Federer does not complain abt any surface...ur nadal complains of hard court coz he cant win US open...even if Federer looses on clay, he doesnt complain abt that... Federer doesnt take 20 sec to make a serve ...
Federer has played 756 consecutive matches in MODERN DAY TENNIS ( i empasize more) without retiring...
One has to admit that overall statistics are clearly in favour of Federer when we discuss abt who's the all time great. So we need to wait for another 2 years or so before Nadal can really start claiming for this "all time great" tag. Till then, I will continue to enjoy the look of horror in Federer's eyes every time he sees Rafa on the other side of the net. Bango Tango, Vasudevan V and other Roger fans, this is something you will never be able to take away from us Rafa fans.
Re: Nadal will have to wait but not for long.
by arunkumar on Jun 11, 2010 09:32 AM
Exactly. Rafa knows how to play in all surfaces. He is not just clay specialist.He is tennis specialist.
Re: Re: Nadal will have to wait but not for long.
by naveen dhanerwal on Jun 11, 2010 09:38 AM
Not exactly Nadal know how to play on all surfaces but how to play against Federer! I accpet Nadal has an edge over Federer! Wonder what it is and how it is? Federer is the best among everyone but Nadal! On the side side Nadal is ok with all but best against Federer! Sagar is right..let's wait & watch what comes in future. If Nadal could dominate the tennis world as Federer has done over the years..he'll surely be the best but I have every doubt he would be able to do so! He has started complaining about the hardcourt!
Re: Re: Re: Nadal will have to wait but not for long.
by Sagar Mulay on Jun 11, 2010 09:57 AM
I dont think Nadal necessarily has to dominate Tennis like Federer did some years back or even win more GS than Federer. If he can finish with a difference of 2-3 GS and make sure that he wins all 4 majors with repeat wins, Nadal will qualify for all time greatness. Afterall statistics can not alone decide the greatest. There are other characterisitcs of a sportsman and how he displayed them in adversity, that decides the final outcome.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadal will have to wait but not for long.
by Sagar Mulay on Jun 11, 2010 10:03 AM
I really pity Roger fans who repeatedly keep pointing to Rafa's clay dominance and his injuries to belittle him. One should rather appreciate a sportsman if he achieves what Rafa has done after all these problems. Roger himself said that he feels LUCKY to stay away from injuries for so many years.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadal will have to wait but not for long.
by naveen dhanerwal on Jun 11, 2010 10:15 AM
You are right Sagar..if he does win atleast 2-3 of each slams he's be one of the greats, no doubt about it mate! But here the debate is about the best ever! Do you really think Nadal is better then Federer here? Well, this is a story much like of Sachin vs Lara vs Ponting! There has no real end of this debate!
Looks like u dont follow tennis.Cricket is different, once you are in international circuit, you are more or less the same, though experice does count.
In tennis, every no.1 player takes 3-4 years to start winning after becoming pro.
Search for "Federer–Nadal rivalry" in wiki and see the table at the bottom.
Federer, end of first 4 yrs = 0 slams end of 5th yr = 1 slam end of 6 yr = 4 slams
And thats about right for every great player. Even sampras took 4 years to settle.
But Nadal, end of 1st yr = 0 slams end 2 yr = 1 slam end of 3 yr = 2 slams end of 4 = 3 end of 5 = 5 end of 6 = 6 slams..
This is when he became no.1 and won FO,Wimbledon and Aus open.Yes he is injured and he is back now. If you think every jack and jill defeated Nadal till now, go back and see Federer's first 5 years and see whom all defeated him.
Nadal is a prodigy. Just go and look at Federers performance in Wimbeldon alone from the start of his career. 1R ( first round exit), 1R,QF,1R, WON Nadal at Wimbledon: 3R,2R,F,F,won
Nadal was almost beaten by a very very ordinary Denis Istomin. Nadal won 7-6 4-6 6-4 and he was broken when serving for the match. This year that has happened many times. Also the most noteworthy event on a shocking day at queens is that nadal took treatment during the match. He had his back rubbed by the trainer. I am already doubting if he is fit. Is he???? Start praying Nadal backers.Knees, back what not... I hope he is fully fit and comes into wimbledon with great confidence! If only Murray wins at queens and he is in the same draw of Rafa, it would be out of the world!! Even at queens it would be great when rafa plays Murray. Murray will be there. Will Nadal make it? I must admit that Murray almost lost today. He is 3-3 in third set against Mardy Fish.
