More Talent. Federer or Nadal?

More talent?

  • Total voters
    304
  • Poll closed .
Magnus_Effect said:
Lol! You are offering one example?! That is weak. If I say that the US owned the british during the revolutionary war, would you reply back with mentions of random british victories such as bunker hill?

You have no point here. Sure Federer can swat some lovely ones here and there but his backhand has been vulnerable throughout his career.
Click to expand...

err, the Americans didn't own the British during the War of Independence. The British just got bored with the war, and if it wasn't for FRANCE coming in and helping, America would've been in BIG trouble. Remember, British citizens stopped caring about the war, it was going on for a while. If America was an actual threat, it would've been destroyed.

America was actually a particularly weak power until WW1, and even then it wasn't the strongest on the face of the Earth

forgot to add that Robin Soderling has said: "He doesn’t have any weaknesses at all."

his backhand looks like his weakness because of the amazingness of his other shots (especially his forehand)
 
Last edited:
Manus Domini said:
err, the Americans didn't own the British during the War of Independence. The British just got bored with the war, and if it wasn't for FRANCE coming in and helping, America would've been in BIG trouble. Remember, British citizens stopped caring about the war, it was going on for a while. If America was an actual threat, it would've been destroyed.

America was actually a particularly weak power until WW1, and even then it wasn't the strongest on the face of the Earth

forgot to add that Robin Soderling has said: "He doesn’t have any weaknesses at all."

his backhand looks like his weakness because of the amazingness of his other shots (especially his forehand)
Click to expand...

Holmes: Did Agassi not state this also? That said, as has been mentioned here, it's been proved a 'relative' weakness successfully by Rafito.
 
Manus Domini said:
err, the Americans didn't own the British during the War of Independence. The British just got bored with the war, and if it wasn't for FRANCE coming in and helping, America would've been in BIG trouble. Remember, British citizens stopped caring about the war, it was going on for a while. If America was an actual threat, it would've been destroyed.

America was actually a particularly weak power until WW1, and even then it wasn't the strongest on the face of the Earth

forgot to add that Robin Soderling has said: "He doesn’t have any weaknesses at all."

his backhand looks like his weakness because of the amazingness of his other shots (especially his forehand)
Click to expand...



That's a reality check, well said. No help from France = no USA. Also many Americans forget that their very icon, Statue of Liberty, was a gift from the French.
 
Bah, no one sees my posts. Lol. Oh well, eventually I will be considered a part of this conversation.

On the secondary topic: The War of 1812was also largely ignored by the British, who barely put any real effort into the war and still managed to sack D.C. If it hadn't been for Napoleon's threat on the Continent keeping the British busy, our foolish declaration of war could have cost us our autonomy.
 
BreakPoint said:
No. Having talent in tennis means that everything just comes so naturally to you.

There's absolutely NOTHING "natural" about Nadal's game. In fact, he's the most unnatural looking tennis player I've ever seen. Not only is he unable to hit a backhand with only one hand, but he can't even keep his mouth shut when he hits that ball. He looks like he's muscling the ball every time he hits the ball. Those with real tennis talent, like Federer, make everything look silky smooth and like they're not even trying. THAT takes talent! :)
Click to expand...

Fed looks like a battling grinder(Muster?) compared to Sampras. Sampras would never run around like a mad man the way Fed has during his last 3 slam losses vs Nadal. If Fed could generate 20-30% more easy power like Sampras could then perhaps he would not have this problem.,
 
TheNatural said:
Fed looks like a battling grinder(Muster?) compared to Sampras. Sampras would never run around like a mad man the way Fed has during his last 3 slam losses vs Nadal. If Fed could generate 20-30% more easy power like Sampras could then perhaps he would not have this problem.,
Click to expand...

Sampras probably wouldn't have the chance to impose his power except on the serve.. lol. He'd be getting pushed back by Nadal's spin, and Federer is much better at taking the ball on and putting power behind his shots. Sorry, but Fed is heads and shoulders above Sampras on the baseline.
 
