Haha, that's true. Now I'm trying to recall which poster it was that originally bestowed that title on him. Hmmm, I'll have to have a good think about that one.....When you are already a perfect saint, what else do you need to do?
Haha, that's true. Now I'm trying to recall which poster it was that originally bestowed that title on him. Hmmm, I'll have to have a good think about that one.....
Why do you think he respects a guy like Lleyton when compared to himself? He has better achievements than him (Safin) but not as much talent, so he had to work much harder to get there as opposed to Safin.
That’s an interesting phenomenon, if accurate. Compare to the stereotype of the enraged geezer pining for the good old days when things were better.
The funny thing is, I'm sure you're right and some people will be affected by that. Can't see why, though.
Probably the same reason why others like you are crowing with glee. Go figure. A random guy says some random stuff so people talk about him, and it's either the end of the world or the best day of your life, depending on which side of the debate you're on. Gotta love Internet boards.
Before Nadal, Djokovic and Murray came on the scene, Federer only needed to turn up to win matches because none of his peers were good enough to challenge him. Now he trains as hard as they do, otherwise he wouldn't stand a chance against the other 3 of the Big 4.
That's a pretty good analysis...
FORUM SOLVED.
Nadal has more weapons than Chang could dream of but has turned into a Chang-like scrambler on HC on many an occasion. It's pretty perplexing. He had a much easier time adapting to being consistently aggressive on grass than on HC.
That's a faulty assessment. Fed needed to overcome some early obstacles too, he didn't just need to show up. There were plenty of guys with winning records over him early jn his career. That's like me saying Nadal just needed to show up on clay to win because nobody was good enough to challenge him on the surface.
Post Nadal's and Federer's training regimes side by side.
That is as wrong and ridiculous as anything Fed fans write about Nadal.
I'd rather say let's ignore what Nadal did on clay because all he needed to do was to show up on the surface since nobody could challenge him on it.
The only player I can compare Nadal with is Borg. Borg was better on faster surfaces, but on clay there are huge similarities. The biggest commonality is top spin. In the Nadal days he was uniqiue. No one else depended on top spin all the time from the backhand side, by default. Borg could hit a 2HBH slice, but it was a bailout shot, usually hit only when he was clearly in a defensive position - although Borg would also chip and charge on grass.
Djokovic is more epic than both of them
Following a tennis player is like watching a movie. Djokovic's story is obviously much more dramatic than Roger's and Rafa's. He's more like a Cinderella of tennis.
Imagine a movie about Roger's life: a super talented kid, born in a upper middle-class family, grown up in one of the richest and peaceful countries in the world... his tennis is stunning, but his story is boring as hell. All he has had to overcome so far is his temper, LOL. I bet the director will have to add a lot of sex scenes to make the movie more funny...
What an absolute stupid and ridiculous statement.
And the bar keeps being set lower here very day.
I can’t believe the poster just said that everyday TTW gives me a new reason to leave.And the bar keeps being set lower here very day.
I think it's time to leave this forum until there's actual tennis again. See you next year, merry Christmas/what not, happy New Year etc.
4 pages