Buddy let's not crack jokes here. Going by your logic even Tendulkar played 78 matches before he hit his first century. But we have had players who have hit century on debut and then hit a couple of more. Does that mean they are greater than Tendulkar? Nadal's record against Federer is awesome 14-7. But out of those 14 victories, if I have not mistaken 10-11 have been on clay which happens to be his bread and butter. Again in French Open Federer had lost only to Nadal before Soderling beat him this year. However barring clay, on other courts almost every Jack and Jill has beaten Nadal over the years. FedEx's record on all surfaces is just brilliant and he has been through every semi-final in the last 5-6 years except last French open. This has never been Nadal's case in the last 6 years when he has won the French open 5 times. He has repeatedly faltered before reaching semis on other surfaces specially at US open. Again a true champion is the one who survives the rigours of international sports for long. Federer is way ahead Nadal in this respect. Right from the time the world noticed him, he has been quite regular on circuit playing almost every masters and grand slams. But Nadal has broken down already thrice in his short carrier. Agreed that Nadal is a good player and that he holds a good record against best player of the era. But that does not mean that he can take even an ounce from the aura of FedEx. Nadal is great but title greatest is miles away from his reach.
Re: Roger Vs Rafa
by super hero on Jun 11, 2010 04:34 AM
Dude Gladson Dalmeida, Looks like u dont follow tennis.Cricket is different, once you are in international circuit, you are more or less the same, though experice does count.
In tennis, every no.1 player takes 3-4 years to start winning after becoming pro.
Search for "Federer–Nadal rivalry" in wiki and see the table at the bottom.
Federer, end of first 4 yrs = 0 slams end of 5th yr = 1 slam end of 6 yr = 4 slams
And thats about right for every great player. Even sampras took 4 years to settle.
But Nadal, end of 1st yr = 0 slams end 2 yr = 1 slam end of 3 yr = 2 slams end of 4 = 3 end of 5 = 5 end of 6 = 6 slams..
This is when he became no.1 and won FO,Wimbledon and Aus open.Yes he is injured and he is back now. If you think every jack and jill defeated Nadal till now, go back and see Federer's first 5 years and see whom all defeated him.
Nadal is a prodigy. Just go and look at Federers performance in Wimbeldon alone from the start of his career. 1R ( first round exit), 1R,QF,1R, WON Nadal at Wimbledon: 3R,2R,F,F,won
Re: Re: Roger Vs Rafa
by pusarla kumar on Jun 11, 2010 08:33 AM
Nadal is far better player than Federer at the age of 24 yrs and No boday can match him..
Nadal has made it to the finals of a hardcourt grand slam just once(which he won)...And he has made it to the finals of Wimbledon thrice. Federer on the other hand has been to the finals of the French four times(winning it once)and he has won HELL A LOT of rest of the slams.
Nadal is by far the best player to have palyed on clay but Federer anytime will be picked as an all time great if not the greatest of all just because of how he has dominated the sport.
Let Nadal get close to Federer's slams on rest of the courts, then you can compare him to Federer....Nadal cant just beat Federer and have a winning record against him and go down as a great(which he is JUST on clay)...He needs to win a LOT more slams to get there...Just the French wont get him there
Also, at 24 he has had injury trouble just because of how physical he is....Lets see how long he lasts....Federer on the other hand has had his rhythm going without much injuries for a long time
BOTTOM LINE: Federer has already accomplished everything possible and on every surface as a player......Nadal has a long way to go on surfaces other than clay.
But thank god there is a Nadal....if not Fedex would have dominated single handedly for 10 years(not that he hasnt otherwise)
Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by super hero on Jun 11, 2010 01:18 AM
Very Funny...u use Nadal's age when telling about his injuries..but not comparing with Federer. Federer took 5 years to win a Grandslam/Become no.1 , after he became a pro. Nadal's initial days are also over now. Dont compare he records with federers over all records. Nadal won his first French Open, the very first time he played the tournament. Beating the then No.1 Federer in finals. No matter what excuse you give(clay), that still a great achievement. Irony, the greatest player ever trails 7-14 against Nadal who is budding. Is he really greatest then?
Re: Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by gladson dalmeida on Jun 11, 2010 02:05 AM
Buddy let's not crack jokes here. Going by your logic even Tendulkar played 78 matches before he hit his first century. But we have had players who have hit century on debut and then hit a couple of more. Does that mean they are greater than Tendulkar? Nadal's record against Federer is awesome 14-7. But out of those 14 victories, if I have not mistaken 10-11 have been on clay which happens to be his bread and butter. Again in French Open Federer had lost only to Nadal before Soderling beat him this year. However barring clay, on other courts almost every Jack and Jill has beaten Nadal over the years. FedEx's record on all surfaces is just brilliant and he has been through every semi-final in the last 5-6 years except last French open. This has never been Nadal's case in the last 6 years when he has won the French open 5 times. He has repeatedly faltered before reaching semis on other surfaces specially at US open. Again a true champion is the one who survives the rigours of international sports for long. Federer is way ahead Nadal in this respect. Right from the time the world noticed him, he has been quite regular on circuit playing almost every masters and grand slams. But Nadal has broken down already thrice in his short carrier. Agreed that Nadal is a good player and that he holds a good record against best player of the era. But that does not mean that he can take even an ounce from the aura of FedEx. Nadal is great but title greatest is miles away from his reach.
Re: Re: Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by super hero on Jun 11, 2010 02:42 AM
Dude Gladson Dalmeida, Looks like u dont follow tennis.Cricket is different, once you are in international circuit, you are more or less the same, though experice does count.
In tennis, every no.1 player takes 3-4 years to start winning after becoming pro.
Search for "Federer–Nadal rivalry" in wiki and see the table at the bottom.
Federer, end of first 4 yrs = 0 slams end of 5th yr = 1 slam end of 6 yr = 4 slams
And thats about right for every great player. Even sampras took 4 years to settle.
But Nadal, end of 1st yr = 0 slams end 2 yr = 1 slam end of 3 yr = 2 slams end of 4 = 3 end of 5 = 5 end of 6 = 6 slams..
This is when he became no.1 and won FO,Wimbledon and Aus open.Yes he is injured and he is back now. If you think every jack and jill defeated Nadal till now, go back and see Federer's first 5 years and see whom all defeated him.
Nadal is a prodigy. Just go and look at Federers performance in Wimbeldon alone from the start of his career. 1R ( first round exit), 1R,QF,1R, WON Nadal at Wimbledon: 3R,2R,F,F,won
Re: Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by Jay on Jun 11, 2010 01:56 AM
Federer has accomplished everything...Nadal is yet to do it on other surfaces.
And first read what I wrote m0r0n...I said Nadal is by far the best player to have played on clay...but hes yet to do it on other surfaces......It doesnt matter if anyone wins it at 25 or at 18.......bottom line is.....let him do it first....and once he has reached the same level of accomplishments, then you can compare him to the greats on other surfaces.
And one more thin...you think 20 yrs down the lane people are going to talk about the win loss record that you mention.....Its the records and the slam wins that will stand the test of time.....Let Nadal get there first and then we can talk
Here is my prediction....write it down and keep it with you.....He might win a couple more French titles but he will burn out in a couple of years...I will say he wud at the most get to 9 or 10 grand slams with his level of physical play....he is not gonna last that long without an injury.
Re: Re: Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by super hero on Jun 11, 2010 02:25 AM
You idiot..I think you have two minds in ur brain conflicting with each other. You are the one who was comparing Nadal and Federer in the first post. Go read it again with other mind. Regarding the facts, I have facts and numbers on my side for my argument. All you have is predictions/projections.
