Will Nadal get credit for completing the GRAND SLAM after winning the U.S Open?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nadalgirl26

Banned
Since Nadal will certainly win the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S Open this year should he be listed in the record books as being one of only 3 men to complete the GRAND SLAM since he would have won the Australian Open this year had he been able to play. Federer cant beat him now, Blake lost early, so if he had played the Australian Open he was certain to have won. However I am worried that after he wins the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S Open he will not be considered to have complete the Grand Slam just because he had to miss Australia with an injury.

So after he wins the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S Open will he get credit for having completed the GRAND SLAM just because it is so obvious he would have won the Australian Open, or will he not get credit because he missed the Australian Open so was not the official winner of the event.

I am scared that in future years the competition will have improved and there will be players who can stop Nadal when there are none now, and he will have missed his best chance to complete the GRAND SLAM in a year he lost it because of missing an event because of an injury.
 
guys, lets not even respond, this is either a joke, or the author doesn't know anything about tennis.
 
I am not joking, Nadal is certainly going to win the remaining three slams. Are you honestly saying you think he wont? There is nobody who can beat him now. He wont lose in an early round like he did at Wimbledon and the U.S Open last year, and the top players cant beat him. Federer cant do it, Hewitt cant do it, Roddick cant do it. There is no question that he will win the remaining three slams, the questions are:

1)Will he get credit for doing it since he would have won the Australian Open but had to miss it due to injury, costing him the GRAND SLAM this year.

2)If he does not get credit will he get another chance to do it in the future, or will too many good players emerge that can beat him to keep him from doing it.
 
I think she's serious. She obviously has no clue about the different surfaces, and no clue about tennis in general. Why does Federer not have a chance against Nadal after having 2 match points on clay against him?

Anyway, if he won all 4 Slams, he would obviously have a career Grand Slam. But it wouldn't be like what Laver did, winning all 4 in the same year.
 
chiru said:
guys, lets not even respond, this is either a joke, or the author doesn't know anything about tennis.
Click to expand...

or both... :mrgreen:

come on guys, we all know nadal will own federer at wimbledon with his prince 03 tours...
 
Nadal gets behind in some matches matches, but he always wins them. If a player has match points but cant beat him it just proves they cant cope with his heart and fighting spirit to win the match. Federer obviously cant cope with Nadals heart and fighting spirit to beat him, just like the other top players cant beat Nadal. It is just the way it is.

He will win the next 3 slams, that is not the question. Your answer superman1 is not what I was looking for since he wont have won the Australian Open yet as you say. Unless you mean he will add the Australian Open in January for his 4th straight slam as well? I dont want to talk past this years September U.S Open, since 8 months from now is enough time for things to maybe change and somebody else to have a chance to win a slam. That would give him the non-caldender GRAND SLAM though right?
 
No, he will not have a Grand Slam unless he wins ALL 4 Slams. He isn't exempt from the Australian just because he had an injury, that's ridiculous.

If a player has match points and didn't convert, that doesn't mean he doesn't have enough "heart" or "fighting spirit." That just means he missed a couple of shots. If you've ever been on a tennis court, you'll know it's pretty easy to miss a shot. If you've ever been on a court against Nadal with thousands of people in the stands watching, you'll know it's even easier.
 
I like Nadal. I think he provides a entertainment to the game that is much needed. He appeals to many of the younger players because of his tenacity. I don't think he can beat Federer on grass. Now if Federer lost in the early rounds (better chance of getting struck by lightning than federer losing on grass at Wimbeldon), Nadal might have a good chance to win Wimbeldon. I don't think Nadal will win Wimbeldon anytime soon. He needs to change up his game a little for grass, but he's still young he has time.
 
nadalgirl26 said:
I am not joking, Nadal is certainly going to win the remaining three slams. Are you honestly saying you think he wont? There is nobody who can beat him now. He wont lose in an early round like he did at Wimbledon and the U.S Open last year, and the top players cant beat him. Federer cant do it, Hewitt cant do it, Roddick cant do it. There is no question that he will win the remaining three slams, the questions are:

1)Will he get credit for doing it since he would have won the Australian Open but had to miss it due to injury, costing him the GRAND SLAM this year.

