Are there Sampras fans who cheer for Nadal to not let Federer break his record?

[10sfreak]

I don't want Federer to break Sampras' records, but, if Pete's records have to fall, I'd rather they fall to someone like a Federer or even a Nadal...

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Sorry, but if Nadal's talents were only speed and strength then everyone would be hitting with the kind of mustard he does. He has superior technique off both wings to nearly every player on tour.

Speed and strength aren't Nadal's only weapons. But they are his primary weapons.
There are many players that can hit as hard as Nadal. They just can't scramble for a ball and hit that hard from awkward positions, and do it all day long, the way Nadal can.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Blame it on the racket. Hilarious.

Nadal Rope a Dopes Fed every time-Ali style. .

The Grass and Clay court king has left a trail of destruction and some deep wounds. May they heal in time.

??? I don't get this at all (and never claimed this). Nadal's talent is in his legs and his willingness to dig deep and play hard every single point, no matter what the score. But is he elegant and stylish in the way Federer is? Could Nadal beat Federer on a real grass court like Wimbledon used to produce? Highly doubtful. Highly.

Could Nadal be as effective with a more traditional frame? It seems unlikely, though Nadal is certainly not cheating or gaming the system. It's just another sign of how mono-dimensional he is. If you like that dimension then more power to you. I don't happen to.
You will see on the hard courts the limitations in Nadal's game.

Joe Frazier was a great fighter. He even beat Muahmad Ali. But was he as gifted? Was he the pleasure to watch that Ali was? Did Joe Frazier excite people, who realized they were watching a once in a generation talent in Ali, the way Ali did? Nadal is Joe Frazier, but Federer is Ali. There is nothing wrong in recognizing that. Nadal is a great athlete. But Federer is a greater tennis player.

I don't question his effectiveness. He intimidates people and takes their fight away. But he has made tennis into a thugish street brawl.

I don't think tennis wins when Nadal does, but I'll admit there are lots of fans who don't know anything else. So for them, Nadal is their template for a winning tennis player. In the long run, the game will suffer for that.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I don't see that at all. I still think you greatly underestimate the technical skills of Nadal. He's not just physical presence and power, he has excellent touch too, soft hands, good wrist, good tactical thinking, precision, superior footwork and flexibility.

He indeed has almost all those qualities. But now I think you are making more of Nadal than he actually is. Hitting a drop shot or drop volley every once in awhile doesn't make him an "excellent" touch player anymore than Sharapova, who does the same thing and just as infrequently, is an excellent "touch" player.

I'm sorry that his "thuggish" appearance makes you miss out on all that. Sometimes appearances are deceptive, you should judge a book by more than its cover... (about the racquet business you said "he owes much of his success to his equipment", that's what I reacted to in my former post)

He's "thuggish in that his success is primarily due to his immense physical presence and endurance. That's the base of his game. Run faster, play longer, hit harder. That's about it. He bullies opponents through his physicality (like a thug would).

As for his racquet, his primary asset is his ability to hit such superb topspin all day long that his opponents are playing most every ball at shoulder level. It certainly effects Federer adversely. But would Nadal be able to generate that spin with a 90 inch traditional frame? There is no reason to think he could.
It's reality. Not a criticism.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Blame it on the racket. Hilarious.

Nadal Rope a Dopes Fed every time-Ali style. .

The Grass and Clay court king has left a trail of destruction and some deep wounds. May they heal in time.

Ooopps. I stayed in Jurassic park too long and now the raptors gather.
I don't intend to get into a senseless back and forth with a professional troll.
I've already said what I wanted to. If you want to argue the physics of a tennis ball do it with someone else.

 

[TheTruth]

Before Nadal became known on tour, I was a Sampras fan. When Sampras retired, I didn't know he would become an a-hole! I remember him saying something like....Nadal is good on clay because he relies on his speed and strength, and playing on clay doesn't need superior technique, unlike grass. Simply put, he thinks Nadal doesn't have what it takes to be a wimby champ, I wonder what that idiot Sampras is saying nowadays? I hope 5 people break his record, but not Federer, I hate him just as much as I hate Sampras.Sampras and Federer are both arrogant and whinny individuals. They don't have an ounce of humility in their blood.

Agree with the above post, but don't hate either one. I feel sorry for them, Fed because he just can't help himself, and Pete because he should know better! Lost all respect for him!

 

[veroniquem]

He indeed has almost all those qualities. But now I think you are making more of Nadal than he actually is. Hitting a drop shot or drop volley every once in awhile doesn't make him an "excellent" touch player anymore than Sharapova, who does the same thing and just as infrequently, is an excellent "touch" player.


He's "thuggish in that his success is primarily due to his immense physical presence and endurance. That's the base of his game. Run faster, play longer, hit harder. That's about it. He bullies opponents through his physicality (like a thug would).

As for his racquet, his primary asset is his ability to hit such superb topspin all day long that his opponents are playing most every ball at shoulder level. It certainly effects Federer adversely. But would Nadal be able to generate that spin with a 90 inch traditional frame? There is no reason to think he could.
It's reality. Not a criticism.

You can't be saying that Nadal has the same volleying skills as Sharapova! Nadal doesn't just dropvolley once in a while. He's way better than that at net. He doesn' t come in systematically, that would be kind of inefficient in today's game but he does come in often particularly on grass when he feels it's a good tactic. He had a higher success rate at net (86 to 88%) than Fed at W. The bottom line is that his game is super efficient, he does whatever will ensure the win vs different opponents. Does it mean his game is less worthy for whatever reason? Hell no. Tennis is primarily about winning. It's competitive. A "stylish" game that doesn't enable you to win matches is nothing short of useless.

 

[wangs78]

OK, I'm bleary-eyed so take my posts with a grain of salt.

Anyway, I used to be a huge Sampras fan, but him hanging out with Roger really diminished him in my eyes. I always thought of Pete as being a down-to-earth guy without a bunch of pretentions. Since he started hanging around with Fed I've lost respect for him. My love for Nadal though has nothing to do with Sampras, though. The first time I saw Nadal I knew he was special. I love the way he competes and the way he is off court. Those rare glimpses we get of him are always so touching. Him sneaking in the studio, being carefree on the beach, him always giving his opponents credit. I know his parents and family are proud of him, not simply for his achievements, but for the way he carries himself. Pure class. It's what I want for my son!

Your opinion of Pete diminished because he he hung around with Federer for a bit? Talk about bias at its worst....

 

[wangs78]

For those of you who criticize Roger for being arrogant, look, I don't disagree with you that he comes off as elitist with his attitude, his comments toward other players and his critique of his own game, as well as his penchant for designer clothes and such. But that's just how he is. It doesn't diminish what he's done as a player one bit whatsoever.

Fed is a perfectionist and, I will say that in general, ppl don't like perfectionists, because they come off as snobby. But no one can argue that when a perfectionist succeeds at what he does, the product (in Federer's case, his tennis) is a wonder to behold.

Neither Nadal or Sampras had this. They both relied on consistency (groundstrokes for Nadal, serve for Sampras) and approached tennis with a workman's approach, whereas Fed approaches it like an artist, attempting to achieve brilliance each time.

So bottomline is, I agree Fed may rub ppl the wrong way with his perceived arrogance and with how he's been hyped, but I accept it wholeheartedly because his tennis is so incredible to watch.

 

[TheTruth]

??? I don't get this at all (and never claimed this). Nadal's talent is in his legs and his willingness to dig deep and play hard every single point, no matter what the score. But is he elegant and stylish in the way Federer is? Could Nadal beat Federer on a real grass court like Wimbledon used to produce? Highly doubtful. Highly.

They changed the grass in 2001. Before the grass changed here are Fed's stats. A couple of semi-finals, quite a few R128's, and a couple of quarters. No wins on grass. You make this claim based on what? It's highly doubtful Nadal would beat him? I disagree. In contrast look at Nadal's grass resume.

Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 21-Jun-99, O, Grass , Draw: 128
R128 Novak, Jiri (CZE) 59 3-6 6-3 6-4 3-6 4-6 Stats

London / Queen's Club, England
International Series, 7-Jun-99, O, Grass , Draw: 56
R64 Black, Byron (ZIM) 37 3-6 0-6 Stats


Surbiton, England
CH, 31-May-99, O, Grass , Draw: 32

S Sargsian, Sargis (ARM) N/A 7-6 3-6 6-7

2000

Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 26-Jun-00, O, Grass , Draw: 128
R128 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) 5 5-7 5-7 6-7(6) Stats

Nottingham, England
International Series, 19-Jun-00, O, Grass , Draw: 32
R32 Fromberg, Richard (AUS) 71 5-7 1-6 Stats


Halle, Germany
International Series, 12-Jun-00, O, Grass , Draw: 32
Q Chang, Michael (USA) 28 5-7 2-6 Stats

2001
Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 25-Jun-01, O, Grass , Draw: 128

Q Henman, Tim (GBR) 11 5-7 6-7(6) 6-2 6-7(6) Stats

's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
International Series, 18-Jun-01, O, Grass , Draw: 32


S Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 6 4-6 2-6 Stats


Halle, Germany
International Series, 11-Jun-01, O, Grass , Draw: 32

Q Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 10 6-4 6-7(6) 6-7(4) Stats


2002 Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 24-Jun-02, O, Grass , Draw: 128
R128 Ancic, Mario (CRO) 154 3-6 6-7(2) 3-6 Stats

's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
International Series, 17-Jun-02, O, Grass , Draw: 32

Q Schalken, Sjeng (NED) 31 6-3 5-7 3-6 Stats

Halle, Germany
International Series, 10-Jun-02, O, Grass , Draw: 32

S Kiefer, Nicolas (GER) 66 6-4 4-6 4-6 Stats

Here's Nadal

Nadal

Turned pro 2001-Didn't play on grass first two years.

2003
Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 23-Jun-03, O, Grass , Draw: 128


R128 Ancic, Mario (CRO) 68 6-3 6-4 4-6 6-4 Stats
R32 Srichaphan, Paradorn (THA) 11 4-6 4-6 2-6 Stats


2004

No Grass Play

2005

Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 20-Jun-05, O, Grass , Draw: 128
R128 Spadea, Vincent (USA) 39 6-4 6-3 6-0 Stats
R64 Muller, Gilles (LUX) 69 4-6 6-4 3-6 4-6 Stats

Halle, Germany
International Series, 6-Jun-05, O, Grass , Draw: 32


R32 Waske, Alexander


Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 26-Jun-06, O, Grass , Draw: 128


R128 Bogdanovic, Alex (GBR) 135 6-4 7-6(3) 6-4 Stats
R64 Kendrick, Robert (USA) 237 6-7(4) 3-6 7-6(2) 7-5 6-4 Stats
R32 Agassi, Andre (USA) 20 7-6(5) 6-2 6-4 Stats
R16 Labadze, Irakli (GEO) 166 6-3 7-6(4) 6-3 Stats
Q Nieminen, Jarkko (FIN) 18 6-3 6-4 6-4 Stats
S Baghdatis, Marcos (CYP) 16 6-1 7-5 6-3 Stats
F Federer, Roger (SUI) 1 0-6 6-7(5) 7-6(2) 3-6 Stats

London / Queen's Club, England
International Series, 12-Jun-06, O, Grass , Draw: 56


R64 Bye
R32 Fish, Mardy (USA) 86 7-6(1) 6-1 Stats
R16 Verdasco, Fernando (ESP) 30 2-6 7-6(3) 7-6(3) Stats
Q Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 13 6-3 3-6 RET Stats

Wimbledon, Great Britain
Grand Slam, 25-Jun-07, O, Grass , Draw: 128


R128 Fish, Mardy (USA) 38 6-3 7-6(4) 6-3 Stats
R64 Eschauer, Werner (AUT) 72 6-2 6-4 6-1 Stats
R32 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 28 6-4 6-4 6-7(7) 4-6 7-5 Stats
R16 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS) 13 4-6 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-2 Stats
Q Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 11 7-6(1) 6-4 6-2 Stats
S Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 5 3-6 6-1 4-1 RET Stats
F Federer, Roger (SUI) 1 6-7(7) 6-4 6-7(3) 6-2 2-6 Stats


London / Queen's Club, Great Britain
International Series, 11-Jun-07, O, Grass , Draw: 56


R64 Bye
R32 Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG) 59 6-4 6-4 Stats
R16 Mirnyi, Max (BLR) 58 7-6(3) 6-3 Stats
Q Mahut, Nicolas (FRA) 106 5-7 6-7(7) Stats

Wimbledon, Great Britain
Grand Slam, 23-Jun-08, O, Grass , Draw: 128


R128 Beck, Andreas (GER) 122 6-4 6-4 7-6(7) Stats
R64 Gulbis, Ernests (LAT) 48 5-7 6-2 7-6(2) 6-3 Stats
R32 Kiefer, Nicolas (GER) 32 7-6(3) 6-2 6-3 Stats
R16 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS) 17 6-3 6-3 6-1 Stats
Q Murray, Andy (GBR) 11 6-3 6-2 6-4 Stats
S Schuettler, Rainer (GER) 94 6-1 7-6(3) 6-4 Stats
W Federer, Roger (SUI) 1 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7 Stats


London / Queen's Club, Great Britain
International Series, 9-Jun-08, O, Grass , Draw: 56

R64 Bye
R32 Bjorkman, Jonas (SWE) 102 6-2 6-2 Stats
R16 Nishikori, Kei (JPN) 113 6-4 3-6 6-3 Stats
Q Karlovic, Ivo (CRO) 22 6-7(5) 7-6(5) 7-6(4) Stats
S Roddick, Andy (USA) 6 7-5 6-4 Stats
W Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 3 7-6(6) 7-5 Stats

 

[stormholloway]

Speed and strength aren't Nadal's only weapons. But they are his primary weapons.
There are many players that can hit as hard as Nadal. They just can't scramble for a ball and hit that hard from awkward positions, and do it all day long, the way Nadal can.

I think Nadal's shots bother Federer more than his movement. Federer can play all day against grinders.

 

[TheTruth]

Your opinion of Pete diminished because he he hung around with Federer for a bit? Talk about bias at its worst....

When he started hanging out with Fed several negative "snippets" started coming out in the press about Nadal and his game. Sort of the same kind of things Fed was saying, you know what I mean? And I thought to myself. This man is fifteen years older than Nadal. Nadal is like a kid to him, and he's playing these stupid mind games? Yeah, I lost respect for him big time!

 

[TheTruth]

For those of you who criticize Roger for being arrogant, look, I don't disagree with you that he comes off as elitist with his attitude, his comments toward other players and his critique of his own game, as well as his penchant for designer clothes and such. But that's just how he is. It doesn't diminish what he's done as a player one bit whatsoever.

Fed is a perfectionist and, I will say that in general, ppl don't like perfectionists, because they come off as snobby. But no one can argue that when a perfectionist succeeds at what he does, the product (in Federer's case, his tennis) is a wonder to behold.

Neither Nadal or Sampras had this. They both relied on consistency (groundstrokes for Nadal, serve for Sampras) and approached tennis with a workman's approach, whereas Fed approaches it like an artist, attempting to achieve brilliance each time.

So bottomline is, I agree Fed may rub ppl the wrong way with his perceived arrogance and with how he's been hyped, but I accept it wholeheartedly because his tennis is so incredible to watch.

For some character matters! It's not all x's and o's!

 

[certifiedjatt]

For those of you who criticize Roger for being arrogant, look, I don't disagree with you that he comes off as elitist with his attitude, his comments toward other players and his critique of his own game, as well as his penchant for designer clothes and such. But that's just how he is. It doesn't diminish what he's done as a player one bit whatsoever.

Fed is a perfectionist and, I will say that in general, ppl don't like perfectionists, because they come off as snobby. But no one can argue that when a perfectionist succeeds at what he does, the product (in Federer's case, his tennis) is a wonder to behold.

Neither Nadal or Sampras had this. They both relied on consistency (groundstrokes for Nadal, serve for Sampras) and approached tennis with a workman's approach, whereas Fed approaches it like an artist, attempting to achieve brilliance each time.

So bottomline is, I agree Fed may rub ppl the wrong way with his perceived arrogance and with how he's been hyped, but I accept it wholeheartedly because his tennis is so incredible to watch.

you know, part of the reason that people like me have come to dislike federer is due to the uninformed, speculative and excessively glossy rhetoric like yours that puts federer on a pedestal on which no one can remain. using phrases like "...approaches like an artist...attempting to achieve brilliance each time..."

and you have to be a complete joke to equate consistency with sampras, especially his serves. whoever considers sampras as a workman has not even attempted to understand his game; i'm not analyst but even I know that. he was encouraged by his coach Tim gullikson to BECOME more workman like but, though he adopted some of this belief, he remained dependent mostly on his talent. anyone who's followed sampras will give you a hundred examples of him going down 0-40 because of two double faults, a silly backhand into the net, followed by 3 aces to go deuce, then a couple of volleys to close it out. that is not consistency. that is going down 0-40 and thinking "oh well, i guess i'll hit some aces now."

below is the federer dislike equation:

Embellished Rhetoric by Media and Fans about Federer's Talent + Excessive Self-involvement by Federer = I dislike Federer *this* Much

 

[Deleted member 22147]

Too bad, Federer will win over 14 slams and Sampras will fall from his throne. Go Roger.

US Open is his.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I think Nadal's shots bother Federer more than his movement. Federer can play all day against grinders.

Grinders don't have the fire power of Nadal but of the two attributes, shot making or court coverage, it's his movement that's his strong suit.

 

[ninesticks]

I am one of those Sampras fans.

The thing is though, I know very well Fed is going to break Sampras record.

But at least his consecutive grand slam wins have been halted. I think he will win 17 grand slams in the end of his career.

I think this year is just a blip on his record.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

You can't be saying that Nadal has the same volleying skills as Sharapova!

You're right. I can't be. And I didn't.
I said because Sharapova hits a drop shot or drop volley once in awhile, that doesn't mean she has a great touch game. Same with Nads.

Nadal doesn't just dropvolley once in a while. He's way better than that at net. He doesn' t come in systematically, that would be kind of inefficient in today's game but he does come in often particularly on grass when he feels it's a good tactic. He had a higher success rate at net (86 to 88%) than Fed at W. The bottom line is that his game is super efficient, he does whatever will ensure the win vs different opponents. Does it mean his game is less worthy for whatever reason? Hell no. Tennis is primarily about winning. It's competitive. A "stylish" game that doesn't enable you to win matches is nothing short of useless.

He's an okay volleyer. He's competent. He volleys off the right shot so, like Jimmy Connors, he makes the most of his chances. That alone doesn't make him an "excellent" touch player
or volleyer. Let's not get carried away.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Your desperation is showing.

You've already lost the debate when you start blaming it on the tennis racket.

Ooopps. I stayed in Jurassic park too long and now the raptors gather.
I don't intend to get into a senseless back and forth with a professional troll.
I've already said what I wanted to. If you want to argue the physics of a tennis ball do it with someone else.

 

[TheTruth]

you know, part of the reason that people like me have come to dislike federer is due to the uninformed, speculative and excessively glossy rhetoric like yours that puts federer on a pedestal on which no one can remain. using phrases like "...approaches like an artist...attempting to achieve brilliance each time..."

and you have to be a complete joke to equate consistency with sampras, especially his serves. whoever considers sampras as a workman has not even attempted to understand his game; i'm not analyst but even I know that. he was encouraged by his coach Tim gullikson to BECOME more workman like but, though he adopted some of this belief, he remained dependent mostly on his talent. anyone who's followed sampras will give you a hundred examples of him going down 0-40 because of two double faults, a silly backhand into the net, followed by 3 aces to go deuce, then a couple of volleys to close it out. that is not consistency. that is going down 0-40 and thinking "oh well, i guess i'll hit some aces now."

below is the federer dislike equation:

Embellished Rhetoric by Media and Fans about Federer's Talent + Excessive Self-involvement by Federer = I dislike Federer *this* Much

Great post!

 

[TheTruth]

Grinders don't have the fire power of Nadal but of the two attributes, shot making or court coverage, it's his movement that's his strong suit.

All of them are his strong suits. Shot making, court coverage, movement, and a tenacious will and mental fortitude.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

All of them are his strong suits. Shot making, court coverage, movement, and a tenacious will and mental fortitude.

So he does everything equally well?

Okay:roll:. Whatever!

 

[stormholloway]

Grinders don't have the fire power of Nadal but of the two attributes, shot making or court coverage, it's his movement that's his strong suit.

You're nitpicking. Again, if you had a guy as fast as Nadal but who hit like Hewitt then Federer would destroy him. If Hewitt, however, hit like Nadal then Federer would have his hands quite full.

It's Nadal's relentless pounding of Federer's backhand with heavy topspin that is most weakening to him. Your attempt to reduce Nadal simply to a "runner" is a no-go.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

They changed the grass in 2001. Before the grass changed here are Fed's stats. A couple of semi-finals, quite a few R128's, and a couple of quarters. No wins on grass. You make this claim based on what? It's highly doubtful Nadal would beat him? I disagree. In contrast look at Nadal's grass resume.etc, etc, etc.

I guess you never took into account how early that was in Federer's career (2001) and how he wasn't exactly the champ yet he was later to become.
And how my whole point was that the new style grounds there favor the baseliner, rather than the net charger or all courter (the way the low bouncing older grounds used to).
So your point is no point at all, really.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

You're nitpicking. Again, if you had a guy as fast as Nadal but who hit like Hewitt then Federer would destroy him. If Hewitt, however, hit like Nadal then Federer would have his hands quite full.

It's Nadal's relentless pounding of Federer's backhand with heavy topspin that is most weakening to him. Your attempt to reduce Nadal simply to a "runner" is a no-go.

Despite your attempts to color what I claim, I don't think Nads is merely a runner. But I wouldn't call him a brilliant shotmaker either (unless you consider producing incredible top spin to be "shot making" which I don't).
Anymore than Vilas, Borg or Muster or Brugerra were brilliant shot makers. It's a very effective way for a clay courter to hit the ball. But does that equal brilliant shot making? Not to me.

 

[TheTruth]

I guess you never took into account how early that was in Federer's career (2001) and how he wasn't exactly the champ yet he was later to become.
And how my whole point was that the new style grounds there favor the baseliner, rather than the net charger or all courter (the way the low bouncing older grounds used to).
So your point is no point at all, really.

I was responding to your post that said Fed would beat Nadal on real grass. I showed you Fed's results on real grass. They weren't good. I think I proved my point. Now on to your point, Fed wasn't the real Fed. OK. Nadal isn't the real Nadal yet. Fed is a baseliner who volleys about as much as Nadal. There's no superiority there. The serve and volleyers like Stolle and crew said it too. He's a decent volleyer. You give him far too much credit!

 

[makhan10]

i am federer fan and before that agassi fan, so i hated both sampras and nadal, but only now when federer has started to loose, i appreciate both sampras (14 GS, 7W, 5 USO & 286 weeks at No. 1) and nadal (4FO and this wimbly) acheivements

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I was responding to your post that said Fed would beat Nadal on real grass. I showed you Fed's results on real grass. They weren't good. I think I proved my point. Now on to your point, Fed wasn't the real Fed. OK. Nadal isn't the real Nadal yet.

What? When will he become the real Nads, then?

Fed is a baseliner who volleys about as much as Nadal. There's no superiority there. The serve and volleyers like Stolle and crew said it too. He's a decent volleyer. You give him far too much credit!

:roll:
Okay. Thanks for the information. Bye.

 

[shakes1975]

You're nitpicking. Again, if you had a guy as fast as Nadal but who hit like Hewitt then Federer would destroy him. If Hewitt, however, hit like Nadal then Federer would have his hands quite full.

It's Nadal's relentless pounding of Federer's backhand with heavy topspin that is most weakening to him. Your attempt to reduce Nadal simply to a "runner" is a no-go.

Can you pls explain Federer's losses to Canas ? Canas is not even in nadal's category as a shotmaker, and Canas does not loop his FH to Federer's BH (the advantage that nadal has).

bottomline is Federer has problems against grinders.

 

[shakes1975]

I think I am one of these one of these Sampras fan. I mean I gotta admit I have some part of my mind that cheer for Nadal to defend some of Sampras' record.

I think Federer probably will break 14 slam record. And probably not the 6 straight year end #1 record.

But I still don't think Federer is a better player than Sampras.

I think ATP created a very homogeneious condition with court surfaces and the ball. So a player can win many slams in short period because tennis is being played on very similar surfaces with same baseline style. I think that made Federer look like an amazing player, perhaps a bit more amazing than what he actually is, IMHO.

"Better player" is a subjective term. Every great player is a product of his times and conditions prevalent during his times.

Federer is a better player than Sampras in todays conditions and surfaces, and when using today's technology.

Sampras is a better player than Federer in the conditions prevalent in the '90's.

It is silly to claim that only those players who played well in the conditions existing during Sampras' reign are the great players.

Federer is a great player, as good as Sampras, period. It's only that their strengths are different and each of their strengths was good enough to dominate their eras.

 

[TheTruth]

What? When will he become the real Nads, then?

:roll:
Okay. Thanks for the information. Bye.

Maybe like just when Federer became the real Fed. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You say Federer wasn't the real Fed when he didn't have the grass results. Using your same logic, maybe Nadal isn't the real Nadal until he gets his hard court results.

Didn't you just read what the legends of tennis said about Fed's volleying? Facts, which are plain to see.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Maybe like just when Federer became the real Fed. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You say Federer wasn't the real Fed when he didn't have the grass results. Using your same logic, maybe Nadal isn't the real Nadal until he gets his hard court results.

Nadal has already had a "lengthy" career having won his first ATP tournament at the age of fifteen in 2002. After almost seven years of professional competition how long are we supposed to wait before Nads will blossom as you claim? He's coming into his peak years physically. Aside from pathologically always slighting Federer (got those t.v. ratings yet?) how is it difficult to accept that players get better as they mature?

Didn't you just read what the legends of tennis said about Fed's volleying? Facts, which are plain to see.

No. Who the hell are legends of tennis and when did their or it's opinion become fact?

It must be difficult to live in an era when the player you hate most is so dominant. Look how it's effected you.

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal has already had a "lengthy" career having won his first ATP tournament at the age of fifteen in 2002. After almost seven years of professional competition how long are we supposed to wait before Nads will blossom as you claim? He's coming into his peak years physically. Aside from pathologically always slighting Federer (got those t.v. ratings yet?) how is it difficult to accept that players get better as they mature?

No. Who the hell are legends of tennis and when did their or it's opinion become fact?

It must be difficult to live in an era when the player you hate most is so dominant. Look how it's effected you.

Nadal won his first ATP tournament in August 2004 (Sopot). He was 18 years old. Maybe you should stop making sweeping judgements about a player about whom you clearly know nothing.

 

[nalk7]

Sampras was the major reason I started playing tennis. I consider him my favorite player of all time, but I still want federer to break his GS record. I just want to live through more tennis history

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Nadal won his first ATP tournament in August 2004 (Sopot). He was 18 years old. Maybe you should stop making sweeping judgements about a player about whom you clearly know nothing.

Sorry, that should have been his first match was won
in Mallorca as a fifteen year old.
I fail to see any "sweeping statements" in what I've posted however.
Maybe you are just too sensitive. And imaginative.

 

[federerGOAT]

Maybe like just when Federer became the real Fed. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You say Federer wasn't the real Fed when he didn't have the grass results. Using your same logic, maybe Nadal isn't the real Nadal until he gets his hard court results.

Didn't you just read what the legends of tennis said about Fed's volleying? Facts, which are plain to see.

Federer had better volleys than Sampras who is seriously overrated in the volleying department. However, I still think Stefan Edberg has one of the best volleying techniques.

 

[oranges]

Federer had better volleys than Sampras who is seriously overrated in the volleying department. However, I still think Stefan Edberg has one of the best volleying techniques.

He sure failed to show those superior skills in the final, be it the volleying itself or the net approach.

Judging by the opinions of their respective fans, both Federer and Nadal would have no trouble triple bageling God on the opposite side of the net.

 

[helloworld]

Federer had better volleys than Sampras who is seriously overrated in the volleying department. However, I still think Stefan Edberg has one of the best volleying techniques.

I have no idea how an individual could even think of saying such thing. You just insulted one of the greatest player in tennis. Sampras made his name by serve & volley. Does your Fed god made his name by serve and volleying his way to number 1? Hell no! He'd be strugging to stay in the top 100 if he plays like Sampras. Federer is not the best volleyer around and deal with it. Gosh, I hate ignorant fanboys.

 

[fastdunn]

I think some create "new user" ids to say crazy things....

 

[fastdunn]

"Better player" is a subjective term. Every great player is a product of his times and conditions prevalent during his times.

Federer is a better player than Sampras in todays conditions and surfaces, and when using today's technology.

Sampras is a better player than Federer in the conditions prevalent in the '90's.

It is silly to claim that only those players who played well in the conditions existing during Sampras' reign are the great players.

Federer is a great player, as good as Sampras, period. It's only that their strengths are different and each of their strengths was good enough to dominate their eras.

Thanks for clearing this up. I fully agree with you.

As you said, it is my "subjective" opinion that Sampras is better player than Federer.

I am just pointing out that we may have overestimated Federer's genius. He is genius but I think homogeneous surface condition certainly helpful for winning many slams in one year.

I never said current condition is easier in all aspect. I think it is harder to extend domination due to same baseline style. In 90's, due to polarization, Sampras was more protected on grass. So it really evens out.

I never mentioned current condition is easier. I think you misunderstood my posting.

 

[veroniquem]

Sorry, that should have been his first match was won
in Mallorca as a fifteen year old.
I fail to see any "sweeping statements" in what I've posted however.
Maybe you are just too sensitive. And imaginative.

Your statements are not only sweeping but 100% contemptuous, from the "mono-dimensional" comment to the turning tennis into a street brawl, to the "much success comes from his equipment" and he is not a brilliant shotmaker. They're also 100% biassed and 100% inaccurate. I doubt you've even watched him play that often to come up with such ignorant drivel.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Your statements are not only sweeping but 100% contemptuous, from the "mono-dimensional" comment to the turning tennis into a street brawl, to the "much success comes from his equipment" and he is not a brilliant shotmaker. They're also 100% biassed and 100% inaccurate. I doubt you've even watched him play that often to come up with such ignorant drivel.

Wow! Are you his dad, or something?

Nads is mono dimensional. The fact that he comes to net occasionally doesn't mean he isn't a baseliner 98% of the time. He lives and dies according to the amount of top spin he can generate.

I never said that he turned tennis into a street brawl but I guess you can't tell an analogy from reality.

I said that if Nads had to use Fed's racquet he wouldn't be nearly as effective as he is now,and he wouldn't be (since his whole mono-dimensional game is built around generating incredible top spin). That's just a fact.
Sorry if it bothers you.

 

[TheTruth]

Nadal has already had a "lengthy" career having won his first ATP tournament at the age of fifteen in 2002. After almost seven years of professional competition how long are we supposed to wait before Nads will blossom as you claim? He's coming into his peak years physically. Aside from pathologically always slighting Federer (got those t.v. ratings yet?) how is it difficult to accept that players get better as they mature?

No. Who the hell are legends of tennis and when did their or it's opinion become fact?

It must be difficult to live in an era when the player you hate most is so dominant. Look how it's effected you.

Judging by the things you've posted your main goal is to be contentious. Don't post to me.

 

[TheTruth]

Federer had better volleys than Sampras who is seriously overrated in the volleying department. However, I still think Stefan Edberg has one of the best volleying techniques.

Federer doesn't volley well at all to me. 50% of his volleys end up in the net. If he was a better volleyer I don't think he would be pinned at that baseline.

 

[TheTruth]

Wow! Are you his dad, or something?

Nads is mono dimensional. The fact that he comes to net occasionally doesn't mean he isn't a baseliner 98% of the time. He lives and dies according to the amount of top spin he can generate.

I never said that he turned tennis into a street brawl but I guess you can't tell an analogy from reality.

I said that if Nads had to use Fed's racquet he wouldn't be nearly as effective as he is now,and he wouldn't be (since his whole mono-dimensional game is built around generating incredible top spin). That's just a fact.
Sorry if it bothers you.

You should listen to her post. It might help you with your tennis "anger."

 

[TheTruth]

Wow! Are you his dad, or something?

Nads is mono dimensional. The fact that he comes to net occasionally doesn't mean he isn't a baseliner 98% of the time. He lives and dies according to the amount of top spin he can generate.

I never said that he turned tennis into a street brawl but I guess you can't tell an analogy from reality.

I said that if Nads had to use Fed's racquet he wouldn't be nearly as effective as he is now,and he wouldn't be (since his whole mono-dimensional game is built around generating incredible top spin). That's just a fact.
Sorry if it bothers you.

That's a shame. It must really bother you that he routinely beats your idea of genius.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Does this mean you won't be posting those TV ratings for Wimbledon you promised?

Okay... See you around.

 

[Charlie_Boy]

Wow! Are you his dad, or something?

Nads is mono dimensional. The fact that he comes to net occasionally doesn't mean he isn't a baseliner 98% of the time. He lives and dies according to the amount of top spin he can generate.

I never said that he turned tennis into a street brawl but I guess you can't tell an analogy from reality.

I said that if Nads had to use Fed's racquet he wouldn't be nearly as effective as he is now,and he wouldn't be (since his whole mono-dimensional game is built around generating incredible top spin). That's just a fact.
Sorry if it bothers you.

That's probably the most contemptuous and ridiculous post in the thread.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

When you grow up you'll learn to place things in their proper perspective, I hope.

 

[TheTruth]

Does this mean you won't be posting those TV ratings for Wimbledon you promised?

Okay... See you around.

I already posted them at the time we were discussing them. I think. What the heck, I'll post them for you tomorrow, but can you remind me what the discussion was about? Was it about the Williams Sisters vs. Fed/Rafa?