Nadal is talented in discipline n hard work but Federer is a tennis player from GOD..

[Mick]

the amazing thing is it doesn't appear that Djokovic works as hard as Nadal or is a player from God like Federer but he can and have beaten both Nadal and Federer many times recently.

 

[boramiNYC]

It seems Stakhy simply cannot comprehend the level of talent Nadal has. Nadal's talent is just as special as Fed's in different way. His sureness in his shot making even with his nontextbook technique is out of this world and Djok can match the sureness in groundstrokes with more sound technique. If nadal's personality allowed him to improve his techniques he would be truly a monster, but that's not happening.

 

[IvanisevicServe]

Nadal only "works harder" during matches. I've never heard anyone talk about Nadal's practice habits.

Federer, on the other hand...everyone who has practiced with him says he wears out several consecutive players in extreme heat.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

It seems Stakhy simply cannot comprehend the level of talent Nadal has. Nadal's talent is just as special as Fed's in different way. His sureness in his shot making even with his nontextbook technique is out of this world and Djok can match the sureness in groundstrokes with more sound technique. If nadal's personality allowed him to improve his techniques he would be truly a monster, but that's not happening.

That's true of Donald Young too, if his personality allowed him to beat every other player, well then he would be a super monster.

 

[boramiNYC]

That's true of Donald Young too, if his personality allowed him to beat every other player, well then he would be a super monster.

There are players who makes the leap. v1.0 to v2.0 ie. Some make smaller jumps. Nadal worked on his serve which could have been a pretty big jump but he regressed back to his old serve. He is already a world beater so doesn't matter hugely. OTOH, DY needs major revision to his mental and technical aspects of his game to be in the conversation. No comparison.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

There are players who makes the leap. v1.0 to v2.0 ie. Some make smaller jumps. Nadal worked on his serve which could have been a pretty big jump but he regressed back to his old serve. He is already a world beater so doesn't matter hugely. OTOH, DY needs major revision to his mental and technical aspects of his game to be in the conversation. No comparison.

If Nadal's personality allowed him to improve his technique, yes he would be a monster, a monster that still loses to Djokovic. Hence the DY analogy.

 

[Bender]

Yeah but you know a lot of people starte liking Nadal in the first place because he threatened Fed's dominance so much? A lot of Sampras fans started rooting for Nadal. I mean are you saying that most people like Fed cos he wins so much, not becuase his game, but Nadal fans love Nadal for his game? That's a bit biased. Plus Nadal's popularity has shot up recently as he won the set of slams. It has climbed a lot in the last few years.

1. Most fans of Fed (i.e. casual fans) only really like Fed because he wins so much.
   
2. If Fed didn't exist and Rafa cleaned up all those stray titles, Rafa would be the most popular player right now. You too have affirmed this with your own anecdote, i.e. that Rafa's popularity has shot up when he started winning everything.
   
3. It's easy for the media to make baseless claims such as "most talented player of all time" when it is about the tennis player who has won the most. It is an argument that is easy to make yet hard to argue against.
   
4. Defensive/depressed Sampras ****s' impact on Rafa's popularity in this scenario would be negligible as a) so few people are tennis-zealous enough to hate someone they don't know for beating someone-else-they-don't-know's record, and b) tennis has become far more global with the advent of social networking/the internet, which only came about long after Sampras retired (by tech standards).
   
5. You can sub Rafa in this scenario for anyone, and this observation can still stand.

Also, I never said Rafa fans love Rafa for his game whilst Fed fans only like Fed because of his success. That makes no sense whatsoever, and I don't recall saying such a thing. If my observation on popularity applies to Fed, there's no reason to suggest that it wouldn't apply to Rafa. I'd have to empirically prove something like that if it's to hold water.

 

[Leto]

Accoring to a friend of mine, who works at the PR firm that represents GOD, there will be an announcement later today that states that GOD takes credit for both Fed and Rafa's successes!

:twisted:

But even more shocking....GOD will also take credit (and great pride) for creating Murray, Roddick...and heck, every single person who is reading this thread (plus everyone else who isn't) :shock:

 

[Mick]

God must love the average 3.5 players more so than those 7.0 tennis pros because he creates so many of them

 

[boramiNYC]

If Nadal's personality allowed him to improve his technique, yes he would be a monster, a monster that still loses to Djokovic. Hence the DY analogy.