2)If he does not get credit will he get another chance to do it in the future, or will too many good players emerge that can beat him to keep him from doing it.
Click to expand...

This is funny.

nadalgirl26, I'll indulge you, whether you are being genuine or not. The answer to question 1 is no. Nadal could not achieve the Grand Slam this year, even if he won all the remaining majors. If, however, he won all the majors this year, plus the Australian next year, he would be entitled to claim he had achieved the Nadal Slam. The Grand Slam is all majors in one calendar year.

In answer to question 2, if you apply the principles of formal logic to the possibilty of Nadal winning the Grand Slam next year or any other year, you would conclude that it is not a logical impossibilty. Which means there is a chance he could do it. But this is a trivial point. You probably want to know if he has a realistic chance of doing it. How can I put this? No.
 
Now some of you are just being rude. Well those of you who are being rude to me I can just laugh at when Nadal wins the next 3 slams. Some of you are obviously fans of another player who are just bitter because Nadal is the best right now and is going to win everything this year, and you all know it, so just stop this nastiness and have some intelligent conversation.

Federer did not beat Nadal in the Italian Open final since he was not good enough, he wasnt unlucky, he was too weak to win the match, otherwise he would have won the match instead of losing. Just accept it, Federer cant beat Nadal right now, Nadal is too good a player for him. It will take somebody younger and better to stop Nadal.
 
David L said:
This is funny.

nadalgirl26, I'll indulge you, whether you are being genuine or not. The answer to question 1 is no. Nadal could not achieve the Grand Slam this year, even if he won all the remaining majors. If, however, he won all the majors this year, plus the Australian next year, he would be entitled to claim he had achieved the Nadal Slam. The Grand Slam is all majors in one calendar year.

In answer to question 2, if you apply the principles of formal logic to the possibilty of Nadal winning the Grand Slam next year or any other year, you would conclude that it is not a logical impossibilty. Which means there is a chance he could do it. But this is a trivial point. You probably want to know if he has a realistic chance of doing it. How can I put this? No.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much. I was waiting for somebody to post an intelligent answer to my questions. You did just that.

So Nadal will be eligable for some sort of GRAND SLAM after winning the next 3 slams. I hope he is able to win Australia next year, since that is far enough away something could have changed and he may no longer be certain to win every slam he plays like now.

You might be right, if it was something he was certain to do this year had he not been injured during the Australian Open, it is logical it can happen in the future too. I feel good reading that answer, thank you.
 
Not to Brag but I've won the Grand Slam many times

Yeah, that's right. If I had wanted to compete professionally in tennis I would have been the obvious winner at all Majors and Master Series tourneys. I'm one of those rare players who elevate their games the higher the level of competition. But, since I'm too lazy to travel, I go to my local park instead and play but because the level of play at the parks is so pitiful, I can't get motivated enough to win.

They should have an asterisk on all of these records to explain that they were achieved without my participation, sans steriods mind you.

I know that many of you would say, well, if you had wanted to play pro tennis you would also be great, but I KNOW that I would have been the best ever.
 
dennis10is said:
I know that many of you would say, well, if you had wanted to play pro tennis you would also be great, but I KNOW that I would have been the best ever.
Click to expand...

No, I would have been.
 
dennis10is, if you are telling the truth you should become pro. You might be the only guy to give Nadal a run for his money. Since I love watching my Nadal win everything though, I am a bit glad you arent pro since it allows him to win every event this year. Maybe you are just joking though.
 
no he would not get the title of grand slam winner because of his absence in the AO EVEN IF he won the remaining slams. you have to prove yourself on the court, u just can't claim that he would have won. in regard to the french, yea he probably will win it, wimby, hardly, i will doubt if he even gets farther then he did last year, which would be 2nd round, because his game is not suited to the surface. with the us.open, he might have a chance, he has proven himslef on hardcourt, even against the all mighty federer, but blake is having a good run this year and has already proven he can beat nadal twice. not to mention that nadal showed signs of injury in the closing o last years season didnt he? wasnt it his ankle?
 
nadalgirl26 said:
dennis10is, if you are telling the truth you should become pro. You might be the only guy to give Nadal a run for his money. Since I love watching my Nadal win everything though, I am a bit glad you arent pro since it allows him to win every event this year. Maybe you are just joking though.
Click to expand...

