Nadal vs. Federer (Hamburg Final)

Who wins this match?

  • Total voters
    155
Fedace said:
Fed still cannot handle nadal's forehand into his backhand. all fed can do is just get it back into the middle of the court and eventually it falls short and nadal eats it up.
Click to expand...

You apparently didn't like what you saw yesterday, as it was Nadal who was having problems with Fed's backhand yesterday. He rolled his backhand to Nadals FH and then stepped up and hit Nadals crosscourt reply down the line for winner after winner.
 
Fedace said:
There is nothing to figure out, Federer just gets outplayed by nadal and his speed. Fed still cannot handle nadal's forehand into his backhand. all fed can do is just get it back into the middle of the court and eventually it falls short and nadal eats it up. and fed was able to attack the net on tired slower nadal all day in hamburg, once again not going to happen at french.
Click to expand...

Federer has won 3 of his last 4 matches with Nadal, and his 3 wins were on 3 different surfaces. He is the one turning the rivalry in his favor, not vice versa.

Oh yeah since this is the whiny excuses thread Nadal's only win over Federer in their last 4 matches was during the slump when he lost twice to Canas and once to Volandri. So pretty much a joke to beat Fed when he was losing to players like Canas and Volandri, pretty much a default win for Nadal, and it was still a respectable score.
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
How can you count the Korean exhibition and not count the battle of the surfaces exhibition?
Click to expand...

I did not count either exhibition match.

Fed vs Nadal-last 4 matches:

Wimbledon final- Fed wins 6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3
year end Masters semis-Fed wins 7-5, 6-4
Monte Carlo final-Nadal wins 6-4, 6-4
Hamburg final-Fed wins 2-6, 6-2, 6-0
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Lets not forget 2 things:

...

2. Sampras won Rome but he never could win the French. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Why is this relevant. Federer is much better on clay than Sampras on clay, so pointing to the fact that Sampras could not win the French does not show anything. It is like saying, Djokovic can't win the US Open because Canas won a Masters Series on hard and could never win the US Open.
 
Steve Dykstra said:
Why is this relevant. Federer is much better on clay than Sampras on clay, so pointing to the fact that Sampras could not win the French does not show anything. It is like saying, Djokovic can't win the US Open because Canas won a Masters Series on hard and could never win the US Open.
Click to expand...


Not all red clay is created equal.

The clay at Roland garros is actually pulverized brick and some other junk while in Rome its sort of a sandy dusty surface. The surface in Rome is quite a bit faster than the pulverized brick at RG.

The bottom line....they are VERY different surfaces and should not be compared. The only thing they have in common is that they are both red and they are both mistakenly called clay when the fact is that there is no clay in them whatsoever.

Finally, I guess you do concede that Rome was the best of three sets while Roland garros is the best of five. That makes for a whole different ball game. agreed?
 
Last edited:
federerfanatic said:
Fed vs Nadal-last 4 matches:

Wimbledon final- Fed wins 6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3
Click to expand...

Come on...how can you count Wimbledon? I cant believe that Rafa actually even made it to the finals. Whats even more shocking is that Rafa actually almost took two sets off of Fed. Rafa wildly exceeded everyones expectations at Wimbledon. I think he not only shocked Federer but he shocked the entire world.
 
Last edited:
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Come on...how can you count Wimbledon? I cant believe that Rafa actually even made it to the finals. Whats even more shocking is that Rafa actually almost took two sets off of Fed. Rafa wildly exceeded everyones expectations at Wimbledon. I think he not only shocked Federer but he shocked the entire world.
Click to expand...

So you are saying you cant count a grass court match between them, but you can count clay court matches? What twisted logic. The real truth actually is their head to head is skewed by the fact they played 6 times on clay which most favors Nadal, only 1 time on grass which most favors Fed, for the simple reason Federer is much better on clay then Nadal is on grass. This gives Nadal an unfair advantage in the head to head tally, yet you think the 1 meeting on the surface that most favors Fed should be discounted, while Nadal has the luxury of 6 meetings on the surface that most favors him? ROTFL!!! They had 4 meetings on the neutral hard court surface of course, which they split 2-2.
 
Steve Dykstra said:
I beg to differ. Your constant gloating is exactly what trolls do. You justify your trolling by saying that others are trolling too. In the end, you are just the same as the trolls you supposedly despise.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but I don't think so. I am one of the few on these boards (who is not a Nadal fan), that give him a chance to get to the Wimbldeon finals last year. Additionally, the way he is playing think he is again the favorite along with Fed to get to the final of Wimbledon this year.

Now go eat your bagel, and stop making excuses.
 
federerfanatic said:
So you are saying you cant count a grass court match between them, but you can count clay court matches? .
Click to expand...


yes.

