How is Nadal ther one who is "one-dimensional" ?

[flyer]

Hes much better on hard courts than Murray is on clay or Djokovic is on grass...

He might even be more of a threat on hard than Federer is on clay...this is debatable but my argument for it would be that Nadal has a better chance at beating Federer in a hard court slam than Federer does at beating Nadal at the FO

So how is that Nadal gets the wrap of Being the one-dimensional one of the bunch!? Is it because hes so good o0n clay that hes held to an unfair standard?

Discuss...

 

[my_forehand]

Hes much better on hard courts than Murray is on clay or Djokovic is on grass...

He might even be more of a threat on hard than Federer is on claythis is debatable but my argument for it would be that Nadal has a better chance at beating Federer in a hard court slam than Federer does at beating Nadal at the FO

So how is that Nadal gets the wrap of Being the one-dimensional one of the bunch!? Is it because hes so good o0n clay that hes held to an unfair standard?

Discuss...

3 FO finals? or 2? Anyways...how many SEMIS has Rafa made? 1? I like Rafa a lot; I respect him.

I dunno know about Murray or Djoko statement.

 

[flyer]

3 FO finals? or 2? Anyways...how many SEMIS has Rafa made? 1? I like Rafa a lot; I respect him.

I dunno know about Murray or Djoko statement.

yeah i said its debatable, my argument would be that he has a better chance at winning one now, based mostly on the fact that Federer would have to go through Nadal to win a FO and I don't see that happening, basically Im saying that Federer is more beatable in a hard court slam than Nadal at the FO and for that reason Nadal has a better chance at winning either a AO or USO

If you don't know about the other statements prove other wise, I think you will find it quite hard in this case though...

 

[pepe01]

Yes and Not....

yeah i said its debatable, my argument would be that he has a better chance at winning one now, based mostly on the fact that Federer would have to go through Nadal to win a FO and I don't see that happening, basically Im saying that Federer is more beatable in a hard court slam than Nadal at the FO and for that reason Nadal has a better chance at winning either a AO or USO

If you don't know about the other statements prove other wise, I think you will find it quite hard in this case though...

Well, yes....Nadal is great on clay and very good one hard courts, can he win USO open and AO?, yes of course he can do, and every yera he is getting better on hard court.

NOTTTTT, many people still underrate Roger on clay, i never going to be agree about it, Besides Nadal Federer is number 2 in clay for 3 or four years in a row, also 2008, Federer can win RG, there is only one player who can beat Federer ''Rafa Nadal''.

Really, I hope Roger wins RG......

I said it...

 

[David L]

Hes much better on hard courts than Murray is on clay or Djokovic is on grass...

He might even be more of a threat on hard than Federer is on clay...this is debatable but my argument for it would be that Nadal has a better chance at beating Federer in a hard court slam than Federer does at beating Nadal at the FO

So how is that Nadal gets the wrap of Being the one-dimensional one of the bunch!? Is it because hes so good o0n clay that hes held to an unfair standard?

Discuss...

Being one dimensional is not about the results you post, but the way you play the game. Agassi won a career golden Slam, but his game involved little more than forehand and backhand drives. He was a great talent with some of the best ball striking ever seen, but he was very one dimensional. Don't confuse good results on different surfaces with having many dimensions to your game. Sometimes a one-dimensional game can be just as effective, if not as attractive, although in Agassi's case his game was entertaining as well because of his great ball striking ability.

 

[helloworld]

The OP seems to have a problem understanding what a one-dimensional game means...

 

[Nadal_Freak]

The OP seems to have a problem understanding what a one-dimensional game means...

So do you I guess. Nadal has improved his slice and serve. When he is feeling it, he goes for his shots. That is clearly enough to not be one-dimensional.

 

[vincent_tennis]

a better question to ask is how ISNT nadal the one dimensional guy?
His game is based on TOPSPIN/SPIN IN GENERAL.
THATS IT.

He winning on grass czu it ACTS more or less like clay.

He may be able to be back on 2009 in good form but for sure, his style of play won't let him be world no 1 for more than 2 year! Similar to the case of Hewitt, too much running, too much phisical sacrifice! Fed & Sampras last long as no1 because their games has more tactical variations!

 

[P_Agony]

So do you I guess. Nadal has improved his slice and serve. When he is feeling it, he goes for his shots. That is clearly enough to not be one-dimensional.