What about me? Are'nt you glad I did'nt turn pro as well?
 
Are you that SerenaFan person under another username? I swear some of those person's topics were the most ridiculous I had ever seen. This one is also quite ridiculous.

First of all, you do not know what "the Grand Slam" is. It is by definition winning all four majors in one calendar year. Even if Nadal won the remaining three majors he would not have won "the Grand Slam" because he did not win the Australian Open earlier this year.

Second of all, while Nadal has a good chance of winning the French this year, his chances at the US Open are very slim and there is no way in hell Nadal (or anyone else) can triumph at Wimbledon over Federer. Nadal won't even reach the final there. Nadal is not a hard court player by nature and the US Open is where the currently MIA American players will peak and Nadal will be hard-pressed to get past Blake, Ginepri (if he ever peaks again), and Roddick (if he ever gets good again).

Third of all, I don't agree that just because Federer held match points against Nadal and was unable to pull that match out means that Federer can't beat Nadal. Take Federer himself for instance. He held matchpoints on Hewitt during their Davis Cup meeting and Hewitt came from behind and won in 5 sets. Now look at their record. Federer has won, what, their last seven meetings?

You must indeed be a teenage groupie brainwashed by Nadal's muscles (which I do admit are quite large).
 
To all the people responding in a literal manner and/or without humour. Lighten up. Don't be so serious. I'm embarrassed for you. Some things ought to be taken literally, and other things not. Any intelligent person should be able to tell the difference.
 
Yes he will get credit for winning the "Grand Slam". Just send me his address and I will send him a certified letter saying so.
 
Well it is obvious this is a mostly Federer-fandom site which lacks truly "objective" fans who recognize who the best people really are. Federer cant beat Nadal on any surface, clay, hard courts, grass, bubble gum, whatever. He won his first match with him only because Nadal choked away a big lead when he was about to win in straight sets. Since then Federer has never beaten Nadal, he simply cant do it. He cant do it now, and Nadal is so young and has miles of improvement let, and Federer is done improving already, and Federer cant even beat him now, Nadal beats him over and over, he has beaten him three times in a row this year. Just accept it, Federer cant ever stop Nadal, Nadal will win everything if Federer is all that stands in his way. Blake is the only current player who can beat Nadal, so unless Nadal plays Blake he wins every event this year left.

God I did not know this was a forum of Federer-fanatic trolls. I am very dissapointed. While the rest of you are bitter though the rest of the World will celebrate a truly great Champion-Nadal when Nadal wins the next 3 slams rather then a washed up has been-Federer.
 
i think nadal has a chance at the U.S., i think nadal's greatest challenge will be to get past everyone but federer, with whom he holds a mental edge, but no such edge exists with ohter top hard courters such as blake etc. if nadal can make it to the final agaisnt fed at the us. he has a shot, adn i think he can make it to the final conceivably, though im not betting any money on it. on wimbledon he really can't do squat. hes only 19 going on 20, which measn he has plenty of time to learn how to play on grass, but his current game just isn't suited for it. hes surprisingly good on hard considering how pure clay court his game is, and i attribute that to solid shots, an unthinkable mental game, adn hella fast legs. that isn't enough on wimbledon, where you NEED a serve to even get past the 1st round, which he barely did last year. i think if he learns to play mroe aggressively, learns to play at net more (hes okay right now in all honesty for a clay courter) and learns to get that serve in the 120's on his first, hell be a decent grass courter. this year though, id say sampras has a much better chance of winning wimbledon if he just showed up.
 
okay nadal girl, if you'd like, i'll bet you 10,000 dollars that nadal DOESN'T win the next three slams, and i'm good for the money, honest.
 
chiru said:
okay nadal girl, if you'd like, i'll bet you 10,000 dollars that nadal DOESN'T win the next three slams, and i'm good for the money, honest.
Click to expand...

You are asking me to bet money over the internet? That is a very stupid thing to do, no I wont do that, only a fool would do that.
 
i'll take that bet with anyone if they care to join in. how about this:
i bet 10,000 that he doesn't win wimbledon, i think thats fair huh? jk u guys, this is ridiculous.
 
Aeropro joe said:
if federer is still number 1 and is over 2000 points ahead of nadal how is he washed up?
Click to expand...

Federer wins events when Nadal suffers his fluke losses to people he only loses to 1 each person. He will stop having those since that is the only thing preventing him from being the one 2000 points ahead of Federer in the rankings.
 
that is a completely false reply that has nothing to do with federers ranking and point standing, and to be washed up means that you fall in ranking, no longer have a winning record, cannot keep up with the pack, cannot dominate every player take your pick these are all valid respones but not ur answer.
 
Federer cant domininate every player. He cant even beat Nadal, and he has trouble all the time with Nalbandian now, and trouble all the time with up and comers like Kiefer and Haas. He is washed up since his best days are behind him, sure he might win 1 or 2 more slams if Nadal is injured and he doesnt play somebody else who like Nadal he cant beat, but that is it.
 
Nadal on hard court ...

I was at Indian Wells this year and watched both men's semifinals, one of which is Blake vs. Nadal. Like in the US Open last year, but this time in straight sets, Blake destroyed Nadal. DESTROYED. I felt so bad for Nadal I even tried to start a rooting section for him where I was sitting, because I wanted to see more tennis. Nadal just couldn't outrun all the winners that Blake was firing. Nadal was in good form, but his style was just not suited to a super aggressive player like Blake. I've watched every Federer and Nadal match (including their first match in Miami in 2004), and Federer never looked embarrassing on the court against Nadal (the closest is perhaps the French 2005 semi). But in both matches against Blake, Nadal was embarrassed. And Nadal was playing well too. Blake just smeared him. Winners flying by Nadal left and right. Aces here and there. Nadal has the athleticism to be an aggressive baseliner, yet he prefers to play way far back behind the baseline and retrieve and counterpunch instead. Fast hardcourts and grass are all about hitting winners, and currently Nadal lacks the firepower to do so.
 
nadalgirl26 said:
Since Nadal will certainly win the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S Open this year should he be listed in the record books as being one of only 3 men to complete the GRAND SLAM since he would have won the Australian Open this year had he been able to play. Federer cant beat him now, Blake lost early, so if he had played the Australian Open he was certain to have won. However I am worried that after he wins the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S Open he will not be considered to have complete the Grand Slam just because he had to miss Australia with an injury.

So after he wins the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S Open will he get credit for having completed the GRAND SLAM just because it is so obvious he would have won the Australian Open, or will he not get credit because he missed the Australian Open so was not the official winner of the event.

I am scared that in future years the competition will have improved and there will be players who can stop Nadal when there are none now, and he will have missed his best chance to complete the GRAND SLAM in a year he lost it because of missing an event because of an injury.
Click to expand...

LMAO!! Are you pulling my chain!? Aren't you a nadal fanatic? Well this is your wishful thinking. He will not win any other slams besides maybe this year's FO. Nadal got his butt kicked twice by Blake at USO lastyear and this year's PacificLife. He cannot possibly get past top hardcourt players such as Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt and Federer at Wimbledon. Gilles Muller, another lefty, beat Nadal in the 2nd round last year.
What am I trying say? Your thread is silly!!!!!!!!!
 
Who cares if Nadal was crushed by Blake, yeah I admit Blake is Nadals only rival, but the odds of them playing at the remaining slams are very low and that means Nadals way will probalby be clear to win each one.

Nadal's uncle Tony has said to the press Rafael will practice his volleys to be ready to win Wimbledon this year. He will do anything he sets his mind to, he is practicing his grass court game to win it. Nadal already volleys as well as any player in the World, he outvolleyed Henman in some exchanges at the net in their match on clay at the last event. If he wants to come to net he will outvolley anybody, and his groundstrokes are the best in the world by far.

