Serve_Ace
Professional
Federer has won a slam without losing a set (at least one), although I don't remember which one.
Australian Open 2007
Federer has won a slam without losing a set (at least one), although I don't remember which one.
Federer has won a slam without losing a set (at least one), although I don't remember which one.
while I agree that some of her comments can be annoying, she has said a few positive things about federer in the past. I don't think she is constantly hating on fed.
Federer has won a slam without losing a set (at least one), although I don't remember which one.
As a viewer I take it with a grain of salt...
Worse than the Freak himself?
I agree with the OP. If Federer was such a great champion he would figure how to beat Nadal on clay. I'm not a Fed fan, but if he's the "GOAT" like everyone claims he is... then he would have found a way to beat Nadal at RG.
I remember that match against Andy, I thought it was a clinic from Fed (apparently Roddick thought that too!). I haven't seen every Federer match but that match was the best I have seen him play.australian open 2007. I think it was the semi final with andy that was one of his best performances, but poor andy. I wish that match in particular was a little more competitive as well as the entire run fed had in order to win AO 07.
Federer has won a slam without losing a set (at least one slam), although I don't remember which one.
LOL, but you see the difference in that AO that Federer won without losing a set was that he was actually close several times to losing one. There wasn't even a hint that Nadal would drop a set last year.
No, I enjoy watching Nadal crush his opponents! The difference between me and other people here is that I don't have qualms admitting it. I enjoy tight matches in general but I'm that much of a Nadal fan that when he's involved I take pleasure in a spanking (provided he's not on the receiving end of course!) and I'm not ashamed of it if you're intimating that I should be!! I believe you're not completely honest and you enjoyed the Fed- Del Potro match quite a bit, didn't you?So veroniquem, you ignored a post of mine so I'm going to ask again...do you really wish Nadal would just cruise through the draw with no competition at all? Are that much more a Nadal fan than a tennis fan? Wouldn't you prefer watching Nadal challenged, having a hard time, and win at the end?
You think Nadal is a quitter? :shock: Based on what?Actually this is the one problem I have with Nadal, but I'll leave it at that. And don't try to find excuses to your comment - it was uncalled for.
No, I enjoy watching Nadal crush his opponents! The difference between me and other people here is that I don't have qualms admitting it. I enjoy tight matches in general but I'm that much of a Nadal fan that when he's involved I take pleasure in a spanking (provided he's not on the receiving end of course!) and I'm not ashamed of it if you're intimating that I should be!! I believe you're not completely honest and you enjoyed the Fed- Del Potro match quite a bit, didn't you?
There was actually (a hint): 3rd set tiebreak against Djokovic and super tight first set vs Bellucci in the first round (7- 5). Even his first set against Devilder was competitive (6-4).LOL, but you see the difference in that AO that Federer won without losing a set was that he was actually close several times to losing one. There wasn't even a hint that Nadal would drop a set last year.
Here's what I think about the original post. I honestly don't care if Federer wins the FO or not. I don't care what he should or could have done. Hell, I don't care if he never wins another slam at all. He is the best tennis player that I have ever seen on a tennis court.
I will surely agree with that. I can't remember which clay tournament it was--but when Roger won it in five over Rafa, I realized he was the greatest regardless of an RG win or not. Roger winning RG will only help with one thing--quieting the people here on TW/TT. Most tennis purists will agree he is the most gifted, fluid, and talented player to ever play the game.
You think Nadal is a quitter? :shock: Based on what?
Federer has never won a 5 setter against Nadal on clay. Maybe you're referring to Hamburg? (You must be since that's the only match Fed has won vs Nadal on clay!) That was 3 sets.I will surely agree with that. I can't remember which clay tournament it was--but when Roger won it in five over Rafa, I realized he was the greatest regardless of an RG win or not. Roger winning RG will only help with one thing--quieting the people here on TW/TT. Most tennis purists will agree he is the most gifted, fluid, and talented player to ever play the game.
No, I enjoy watching Nadal crush his opponents! The difference between me and other people here is that I don't have qualms admitting it. I enjoy tight matches in general but I'm that much of a Nadal fan that when he's involved I take pleasure in a spanking (provided he's not on the receiving end of course!) and I'm not ashamed of it if you're intimating that I should be!! I believe you're not completely honest and you enjoyed the Fed- Del Potro match quite a bit, didn't you?
Federer has never won a 5 setter against Nadal on clay. Maybe you're referring to Hamburg? (You must be since that's the only match Fed has won vs Nadal on clay!) That was 3 sets.
And people still claim Federer is better than Nadal? Insane![]()
Federer has never won a 5 setter against Nadal on clay. Maybe you're referring to Hamburg? (You must be since that's the only match Fed has won vs Nadal on clay!) That was 3 sets.
Ah you agree? Well there were threads in the past here claiming that Federer was the second best clay courter of all time (based on his consecutive finals at RG).
A quitter would be someone who quits a lot which definitely doesn't apply to Nadal (of course when there is a risk of aggravating an injury by not quitting, it would be foolish not to).I don't think he's a quitter, I said I could have said that and I didn't the same you took Federer's emotional behavior and turned him into a drama queen. You took a mouse and turned it into a mountain, and that's what I refused to do. I am a bit angry with Nadal for retiring that Davydenko match in a tourney where he played both singles and doubles. I think he should have stayed for one short set and let Davy have his well earned win, and I though it was very un-Nadal like. I was quite disappointed with him but I gave him a lot of credit when he didn't retire the recent match with Murray even though he was suffering, so kudos to him.
