What did Nadal mean when he said to Roger..... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What did Nadal mean when he said to Roger.....

Graffite
02-01-2009, 08:53 PM
"You gonna get the record for sure" in the post match presentation?

Nadal will probably win the FO and Wimbledon and has a good shot at the US open. If not him, there are a couple of other guys who could take slams. So why is Roger going to equal Pete's record "for sure" ?

If I didn't know better I'd say either Rafa is doubting his abilities to win all four or there is some secret arrangement:confused:

I know Rafa felt bad and everything but this seemed a bit of weird thing to say.

Thoughts?

Chair Umpire
02-01-2009, 10:11 PM
Rafa was trying to be polite... this thread is ludicrous.

happy928
02-01-2009, 10:13 PM
roger should still be favored to win wimby this year...

jenanun
02-01-2009, 10:17 PM
or maybe rafa should say to the weeping boy ' sorry roger, no chance for you, you win never get your 14th'???

nkhera1
02-01-2009, 10:20 PM
He is still the favorite in any slam final where he doesn't play Nadal, and I don't think Nadal is getting to every slam final from between now and Fed's retirement so it makes sense.

JimmyV
02-01-2009, 10:33 PM
It's not like he was just trying to make Roger feel better.....

Did you really sign up to these forums just to make this thread?

ugotlobbed
02-01-2009, 11:09 PM
it means at some point nadal is playing roger in a gs final and hes about to win that hell just forfeit the match

michellej
02-01-2009, 11:13 PM
It didn't mean anything. Rafa's just stating facts as he sees them.

Graffite
02-01-2009, 11:53 PM
It's not like he was just trying to make Roger feel better.....

Did you really sign up to these forums just to make this thread?


I signed up to this forum to a see a picture a few weeks ago if you must know :rolleyes:

I don't see anything wrong in starting a thread about this because imo what Nadal said was a bit weird even if i was to make Fed feel better. Sometimes I think Rafa is too nice.

Graffite
02-01-2009, 11:56 PM
roger should still be favored to win wimby this year...

I think Roger will prob get to the finals of Wimbledon relatively easily but if Rafa is on the other side of the net, he's in deep trouble!

drf716
02-02-2009, 04:55 AM
oh yeah he never won FO

Snoo Foo
02-02-2009, 04:58 AM
Rafa was trying to be polite... this thread is ludicrous.

+1

safinafan
02-02-2009, 05:10 AM
roger should still be favored to win wimby this year...

No way :haha:

BackhandMissile
02-02-2009, 07:21 AM
Because he only needs to win the USO and the next Australian (if not Wimbledon) and by this time next year the record might be in the bag.

Nadal will probably win the FO and Wimbledon and has a good shot at the US open. If not him, there are a couple of other guys who could take slams.

At the moment, I wouldn't be so sure. Nadal and Federer are beatable in other tournaments, but at Grand Slams they're not really being challenged.

Djokovic and Murray are the main challengers, but only on good days and even then if they can keep their cool. Murray has yet to win a GS and I don't know if Djokovic can mentally handle being public enemy number one.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 07:37 AM
Pretty ridiculous thing. He's just being polite like Uncle Toni wants him to be but, being a killer jock he is going to make it his mission to make sure that he single-handedly prevents Roger from winning 1 more slam.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 07:37 AM
Because he only needs to win the USO and the next Australian (if not Wimbledon) and by this time next year the record might be in the bag.



At the moment, I wouldn't be so sure. Nadal and Federer are beatable in other tournaments, but at Grand Slams they're not really being challenged.

Djokovic and Murray are the main challengers, but only on good days and even then if they can keep their cool. Murray has yet to win a GS and I don't know if Djokovic can mentally handle being public enemy number one.

Djokovic has to sort out his fitness issues before he can think about being "public enemy #1".