Federer plays from the baseline mostly even on grass and Nadal is too powerful and strong from the baseline for Federer, so if he tries to stay back with him Nadal wins. Federer will stay back with him even on grass so Federer has no chance. If Federer tries to come to net when they play on grass, Nadal passes better then anybody and Federer does not volley well enough to cope with Nadals passing shots. Nadal also can come to net and outvolley Federer if he wants to.
 
nadalgirl26 said:
Federer cant domininate every player. He cant even beat Nadal, and he has trouble all the time with Nalbandian now, and trouble all the time with up and comers like Kiefer and Haas. He is washed up since his best days are behind him, sure he might win 1 or 2 more slams if Nadal is injured and he doesnt play somebody else who like Nadal he cant beat, but that is it.
Click to expand...
no that is wrong, 6 meetings is not a domination it is a rivalry, and nadal hasnt even gotten deep enough into wimby to even face nadal on grass, i love nadal, dont get me wrong, im not bashing him, i am not a crazed federer fan, but the simple fact is that at this moment in time, federer is the best player on tour, with the best overall game for ALL the surfaces. nadal is the best on clay, with federer close behind, is decent on hard and craptastic on grass. federer can dominate and his 3 years at the top prove it. how can his best days be behind him when he hasnt faltered yet? and the only people that i think nadal can volley better than would be roddick and agassi
 
6 matches are a rivalry, that does not make any sense, 6 matches does not neccessarily make a rivalry, it depends how those matches go. You are saying if two people play each other alot that makes it a rivalry, no matter how the matches go? What sense does that make, their is no meat to that argument, sorry, you fail bad if that is your best.
 
nadalgirl26 said:
Who cares if Nadal was crushed by Blake, yeah I admit Blake is Nadals only rival, but the odds of them playing at the remaining slams are very low and that means Nadals way will probalby be clear to win each one.

Nadal's uncle Tony has said to the press Rafael will practice his volleys to be ready to win Wimbledon this year. He will do anything he sets his mind to, he is practicing his grass court game to win it. Nadal already volleys as well as any player in the World, he outvolleyed Henman in some exchanges at the net in their match on clay at the last event. If he wants to come to net he will outvolley anybody, and his groundstrokes are the best in the world by far.

Federer plays from the baseline mostly even on grass and Nadal is too powerful and strong from the baseline for Federer, so if he tries to stay back with him Nadal wins. Federer will stay back with him even on grass so Federer has no chance. If Federer tries to come to net when they play on grass, Nadal passes better then anybody and Federer does not volley well enough to cope with Nadals passing shots. Nadal also can come to net and outvolley Federer if he wants to.
Click to expand...

...LOL!!!...You continue to make me laugh with these funny jokes, seriously do you honestly believe Nadal can outvolley Federer? And if you watched ANY of the Rome final you'd notice a 62/80 winning points at the net for Federer, so Nadal's passes do not effect him as much as you think they do. And also Nadal has good hands, but he doesn't even come close to comparing to the best volleyers on tour, look at Henman, Federer, Stepanek and those are good volleyers. Even watch some of "loser Hewitt's" matches to see some nice volleying.
 
ur judgment is clouded by ur liquid dreams of u and nadal getting married, 6 matches is not enough and fed and nadal have only faced eachother for 1 and a half years, which is nothing, they are still getting used to each others games, fed said so himslef that he is finally figuring out nadal's game and cites this reason for their extremely close match that nadal managed to pull out which i applaud him for, i cheer on nadal every time he plays, i wish for him to overtake fed's domination, not because i hate fed or am crazy about nadal, but because it would be good for the game.
 
Breaker said:
...LOL!!!...You continue to make me laugh with these funny jokes, seriously do you honestly believe Nadal can outvolley Federer? And if you watched ANY of the Rome final you'd notice a 62/80 winning points at the net for Federer, so Nadal's passes do not effect him as much as you think they do. And also Nadal has good hands, but he doesn't even come close to comparing to the best volleyers on tour, look at Henman, Federer, Stepanek and those are good volleyers. Even watch some of "loser Hewitt's" matches to see some nice volleying.
Click to expand...

