Why do people blatantly assume Federer has more talent than Nadal?

[King of Aces]

Well you guys call it "hate" when anything is spoken negative about Federer by a Rafa fan, that is your word not mine (I just used it to refer to this discussion); like the fans that are dismissing Federer it isn't that any fan or 'expert' hates Federer they just don't think he is the best player in:
The
World

Say something nice about Nadal.

It's amazing what sore losers are on this board. Nadal is arguably the future goat and you guys can't give him any credit fir anything .

Grow up and deal with it. Nadal is a future hall of famed and is already one if the greatest players of all time .

He has earned eberyones respect .

So I ask you sore losers again..... Can you give credit to nadal for anything?

Go ahead breapoint .... Show us how you are unbiased...... Nadal is a hall of famer for sure..... So what ha Nadal done great in your eyes?

At every turn you discredit his accomplishments.

 

[rafan]

I guess its time to believe. Believe it or not, Agassi won on all Surfaces and Sampras didnt even come close to winning a French Open.

In other words, Agassi has some clay court talent that Sampras didnt have.

You can only really begin to evaluate a players greatness if they have passed the ulitmate test and that is: have they won a slam on ALL surfaces - there are few that have

 

[King of Aces]

There was no "stratedgy" in the last set. It was basically all about going through the motions as Nalbandian self-destructed. The guy should have been fined for tanking.

Sampras had no strategy either . From the commentary I read Sampras was a bully!

His strategy was :

"I'm going to go down the freaking "T" and come in behind it over and over again...... And there ain't a freaking thing that you can do about it!! Let's see you try and stop me."

 

[JeMar]

Woosh much?

 

[BreakPoint]

Do you have any quotes or comments from Nalby that says he was exhausted/drained in the 3rd??

Did you watch the match? Why do we need comments from Nalbandian? Don't you trust what you see with your own eyes? And it's not exactly rare for a tennis player to become discouraged and fold mentally after blowing 5 match points and then fall apart in the 3rd set because they can't help but keep thinking that the match should already be over.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Say something nice about Nadal.

It's amazing what sore losers are on this board. Nadal is arguably the future goat and you guys can't give him any credit fir anything .

Grow up and deal with it. Nadal is a future hall of famed and is already one if the greatest players of all time .

He has earned eberyones respect .

So I ask you sore losers again..... Can you give credit to nadal for anything?

Go ahead breapoint .... Show us how you are unbiased...... Nadal is a hall of famer for sure..... So what ha Nadal done great in your eyes?

At every turn you discredit his accomplishments.

Who are "We" to give or take away credit. Its amazing that some of the people who criticize Nadal (or any other pro) havent even been to a live Grandslam match yet seem to act as if they know what it is like. Go figure.


Like it or not, Nadal has achieved a lot at his relatively young age. I dont care if they call his game boring or one dimensional or 10 dimensional. At the end of the day, he so far has 6 grandslams.

 

[BreakPoint]

Yes.... lol i really do see how that works i should lose more often because i get more respect that way lol

Only if you show your true emotions at the awards ceremony.

 

[BreakPoint]

You're saying Sampras had a better backhand than Agassi?

God, that made me laugh.


A lot.

He's saying that Sampras has a better one-handed backhand than Agassi because we all know that it takes much more talent to hit a pro-level one-handed backhand than it does to hit a two-handed backhand. :shock:

 

[BreakPoint]

Go ahead breapoint .... Show us how you are unbiased...... Nadal is a hall of famer for sure..... So what ha Nadal done great in your eyes?

There's a big difference between a Hall of Famer and a G.O.A.T. Just look at how many Hall of Famers we have on this board versus how few G.O.A.T.'s we have. (...and only one "Guru".) LOL

 

[RoddickAce]

Can someone REALLY define what talent is and distinguish the talent between two top players that simply? Making crazy winners, looking fluid, etc. Those are all based on MUSCLE MEMORY. It's all about practice, if they never practiced and still hit like how they do, then ok, you can judge their natural talent. But as of now, after 18-23 years of constant practicing of something, I think muscle memory overtakes talent.

