ttwarrior1
Hall of Fame
what a joke, fed isn't as good as he used to be and its just not joker getting better and fed is almost as good now , so he's wrong and anyone that agrees with him is wrong
Pat Cash: Djokovic is better than Federer at his best
- Thread starter 5555
- Start date
kiki
Banned
everybody doesn't know ...... see below ...
^^ That is what I said was incorrect
clueless , that is exactly what I'm saying. You don't know how good the slamless guys in nalbandian, tsonga, soderling, davydenko etc... are , how good the one or two slammers like roddick, hewitt, safin etc. are because you haven't watched them, you have ZERO clue about them ......
you love pwning yourself badly, don't you ?
You are boring.You just watched tennis for 15 years or so, so you are a tenn in terms of literacy, and your lack of knowledge is outstanding more and more with every post you do.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
Obviously you are biased and blind against Federer. All you do is post negative things. Nadal is one of the greatest players of all time as well. The jury is still out and the rest of his career is not over. All you do is post/start negative Federer threads. I think we have to let the statistics speak for themselves. Unlike your threads here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=425386
or
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=6570977#post6570977
or
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=401739
or
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=424180&page=5
or
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=424724
or
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=424835
or
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=422882
or
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=420098
or
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=419841
or
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=420116
1
1970CRBase
Guest
The opinion of an expert cannot always be regarded as an expert opinion. First it must past some basic tests like logic, objectivity, facts, relevance.
The stuff Cash has said about Mirka and Fed in the past doesn't give much weight to his opinion for me anymore.
The stuff Cash has said about Mirka and Fed in the past doesn't give much weight to his opinion for me anymore.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I give his opinion a lot of weight ....way more than everyone's opinion on this board combined .
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
What about Agassi's opinion? Or Sampras? Or Nadal's? Are they wrong because they disagree with Cash or with you?
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Dark knight and kiki continue to ignore the fact that Agassi has said on many occasions that he feels Federer is the best ever.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Actually Agassi also said that it's weird for a number one to have a losing record against the number 2.....in fact it's probably the only time it's ever happened.
Sampras has said that Nadal is a "beast" ....... I don't think that Sampras even believes that Fed is better.
No one really does in the real world.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
You should go there some time.
There's been countless of posters have explained it to you that Kodes is a good player, not great, but good player. However if you need to believe he's some kind of a greek god just to help you sleep well at night, good for you.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
I like that you take those two supposed quotes (which you didn't actually quote) and ASSUMED that it means that neither man thinks that Federer is the best, when both have actually said it.
Go figure, the **** brain hard at work to come up with nonsense.
Which is more impressive?
Nadal:
- Great on clay and courts that are nearly as slow as clay
Federer:
- Can adapt his style of play to any surface. He can play an old-school Wimbledon serve-and-volley game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlTbDY9p8r4), he can a fast baseline game on hard courts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I37_VKqYjLo), he can a baseline game on slow hard courts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RWtO3OnXXc), he knows his way around a clay court (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKZhgODsiYw), etc.
- Still winning at age 31.
- Can keep up with the modern game using a one-handed backhand!
- Etc.
Nadal:
- Great on clay and courts that are nearly as slow as clay
Federer:
- Can adapt his style of play to any surface. He can play an old-school Wimbledon serve-and-volley game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlTbDY9p8r4), he can a fast baseline game on hard courts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I37_VKqYjLo), he can a baseline game on slow hard courts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RWtO3OnXXc), he knows his way around a clay court (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKZhgODsiYw), etc.
- Still winning at age 31.
- Can keep up with the modern game using a one-handed backhand!
- Etc.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Nadal is more impressive .
.
.
The Dark Knight
Legend
They said a lot of different things at different times .
As things developed you have hints that they were changing their opinions. Saying things like "Nadal is in the road to being the GOAT" or how can fed be the goat of he isn't even the greatest of his own generation .
Let's face it .....Feds lack of competition fooled all of us .....even the greats. But now the fog has lifted and we can see a bit more clearly.
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
You mean the world where Federer is the favorite to win the FO ?
Methinks that's the fake world.
sunof tennis
Professional
I normally let such drivel go, but let me see we can break this down more simply for you. Let's do a comparision of the strokes, etc., each man at his prime.
Serve-Federer wins, no contest
Forehand-Fed wins-greatest stroke in history. Nadal probably has best forehand on clay.
Backhand-slight edge to Federer on all surfaces except clay and slow, high bouncing hard courts which neutralizes Fed's slice,
Volleys- while Nadal may be more consistent now, at their peak, Federer is still a better volleyer.
Overhead- Both have very good, consitent overheads-even
Speed- Edge to Nadal
Footwork-both excellent, slight edge to Federer.
When actually analyzed, the head-to-head dispariity is due primarily to one factor-the overhwhelming majority of their matches were played on clay. Take the clay results out, Federer is ahead.
By the way, I will take Agassi's opnion as expressed in his book over Pat Cash's any day.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Agree.
Who is Pat Cash anyway? Some guy who won exactly 1 Wimbledon? So his worthiness on the topic is the same as someone like Andy Roddick?
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Much less, actually, as Roddick has the added benefit of having played Federer and Djokovic.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Where's the compromise ?
Actually I disagree with every one of your opinions.
Besides that it's a silly way of looking at it....
Take a look at Borg .....he had a very good strokes but no great weapon.....and yet he was one of the greatest players of all time.
It's like comparing two women by saying ...."she has a better nose , better eyes , better lips"......but that doesn't mean on a whole she is prettier.
Nadal & Joker are just both better than Federer ever was or ever will be.
I think Feds problem and his benefit was his lack of competition.
On the one hand it's great racking up grand slams for the record book.....his lack of competition was awesome for making him the goat on paper. But only on paper......
In reality his lack of competition also ruined him. He was never pushed to get to the next level . Nadal and the Joker had to fight to get to the top. It's the competition that made them get to a higher level than Fed.
Only through war and pain can one achieve true greatness........
Federer is merely a paper tiger.
.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Segura was the second best player of the 1950s, in my opinion, behind Gonzales, and just beating Sedgman to that second spot. I would include Kramer, but he barely played after 1953 ended.
Kodes isn't in the same league as Segura. Let's keep things in perspective. But yes, the list is nonsense. It's comical how low players like Vines, Segura and Riggs are rated.
Last edited:
Djokodal Fan
Hall of Fame
Yeah Federer Edges Nadal in almost everything except speed, but he will still consistently loose to him. Ever wondered why?
Fed > Nadal
Banned
What if I perfect an underhanded serve with backspin that lands just barely on the opponents courts and then immediately bounces back to my side. And I can essentially win points at will with this technique because I am able to disguise its use with a normal serve. Does that make me the best tennis player? Ummm, no.
augustobt
Legend
Explain why.
Listen, I understand you have your own top 100 list, everyone can have their own list and they would all be difference. Just because your list doesn't matches with the list from the Tennis Channel doesn't means it's nonsense. You act like you know more than Collins, Flink, John Barrett, Richard Evans, Scott Price, Jon Wertheim, Chris Clarey, Neil Harman, Pete Bodo, Steve Tignor, Bill Macatee, Ted Robinson and the rest of their team. LOL
Evan77
Banned
don't even try. he/she can't. I guess he/she likes his butt and that what 95|% of his fans are all about. they know nothing about tennis, yet they BS here 24/7
intrepidish
Hall of Fame
How many of Nadal's millions of fans do you know personally? How many of Federer's?
How could you say ANYTHING meaningful about their tennis skills?
Apart from the fact that you would first need to possess some yourself which is unlikely
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
I think Nole 2.0 is very close to prime Fed with prime Nadal a bit behind. One thing for sure, Nole's ROS is better than anything ever possessed by Fed or Nadal. His movement is just as good. Stamina is the only question mark I've ever seen regarding Nole.
augustobt
Legend
How many of Nadal's millions of fans do you know personally? How many of Federer's?
How could you say ANYTHING meaningful about their tennis skills?
Apart from the fact that you would first need to possess some yourself which is unlikely
Hey pal, I've been on internet forums since '04, when I was 12. I've seen at least a thousand of different users (guess what? over than 60% were girls). They always use the same argumentation that "rafa has a leading h2h", "doesn't matter federer records, Rafa eat him on clay", "Federer can't be GOAT, Nadal has a leading h2h over him".
And I can show you my skills on court anytime
sunof tennis
Professional
I think I answered that question already. Nadal's head-to-head dominace over Federer is primarily related to the fact that most of their matches have been played on clay. Playing on clay gives Nadal a simple, but hugely effective advantage by hitting his massive, top spin forehands to Federer's one handed backhand. Since these are both two fantastic players, both clearly in hte top ten of all time, the slow high bouncing clay makes all the difference.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Nadal has won both their Australian Open matches, and beaten Federer at Wimbledon.
Fed > Nadal
Banned
Yeah but all of those happened after Federer's best years.
malbaker86
Hall of Fame
Stop it. 14 matches on clay and 11 on hard court and Rafa has won 5 times on hard while Fed has won 2 matches on clay.
sunof tennis
Professional
However, take away the clay results, Federer leads the head-to-head.
The Dark Knight
Legend
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Seriously? You really think Federer only ever beat Nadal at Wimbledon?