Nadal's slice usually drops way too short, and his serve has improved, but not nearly enough to even dream about constantly getting cheap points with it.

 

[flyer]

The OP seems to have a problem understanding what a one-dimensional game means...

not attributes, no players in the current top five game's are one-dimensional, i meant in terms of surface, i thought i made that clear but apparently not

Being one dimensional is not about the results you post, but the way you play the game. Agassi won a career golden Slam, but his game involved little more than forehand and backhand drives. He was a great talent with some of the best ball striking ever seen, but he was very one dimensional. Don't confuse good results on different surfaces with having many dimensions to your game. Sometimes a one-dimensional game can be just as effective, if not as attractive, although in Agassi's case his game was entertaining as well because of his great ball striking ability.

i don't disagree with you, but whats your point in reference to this thread with this post?

a better question to ask is how ISNT nadal the one dimensional guy?
His game is based on TOPSPIN/SPIN IN GENERAL.
THATS IT.

He winning on grass czu it ACTS more or less like clay.

go play at Roland Garros and Wimbledon and tell me how similar they are and tell me why the only players consistent on both are Nadal and Federer, if you can do that you have proven your point until then, and its not my intention to be mean, you have not idea what your talking about

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Watch Wimbledon and the French Open finals and see how well Nadal used his slices. Slices that are short and low are hard to handle when you try to rush the net or trying to take the ball early. Nadal has mastered the slice and those who haven't seen it are blind. Nadal still struggles taking the ball early and rushing his opponent that is not enough to say he is one-dimensional. Roddick is all serve though. Thus he is one-dimensional.

 

[P_Agony]

Watch Wimbledon and the French Open finals and see how well Nadal used his slices. Slices that are short and low are hard to handle when you try to rush the net or trying to take the ball early. Nadal has mastered the slice and those who haven't seen it are blind. Nadal still struggles taking the ball early and rushing his opponent that is not enough to say he is one-dimensional. Roddick is all serve though. Thus he is one-dimensional.

On the hard courts, from what I've seen Nadal's slices really betrayed him...

 

[Nadal_Freak]

On the hard courts, from what I've seen Nadal's slices really betrayed him...

Nadal doesn't like hardcourts. Everything he does seems to be a little weaker on hardcourts. I would like to know why that is. :?

 

[NamRanger]

Nadal doesn't like hardcourts. Everything he does seems to be a little weaker on hardcourts. I would like to know why that is. :?

In the wise words of Drakulie "Because Nadal sucks on HCs."

 

[Deleted member 21996]

So do you I guess. Nadal has improved his slice and serve. When he is feeling it, he goes for his shots. That is clearly enough to not be one-dimensional.

so slicing once every 40 points in Garros after banging 300 balls from 4 meters behind baseline and serving a bit harder qualifies for not being one-dimensional?

 

[NamRanger]

so slicing once every 40 points in Garros after banging 300 balls from 4 meters behind baseline and serving a bit harder qualifies for not being one-dimensional?

Because balls slow down after they are struck by a racquet remember? Don't you remember his amazing physics?

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Because balls slow down after they are struck by a racquet remember? Don't you remember his amazing physics?

yes... you are correct. that happens because they lose mass (usually described as weight) when travelling at higher speed...

or was it the other way around...

 

[NamRanger]

yes... you are correct. that happens because they lose mass (usually described as weight) when travelling at higher speed...

or was it the other way around...

Or maybe, tennis balls have a black hole in them, causing it to suck up the matter from the inside, which is why, uh. What?! Dang. I can't even remember his theory again.


Just like his break percentage theory. It's like how he said the Australian Open was faster than before, even though his own theory suggests that it is actually much slower than before. Yet, then he goes off and says "OMG WIMBLEDON BREAK PERCENTAGE LOW!"


Also says that the ITF lies to us all (even though they have absolutely no reason to).

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Or maybe, tennis balls have a black hole in them, causing it to suck up the matter from the inside, which is why, uh. What?! Dang. I can't even remember his theory again.


Just like his break percentage theory. It's like how he said the Australian Open was faster than before, even though his own theory suggests that it is actually much slower than before. Yet, then he goes off and says "OMG WIMBLEDON BREAK PERCENTAGE LOW!"