Commander Data
02-02-2009, 08:36 AM
Roger has at least 3 years of good tennis left in him. I see not much reason to assume Nadal will reach that many HC Slam finals. he was at the brink of defeat against Verdasco, got painful wippings on different occasions on HC. He will suddenly be invinciable? No! Djokovic, Tsonga Murray and some others have the ability to beat him on HC. if everything goes right, Fed will have couple Slams left were he does not face Nadal. It is pretty reasonable that he wins one of those if he can keep form. lets not forget that he reached the final in the last 4 Slams.............
If Roger hangs in there 14th Slam is pretty much a given no matter what.

Certinfy
02-02-2009, 12:44 PM
Trying to be nice and cheer him up i guess.

But imo Fed will do it, surely he'll win Wimby and/or US Open this year.

reggie1
02-02-2009, 02:53 PM
I think once Raffa put his racket down he felt a bit guilty over his win. I thought you could see it in his eyes and he was so subdued when he held up that trophy, almost like he felt ashamed and a bit selfish. He probably felt like "the villain of the piece" and was trying to make Roger feel better. I thought when he hugged Roger it was genuine as you can see that he genuinely admires and respects him.

allouso
02-02-2009, 02:57 PM
He was just being nice. He's hardly going to come out and say "you'll never get to 14(6)"

Jogy
02-02-2009, 03:22 PM
I hope Rafa is mercyless to Fed and continues to beat him and give EVERYTHING possible he can in every big match they are playing.

It would be ridiculous if Nadal in the RG final 2011 would think in his mind: "okay, lets play just 50% so that 30 year old Roger finally gets his RG title, I really feel for him." :haha:

HattonWBA
02-02-2009, 03:37 PM
He felt bad for Roger, so he said this to cheer him up, plus he will more than likely get more than 14 slams in my opinion

NadalSharapova
02-02-2009, 06:12 PM
roger should still be favored to win wimby this year...

Punters like you are the reason I make a lot of money from tennis betting :worship:

Aliciasace
02-02-2009, 10:38 PM
1.he was trying to be nice
2. its his opinion that federer will be able to do it
3. federer probably will be able to do it
4. this thread is bloody stupid

Graffite
02-04-2009, 12:01 PM
If it's stupid don't reply to it.

thrust
02-04-2009, 02:22 PM
Pretty ridiculous thing. He's just being polite like Uncle Toni wants him to be but, being a killer jock he is going to make it his mission to make sure that he single-handedly prevents Roger from winning 1 more slam.

I hope so! Roger won most of his Slams in a era of underachievers and weaker talent. Before Nadal there was no McEnroe or Borg that Connors had to deal with. There was no Agassi, Lendl, Becker or Edberg that Sampras had to beat. Before Nadal his main competition was Roddick, Hewitt, and an erratic Safin etc..

thrust
02-04-2009, 02:27 PM
I think once Raffa put his racket down he felt a bit guilty over his win. I thought you could see it in his eyes and he was so subdued when he held up that trophy, almost like he felt ashamed and a bit selfish. He probably felt like "the villain of the piece" and was trying to make Roger feel better. I thought when he hugged Roger it was genuine as you can see that he genuinely admires and respects him.

That is an attitude of a loser, and so far, Rafa has not been a loser. Roger or Sampras never felt guilty for beating an opponent, especially in a Slam final. Rafa is a nice guy with a killer instinct on court. That is why HE is a winner!

JolánGagó
02-04-2009, 03:58 PM
He was taking the piss out of Fed, that's obvious :lol:

Jaz
02-04-2009, 04:12 PM
I hope so! Roger won most of his Slams in a era of underachievers and weaker talent. Before Nadal there was no McEnroe or Borg that Connors had to deal with. There was no Agassi, Lendl, Becker or Edberg that Sampras had to beat. Before Nadal his main competition was Roddick, Hewitt, and an erratic Safin etc..

This is a ridiculous argument. There is no way to quantify if an era is better than any other. The same could be said about Nadal, his style overpowers everyone, when he dominates after Federer is gone will the Nadal era be considered weak?

Afterall, Murray, Djoko, Del Potro, Tsonga are hardly consistent. :rolleyes:

It's a circular argument which doesn't hold any evidence but anti-evidence i.e. if x players do NOT exist it means y's era was a muggy era. You could even do it to Sampras... :rolleyes: