The best way to beat Federer or any great player is to make him run to reach for his shots. Once you make a player run too much even a player of the class of federer can start making unforced errors. But having said that, Federer is such a class act that he never gives his opponent a chance to make him run too much for his shots and thats the sign of a complete player a MASTER. I want federer to win french open(hopefully against nadal) but a 5 set thriller will be an icing on the cake:) Wat say??
RE:RE:How to beat Federer or any great player
by Calvin Hobbes on Jun 07, 2007 11:45 AM
Yeh bhi bola.. The problem we have here that everyone knows everyting about everything and yet we end up babbling on columns only.
BTW mister, what will you take not to tell us ways how to be chimps..oops champs??
RE:How to beat Federer or any great player
by sunny tolia on Jun 07, 2007 03:01 PM
I wudnt take your crap not to tell ppl how to be chimps(chimpanzee like u)
Federer wins all the grand-slams with the exception of French Open. But he reaches to the finals and gives a good fight too. Which means he is a close 2nd on this surface.....and that's not a bad record at all. However, Nadal wins French Open only, and hardly reaches to the finals in the other Grand slams. So, tell me who is a better tennis player, if at all one makes a comparison...that does not require great IQ, right? And Nadal greatly depends on his athletic skills. He does not have the technique of Federer....today he is young and strong....but how long can he run for those long rallies and passing shots. What will happen, say, after 8-9 yrs from now? One cannot hustle every time....this'll make him more liable to injuries, and develop fatigue....he has to have a better technique to defeat Roger on other surfaces. Simple question and a simple answer. Plz don't break ur heads on this.
Agreed Rafal Nadal is probably the greatest clay court player ever in only about 3 years that he is played tennis and has a long way to go.Hid ground strokes are awesome,powerful winners from forehand or backhand from way behind the base line and ....so on and so forth.....But hello....are we missing a trick or something guys ??? Make no mistake but to be regarded as a great player leave alone greatest one has to show tennis skills at grass... Actual lawn tennis is on grass... actual skills are on grass... and a player who cannot hit volleys from net is not a complete player... Why do tennis followers rate Pete Sampras as the greatest ever eventhough he has not won french open is because he has 7 wimbeldon titles in his 14 grandslam titles... So also rod laver....boris becker....and now Roger Federer are rated as all time greats because of their skills on grass.. Untill Rafael Nadal... wins wimbeldon and that too with good volleying apart from his baseline play and beating top players like oger Federer he cannot be hailed as a tennis great... he will be regarded as a great clay court player but not a great tennis player...Mark my words!
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by Samudraniel Dasgupta on Jun 07, 2007 01:08 AM
Rohit, you certainly know your tennis! What's your take on Ivan Lendl who famously said'Grass is for cow'!
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by hari rao on Jun 07, 2007 07:07 AM
Bangali babu,
We know you hail from the land of Saurav Ganguly who is a pretty much hyped up cricketer and often quotes his past record against Bangaladesh and Zimbawae to justify his inclusion in the team. Technically Saurav Ganguly is a bit fat zero. Ivan Lendly also was technically a bit fat zero when it came to winning on grass. He never could win the Wimbledon although he badly wanted to. So it was a question of "sour grapes". He struggled hard but never could win Wimbledon just like Ganguly can never score a century (I am talking about Ganguly over the last 2 years. Please donot quote his past record) against the Australians or South Africans abroad.
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by Samudraniel Dasgupta on Jun 07, 2007 06:40 PM
Hari Garu, I am also from the land of Leander Paes,Premjit Lal,Jaydeep Mukherjee and Dilip Bose ! Kind regards,
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by muthusamy on Jun 07, 2007 09:04 AM
lendl reached wimbledon finals once or twice. and except wimbledon open he won all other.
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by praveen sanker on Jun 07, 2007 07:24 AM
And this "fat zero" person was needed eventually to save india from a demoralising pre-world cup tour to south africa. Cricket is a mind game, you need tougher ones to win matches that technically superior stylish geniuses.