The reason Djokovic can beat Nadal over and over is because Nadal can't change anything about his game. If he had been able to improve his game I think he could take out Djoko. DY has nothing to do with this. He's not a monster, never were at men's level.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

The reason Djokovic can beat Nadal over and over is because Nadal can't change anything about his game. If he had been able to improve his game I think he could take out Djoko. DY has nothing to do with this. He's not a monster, never were at men's level.

I agree, Nadal is not good enough to change anything in his game. Even if Nadal were able to improve his game, then Djoker would improve his game even more and continue to take out Nadal.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I'm sure Stakky took all of the mentioned into consideration when making the comment. Are you saying Stakky was wrong and you are right?

i dont feel like typing out another long post as to why i dont think pros/former pros views on talent of other players are the be-all end-all.... so ill just spare myself the trouble and link what i posted in another thread. basically, so what if he said that???? stahky's not God almighty.

Some people here are just too dogmatic.

Sure, thats why the best players are always the best coaches/teachers right???? Because theyre the most talented and know the most, right?

Everybody has a different opinion. I don't see why Cash's must be taken so seriously. There, I said it, I don't. Moreover, I don't see why being a great player automatically merits the claim that the person knows more about tennis than everyone else. I don't see anybody here claiming Gael Monfils has a great tennis mind. I'm not saying Cash doesn't. And I'm not saying there are people here that know more about tennis than he does. But why, if you watch both players closely over a given season, would you trust someone elses eyes over your own? When I say Federer in his prime is the greatest I have seen (note the I have seen part, I'm not saying he's better than Laver/Gonzales/Budge et. al, but given I have only been watching tennis since the 80's, he is the best I have seen), I firmly and staunchly place MY opinion over Cash's. Not for everybody on here. But for me. I won't reverse my opinion just because someone else said so, without even offering a glimmer of reason to support it. Sorry. Won't happen. And that's not saying I know more about tennis than Cash or that my opinion is worth more. Just that it's worth more for ME.


And what I REALLY don't understand is, what does deciphering the quality of two great players say about how much you know about tennis? Does it really say anything? Some boxing historians and boxers alike say Rocky Marciano was a historically great heavyweight. Others, equally well-versed and acclaimed, thought of him as an overrated small heavyweight with t-rex arms who would get eaten up if he fought in a better era with bigger heavyweights. In this scenario, you could claim that these men know more about the sweet science than you or me.
But given such diametrically opposed views, one must be HUGELY WRONG. So which side do we take? Either way, it means disagreeing with the other side. So right there we're rejecting the opinions of people who know more than us in that given subject. Ty Cobb didn't see Babe Ruth, almost universally regarded as the greatest baseball player to have ever lived, as even one of the top 10. I don't care if I hear that from Ty Cobb or my uncle/pediatrician/mailman, I regard it as nonsensical, DESPITE the fact that Ty Cobb probably has FORGOTTEN more about the nature of baseball than I've known. No one is inerrant, even the great ones. I mean, if John McEnroe were to call Federer the greatest player ever, and Borg called him a hack, you couldn't challenge either claim by your logic. Because both are great players therefore either way you're forced to acknowledge the validity of both statements.... even though that doesn't make sense.
Pat Cash isn't God, he's prone to shady remarks just like everybody else is, and given his history with Federer, I don't see him as a very objective source regarding the matter. At the end of the day he's just another opinion. Which frankly I don't care much for. Good for him, he thinks that. Life goes on.



If the best players always know the most, why do they often make the worst coaches? Sure, great players usually have more knowledge on tennis. But it's not black and white. A mind that thinks critically can entertain a thought without accepting it at the drop of a hat. Cleary, some people on here are devoid of said critical thought.

Different strokes for different folks.

hey tim mccarver was a baseball player and an "expert", yet anybody who has heard about him knows how much he gets ripped on by former players and fans alike.

tennis is the only sport i can think of that has this elitist standard, it's ridiculous.

 

[Apun94]

I agree, Nadal is not good enough to change anything in his game. Even if Nadal were able to improve his game, then Djoker would improve his game even more and continue to take out Nadal.

TBH, I dont see much more improvement in Nole's game. I mean how good can you become??!! He's got almost no weakness, is a BEAST off both sides, is brutal mentally and physically, freak of a return, great serve(MAYBE thats something he can improve) that clicks at the biggest of moments. What else do you want from that guy??!!
Nadal obviously can still improve as holes in his game have been exposed by Nole. If Nadal does start to feel Nole's game and beats him what to you think Nole has to do??!