Cup8489 said:
Sampras probably wouldn't have the chance to impose his power except on the serve.. lol. He'd be getting pushed back by Nadal's spin, and Federer is much better at taking the ball on and putting power behind his shots. Sorry, but Fed is heads and shoulders above Sampras on the baseline.
Click to expand...
We also the powerful sampras with 20-30% more power than Federer get run around the court by Hewitt. :lol:
 
TheNatural said:
Fed looks like a battling grinder(Muster?) compared to Sampras. Sampras would never run around like a mad man the way Fed has during his last 3 slam losses vs Nadal. If Fed could generate 20-30% more easy power like Sampras could then perhaps he would not have this problem.,
Click to expand...
Um...Sampras was not subjected to playing in the era of Luxilon strings and "spaghetti string-like" amounts of ridiculous spin to have to deal with like Federer does. All Sampras had to deal with was Agassi's hard, flat shots, something that Federer can handle with ease in his sleep. Everyone knows that Federer can outhit Sampras from the baseline any day of the week.
 
BreakPoint said:
Um...Sampras was not subjected to playing in the era of Luxilon strings and "spaghetti string-like" amounts of ridiculous spin to have to deal with like Federer does. All Sampras had to deal with was Agassi's hard, flat shots, something that Federer can handle with ease in his sleep. Everyone knows that Federer can outhit Sampras from the baseline any day of the week.
Click to expand...

Is that why he could barely beat him in the Exo's?
 
Manus Domini said:
not true, they assisted the Allies in WWI because of the Germans attacking American passenger ships then the Zimmerman Telegraph Plot, WWII the exuse was the bombing of Pearl Harbour
Click to expand...
Um...those were called "excuses" for a reason. Americans were looking for an "excuse" to enter the war in both cases and those were good enough of an excuse to get into the war. The government is not going to convince the American people to get involved in a war on the other side of the world without a good excuse. Heck, there's even speculation that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen so that he'd have a good enough of an excuse to enter WWII to help the British and the French.

Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone?
 
Federer achieved some mostly through luck and due to hard training at expensive Swiss academies. Nadal accomplished a lot more just by hitting a few balls in his backyard on a desolate sub-African island. Ultimately it is talent that makes the difference.
 
SoBad said:
Federer achieved some mostly through luck and due to hard training at expensive Swiss academies. Nadal accomplished a lot more just by hitting a few balls in his backyard on a desolate sub-African island. Ultimately it is talent that makes the difference.
Click to expand...

Just because it's expensive doesn't mean it's good. How many great male Swiss players have come out of that academy besides Federer?
 
SoBad said:
Federer achieved some mostly through luck and due to hard training at expensive Swiss academies. Nadal accomplished a lot more just by hitting a few balls in his backyard on a desolate sub-African island. Ultimately it is talent that makes the difference.
Click to expand...

Mallorca:

main_palmademallorca.jpg
 
BTW, the African islands of Spain are the Canary Islands, not the Balearic:

spain_africa.gif


But I wouldn't say the Canary Islands are desolate either.
 
This is a non-arguement. Right now, Nadal is a better player (obviously), but Fed is the greatest natural talent to grace the game. Ever.
 
^ Hi rookie, Federer plays textbook tennis and is an unforced error machine. Rafa plays the opposite to textbook tennis with almost every shot and he makes less errors than everyone else. Hope you understand it.
 
BreakPoint said:
Um...those were called "excuses" for a reason. Americans were looking for an "excuse" to enter the war in both cases and those were good enough of an excuse to get into the war. The government is not going to convince the American people to get involved in a war on the other side of the world without a good excuse. Heck, there's even speculation that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen so that he'd have a good enough of an excuse to enter WWII to help the British and the French.

Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone?
Click to expand...

to help the British more than the French in the first war, and the second one was to combat Hitler

remember that most of the American immigrants/citizens at both times were German, followed very closely by Irish, Russian Jews, and other pro-Central/Axis ethnicities
 
nadal_slam_king said:
^ Hi rookie, Federer plays textbook tennis and is an unforced error machine. Rafa plays the opposite to textbook tennis with almost every shot and he makes less errors than everyone else. Hope you understand it.
Click to expand...
Nadal makes less errors than everyone else because he also hits less winners than everyone else. You don't make many errors if you rarely go for it. That's why Nadal is known as a "defensive" player while Federer is known as an "aggressive" player. Pushers don't make many errors but also don't hit many winners, either.
 