Yeah Roger won 62 of 80 points at the net vs Nadal in the Rome final and still lost anyway, so guess what, he can win all his points at the net and still lose, it does not matter he still loses the match.

Anyway like I said even if Nadal does not volley Roger stays at the baseline mostly on grass and nobody can beat Nadal from the baseline, so Roger has no chance then.
 
The thing is that if Nadal is so dominant over Federer, how did he choke away that match at Miami last year? Federer loses to one person and one person only and that is Nadal. Nadal gets absolutely crushed by Blake on hard courts and has also lost to Moya and Clement. How can you explain that?

Also your arguement that Federer has stopped improving while Nadal is still improving is flawed. Last year Federer was a great clay courter, but nowhere near the best in the world (Coria, Nadal, Gaudio). This year, Federer has improved on the clay to the point where he is neck and neck with Nadal. They stand far above the rest of the ATP.

On the other hand, Nadal has not improved at all on the grass. The way I see it, Federer is improving at a far faster rate than Nadal. Nadal's style is also much harder on his body than Federer's smooth attacking game. Despite being a few years younger than Federer, Nadal's body will give out long before Federer's.

Nadal will end up washed up. Not Federer. No one is talking about Nadal surpassing Sampras' records because it is not possible. The talk is about Federer because he is the one with the potential and ability to win 15 majors. Not Nadal.

I really enjoy aruging with this fool. I do not know why.
 
On grass Nadal had no chance against Gilles Muller from the baseline, you think he can outdo Federer? Fact is Nadal's topspin just gets absorbed into the grass making him less effective, and setting his opponent up right in their strike zone. Nadal+grass=not good
 
except nadal on the baseline on grass= craptastic because of his full western grip, do u understand the fundamentals of tennis? a low bouncing ball is extremely hard to get over the ball and produce a good shot with a full western like nadal's grip. on grass, this is the kind of bounce you get, also on faster courts, with grass being the fastest of them all, topspin shots, lose their penetration and just tend to skid, so nadal's extreme topspin shots lose their bite and effectiveness. thus, since federer has more of an all court game he can adapt to the court and situation and player and overcome his adversaries. until nadal changes his one-dimensional game, it will be difficult for him to do well on grass.
 
Breaker said:
On grass Nadal had no chance against Gilles Muller from the baseline, you think he can outdo Federer? Fact is Nadal's topspin just gets absorbed into the grass making him less effective, and setting his opponent up right in their strike zone. Nadal+grass=not good
Click to expand...

Nadal lost a close 4 setter to Mueller, and had a ton of break points he lost in that match, if he had done even an average job converting all his chances he would have won in 4 sets. That was with Mueller winning many more free points with his huge serve, and winning alot of points at the net, and you say Mueller dominated Nadal from the baseline? That is so wrong, Nadal won like 80% of the baseline rallies, overpowering Mueller in the groundstroke rallies, so much that with Mueller winning many points at the net, and with his serve, Nadal still should have won the match in 4 sets except for losing all his chances which cost him the match.
 
nadalgirl26 said:
Nadal lost a close 4 setter to Mueller, and had a ton of break points he lost in that match, if he had done even an average job converting all his chances he would have won in 4 sets. That was with Mueller winning many more free points with his huge serve, and winning alot of points at the net, and you say Mueller dominated Nadal from the baseline? That is so wrong, Nadal won like 80% of the baseline rallies, overpowering Mueller in the groundstroke rallies, so much that with Mueller winning many points at the net, and with his serve, Nadal still should have won the match in 4 sets except for losing all his chances which cost him the match.
Click to expand...

Could I have the drugs you must be using? They'd come in really handy on those dark, depressing days when the universe crowds in.

Nadal will probably win the French. He has a 50-50 shot at the US. He has maybe, maybe, a 5% chance at Wimbledon. I'd be surprised to see him make the quarters there, let alone the finals. If Roddick is healthy, he'll wipe the grass with Nadal. And if I were a Nadal fan, I'd be really worried about Ljubicic.

Here's a simpler way for you to look at it. Of those who have won Wimbledon over the last 30 years or so, only one, Boris Becker, who possesed an extremely strong serve and volley game even as a teenager, was able to win Wimbledon in his early attempts there. McEnroe, arguably the best grass court player ever, needed 4 visits to get used to it before he finally cracked it. Borg needed 3. Connors took 3. Sampras, the other player you could argue was the best ever on grass, played Wimbledon 4 times before winning it in his fifth appearance there. Nadal doesn't have the experience or the game to win at the All-England club this year, and given the style of game he plays he probably never will.
 
nadalgirl26 said:
Nadal lost a close 4 setter to Mueller, and had a ton of break points he lost in that match, if he had done even an average job converting all his chances he would have won in 4 sets. That was with Mueller winning many more free points with his huge serve, and winning alot of points at the net, and you say Mueller dominated Nadal from the baseline? That is so wrong, Nadal won like 80% of the baseline rallies, overpowering Mueller in the groundstroke rallies, so much that with Mueller winning many points at the net, and with his serve, Nadal still should have won the match in 4 sets except for losing all his chances which cost him the match.
Click to expand...


THIS ISN'T ABOUT GILLES MULLER THIS IS ABOUT NADAL AND GRASS! How can you use these excuses but then form a double standard by saying "oh Nadal is invincible Federer stands no chance against him oh his butt is so delectable mmmmmmmm!!!!so cute!!!!!". I'll repeat what even the most hardcore Nadal fans know. Nadal+grass=not good. THERE, I'm done now!
 
nadalgirl26 said:
Nadal and Federer are neck and neck on clay you say, that just shows what an idiot and loser you must be. Nadal has won his last 3 matches with Federer on clay, he has won his last 5 big events on clay, Federer has won 1 of his last 5 big events on clay, the one Nadal did not even play, that is neck and neck, you are an idiot, you must think 5 gold medals is the same as 3 silvers and 2 bronzes. You are such a lier, you should be ashamed of yourself.

How you know Nadal has not improved on grass, grass hasnt even started yet, you cant say something when the events on grass havent even started for the year, you are just a jealous hater, go away.
Click to expand...

You only argue against two of my points, therefore I assume that you agree with my other ones. When you win an extremely tight five-set match in a fifth set tiebreak and where both players had match points, there is no big gap between the two players. In Roma, exactly this happened. Nadal was not far better than Federer on the clay in that match, he was not even much better. His mental edge on Federer gave him the ability to pull through that match, and it was a great match indeed. Incredible effort from both players.

You did not give reason for Nadal's sad choke against Federer at Miami last year. If Nadal is so dominant against Federer, then why that choke? Answer that.

You did not argue against the fact that no one believes that Nadal will surpass Sampras. Therefore you must agree with me. All the talk is about Federer overtaking Sampras. This is because Federer is a far better player than Nadal and the only one capable right now of surpassing Sampras. You did not dispute this, therefore you must agree with me.

You have successfully proven that you do not believe that Nadal is better than Federer. Have a nice day.
 
i think you guys are a little rough on the original poster....

i have two follow-on questions:

next year, will nadal be considered the defending champion at the australian open?

when nadal wins all four grand slam events next year (which it's an absolute certainty he will - i feel stupid even putting this in), will he be considered to have won the grand slam 3 years in a row (as he'll likely have little competition the following year too)???

one last question: being a toronto raptors fan, can i refer to our team as 3-time NBA champions? if vince carter hadn't got injured so much, i think we might be 5 time defending champions, eclipsing even the bulls
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Percentage of Grand Slam Matches Won - By Each Grand Slam - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
Replies
14
Views
2K
jg153040
J
M
Comparing Federer and Nadal Grand Slam Sets % Won
Replies
3
Views
2K
Talker
Talker
capriatifanatic
  • Poll Poll
Which grand slam will Federer win the 15th grand slam?
Replies
17
Views
2K
mdhubert
mdhubert
M
Grand Slam Matches With Combined 15 Grand Slam Championships
Replies
1
Views
679
adil1972
A
M
Do you really consider the Grand Slams to be of equal value?
4 5 6
Replies
266
Views
18K
Emperor of Belgrade
E
Back
Top