Also says that the ITF lies to us all (even though they have absolutely no reason to).

and players know less about surfaces and game that fans.... remember that one...?

 

[helloworld]

So do you I guess. Nadal has improved his slice and serve. When he is feeling it, he goes for his shots. That is clearly enough to not be one-dimensional.

Wow, this guy has even less clue than the OP himself. I was talking about how the ability to perform on multiple surfaces has nothing to do with being one dimensional. I didn't say a word about Nadal being one dimensional AT ALL. You must be smoking something, are you???

 

[NamRanger]

Wow, this guy has even less clue than the OP himself. I was talking about how the ability to perform on multiple surfaces has nothing to do with being one dimensional. I didn't say a word about Nadal being one dimensional AT ALL. You must be smoking something, are you???

I truly believe he is.

 

[Mdubb23]

Being one dimensional is not about the results you post, but the way you play the game. Agassi won a career golden Slam, but his game involved little more than forehand and backhand drives. He was a great talent with some of the best ball striking ever seen, but he was very one dimensional. Don't confuse good results on different surfaces with having many dimensions to your game. Sometimes a one-dimensional game can be just as effective, if not as attractive, although in Agassi's case his game was entertaining as well because of his great ball striking ability.

Agreed, and well put. Flyer, the point of him saying that is because your interpretation of this thread is based on your personal definition of "one-dimensional." If view "one-dimentional" as being reflected in your results, than Nadal is most certainly not one dimensional, however if you view it as how you play tennis, Nadal is fairly one-dimensional, in my opinion. His game is based off of blistering topspin on both sides. He is most comfortable at the baseline, controlling the point by running his opponent around with high-topspin. No matter who he is playing, that is his go-to strategy. How often does he serve and volley? Do you think of Nadal as having exceptional touch at the net? Does he flatten the ball out often? Does he come in behind soft slice approaches? I mean, come on. In good conscience, how can you not call Nadal's tennis game one-dimensional?

 

[Nadal_Freak]

I truly believe he is.

I wish I had some weed but nothing here to smoke. Just my thoughts and I'm completely sober. You can't win on all surfaces at a high rate and be one-dimensional. Your one-dimension will get exposed on either the faster or slower surfaces. Maybe even both.

Agreed, and well put. Flyer, the point of him saying that is because your interpretation of this thread is based on your personal definition of "one-dimensional." If view "one-dimentional" as being reflected in your results, than Nadal is most certainly not one dimensional, however if you view it as how you play tennis, Nadal is fairly one-dimensional, in my opinion. His game is based off of blistering topspin on both sides. He is most comfortable at the baseline, controlling the point by running his opponent around with high-topspin. No matter who he is playing, that is his go-to strategy. How often does he serve and volley? Do you think of Nadal as having exceptional touch at the net? Does he flatten the ball out often? Does he come in behind soft slice approaches? I mean, come on. In good conscience, how can you not call Nadal's tennis game one-dimensional?

Nadal is not an attack first player. He is wait for the opportunity to attack. He lets himself get into a groove first and slowly gets more aggressive when his confidence grows.

 

[David L]

i don't disagree with you, but whats your point in reference to this thread with this post?

Well, you seemed confused why some people describe Nadal's game as one-dimensional even though he has had success on grass and hardcourts. The answer is success does not determine whether you have a one-dimensional game or not, the way you play the game does. Nadal basically plays the same way on all surfaces, which is to grind with consistent and heavy topspin deep from the baseline and go after the short ball. That's his game. It's effective enough, but it is not a game full of variety and dimensions.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Well, you seemed confused why some people describe Nadal's game as one-dimensional even though he has had success on grass and hardcourts. The answer is success does not determine whether you have a one-dimensional game or not, the way you play the game does. Nadal basically plays the same way on all surfaces, which is to grind with consistent and heavy topspin deep from the baseline and go after the short ball. That's his game. It's effective enough, but it is not a game full of variety and dimensions.

When Nadal is in trouble he usually slices. When given a drop shot, Nadal either returns with a drop shot or puts it away. Depending on how good of a drop shot. When he gets to the net, he wins a high percentage of points there. He can slice a serve or kick it. Plenty of different things he can do. You just don't understand his game that well if you think he is one-dimensional.

