Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by BigT, Apr 28, 2008.
Why should one think that he won't be just another counter-puncher with a short career?
Because he is the only one, beside Borg, who won 3 FOs in a row. That says something.
Borg also had a short career....
Borg is not "just another counter-puncher", even with an arguably short career.
Borg was a top-3 player for 8 years. That's not a short career. Federer hasn't been in the top-3 that long.
yeah but hes been the top for LONG
His body is certainly taking a pounding due to his style. But I think he'll gear back his # of tournaments, even if it costs him the #2 ranking, at some point. And losing #2 may be inevitable - Djokovic is just too good on too many surfaces.
I'm not sure if you're using 'counter-puncher' in a semi-derogatory way. Even with his short tugging and occasional liberal use of the time between points, he's a great champion and deserves a ton of respect.
Federer has achieved much more than what Borg did in a shorter time period.
It is new to me that 12 is much more than 11.
err i love the claycourt season, red courts instead of the usual green or blue, you see different players emerge at roland garros and make stands on their career, more drop shot and job combinations and longer rallies...im a clay courter so i guess im biast lol
haha my bad guys wrong thread
Why should one think that nadal is "just another counter-puncher"? Short career maybe, as his game takes a toll on him, but he's far from a counter puncher. He's an aggressive player that does alot more than just consistently get the ball over. He has much more variety than anyone gives him credit for as well. I'm a fed fan through and through, but Nadal deserves as much respect as anyone in the game for having a phenomenal game.
I agree - he always seems ready to learn from his mistakes and I think Rafa is on a permanent learning curve which is good - but I really wish he would have a more consistant serve. When playing close matches - even on clay - I have to hold my breath during his service games!!
Federer also exists in an era with different technology and players so comparisons between the greatness of the two are minimal at best.
I don't mean it in a bad way. He's the best at what he does. He's an animal. I mean that his best weapons are his legs. Look at Hewitt, top 5 player at age 20-25, reaches the AO final, and now is struggling to stay in the top 30.
144 consectutive weeks at #2 (only behind Federer the whole time)
3 French Opens
2 Wimbledon finals
10 Masters series shields
5 titles on hard courts (including 3 AMS hardcourt titles)
8-6 overall vs. Federer
ALL at the age of 21, and still going.....
you do the math idiot!
Actually, this is the way to compare where Nadal stands vis a vis Borg who did burn out early. Borg also started at a young age so the question is really what had he done by 21? Anyone have an answer for that?
Isn't that somewhat irrelevant? The same technology is available to all the players.
Correction ... it's 9-6 overall vs. Federer
No cause the technology influences the style of play. One can only speculate but I don't think Nadal would do nearly as well in Borg's era without modern rackets and strings as he wouldn't be able to play his heavy topspin game.
The longest Nadal match so far on clay is 1 hour 43 minutes. Seems he is able to take players out pretty quick which will extend his career if he keeps it up.
if nadal gets 1 injury it will not be minor, it will be serious. and he will be **** after that
Sounds like you are hoping for this. That is pathetic to wish injury on someone.
That could be said of anyone.
I give him 2 more days, tops.
I would like to congratulate you on a well thought out and descriptive thread title.
In fact if you had switched the title and the actual content it would've been a lot more interesting
Problem is that even when he wins 1 and 1, its still 1:43 with all that time between points
You are exaggerating but I see your point. I think it has to do more with each game being close. A lot of deuces.
On clay yeah, but clay isn't the problem. It's the hard courts that do the damage.
Borg also was notorious in his "hey day" for losing focus and doing a lot of extra cirricular activities....EC activities meaning partying, women, booze, blow, you name it...just watch his biography on the tennis channel to tell you that.....
something tells me thats NO where in the cards for Nadal...he is extremely focused, and still, after 3 years of being number 2, continues to want the top ranking and more and more titles.....
Define much more...
12-11 = 1 as of today. No need for "much more". Also Fed is yet to win RG...
Correct but I like them both
And of course the Aussie Open was a nonentity back then and Borg barely even played it (only once?).
5 Wimbledons and 6 French Opens is f'ing insane in an era where they were complete polar opposites in every respect.
Wow, I have been following Nadal's career and was surprised when you actually and literally look at what he has achieved.
Three Grand Slams isn't a short career. And he's not purely a counter-puncher. He plays more aggressively on hard court.
This thread will start lots of flames between pro-Nadal and anti-Nadal people. Ugh.
And that's the most general thread title I tihnk I've ever read...
LOL. Way to be!
Separate names with a comma.