Federer is arguably the second best clay courter on the tour right now and the absolute best grass court player right now (don't forget he has the longest winning streak on grass ever!).

While on the other hand Nadal is lucky to make it past the first round on grass. What Nadal did last year at Wimbledon was truly a miracle.
 
Last edited:
Attila the tennis Bum said:
While on the other hand Nadal is lucky to make it past the first round on grass. What Nadal did last year at Wimbledon was truly a miracle.
Click to expand...

I would hardly call it luck. He is an amazing baseline player, served extremely well, and unlike what most people believe>>>> is a good volleyer.

Being that the grass courts at Wimbledon play slower, and the bounce is a bit higher in the last few years it is not surprising to see him do so well there. Nobody else on tour is close to him right now. So why should it be a miracle? Other than Fed, nobody else on tour has an "outstanding" record on grass, so why should it surprise you to think he can't do it again? It's not like there are a ton of "grass-court specialists" on tour.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the finals again.
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Not all red clay is created equal.

The clay at Roland garros is actually pulverized brick and some other junk while in Rome its sort of a sandy dusty surface. The surface in Rome is quite a bit faster than the pulverized brick at RG.

The bottom line....they are VERY different surfaces and should not be compared. The only thing they have in common is that they are both red and they are both mistakenly called clay when the fact is that there is no clay in them whatsoever.

Finally, I guess you do concede that Rome was the best of three sets while Roland garros is the best of five. That makes for a whole different ball game. agreed?
Click to expand...

None of this addresses what I posted. I do concede that the format of best of 5 versus best of 3 makes a difference, that is why I did not choose to debate that point.
 
drakulie said:
Nice try, but I don't think so. I am one of the few on these boards (who is not a Nadal fan), that give him a chance to get to the Wimbldeon finals last year. Additionally, the way he is playing think he is again the favorite along with Fed to get to the final of Wimbledon this year.
Click to expand...

You have been trolling. The above post does not prove that you have not.

drakulie said:
Now go eat your bagel, and stop making excuses.
Click to expand...

Another example of a troll post by you...by the way, I am a huge Federer fan.
 
Steve Dykstra said:
You have been trolling. The above post does not prove that you have not.
Click to expand...

After the ridiculous amount of threads, and subsequent thousands of posts over the course of the last two+ months by Nadal fans>>> Giving them a taste of their own medicine in a few threads for a one day period is hardly trolling.

Oh, an I could care less if you are a Fed fan>>> go eat your bagel. If you don;t like my "troll" posts then stop quoting them and giving me more publicity>>> YOU TROLL!!
 
I never understood this Nadal vs Federer trollings because frankly both Federer and Nadal are the best players of our era by far from the others and there's not much between the two in any way. Clearly Nadal is the successor of Federer although he might not be number 1 for as long as Federer because Federer has a better overall game than Nadal all round for the time being and that's why he's the number 1.
 
Baghdatis72 said:
I never understood this Nadal vs Federer trollings because frankly both Federer and Nadal are the best players of our era by far from the others and there's not much between the two in any way.
Click to expand...

Since when was an 'era' 2 years?

Federer is the best player of the post-Sampras & Agassi era, no question.

Nadal has been, by far, an amazing clay-courter for 2 years, after bursting onto the scene. If he keeps winning and makes more slam finals, sure, he'll rate a mention in a few years time, now.... well Hewitt, Safin, and others rate a mention before Nadal in terms of second-best in this 'era'.

Clearly Nadal is the successor of Federer although he might not be number 1 for as long as Federer because Federer has a better overall game than Nadal all round for the time being and that's why he's the number 1.
Click to expand...

In no way do I see Nadal being the 'successor' of Federer. I see Federer still dominating the tour for the next 1-3 years, although certainly not at the same level as the last 3 years. I don't see Nadal being a threat to the general tour in 1-3 years, I feel he'll follow the same clay-pattern as many, many others before him - though maybe he'll be a factor on clay for longer than the 2-3 years most of them were....
 
OrangeOne said:
In no way do I see Nadal being the 'successor' of Federer. I see Federer still dominating the tour for the next 1-3 years, although certainly not at the same level as the last 3 years. I don't see Nadal being a threat to the general tour in 1-3 years, I feel he'll follow the same clay-pattern as many, many others before him - though maybe he'll be a factor on clay for longer than the 2-3 years most of them were....
Click to expand...


Agreed, I am definitely enjoying witnessing possibly the greatest clay court player of all time. But, like all other players in his mold, I see him burning out.

he has also already had many leg injuries for such a young player.
 
drakulie said:
Agreed, I am definitely enjoying witnessing possibly the greatest clay court player of all time.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although he'll need a few years yet to claim that title.

But, like all other players in his mold, I see him burning out. he has also already had many leg injuries for such a young player.
Click to expand...

It's lucky he doesn't depend on endlessly running and sprinting to win I guess!
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Lets not forget 2 things:

1- it was only the best of three. The French is the best of five. Mcenroe came out and won the first two sets and was leading in the third set against lendl. Bottom line: Mcenroe lost in five.

2. Sampras won Rome but he never could win the French. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Is this a joke post? Did you actually watch the match? Fed has 4 count em 4 Masters Series titles on dirt. Sampras never even came close to that number, were talking about two completely different players on clay.

Fed changed his strategy, his serve patterns, backhand angles, and use of spin were all different from previous matches. The French is no lock for Nadal. If ya don't think ATP players take strategical notes from what other players have done think again. He certainly took note of the little things that other players did well in the past to give Nadal trouble and put them all together. Blake, Berdych, Davydenko, Murray, and Hewitt can all be thanked for this victory on dirt by Federer.

From Blake, Berdych, and Hewitt I think he took the harder flatter hitting to the forehand side to force errors.

From Davydenko the simple use of stretching Nadal while using your own topspin backhand short or wide to his forehand.

From Murray the obvious use of wide serves and specifically wide serves on the deuce side.

That was a tactical clinic on Sunday.
 
Last edited:
drakulie said:
You apparently didn't like what you saw yesterday, as it was Nadal who was having problems with Fed's backhand yesterday. He rolled his backhand to Nadals FH and then stepped up and hit Nadals crosscourt reply down the line for winner after winner.
Click to expand...

Exactly he was able to this cause nadal's forehand was landing short and with no pace, meaning tired shots. Usually nadal's forehand lands within 2 inches of the sideline and jump away like a Kick serve to fed's backhand.
 
ACE of Hearts said:
While Canas has beaten Fed, he hasnt exactly looked sharp on clay.
Click to expand...

It's laughable really, Canas was the Fed killer and showed to everyone that todays players aren't really that good. Well guess again, once everyone got the scouting report on this new and improved Canas he's 1-4 in his last 5 ATP matches. You can only run down 100 balls per point for so long before it eventually gets to you or before people eventually beat you down. At some point you have to turn on the offense or you'll get run ragged. Unlike Nadal, Canas lacks the ability to finish at net or to hit the big forehand time after time.

Chasing every ball down and playing defense most of the time isn't the most effective strategy at the age of 29 for consistant results.
 
Fedace said:
Exactly he was able to this cause nadal's forehand was landing short and with no pace, meaning tired shots. Usually nadal's forehand lands within 2 inches of the sideline and jump away like a Kick serve to fed's backhand.
Click to expand...

I f he was tired, then he needs to switch to a lighter frame with a larger headsize.
 
drakulie said:
I f he was tired, then he needs to switch to a lighter frame with a larger headsize.
Click to expand...

And how is federer gonna get to the french finals when he is going to lose to Canas before that. you can bet that french open draw makers will put canas in the same half as federer. they are twisted.;)
 
to be honest not botherd who federer gets im sure he will sort out canas if he meets him this time as taking 3 sets of federer is very hard to do and only nadal and safin have done this in 3 years
 
R.Federer said:
lol im sure he doesnt care about volandri anymore if he plays him again im sure it will be a different outcome. better make sure nadal even gets to the final with all the tennis he has played
Click to expand...
Yeah especially after his shaky 81 game win streak. He really has a lot to prove.
 
if your mistaken the 81 winning streAk is over by who F.E.D.E.R.E.R.

nadal hasnt got much to prove but he knows any slam is difficult to win and in the back of his mind he will wonder what to do if federer plays the way he did on sunday. and has he has no plan b, i dont think he will be able to do anything about it bagel boy
 
If Federer wins the French Open, Nadal cant even hope to beat him anywhere else. Quite frankly though his hopes to beat him at any other slam event are already minimal as it is, as are his hopes to even get far enough to play him in any other slam event.
 
federerfanatic said:
If Federer wins the French Open, Nadal cant even hope to beat him anywhere else. Quite frankly though his hopes to beat him at any other slam event are already minimal as it is, as are his hopes to even get far enough to play him in any other slam event.
Click to expand...
Feds chances of beating Nadal at the French Open<Nadal's chances at beating Federer on hard court.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Feds chances of beating Nadal at the French Open<Nadal's chances at beating Federer on hard court.
Click to expand...

Some hard court events perhaps. The U.S Open or Shanghai on their very fast hard courts, definitely not. Not to mention Nadal's chances of even getting to the final of those events, vs Federer's of making the final of the French Open.