 

[Toxicmilk]

When Nadal is in trouble he usually slices. When given a drop shot, Nadal either returns with a drop shot or puts it away. Depending on how good of a drop shot. When he gets to the net, he wins a high percentage of points there. He can slice a serve or kick it. Plenty of different things he can do. You just don't understand his game that well if you think he is one-dimensional.

Most good players do the same, no?

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Most good players do the same, no?

So everyone is one-dimensional than because everyone does the same. Nadal has more dimensions as he can add more spin than anyone else though while still being able to hit hard.

 

[helloworld]

When Nadal is in trouble he usually slices. When given a drop shot, Nadal either returns with a drop shot or puts it away. Depending on how good of a drop shot. When he gets to the net, he wins a high percentage of points there. He can slice a serve or kick it. Plenty of different things he can do. You just don't understand his game that well if you think he is one-dimensional.

ROFL, this post just explained why Nadal is one dimensional. ROFL!!! Dude, you need to get some clue before posting in here. Some people could DIE laughing at your post!! :lol: Seriously, I don't even hate Nadal, but you're embarassing him! You're exposing how his game is one-dimensional..... WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT???

 

[Nadal_Freak]

ROFL, this post just explained why Nadal is one dimensional. ROFL!!! Dude, you need to get some clue before posting in here. Some people could DIE laughing at your post!! :lol: Seriously, I don't even hate Nadal, but you're embarassing him! You're exposing how his game is one-dimensional..... WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT???

Well than Federer is one-dimensional as well. Why would you hate on Fed like that just to hate on Nadal?

 

[David L]

When Nadal is in trouble he usually slices. When given a drop shot, Nadal either returns with a drop shot or puts it away. Depending on how good of a drop shot. When he gets to the net, he wins a high percentage of points there. He can slice a serve or kick it. Plenty of different things he can do. You just don't understand his game that well if you think he is one-dimensional.

You don't even play the game, let alone understand it. You also clearly have a very low threshold for what constitutes variety. Having a slice and kick serve, being able to slice the ball (and not very well, I might add), being able to put the ball away or hit a drop shot; these things do not mean you have many dimensions. This is basic stuff that all players can do. If this were the criteria for not being one-dimensional, the concept would not exist since all players in the history of the game would fall into this category.

Being one-dimensional is about winning points overwhelming and predominantly in one way. Variety is about the regularity of the change ups and the level of execution with which they are employed. Nadal is a defensive minded, but opportunistic player, who grinds from the baseline 95% of the time and changes it up 5%, if that. This I consider to be one-dimensional.

 

[helloworld]

Well than Federer is one-dimensional as well. Why would you hate on Fed like that just to hate on Nadal?

MY GOD, you still have no clue AT ALL do you???? Let me break down the MULTI-dimensional game of your hero Nadal. Serve with spin or kick serve to the backhand or maybe forehand once in a blue moon just to surprise an opponent. Forehand to the backhand forever until the opponent got so bored that they intentionally hit a short ball or an outright error. Run down after EVERTHING like a golden retriever trying to catch a frisbie.... This is how Nadal plays EVERY SINGLE TIME on EVERY SINGLE SURFACE. This is how he always play against whoever he faces. This is why people call him ONE DIMENSIONAL. NOT ME. Deal with it!

 

[Nadal_Freak]

MY GOD, you still have no clue AT ALL do you???? Let me break down the MULTI-dimensional game of your hero Nadal. Serve with spin or kick serve to the backhand or maybe forehand once in a blue moon just to surprise an opponent. Forehand to the backhand forever until the opponent got so bored that they intentionally hit a short ball or an outright error. Run down after EVERTHING like a golden retriever trying to catch a frisbie.... This is how Nadal plays EVERY SINGLE TIME on EVERY SINGLE SURFACE. This is how he always play against whoever he faces. This is why people call him ONE DIMENSIONAL. NOT ME. Deal with it!

How is Federer not one-dimensional than? He does the same things Nadal does but with less spin.

 

[helloworld]

How is Federer not one-dimensional than? He does the same things Nadal does but with less spin.

ROFL!!!! Federer does the same things Nadal does??? His SERVE alone has more variety than Nadal has in his whole game!!! ROFL, comparing dimensionality between Nadal and Federer is a complete JOKE! You are so clueless it is scary~!!! Get away from me!!!

 

[kelz]

So do you I guess. Nadal has improved his slice and serve. When he is feeling it, he goes for his shots. That is clearly enough to not be one-dimensional.

