Possibility exists that Federer may not be the greatest player of this era

pj80

Legend
21 year old Nadal is slowly but surely catching up to him....He has better H2H and is improving on all surfaces. And maybe, just maybe he could even surpass Federers slam record. He has 3 already federer at 0 at that stage.
 

edmondsm

Legend
I like my threads this way; nice and fresh....original, with no staleness or redundancy. You know like a clean pair of old underwear......
 

edmondsm

Legend
Sure its a possibility. Nadal is like 15 slams away though, so we should probably wait like half a decade before we start talking about him breaking the record.
Considering he has only won the FO it is premature at best and delusional at worst.
 

edmondsm

Legend
Basically. Nadal has all the ability and all the time to fill a room with slam trophies. But he has been off to such an amazingly fast and impressive start to his career, I think we should all just see how he progresses.

He will retire as the GOAT on clay though, IMO.
 

93sq.

Semi-Pro
lol...nadal wins 1 slam each year....roger 3...
Roger,in the slam he doesn't win,reach the final...

Nadal reaches the final only on the green clay of wimbledon,in the other 2 slams he had never reach the semifinals...


No doubt about the fact nadal is the GOAT on clay

On hard surfaces Hewitt Roddick Gonzales Gasquet Djokovic Yohzny Ljubicic,and Safin Blake and haas if they are in good shape are better than Rafa...
 

alan-n

Professional
At the moment I think Nadal will be on pace to just exceed Agassi. Who knows what will happen, Federer is on pace for 16-18 slams which I think Rod Laver would have easily exceeded if not for the politics of the time.
 

93sq.

Semi-Pro
Ok...many people are saying that this year fed is not at his best...

He won 2 of the 3 slams played...and probably he will win usopen too..


so,if next year he will be in a better shape...will he win the 4 slams and the 9 MS!?

Oh.no....Nadal will....lol
 

GOD_BLESS_RAFA

Semi-Pro
This Wimbly loss will motivate him to improve more on any surface...on grass to challenge the Grass Master, on clay to remain the Clay Master during his career that should be his reaction...there are still a lot to improve!
hard surfaces are hard yet!
 

keithchircop

Professional
I take it there is a chance, but lets talk once he has won a slam on another surface..

Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance!
 

CyBorg

Legend
Unlikely. Nadal will win his share of majors, but I think he will always struggle somewhat on fast hardcourts (US Open) and never quite dominate on grass (but will win a Wimbledon). Ultimately his body will break down unless he adjusts his game somewhat with age. He's 21 now, so he has a good 3-4 years perhaps of dominating clay and picking up a fair share of other titles. That won't amount to more majors than with what Federer will finish.

Roger could very possibly be like Laver. He is a finesse player who was very much a late bloomer. In terms of mileague he has as much as certain 22-year old dirtballers over the history of the game. He is so economical in the way he moves I wouldn't be surprised to see him stay competitive for another 6-7 years and potentially retire in his mid-30s (depending on the way he handles his inevitable decline).

Don't be shocked to see Nadal retire earlier than Roger.
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
21 year old Nadal is slowly but surely catching up to him....He has better H2H and is improving on all surfaces. And maybe, just maybe he could even surpass Federers slam record. He has 3 already federer at 0 at that stage.

It's strange, even though Nadal has improved and getting closer to Federer, Federer has improved his H2H from 6-1 to 8-5. Which is strange.


Becker had 4 GS by the age of 21, and your point is?
 

anointedone

Banned
I have said before that I have no doubt Nadal will win atleast 10 slams, and win atleast 3 of the 4 different slam events atleast once. There isnt one specific one I dont think he can win, and I do think it is possible he wins all 4 too. I think he has a chance to win Wimbledon or the U.S Open each atleast once in his career, but that it is possible he may end up never winning one or the other, but he will win atleast one of the two once, and he might win both. Definitely wins the Australian atleast once, maybe more. More French Opens for sure.
 

fastdunn

Legend
When Federer finally did break out, he was 22.
By that time, he accumulate enough experiences on all surfaces.

Nadal, on the other hand, already did break-thru, at 18-19,
most success on clay, is gaining experiences on other surfaces.

All surfaces are more similar compared to past. If Federer doesn't win
all slams, next top dog will do, if these tour surfaces conditions continue, IMHO.
 

RoddickAce

Hall of Fame
When Federer retires, Nadal might take over, but then just when everyone thought Roddick was gonna rule, federer came, when everyone thought federer was gonna rule(he did by the way), nadal came. So there might be an 6"8 anti-nadal with huge flat strokes and doesn't mind high topsin balls cuz of his height.
 
Of course the possibility exists, what a stupid question...its not likely but of course its possible. I don't see Nadal's game translating over a full decade though like Sampras...it's too physically draining and taxing...
 

LafayetteHitter

Hall of Fame
The thing is this. The GREAT tennis players find a way to win. Getting close doesn't count here guys. When you are the best you find a way to win. Other players have taken a match off Federer here and there and I don't see you Nadal fan's calling out that these guys are possibly the best. We all know some of you get upset that Pmacs little boyfriend can't win on anything other than clay in a slam with Federer because, Federer finds a way! He isn't my favorite player but he sure can find a way to win. In the words of Glenn Gary Glenn Ross, First place a brand new Cadillac...Second place a set of steak knives! Hope Nadal likes steak.....
 

Adrupert

New User
i don't think nadal's body can keep up with his playing style in a couple of years.

