Goran Ivanesevic: "More impressed by Nadal than Federer".

Serendipitous said:
I recall that Federer is ugly. ;)
Click to expand...

2w7jzmv.jpg
 
abmk said:
@ bold part: I'd be really surprised if he said that. proof please ?

nadal's game more complex than fed's at his prime ? really ? :)

let's know when he starts taking the ball on the rise or chip & charging or SnV's more than 10 times in a match or comes to the net 50 or more times in a match

oh and btw nadal's returning vs murray in 2010 wimbledon was "medicore" ..

fed hurts players with his BH on grass ! .
Click to expand...

Well federer surely gets a lot more balls back than nadal on the ROS, but nadal takes more risks on the ROS than federer especially on clay.

How often does federer come in more than 50 times? I would guess it's pretty rare and most likely when he faces nadal. I would like to know how often he wins those matches. What's the point of coming in and losing? I do remember he came in quite a bit in that andreev match at the 08 US open and he won that.

Federer might take the ball on the rise more, but nadal hits more insane winners away from the baseline than federer.

It's was even worse than that I think he also called the haas game more dimensional than sampras. It was too funny. :) I will look for it, shouldn't be that hard to find.
 
INTERVIEWER - Nadal said you are closer to winning the French Open than he is to winning Wimbledon, do you agree?

ROGER FEDERER - I don't know how much preparation he's done for the grass and hard court season. But it's not about me and him, there are so many guys out there.

INTERVIEWER - Do you regret saying his game is one-dimensional?

ROGER FEDERER - No, I was analysing the depth not effectiveness of his style. It's effective, it gets the job done but not layered if you know what I mean.

INTERVIEWER - Who has a layered game?

ROGER FEDERER - Agassi, Safin, Haas, they're the sort of guys, they have an even distribution of strength in parts of the game, they also happen to be the most entertaining to watch, even when they don't win. I don't think you can call Sampras three dimensional, but he's great at what he did.




What I could find. It's not as bad as I remember it but it's still pretty bad. Come on, haas has a more "layered" game than sampras? Sampras is not as dimensional as those guys? They have more depth?
 
Last edited:
BrooklynNY said:
Ok, Post a link to the transcript

Instead of making up your own mock interview
Click to expand...
No,the poster isn't making up but geez the actual thing dosen't exactly match-up to what he claimed initially.
This is Fed's subjective view point (a lot of people seem to consider Pete as more of a s&ver than anything else) just like the Mcenroes,Petes,Borgs and Beckers of the tennis world have theirs .
 
Last edited:
I'm NOT saying it is or isnt. I'm just more interested in readin the actual text, rather than a 3rd party interpretation/recollection.

:)
 
BrooklynNY said:
I dug up an article.

http://www.goroger.net/interview/2006/zdf060500.html
Click to expand...

I love this bit

NTERVIEWER - Is that why you cried at the Laver arena when he handed you the cup?

ROGER FEDERER - Well, yes and no, I felt relief because I had to fight for it, but yes, him being there was important. I actually met him two days before, the first thing I said was "Oh my god Rod Laver, you're Rod Laver", then I felt really stupid because, of course, he knew who he was.
 
0d1n said:
Repeat after me. Complex game in this discussion does not mean winning on all surfaces if you win on all surfaces playing the same freakin' game (i.e. serving for percentage...and bashing from the baseline left to right until you force an error or make the other guy puke from all the running). It IS an efficient game...but complex or varied ... it is not.
Why do you think Agassi was quoted saying something like "it doesn't matter if they know what's coming if I can execute well" ?? Because he had a complex, varied, unpredictable game ?? NO ... it was because EVERYBODY knew what was coming...every point...every situation.
If you could do something about it...great...you win. If not ... too bad... you lose.
With Sampras ... you only knew what was coming on his first serve (and only later in his career). On the second serve...on the return ... he could and would do "whatever".
Complex in this context means varied...all court...playing all the shots.
Sampras was NOT a net rusher. He served and volleyed because it was high percentage to do so for him due to his unbelievable serve. When he saw that his percentages with the S&V game were not good enough he was playing baseline as well ... and doing it exceptionally well (yes...including against a great baseliner like Agassi).