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

TBH, I dont see much more improvement in Nole's game. I mean how good can you become??!! He's got almost no weakness, is a BEAST off both sides, is brutal mentally and physically, freak of a return, great serve(MAYBE thats something he can improve) that clicks at the biggest of moments. What else do you want from that guy??!!
Nadal obviously can still improve as holes in his game have been exposed by Nole. If Nadal does start to feel Nole's game and beats him what to you think Nole has to do??!

Nadal has no holes in his game. Nole is simply better. You wouldn't say Donald Young loses to Nadal because Donald has holes in his game.

 

[Apun94]

Nadal has no holes in his game. Nole is simply better. You wouldn't say Donald Young loses to Nadal because Donald has holes in his game.

Well, yeah Nole is a better alround player than Nadal. That's obvious. If Nadal has no holes in his game then how does Nole break Nadal down by attacking both his forehand and backhand side?? It's the same thing what happened with Fed when Nadal came onto the scene. Nobody thought Fed had a weakness until Nadal showed them. That's the same with Nadal. After 2010, nobody thought he had a weakness until Nole showed them.
Please dont bring DY into every conversation when he's not needed.

 

[kiki]

I think Federer would have Sampras' serve, net skills, forehand and mental toughness if Federer was from God. The only edge Federer has over Sampras is on clay.

A truth as big as a church.

Fed never played the tough field of Sampras.

 

[abmk]

A truth as big as a church.

Fed never played the tough field of Sampras.

yes, he only ousted him when he was the 4 time defending champ @ wimbledon . as a 19 year old ....he only owned the likes of hewitt/safin who beat sampras like a drum in USO finals ...

yes, sampras played in a tough tough field with gigantic clay courters like Roman Delgado, Gilbert schallar could upset him at RG no less ...... , not to mention gigantic HCers like Kucera, yzaga etc who could upset him in HC slams

Let's also forget that his main rival, Agassi was nowhere near playing top level tennis from 93-mid94 and then from 96-98 .....

Let's also forget that the two guys who were the most dangerous to him, stich and krajicek, were inconsistent, injury-prone,flaky and didn't even meet him that many times ...

and the most dumb thing about that statement from nadal_slam_king ....If federer had sampras' FH ???? really ????? ha ha ha ha

 

[kiki]

yes, he only ousted him when he was the 4 time defending champ @ wimbledon . as a 19 year old ....he only owned the likes of hewitt/safin who beat sampras like a drum in USO finals ...

yes, sampras played in a tough tough field with gigantic clay courters like Roman Delgado, Gilbert schallar could upset him at RG no less ...... , not to mention gigantic HCers like Kucera, yzaga etc who could upset him in HC slams

Let's also forget that his main rival, Agassi was nowhere near playing top level tennis from 93-mid94 and then from 96-98 .....

Let's also forget that the two guys who were the most dangerous to him, stich and krajicek, were inconsistent, injury-prone,flaky and didn't even meet him that many times ...

and the most dumb thing about that statement from nadal_slam_king ....If federer had sampras' FH ???? really ????? ha ha ha ha

jajaja...Federer has faced the greatest ever champions, guys as much competitive as Murray,Bagdhatis,Roddick,Philipussis,nalbandian and¡¡¡ Davidenkho¡¡¡ joke era.

 

[abmk]

jajaja...Federer has faced the greatest ever champions, guys as much competitive as Murray,Bagdhatis,Roddick,Philipussis,nalbandian and¡¡¡ Davidenkho¡¡¡ joke era.

he also faced the likes of nadal, djokovic, safin ,hewitt, agassi etc .....but then you are clueless to not even notice that .....

btw joke era is the era that your crush Laver played in ...... the depth was so pathetic they had to get recreational players from the parks to fill the draws :lol:

 

[TMF]

jajaja...Federer has faced the greatest ever champions, guys as much competitive as Murray,Bagdhatis,Roddick,Philipussis,nalbandian and¡¡¡ Davidenkho¡¡¡ joke era.

Joke post. The more you open your mouth, the more of a joke you are by the hour !