A quitter would be someone who quits a lot which definitely doesn't apply to Nadal (of course when there is a risk of aggravating an injury by not quitting, it would be foolish not to).
A drama queen is someone who has a lot of exaggerated reactions like "it's killing me", crying, etc. I still think my assessment was correct but I'm not expecting you to agree. There's a difference between disagreeing and attacking somebody else for their opinion.
Uncalled for? Did you see edberg's post? So it's OK for him to post that based on Nadal' excellence, all clay court tournaments should be avoided but it's not OK for me to react? Sorry but we're gonna have to disagree on this. And as far as I'm concerned you're the one trying to flame me here, not the opposite.
Uncalled for? Did you see edberg's post? So it's OK for him to post that based on Nadal' excellence, all clay court tournaments should be avoided but it's not OK for me to react? Sorry but we're gonna have to disagree on this. And as far as I'm concerned you're the one trying to flame me here, not the opposite.
according to the OP, Nadal is not that good. Take it up with him.
Didn't Djokovic call Federer out last year at the AO, after he beat him?
Yes and he came back and beat him every time since. That's stepping up to the challenge. So far Fed has lost 5 in a row to Nadal on every surface. He has to step up to that challenge and change the tide. If he can't do that, he shouldn't be called a GOAT. Simple enough. Right?
The OP is suggesting that Federer could/should beat Nadal at the French. Therefore, he is suggesting, Nadal is not as great on clay as everyone (including you) are making him out to be.
But this is what I like about you>>>> your attention to detail :roll:
Federer just hasn't figured a way to use Nadal's speed and athleticism against him. Fed plays everyone the same way and now people are starting to figure him out. He's spent.
He compared Nadal's results to Federer's results (apparently you didn't understand his post) when they won a slam in straight sets. I jokingly commented on how much better Nadal was than Federer which was a very logical way to react to his post as it clearly showed that Nadal's perf at RG 2008 was better than Fed's perf at AO 2007.You mean the one with the clay courts? Where did he even mention Nadal in there? The results have shown what he thinks should result in less clay courts. What does that have anything to do with "And people say Federer is better than Nadal. Insane" comment?
The GOAT is by far Laver at this moment IMO. However even Sampras has a stronger claim that Federer as he wasnt owned by anyone, atleast not a main rival, despite his shabby results on clay. Krajicek or Ferreria examples are fallacy as they are not main rivals (nor did they really own him).
The GOAT is by far Laver at this moment IMO. However even Sampras has a stronger claim that Federer as he wasnt owned by anyone, atleast not a main rival, despite his shabby results on clay. Krajicek or Ferreria examples are fallacy as they are not main rivals (nor did they really own him).
You think a surface should be eradicated as soon as a very dominant player comes up on it? That is nonsensical to me. Dominant players are what motivate other players to improve and take the challenge. That's what makes the sport progress.LOL, what did I say that was wrong? I posted each of the slams that both Nadal and Federer didn't drop a set. It's quite clear the Nadal's FO was way more dominating. Do you disagree with this? So people would actually like to see more tournaments on clay?
In a sense that's true. To be a GOAT or at least a Best of your own generation you have to beat your biggest and most consistent rival. Sampras had winning records against Agassi, Courier, Becker and Edberg.
In a sense that's true. To be a GOAT or at least a Best of your own generation you have to beat your biggest and most consistent rival. Sampras had winning records against Agassi, Courier, Becker and Edberg.
You think a surface should be eradicated as soon as a very dominant player comes up on it? That is nonsensical to me. Dominant players are what motivate other players to improve and take the challenge. That's what makes the sport progress.
In another sense Sampras couldn't have a big rival on clay because there wasn't a consistent opponent in the finals, as well as the small detail that Sampras didn't make very many clay finals, let alone a Roland Garros final.
If we take that logic it would have been more beneficial for Federer to lose before the finals every year since 2005 at Roland Garros and in Monte Carlo/Rome so that his head to head wouldn't be so bad against Nadal, 3 RG finals + 4 Hamburg titles outweigh Sampras not having been beaten 3 times a year by the same player in clay court matches because he couldn't reach the final.
No, Nadal's not an excuse, but to bring Sampras into the equation makes no sense because Federer is on a much higher level than Pete on clay, and even if he had made 3-4 clay finals a year in his prime years he wouldn't had a consistent rival to face every year and (potentially) ruin his head to head.
OK I see you're referring to Nadal asking for more claycourt tournaments. On that particular issue I think it would be fair to have the same number on clay/ grass/ hard, not realistic at this point but fair. Does anybody know how many tournaments there are on each surface (only pro tour excluding challengers) at the moment?Please show me anywhere in my post that I said all clay courts should be removed. If you can do that I'll give you a cookie. What I said is "NO" to more clay courts.
As for the second part of your statement, yes that's exactly right. So why try to change up the season by putting in more claycourts. Prove your dominance by doing the same on all courts and not whining about there being too many hardcourts.
saram,
I enjoyed your replies on this thread and you saved me from doing a lot of work. It seems you perfectly understood the point of this thread and most others did as well, some reasonable Federer fans included.