The fact is Nadal rose gradually and crushed Federer when he is in peak to take No.1 position. All Federer could do was to cry. Again, now nadal is fit and pushed aside Federer in 3 months. Your prediction that Nadal wont last is just ur understanding. Now u write down my prediction and keep it with you. Federer's head-head record with Nadal is going to be the same ration till he retires. And 20 years down the lane no matter how many slams Fed accumulate, People will relaize that Fed is not the Greatest coz he could stand the real competition and that Sampras is indeed the all time great for constantly crushing top players who figure in Hall of Fame.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by chelsea on Jun 11, 2010 02:49 AM
20 years down the lane, nadal may indeed have a winning h2h record to federer but that will be cause nadal is possibly the best ever claycourter around. I have to laugh at Sampras being the greatest. You know that Federer has a winning h2h against sampras ? Federer is best ever cause he was so good that nobody apart from Nadal on clay could touch him on grand slams. Think about people like Roddick or Hewitt who would have won many more slams if Fed wasn't there. Sampras never got near a french open final. He totally sucked on it. This during the time there was no-one who was dominating it like Nadal is now. Despite this, Federer has beaten nadal twice on clay (most time by any player on clay).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by Jay on Jun 22, 2010 09:08 PM
That reply was for super heros lamea$$ comments......He says the Hewitts and Roddicks can be number 2s easily........then why in the world does Nadal loase on other surfaces......why hasnt he made it to the finals of every surface....He has won 5 french opens....he has enough experience but yet he ends up losing on other surfaces(barring 1 australian and 1 wimbledon).....He doesnt even reach the finals.....oh wait.....the competition is tougher for him...I forgot......write ur comments on a piece of paper and put it in a place where the sun doesnt shine....u moron
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by Jay on Jun 22, 2010 09:05 PM
Going by ur same lamea$$ reasoning, why doesnt Nadal reach the final of every grand slam if the competition is so weak.....Wake up and smell the coffee u moron....You are a sore lo$er...thats what u r with ur head up ur bu tt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by super hero on Jun 11, 2010 04:33 AM
Dude Chelsea, I am sure you did not watch Sampras playing Live in his peak. You were too young then. Sampras's carrer coincided with 4-5 all time great players. A great rivarly was going on in Wimbledon between Edberg and Boris Becker.And then there was Agassi.Jim courier was in peak with 4-5 titiles. Sampras came just trahsed everyone. Logically speaking, my point is about the quality of the competitors. Dont say,Its Federers greatness that he didnt allow anyone else to come up. He won 16 titiles and Sampras 14. Sampras opponents edberg-agassi-becker-courier each have 5-8 titles too. Look at federers opponents, how consistent they are.Sure federe wins the slams,but they should make to finals,semi-finals consistently. I can easily say there was no constant top 10 players when FED was swiping. He can take 1 position, but not all top 5 right?.. go see stats..in atp website, u can see players rankings for any given time. Just the last 2 years, Nadal has risen, we have Murray,Djokovic. Now he has competition. The real competitors who are in constant top 10.But when he has competiiton he is not that great.and is clearly second to Nadal.
Well ur so called great Hewitt and Roddick, who is stopping them from becoming no.2 players? Are they loosing in Finals to Fed?
Dont just bark by looking at 16 vs 14 titiles. Even a kid can say Fed is greater looking at that stat.
Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by pusarla kumar on Jun 11, 2010 08:34 AM
Nadal is far better player than Federer at the age of 24 yrs and No body can match him..
Re: Re: Nadal is good.....but not a great yet
by gladson dalmeida on Jun 11, 2010 08:07 PM
Super hero seems to have some illusion of himself. Sampras was truly great but he is not the best. Come to FedEx, even on clay he is the second best of his generation after Nadal, whereas same cannot be said of Nadal on other surfaces. He is neither the best nor the second best in the last 6 years. Even at his peak Nadal only one French open while struggling at others except for the year when he won Australian and Wimbledon. Nadal is a fighter but he is surely not an artiste in Edberg, Beker or Federer mode. This is the reason even today we love Graff or Hingis more than the Serena though Williams sisters have been quite astonishing on the circuit.I bet the Nadal will not be able to hold together his physique for long with the kind of game he has. He may still be stronger mentally but physically he will soon erode. Again Roddick! It's again Federer who has stopped him at Wimbledon thrice in finals. Hewitt too has often folded without fight only against Fed while he is usually known for gusty fightbacks and 5 setter games. Let there be more matches between Fed and Nadal on hard courts or at Grass courts. Then everyone will know as who is great.
Re: watch live bothe Halle & Queens Club ...
by bango tango on Jun 10, 2010 09:13 PM
in bet365,u ve to register first( for free)....but quality is the best ...
Re: Re: watch live bothe Halle & Queens Club ...
by bango tango on Jun 10, 2010 09:14 PM
i had seen the game of nadal & istomin till 7th game ( coz i had to hooked upto God Federer's game)....nadal fans have to admit, he was struggling wd istomin ....
Re: Re: Re: watch live bothe Halle & Queens Club ...
by bango tango on Jun 10, 2010 09:17 PM
did any 1 noticed the serve speed of Federer in the 1st rnd ...in fact, one serve he hit at 224 KMPH(too good by his stnd) ....but he was easily clocking 210 KMPH serves...
n wt abt the shot of Federer in the 1st game , 2nd break point...IT WAS A SCORCHER OF A BANK HAND ...MILLION DOLLAR SHOT FOR A SINGLE HANDED BACKHAND SHOT...