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by hari rao on Jun 07, 2007 04:34 PM
Agreed. But you can never compare our so called cricket heroes with the likes of Federer, Nadal, Samparas or for that matter Steve Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Mathew Hayden or McGrath. They are all geniuses, extremely talented people who always delivered under pressure. They are so talented that even under pressure if they are able to exhibit 80% of their natural skill, that is enough to surpass their opponents. They all admit to feeling the pressure but it brings out the best in them. Not like our tendulkars or gangulys who just walk away with their tail between the legs. We Indians are a cricket crazy country and obviously a population of 1 billion (around 1/6 th of the world) has elevated them to a superstar status. So factually they are just a big fat zero compared to the above stars I have mentioned. Delivering once in a blue moon under pressure is not enough. Delivering everytime is greatness. Roger Federer has delivered everytime in the last 3 years! and so have all the greats that I have mentioned above. A little bit of slump here and there is ok. But our cricketers are slumping most of them time except when they are playing Bermuda! :)) ha ha
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by shovon dasgupta on Jun 07, 2007 11:18 AM
Ivan Lendl reached the wimbledon finals(86,87) twice and reached the semis 4 times..He also won queens club which is regarded as the second best tournament on grass..He might have failed to win wimbledon but his performance on grass overall was not too bad..he has 8 grand slams in his kitty too..so if u call him as a 'fat zero' that shows ur ignorance on the game and it's great players..Lendl obviously was a great player but definitely not on the same platform like Sampras and Federer..
RE:RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by hari rao on Jun 07, 2007 04:38 PM
I agree with you. I am aware that Lendl has won the Queens tournament. I was only referring to his inability to win Wimbledon. In fact Lendl himself had admitted candidly that it was one title he wanted so badly and he could never get it. That is why I mentioned the term "sour grapes". He was very capable of it but fell short because he was not a natural grass court player. He was a manufactured player who could do well in all other tournaments. But Wimbledon is a piece of cake for the natural serve and volleyer and nobody else. Others might win occasionally but a majority of the Wimbledon title holders are all natural serve and volleyers.
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by Ashwin Shankar on Jun 07, 2007 10:46 AM
that was marcello sallas who said 'grass is for cows'. Gone are those days where Wimbledon was the elite tournament. It's all four grandslams now. There are only a handful of ATP tournaments played on grass. The bounce is variable on grass...its not accessable and hard to maintain. I think its a commendable achievement winning the French open especially when the clay court season is that long and grinding and Nadal is winning almost everything on clay. Its not that he isn't performing on other surfaces, its just that Federer is just in a class of his own. I'm a big fan of Nadal and a bigger fan of Federer and i've mostly hated all clay courters in the past. But it takes tremendous albiet a differnt skill to win on clay. I'm just excited to see this new rivalry bloom and that too they are still friendly. Well, sadly there'll never be another Ivanisevic or Becker or Edberg for that matter only cus there aren't grass courts found that much
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by ansh singh on Jun 06, 2007 11:37 PM
dude does tat really matter...i mean being very honest...at the end of the day if u r winning u dun need nythng else...not every guy can be a perfectionist...he do have his strenghts n weaknesses...will prob.. get better with the time and experience..!!!
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by Prashanth Reddy on Jun 07, 2007 06:15 AM
May be he does not have 'Lawn' in his house or his 'Lawn' does not have any grass.
Well, jokes apart, why did he take part in Wimbledon? Infact, he won the coveted trophy 2 times!! So, what does that mean........that he is a cow??!! You need good reflexes and a better technique to excel on grass court, unlike on clay courts where power and stamina (read long rallies with relatively less on technique) is required.
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by john on Jun 07, 2007 01:34 AM
yep, he has to prove on grass. Mark this last year he was wimbledon finalist and he is improving. He is just 21. No doubt Feddy is going to be best ever tennis player but u know Nadal is the only player in the current set of players who can compete and beat Federer (Marat Safin is the other player, but most of his carrer is marred with injuries and losses his matches bcoz of lost of temper)
RE:Nadal ................ Lot To Prove !!!!
by subra on Jun 07, 2007 07:33 PM
Ivan Lendl is also one of the greats of all time. He beat the likes of Mcenroe, Connors and so many. He lost to the Wimbledon title to pat Cash in Australia in 1987.
for that matter Boris Becker /Stefan Edberg/Mats wilander all are the great players of all the time. But amongst them Mats wilander case is doubtful though he won Australian open on grass but in the grass court of Wimbledon he was a super duper flop. For stefan Edberg he won all the Grand Slams except the French where he lost to Michael Chang in the final. Boris Becker too won all the three majors with 3 wimbledons out of six final appreances. In French open too he went upto Semifinal. These are the great players of open era and clubbed togther in the same class with Mcenroe/Connors etc.
Borg, Sampras , Agassi may be put up in the same class. In case of roger federer, he may never win the French Open but will be remembered as the greatest ever tennis player of all the time & clime.
Many have come and gone from Gustavo Kuerten, Seergi Brugera, Alex Corretja to Carlos Moya, but no man has ever dominated clay other than the great Rafael Nadal who is already termed as legendary at the age of 21. Roger Federer maybe the World No. 1, but he's not the best ever unless he dominates all players(Nadal specially)and surfaces. Federer has a dubious record against Nadal, the Hamburg win was a flash in the pan by Federer, it will be Rafa all the way this time too emulating McEnroe's hattrick of French Opens...well done Nadal...
RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by hari rao on Jun 07, 2007 12:20 AM
How do you define greatness? The moot question is how do you define a genius? Factually a genuis is born not made. Federer is a born genius and he has already been rated as one of the all time greats by none other than the likes of Rod Laver, McEnroe, Sampras etc. Agreed Nadal has been able to beat Federer on clay, but Federer is going to be in the finals. This definitely means that Federer is not an inferior player on clay by any standards. Federer beat Nadal recently at the Hamburg Masters. But Nadal is yet to beat Federer in any of the other three grand slam tournaments (US, Australian, Wimbledon etc.). So Federer has already proven that he is the best ever and you are going to see that with your own eyes this sunday when Federer brings the clay court king down on his knees! And you want to know how he is going to do it. Simple, he is going to come to the net a lot more often and not allow Nadal to get into a rhythm. Watch out!
RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by shovon dasgupta on Jun 07, 2007 11:29 AM
Very much agreed on Federer's greatness but lemme remind you that Nadal is no pushover in other surfaces..Last year he was the Wimbledon finalist and lost to Federer in four sets..Nadal holds a 7-4 record against federer and he did beat him on hard court(twice)also. But still the fact is that Federer is miles ahead of Ndal on Hard courts and on grass..
RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by Mukesh Kumar on Jun 07, 2007 01:50 AM
federer was not born genius 3 years back. He played sufficient tennis before he won his first grand slam. So by going to ur analysis he is not a born genius.
Anyway federer had not won any grand slam at the age of nadal. Who knows what will happen 3 years down the line. May be nadal reach the same greatness at which federer is right now.
RE:RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by hari rao on Jun 07, 2007 06:20 AM
Are you a bihari? I have seem silly arguments put forward by biharis in the past.
RE:RE:RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by shovon dasgupta on Jun 07, 2007 11:40 AM
Hari, This type parochialism coming out of thin air really shows the education you had,your upbringing and lack of knowledge and data..Making such comments in a forum which is dealing with a topic which is not even related to our own(India or Indian players) really shows that u r a numb skulled snub.. BTW look at the IIT results, IPS and IAS results and surprisingly u'll find the number of Biharis is pretty high..Silly arguments are done not by any specific caste or any specific geographically located people but by ignorant/infantile piece of shit like u..I can be even bad..Don't force me to remove my gloves and make things more ugly for u..
RE:RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by hari rao on Jun 07, 2007 04:44 PM
Shovon,
Look who is talking bad language. Well it is a fact that most of the people who blog here have no clue about the game. Most Indians only hover on the sentimental platform. Why Biharis, even bengalis put forward silly arguments to support Saurav Ganguly. Even the south indians are also involved. Basically we Indians are a bunch of silly fellows. Most of the time using language like you have used above without even understanding the context. The fact is that most Indians are ignorant about the technicalities of the game and they are driven mostly by sentiments. I like Ganguly and so I want him in the team ....blah blah. BTW I am a tennis coach! :))
RE:RE:RE:RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by hari rao on Jun 07, 2007 04:47 PM
I have seen bengalis also put forward very stupid arguments. I have seen south indians and punjabis put very very stupid arguments. Does that make you feel better?
RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by hari rao on Jun 07, 2007 06:19 AM
Well there are shots that Federer makes which nobody can. That is why he is called a born genius. Of course, he had to learn a little bit of tennis to scale such great heights. Even Michaelangelo went to a school for painting, still he is considered a born genius for his innovative style. Somethings schools never teach and a born genius is one who innovates. So dont argue in a silly manner!
RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by on Jun 07, 2007 02:09 AM
Well, if you see into stats, you will notice that Federer and Nadal clash mostly on clay. This can be attributed to the fact that Nadal is not able to make it to the final's of other courts except clay. And obviously, Nadal is a better player on clay and it explaints the dubious record of Federer against Nadal.
RE:RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by shovon dasgupta on Jun 07, 2007 11:32 AM
Nadal did beat Federer twice on hard courts also and reached the finals of last years Wimbledon... He has good repertoire of volleys too but still now Federer is miles ahead of Nadal on the surfaces other than clay..
RE:RE:RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by hari rao on Jun 07, 2007 05:02 PM
Your understanding of tennis is good. As a tennis coach, I am pleased to see some of the people who blog here have a good knowledge of the technicalities of the game. But what is very depressing is the fact that for every article related to Indian cricketers (who are born losers anyways) , the blogs run into hundreds of pages whereas there are only around 10-12 people to discuss tennis. I hope the numbers grow and more Indian people show a more mature understanding of the game unlike cricket which has a highly emotional and sentimental following with no rational at all.
RE:He is undoubtedly the King of Clay
by ryan costa on Jun 07, 2007 01:24 AM
dude .. macenroe never won the french .. the closest he got was when he lost to lendl in 5 sets in 1984...
RE:waiting for Nadal vs Federer
by Anshuman neralla on Jun 06, 2007 11:34 PM
may b u can say Nadal vs Federer on clay...on other surfaces Federer is the king... For me the greatest rivalry is Agassi vs. Sampras...give them any surface they'll play out a classic match
this man is too gud... i have the seen the fire in his eyes and he is just unmatchable.. federer won't be able to match him in the final. can't say the same for wimbledon..but congrats to nadal for another french open truimph...i can bet that this man will be the king of french open just as sampras was wimbledon's.....
RE:nadal is too gud.........................
by vijayalakshmi raghavan on Jun 08, 2007 04:58 AM
So there were a couple of reasons for Nadal losing in Hamburg to Federer. a) Federer was a lot fresher, he had lost in R32 of Rome a week ago, Nadal already had played and won 3 clay court tournaments (Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome) and he had less than 36 hrs after his Rome triumph to start playing in Hamburg. b) Federer had won Hamburg 3 times prior to this time and this was Nadal's 2nd appearance in Hamburg. The reason for Federer doing well in Hamburg is that the bounce is a lot lesser in Hamburg than other traditional clay courts, which suits his style of play and nullifies Rafa's bouncy topspin. I wouldnt read a lot into Federer beating Nadal in Hamburg. Sure it has given Federer hope that Rafa is not unbeatable on clay, but come Sunday I dont think the tale is going to be any different. Rafa beats Federer in 4 sets. That being said, Federer is the greatest player I have ever seen. Search for Federer top 10 shots on youtube and I doubt if anyone would doubt his genius.
