Federer- Michealangelo of Tennis

Which is exactly why Federer would play better with a wood racquet than Nadal would be able to. The K90 he uses now is much closer to a wood racquet than Nadal's APD is. Quite simple really.
And why is this even relevant to modern tennis? Wood racquets are dead and buried...
 
Nobody cares about boots! But I agree that for tennis they should be standardized. But no matter what boots you wear, it's not going to generate huge topspin shots for you. :oops:
Movement on the court is a more important aspect of the game than the amount of topspin you can generate....
 

Pirao

Semi-Pro
Aren't Federer and Nadal wearing different "boots"? Is Nadal's boot as different in performance from Federer's boot as a wood racquet is different in performance from an APD strung with poly?

Nobody cares about boots! But I agree that for tennis they should be standardized. But no matter what boots you wear, it's not going to generate huge topspin shots for you. :oops:
Lol, trying to divert attention I see. Just more proof that I owned you (or that your reading comprehension is lacking, whatever you prefer).

I'll post the original post again so everybody can see your failure:

You obviously have never played football if you think two balls don't make a difference in play.

To the bolded part, you make it very easy to respond: every player in the pitch uses different football boots (which comparing football to tennis, would be like the racquet). Of course you probably think that different boots are the same in football too, lol. Just more proof of your (inexistent) intelligence.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
So in both sports, everyone is using the same ball but manipulating it with different equipment (different racquets or boots). What is the difference?
Then they should standardize boots for soccer if some actually allow you to put more spin on the ball or kick it with much greater velocity.

Look, I don't care about soccer. There's a very good reason why it's not popular in the U.S. and you almost never see it on network TV.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Movement on the court is a more important aspect of the game than the amount of topspin you can generate....
Agreed, but the last time I checked, both Federer and Nadal moved pretty well on the court. Do you think their shoes are all that different that it affects their movement?
 

fps

Legend
BreakPoint, are you suggesting Nadal is at an advantage because of his equipment? If so, can you suggest why Federer has not switched to Nadal's equipment? also, what on earth have wooden racquets got to do with anything? pros haven't used wooden racquets for decades.

i am also of the opinion that if federer and nadal played with wooden racquets, say in mid-2008, federer would win. but it is just an opinion. i support it with assertions that federer relies more on timing and feel than nadal, who relies on spin and power, and that he would have an easier time with his single hander than nadal with his double hander. but that is as far as i can go. shouting, as you do, over and over again, does nothing to enhance your argument. you can't shout your way to victory. because it's not a debate that can be won.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
And why is this even relevant to modern tennis? Wood racquets are dead and buried...
Because some clueless people here claim that Nadal's modern racquet and poly strings have nothing to do with his ability to play the game that he does. They believe that he would play exactly the same with a wood racquet. These are the same people who think Nadal can cure cancer and achieve eternal peace in the Middle East. :shock:
 

fps

Legend
Look, I don't care about soccer. There's a very good reason why it's not popular in the U.S. and you almost never see it on network TV.
and what reason might that be? *soccer* is the most popular sport in the world. the reason it's not popular in the US is that the US players aren't very good, and the US *soccer* team isn't very good. Americans like to watch Americans do well at sports, that's why men's tennis has taken a hit since Sampras and Agassi but the Williams sisters still pack em in. it's why, with the exception of basketball, where you have a talent monopoly anyway, your biggest sports are ones that no-one else plays.

you can't bring up an argument based on *soccer* and then discard it because you're losing the debate, and think people won't notice.
 
Last edited:

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
BreakPoint, are you suggesting Nadal is at an advantage because of his equipment? If so, can you suggest why Federer has not switched to Nadal's equipment? also, what on earth have wooden racquets got to do with anything? pros haven't used wooden racquets for decades.

i am also of the opinion that if federer and nadal played with wooden racquets, say in mid-2008, federer would win. but it is just an opinion. i support it with assertions that federer relies more on timing and feel than nadal, who relies on spin and power, and that he would have an easier time with his single hander than nadal with his double hander. but that is as far as i can go. shouting, as you do, over and over again, does nothing to enhance your argument. you can't shout your way to victory. because it's not a debate that can be won.
I'm suggesting that Nadal's modern racquet and modern strings enable him to play the dominating game that he does and that he would not be able to do the same with a wood racquet. OTOH, Federer would still be able to play a similar game with a wood racquet because the K90 is already much closer to a wood racquet than the APD is.
 

Pirao

Semi-Pro
and what reason might that be? *soccer* is the most popular sport in the world. the reason it's not popular in the US is that the US players aren't very good, and the US *soccer* team isn't very good. Americans like to watch Americans do well at sports, that's why men's tennis has taken a hit since Sampras and Agassi but the Williams sisters still pack em in. it's why, with the exception of basketball, where you have a talent monopoly anyway, your biggest sports are ones that no-one else plays.

you can't bring up an argument based on *soccer* and then discard it because you're losing the debate, and think people won't notice.
^^ see you can think Federer would beat Nadal with a wooden racquet, like this guy, and still be an objective poster. Learn from him, grasshopper.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
and what reason might that be? *soccer* is the most popular sport in the world. the reason it's not popular in the US is that the US players aren't very good, and the US *soccer* team isn't very good. Americans like to watch Americans do well at sports, that's why men's tennis has taken a hit since Sampras and Agassi but the Williams sisters still pack em in. it's why, with the exception of basketball, where you have a talent monopoly anyway, your biggest sports are ones that no-one else plays.

you can't bring up an argument based on *soccer* and then discard it because you're losing the debate, and think people won't notice.
Huh? When did I bring up soccer? It was Pirao that kept bringing up soccer (football in his language) and I tried to avoid the topic because I don't care about soccer!

Oh, and soccer is not as popular in the U.S. because many American's find it boring. Americans prefer to see more action, more scoring, more variety, more physicality, etc. It's not on TV as much because it's hard to put in the commercial breaks. Not being on TV much does not help its popularity. Most people prefer watching football over soccer.
 

Pirao

Semi-Pro
Huh? When did I bring up soccer? It was Pirao that kept bringing up soccer (football in his language) and I tried to avoid the topic because I don't care about soccer!

Oh, and soccer is not as popular in the U.S. because many American's find it boring. Americans prefer to see more action, more scoring, more variety, more physicality, etc. It's not on TV as much because it's hard to put in the commercial breaks. Not being on TV much does not help its popularity. Most people prefer watching football over soccer.
Yes, you didn't bring up soccer, I brought it up along with swimming to illustrate the fact that sports change and evolve, a fact you clearly try to understand. Then you posted this:

Those high-tech swimsuits should be banned and they may still be. I think the jury is still out on that one. Swimming is about who's physically a better and faster swimmer, NOT who's wearing the most high-tech swimsuit!

And thanks for making my point with your football example. In football, everyone on the field is playing with the same ball, aren't they? That's my point about standardization in tennis! Everyone on a tennis court should be playing with not only the same ball, but also with the same racquet. Discrepancies in equipment makes it inherently unfair due to the superiority of one racquet over another. The differences in equipment should be eliminated as a variable in the outcome of a sporting contest. The winner should be the best player, NOT who was using the best equipment. If you can't understand that then you don't like to play games fairly and on a level playing field.
Saying that I made your point, when in fact what I did was own you royally afterwards. Now you say that you tried to avoid soccer, when in fact you tried to use it to say you were right (lying again, not nice ;)).

So I'll say it again, to see if it gets through you thick skull this time: sports change and evolve, deal with it.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Yes, you didn't bring up soccer, I brought it up along with swimming to illustrate the fact that sports change and evolve, a fact you clearly try to understand. Then you posted this:



Saying that I made your point, when in fact what I did was own you royally afterwards. Now you say that you tried to avoid soccer, when in fact you tried to use it to say you were right (lying again, not nice ;)).

So I'll say it again, to see if it gets through you thick skull this time: sports change and evolve, deal with it.
And what did I say about soccer? I immediately related it to tennis and changed the subject back to tennis. All I said about soccer is that the same ball is used in the same game. :oops:

Then you kept hounding me to respond to your dumb unrelated posts about soccer shoes. It's obvious that the type of racquet you choose will affect your game more than than the shoes you wear. I use the same racquet when I play but I rotate between 20 different pairs of tennis shoes when I play because my shoes don't affect my game nearly as much as my racquet does.
 

Richie Rich

Legend
You're not reading are you? I've mentioned baseball and cricket bats numerous times already in this thread.

You asked why wood? I just explained it!

Another non-intelligent post from you. Typical. :-?
just trying to make sure i dumb down my responses to your intellect level. obviously i have further to go.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
Well, let's go back even farther. What if Fed had to play Rotterdam in wooden shoes? How well would he do? Not so good, I bet. Just imagine those annoyed old time Dutch greats looking at a whippersnapper like Fed running around in synthetic shoes.
That would be hilarious... watching Federer play a match in wooden shoes :oops:
 

Pirao

Semi-Pro
And what did I say about soccer? I immediately related it to tennis and changed the subject back to tennis. All I said about soccer is that the same ball is used in the same game. :oops:

Then you kept hounding me to respond to your dumb unrelated posts about soccer shoes. It's obvious that the type of racquet you choose will affect your game more than than the shoes you wear. I use the same racquet when I play but I rotate between 20 different pairs of tennis shoes when I play because my shoes don't affect my game nearly as much as my racquet does.
Lol, again trying to divert attention and saying you tried to avoid soccer.

And thanks for making my point with your football example. In football, everyone on the field is playing with the same ball, aren't they? That's my point about standardization in tennis! Everyone on a tennis court should be playing with not only the same ball, but also with the same racquet. Discrepancies in equipment makes it inherently unfair due to the superiority of one racquet over another. The differences in equipment should be eliminated as a variable in the outcome of a sporting contest. The winner should be the best player, NOT who was using the best equipment. If you can't understand that then you don't like to play games fairly and on a level playing field.
Yes, you sure were trying to avoid it :lol:. I win, you lose.
 

fps

Legend
Huh? When did I bring up soccer? It was Pirao that kept bringing up soccer (football in his language) and I tried to avoid the topic because I don't care about soccer!

Oh, and soccer is not as popular in the U.S. because many American's find it boring. Americans prefer to see more action, more scoring, more variety, more physicality, etc. It's not on TV as much because it's hard to put in the commercial breaks. Not being on TV much does not help its popularity. Most people prefer watching football over soccer.
this all has very little to do with the original point. i now understand what you do. you bring up point after unrelated point in order to get into discussion and/or argument with people on the internet. i am finishing a uni degree this week, this forum is good relief when people genuinely want to share opinions, but i have more important ways to spend my time than talk with people who are just trying to spin out contact in cyberspace. goodbye.
 

Richie Rich

Legend
Believe me, you don't have to try. It comes naturally to you. :oops:
but yet you are still having trouble. it's going to be tough to dumb things down so you get it. really tough.

why are you so extra bitter today? 15 yr old manager yell at you for putting too much salt on the fries or something?
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
why are you so extra bitter today? 15 yr old manager yell at you for putting too much salt on the fries or something?
LOL he is a rich retired guy who does not need to work but just plays tennis all day long. One day you will wish you were like him.
 

OddJack

G.O.A.T.
Nadal undoubtely is the undisputed current Number 1 in Tennis. Great mental and physical strenght and grossly underestimated tactician.
However whenever Federer is playing i either rush home to watch him or record it on Al Jazeera Sports 2 ( best tennis channel).

So i reason to myself - Why does my mind desire to watch Federer and not Nadal.
I can sum it up simply as: Watching Federer play is like imagining Michaelangelo paint the cistene Chapel. He uses the racquet like a brush,paints a game with his Wilson K-90 and is a Tennis Genius.

Nadal reminds me of a Soviet era sculpture, sculpting with grit, brute strength, and overpowering his oponents without any finesse.

I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!
Where are you located that can get Aljazeera channels?
 

asafi2

Rookie
"[Roger Federer] is not the world's top-ranked player, but he is, by consensus, it's most gifted. ... he is the players' player, the subject of glowing peer critiques. Retired champions and traditionalists adore his one-handed backhand and versatile, all-court style; rivals acknowledge his rare talent and instinctive feel ... in Federer's soft hands, tennis, rather than soccer, could as well be called the beautiful game." - Linda Pearce, The Age
 

fps

Legend
"[Roger Federer] is not the world's top-ranked player, but he is, by consensus, it's most gifted. ... he is the players' player, the subject of glowing peer critiques. Retired champions and traditionalists adore his one-handed backhand and versatile, all-court style; rivals acknowledge his rare talent and instinctive feel ... in Federer's soft hands, tennis, rather than soccer, could as well be called the beautiful game." - Linda Pearce, The Age
people are going to jump down your throat because this is published opinion, rather than *evidence*. hope you ride it out, good luck. my own opinion is that i can see a greater lineage from laver to federer than i can to nadal. he certainly has a more traditional style, and embodies many of the qualities of the game- movement, timing, touch- in a more traditional manner. the longstanding purist, the one who has watched the game for 40 years, would recognise in federer an extreme high-point of some of the most cherished aesthetic values of the game.
 
Top