In that case, I guess there's no such thing as one dimension.

 

[David L]

How is Federer not one-dimensional than? He does the same things Nadal does but with less spin.

Federer changes it up more because he can execute at an extremely high level in all areas of the game. He has a variety of forehands, backhands and slices, he serves extremely well, he volleys extremely well, he attacks and defends equally well. He has more options and subsequently employs them within matches and from match to match. Another difference is he is a creator, looking to create opportunities to exploit in his point construction. Nadal is more of a waiter, waiting for opportunities to present themselves. Even Toni Nadal is on record referring to how Nadal gets more tired because his game is not as complete as Federer's and involves more running.

 

[edmondsm]

Hes much better on hard courts than Murray is on clay or Djokovic is on grass...

He might even be more of a threat on hard than Federer is on clay...this is debatable but my argument for it would be that Nadal has a better chance at beating Federer in a hard court slam than Federer does at beating Nadal at the FO

So how is that Nadal gets the wrap of Being the one-dimensional one of the bunch!? Is it because hes so good o0n clay that hes held to an unfair standard?

Discuss...

The term "one-dimensional" doesn't refer to a player's ability on mulitple surfaces, especially in Nadal's case. Nadal is good on all surfaces because his one-dimensional game works on all of them. He uses his legs and footwork to set up his forehand on basically every point. He unloads on virtually every forehand because he applies so much spin to the ball that there is tons of margin for error. Plus this means that even if he leaves the ball in the middle of the court (which he does constantly) it is still nearly impossible to hit an offensive shot because the ball jumps off the surface so fast. This is even true on hardcourts, but to a lesser effect.

If Nadal gets labeled one-dimensional more then most it is because he is more successful then all the other one-dimensional players, of which there are many (Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, etc.) There is nothing wrong with having a one-dimensional game. You do whatever works.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

ROFL!!!! Federer does the same things Nadal does??? His SERVE alone has more variety than Nadal has in his whole game!!! ROFL, comparing dimensionality between Nadal and Federer is a complete JOKE! You are so clueless it is scary~!!! Get away from me!!!

They don't call him Federovic for nothing. lol

 

[Nadal_Freak]

The term "one-dimensional" doesn't refer to a player's ability on mulitple surfaces, especially in Nadal's case. Nadal is good on all surfaces because his one-dimensional game works on all of them. He uses his legs and footwork to set up his forehand on basically every point. He unloads on virtually every forehand because he applies so much spin to the ball that there is tons of margin for error. Plus this means that even if he leaves the ball in the middle of the court (which he does constantly) it is still nearly impossible to hit an offensive shot because the ball jumps off the surface so fast. This is even true on hardcourts, but to a lesser effect.

If Nadal gets labeled one-dimensional more then most it is because he is more successful then all the other one-dimensional players, of which there are many (Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, etc.) There is nothing wrong with having a one-dimensional game. You do whatever works.

Nadal moves well, strikes the ball well with his spin added, slices well, and volleys well. He is NOT One-dimensional. Some are you confusing one-dimensional with style of play. Yes the topspin forehand to the backhand is his bread and butter but that is not all he can do well.

 

[sureshs]

Nadal is 1-dimensional because he always wins.

 

[edmondsm]

Nadal moves well, strikes the ball well with his spin added, slices well, and volleys well. He is NOT One-dimensional. Some are you confusing one-dimensional with style of play. Yes the topspin forehand to the backhand is his bread and butter but that is not all he can do well.

Who are you comparing him to? If you are comparing him to a challenger player, then yes he slices well and volleys well. If you are comparing him to people who actually do those things on a very high level, then you are just flat out wrong.

 

[edberg505]

MY GOD, you still have no clue AT ALL do you???? Let me break down the MULTI-dimensional game of your hero Nadal. Serve with spin or kick serve to the backhand or maybe forehand once in a blue moon just to surprise an opponent. Forehand to the backhand forever until the opponent got so bored that they intentionally hit a short ball or an outright error. Run down after EVERTHING like a golden retriever trying to catch a frisbie.... This is how Nadal plays EVERY SINGLE TIME on EVERY SINGLE SURFACE. This is how he always play against whoever he faces. This is why people call him ONE DIMENSIONAL. NOT ME. Deal with it!