Manus Domini said:
to help the British more than the French in the first war, and the second one was to combat Hitler

remember that most of the American immigrants/citizens at both times were German, followed very closely by Irish, Russian Jews, and other pro-Central/Axis ethnicities
Click to expand...
Had Hitler not already conquered France, there would have been much less incentive for the Americans to enter WWII.
 
nadal_slam_king said:
^ Hi rookie, Federer plays textbook tennis and is an unforced error machine. Rafa plays the opposite to textbook tennis with almost every shot and he makes less errors than everyone else. Hope you understand it.
Click to expand...

this unforced error machine won 16 grand slam titles, something rafito just wont achieve no matter how few ue he hits, put that in your retarted head
 
BreakPoint said:
Had Hitler not already conquered France, there would have been much less incentive for the Americans to enter WWII.
Click to expand...

yeah and I'm sure Japan had nothing to do with it :roll:


Germany was a large threat, the greatest at the time. That's why America had to neutralize her, for its own benefit.

And that's why Federer feels he needs to beat Nadal to stay on top. Federer is the most talented player of the day, Nadal is pure muscle, no beauty in the game, far less talent. He would be much better at racketball imo, where talent<athleticism in skill
 
Manus Domini said:
yeah and I'm sure Japan had nothing to do with it :roll:


Germany was a large threat, the greatest at the time. That's why America had to neutralize her, for its own benefit.
Click to expand...
Um...didn't we go over that already? Pearl Harbor was the excuse that FDR was waiting for before declaring war on both Japan and Germany. He wanted to enter WWII all along but didn't think he could get Congress' approval until something major like a "Pearl Harbor" happened.

The U.S. couldn't care less that Japan had been raping and pillaging China and much of Asia for 4 years until Pearl Harbor happened. Madam Chiang Kai-Shek had to personally plead to Congress in Washington before they would even lift a finger to help China. If Hitler wasn't taking over Europe and Japan had never attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. probably would never have gotten into the war at all. FDR wanted to get in to save Britain and France. That was the main focus, not Asia.
 
BreakPoint said:
Um...those were called "excuses" for a reason. Americans were looking for an "excuse" to enter the war in both cases and those were good enough of an excuse to get into the war. The government is not going to convince the American people to get involved in a war on the other side of the world without a good excuse. Heck, there's even speculation that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen so that he'd have a good enough of an excuse to enter WWII to help the British and the French.

Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone?
Click to expand...

Sometimes your insights are amazing :-)

But when it comes to Federer ....
 
I takes talent to play the way Nadal did with those shorts down to his ankles he used to wear....

Id like to see Fed wear those and try to be as competitive as Nadal was with them.
 
BreakPoint said:
Um...didn't we go over that already? Pearl Harbor was the excuse that FDR was waiting for before declaring war on both Japan and Germany. He wanted to enter WWII all along but didn't think he could get Congress' approval until something major like a "Pearl Harbor" happened.

The U.S. couldn't care less that Japan had been raping and pillaging China and much of Asia for 4 years until Pearl Harbor happened. Madam Chiang Kai-Shek had to personally plead to Congress in Washington before they would even lift a finger to help China. If Hitler wasn't taking over Europe and Japan had never attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. probably would never have gotten into the war at all. FDR wanted to get in to save Britain and France. That was the main focus, not Asia.
Click to expand...

yeah and it wasn't the need for the United States to get its economy back up and running either, was it?

I guess the help he sent to China after it was attacked in 1937 was really a mis-sent package of resources.

This man who had a peacetime draft could easily get Congress to support the war, it was the matter of the people...
 
They both have talent, strengths and weaknesses, some of the strengths outway others, and nice versa. I'd like to think Fed is the last of the Old Regime, but Nadal can do things Fed cannot do, and vice versa, so this arguement is never ending.

But.... You guys can't really still believe that Rafa is not talented right? I used to roll with the "Nadal is a grinder no talent blah blah" but then one day you just watch him and realize just how incredible the guy is.
 