Agreed. He is still very young and his body can take the punishment it endeavors, but as time wears on I think his body will too. He will peak much earlier then Federer IMO.
 

InvisibleSoul

Hall of Fame
Here is all you need to know: Early success does NOT translate into continued and longterm success.

Just because Nadal has won 3 slams by 21 and Federer 0 does NOT mean he will end up with more grand slams. It does NOT even IMPLY that he will end up with more grand slams. It is POSSIBLE that he could end up with more grand slams, but it has NO correlation to the stated fact.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Fed is the best player of his era, but last time I checked the head to head, Nadal was still better than Federer.
 

InvisibleSoul

Hall of Fame
I actually think Nadal's forehand is very similar to Federer's in terms of
basic stroke mechanism.
How can that possibly be, when Federer uses a Easternish or at most mildly semi-western, and Nadal uses an extreme western grip? They're are about as different as it gets.
 

anointedone

Banned
Yes and most of them are on the red stuff, Fed's least favorite and Rafa's dominant surface.

Federer is better then everyone not named Nadal on clay. So Nadal deserves more credit then he does get for always beating Federer on clay. Federer is a great clay courter who would have won multiple French Opens in most generations. Nadal shows great strength and mental resilence to keep winning the French. It is not like Federer is some Sampras-like pushover on clay.
 

simi

Hall of Fame
Fed is the best player of his era, but last time I checked the head to head, Nadal was still better than Federer.

Maybe if Nadal made it to the finals as often as Federer, they would play each other more often. And the resulting H2H might be a little different.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
I actually think Nadal's forehand is very similar to Federer's in terms of
basic stroke mechanism.

More or less, yes. In fact, I argue that both can be considered modernized descendants of the Laver FH.

In some respects, the game of surface leverage comes down to the grip. When the balls are consistently bouncing very high, it's outside of Federer's ideal contact zone with the Eastern-ish grip. When the balls are flying, Nadal can't hit the ball out in front enough with his straight-arm, Western style.
 

127mph

Semi-Pro
the thing is federer plays tennis so pretty and is like nothing we have ever seen. thats the foremost reason hes gonna be the GOAT if he wins the french and 15 slams. A guy could play ugly gringing tennis like david ferrer and win 13 slams, but if you put him next to a guy like federer who plays the game so smooth, your gonna take federer right?
 

2shots

New User
Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance!
Brilliant. I hope those are not the odds Nadal has
 
Fed is the best player of his era, but last time I checked the head to head, Nadal was still better than Federer.

Definition of "better" is quite subjective on these boards. By your definition, the following players are "better" than Sampras:

Sergi Bruguera 3-2
Paul Haarhuis 3-1
Lleyton Hewitt 5-4
Richard Krajicek 6-4
Marat Safin 4-3
Michael Stitch 5-4

Though James Blake is 3-0 against Nadal, is he really "better"?
 

tennis_hand

Hall of Fame
Head to head doesn't matter much when you talk about the greatest of a certain era. What matters is the overall domination and the winnings of GS. Nadal doesn't dominate the whole field as Fed does and Nadal doesn't win different Slams beside the French. If he was so dominate, he should have won a different Slam at least.

The extreme case: If someone always beat Fed and has a 100% record, but loses to everyone else, do u consider him the greatest? That you beat the best doesn't make you the best. This is sports, not simple math comparison.
 
Nadal will need more than his speed and strength to win the USO or AO (arent they making it faster?) where the slower weaker guys benefit from flatter groundstrokes. you can only run so fast to chase down that yellow ball
 
It's already a fact that Rod Laver and Borg are way more talented than either Federer or Nadal. They actually were capable of winning French Open and Wimbledon in the same year unlike Federer or Nadal. I guess we should be discussing who is the number 3 player of all time.
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
It's already a fact that Rod Laver and Borg are way more talented than either Federer or Nadal. They actually were capable of winning French Open and Wimbledon in the same year unlike Federer or Nadal. I guess we should be discussing who is the number 3 player of all time.

Your opinion that 'talent' is only measured by winning 2 tournaments is laughable.

What is also laughable is that you think neither Federer OR Nadal will be able to achieve this feat.
 

Eviscerator

Banned
21 year old Nadal is slowly but surely catching up to him....He has better H2H and is improving on all surfaces. And maybe, just maybe he could even surpass Federers slam record. He has 3 already federer at 0 at that stage.

:roll: :roll:
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
One of the greatest, but not the GOAT. He only made it to the FO semis once in career. You have to win all the slams and have double digit slam victories to be the greatest.

Say's who?

Hypothetical question: If Agassi ended up with 10 GS AND a different player ends up with 17 GS (only on 3 surfaces) but makes numerous final appearances on the other 'surface' then you are saying Agassi is is greater than that player?
 

mileslong

Professional
Fed is the best player of his era, but last time I checked the head to head, Nadal was still better than Federer.
that is such a convoluted, ridiculous point thats its not even worth replying to really. do we really have to run down all the head to heads against various players including nadal and other players. leading in a head to head means NOTHING! if federer and nadal had played 13 times on grass do you think the record would be 8-5 nadal? what about hard courts? still 8-5 nadal? get a clue, jesus...
 
One of the greatest, but not the GOAT. He only made it to the FO semis once in career. You have to win all the slams and have double digit slam victories to be the greatest.

That's certainly not my criteria for greatest ever...perhaps most versatile ever...GOAT to me is symbolic of dominance, meaning Slam titles and weeks/years at number 1, winning on different surfaces is a factor...but not the factor...
 
Top