 

[kiki]

he also faced the likes of nadal, djokovic, safin ,hewitt, agassi etc .....but then you are clueless to not even notice that .....

btw joke era is the era that your crush Laver played in ...... the depth was so pathetic they had to get recreational players from the parks to fill the draws :lol:

Yeah¡ 34-35 yrs old Agassi

 

[reversef]

he also faced the likes of nadal, djokovic, safin ,hewitt, agassi etc .....but then you are clueless to not even notice that .....

btw joke era is the era that your crush Laver played in ...... the depth was so pathetic they had to get recreational players from the parks to fill the draws :lol:

Nadal doesn't count. The guy can't play tennis. We all know that he was just lucky to win those tournaments. The tennis experts of this forum (Fed fans) have proven it enough.
If a player like this is Federer's competition, it just proves how weak his era is.

 

[kiki]

Joke post. The more you open your mouth, the more of a joke you are by the hour !

Sorry,Taylor Master Federer, I forgot about greats to be Tomic and Donnie Young...

 

[Leto]

jajaja...Federer has faced the greatest ever champions, guys as much competitive as Murray,Bagdhatis,Roddick,Philipussis,nalbandian and¡¡¡ Davidenkho¡¡¡ joke era.

This "joke era" talk seems pretty ridiculous to me!

No matter what era you are talking about, you are looking at the absolute BEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD, at that point in time.

I can understand subtle differences/variables/factors when comparing eras, but calling any era a "joke", seems overly ignorant :shock:

 

[abmk]

Yeah¡ 34-35 yrs old Agassi

he wasted some of his prime years and hence was still playing well at an older age when he refocused on tennis ......

Much more of a factor than a 37-40 year old, well past his prime Pancho Gonzales and yet you keep mentioning as prime Laver's tough competition .....

 

[abmk]

This "joke era" talk seems pretty ridiculous to me!

No matter what era you are talking about, you are looking at the absolute BEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD, at that point in time.

I can understand subtle differences/variables/factors when comparing eras, but calling any era a "joke", seems overly ignorant :shock:

too much of common sense in this post for Kiki to get .....

 

[kiki]

what do you call an era with only 3 guys having a real chance at the majors?

i thought there was anti trust law...

 

[kiki]

he wasted some of his prime years and hence was still playing well at an older age when he refocused on tennis ......

Much more of a factor than a 37-40 year old, well past his prime Pancho Gonzales and yet you keep mentioning as prime Laver's tough competition .....

Old Pancho, while not as good as prime Pancho still gave a run for they money to Borg,Emerson,Laver,Smith,Connors and a few ones.When you have such quality and you keep in shape, sky is the limit.

 

[Leto]

what do you call an era with only 3 guys having a real chance at the majors?

i thought there was anti trust law...

You can twist and select whatever you like to satisfy whatever bias you have.

Just name whatever era YOU think was the strongest, and I could portray it as being a "joke" as well, using the same kind of kindergarten level arguments that you like to use

 

[kiki]

You can twist and select whatever you like to satisfy whatever bias you have.

Just name whatever era YOU think was the strongest, and I could portray it as being a "joke" as well, using the same kind of kindergarten level arguments that you like to use

I doubt you ever watched tennis before this decade, so I won´t make an issue off it:-?

 

[Leto]

I doubt you ever watched tennis before this decade, so I won´t make an issue off it:-?

Your doubt is incorrect, but at least you are consistent with the kindergarten level responses.

Here's a challenge for you, when you're ready to step up to Grade 1: "My dad could beat up your dad"

 

[15_ounce]

Nadal is talented in discipline n hard work but Federer is a tennis player from GOD..

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-04-10/9291.php (Thanks to oddjack for the link)

Wait a minute... Until Nadal speeds up his time between points while serving and abolishes his ridiculous match time out rituals as well as on court coaching, then we can start talking about him being a disciplined guy.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Wait a minute... Until Nadal speeds up his time between points while serving and abolishes his ridiculous match time out rituals as well as on court coaching, then we can start talking about him being a disciplined guy.

Well, he IS very disciplined when it comes to water bottles placements, give him that.

 

[Apun94]

Nadal doesn't count. The guy can't play tennis. We all know that he was just lucky to win those tournaments. The tennis experts of this forum (Fed fans) have proven it enough.
If a player like this is Federer's competition, it just proves how weak his era is.

WOW! This has GOT to be one of the most anti-Nadal comments by any ******* who doesnt know sh*t about tennis and cant take Nadal beating Fed...

 

[10is]

^some people obviously don't get sarcasm. :assburgers:

 

[reversef]

WOW! This has GOT to be one of the most anti-Nadal comments by any ******* who doesnt know sh*t about tennis and cant take Nadal beating Fed...