BrooklynNY said:
They both have talent, strengths and weaknesses, some of the strengths outway others, and nice versa. I'd like to think Fed is the last of the Old Regime, but Nadal can do things Fed cannot do, and vice versa, so this arguement is never ending.

But.... You guys can't really still believe that Rafa is not talented right? I used to roll with the "Nadal is a grinder no talent blah blah" but then one day you just watch him and realize just how incredible the guy is.
Click to expand...

Perfect answer man.
 
Manus Domini said:
Germany was a large threat, the greatest at the time. That's why America had to neutralize her, for its own benefit.
Click to expand...

That's an embellished view more product of historical myth and propaganda than of a serius analysis. Germany was a threat for its own neighbors, so was the USSR, but USA didn't care when the Germans started to show that threat. The USA main rival was already the USSR, and Hitler was seen as a retaining wall against communism. USA didn't care when Germans decided to invade Poland, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, France, even whey they tried (and failed) to set an invasion of the UK. They didn't care about China or other Asian territories being also brutally invaded by Japan.

USA entered the war when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, that had absolutely nothing to do with Hitler or Europe. In fact, the Japanese had signed a neutrality treaty with the USSR.

But had Hitler not gone too far attacking the USSR (and had not happened Pearl Harbor), even if Hitler had invaded some countries already, let's face it: US was OK with Hitler (as it was the UK at the beginning, except Churchill). Not the American people who mostly didn't like Hitler, but the government. For USA, Hitler was a way to stop communism BUT when he attacked Russia he unleashed Pandora's Box, and there was a big possibility (as it finally happened) of the USSR counter attacking and heading through western Europe.

Seems like a paradox, but although USA saw USSR (NOT Germany) as the main threat, Germany attacking the USSR was not something the USA really wanted. At first the invasion seemed successful, but it proved unrealistic. The USA knew that if Germany failed invading the USSR, the Russians would turn everything up down.

When the D-Day happened and American troops stepped into Europe (well, after Italy that is), Germany had already screwed itself. The Russians were coming. Of course the Normandy landings quickened Germany's end, but at that point the Russians were encouraged and heading towards Germany.
 
Last edited:
Manus Domini said:
yeah and it wasn't the need for the United States to get its economy back up and running either, was it?
Click to expand...
Sure, let's get into a war and kill almost 500,000 Americans just to get out of an economic slump. Don't give Obama any more ideas, please. No President in their right mind gets into a war to help the economy. Get real.

Manus Domini said:
I guess the help he sent to China after it was attacked in 1937 was really a mis-sent package of resources.
Click to expand...
Um...what "help"? Did you see a "D-day" invasion with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops landing on the shores of Shanghai? I didn't.

Manus Domini said:
This man who had a peacetime draft could easily get Congress to support the war, it was the matter of the people...
Click to expand...
If that's what you think then you really need to brush-up on your history. Most Americans were against entering WWII before Pearl Harbor. No way Congress would have approved getting in the war. Sending money or arms is one thing, sending troops and getting into the war is a very different thing.
 
Last edited:
Dilettante said:
That's an embellished view more product of historical myth and propaganda than of a serius analysis. Germany was a threat for its own neighbors, so was the USSR, but USA didn't care when the Germans started to show that threat. The USA main rival was already the USSR, and Hitler was seen as a retaining wall against communism. USA didn't care when Germans decided to invade Poland, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, France, even whey they tried (and failed) to set an invasion of the UK. They didn't care about China or other Asian territories being also brutally invaded by Japan.

USA entered the war when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, that had absolutely nothing to do with Hitler or Europe. In fact, the Japanese had signed a neutrality treaty with the USSR.

But had Hitler not gone too far attacking the USSR (and had not happened Pearl Harbor), even if Hitler had invaded some countries already, let's face it: US was OK with Hitler (as it was the UK at the beginning, except Churchill). Not the American people who mostly didn't like Hitler, but the government. For USA, Hitler was a way to stop communism BUT when he attacked Russia he unleashed Pandora's Box, and there was a big possibility (as it finally happened) of the USSR counter attacking and heading through western Europe.

