Search results

The only sense in which Nadal is better at 24-years-old than Federer was at 24-years-old is on clay.

The h2h does not validate Nadal as an all-time great. His title wins do. If the h2hs carried that weight, we would have to also recognize the all-time greatness of Paul Haarhuis, Richard Krajicek and Michael Stich, for example, simply because they have superior h2hs against Sampras. H2hs can...

I think this is more perception than reality. He's well aware that the press describe him as stubborn, but rejected this idea in Toronto, saying he likes a coach to be involved and critically examine his game.

Actually, a lot of players who grew up on clay do well on hardcourts, comparative to their results on clay. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Nalbandian, Ferrer, Ferrero, Moya etc. and from the past, Becker, Lendl, Borg etc. Nadal's, Ferrero's, Moya's and Borg's styles are more in that of...

No comparison. I'm sure all pros can hit the tweener, but the sheer pace and nonchalant style with which Federer executes that shot is without rival. Poise and style points are off the chart, and the venom on the US Open one is serious.

This shot that Federer hits from under his armpit, as opposed to through his legs, with the forehand side of his racket and back completely to the net is probably the most ridiculous shot I have ever seen. Neither of the shots you posted come close to this in terms of sheer outrageousness. 'It's...

Federer=GOAT. Kafelinikov=a very good also ran. GOAT>a very good also run.

A 2-4 h2h was very respectable for a young Federer against an experienced player like Kafelnikov. Federer suffered much worse h2hs against Hewitt and Nalbandian coming up, but that all changed as he improved.

The same Kafelnikov who is 1-7 against Hewitt? I don't think so. Kafelnikov was a great player, but Federer is GOAT. Big difference.

No, he's practising.

Perfect response.

It's not so much about strategy as execution. It does not matter what strategy you use if you do not execute it well enough. Roddick beat Nadal because he executed better than him during key moments. It might not work out like that next time. Let's also remember Roddick has the best serve in the...

I don’t think anyone seriously believes Nadal would hit the ball as well as he does now with a wooden racket. Obviously, he is not going to be able to generate the same spin or pace. My guess is that people are making the calculation that Nadal’s upside is stronger than Borg’s, regardless of the...

Please, do you seriously think if new technology had not been introduced, generations after Borg would have had anymore difficulty using wood than his generation and generations before? Do you think that new generations would not have been able to take up the mantle from where he left off and...

I don't particularly care for Henin, but I think she has done quite well so far. After a 2 year lay-off, she made the final in her 1st tournament back, but lost in a tight match. Made a Slam final in only her second event, lost another tight final. Made the semis in Miami. Those are excellent...

Yes, and it used to be 5-0 to Nalbandian before 2004.

Okay, I see what you are trying to say, but you are not going to beat Federer if you only hit it to his backhand. This would make you predictable. You have to mix it up. Also bear in mind that Federer looks for any opportunity to use his biggest weapon (his forehand) off the ground and often...

Okay, I think I see what you are getting at. Don't read too much into it when commentators talk about point construction. The choices you see taken in a rally are not premeditated 5, 4, 3 or even 2 shots in advance, because you never know what your opponent is going to do before the fact or how...

What don't you understand?

Roddick did not wait for Nadal's game to change. He decided to be more aggressive from the 2nd set onwards. Nadal did not play the way he did in the 1st set because Roddick did not allow him to.

What makes Nalbandian so good at rallying? Superior anticipation, movement and technical abilities. He makes the difficult look routine. That comes from practice, talent and great development.

Yes, Nadal does not have a bad serve. It's actually pretty good and is a key aspect of his game, coming from the left wing. The challenge for Federer and all other right-handed players is that it swings in the opposite direction to that which they are used to. Nadal's serve is an important...

Nadal plays with a much larger margin for error. Even on his bad days, he gets to enough balls and moonballs them back to keep in the rally. Nadal gives opponents the opportunity to play, because he is a defensive player. He wants the opponent to beat themselves by eventually missing enough of...

I'm not saying Federer did not lose some best of 3 matches pre-2008, just that his record was better in those matches during that period. Everyone is going to lose their share of matches, whether in best of 3 or 5. As it stands, Federer has had more success in best of 3 matches than anyone...

He has said he is more relaxed in best of 5 because he knows there is a long way to the finish line. He feels less pressure. In a best of 3, things can end very quickly. He also has more time to find his game in best of 5 It's much easier for a lower ranked opponent to sustain a good period of...

Many here are disagreeing with you that Federer does not care, so it is not ok as far as he is concerned.

Every dog has his day. These are quality players. On a good day, they can beat anyone in the world. That does not mean they have to be Slam contenders, but in one match they can certainly pull off some big upsets. That's the danger in tennis for the top players, one bad day and you don't get the...

That's too bad, because it's blatantly obvious he is a better player than Sampras.

Even if he wanted to, Federer could not win every match he plays. Sometimes he is going to lose. There are enough quality players out there to cause upsets from time to time.

He almost has already.