Hum.... Does the word "sarcasm" ring a bell? I had to read the history of your posts to know which kind of fan you are because I was not sure you were serious. Read mine.
Just laughing at all those *******s for whom Nadal is not a great player and doesn't deserve any credit. After that, when they meet some ***********, the first name they bring to show how tough Fed's era was is "Nadal". It never fails to make me laugh. More hypocritical and desperate than that, you can't find.

 

[kragster]

WOW! This has GOT to be one of the most anti-Nadal comments by any ******* who doesnt know sh*t about tennis and cant take Nadal beating Fed...

100 sarcasm 101's.

 

[Apun94]

Hum.... Does the word "sarcasm" ring a bell? I had to read the history of your posts to know which kind of fan you are because I was not sure you were serious. Read mine.
Just laughing at all those *******s for whom Nadal is not a great player and doesn't deserve any credit. After that, when they meet some ***********, the first name they bring to show how tough Fed's era was is "Nadal". It never fails to make me laugh. More hypocritical and desperate than that, you can't find.

Sorry, my fault. Actually, there are so many *******s who post such ridiculously biased comments that it's hard to say who are being sarcastic...

 

[zagor]

Actually, there are so many *******s who post such ridiculously biased comments that it's hard to say who are being sarcastic...

Indeed, which is why we're fortunate to have sensible posters like yourself, Jackson Vile and Djokovic2008 to balance things out with your holy crusade against the evil ****s.











LOL.

 

[abmk]

Old Pancho, while not as good as prime Pancho still gave a run for they money to Borg,Emerson,Laver,Smith,Connors and a few ones.When you have such quality and you keep in shape, sky is the limit.

ditto for old Agassi, if anything MUCH more applicable for agassi ....

He was in pretty good shape as a 34-35 year old and playing very well ...... much more closer to his best tennis and more consistent than a 37+ years old Gonzales ......

 

[Apun94]

Indeed, which is why we're fortunate to have sensible posters like yourself, Jackson Vile and Djokovic2008 to balance things out with your holy crusade against the evil ****s.











LOL.

Hahahaha, thank you very much

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Hahahaha, thank you very much

Wow, I like your attitude.

 

[PrinceMoron]

Dude, what the hell are you talking about?

No, you are right, let's just spend the next 10 years discussing Sampras v Federer. What else is there to talk about?

 

[Tenez!]

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-04-10/9291.php (Thanks to oddjack for the link)

Federer plays a less physical tennis. Someone has more God-given talent; someone has more of something else. For me, Nadal is more talented in terms of discipline and hard work. Thanks to that he became the No.1 player at the time. But Federer – that’s a tennis player from God, a talent which found “his own” sports field.

Everyone learns from Federer. In 2006-2008, Roger moved tennis in an absolutely different direction. He played so quickly that everyone followed him. But then the slowing down of courts started.

What do you make out of this comment?

I think Stakky is right on the money, Nadal's biggest talent is hard work contrary to what a lot of his fans like to believe that Nadal is most talented in shot making (Djokovic for example is a much more talented shot maker than Nadal). But overall, Nadal is no doubt a talented tennis player.

2017 was the year of the revenge, but Federer hasn't met Stakhovsky since 2013.
Will they ever meet again on grass?

 

[EdSWright]

Sampras has 7 Wimbledons, on REAL GRASS. Federer has 6 Wimbledons on slowed grass (and against a weaker field, with few legit grasscourt players). Clear edge for Sampras. It's not even close.

Hey there

 

[Sentinel]

Hey there

NSK was hugely entertaining ! She probably still is here under some other name. She was so laughed at that in the earlier forum NSK got starred out.

 

[Sentinel]

What about Federer's edge on grass?

IT's really sad when you guys bump these really old threads and we old members see the names of these banned poasters whom we knew and had fun with.
DFTW was quite a riot if i remember. I never figured out why some folks did not like him. I found him funny.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Nadal is talented in discipline and hard work but Federer is a tennis player from GOD

True, and that's why the endless losses to Nadal killed most Fed fans. It was so frustrating to see him choke endless matches he should have easily won. I include several clay matches on there as well: Rome '06, FO '05 and FO 2011, as well as two MC matches which were close.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

I disagree, it is implying that Federer doesn't work hard. He works very hard.