Seems like a paradox, but although USA saw USSR (NOT Germany) as the main threat, Germany attacking the USSR was not something the USA really wanted. At first the invasion seemed successful, but it proved unrealistic. The USA knew that if Germany failed invading the USSR, the Russians would turn everything up down.

When the D-Day happened and American troops stepped into Europe (well, after Italy that is), Germany had already screwed itself. The Russians were coming. Of course the Normandy landings quickened Germany's end, but at that point the Russians were encouraged and heading towards Germany.
Click to expand...

Perfect interpretation.
 
BreakPoint said:
Sure, let's get into a war and kill almost 500,000 Americans just to get out of an economic slump. Don't give Obama any more ideas, please. No President in their right mind gets into a war to help the economy. Get real.
Click to expand...

Actually war can raise a economy, if only temporarily. Problem is that it can leave it even more in ruin if the economic rise isn't handled properly and if the war is too prolonged. Germany was pretty much in ruin after WW I yet Hitler gave a lot of people jobs by building weapon and munitions factories, building roads for vehicles etc. Not to mention enrolling a lot of people in the army and overall war effort.

Sorry to break the bad news but the U.S. is preparing for war. And it doesn't matter if people want it or not. Most americans weren't really that delighted about vietnam or korea but the government went right ahead and entered both those wars. And 500.000 death would be a pretty small number for the government, since the government doesn't give a crap about the common man. To them 500.000 men in 300 mil population isn't that much.

Since the 90's the US has been blowing some steam in countries where most people still live like in freaking stone age(see middle east wars, which last like 1 month ha-ha). But it hungers for a real war, or at least some people at the top really do, they need to justify all that money spent on war tech. I read somewhere that the US has enough firepower to bomb most countries on Earth seven times over. But yeah, I'm sure they are stocking up on firepower and improving war tech to defend themselves :)

At the present moment, the U.S. has the largest military budget BY FAR. It has the military budget of China,Rusia,Uk,France,Germany combined times two. And China and Rusia are supposed to be rivals to the US, with more overall population and available soldiers than the US. You don't spend that much on military budget unless you expect wars in the near future and I am willing to bet that the US will start a lot of them, looking for "terrorists" of course.

Who has the biggest military budget? U.S.
Who is building more and more bases in Europe to be close to Middle east operations? U.S.
Who is waging war in the middle east(the most high profile "war" going on right now)? U.S.

So BP, I would expect more war coming your way, even in the Obama administration. That big budget has to be used for something.
 
namelessone said:
Actually war can raise a economy, if only temporarily. Problem is that it can leave it even more in ruin if the economic rise isn't handled properly and if the war is too prolonged.
Click to expand...

I agree. For an attacking country which does not suffer destruction in its own soil, war can raise the economy like an injection. I also agree that the rise is "artificial", creating war industry by a huge war budget, and it can end in ruin.

The solution is invading and getting other countries' resources. That's nothing new, in fact is what Hitler wanted to do and he attacked Russia for its resources, oil specially. At the end of the war Germany still had loads of new, untouched war equipment (that's how he raised economy) but no fuel to make them useful.
 
I think when the world war is going on, talking about talent and tennis is not worth it anymore. Survival and peace will be the only hope. I hope there won't be Korean war again....
 
Dilettante said:
I agree. For an attacking country which does not suffer destruction in its own soil, war can raise the economy like an injection. I also agree that the rise is "artificial", creating war industry by a huge war budget, and it can end in ruin.

The solution is invading and getting other countries' resources. That's nothing new, in fact is what Hitler wanted to do and he attacked Russia for its resources, oil specially. At the end of the war Germany still had loads of new, untouched war equipment (that's how he raised economy) but no fuel to make them useful.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The U.S. is probably the best example. It had two big wars on its own soil: their war of independence(which wasn't really a conventional type of war) and their civil war(which to this day I think is the biggest loss of life on U.S. soil). The rest of their major wars were fought outside of the country(or at least they didn't involve all U.S. states), which is ideal, the population won't be scared and your own infrastructure doesn't suffer(get bombed). All of the U.S. threats are far,far away, they've never really had the enemy at their doorstep like a lot of countries. Which is probably why they spend so much time worrying about "threats" nowadays :)
 
namelessone said:
Actually war can raise a economy, if only temporarily. Problem is that it can leave it even more in ruin if the economic rise isn't handled properly and if the war is too prolonged. Germany was pretty much in ruin after WW I yet Hitler gave a lot of people jobs by building weapon and munitions factories, building roads for vehicles etc. Not to mention enrolling a lot of people in the army and overall war effort.
Click to expand...
Of course it can. I didn't say that it can't. But no one in their right mind would start a war which would potentially kill millions of its own citizens for the sole reason of boosting its economy. You might as well as just shoot all the unemployed people in your country. It would be a lot easier and less messy than war. In fact, only a lunatic would start a war to get out of a recession, someone like...um....Hitler!

namelessone said:
Sorry to break the bad news but the U.S. is preparing for war. And it doesn't matter if people want it or not. Most americans weren't really that delighted about vietnam or korea but the government went right ahead and entered both those wars. And 500.000 death would be a pretty small number for the government, since the government doesn't give a crap about the common man. To them 500.000 men in 300 mil population isn't that much.
Click to expand...
First of all, the population in the U.S. during WWII was only about 130 million.

Second of all, the last time the U.S. declared war on anyone was WWII. Vietnam and Korea were undeclared wars. In fact, the Korean War was authorized by the U.N., not the U.S. Congress.

Thirdly, what do you mean the government doesn't care about the common man? Is that why Congress just passed the Universal Health Bill and have extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (which will be getting another 13 month extension)?

namelessone said:
Since the 90's the US has been blowing some steam in countries where most people still live like in freaking stone age(see middle east wars, which last like 1 month ha-ha). But it hungers for a real war, or at least some people at the top really do, they need to justify all that money spent on war tech. I read somewhere that the US has enough firepower to bomb most countries on Earth seven times over. But yeah, I'm sure they are stocking up on firepower and improving war tech to defend themselves :)

At the present moment, the U.S. has the largest military budget BY FAR. It has the military budget of China,Rusia,Uk,France,Germany combined times two. And China and Rusia are supposed to be rivals to the US, with more overall population and available soldiers than the US. You don't spend that much on military budget unless you expect wars in the near future and I am willing to bet that the US will start a lot of them, looking for "terrorists" of course.

Who has the biggest military budget? U.S.
Who is building more and more bases in Europe to be close to Middle east operations? U.S.
Who is waging war in the middle east(the most high profile "war" going on right now)? U.S.

So BP, I would expect more war coming your way, even in the Obama administration. That big budget has to be used for something.
Click to expand...
The U.S. has a big military budget because most of the world expects the U.S. to protect them. Who came to Kuwait's rescue when Iraq invaded them in 1990? Who did Western Europe expect to protect them from the evil communists of the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War? Who does Taiwan expect to protect them from China? How about the South Koreans from the North Koreans? How about Japan from the rest of the world? How about Israel from their threatening neighbors? Protecting just about everyone in the world doesn't come cheap. So, no, nobody (except for maybe GW Bush) goes around looking to start wars. If we weren't attacked first on 9/11, we wouldn't even be in Afghanistan. Oh, and "lasting like 1 month"? What are you talking about? We've been fighting in Afghanistan for for OVER 9 YEARS and it's not going to end anytime soon. It's already the longest war the U.S. has ever been in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VivalaVida
Why do people blatantly assume Federer has more talent than Nadal?
5 6 7
Replies
339
Views
23K
VivalaVida
VivalaVida
atp2015
McEnroe - Kyrgios more talented than Federer and Nadal
2 3
Replies
108
Views
8K
big ted
big ted
Backspin1183
How many slams would Nadal win with Federer's talent?
Replies
47
Views
4K
Deleted member 307496
D
T
Is Djokovic More Talented Than Nadal?
2 3 4
Replies
167
Views
13K
MrBen
M
ARIARAIDEN
Who do you think is/was more talented than Federer?
2 3
Replies
139
Views
20K
Fabresque
Fabresque
Back
Top