What is the worst thing that can happen to Nadal and his legacy?

Talker said:
It's too early to talk about Nadal's legacy.
However Fed did hold the #1 and many Slams were won on Rafa's watch, against the same field Fed has much more hardware.

This can't be explained away no matter what Nadal does now.
Fed had people trying to derail him in his prime but what Djokovic is doing to Nadal no one had done to Federer while in his prime.

Nadal needs to start making more slam finals, we know what Fed's record is there with streaks of 10 and 8 straight.

Djokovic may well become the masters king the way he is going also, on Nadal's watch.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

If Nadal wins a slam this year this will have been the 7th consecutive year winning slams. Fed with a much,much easier style had 8 consecutive years of winning slams.

We can safely assume that the bulk of his legacy is done.

What matters now is if he can snatch a couple of slams and masters on his way out.

His last objectives are matching Borg for total RG's and maybe also matching him for total slams.

Remember, Nadal said 30 is his max age on tour, something backed up by Tony as well. My guess is that Rafa call it quits around 28. By that time he will have 13 seasons on tour, and most grinders had around 13-14 seasons on tour and were pretty much redundant in their last years.
 
namelessone said:
No it's not.

If Nadal wins a slam this year this will have been the 7th consecutive year winning slams. Fed with a much,much easier style had 8 consecutive years of winning slams.

We can safely assume that the bulk of his legacy is done.
What matters now is if he can snatch a couple of slams and masters on his way out.

His last objectives are matching Borg for total RG's and maybe also matching him for total slams.

Remember, Nadal said 30 is his max age on tour, something backed up by Tony as well. My guess is that Rafa call it quits around 28. By that time he will have 13 seasons on tour, and most grinders had around 13-14 seasons on tour and were pretty much redundant in their last years.
Click to expand...

There's no safety in this assumption.
Nadal may well win 7 more slams, who knows?
Just because he's been losing lately is a poor indicator of how well he'll play later.
He's gone 8 months at a time with doing little and then starts putting things together again.
I don't know if he has objectives, he just plays as well as he can, a point at a time and lets the results fall where they may.

To answer the OP: Not winning anymore slams would hurt quite a bit.
 
Talker said:
There's no safety in this assumption.
Nadal may well win 7 more slams, who knows?
Just because he's been losing lately is a poor indicator of how well he'll play later.
He's gone 8 months at a time with doing little and then starts putting things together again.
I don't know if he has objectives, he just plays as well as he can, a point at a time and lets the results fall where they may.

To answer the OP: Not winning anymore slams would hurt quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Time waits for no man.

Nadal said that his MAX age on tour would be 30.

His last good year on tour will be when he is 28'ish IMO. So from this point(mid 2011) to 2014, he has like 15 slam participations. To make another 7 he has to win half of them and I doubt Rafa at 27-28 is the same as his younger self. Not to mention that by that time other young guys will be hitting their stride, no to mention djokovic,murray,delpotro and so on. Not to mention that nadal is not the greatest planner around, heck, he basically f**ed himself over in 2009 for two slams alone by not planning around his knee issues.

IMO Nadal reaching 16 slams is pretty much impossible.

12-13 slams is probably max for Rafa and that is my very optimistic view :)
 
namelessone said:
Time waits for no man.

Nadal said that his MAX age on tour would be 30.

His last good year on tour will be when he is 28'ish IMO. So from this point(mid 2011) to 2014, he has like 15 slam participations. To make another 7 he has to win half of them and I doubt Rafa at 27-28 is the same as his younger self. Not to mention that by that time other young guys will be hitting their stride, no to mention djokovic,murray,delpotro and so on. Not to mention that nadal is not the greatest planner around, heck, he basically f**ed himself over in 2009 for two slams alone by not planning around his knee issues.

IMO Nadal reaching 16 slams is pretty much impossible.

12-13 slams is probably max for Rafa and that is my very optimistic view :)
Click to expand...

To me you're the GOAT of Nadal fans.

It's cute and admirable, and at the same time heartbreaking.
 
This is Nadal's time. He definitely wants to win more, otherwise it will be very disappointing. Just imagine Fed had stop winning back in 2006, his legacy would have been TOTALLY difference. And we know Nadal is more hungry, more motivated than Fed at the same age.
 
OddJack said:
To me you're the GOAT of Nadal fans.

It's cute and admirable, and at the same time heartbreaking.
Click to expand...

Why?

Because I'm being realistic unlike many of the Nadal fans around here?

What's heartbreaking is the doe eyed way too optimistic Nadal fans(many of whom are female, no offense ladies :) ), who can't see that Nadal already has SIX YEARS at the top(this is the seventh) and that it's only downhill from here. Nadal already has 10 seasons on the pro tour, this is his 11th. Most grinders retired around 13-14th season and weren't all that hot in their last years. This is FACT. So the 28 year mark is not something I'm just throwing out of my ass.

Heck, Federer, the most fluid tennis player I have ever seen, is majorly slowing down in his 13th season on the pro tour and there are talks of him retiring after 2012, in his 14th season.

When Nadal won three slams last year I said at the time(when most were predicting 8-10 RG and over 16 slams) that his max number in RG will be 7 and 13 overall in slams. Check my posts.
 
Last edited:
TMF said:
This is Nadal's time. He definitely wants to win more, otherwise it will be very disappointing. Just imagine Fed had stop winning back in 2006, his legacy would have been TOTALLY difference. And we know Nadal is more hungry, more motivated than Fed at the same age.
Click to expand...

Uh, Fed was in his fourth year of winning slams in 2006 and that was his primiest prime according to his own fans.

Nadal's peak gamewise also came four years after winning his first slam as well, in 2008.

How is Nadal, in 2011, in his prime after SIX CONSECUTIVE YEARS ofwinning slams? You honestly don't think that there is a slowdown? Fed had a slowdown after five years of winning slams and Fed has a more fluid game and can do more on court than Rafa.

Before you give the "he won 3 slams last year" speech, Fed also won three slams in 2007, and he struggled to win that USO in 2008. Something tells me it might be the same story with Rafa this year.
 
namelessone said:
Uh, Fed was in his fourth year of winning slams in 2006 and that was his primiest prime according to his own fans.

Nadal's peak gamewise also came four years after winning his first slam as well, in 2008.

How is Nadal, in 2011, in his prime after SIX CONSECUTIVE YEARS ofwinning slams? You honestly don't think that there is a slowdown? Fed had a slowdown after five years of winning slams and Fed has a more fluid game and can do more on court than Rafa.

Before you give the "he won 3 slams last year" speech, Fed also won three slams in 2007, and he struggled to win that USO in 2008. Something tells me it might be the same story with Rafa this year.
Click to expand...



The difference is that Federer lost to literally everyone in 2008.


Nadal has lost to 2 guys. Ferrer because he was clearly injured, and Djokovic because Djokovic basically has a huge upperhand in the match-up right now. Only two. Period. You know how many players Federer lost to in 2008? Don't make me laugh.

And please, don't say because Nadal lost sets to some no names. I can easily name plenty of sets Federer dropped to a bunch of no name players in SLAMS during his prime. So stop.
 
Last edited:
namelessone said:
Uh, Fed was in his fourth year of winning slams in 2006 and that was his primiest prime according to his own fans.

Nadal's peak gamewise also came four years after winning his first slam as well, in 2008.

How is Nadal, in 2011, in his prime after SIX CONSECUTIVE YEARS ofwinning slams? You honestly don't think that there is a slowdown? Fed had a slowdown after five years of winning slams and Fed has a more fluid game and can do more on court than Rafa.

Before you give the "he won 3 slams last year" speech, Fed also won three slams in 2007, and he struggled to win that USO in 2008. Something tells me it might be the same story with Rafa this year.
Click to expand...

Common now namlessness,


This is when Nadal holds 3 major titles, 3

His game primed on all surfaces. And he is the number one player.

Djoker has him by his collars in his primetime. Dont be silly, dont make excuses.
 
OddJack said:
Common now namlessness,


This is when Nadal holds 3 major titles, 3

His game primed on all surfaces. And he is the number one player.

Djoker has him by his collars in his primetime. Dont be silly, dont make excuses.
Click to expand...



He doesn't like to mention the fact that Federer in 2008 sucked for the first half of the season anyways, losing to clowns everywhere.
 
OddJack said:
Common now namlessness,


This is when Nadal holds 3 major titles, 3

His game primed on all surfaces. And he is the number one player.

Djoker has him by his collars in his primetime. Dont be silly, dont make excuses.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Are you following the race?