How is Federer not one-dimensional than? He does the same things Nadal does but with less spin.

ROFL!!!! Federer does the same things Nadal does??? His SERVE alone has more variety than Nadal has in his whole game!!! ROFL, comparing dimensionality between Nadal and Federer is a complete JOKE! You are so clueless it is scary~!!! Get away from me!!!

LMAO, you guys are hilarious.

 

[NamRanger]

I wish I had some weed but nothing here to smoke. Just my thoughts and I'm completely sober. You can't win on all surfaces at a high rate and be one-dimensional. Your one-dimension will get exposed on either the faster or slower surfaces. Maybe even both.

Wrong. Agassi won on all four surfaces, yet he is very one dimensional. Safin has reached the semis of all four slams (won two), and yet he is very one dimensional also. Please, you are the dumbest poster on these boards, outside of maybe Mungo, Nadal Girl, etc.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Who are you comparing him to? If you are comparing him to a challenger player, then yes he slices well and volleys well. If you are comparing him to people who actually do those things on a very high level, then you are just flat out wrong.

You are really a blind hater. You don't watch enough Nadal than or you could see he does slice well In particular on his backhand side. The extreme grip on his forehand side makes it harder to slice though. LOL at calling Agassi and Safin one-dimensional.

 

[edmondsm]

Wrong. Agassi won on all four surfaces, yet he is very one dimensional. Safin has reached the semis of all four slams (won two), and yet he is very one dimensional also. Please, you are the dumbest poster on these boards, outside of maybe Mungo, Nadal Girl, etc.

Thank you, perfect example. Agassi at least.

Nadal_Freak, you are the essense of a fanboy. Whenever something is said about Nadal that lowers him from the level of Godlike you immediatly take issue with it, even if it is a completely reasonable and uninsulting observation.

Nadal, like many champions, has the same game plan on every point and it works fantastically. There is nothing wrong with that, he is human, please realize this.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Thank you, perfect example. Agassi at least.

Nadal_Freak, you are the essense of a fanboy. Whenever something is said about Nadal that lowers him from the level of Godlike you immediatly take issue with it, even if it is a completely reasonable and uninsulting observation.

Nadal, like many champions, has the same game plan on every point and it works fantastically. There is nothing wrong with that, he is human, please realize this.

LMAO. This is not sensible and just a thread for people to troll in. If you haven't noticed, the majority of this board is Federer fanboys.

 

[NamRanger]

You are really a blind hater. You don't watch enough Nadal than or you could see he does slice well In particular on his backhand side. The extreme grip on his forehand side makes it harder to slice though. LOL at calling Agassi and Safin one-dimensional.

Then please tell me what makes Agassi and Safin so multi-dimensional. Safin does have a little more layers than Agassi, but it isn't like his game is even comparable to say Federer. Safin's game is pretty simple. Bludgeon you with his pace, and when he gets a good ball to his backhand, blast it up the line.

 

[NamRanger]

LMAO. This is not sensible and just a thread for people to troll in. If you haven't noticed, the majority of this board is Federer fanboys.

No, the majority of this board is filled with sensible people who actually think before they open their mouth. You don't even play tennis, have very little knowledge about basic physics (most which is common knowledge for anyone who has taken a high school physics class), and your logic is so flawed it is hilarious.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Then please tell me what makes Agassi and Safin so multi-dimensional. Safin does have a little more layers than Agassi, but it isn't like his game is even comparable to say Federer. Safin's game is pretty simple. Bludgeon you with his pace, and when he gets a good ball to his backhand, blast it up the line.

They are both good on both sides. There is no reward going to Safin's forehand or Agassi's backhand when they were on. Safin had a big serve and Agassi could hit with spin. Maybe not a ton but enough to be safe. The players I consider one-dimensional were very weak on slow surfaces. Karlovic, Isner, Roddick, and Ivanisevic.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Nadal Freak can have his moments I agree, but the rest of you are so vitriolic and over the top it's hard to find NF the one at greatest fault here. Seriously guys, lighten up. You make it sound like Nadal is a BAD player here, and yet last time I looked he's number 1 and beat Federer in every match they played this year. Seems to me like this thread is more a reflection of the posters within, and really has nothing to do with Nadal or Federer.

 

[veritech]

They don't call him Federovic for nothing. lol

i don't know anyone who calls him that haha