 

[BreakPoint]

Sampras had no strategy either . From the commentary I read Sampras was a bully!

His strategy was :

"I'm going to go down the freaking "T" and come in behind it over and over again...... And there ain't a freaking thing that you can do about it!! Let's see you try and stop me."

And that strategy worked because no one could defend against it. No need to change a winning strategy.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

And that strategy worked because no one could defend against it. No need to change a winning strategy.

I would say no one could defend against it long enough to consistently beat him.

Sampras didnt win every single match he played nor did he win every grandslam he entered. So his strategy worked most of the time and it almost didnt work on Clay courts.

Sampras is a great player and his record speaks for itself. He isnt neccessarily more or less talented than other great players.

 

[King of Aces]

And that strategy worked because no one could defend against it. No need to change a winning strategy.

Correct!

Same with Nadal.....all he has to do is hit with topspin to the backhand and voila....6 grandslams by 22.

No need to change for both Sampras or Nadal.

****and I still have not heard you give any credit to nadal for anything.

Just a sore loser.

 

[King of Aces]

There's a big difference between a Hall of Famer and a G.O.A.T. Just look at how many Hall of Famers we have on this board versus how few G.O.A.T.'s we have. (...and only one "Guru".) LOL

amd exactly what strings did you pull with administration to get that title?

It just goes to show its not what you know but who you know.

 

[BreakPoint]

amd exactly what strings did you pull with administration to get that title?

It just goes to show its not what you know but who you know.

Huh? "Strings?" What "strings"? Look at my post count. Compare that to everyone else's.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=posts&pp=30

 

[King of Aces]

Huh? "Strings?" What "strings"? Look at my post count. Compare that to everyone else's.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=posts&pp=30

and with all those posts you still cant say a damn nice thing about Nadal.
But thats OK.....you will look more and more ridiculous as Nadal keeps getting better and Federer keeps going downhill.

As far as your post count you may have the most. But how is it that you get a special category? after a certain cut off there should be a label like "GOAT" or something....but you have a specific title just for you.

Just proof that on these boards its not what you know its who you know.

 

[BreakPoint]

As far as your post count you may have the most. But how is it that you get a special category? after a certain cut off there should be a label like "GOAT" or something....but you have a specific title just for you.

Just proof that on these boards its not what you know its who you know.

Did you even click on that link?

"Guru" is the next title above "G.O.A.T."

 

[King of Aces]

Did you even click on that link?

"Guru" is the next title above "G.O.A.T."

and still no credit to Rafa in all those posts. How many more times does the kid have to win. Isnt it a bit gross to be that unsportsmanlike? Can possibly be that full of hate???

As far as "guru"......I am told that "GOAT" was the highest title available. So the powers that be created a special title just for you.

Once someone hits "Guru"....well then yet another new title will be created for the TW pet...a.k.a.....breakpoint.

proving yet again its not what you know but who you know.

Question.....in all those billion posts have you ever once been warned or suspended?

 

[TheTruth]

Every player is made to look helpless vs someone sometimes. Sampras has been made to look helpless by Krajicek many times, Ivanisevic in their 92 Wimbledon semis, Philipoussis in their 96 Aussie match and even their 1999 Wimbledon match before Mark's knee injury.

What does it say about Nadal as a player and competitor that even in a match he was made to look helpless he still wins the match. Incredible really and a scary sign for the rest of the field.

As for talent the concept that the overhyped Richard Gaskit has more talent than Nadal makes me laugh.

Great post. All true.

 

[Tennisfans1]

Have to say Nadal is more talented now maybe not before but certainly now

 

[tudwell]

Nadal's more talented at challenging on Hawk-Eye, that's for sure. Weakest part of Roger's game right there.

 

[King of Aces]

Have to say Nadal is more talented now maybe not before but certainly now

shhhhh......you cant be that blatant. You must sort of skirt the issue.

This is a No Nadal zone.

 

[King of Aces]

Nadal's more talented at challenging on Hawk-Eye, that's for sure. Weakest part of Roger's game right there.

did you happen to see feds scores against Murray today?

 

[rubberduckies]

Nadal's more talented at challenging on Hawk-Eye, that's for sure. Weakest part of Roger's game right there.

That's cause Roger is most talented at getting favorable line calls.
That is the weakest part of Rafa's game.

 

[TheTruth]

Bjorn Borg did not have the worlds greatest serve, backhand , or forehand.......but he still won.

Was Borg not "talented" as well??

The most important weapon in tennis is the mind . That's why "talented" players like Nastase or Safin never reached their full potential.

That is so true. People equate a certain brand of "smoothness" with talent, but many "smooth" players never actually fulfill their potential as you say. Some of the "smoothest=talented" players actually have very little to show for their "talent".

Examples include:

Rios
Malisse
Haas
Berdych
Grosjean

There's probably more. In this case I would gladly take whatever attributes that equate to winning than merely how I looked on the court. I'm willing to bet these "smoothies" would rather have some grand slam hardware in their cabinets any day.

 

[tudwell]

did you happen to see feds scores against Murray today?

No, did he get a challenge right or something?

 

[King of Aces]

That is so true. People equate a certain brand of "smoothness" with talent, but many "smooth" players never actually fulfill their potential as you say. Some of the "smoothest=talented" players actually have very little to show for their "talent".

Examples include:

Rios
Malisse
Haas
Berdych
Grosjean

There's probably more. In this case I would gladly take whatever attributes that equate to winning than merely how I looked on the court. I'm willing to bet these "smoothies" would rather have some grand slam hardware in their cabinets any day.

Federer is actually another.....Its easy to look all smooth when you are winning.......but as federer is losing more and more we are beginning to see that his biggest weakness is his mind. He is beginning to crack.

I dont think he has the mental capabilities to deal with losing. I dont think he will get his 14th.

Sampras was stronger. he didnt mind being ranked low...and just sit out and practice for his last US Open. Fed cant do that.

 

[King of Aces]

No, did he get a challenge right or something?

Well go check out the scores. If you look at the final set I think you will admit that someone won decisively. I dont want to spoil it for you.

 

[Tennisfans1]

shhhhh......you cant be that blatant. You must sort of skirt the issue.

This is a No Nadal zone.

Im saying what i believe by no means is this just about Nadal

 

[King of Aces]

Im saying what i believe by no means is this just about Nadal

Oh no one told you the rules here at TW. If its pro Nadal you cannot say what you believe my friend....even if its true.

 

[TheTruth]

1. I've never heard or read any serious tennis mind clam Agassi was more talented than Sampras. It would be the height of comedy if it were not so foolish a claim. Ability wise, take away Agassi's return of serve--and he drops a few more rungs on history's ladder. Sampras clearly had more weapons/gifts.

2. Agassi's "career GS" is hardly impressive. For one--he pissed away the 1st half of his career, and that "career GS" was so spaced out that it is is hardly worth mentioning. It is not as though he achieved that over a straight 2 year period, where one could argue regarding his skills.

That said, Federer's records and abilities remain the best of his generation. Until Nadal can win a number of back-to-back slams at more than the French, he's not on Federer's level (the latter able to easily run off a number of consecutive titles at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open).

During Pete and Agassi's reign the media and pundits did allude to the fact that Agassi was more talented than Sampras. They always pretended Agassi was the favorite regardless of his inferior h2h against Pete. They acted as if they believed Agassi's career slam outweighed Pete's more impressive results, time after time. At one point Brad Gilbert said if Agassi won (I can't remember which match it was) he should be considered greater than Pete.

It seems ludicrous now, but at the time, they put their own particular spin on it and many fans went along with it, and agreed with it, although all the results said otherwise.