Re: Re: Re: Re: watch live bothe Halle & Queens Club
by bango tango on Jun 10, 2010 10:36 PM
WOW !!! WT A MATCH IS GOING ON !!!! 1 SET ALL TO NADAL & ISTOMIN.....ISTOMIN 6-7, 6-4 ....
nadal likes to skid and retrieve the shots, which is not possible on hard courts. its somewhat possible on grass courts. which ever surface the player find it difficult he will complain.... once even lendle called 'grass is for cows' since he failed to win the title at the wimbledon. if nadal finds it very difficult to play in the hard courts then he can very well skip those tournaments.
Re: Hard courts
by bango tango on Jun 10, 2010 08:50 PM
sorry Rocky, it's not Lendl...it was Marcelo Rios who after loosing Becker in Round 16 of Wimbledon 97, told that 'grass is for cows' ...
Re: Re: Hard courts
by bango tango on Jun 10, 2010 08:52 PM
i remember that till the loss to David Wheaton in 1991 Wimbledon, Lendl had not said this comment ...
Naturally. In fact, Nadal will welcome more clay court tournaments on which he is the best, 27 of his 39 titles and 5 of his 7 grandslam titles having come on clay. Ask Federer - he will opt for Grass and Hardcourt, given his dominance on these two surfaces during the best part of the past decade (2000-09). This statement itself proves the fact Nadal is a clay court specialist, ok with grasscourts, but very uncomfortable on hardcourts in spite of his fairly good results in Masters. He has just one grandslam title on grasscourt and one on hardcourt!
Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts....
by aishwarya patil on Jun 10, 2010 08:42 PM
Re: Re: aishwarya patil by aishwarya patil on Jun 09, 2010 08:19 PM You should but make correction. Nadal is miles ahead of Federer on clay, and Federer is marginally better on other surfaces.
Forward | Report abuse Re: Re: aishwarya patil by aishwarya patil on Jun 09, 2010 12:32 PM Well, Well Professor Vasudevan! Reading our posts, one can hardly guess we are discussing the same topic! I have failed to understand how defending points is tougher than acquiring them. One just has to win, and keep winning, to do either. Have a nice time. We shall pick up the fight once again in the second week of Wimbledon.
Forward | Report abuse Re: Re: aishwarya patil by aishwarya patil on Jun 09, 2010 08:12 PM If you think he cannot ever regain the no. 1 spot, you are grossly underestimating Federer. A know-all like you, should not read too much into just one bad clay court season for your hero. This season was really special in that it was very damp and heavy. Roger Federer was caught unawares in Rome, Madrid, and also in Paris. He was just not prepared well enough to counter the new conditions. I believe Federer does have the capacity to bounce back, and do all that I have mentioned in my original post. I hope he does. Good bye Professor. We shall meet again in the second week of Wimbledon. And by the way, are you not interested in Soccer? Which team would you put your money on this Wold Cup? I am for Argentina.
Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts....
by Anuraug Rathor on Jun 10, 2010 02:24 PM
Vas deferens V.....Dont you get tired of repeating that same old stuff?If Rafa is the "claycourt best" then Fedex is the "grasscourt best".You seem to forget that Fedex is in the twilight of his career and Rafa's still very young.Yes he has just one Grandslam on both hard and grass courts...in how many years of playing?And after so many years of playing Fedex has just one clay GS(in Rafa's absence)......any answers for that?Stop cut pasting your same old BS and get a new argument.Fedex is maybe the greatest ever...but stop belittling the others.Rafa has systematically destroyed everything Fedex threw at him..appreciate that!As for his 'fairly good' results in Masters....you could say 'fairly best' as he's won the most!Once Rafa reaches the same stage of his career as Fedex is at now,maybe a comparison will be more logical.So unless you've been blessed with foresight,please shut your trap!
Re: Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts....
by Shiva MS on Jun 10, 2010 09:03 PM
Who is responsible for rafa's absence? Rafa himself. The fact is that to play federer u need to reach the finals. Nobody can forget his 23 continuous semi finals streak at slams. I see a tired nadal EVERY year, year after year after year. after wimbledon he labours like an old dog. He has never played a 12 month stretch at the same fitness level. I have never seen a tired federer on court. I love them both. Federer s second best on clay for sure. But he is definitely much fitter. Nadal has had the edge in slam finals. But he has reached just one finals in australia and none in US. First u have to get there, then get there regularly and then win more. Lets see. Rafa s best bet is 2 slams after which he is just drained. A dead battery. Federer knows tennis much better to preserve himself. If rafa doesnt show up it is his mistake. The fact is that in 2009 french open federer won it and rafa lost in the 4th round. The reason, he played too much. Federer is not responsible. Period. No ifs and buts. we ll see what happens at wimbledon. Federer clearly playing much better at the moment. Rafa can surely win but it remains to be seen! Good luck to both of them.
Re: Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts....
by Manjesh on Jun 10, 2010 05:15 PM
Vasu you should understand that Nadal has won lot of masters which is played on hard courts.Also within 5 years of Professional tennis this lad has won grandslams in every type of court.He has beaten the great grass&Hard court player Federer in those surfaces in grandslam finals.Federer it took more than 10 years to win a grandslam on clay.that too in the absence of nadal.so understand that if Federer is great so too is nadal who is just 24!
Re: Re: Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts....
by bango tango on Jun 10, 2010 08:55 PM
Manjesh, i seriously doubt on ur comment....how many maters nadal have won on Hard Courts ??? in fact, this yr he lost in all hard court tournaments... he lost to murray, roddick, ljubicic....
Re: Re: Re: Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts...
by bango tango on Jun 10, 2010 09:02 PM
one more thing ...Federer has never ever complained of any surafces,even though he has not done well on clay... thats y i think his BEST ever record is to play consecutive 756 matches without retiring in a match, that too in modern day tennis... i doubt, whether nadal can play 20 consecutive matches on hard courts :-)
Re: Re: Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts....
by Shiva MS on Jun 10, 2010 09:05 PM
best of 3 sets, many people can play. Murray, soderling, Del potro, and many others, even Ljubicic have won masters on hard courts. Both federer and nadal are at a different level in best of 5 sets slam events. Masters happen through just one week and slams have two weeks. To maintain the same intensity and focus for two weeks is too much of an ask at the moment. Masters are relatively easier to win. Though federer doesnt admit it, he doesnt quite play at the same level in masters and other non-slam events.
Re: Re: Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts....
by Jay on Jun 11, 2010 12:16 AM
Hold it right there. Here are some facts for you: Nadal has made it to the finals of a hardcourt grand slam just once(which he won)...And he has made it to the finals of Wimbledon thrice. Federer on the other hand has been to the finals of the French four times(winning it once)and he has won HELL A LOT of rest of the slams.
Nadal is by far the best player to have palyed on clay but Federer anytime will be picked as an all time great if not the greatest of all just because of how he has dominated the sport.
Let Nadal get close to Federer's slams on rest of the courts, then you can compare him to Federer....Nadal cant just beat Federer and have a winning record against him and go down as a great(which he is JUST on clay)...He needs to win a LOT more slams to get there...Just the French wont get him there
Also, at 24 he has had injury trouble just because of how physical he is....Lets see how long he lasts....Federer on the other hand has had his rhythm going without much injuries for a long time
BOTTOM LINE: Federer has already accomplished everything possible and on every surface as a player......Nadal has a long way to go on surfaces other than clay.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts...
by super hero on Jun 11, 2010 01:25 AM
Federer took 5 years to win a Grandslam/Become no.1 , after he became a pro. Nadal's initial days are also over now. Dont compare he records with federers over all records. Nadal won his first French Open, the very first time he played the tournament. Beating the then No.1 Federer in finals. No matter what excuse you give(clay), that still a great achievement. Irony, the greatest player ever trails 7-14 against Nadal who is budding. Is he really greatest then?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass court
by Jay on Jun 11, 2010 02:04 AM
I never said its not a great achievement you m0r0n.....It is by far the greatest achievement on clay ever....setting that aside.....Both the guys are greats.....but Federer has performed consistently on all surfaces because he has a better rhythm in his game....Nadal is very physical and relies on his speed.....so it will be hard for him to consistently do that on surfaces other than clay because the courts are faster.....so with age hes bound to change his game....if not he will burn out......Federer on the other hand relies on his rhythm and is smoother in his approach....which is why he has lasted on top consistently for that long....Federer has won more slams than anyone else...nadal will need to beat that to be called the greatest.....A better record against federer will not get him there.
Re: You ask Federer, he will say more grass courts....
by Sagar Mulay on Jun 10, 2010 02:46 PM
Well I see atleast one more person who is fed up of Vasu's posts. Writing mile long messages doesnt mean you are right.
