Search results

Your an idiot lmao!

There head to head record is really decieving. Nadal is probablly the best clay court player of all time. Federer is so good on every surface out there that he has met this young great player on this surface and has lost to him. Nadal on the other hand has not been good enough to make it to...

Federer needs the belief to win and he did give up towards the end of the match. You have to go for your shots, you have to continue and fight harder when your at your most tired, you can't be afraid to fail. That's why Nadal won and is number 1 in the world. When you adapt that mind set and...

There should be an equal amount of every surface, if you have three clay court events, you should have three hardcourt, grass, and rebound ace events. How someone can disagree with that I have no idea?

By the numbers Nadal and Federer is already the greatest rivalry and when it's all said and done they will be!

He's not physically fragile BUT if he wants to make that next step he's gonna have to train and work harder. Clearly physically the top 5 trump him in that regard on almost every level! Their faster, stronger, and have more stamina. This is something he can overcome though and is a step he MUST...

Novaks got good fitness, i'm just saying his fitness is alot better than Gasquets. I do think that does play a part in winning at the highest level.

Gasquet must improve and he can improve ALOT! He is no where near the physical athletes that Federer, Nadal, Murray, or Novak are! He must really dedicate himself to the physical parts of the game and work on his mental part as well! I think he can be a top 5 player and maybe even a future...

Your an idiot!

I don't know what that is or where it came from, but today's players are phsycially much stronger! I'll have to find the article or statistic but in 1993 only a handful of people served above 135. Now over 30 some players int he top one hundred can. That's not all just because of the tennis...

The players in todays current game are bigger, stronger, faster, and the game it self faster. Does that make todays players better athletes then players from years ago? Yes I think it does. Are todays players greater then the previous players, well that's another story. You have to judge...

I'm not comparing technology once again your assuming, your making an ass out of yourself.

If you took away everything that made todays athletes better then the previous athletes in the other eras then yes they would not produce the top speeds and angles lmao! You proved my point completely!

See though, that's just your opionion, you don't have any facts that prove that. The facts and the obvious pictures lead in the other direction, they show the difference in the players. If you refuse to believe it that's your opionion but not many people are going to agree with you.

Safin on his day could beat anybody in the world. He is one of the most talented players to play the game. The thing with Safin was he did achieve as much as he could. He will never be a Federer or Nadal because he is mentally not as strong or consistent and is too injury prone. If you...

If you believe that then you are very naive!

Well the commentators, players, and fans all think the game has evolved and if you think players even from the early 90's are training like todays players then your crazy. I love tennis from 15, 20, 30 years ago but their are training techniques and fitness regimes that just did not exist or...

I don't think it's mental at all. Federer's decline this year had alot to do with his illness and the other players are getting better including Nadal but Federer doesn't have a mental block, Nadal just has the skills to give him trouble. Federer is no longer the number 1 player and it showed...

It's definatley possible, it will take a special athlete to do it but it can be done!

Federer's bulking up a little bit, it's not just the camera angle, he knows he's gonna have to improve physically to catch Nadal!

Olivier Rochus I have to agree with the above poster. If the guy was 6'0 or 6'2 he would be a monster. He truly is one of the most talented guys on the tour but his physical stature truly diminishes how good he could be. He's in the top 5 of most talented players in the game!

I added some power to my game by lifting weights. I'm not incredibly huge but I noticed a definate increase in power, but I don't feel as light on my feet as I did a few years ago. I think you have to balance it out well!

Federer does have a bigger frame then Nadal but Nadal has more muscle in his stomach and less fat. I've always thought that Federer is the naturally bigger of the two, and usually looks slightyly a littler taller!

Federer has more fat in the stomach, Nadal has less fat and more muscle throughout his body. Not hard to understand really.

The little guts aren't there on purpose or for strategy lmao! Some guys have them and some don't. It's a factor of personal fitness. Everybody can have a six pack showing if they really worked for it.

I'm not saying he's not fit, some other poster is worried about his sagging belly not me. They were wondering why it was there. I'm just saying the reason why he has a little sagging belly is simple, he has extra fat stored in his stomach. Could he get in better shape and lose it, uh...yeah...

All you got to do is read a fitness book or talk to a personal trainer. Nadal and Tursonof and Djokovic do not have a sagging belly like Roger! If he was in supreme shape the little gut he has wouldn't be there. Does it make a difference, not much I would think but he could lose it if he...

Roddick is losing his hair. Past pictures will show you he is. It's not a big deal at all, but can't deny the facts!

He's not in the greatest shape in the world. He could be in better shape. It's not that hard to understand!

It's a huge factor. Rochus is probablly one of the most talented players on the tour. He's definately in the top 10 most talented players to play right now because at his height he's at a huge disadvantage and still gives the best players problems. If he was 6'0, grand slam contention would be...