 

[King of Aces]

That is so true. People equate a certain brand of "smoothness" with talent, but many "smooth" players never actually fulfill their potential as you say. Some of the "smoothest=talented" players actually have very little to show for their "talent".

Examples include:

Rios
Malisse
Haas
Berdych
Grosjean

There's probably more. In this case I would gladly take whatever attributes that equate to winning than merely how I looked on the court. I'm willing to bet these "smoothies" would rather have some grand slam hardware in their cabinets any day.

I think Mungo said it best:

man I wanted Fed to lose again but I was thinking how hard it is to be a Fed fan these days.

no fight, no will to turn things around. All the pride he shows in the interviews disappears on the court.
no fight. the way he melts down when he is losing is disgusting for his fans and a joy to watch for others. he is no GOAT. great talent but no balls.

his fans are disappointed with him and for a good reason, even Mirka gave up and didnt care in the third set lol.

Fed looked unbeatable against weak competition but look what hes doing against real competition.

 

[TheTruth]

Federer is actually another.....Its easy to look all smooth when you are winning.......but as federer is losing more and more we are beginning to see that his biggest weakness is his mind. He is beginning to crack.

I dont think he has the mental capabilities to deal with losing. I dont think he will get his 14th.

Sampras was stronger. he didnt mind being ranked low...and just sit out and practice for his last US Open. Fed cant do that.

I totally agree, but I thought that went without saying. A leopard doesn't change his spots. I remember Fed back then, and I still see the exact same temperament and approach to the game as before he won all those grand slams. He was never a fighter through and through. He can stand for a moment, but as the pressure increases, sadly Federer folds. It's a pattern many people refuse to see, but it's the truth anyhow!

 

[VivalaVida]

I totally agree, but I thought that went without saying. A leopard doesn't change his spots. I remember Fed back then, and I still see the exact same temperament and approach to the game as before he won all those grand slams. He was never a fighter through and through. He can stand for a moment, but as the pressure increases, sadly Federer folds. It's a pattern many people refuse to see, but it's the truth anyhow!

It may have been the truth early in his career and now but federer was definitely a clutch and pressure player during 2004-2007. Federer was down in so many matches but he found a way to win more the 90 percent of those matches. As a matter of fact, Darren Cahill stated that the difference between federer of 2008 and 2006 was that in 2006 federer found ways to win matches he was on the brink of losing.

 

[thalivest]

During Pete and Agassi's reign the media and pundits did allude to the fact that Agassi was more talented than Sampras.

Media and pundits who probably are assigned to write on tennis for Sports Illustrated or NBC as a side task. Either that or the same ones who felt Capriati had the talent to win 20 slams or more.

 

[TheTruth]

It may have been the truth early in his career and now but federer was definitely a clutch and pressure player during 2004-2007. Federer was down in so many matches but he found a way to win more the 90 percent of those matches. As a matter of fact, Darren Cahill stated that the difference between federer of 2008 and 2006 was that in 2006 federer found ways to win matches he was on the brink of losing.

During 2004-2007, IMO, Federer was playing guys like a broken-down Hewitt, an often injured Haas, a back from serious injury Safin, a lost-their-mojo Ferrero, Roddick, and newbies to the tour who lacked experience. In light of the less than stellar competition, yes, Federer won 90% of those matches. However, there was one kid who came into prominence while still a teenager who challenged Fed. He fought like a warrior and often won during Fed's prime. However, when faced with a never-say-die player Fed has consistently folded, now and then. You must admit there aren't many players that fight to the death so who of note was Federer dominating? Now that guys have matured and are no longer afraid of the Federer "mystique" we see Fed losing more when his opponents stands up to him.

Cahill should also mention who those players were that Federer was coming back on. The way I see it, those guys weren't contenders then or now. I disagree with Cahill's analysis. I was there and I saw it for myself. Mats Wilander took the same view as me.

