the field but when you start comparing the greatest of the greats, I think Nadal could definitely bolster his resume off clay.
I would rather he have a shortened career but focus 1 yr heavily outside clay than play clay season for 3 years winning his 11 billionth MC.
Total slam count matters but personally for me,
1 more RG + 1 Wimby/USO/AO > 3 RG.
Certainly I see no reason why he should not focus on grass at least, it is much easier on his joints than HC and despite the Rosol loss I would say he is still the 2nd best player on grass behind Fed.
Heres an interview from Poker stars on poker and tennis- 6 Dec 2012.
It appears he's all clay court now.
Is it true that you and your team are considering playing more matches on clay in 2013 and, if so, why?
[RN] We’ll see how it all unfolds. At the end of the day, the season you have will determine the results. But yes, we have to try prioritise playing a bit more on clay, insofar as we can within our schedule, which provides little room for manoeuvre. Firstly, it is a less aggressive surface for my body, and secondly because it is a surface in which I have always felt comfortable, as well as getting great results. I love playing on clay.
http://www.nadalnews.com/2012/12/06/interview-poker-and-tennis/
:mrgreen:
Good post Zagor, I agree with all your points. I think Rafa will do better than most people expect him to when he comes back.
Ridiculous for more than one reason. The grass at Wimby was changed in 2001, and Fed didn't win his first Wimby title until 2003 AFTER the grass had been changed. Nadal won his Wimby titles on THE EXACT SAME GRASS that Fed won his on.
Fed fans seem to have total recall of all things imaginary when it comes to the grass at Wimby since they keep insisting Fed won all of his Wimby titles on the old grass when that is absolutely false. It's also funny how the grass was lightning fast when Fed won Wimby from 2003-2007, and then suddenly turned to clay in 2008, then back to lightning quick in 2009, back to clay in 2010 and then fast again from 2011-2012. I wonder why they think that way? And I wonder which personality the grass will choose to be next year since it's the Jekyll and Hyde of the ATP tour. :lol:
You have either serious comprehension problem or you pretend. I never said all these things, since you addressed all these things to me.
Grass was slowed down in 2002 after Goran won his Wimbledon. When Roger and Rafa play slowed grass helps Rafa. Roger didn't reach finals by playing five setters in round two and round three like Rafa. Ecept for 2008 and 2011, Rafa was very close to elimination in the early rounds in Wimbledon, thats when Grass was fast compared to last rounds. This is fact not opinion
And *******s do go on and on about how slow it is when Nadal does well there, but they never say that when Fed wins it. I wonder why? I have actually seen *******s say the grass was faster when Fed has won it hence why I made the comments about Wimby grass having multiple personalities.
You didn't know that Clarky? Fed's result on some tournament is a speed test.
Oh, man this is too funny. :lol: You missed the point of my entire post. And Nadal was also on the verge of elimination in 2010 at Wimby but he won it didn't he? *******s complained to no end about how slow it was that year(and any other excuses they would come up with including Nadal calling the trainer and supposedly getting coached). Just like they do every year if Nadal does well there. Why can't you understand that?
And sorry, Fed still won his Wimby titles on the same grass Nadal won his on. That's not disputable because it is a FACT.
And *******s do go on and on about how slow it is when Nadal does well there, but they never say that when Fed wins it. I wonder why? I have actually seen *******s say the grass was faster when Fed has won it hence why I made the comments about Wimby grass having multiple personalities.
the grass was changed after wimbledon 2000 or 2001..i thought, as do alot of people, that it was changed after wimby 2001 but apparently it was after 2000."*******s" don't mention when Fed does well even if the grass is slower because he's not supposed to be as good on slow surfaces as he is on fast ones. Even so, it's more about the bounce than the speed I would say. I would also say the grass was still relatively "fast" compared to today, in 2003, 2004, and 2005, (I might include 2006, if I didn't know you would lose it on me because he beat Nadal there ).
Watch this video as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw I don't know of its credibility though. I will say that much. And it could have to do with more than just the grass, like the type of balls that were used.
It's not as if the grass got slow all of a sudden though. I think it's been a gradual thing.
If any surface is slow...it always helps Nadal more than it helps Federer...as if Nadal has some unfair advantage on that surface...this is TW logic for you
Duh.
Slow and high-bouncing favours Nadal's game, fast and low-bouncing favours Federer's, there's no "TW logic" involved in this, it's just so obvious it shouldn't even need mentioning.
So, yes, despite what Clarky fails to understand (or pretends she doesn't understand), of course the slowing down of surfaces hasn't been in Federer's favour. Which is not to say that he would have won more Wimbledons on faster grass, but he would clearly have been more favoured vs Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray than he is on current "slow" grass.
Yes, because we all have a crystal ball to see whether Fed would do better IF faster grass was used. And it's not just against Nadal, how would you know if he would be better off against other players?
Yes, because we all have a crystal ball to see whether Fed would do better IF faster grass was used. And it's not just against Nadal, how would you know if he would be better off against other players? What about the two finals against Roddick? Certainly even faster grass helps Roddick's serve. Hardcourts you might have a point, but I don't think we should generalize across all surfaces. Remember,not even Fed won a Wimbledon before it was slowed down.
Heres an interview from Poker stars on poker and tennis- 6 Dec 2012.
It appears he's all clay court now.
Is it true that you and your team are considering playing more matches on clay in 2013 and, if so, why?
[RN] We’ll see how it all unfolds. At the end of the day, the season you have will determine the results. But yes, we have to try prioritise playing a bit more on clay, insofar as we can within our schedule, which provides little room for manoeuvre. Firstly, it is a less aggressive surface for my body, and secondly because it is a surface in which I have always felt comfortable, as well as getting great results. I love playing on clay.
http://www.nadalnews.com/2012/12/06/interview-poker-and-tennis/
:mrgreen:
That 87.5% win percentage should have an asterix, he only competed during his best portion of the season...
Lol! Looks like we both answered while the other guy was adding to his post, nicely done!