Federer's chances of stopping Nadal from winning French Open>Nadal's chances of stopping Federer from winning any of Wimbledon, U.S Open, or Shanghai this year.
 
federerfanatic said:
Some hard court events perhaps. The U.S Open or Shanghai on their very fast hard courts, definitely not. Not to mention Nadal's chances of even getting to the final of those events, vs Federer's of making the final of the French Open.

Federer's chances of stopping Nadal from winning French Open>Nadal's chances of stopping Federer from winning any of Wimbledon, U.S Open, or Shanghai this year.
Click to expand...
Nadal beat Federer at Dubai which were considered fast hard courts. Sure I wouldn't pick Nadal as the favorite on hard courts but he has proven he can beat Federer on them.
 
federerfanatic said:
Federers Masters titles on clay-4
Nadals Masters titles on hard-3

Federers Masters finals on clay-9
Nadals Masters finals on hard-4

Federers best French Opens-1 semi, 1 final
Nadals best Australian or U.S Opens-quarters
Click to expand...
Nadal 20 Federer 25. How do you expect Nadal to reach Fed's achievements at such an early age? If Nadal does reach a final at the US Open or Australian Open than he has a decent shot at beating Federer. Better than Federer's chances in the Roland Garros Finals against Nadal.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Nadal 20 Federer 25. How do you expect Nadal to reach Fed's achievements at such an early age? If Nadal does reach a final at the US Open or Australian Open than he has a decent shot at beating Federer. Better than Federer's chances in the Roland Garros Finals against Nadal.
Click to expand...

unfortunatly nadal cant beat the so called clown era players to even get to the finals of those events, so unlucky there
 
Every 'King of Clay' appaers to have feet of clay within 2-3 yrs. Btw, who's next in line? When Fed and Rafa fail, who's next?
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Nadal beat Federer at Dubai which were considered fast hard courts. Sure I wouldn't pick Nadal as the favorite on hard courts but he has proven he can beat Federer on them.
Click to expand...

Federer just beat Nadal on clay, and had match point on him at Rome last year. So he has shown he can beat Nadal on clay too.

Dubai is NOT a fast hard court. To compare Dubai hard courts to the U.S Open or Shanghai is ludricious.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Nadal 20 Federer 25. How do you expect Nadal to reach Fed's achievements at such an early age? If Nadal does reach a final at the US Open or Australian Open than he has a decent shot at beating Federer. Better than Federer's chances in the Roland Garros Finals against Nadal.
Click to expand...

Federer has a better chance to beat Nadal in the French Open final then Nadal does Federer in the U.S Open final on its lightning fast courts by far. The Australian Open chances of Nadal vs Federer might be about equal to the French Open chances of Federer vs Nadal, but Federer's chances of making the French Open final to have a chance are more then Nadal's of making the Australian Open final to have a chance.
 
OrangeOne said:
Since when was an 'era' 2 years?

Federer is the best player of the post-Sampras & Agassi era, no question.

Nadal has been, by far, an amazing clay-courter for 2 years, after bursting onto the scene. If he keeps winning and makes more slam finals, sure, he'll rate a mention in a few years time, now.... well Hewitt, Safin, and others rate a mention before Nadal in terms of second-best in this 'era'.


In no way do I see Nadal being the 'successor' of Federer. I see Federer still dominating the tour for the next 1-3 years, although certainly not at the same level as the last 3 years. I don't see Nadal being a threat to the general tour in 1-3 years, I feel he'll follow the same clay-pattern as many, many others before him - though maybe he'll be a factor on clay for longer than the 2-3 years most of them were....
Click to expand...


Well the last 3 years are part of the era we are currently witnessing and which is the post Sampras era and Federer and Nadal are much better than Safin and Ferrero.

Nadal has been the number 2 for almost 2 years now and he is currently the favorite to take the number 1 spot mathematically when Federer loses his edge in a few years. He may not be at the number 1 spot for long but I believe that he is the one to succeed Federer in the number 1 spot (even for a month's time) before someone else or Federer takes the number 1 spot.

Also I am not saying that Nadal will be the new Federer but a future number 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dangus
  • Poll Poll
Nadal vs. Hewitt (Hamburg Semi-Final)
3 4 5
Replies
230
Views
16K
syntex1
S
Roger is Boring
Nadal VS Federer: WHAT RIVALRY,?!???!
Replies
34
Views
3K
The Pusher Terminator
T
Telepatic
Tsonga has now beaten all top 4 in slams
Replies
18
Views
2K
Comet Buster
C
S
American 1st Round Rolland Garros Wipeout!
Replies
41
Views
4K
EasternRocks
EasternRocks
LazyNinja19
Predict the AO 2017 final scoreline
Replies
42
Views
2K
veroniquem
veroniquem
Back
Top