The only part of the game where Agassi was superior to Sampras was the topspin backhand.
Every other part...Sampras was equal or better.
Forehand ... i would call it even - Sampras had more power, AA had more consistency. Keep in mind...that I'm probably being generous to Agassi by calling it even.
Volleys - Sampras had good to great volleys ... Agassi below average
Serve - Sampras exceptional...Agassi average
Movement - Sampras exceptional...Agassi average (if that).

With regards to the French...the problem with Sampras and the French was not really his game.
To some extent his backhand was exploitable on clay...yes...but the real problems were his mental approach, and his physical limitations.
He played a physically taxing game and the "grind" would get to him.
Also...he couldn't be bothered MENTALLY to grind it out either. I guess in his head he believed not winning the French would not matter...the rest of his results would be enough "for history".
Guess he was wrong.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying but I can't tell if you are severely overrating Sampras or if you are under-rating Agassi. And come on, you can't win ON ALL SURFACES with not having a complete game. Mind you, this was when surfaces were still wildly different. Sampras was not that great on slower courts so I don't care how good his S&V or groundstrokes were, they simply didn't hold up as well as on fast courts in AO and RG. Meanwhile Agassi had a game that made him get to 7 fastcourt GS finals and 7 slower court ones.

And you're wrong about Sampras's dimensions. Sure, the guy would hang back when his serve wasn't clicking but that was out of necessity more than some genius of his. His meat and potatoes was still net play. Agassi is basically the inventor of the modern groundstroke game. He didn't have terrific volleys or serve but he has a huge success with those groundstrokes even though he had a big lull in the middle of his career. Sampras was S&V just like Agassi is baseline. Agassi had superior strokes IMO when it came to the baseline game.

On some level I agree with you but I just can't buy into the notion that you can succeed on all surfaces with a less complex game(and we are talking slow-AO, real slow-RG, very fast-WB, fast-USO) than your main rival, who fails to do so while having more dimensions in his game. And mind you Agassi didn't fluke out at one slam and was successful in the other. He made 3 RG finals, 4 AO, 2 WB(home of S&V), 6 USO, a very nice spread.

Agassi's game made him a golden slam winner, with GS's on clay,grass and HC. I'd say you need a pretty complex game for that.
 
This p*rick needs to get a grip on reality! Don't get me wrong ... I can hardly stand Sampras any more than some of his bashers on this site but calling Sampras less dimensional shows that this guy needs to get his feet back on the ground, something I'm sure a venerable Spaniard will make happen quite soon!

But I must admit I'm not really surprised ... didn't giant-nose once call Nadal one-dimensional?! LOL!

bolo said:
Federer might take the ball on the rise more, but nadal hits more insane winners away from the baseline than federer.

It's was even worse than that I think he also called the haas game more dimensional than sampras. It was too funny. :) I will look for it, shouldn't be that hard to find.
Click to expand...
 
I mean, if anything Federer is 2D as well.
Lets not act like he can still be successful playing super aggressive tennis, a la Sampras. Just like Sampras would not be as successful grinding out every point from the baseline.

Federer is a baseliner just like the rest of the players. Just because he used to lose a lot trying to play like his idols doesn't mean he has completely mastered this dimension of the game

Federer has also made comments about a lot of his competition not having a 'best shot' just being moderately good at everything, but really having no true 'strength'
 
BrooklynNY said:
I mean, if anything Federer is 2D as well.
Click to expand...
Not true.His cute nose alone is 4D.

edit :-I hope this dosen't turn into a battle between the Fed fans and the Sampras fans.I was kind of hoping the Nad fans and Sampras fans would go at it once.Would've been highly entertaining.But it seems a lot of Sampras fans have jumped onto the Nadal bandwagon :sad:
 
Last edited:
Underhand said:
The subtle difference is that you're a ******* nobody on a tennis forum, Ivanišević is a Wimbledon champion.
Click to expand...

So what? Its his personal opinion. Its as good as anybody's. He says he prefers Nadal's style of play over Federer's. WOW, Federer should really retire after that comment. Seriously, this doesn't even deserve a thread.

And I'll ignore the ******* comment given who wrote it.
 
mandy01 said:
No,the poster isn't making up but geez the actual thing dosen't exactly match-up to what he claimed initially.
This is Fed's subjective view point (a lot of people seem to consider Pete as more of a s&ver than anything else) just like the Mcenroes,Petes,Borgs and Beckers of the tennis world have theirs .
Click to expand...

close enough imo. I see depth and complexity as similar qualities. Federer is saying there is more depth to the haas/agassi/safin game than the sampras game. Federer says you can't call the sampras game 3 dimensional. Which means it is either 2 dimensional or 1 dimensional or maybe 2.5 dimensional? :) Do you disagree that is what federer is saying?
 
Last edited:
Sampras and Nadal are more impressive athletes than Federer. By that I mean quicker on the dead run and more 'explosive' athletes. Which makes them more dimensional and better to watch.
 
More dimensional, he...
"Federer's game is inimitable and elegant, but personally I prefer Rafa". Thats not really putting Federer down, and everybodys entitled to their own opinion...
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Sampras and Nadal are more impressive athletes than Federer. By that I mean quicker on the dead run and more 'explosive' athletes. Which makes them more dimensional and better to watch.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think their raw power is what draws me to them instinctively.

Bolo: I see that it was, Didn't mean to insinuate it was made up. I was just hoping for the full article. :)
 
bolo said:
Well I always thought the sampras all-court game was more complex than agassi's (even though I remember federer calling sampras 2 dimensional and agassi 3 dimensional :roll:), that doesn't change the fact that right now nadal's game is more complex than federer's.

Nadal can play offense, defense, he now hurts people with his serve, forehand, bh and all court game. His performance against Murray at wimbledon was nearly the complete package, the only thing missing was big serves on the duece side and big serves down the middle of the service box on the ad side. But he fixed that at the US open, although we will have to wait and see if nadal can sustain it, although his serving against troicki suggests he can.

The key though in my mind is the bh, nadal really hurts people with his bh on clay and grass. Federer can't really do that and that limits the complexity of his game. Sure in 2006 on most surfaces Federer had a more complex game than nadal, but not anymore. :) Ofcourse fed. fanboys shouldn't worry that this means nadal will necessarily surpass fed's career numbers since fed still has the better serve (more aces) and better fearhand (in fed's prime).
Click to expand...

2nd and 3rd paragraphs - same fail as the fail quote. In other words - Fail.
 
Well I'm more impressed with Rafter than Ivanesevic.

Rafter on Goran:
"we had a good laugh about him, mainly him being a nutter... I reckon he would have jumped off a bridge if he'd have lost"

Rafter on Federer:
"Federer has the complete game and that’s what Pete lacked. Serve is a great weapon but Federer seems to be very strong everywhere."

link
 
feetofclay said:
Do you believe everything that you read in the press? "They told me to serve wide" could very well have referred to general instructions given prior to the match, or are you suggesting that the whole team shouted or signalled for him to serve wide and no one noticed. People who were actually present at the match had this to say:-

Posted by Mr Rick 09/19/2010 01.36pm

"His face was beet red the last couple of points of the match, he was probably in "out of body" stage by that point, and it would have been understandable if he had plain forgotten how to serve, let alone where to serve, at that final moment.

But I was sitting above Rafa's team and I saw no coaching during that point or the match and he did not seem to look at his team all that much except after winning a point "

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/thewr....html#comments
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with what I believe. They were talking about the quote and I posted the quote.
 
LOL at Rafter's comment. That "jumping off a bridge" quote is probably only half-joking, BTW. Goran went into meltdown after the 1998 Wimbledon final, so goodness only knows how he would have reacted if he had lost a fourth Wimbledon final in 2001.

Muster and Ivanisevic were friends because they were both nutters, in completely different ways. Muster was single-minded with an amazingly strong will. He grunted like heck on the court and didn't care who didn't like him. Muster struggled against insurmountable odds. Ivanisevic just went with the flow at all times, fighting against inner demons (the 3 Gorans), always knowing his game alone was good enough to win a lot of things but that his mental equilibrium was very unstable on court. But he was always entertaining, whether he was playing brilliantly or having a complete meltdown.

I remember one of Goran's quotes about Thomas Muster in 1996:

"Thomas is so sure of himself that he can win on any surface. Not just clay, but carpet, outdoors, indoors. He could win on water".
 
Pwned said:
It has nothing to do with what I believe. They were talking about the quote and I posted the quote.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with what you believe. That wasn't a quote from a transcript of a interview, it was a quote from a compilation done by a journalist.
 
These threads are so tiresome.

Some ex-player makes a statement. A bunch of idiots say they must be right because they're an ex-player, even if other ex-players disagree.

Yawn.
 
ksbh said:
This p*rick needs to get a grip on reality! Don't get me wrong ... I can hardly stand Sampras any more than some of his bashers on this site but calling Sampras less dimensional shows that this guy needs to get his feet back on the ground, something I'm sure a venerable Spaniard will make happen quite soon!
Click to expand...

Please cry some more...It's very entertaining.
 
bolo said:
Well federer surely gets a lot more balls back than nadal on the ROS, but nadal takes more risks on the ROS than federer especially on clay.
Click to expand...

when has nadal chip and charged ? tell me please !! I've seen federer hit insane return winners ; many times, it doesn't even look like he's hitting hard, he just takes it on the rise and it's right at the server's feet !

bolo said:
How often does federer come in more than 50 times? I would guess it's pretty rare and most likely when he faces nadal. I would like to know how often he wins those matches. What's the point of coming in and losing? I do remember he came in quite a bit in that andreev match at the 08 US open and he won that.
Click to expand...

It was just to highlight that as far as net play is concerned, fed is clearly more proficient .

Some of the matches I remember where he came in a lot of times would be:

sampras wimb 2001 4R
henman wimb 2001 QF
roddick wimb 2003 SF
scud wimb 2003 F
safin AO 2005 SF
nadal rome 2006 F
nadal AO 2009 F

I remember him coming in more than 40 times in the 3 setter vs haas

he came in nearly 40 times vs djoker in his USO SF in 2009 as well

he came in quite a bit vs ancic in wimb 2006 QF as well

andreev match - you already remember ( I think he came in for more than 70 points in that match )

bolo said:
Federer might take the ball on the rise more, but nadal hits more insane winners away from the baseline than federer.
Click to expand...

away from the baseline ? you mean from behind the baseline ? if that'd be passing shots , I'd agree ... but federer can hit winners from anywhere on the court, on the rise in front of the baseline or from way behind the baseline , his game is clearly more versatile ( well to those who are not wearing tinted glasses ! )

bolo said:
It's was even worse than that I think he also called the haas game more dimensional than sampras. It was too funny. :) I will look for it, shouldn't be that hard to find.
Click to expand...

I'd like a link to that "interview"
 
ksbh said:
This p*rick needs to get a grip on reality! Don't get me wrong ... I can hardly stand Sampras any more than some of his bashers on this site but calling Sampras less dimensional shows that this guy needs to get his feet back on the ground, something I'm sure a venerable Spaniard will make happen quite soon!
Click to expand...

LOL !!!

ksbh said:
But I must admit I'm not really surprised ... didn't giant-nose once call Nadal one-dimensional?! LOL!
Click to expand...

yes, he did , that was way back in 2006, when he WAS one-dimensional. That "p_rick" also said way back in 2004 that rafa nadal would be the one to succeed him as #1 !
 
Although I like both players...

I am more impressed by Federer than Nadal.

Why should Gorans opinion matter more to me than my own? Its just preference you see?

Maybe Goran is lefty biased :twisted:
 
On a somewhat related note, one of the commentaters during today's Nalbandian match said he was at a table with Ivanesevic, Muster and Edberg and they were discussing what current players they most enjoyed watching.

After Fed and Nadal, they picked Nalbandian.
 
namelessone said:
LOL. Really? Tell me how do you know the exact moment when Nadal is being coached. Most of the people here had no idea that Nadal was being coached on MP in USO until he came out and said it. Time-wasting I get, it slows the game down. Butt picking offends the more sensitive viewers. But while not liking coaching during matches is perfectly reasonable, it does not affect the viewer watching the Nadal game since 99,9% of time most viewers don't even notice it.
Click to expand...

Yes Really. I watch a lot of tennis on tv. I watched Rafael Nadal against Phillip Petzschner in WIMBLEDON this year. Nadal got on coart coaching warnings 2 times and got fined $2000. I mean, look at Federer, I never heard any news of him involved in on court coaching... he even without coach for a long time.

More about that wimbledon 2010 on court coaching by Rafa, search it on google if you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal

At the 2010 Wimbledon Championships Nadal beat Kei Nishikori 6–2, 6–4, 6–4. Nadal was taken to the limit by Robin Haase winning 5–7,6–2,3–6,6–0,6–3. He defeated Philipp Petzschner in the third round. The match was a 5 set thriller with Nadal triumphing 6–4 4–6 6–7 6–2 6–3. During his match with Petzschener, Nadal was warned twice for receiving coaching from his coach and uncle, Toni Nadal, resulting in a $2,000 fine by Wimbledon officials. Allegedly, encouraging words for Nadal shouted during the match were some sort of coaching code signal.[86][87] He met Paul-Henri Mathieu of France in the round of 16 and comfortably beat Mathieu 6–4, 6–2, 6–2. In the quarter-finals, he got past Robin Soderling of Sweden in 4 sets 3–6, 6–3, 7–6(7–4), 6–1. He defeated Andy Murray in straight sets 6–4 7–6(8–6) 6–4 to reach his fourth Wimbledon final.
 
15_ounce said:
Yes Really. I watch a lot of tennis on tv. I watched Rafael Nadal against Phillip Petzschner in WIMBLEDON this year. Nadal got on coart coaching warnings 2 times and got fined $2000. I mean, look at Federer, I never heard any news of him involved in on court coaching... he even without coach for a long time.

More about that wimbledon 2010 on court coaching by Rafa, search it on google if you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal

At the 2010 Wimbledon Championships Nadal beat Kei Nishikori 6–2, 6–4, 6–4. Nadal was taken to the limit by Robin Haase winning 5–7,6–2,3–6,6–0,6–3. He defeated Philipp Petzschner in the third round. The match was a 5 set thriller with Nadal triumphing 6–4 4–6 6–7 6–2 6–3. During his match with Petzschener, Nadal was warned twice for receiving coaching from his coach and uncle, Toni Nadal, resulting in a $2,000 fine by Wimbledon officials. Allegedly, encouraging words for Nadal shouted during the match were some sort of coaching code signal.[86][87] He met Paul-Henri Mathieu of France in the round of 16 and comfortably beat Mathieu 6–4, 6–2, 6–2. In the quarter-finals, he got past Robin Soderling of Sweden in 4 sets 3–6, 6–3, 7–6(7–4), 6–1. He defeated Andy Murray in straight sets 6–4 7–6(8–6) 6–4 to reach his fourth Wimbledon final.
Click to expand...

Missing the point. You said that Nadal get coached affects the quality of tennis viewings, or your tennis viewings to be exact. I didn't say that Nadal doesn't get coached I just said that it is not visible thus it does not affect your viewing of a particular match. You can see the buttpicking. You can feel the slowness of the serve ritual. But you can't see or hear WHEN Nadal is being coached, big emphasis on WHEN. Before Nadal got a warning in WB, did you see or hear his box shouting tactics while you were watching from home? Before Nadal opened his mouth about being directed on MP in USO, did you know that he was coached? No, you didn't and thus it did not affect your viewing.

I think you wanted to say that the IDEA of Nadal getting coached is bothersome to you and it affects how you view him as a player but that is something totally different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

weakera
"Watching Federer play has moved me more than Djokovic"
2 3 4
Replies
190
Views
5K
Federev
Federev
Nadal_Django
Andre Agassi: The GOAT doesn't exist, but if he does, it's more Nadal than Federer!
2 3
Replies
115
Views
9K
BHud
BHud
ffw2
"Federer and Nadal have transcended tennis more than Djokovic" — Toni Nadal
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
4K
gamelovergold
G
cronus
Roger Federer Still Greater Than Rafael Nadal; Andre Agassi’s Claim Premature
2 3 4
Replies
167
Views
17K
smoledman
smoledman
D
Has Novak Djokovic benefited from a 'weak era' more than Roger Federer?
2
Replies
82
Views
5K
Pagoo
P
Back
Top