Nadal hasn't been the nr.1 player this year since like early February.

2011 isn't 2010. This year Djokovic has been the nr.1 player, from January till now. Points don't lie.
 
namelessone said:
:confused:

Are you following the race?

Nadal hasn't been the nr.1 player this year since like early February.

2011 isn't 2010. This year Djokovic has been the nr.1 player, from January till now. Points don't lie.
Click to expand...

See? That only means Nadal is better than everyone else except djoker :)
that was my point. :)
 
namelessone said:
IMO Nadal reaching 16 slams is pretty much impossible.

12-13 slams is probably max for Rafa and that is my very optimistic view :)
Click to expand...
Don't worry, this Noel phenomenon will blow over. You can kick me in my teeth if that doesn't happen soon, hehe. Nadal will be back to his winning ways. Reaching 16 isn't the only thing left in tennis to achieve. A lot of players with a lot fewer are still remembered -- too many to name.

My concern is more mental burn out, since i am not sure how much Nads really enjoys tennis, the brutal workouts day after day, then grinding out each point ...
 
NamRanger said:
He doesn't like to mention the fact that Federer in 2008 sucked for the first half of the season anyways, losing to clowns everywhere.
Click to expand...

So what, in 2009, Federer re-primed? And the same for the second half of the 2010?

Just cause players go out of their prime doesn't mean that they are klutzes, just that they aren't as good as before. This goes for Rafa as well.

If you wanna go the clowns route, I can also say that, in his "primiest" year, 2010,Nadal lost to Ljubicic(past prime), Roddick(past prime), Baghdatis(who hadn't won a match against Rafa in like nine meetings), Lopez(spanish lapdog, no?), Garcia Lopez(ha ha) and Melzer.

Oh, and in 2011, still in his "prime" mind you, was bageled by Lacko(who?), was down a double break to freaking tomic, lost a set to nr.148 in the world ON CLAY.

I'm trying to have a serious discussion but unfortunately many here are still in their fed vs nadal mode from years past.

Think about it LOGICALLY:

One of the most talented players of all time, with a fluid style, has FIVE YEARS of PRIME tennis(2003-2007) yet Nadal, a GRINDER first and foremost, has SIX(2005-2010) and shows no signs of slowing down in his seventh?

Apparently it's easier to last longer while playing harder.

Give me a freaking break.
 
Last edited:
namelessone said:
:confused:

Are you following the race?

Nadal hasn't been the nr.1 player this year since like early February.

2011 isn't 2010. This year Djokovic has been the nr.1 player, from January till now. Points don't lie.
Click to expand...

And why is he not #1? B/c Nole is better. But that does not mean Nadal isn't in his prime. He's still holds 3 of the 4 slam crowns. Much the same Fed at same age in 2006 held 3 slam crowns.
 
namelessone said:
So what, in 2009, Federer re-primed? And the same for the second half of the 2010?

Just cause players go out of their prime doesn't mean that they are klutzes, just that they aren't as good as before. This goes for Rafa as well.

If you wanna go the clowns route, I can also say that, in his "primiest" year, 2010,Nadal lost to Ljubicic(past prime), Roddick(past prime), Baghdatis(who hadn't won a match against Rafa in like nine meetings), Lopez(spanish lapdog, no?), Garcia Lopez(ha ha) and Melzer.

Oh, and in 2011, still in his "prime" mind you, was bageled by Lacko(who?), was down a double break to freaking tomic, lost a set to nr.148 in the world ON CLAY.

I'm trying to have a serious discussion but unfortunately many here are still in their fed vs nadal mode from years past.

Think about it LOGICALLY:

One of the most talented players of all time, with a fluid style, has FIVE YEARS of PRIME tennis(2003-2007) yet Nadal, a GRINDER first and foremost, has SIX(2005-2010) and shows no signs of slowing down in his seventh?

Apparently it's easier to last longer while playing harder.

Give me a freaking break.
Click to expand...

Hi namelessone,

just wanna say i like reading your analysis about nadal, its very technical and unbiased. I think you're the only nadal fan on this board who's posts are worth reading and I'm a hardcore Federer fan. So keep posting!
 
TMF said:
And why is he not #1? B/c Nole is better. But that does not mean Nadal isn't in his prime. He's still holds 3 of the 4 slam crowns. Much the same Fed at same age in 2006 held 3 slam crowns.
Click to expand...

Fed also held three crowns in 2007. You know what happened in 2008...
 
namelessone said:
Fed also held three crowns in 2007. You know what happened in 2008...
Click to expand...

Yes but 2007 was the third time Fed won 3 slams in a year and his winning percentage was worse than in the other 2 years he achieved the same feat.In Nadal's case 2010 was the first and only(so far)time he won 3 slams so not the best comparison.If Fed started declining in 2005 after 3 slam year in 2004 you would have more of a case.
 
monfed said:
Hi namelessone,

just wanna say i like reading your analysis about nadal, its very technical and unbiased. I think you're the only nadal fan on this board who's posts are worth reading and I'm a hardcore Federer fan. So keep posting!
Click to expand...
There's also Drakulie, and then Gorecki and aphex. I like Blinkism, too. All objective Nadal fans. I'm a tad whacky.
 
NamRanger said:
The difference is that Federer lost to literally everyone in 2008.


Nadal has lost to 2 guys. Ferrer because he was clearly injured, and Djokovic because Djokovic basically has a huge upperhand in the match-up right now. Only two. Period. You know how many players Federer lost to in 2008? Don't make me laugh.

And please, don't say because Nadal lost sets to some no names. I can easily name plenty of sets Federer dropped to a bunch of no name players in SLAMS during his prime. So stop.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I find it funny how Nadal fans claimed that Nadal > Federer because, at the same age Nadal achieved more than Federer. Number of years on tour, energy and years spent dominating, doesn't matter in this comparison because Nadal will definitely continue to dominate.

Nadal loses to Djoker 4 times in a row and now number of years winning matters, and Nadal is not in his prime.
 
RoddickAce said:
Agreed, and I find it funny how Nadal fans claimed that Nadal > Federer because, at the same age Nadal achieved more than Federer. Number of years on tour, energy and years spent dominating, doesn't matter in this comparison because Nadal will definitely continue to dominate.

Nadal loses to Djoker 4 times in a row and now number of years winning matters, and Nadal is not in his prime.
Click to expand...

They contradict themselves in every threads. This clay season is at a new height.
 
RoddickAce said:
Agreed, and I find it funny how Nadal fans claimed that Nadal > Federer because, at the same age Nadal achieved more than Federer. Number of years on tour, energy and years spent dominating, doesn't matter in this comparison because Nadal will definitely continue to dominate.

Nadal loses to Djoker 4 times in a row and now number of years winning matters, and Nadal is not in his prime.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was talking about before. People unwilling to listen to reason because they fear it will tamper with something on their fed vs nadal list.

Number of years doesn't matter? Are you listening to yourself?

Federer has ****ing five prime years(2003-2007) with the easiest style on the body ever and even he slows down after 2007, even while winning slams(he won four after 2007). I don't think anyone here can argue that Fed is still in his prime after 2007.

Are you telling me, that a guy like Nadal, with a extreme style, winning slams since 2005 is IN HIS PRIME in his SEVENTH year as a top player?

Woah, too good this Nadal.

This is just arguing semantincs. Not being in your prime doesn't mean you are ****(fed won a couple of MS, 4 slams and TMC post prime), just that you can't be expected to have the same level as before.
 
syc23 said:
The only way Rafa would destroy his legacy is if he was found to have taken performance enhancement drugs, illegal betting and throwing matches, or in the middle of losing to Djokovic decides to jump over the net mid match and drop kicked him WWF style.

None of the above has happened so far or is likely to so his status as one of the future tennis hall of fame is assured. As is Federer, when these 2 does decide to quit someday, people will moan that they don't have another tennis rivalry like it.

Cherish it, much like the NBA is now a poorer place without Mike, Magic, Larry, Isiah, Clyde, Charles and Pippen. Tennis could be entering the same phase.
Click to expand...
^ Exactly.
____________________

OddJack, TMF and co. want to make such a big deal out of this because otherwise they wouldn't be able to enjoy Nadal's loses so much. :wink:
When Federer used to lose matches a few years ago I was glad. These days I'm not and sometimes I even feel sorry when he loses.
That's because he's got nothing to lose anymore and regardless of the results he'll still be considered one of the greatest players ever (probably the greatest).
It's the same with Rafa. Even though he's younger he has already achieved a lot, maybe not as much as Federer, but still enough to be considered a legend of this game. And Djokovic (or any other player) can't change that.
 
RoddickAce said:
Agreed, and I find it funny how Nadal fans claimed that Nadal > Federer because, at the same age Nadal achieved more than Federer. Number of years on tour, energy and years spent dominating, doesn't matter in this comparison because Nadal will definitely continue to dominate.

Nadal loses to Djoker 4 times in a row and now number of years winning matters, and Nadal is not in his prime.
Click to expand...

(I tell you what matters most, HEAD2HEAD in slams. Rafa leads Federer 6-2, and Rafa leads Djokovic 1-0. And Rafa is 2-0 against them in hardcourt slams)
 
If novak can beat nadal in the final of RG 2011 thus making it 5 straight wins and 3 on clay then maybe it willl question his GOAT status.
 
(^Rafa obviously GOAT on clay once he equals Borg's 6 RGs, because he's won the other clay titles more than anyone else. Nobody can fight the facts)
 
cc0509 said:
Only in the fantasyland you have contrived inside your head!
Click to expand...

:)

Yeah, in his(and their) mind only the most favorable scenario for Rafa is the one that MATTERS.

With a couple of points here and there, Andreev could have a equal or positive h2h with Fed in slams.

Would that mean that he is the better player?
 
Last edited:
I completely mistitled this thread. Should never have mentioned the word legacy. Actually I put it in as an afterthought, stupidly trying to capture your attention. Now this has turned into a Nadal/Federer debate, while I had simply envisioned a discussion about Nadal's current battle with Djokovic for supremacy. Anyway, it's too late now. My apologies. Please carry on.
 
namelessone said:
:)

Yeah, in his(and their) mind only the most favorable scenario for Rafa is the one that MATTERS.With a couple of points here and there, Andreev could have a equal or positive h2h with Fed in slams.

Would that mean that he is the better player?
Click to expand...

That is precisely it! I really like Roger and Rafa but at times I think both of them say or do stupid things. Just because you like a player does not mean you have to make unbalanced excuses for him/her. Roger is in serious decline and Rafa is playing far from his best. Why can't other people(****S) admit these things?

I know you like Rafa but your analysis is pretty good in terms of where Rafa likely is right now in his career. You are a sane ********! :) :) Bravo!
 
Did anyone say "blow all his money on a series of bad business deals and divorces and end up an overweight, bald greeter at the Barcelona Wal-mart" yet?
 
CMM said:
Some people called him clay GOAT when he only had 4 RG titles :)

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=329475

I don't think RG is the only thing that matters. What about his 7 consecutive MC titles? His 81 consecutive clay court wins, the 2010 clay court sweep?
All this GOAT talk is subjective.
Click to expand...

Yes Nadal's "other than major" clay court wins are important. Nobody is saying they are not as far as I can see. However, Rafa needs to win that 6th RG title at the very minimum if he wants to be considered the clay court GOAT ahead of Borg. It really is not a matter of being subjective, it is a fact.
 
namelessone said:
Exactly what I was talking about before. People unwilling to listen to reason because they fear it will tamper with something on their fed vs nadal list.

Number of years doesn't matter? Are you listening to yourself?

Federer has ****ing five prime years(2003-2007) with the easiest style on the body ever and even he slows down after 2007, even while winning slams(he won four after 2007). I don't think anyone here can argue that Fed is still in his prime after 2007.

Are you telling me, that a guy like Nadal, with a extreme style, winning slams since 2005 is IN HIS PRIME in his SEVENTH year as a top player?

Woah, too good this Nadal.

This is just arguing semantincs. Not being in your prime doesn't mean you are ****(fed won a couple of MS, 4 slams and TMC post prime), just that you can't be expected to have the same level as before.
Click to expand...

I think your definition of a player's prime is ********, arbitrary, and wrong. Federer in 2008-2009 declined from his PEAK, which was 2004-2007, but was definitely still in his prime, still making slam SF and finals, and still won 4 slams as you mentioned. You don't win 4 slams out of your prime, you just don't. Post AO 2010 is where Fed started to decline, and losing RG QF and Wimbledon QF to end the SF streak was pretty much the end of 'prime Fed'. Great players can still have flashes of prime level, and we saw that from Fed at the WTF. But all in all, prime Fed is done. So yes, Fed's prime was 2003-2009, with his PEAK years being 2004-07.

