Nadal is a loser at the US open and will remain to be a loser. He doesn't have the game to take on better players on the fast hard courts. He is a clay court specialist and will remain to be so. Soon he will vanish just like roddick is suffering these days.
Andy Roddick and Roger Federer are contempories. Roddick has barely been able to make it to the second weeks of the Grand Slams for quite some time now, and yet, nobody opines that Roddick should retire. Federer on the other hand despite slipping off his best, is still ranked no. 2 in the world, and yet, many experts on rediff feel that he should retire. This is the price one has to pay for setting high standards. If Federer were to retire, how would Nadal prove that he is better than him?
Re: Andy Roddick
by Anurag Rathore on Sep 02, 2010 02:05 PM
Nadal can prove it by winning more GS than him. Like Federer proved he is all time best so far.
Re: Andy Roddick
by Anurag Rathore on Sep 02, 2010 02:10 PM
1.Nadal has to win more GS than Federer. 2.He has to show dominance on all surfaces at least 4-5 years.
Then everybody will accept that he is better than Federer.
Re: Re: Andy Roddick
by aishwarya patil on Sep 02, 2010 09:38 PM
How does one decide which one of the given two players is better, Anurag? Suppose the question is: Who, of Anurag Rathore and Aishwarya Patil is a better Tennis player? The straight answer is: Let us play and see who wins. Suppose we play 21 times. I win 14, and you win 7. If you still do not agree about my being better than you, and keep ranting about your results against other players, I thing the right word for you will be 'Obstinate'. It seems like a paradox; in fact it is one. Federer sure is a candidate for 'The Greatest Ever' Tennis player, and one of the reasons (Not the only reason) why he is definitely not the greatest, is that he has been losing consistently to Nadal. Though Nadal yet perhaps qualify to be considered 'The Greatest Ever', he certainly is, on the strength of his achievements thus far, one of the Greatest ever. And he may not be able to win as many Slams as Federer (though I am sure he will top Federer on that score too), he will always be able to claim that he was better than Federer. And why do you consider Grand Slams only for measuring the calibre of a player? What of the number of Masters series tournaments won by Nadal? Do you think Federer is going to beat Nadal there? And what of the Olympic Gold? To cut the long story short, Federer may be this and that, and Nadal may not be all that, but Nadal is better than Federer. Period.
Re: Re: Re: Andy Roddick
by Anurag Rathore on Sep 03, 2010 09:39 AM
I don't sgree with you. You can only judge by head to head if both players played their top tennis at same time and ratio of number of matches is almost equal on each surface. Currently I will say Nadal is all time best clay court player and better than Federer on clay but on other surfaces Federer is far-far ahead of him.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Andy Roddick
by aishwarya patil on Sep 03, 2010 06:12 PM
And because you are Supreme Court of India, your word is final! If Federer is not at the top of his form against Nadal, of course it is Nadal's fault. You need to correct yourself. On the basis of available data, there is simply no comparision between Nadal and Federer on clay. On other surfaces though, Federer looks marginally superior. Federer has failed to demonstrate the kind of mastery over Nadal on Grass and Hard Courts the way Nadal has demonstrated on clay.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Andy Roddick
by Anurag Rathore on Sep 06, 2010 12:36 PM
Is it fault of Federer that he couldn't meet with Nadal as number of times on Grass and Hard courts as he met on clay? Records says Federer has better head to head records against Nadal except clay courts.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Andy Roddick
by Anurag Rathore on Sep 06, 2010 12:48 PM
Even Nadal has said that the people who are saying that I am better than Federer don't know anything about tennis. Accept the truth. I am not supreme court. But you should accept that Pete Sampras, Agassi, Nadal like players know better than you.
Re: Sania lost
by Anurag Rathore on Sep 02, 2010 10:52 AM
She is all hype and no substance. She wants to make the best use of the benefits from india and then later run away to paki land.
Re: Re: A.Murray and R.Nadal.......
by aishwarya patil on Sep 02, 2010 12:33 PM
He may win if Murray is able to take care of Nadal in the semi-final. If Nadal goes through to the final (which is difficult), Federer has no chance. But you have already agreed that he is going to be consumed by someone before the final.
Murray, indeed was on fire. In this kind of form, he has to be considered the main threat for Nadal. I guess one of these two is going to win this one. As for Federer, I thing someone is going to consume him before the final.
Re: aishwarya patil
by karthik keyan on Sep 02, 2010 11:37 AM
I watched the Murray match yesterday...He is in form...but yesterday match is definitely not a great match...The scoreboard is unidirectional not because of his great skills...His opponent was slovakia's Lukas lacko.He was completely out of form...He was slogging through the court with lack of energy and poise...Like his name suggests Slovakia's lacko...slogging and lack of energy