I guess they must be much older than we thought if he's had 10 wins against him at the Championships... :roll:
The Dark Knight
Legend
As far as grand slams .....YES!!!
augustobt
Legend
And tennis is just about grand slams, right?
The Dark Knight
Legend
RIGHT!!!!
That's all that history remembers and that's what gets you in the hall of fame.
Do you think anyone cares that Rios was ranked #1 in the world? Or do you think anyone cares that Boris Becker was never a year end #1 ?
It's all about the slams baby....the rest is just an anecdote.
Last edited:
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Wow! I guess if some people had their life to dedicate to such a monumental (and meaningless) task, they could write several encyclopedias about what you don't know about tennis.
Taking lack of knowledge on a subject to such dizzying heights must be a form of art for some, I guess. Pretty impressive.
augustobt
Legend
I guess that should be a team of at least 15 to perform such a task.
a10best
Legend
Cash probably made those comments after going to a pub.
So, a washed up Fed (according to experts) beats a prime Djokovic at French and almost again at US Open. Djokovic needs to dominate for 1 another year and a half to have that distinction. It appears from Cash's comments, that prime Nole is better than a prime Sampras or Agassi too b/c a prime Fed is.
1 yr isn't jacksquat. Murray loses in the locker room and Nadal wasn't 100%. I'd say all are 100% now so the truth will come. Nole did show guts at the AO so it could continue. Nole doing it for 2 yrs+ and 9 slams or more & beating Rafa and Fed along with way, then it is worth mentioning.
As of now, when is winning 5 slams better than 16? or 10 (Rafa) in the same era?
So, a washed up Fed (according to experts) beats a prime Djokovic at French and almost again at US Open. Djokovic needs to dominate for 1 another year and a half to have that distinction. It appears from Cash's comments, that prime Nole is better than a prime Sampras or Agassi too b/c a prime Fed is.
1 yr isn't jacksquat. Murray loses in the locker room and Nadal wasn't 100%. I'd say all are 100% now so the truth will come. Nole did show guts at the AO so it could continue. Nole doing it for 2 yrs+ and 9 slams or more & beating Rafa and Fed along with way, then it is worth mentioning.
As of now, when is winning 5 slams better than 16? or 10 (Rafa) in the same era?
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
According to the genius The Dark Knight: 5>16 and 10>16.
The Dark Knight
Legend
History only remembers grand slams .....
Did you know that Boris Becker was never the year end #1 in the world ? And yet he is considered one of the greatest players of all time . Why do you think that is?
Or take Rios for example ....he was the #1 player in the world ......but it's Yanick Noah who made it to the hall of fame with only one FO to his name.
Murray will never be considered great unless he wins a grandslam.....on te other hand Gaston Gaudio who never did much of anything other than win the FO will be a hall of fame contender. Murray will be nothing in the eyes of history sort of like Tim Mayotte .
Unless you win a grandslam you are not really rembered.....you might not like it , you might not agree with it.....but it's true .
Did you know that Boris Becker was never the year end #1 in the world ? And yet he is considered one of the greatest players of all time . Why do you think that is?
Or take Rios for example ....he was the #1 player in the world ......but it's Yanick Noah who made it to the hall of fame with only one FO to his name.
Murray will never be considered great unless he wins a grandslam.....on te other hand Gaston Gaudio who never did much of anything other than win the FO will be a hall of fame contender. Murray will be nothing in the eyes of history sort of like Tim Mayotte .
Unless you win a grandslam you are not really rembered.....you might not like it , you might not agree with it.....but it's true .
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
No need to be upset by this. These kinds of claims are thrown around every time a player is racking up slams as fast as Nadal and Djokovic.
Federer only had like 4-5 slams and people already started saying that he was better than Sampras was. Additionally, there were plenty of Federer fans who insinuated that Federer was greater than Sampras even though Federer had won less GSs.
All we can do is wait till each players career is over. Sampras fans loved saying that Federer would never reach 14 in 2004-2005. It seemed implausible at the time, but Federer did it. The same can happen with Nadal or Djokovic.
P.S.-As a Fed fan, I really hope they don't catch up.
Last edited:
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Really? Djokovic outlasted Nadal in a 6 hour match after playing a 5 hour SF. USO 2011 is another great example, Nadal was a zombie in the 4th set. He even admitted that he was out of gas. It is safe to say that peak Djokovic can outlast Federer and Nadal. As far as stamina is concerned: Djokovic>Nadal>>Federer
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
Not too long ago Nadal was a clay court specialist.....
Joker has always dominated Nadal on hard courts....this is nothing new.
A more acurate statement is that Joker is a better hard court player and Nadal is a better clay court player.
Grass will be the deciding factor.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Who said so?
Similar threads