Nadal is still in his prime, and there's no way you can argue that he's not unless he goes the rest of the year without winning a slam. Nadal wins RG, Wimbledon, or both, then all this stuff about him not being in his prime anymore looks quite foolish. It's just the fact that he's losing to Djokovic, a guy who's always been a tough matchup for him, that leads you to pull the crap about him not being in his prime.

Novak's playing the best tennis of his career, and Nadal's level isn't up to it now; but that does NOT mean that Nadal isn't in his prime, just that Novak is playing his best and stepping up. Don't take away from Djokovic by pulling the crap about Nadal not being in his prime, because there's no way that a guy that's still #1, making finals at practically every event, and holder of 3/4 slams is not in his 'prime'. Nadal's peak years were obviously 08, first half of 09, and 2010. 2011 could be another peak year, we don't know yet. He wins RG/Wimbledon double again, it would be hard to argue that he's not in his prime and probably still at his peak. It's just that Djokovic has stepped up. We'll see if Nadal can match him at RG.
 
the worst thing that can happen to Nadal's legacy is having his fan base in TTW, the most deluded bunch i have ever seen
 
TMF said:
This is Nadal's time. He definitely wants to win more, otherwise it will be very disappointing. Just imagine Fed had stop winning back in 2006, his legacy would have been TOTALLY difference. And we know Nadal is more hungry, more motivated than Fed at the same age.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily true.
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
I think your definition of a player's prime is ********, arbitrary, and wrong. Federer in 2008-2009 declined from his PEAK, which was 2004-2007, but was definitely still in his prime, still making slam SF and finals, and still won 4 slams as you mentioned. You don't win 4 slams out of your prime, you just don't. Post AO 2010 is where Fed started to decline, and losing RG QF and Wimbledon QF to end the SF streak was pretty much the end of 'prime Fed'. Great players can still have flashes of prime level, and we saw that from Fed at the WTF. But all in all, prime Fed is done. So yes, Fed's prime was 2003-2009, with his PEAK years being 2004-07.

Nadal is still in his prime, and there's no way you can argue that he's not unless he goes the rest of the year without winning a slam. Nadal wins RG, Wimbledon, or both, then all this stuff about him not being in his prime anymore looks quite foolish. It's just the fact that he's losing to Djokovic, a guy who's always been a tough matchup for him, that leads you to pull the crap about him not being in his prime.

Novak's playing the best tennis of his career, and Nadal's level isn't up to it now; but that does NOT mean that Nadal isn't in his prime, just that Novak is playing his best and stepping up. Don't take away from Djokovic by pulling the crap about Nadal not being in his prime, because there's no way that a guy that's still #1, making finals at practically every event, and holder of 3/4 slams is not in his 'prime'. Nadal's peak years were obviously 08, first half of 09, and 2010. 2011 could be another peak year, we don't know yet. He wins RG/Wimbledon double again, it would be hard to argue that he's not in his prime and probably still at his peak. It's just that Djokovic has stepped up. We'll see if Nadal can match him at RG.
Click to expand...

Maybe we have different views of what prime and peak means.

2008 Fed was prime? How?

Maybe it's overreaching but I'm just doing the math here.

No way can a grinder like Nadal still be in his ****ing prime in his SEVENTH year in the top 3 when every other grinder before him started going down by the fourth-fifth year on top.
 
Worst thing that can happen to Nadal's legacy? Someone can try to undermine it with words. Just like they try to do with Roger.
 
End his career with a losing h2h against Djokovic, if this happens it would completely negate any consideration as the GOAT on clay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

beard
  • Poll Poll
Is Nadal clay specialist that is specialized to special clay?
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
D.Nalby12
D
La_Para
Matches you wanted to happen
Replies
0
Views
625
La_Para
La_Para
N
Is David Ferrer mentally the worst player ever?
2
Replies
98
Views
9K
deacsyoga
deacsyoga
FlashFlare11
Federer: "Our job each day is to adapt to the conditions that we face."
6 7 8
Replies
352
Views
41K
merlinpinpin
M
HailDjokovic
  • Poll Poll
What is to happen if Djokovic wins the French without beating Nadal?
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
SLD76
SLD76
Back
Top