 

[JeMar]

Have to say Nadal is more talented now maybe not before but certainly now

You don't become more or less talented. It's something you're born with.

 

[TheTruth]

Media and pundits who probably are assigned to write on tennis for Sports Illustrated or NBC as a side task. Either that or the same ones who felt Capriati had the talent to win 20 slams or more.

It was pretty much the same way as it is now. A few pundits say something, the sportswriters echo it, the fans jump on the bandwagon.

And yes, they did think Capriati was going to win everything, didn't they?

 

[tacotanium]

Nadal is way more talented than Federer. Here's why:

Federer left school at 12 to train at a tennis academy. He received the best coaching and devoted his entire time to honing his skills.
Nadal shunned the academies and learned to play on an island being coached by a family member with no other coaching credentials.

Because of this, Nadal never learned proper technique and now hits forehands with his off hand. He was forced to invent his own array of strokes while Federer copied his from Cliff Notes. He has succeeded with a very weak serve. If Nadal had any semblance of the kind of serve you would expect from a 6'1" top-10 player, I would have been unbeatable awhile ago. Serving is the opposite of talent. Look at Andy Roddick.

With talent alone, Federer was able to reach the top 10. His talent wasn't enough to crack the glass ceiling. He needed more help and more time to reach the top.
With talent alone, Nadal crushed the tour and crushed Federer. He straight-setted prime Fed in 2004. Only now, after reaching the top spot, is he beginning to refine his game and make the same adjustments that Fed had to make.

lol. i think it's more of how well you use with what you've learned. just because Federer was trained more pro, you assuming, doesn't make everyone else that haven't trained professionally better than Fed if they can beat him. if Fed wasn't talented he wouldn't even know how to do a FH. If Fed grew up with what Nadal got and vice versa, the argument what just be opposite.

 

[VivalaVida]

During 2004-2007, IMO, Federer was playing guys like a broken-down Hewitt, an often injured Haas, a back from serious injury Safin, a lost-their-mojo Ferrero, Roddick, and newbies to the tour who lacked experience. In light of the less than stellar competition, yes, Federer won 90% of those matches. However, there was one kid who came into prominence while still a teenager who challenged Fed. He fought like a warrior and often won during Fed's prime. However, when faced with a never-say-die player Fed has consistently folded, now and then. You must admit there aren't many players that fight to the death so who of note was Federer dominating? Now that guys have matured and are no longer afraid of the Federer "mystique" we see Fed losing more when his opponents stands up to him.

Cahill should also mention who those players were that Federer was coming back on. The way I see it, those guys weren't contenders then or now. I disagree with Cahill's analysis. I was there and I saw it for myself. Mats Wilander took the same view as me.

TheTruth, I enjoyed reading your post and you make some valid points however I think you give Roger way to little credit. I feel that now that Rafa has become number 1 and is dominating Roger, many people seem to have this idea that Federer's 13 slam wins are all "flukes". You are absolutely right that the field has gotten stronger but you have to admit that Roger has lost some game as well. Today I saw his match against Murray and Roger was dominating Murray with his forehand in the 2nd set when he finally came to life and than out of no where, he hits like 14 UE in a course of 3 games. When I see these random streaks of poor and good play, I dont see the Roger Federer of 2006-2008. I see the Federer of 1998-2002. Also I think the new field claim is exaggerated a bit, aside from Nadal, Djokovic and Murray havent done any damage to federer in slams as of yet. Djokovic, as a matter of fact, has been whooped by federer quite a bit. Also, you have to admit, in 2005-2007, federer challenged nadal alot more, he beat him at the masters cup twice, miami, hamburg, almost did in rome, wimbledon etc. Sure Nadal has gotten much much better but federer has gotten worse also. I simply did not see federer producing pitful displays in his prime like he did against murray today and rafa in the 5th set of the aussie open. Another factor to Roger's downfall is his shocking stubbornness, he said he doesnt work on weaknesses!!!! :shock: