Nadal is better than Federer on a hard court also [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal is better than Federer on a hard court also

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 08:43 AM
Here is the video of the Dubai Final which was played in 2006 on a Hard court surface...if you watch the video Nadal loses the first set but after he gets warmed up he does everything better than Roger...He is more consistent and is actually creating angles and coming up with better shots on the hard court...the only Surface that Roger has an edge on him might actually be grass...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FHlQDh-PVo&search=nadal

vincayou
06-13-2006, 08:46 AM
The only problem is that more people can beat him on hardcourt than Federer.

Filipo
06-13-2006, 08:46 AM
here is showed only the nadal winning points. I think that at this final Federer underestimated Nadal on hard. Definitely the next time, won't !!!

forever_rafter
06-13-2006, 08:46 AM
I'll write it in Polish "zal dupe sciska jak sie czyta takie bzdury"

vincayou
06-13-2006, 08:47 AM
And I don't think he's better than Federer on HC.

disturb3d
06-13-2006, 08:52 AM
Nadal beats Roger.
Roger beats Blake.
Blake beats Nadal.

Is James better than Rafael? No.
Is Rafael better than Roger? No.
-It is simply a factor of styles-

Add to that, the fact that Nadal CAN lose to anyone, any day.
And Federer only loses to Nadal.

Its obvious that Federer has greater control over the tour.
But his kryptonite just happens to be 1 spot away from him in the rankings.

yuffchen
06-13-2006, 09:01 AM
And I don't think he's better than Federer on HC.

Agree! Nadal should play on grass against Fed but I think it takes a little time for this ;)

stebs
06-13-2006, 09:06 AM
So Rafa leads the H-2-H on hardcourts 2-1. That's true and that's great for Rafa. Roger has 4 slams on hard courts, Rafa has zero. Roger has god knows how many titles on hard courts, many more than Rafa that's for sure. Rafa isn't even anywhere close to Roger on hardcourts.

Agassi Fan
06-13-2006, 09:07 AM
Yes, Nadal is better than Federer.

oz_boz
06-13-2006, 09:35 AM
, as proven by their results in Dubai, IW and Miami.

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 09:43 AM
the spaniard is so good on fast courts that he will win queen's, wimby, toronto, cincinnati, usopen, and whatever tournament he will enter for the rest of his life... provided he meets fed in the finals...

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 09:43 AM
DO I sound bitter?

nobama
06-13-2006, 11:06 AM
Nadal beats Roger.
Roger beats Blake.
Blake beats Nadal.

Is James better than Rafael? No.
Is Rafael better than Roger? No.
-It is simply a factor of styles-

Add to that, the fact that Nadal CAN lose to anyone, any day.
And Federer only loses to Nadal.

Its obvious that Federer has greater control over the tour.
But his kryptonite just happens to be 1 spot away from him in the rankings.Too logical for the thread starter to understand.

jenanun
06-13-2006, 11:10 AM
Nadal beats Roger.
Roger beats Blake.
Blake beats Nadal.

Is James better than Rafael? No.
Is Rafael better than Roger? No.
-It is simply a factor of styles-

Add to that, the fact that Nadal CAN lose to anyone, any day.
And Federer only loses to Nadal.

Its obvious that Federer has greater control over the tour.
But his kryptonite just happens to be 1 spot away from him in the rankings.

not fair to compare
blake/nadal and nadal/federer

blake beat nadal twice
nadal beat federer 6 times

and

Nadal is better than Federer on a hard court, on certain matches at critical points....

Halba
06-13-2006, 11:10 AM
Rafa beat Roger Federer when he was only 17! on a hard court! imagine what an effort. In straight sets as well. hardly anyone beats roger in straights

this boy is improving and will be able to beat federer on hard and clay. He is only 20. Federer arguably can't improve anymore. Nadal is going to be the better player.

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 11:16 AM
Rafa beat Roger Federer when he was only 17! on a hard court! imagine what an effort. In straight sets as well. hardly anyone beats roger in straights

this boy is improving and will be able to beat federer on hard and clay. He is only 20. Federer arguably can't improve anymore. Nadal is going to be the better player.

there's still room for federer to improve as proven by his 2006 clay season! Plus, nadal may well get burnt out very quickly, 1-2 years from now!!!

P.S. hewitt beat agassi when he was 16 and beacame n°1 at 20 and now quite far away in the rankings...

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 11:23 AM
Rafa beat Roger Federer when he was only 17! on a hard court! imagine what an effort. In straight sets as well. hardly anyone beats roger in straights

this boy is improving and will be able to beat federer on hard and clay. He is only 20. Federer arguably can't improve anymore. Nadal is going to be the better player.
I agree...Nadal will only get better with time...he is 5 years younger than Federer and believe it or not is right on track with his Grand Slams having won 2 by the young age of 20...he is a true fighter...The only way Nadal will burn out is if he is either injured very badly or he falls in love...

Castafiore
06-13-2006, 11:38 AM
Rafael Nadal shows a lot of promise on hardcourts and he already has had some excellent results on fast surfaces against good players but I would not say (yet) that he's better than Federer on HC at this moment.
For example, I don't think that he has the same confidence on HC as he has on clay but that sort of thing takes time.

Federer's results on HC speak for themselves, I think.
Speaking as a Rafa fan in the first place: don't sell Federer short here. Roger Federer is a magnifent player!

joeb_uk
06-13-2006, 11:45 AM
Its hard to say that rafa is better, he is able to beat federer quite easily. But he is capable of losing to many other players on hardcourt, unlike federer. If rafa can cut out these losses to marginal players, he will be better one day maybe.

forever_rafter
06-13-2006, 11:47 AM
the spaniard is so good on fast courts that he will win queen's, wimby, toronto, cincinnati, usopen, and whatever tournament he will enter for the rest of his life... provided he meets fed in the finals...

love it ;)

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 11:58 AM
Its hard to say that rafa is better, he is able to beat federer quite easily. But he is capable of losing to many other players on hardcourt, unlike federer. If rafa can cut out these losses to marginal players, he will be better one day maybe.

STILL NOT CONVINCED...CHECK THESE STATS OUT:
Nadal HARD-COURT RECORDS:
2004: 14-10 (58%) ----> 2005: 28-6 (82%) 2006-still ongoing: 11-3


Federer Hard-court Stats at the age of 20:
2002: 21-9 (70%) 2003: 30-41 (73%) 2004: 46-4 (92%) 2005:50-1 (98%)

Nadal still has a lot of room to improve...he is only 20!!!

joeb_uk
06-13-2006, 12:02 PM
STILL NOT CONVINCED...CHECK THESE STATS OUT:
Nadal HARD-COURT RECORDS:
2004: 14-10 (58%) ----> 2005: 28-6 (82%) 2006-still ongoing: 11-3


Federer Hard-court Stats at the age of 20:
2002: 21-9 (70%) 2003: 30-41 (73%) 2004: 46-4 (92%) 2005:50-1 (98%)

Nadal still has a lot of room to improve...he is only 20!!!

As I said man, if he cuts out these losses to marginal players (blake for one) one day he will maybe be a better player. But the fact remains, currently he is not. 98 vs 82 shows you that, thats a huge difference in percentage.

jenanun
06-13-2006, 12:03 PM
Federer Hard-court Stats at the age of 20:
2002: 21-9 (70%) 2003: 30-41 (73%) 2004: 46-4 (92%) 2005:50-1 (98%)


50-1!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: the 1, AO SF?
this year, he lost 1 already....
can he keep only 1 HC lost per season?

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 12:05 PM
50-1!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: the 1, AO SF?
this year, he lost 1 already....
can he keep only 1 HC lost per season?

He will!!!

jenanun
06-13-2006, 12:06 PM
As I said man, if he cuts out these losses to marginal players (blake for one) one day he will maybe be a better player. But the fact remains, currently he is not. 98 vs 82 shows you that, thats a huge difference in percentage.

so blake beat nadal, twice, on HC..

and people make that sounds like nadal is blake's pigeon...

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 12:06 PM
This is Federer's peak...he's not going to get any better

yanchr
06-13-2006, 12:07 PM
STILL NOT CONVINCED...CHECK THESE STATS OUT:
Nadal HARD-COURT RECORDS:
2004: 14-10 (58%) ----> 2005: 28-6 (82%) 2006-still ongoing: 11-3


Federer Hard-court Stats at the age of 20:
2002: 21-9 (70%) 2003: 30-41 (73%) 2004: 46-4 (92%) 2005:50-1 (98%)

Nadal still has a lot of room to improve...he is only 20!!!
Your statistics said it yourself. So you think 82% is better than 98%? Don't give me Nadal is only 20. We are talking about now.

El Legenda
06-13-2006, 12:07 PM
If you believe that Nadal is better then Roger on HC,

Hi, I am the real Jerry Seinfeld :)

yanchr
06-13-2006, 12:08 PM
This is Federer's peak...he's not going to get any better
How do you know? Don't tell me you just know.

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 12:09 PM
i said that he's better than Federer on Hardcourt...not that he has a better record than him...H2H for some reason he is a better player (maybe he tries harder)

joeb_uk
06-13-2006, 12:09 PM
so blake beat nadal, twice, on HC..

and people make that sounds like nadal is blake's pigeon...

Not pigeon, but a player of nadals class shouldnt be losing to someone like blake. If he wants to be the best on hardcourts, he certainly shouldnt be losing to blake twice in a season. Blake is not a player of nalbandians, federer, nadals class etc, hes a marginal player.

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 12:11 PM
if you remeber Blake had a few months where he caught fire...he almost made it the finals of the US OPEN...Blake was on fire when he was playing Nadal...

joeb_uk
06-13-2006, 12:11 PM
Your statistics said it yourself. So you think 82% is better than 98%? Don't give me Nadal is only 20. We are talking about now.

LOL Yes, some people post data and use it in the wrong way. This guy tryed it :haha: Thats what I said to him, its about NOW!!! and he tryed to put out hes only 20.

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 12:11 PM
This is Federer's peak...he's not going to get any better

People said he reached his peak 2 years ago already and look how he improved his clay game this year!!!

Stop talking BS!!!

Midnight Express
06-13-2006, 12:12 PM
Roger's only win is after being down 0:2 sets and 3:5 in TB in 3rd! :shrug:

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 12:12 PM
Feder is not going to get better on Hardcourt...i'm sorry to tell you that 50-1 is his peak

linus
06-13-2006, 12:17 PM
Rafa would prove himself to be better than Roger even on hard ;)

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 12:18 PM
Feder is not going to get better on Hardcourt...i'm sorry to tell you that 50-1 is his peak

So according to you there's no part of fed's game to be improved?!?

He cannot improve his serve, backhand or whatever?!?

Man that sucks, I''ve been so naive to think he can improve some things, the guy is uphill and will only collapse form now on...

supersexynadal
06-13-2006, 12:18 PM
Nadal beats Roger.
Roger beats Blake.
Blake beats Nadal.

Is James better than Rafael? No.
Is Rafael better than Roger? No.
-It is simply a factor of styles-

Add to that, the fact that Nadal CAN lose to anyone, any day.
And Federer only loses to Nadal.

Its obvious that Federer has greater control over the tour.
But his kryptonite just happens to be 1 spot away from him in the rankings.

Youre right. Sometimes tennis doesnt make sense. And let me add, Robredo beat blake in straight sets on hard court and es not better than roger or rafa. I can say that Nadal that nadal is as good on hard court as Federer is on clay. Hes barely 20. He cant be that good all of a sudden. Hes the king of clay coz he grew up on it nd his game suits it very much but he cant be that natural on hard (or grass) all of a sudden..I can safely say that he'll win the australian open and us open at least once but wimbledon is a long way away. I believe in him and he can do it. :worship:

joeb_uk
06-13-2006, 12:19 PM
So according to you there's no part of fed's game to be improved?!?

He cannot improve his serve, backhand or whatever?!?

Man that sucks, I''ve been so naive to think he can improve some things, the guy is uphill and will only collapse form now on...

He will improve his quality of play, but he will never surpass 50-1 record in one year (this is the guys point). One reason for that; NADAL. Nadal is going to beat him more times than that alone.

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 12:21 PM
He will improve his quality of play, but he will never surpass 50-1 record in one year (this is the guys point). One reason for that; NADAL. Nadal is going to beat him more times than that alone.

Time will tell, not you guys...

yanchr
06-13-2006, 12:22 PM
Feder is not going to get better on Hardcourt...i'm sorry to tell you that 50-1 is his peak
So in your logic, Nadal hasn't lost any match on clay, so I can call this is his peak and he is not going to be better...

joeb_uk
06-13-2006, 12:23 PM
Time will tell, not you guys...

You are talking utter shit then, because if thats true (you saying he will doesnt mean a thing either). Sort yourself out man, you are just contradicting everything you are saying. You have lost the plot completely.

jenanun
06-13-2006, 12:26 PM
How do you know? Don't tell me you just know.

whether federer is getting better or not..

depends on whether he is going to lose another match this year..

last year, he lost 4 throughout the entire season...

this year, he lost 4 already....

so..... :rolleyes:

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 12:33 PM
So in your logic, Nadal hasn't lost any match on clay, so I can call this is his peak and he is not going to be better...

The fact that he has that record at the age of 20 is the key...In tennis, age is a huge factor...thats why barring injury/marriage etc he is in a position to do amazing things that people cannot understand right now...the fact that he has a 6-1 record over Federer at the age of 20 H2H means something...

even when Richard Krajicej who I believe had the best H2H record over Sampras (in terms of players who played him more than 5 times) only had a 6-4 record over him...that in actuality was a REAL RIVALRY, but I understand the fact that Nadal has not played Federer on Grass and only 3 times on Hardcourt but if Nadal keeps beating Federer on Hardcourt then it is clear that he is the better player overall...albeit by mental edge which is a factor in tennis

yanchr
06-13-2006, 12:36 PM
whether federer is getting better or not..

depends on whether he is going to lose another match this year..

last year, he lost 4 throughout the entire season...

this year, he lost 4 already....

so..... :rolleyes:
In your logic, whether he is getting better or not is totally decided by the records, the statistics? Not in mine.

So last year he lost two matches on clay and won one while this year he lost three and won nothing, means he was better last year on clay? Don't tell me you do think so...

nobama
06-13-2006, 12:47 PM
Youre right. Sometimes tennis doesnt make sense. And let me add, Robredo beat blake in straight sets on hard court and es not better than roger or rafa. I can say that Nadal that nadal is as good on hard court as Federer is on clay. Hes barely 20. He cant be that good all of a sudden. Hes the king of clay coz he grew up on it nd his game suits it very much but he cant be that natural on hard (or grass) all of a sudden..I can safely say that he'll win the australian open and us open at least once but wimbledon is a long way away. I believe in him and he can do it. :worship:You can believe whatever you want, but you can't safely say anything about what may or may not happen in the future. None of us can.

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 12:55 PM
IT is very interesting that no one mentioned a very important factor: all the "hard-courts" Federer and Nadal shared are VERY SLOW hard courts. Miami is the slowest, and Dubai probably comes second - anyway almost as slow as some clay-courts. THe point is not wether you call it hard-court or not, but HOW ACTUALLY FAST THE DAMN SURFACE IS! Get that in your head! Let's see Federer-Nadal on carpet - it is also called "hard-court", isn't it?

nobama
06-13-2006, 12:57 PM
whether federer is getting better or not..

depends on whether he is going to lose another match this year..

last year, he lost 4 throughout the entire season...

this year, he lost 4 already....

so..... :rolleyes:Oh please. So if Roger loses more than 4 times this year he's getting worse? :rolleyes: Who in their right mind would think any player could back up a season like Roger had in 2005. I was amazed at what he accomplished in 2005 after the great year he had in 2004.

nobama
06-13-2006, 01:00 PM
IT is very interesting that no one mentioned a very important factor: all the "hard-courts" Federer and Nadal shared are VERY SLOW hard courts. Miami is the slowest, and Dubai probably comes second - anyway almost as slow as some clay-courts. THe point is not wether you call it hard-court or not, but HOW ACTUALLY FAST THE DAMN SURFACE IS! Get that in your head! Let's see Federer-Nadal on carpet - it is also called "hard-court", isn't it?Didn't Nadal beat Ljubicic on a fast surface in Madrid?

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 01:01 PM
I can't believe that you are seriously discussing this Fererer's 50-1 HC nonsense.

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 01:02 PM
You are talking utter shit then, because if thats true (you saying he will doesnt mean a thing either). Sort yourself out man, you are just contradicting everything you are saying. You have lost the plot completely.

wooohhhh... scary you are!

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 01:03 PM
Didn't Nadal beat Ljubicic on a fast surface in Madrid?

You tell me - I don't know. I never watched NAdal on anything except clay, since he was unable to progress on major tournaments on fast surfaces.

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 01:04 PM
In your logic, whether he is getting better or not is totally decided by the records, the statistics? Not in mine.

So last year he lost two matches on clay and won one while this year he lost three and won nothing, means he was better last year on clay? Don't tell me you do think so...

Totally agree!

eddie_hyden
06-13-2006, 01:04 PM
Rafa beat Roger Federer when he was only 17! on a hard court! imagine what an effort. In straight sets as well. hardly anyone beats roger in straights

this boy is improving and will be able to beat federer on hard and clay. He is only 20. Federer arguably can't improve anymore. Nadal is going to be the better player.

True. I don't think we've seen his true potential on HC yet. let's see from now on....

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 01:09 PM
If you want to see when a players peak is all you have to do is look at the years they won the most tournaments...obviously just becasue someone has a 50-1 record one year and then a 46-4 record the next it doesn't mean they got worse...but if you actually map out a players career there is usually a time span of about 3 years where they play at their very top performance...then the 2 years before that and after that they play a little less and after the age of 30 usually (there are strange exceptions) a tennis player's best days of tennis are gone

eddie_hyden
06-13-2006, 01:12 PM
Rafael Nadal shows a lot of promise on hardcourts and he already has had some excellent results on fast surfaces against good players but I would not say (yet) that he's better than Federer on HC at this moment.
For example, I don't think that he has the same confidence on HC as he has on clay but that sort of thing takes time.

Federer's results on HC speak for themselves, I think.
Speaking as a Rafa fan in the first place: don't sell Federer short here. Roger Federer is a magnifent player!

HC head to head with Fed, Rafa leading 2-1. And the only time Rafa lost, he was 2 sets up and close to winning the 3rd. Does Rafa need to bring it to 6-1 head to head to prove he's better than Fed on HC surface too??

Please...it'll be too embrassing for Roger....

nobama
06-13-2006, 01:17 PM
You tell me - I don't know. I never watched NAdal on anything except clay, since he was unable to progress on major tournaments on fast surfaces.Well then you should be quiet if you're that ignorant. Nadal won the Madrid AMS tournament last year beating Ljubicic in the final.

Yes I think the person that started this thread is talking shit. Maybe one day Nadal will be better than Federer on HC but you cannot say he is right now. I don't care that he's beaten Roger on HC. Berdych and Henman beat Federer on HC too but I don't think anyone would consider them superior to Federer on HC.

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 01:17 PM
HC head to head with Fed, Rafa leading 2-1. And the only time Rafa lost, he was 2 sets up and close to winning the 3rd. Does Rafa need to bring it to 6-1 head to head to prove he's better than Fed on HC surface too??

Please...it'll be too embrassing for Roger....

But the last time they played on HC, fed won more pts...

nobama
06-13-2006, 01:22 PM
HC head to head with Fed, Rafa leading 2-1. And the only time Rafa lost, he was 2 sets up and close to winning the 3rd. Does Rafa need to bring it to 6-1 head to head to prove he's better than Fed on HC surface too??

Please...it'll be too embrassing for Roger....IT's not about h2h with another player. :rolleyes: James Blake has beaten Nadal on HC does that then make him a better HC player than Federer? Then how come he can't beat Federer on HC? I'm sorry but you have to look at results and right now Roger has better results and more wins on HC than Nadal does. That might change in the future, who knows. But we're talking about the present now and at present no one can seriously and credibly say Nadal is a better HC player.

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 01:30 PM
IT's not about h2h with another player. :rolleyes: James Blake has beaten Nadal on HC does that then make him a better HC player than Federer? Then how come he can't beat Federer on HC? I'm sorry but you have to look at results and right now Roger has better results and more wins on HC than Nadal does. That might change in the future, who knows. But we're talking about the present now and at present no one can seriously and credibly say Nadal is a better HC player.

If you're talking about a few matches here and there then H2H I agree has no merit...but for instance lets say Federer is dominant in the sport of tennis but in the future Nadal held a 12-3 record over him (again this is hypothetical so don't shit yourself) then you would be crazy to tell me that Federer is better than Nadal...yes, it may be true that Blake and some other players may beat Nadal here and there but I'm talking about beating someone consistently over a substantial number of matches

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 01:42 PM
I'm talking about beating someone consistently over a substantial number of matches

Ha ha ha... don't you realise that this head-to-head is due to the fact that Nadal and Federer meet only on slow surfaces? It is funny that this head-to-head comes from Nadal's absence on fast surfaces and not from his real domination over Federer.
It is true however that Nadal now has some mental edge on Federer.

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 01:43 PM
If you're talking about a few matches here and there then H2H I agree has no merit...but for instance lets say Federer is dominant in the sport of tennis but in the future Nadal held a 12-3 record over him (again this is hypothetical so don't shit yourself) then you would be crazy to tell me that Federer is better than Nadal...yes, it may be true that Blake and some other players may beat Nadal here and there but I'm talking about beating someone consistently over a substantial number of matches

Which rafa hasn't been doing against fed on HC yet!!!

Just to remind you that little fact. Right now blake has beaten rafa here and there as much as rafa has beaten fed here and there, on HC of course!

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 01:45 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention that at least federer beat once nadal on HC whereas rafa has never beaten blake... yet.

oz_boz
06-13-2006, 01:49 PM
I think Nadal will eventually become No 1.

That said, the situation as of now is this:

Fast surfaces: Fed wins every tournament he enters including GS, Nadal wins a lot less and doesn't reach far in the GS and TMS
Slow surfaces: Nadal wins every tournament, beating Fed in the final

It should be quite obvious that Fed is the best player of those two. He has the overall best results. Is that difficult to understand?

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 01:50 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention that at least federer beat once nadal on HC whereas rafa has never beaten blake... yet.
haha...maybe thats because Federer and Nadal played 3 times on HC whereas Nadal and Blake only played twice...nice try

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 01:53 PM
It should be quite obvious that Fed is the best player of those two. He has the overall best results. Is that difficult to understand?

When he as 14% winning average against him after playing 7 times yes it is...

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 01:54 PM
haha...maybe thats because Federer and Nadal played 3 times on HC whereas Nadal and Blake only played twice...nice try

Ok, then according to your logic, rafa will beat blake next time they play on HC, wouah, why did'nt think of that before you!

Life is so simple...

Castafiore
06-13-2006, 01:55 PM
I really do think that this thread title is exaggerated, mdhallu.

Sure, people who say that Rafa is only good on slow surfaces don't really know what they're talking about.
Both Agassi and Federer this year said that Dubai was a fairly fast surface and the Madrid surface wasn't exactly slow either.

But to say that Rafa is better than Roger on hardcourts at this point like the title suggests? Sorry but it's a bit premature.
Maybe one day, we will be able to say it but for now: Roger Federer's hard court results speak for themselves really.

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 01:56 PM
Ok, then according to your logic, rafa will beat blake next time they play on HC, wouah, why did'nt think of that before you!

Life is so simple...
Yes, if he has no major injuries I think he will get to the Semifinals or better at the US OPEN this year...

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 01:57 PM
When he as 14% winning average against him after playing 7 times yes it is...

7 slams to 2
10 TMS to 6
37 titles to 16

Etc...

How stupid you are FSRteam, rafa is only 20, you compare the numbers just like that, it is not as simple as that!!! :rolleyes:

FSRteam
06-13-2006, 01:58 PM
Yes, if he has no major injuries I think he will get to the Semifinals or better at the US OPEN this year...

Did he have one last year?

Don't think so...

yanchr
06-13-2006, 01:58 PM
HC head to head with Fed, Rafa leading 2-1. And the only time Rafa lost, he was 2 sets up and close to winning the 3rd. Does Rafa need to bring it to 6-1 head to head to prove he's better than Fed on HC surface too??

Please...it'll be too embrassing for Roger....
I actually don't think the topic is even worth discussing, because it's just too obvious. But some people continuously and blindly come up with shit.

Let's put it this way. If Roger is not as good as he is now on slow court to make every final of tournaments he plays to have to face Nadal once and once again, he may well have had a much better record against Nadal, would you then think he is a better player? I bet then Roger would be undisputedly better...wtf :rolleyes:

nobama
06-13-2006, 01:59 PM
but I'm talking about beating someone consistently over a substantial number of matchesYes which Roger has done to numerous players on hard court over the past 2 1/2 years. I'm sorry but until Nadal has a winning % like Fed does on HC he's not the better player on that surface. Same as Fed is not the better player on clay. I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand. :shrug:

PamV
06-13-2006, 02:01 PM
The only problem is that more people can beat him on hardcourt than Federer.

I wouldn't call that a problem, but the fact is that things are always changing every year in tennis with who is on and who isn't. Lots of them are getting injured.

nobama
06-13-2006, 02:02 PM
I really do think that this thread title is exaggerated, mdhallu.

Sure, people who say that Rafa is only good on slow surfaces don't really know what they're talking about.
Both Agassi and Federer this year said that Dubai was a fairly fast surface and the Madrid surface wasn't exactly slow either.

But to say that Rafa is better than Roger on hardcourts at this point like the title suggests? Sorry but it's a bit premature.
Maybe one day, we will be able to say it but for now: Roger Federer's hard court results speak for themselves really. :wavey: Thanks for the voice of reason. :) Seems to me this is more wishful thinking than reality on the part of the thread starter. The wish may come true in the future, but as you say right now it's premature.

PamV
06-13-2006, 02:06 PM
I actually don't think the topic is even worth discussing, because it's just too obvious. But some people continuously and blindly come up with shit.

Let's put it this way. If Roger is not as good as he is now on slow court to make every final of tournaments he plays to have to face Nadal once and once again, he may well have had a much better record against Nadal, would you then think he is a better player? I bet then Roger would be undisputedly better...wtf :rolleyes:

It's true. If Roger had not played MC, or Rome and just tried to win Hamburg and not care that much about the French .....similar to how Sampras treated clay then his record against Nadal would be better.

However, I don't see how his H2H with Nadal means anything regarding who is the better overall player. That's not determined by who beats who on an individual basis. It's determined by all the results of the year.

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 02:15 PM
Look to all the Federer fans...I like Federer, I have nothing against him and I'm not trying to hate on him he is one of the greatest but I feel that Nadal has something special...I have been watching tennis for a long time and I have NEVER seen anyone (not even with Connors mental strength) who at such a young age can go against such a good player so many times and consistently beat him with no fear or hesitation and to me thats scary...Nadal does what only the great ones do ...He finds ways to win when it matters the most. I think that a lot of people don't like him because he comes across as being too intense and not necessarily interested in pleasing the crowd (like Lendl perhaps)...he is very one-sided and only cares about himself and about winning but I don't care because I watch tennis to see a good player not to see someone who will entertain me and interact with the crowd like say McEnroe... Federer might have the better record but he is now in his prime and Nadal is just waking up...If you cannot foresee him being as good as I am hyping him up to be than you will have to wait a little longer but I stand firm by my foresight that is destined to become one of the greats

prima donna
06-13-2006, 02:21 PM
What ignorance.

prima donna
06-13-2006, 02:22 PM
Look to all the Federer fans...I like Federer, I have nothing against him and I'm not trying to hate on him he is one of the greatest but I feel that Nadal has something special...I have been watching tennis for a long time and I have NEVER seen anyone (not even with Connors mental strength) who at such a young age can go against such a good player so many times and consistently beat him with no fear or hesitation and to me thats scary...Nadal does what only the great ones do ...He finds ways to win when it matters the most. I think that a lot of people don't like him because he comes across as being too intense and not necessarily interested in pleasing the crowd (like Lendl perhaps)...he is very one-sided and only cares about himself and about winning but I don't care because I watch tennis to see a good player not to see someone who will entertain me and interact with the crowd like say McEnroe... Federer might have the better record but he is now in his prime and Nadal is just waking up...If you cannot foresee him being as good as I am hyping him up to be than you will have to wait a little longer but I stand firm by my foresight that is destined to become one of the greats

That's great, but Nadal isn't better than Roger on hard.

Don't come around here talking out of your culo.

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 02:28 PM
mdhallu: "Nadal is just waking up..." this is supposed to scare someone or what?

In Nadal I see no more than a fanatic and a grinder.

Hagar
06-13-2006, 02:35 PM
I like Federer, I have nothing against him and I'm not trying to hate on him he is one of the greatest but I feel that Nadal has something special...

Yes, you are right: compared to Nadal, Federer looks nothing special and pretty average... :devil:

Federer had lopsided H2Hs in the past and turned them around, and I am convinced he can do the same against Nadal.
Last Sunday, Federer played a brilliant first set and then somehow lost his drive. Maybe it was the heat? I don't know but I am sure Federer can do better against Nadal.
I am convinced that Federer will do everything he can to win against Nadal in the future and I am sure he will bring that H2H back in balance.

It would be a disaster for tennis if a player like Nadal becomes number 1. The tennis Federer plays is so stylish, so magical, classical whereas Nadal's tennis lacks grace. I said it before: it is efficient but I don't like it. It's ugly.

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 02:36 PM
Do you see him as a fanatic because he pumps himself up mentally?
What do people mean when they say someone is a grinder...I really don't understand that term...is it someone who relentlessly fights back and returns balls (like Agassi or Hewitt) because a lot of good players do that...I really don't understand that term. Before I know it, you'll probably be calling Nadal a pusher too...because he never tries to go for winners or create amazing angles to put his opponents on the defense...

oz_boz
06-13-2006, 02:49 PM
mdhallu, if Nadal is better than Federer on hardcourts, why is Federer's hc record far superior over the last year, or even the last few hc tournies? You keep bringing up the h2h (which is mainly based on clay results, but never mind that :rolleyes: ), Santoro is better than Safin with the same logic.

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 02:57 PM
mdhallu, if Nadal is better than Federer on hardcourts, why is Federer's hc record far superior over the last year, or even the last few hc tournies?
I talked about this fact maybe 20 posts above...I know that Federer has a better HC record from his results against other players...but from the 3 times I've watched them play against each other on HC Nadal is better or at least has the ability to perform better against Federer's game

prima donna
06-13-2006, 02:58 PM
The problem with the ATPTOUR at the moment is a lack of maturity with regard to the majority of the youngsters, those whom have shown us an occasion flash of brilliance, only to disappear into oblivion for the next 6 months. Actually, there have been certain cases (i.e Richard Gasquet) which demonstrate that the player takes even longer than 6 months to recover from an injury or a drop in confidence.

I'm convinced that Nadal would've lost to each every player that had the fortune of advancing to the 2nd week of the U.S Open last year, with the exception of Coria. Berdych's already proven that as mentally unstable as he is, that when he plays good tennis, Nadal can be beaten. Blake has proven it, there are plenty of youngsters which have strokes that are tailormade for faster surfaces, even the likes of Scoville Jenkins have given Rafael trouble on hard.

If you'd like to bet your money against guys like Berdych, Djokovic, Monfils, Murray, Gasquet or any of the other youngsters that I've forgotten, then be my guest. Fact of the matter is, with the exception of Murray, these players are all stronger and have bigger strokes than Nadal.

Nadal is the king of clay, Nadal is the Aranxta Sanchez Vicario of the ATP.

Aranxta Sanchez Vicario to Steffi Graf
Rafael Nadal to Roger Federer

The H2H will get turned around, I can promise you that. Nadal may never beat Federer again.

Tom_Bombadil
06-13-2006, 02:59 PM
Look to all the Federer fans...I like Federer, I have nothing against him and I'm not trying to hate on him he is one of the greatest but I feel that Nadal has something special...I have been watching tennis for a long time and I have NEVER seen anyone (not even with Connors mental strength) who at such a young age can go against such a good player so many times and consistently beat him with no fear or hesitation and to me thats scary...Nadal does what only the great ones do ...He finds ways to win when it matters the most. I think that a lot of people don't like him because he comes across as being too intense and not necessarily interested in pleasing the crowd (like Lendl perhaps)...he is very one-sided and only cares about himself and about winning but I don't care because I watch tennis to see a good player not to see someone who will entertain me and interact with the crowd like say McEnroe... Federer might have the better record but he is now in his prime and Nadal is just waking up...If you cannot foresee him being as good as I am hyping him up to be than you will have to wait a little longer but I stand firm by my foresight that is destined to become one of the greats

I agree with this. And by the way, I predicted the Fed fans excuses would be hilarious. After the initial shock they suffered, as time goes by now we're witnessing the ridiculous excuses I predicted. :D

Numbers can't be manipulated. And though I agree- at a certain level- to the point that now Federer is better than Nadal on HC, the numbers can't be manipulated and they point to a very very good future for Nadal. If someone has the interest to compare the trayectories of this two great champions, you'll see that Fed at the age of 20 only had won 1 title (Milan tournament on Carpet) and had 3 finals on other tournaments. Nadal at the same age has 16 titles and 2 grand slams.

Because of this I can't see why that post of mdhallu is so critized. I also see something special in Nadal, you don't need to be a genious to see that. People who say we can't predict what will happen in the future are true, but what has the past told us? Whenever a teenager player was so precocious he ended up being a genious at this sport. I see this theory more plausible than the theory that says Nadal's going to burn out (and a lot of people say that).

A_Skywalker
06-13-2006, 03:00 PM
The problem with the ATPTOUR at the moment is a lack of maturity with regard to the majority of the youngsters, those whom have shown us an occasion flash of brilliance, only to disappear into oblivion for the next 6 months. Actually, there have been certain cases (i.e Richard Gasquet) which demonstrate that the player takes even longer than 6 months to recover from an injury or a drop in confidence.

I'm convinced that Nadal would've lost to each every player that had the fortune of advancing to the 2nd week of the U.S Open last year, with the exception of Coria. Berdych's already proven that as mentally unstable as he is, that when he plays good tennis, Nadal can be beaten. Blake has proven it, there are plenty of youngsters which have strokes that are tailormade for faster surfaces, even the likes of Scoville Jenkins have given Rafael trouble on hard.

If you'd like to bet your money against guys like Berdych, Djokovic, Monfils, Murray, Gasquet or any of the other youngsters that I've forgotten, then be my guest. Fact of the matter is, with the exception of Murray, these players are all stronger and have bigger strokes than Nadal.

Nadal is the king of clay, Nadal is the Aranxta Sanchez Vicario of the ATP.

Aranxta Sanchez Vicario to Steffi Graf
Rafael Nadal to Roger Federer

The H2H will get turned around, I can promise you that. Nadal may never beat Federer again.

Dream about it , you are saying it every time Roger looses to Nadal

prima donna
06-13-2006, 03:04 PM
Dream about it , you are saying it every time Roger looses to Nadal

Ah, really ? Then would you do me the pleasure of showing me one single message where I've stated that Roger won't lose to Nadal again ? I don't see, but okay. If you'd like to create facts, which is pretty much a contradiction in itself, be my guest.

I'm neutral with regard to ignorance, to each his or her own.

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 03:06 PM
Do you see him as a fanatic because he pumps himself up mentally?
What do people mean when they say someone is a grinder...I really don't understand that term...is it someone who relentlessly fights back and returns balls (like Agassi or Hewitt) because a lot of good players do that...I really don't understand that term. Before I know it, you'll probably be calling Nadal a pusher too...because he never tries to go for winners or create amazing angles to put his opponents on the defense...

because he acts as he doesn't see when he is outplayed. When you outplay him, he acts as nothing has happened at all, but when he outplays you, he acts as he prooved that he is better than you. That's what we don't need on tour, and what I called fanatism

Grinder, means that he fights relentlessly. He is not the only one in this department. Hewitt is somewhat of a grinder too, but he has much more active play than Nadal. And Hewitt aknowledges when he is outplayed

A_Skywalker
06-13-2006, 03:08 PM
Ah, really ? Then would you do me the pleasure of showing me one single message where I've stated that Roger won't lose to Nadal again ? I don't see, but okay. If you'd like to create facts, which is pretty much a contradiction in itself, be my guest.

I'm neutral with regard to ignorance, to each his or her own.

would you do me the pleasure of showing me one single message where I've stated that Roger will not beat Nadal again ?

prima donna
06-13-2006, 03:10 PM
I agree with this. And by the way, I predicted the Fed fans excuses would be hilarious. After the initial shock they suffered, as time goes by now we're witnessing the ridiculous excuses I predicted. :D

Numbers can't be manipulated. And though I agree- at a certain level- to the point that now Federer is better than Nadal on HC, the numbers can't be manipulated and they point to a very very good future for Nadal. If someone has the interest to compare the trayectories of this two great champions, you'll see that Fed at the age of 20 only had won 1 title (Milan tournament on Carpet) and had 3 finals on other tournaments. Nadal at the same age has 16 titles and 2 grand slams.

Because of this I can't see why that post of mdhallu is so critized. I also see something special in Nadal, you don't need to be a genious to see that. People who say we can't predict what will happen in the future are true, but what has the past told us? Whenever a teenager player was so precocious he ended up being a genious at this sport. I see this theory more plausible than the theory that says Nadal's going to burn out (and a lot of people say that).

You don't even have 500 posts, but from the way you're talking about the history of the board one would be inclined to offer you MTF Senior Citizen status, which of course means that you'd receive premium membership at a reduced rate.

Okay, back to reality. Roger's weakest surface is the dirt, he's been beaten on the dirt 4 times by Nadal. It makes sense. If what you need in order to build up a guy that you support is a H2H with the majority of the matches coming on clay courts or clay courts painted as hard courts (Miami for example) then fine. Nadal is better on clay, but come back when Nadal starts beating other players and doing things at Wimbledon, Australian Open or U.S Open.

If Nadal has such an immense amount of mental strength, then why would his age or lack of development matter ? He just wants to win, that's enough. Right ? So he should win Queen's this week and I expect to see atleast an SF appearance, also the same goes for the USO Series, he should win atleast Cincinatti and anything less than an SF appearance isn't exceptable. Actually, anything less than the title isn't acceptable with regard to all of these tournaments.

If you're going to compare french fries and hamburgers to lobster and filet mignon, then be ready to live up to the expectations. Roger won Wimbledon and the U.S Open, time to start living up to the billing that his fans are prematurely giving him.

oz_boz
06-13-2006, 03:10 PM
Numbers can't be manipulated. And though I agree- at a certain level- to the point that now Federer is better than Nadal on HC, the numbers can't be manipulated and they point to a very very good future for Nadal. If someone has the interest to compare the trayectories of this two great champions, you'll see that Fed at the age of 20 only had won 1 title (Milan tournament on Carpet) and had 3 finals on other tournaments. Nadal at the same age has 16 titles and 2 grand slams.

Because of this I can't see why that post of mdhallu is so critized. I also see something special in Nadal, you don't need to be a genious to see that. People who say we can't predict what will happen in the future are true, but what has the past told us? Whenever a teenager player was so precocious he ended up being a genious at this sport. I see this theory more plausible than the theory that says Nadal's going to burn out (and a lot of people say that).

I criticise it because it simply isn't true. AT THIS POINT Nadal is not better than Federer on hc, the thread title is only stupid since their results clearly prove the opposite. And future predictions based on career trajectories and clay court results don't have anything to do with that. Following mdhallus logic you might just as well argue that Edberg is a better claycourter than Muster.

Tom_Bombadil
06-13-2006, 03:11 PM
because he acts as he doesn't see when he is outplayed. When you outplay him, he acts as nothing has happened at all, but when he outplays you, he acts as he prooved that he is better than you. That's what we don't need on tour, and what I called fanatism

Grinder, means that he fights relentlessly. He is not the only one in this department. Hewitt is somewhat of a grinder too, but he has much more active play than Nadal. And Hewitt aknowledges when he is outplayed

What an stupid post. So your message for the children who are to become the great sportsman and sportswomen of the future is this: never fight too much, learn to give up when you see you're worse than your opponent, don't run too much and don't be passionate about what you do. :rolleyes:

prima donna
06-13-2006, 03:11 PM
would you do me the pleasure of showing me one single message where I've stated that Roger will not beat Nadal again ?

Let me know if at anytime throughout this conversation you'd care to start making sense. Thanks in advance.

Tom_Bombadil
06-13-2006, 03:13 PM
I criticise it because it simply isn't true. AT THIS POINT Nadal is not better than Federer on hc, the thread title is only stupid since their results clearly prove the opposite. And future predictions based on career trajectories and clay court results don't have anything to do with that. Following mdhallus logic you might just as well argue that Edberg is a better claycourter than Muster.

The last post- that I quoted by the way- isn't the same as the thread first post, or the title.

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 03:14 PM
never fight too much, learn to give up when you see you're worse than your opponent, don't run too much and don't be passionate about what you do. :rolleyes:

Read my post again

A_Skywalker
06-13-2006, 03:15 PM
Let me know if at anytime throughout this conversation you'd care to start making sense. Thanks in advance.

It hurts , didnt it , your idol to loose everytime to Nadal , get a life

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 03:19 PM
"Hurts" isn't the right word. Irritating is the word for Nadal. He is something like that "crazy frog" thing. They both succeed buy irritating people!
I like to watch ROger because he is so serene and normal for a change - and an inspiring player, unlike Nadal.

oz_boz
06-13-2006, 03:19 PM
The last post- that I quoted by the way- isn't the same as the thread first post, or the title.

Thanks. :hatoff: Now please deal with the rest of post #93, or ask mdhallus to do that.

prima donna
06-13-2006, 03:22 PM
It hurts , didnt it , your idol to loose everytime to Nadal , get a life

What really hurts is trying to decipher time and time again what you're trying to get across exactly in your responses. That's the most painful part.

Learn a few things, try picking up a book for a change. It'll do wonders for your mind.

Tom_Bombadil
06-13-2006, 03:23 PM
Thanks. :hatoff: Now please deal with the rest of post #93, or ask mdhallus to do that.

I dealt with it oz_boz, in my first post in this thread (though very briefly). I can agree to the fact Fed is a better hard-courter than Nadal right now. Numbers are there, but I pointed out how good Nadal's future seems to me. We have to remember he won Montreal, Dubai or TMS Madrid for example. And at his same age, Fed hadn't achieved what Rafa has achieved. That's not the point of his first post, but it is the point of the post I quoted.

But definetely right now Nadal's not better than Fed on HC.

oz_boz
06-13-2006, 03:26 PM
I dealt with it oz_boz, in my first post in this thread (though very briefly). I can agree to the fact Fed is a better hard-courter than Nadal right now. Numbers are there, but I pointed out how good Nadal's future seems to me. We have to remember he won Montreal, Dubai or TMS Madrid for example. And at his same age, Fed hadn't achieved what Rafa has achieved. That's not the point of his first post, but it is the point of the post I quoted.

But definetely right now Nadal's not better than Fed on HC.

Agree with all of your post. Thanks.

prima donna
06-13-2006, 03:29 PM
I dealt with it oz_boz, in my first post in this thread (though very briefly). I can agree to the fact Fed is a better hard-courter than Nadal right now. Numbers are there, but I pointed out how good Nadal's future seems to me. We have to remember he won Montreal, Dubai or TMS Madrid for example. And at his same age, Fed hadn't achieved what Rafa has achieved. That's not the point of his first post, but it is the point of the post I quoted.

But definetely right now Nadal's not better than Fed on HC.

How good Nadal's future seems to you ? So, now you've been gifted with psychic powers ? How long have you been watching tennis or sports in general ? There have been plenty of sportsmen whom have enjoyed success at a young age, only to disappear in the long run. It's a marathon, not the 100 meter yard dash. Remember that.

With regard to the development of Nadal, Roger has a much more complex game than Nadal. Nadal's game is predicated around using his physical reserves and nothing more. A player of that variety should be having success at his age.

Have any of these factors entered into your head or are you just going to continue trolling around the message board going on and on about how Nadal does this better than Roger and does that, he doesn't do anything better aside from his play on clay. End it.

A_Skywalker
06-13-2006, 03:36 PM
Im goin out , you keep talking pointless tgings here , surely thats very intresting for you I guess and also timeloosing , bye

Tom_Bombadil
06-13-2006, 03:38 PM
How good Nadal's future seems to you ? So, now you've been gifted with psychic powers ? How long have you been watching tennis or sports in general ? There have been plenty of sportsmen whom have enjoyed success at a young age, only to disappear in the long run. It's a marathon, not the 100 meter yard dash. Remember that.

With regard to the development of Nadal, Roger has a much more complex game than Nadal. Nadal's game is predicated around using his physical reserves and nothing more. A player of that variety should be having success at his age.

Have any of these factors entered into your head or are you just going to continue trolling around the message board going on and on about how Nadal does this better than Roger and does that, he doesn't do anything better aside from his play on clay. End it.

:haha: :haha: Worthless to respond, but a good laugh.

dkw
06-13-2006, 03:49 PM
This should be an MTF Law>>

If you want vcash just start a thread that calls Federer's dominance into question and his hyper-sensitive fans will come out in droves to defend his honor.

I mean seriously who gives a sh*t if certain posters think Nadal is better than Federer on hardcourts. They're entitled to see the world through whatever rose-tinted lenses they want and all the whining and bitching isn't going to change that. So quelch it already!!!

prima donna
06-13-2006, 03:54 PM
:haha: :haha: Worthless to respond, but a good laugh.

Or you've simply failed at conjuring up a sufficient rebuttal.

oz_boz
06-13-2006, 03:55 PM
This should be an MTF Law>>

If you want vcash just start a thread that calls Federer's dominance into question and his hyper-sensitive fans will come out in droves to defend his honor.


That's a great thing :) getting vrich thanks to the fans of the player you despise.

maskedmuffin
06-13-2006, 03:56 PM
so far we have had enough of a sample set over the clay courts that we can clearly see that federer is good enough to be #2 on clay, but #2 to nadal on that surface.

The sample set for hard courts is very small, only 3 matches and its 2-1 nadal. Furthermore, they have yet to play on faster hardcourts, likes the one upcoming this summer.

Frankly, nadal has to show me he can even get to the finals in those tournaments to have a chance to compete against a federer before this absolutely assanine thread topic is given any credence.

Tom_Bombadil
06-13-2006, 04:01 PM
Or you've simply failed at conjuring up a sufficient rebuttal.

A rebuttal to what, to your superior psychic powers to see the dark future of Nadal based in your Marathon knowledge? :D Or a rebuttal to your knowledge of Nadal's mediocre play that proves his results are only the outcome of his great physic?

But the best rebuttal of all is your repentine interest in erradicating the trolls. :haha: :haha: (My best advice would be a suicide)

dmit424
06-13-2006, 04:18 PM
It's not wrong to say that Nadal is the favorite on hard vs. Federer... Althouth that sounds very strange, because Federer has so many accolades on hard, and for that reason, it's not right to say that Nadal is better than Federer on hard, overall. Versus, yes (maybe). Overall, no.

maskedmuffin
06-13-2006, 04:40 PM
actually it is when you factor in that nadal has beaten federer on all different types of clay surfaces consistently (the model we use to judge)

but is only up 2-1 on him on hards, with both splitting miami and the only differencemaker coming in dubai...


there is not enough of a sample set for that justification.

This is not like federer losing to nadal at MC X2, rome, and now fo X2

Hes basically run the clay court gambit ,wheras they have not yet played on a varied enough hard court surface set.

stebs
06-13-2006, 04:53 PM
It's not wrong to say that Nadal is the favorite on hard vs. Federer... Althouth that sounds very strange, because Federer has so many accolades on hard, and for that reason, it's not right to say that Nadal is better than Federer on hard, overall. Versus, yes (maybe). Overall, no.
Versus yes? I disagree. I know these are excuses which will probably see me critisized but this is what I believe. If we are talking about hard courts then we can discount clay. I am perfectly willing to accept that Rafa is better than Roger on clay. I will only analyze the matches on a hard court.

Miami '04: Nadal 6-3 6-3 - Roger suffered from heatstroke, this may not have affected the winner as Roger has been known to play poorly against youngsters the first time he plays them but it certainly makes the scoreline look better for Rafa. Well done to Nadal for this one but Roger was not fit. If Roger had been fit I still think he would've lost as I said previously but not because of Nadals greatness just because Roger always takes time to get used to new young players.

Miami '05: Federer - 2-6 6-7 7-6 6-3 6-1 - I think that was the score anyway. Roger won this match, he started badly but I think he still hadn't at all wroked out Nadal which is not to federer's credit it is a bad thing but nothing to do with rafa being superior. The second set Roger played better but still couldnb't win it and then there was the comeback. Federer showed he could beat Nadal but the Spainard was 2 points away from the match in the third. Oddly I think if there was any claim for Rafa being better than Roger the one match he lost proves it best. He was unlucky to lose.

Dubai '06: Nadal - 2-6 6-4 6-4 - Roger proved in this match that he can dominate Rafa when he plays well. He eased to the first set. This is the last of the matches between Roger and Rafa on any surface in which Rafa has got into Roger's head. There is no doubt for me that rafa is stronger mentally but that is different to him actually being some sort of bogey player to Roger. Since this match I think Roger has overcome that but lost on clay because Rafa is a beast on clay. Roger seemed to have lost it in the third but suddenly stepped it up and totally outplayed Rafa for a period. He just seemed to underestimate his opponent and choked when the chances came.


None of this proves Rafa to be better and in fact shows that when both play well Roger is by far the better player it is the intensity of Rafa which makes him such a great player and I'm sure he will leave a great legacy. If the two meet again soon on a fast court anytime soon however, I know where my money is. :)

jenanun
06-13-2006, 06:23 PM
Dream about it , you are saying it every time Roger looses to Nadal


Ah, really ? Then would you do me the pleasure of showing me one single message where I've stated that Roger won't lose to Nadal again ? I don't see, but okay. If you'd like to create facts, which is pretty much a contradiction in itself, be my guest.

Hey A_Skywalker,

maybe prima donna is right. He never said roger won't lose to nadal again

but he always predict roger was going to win next time...

and obviously, he was wrong, again and again....

(check those poll and see what he voted.....) :devil:

jzpyt06
06-13-2006, 06:52 PM
Versus yes? I disagree. I know these are excuses which will probably see me critisized but this is what I believe. If we are talking about hard courts then we can discount clay. I am perfectly willing to accept that Rafa is better than Roger on clay. I will only analyze the matches on a hard court.

Miami '04: Nadal 6-3 6-3 - Roger suffered from heatstroke, this may not have affected the winner as Roger has been known to play poorly against youngsters the first time he plays them but it certainly makes the scoreline look better for Rafa. Well done to Nadal for this one but Roger was not fit. If Roger had been fit I still think he would've lost as I said previously but not because of Nadals greatness just because Roger always takes time to get used to new young players.

Miami '05: Federer - 2-6 6-7 7-6 6-3 6-1 - I think that was the score anyway. Roger won this match, he started badly but I think he still hadn't at all wroked out Nadal which is not to federer's credit it is a bad thing but nothing to do with rafa being superior. The second set Roger played better but still couldnb't win it and then there was the comeback. Federer showed he could beat Nadal but the Spainard was 2 points away from the match in the third. Oddly I think if there was any claim for Rafa being better than Roger the one match he lost proves it best. He was unlucky to lose.

Dubai '06: Nadal - 2-6 6-4 6-4 - Roger proved in this match that he can dominate Rafa when he plays well. He eased to the first set. This is the last of the matches between Roger and Rafa on any surface in which Rafa has got into Roger's head. There is no doubt for me that rafa is stronger mentally but that is different to him actually being some sort of bogey player to Roger. Since this match I think Roger has overcome that but lost on clay because Rafa is a beast on clay. Roger seemed to have lost it in the third but suddenly stepped it up and totally outplayed Rafa for a period. He just seemed to underestimate his opponent and choked when the chances came.


None of this proves Rafa to be better and in fact shows that when both play well Roger is by far the better player it is the intensity of Rafa which makes him such a great player and I'm sure he will leave a great legacy. If the two meet again soon on a fast court anytime soon however, I know where my money is. :)


Your post was interesting but i tend to disagree thats rafa is not better or least can beat fed on hard courts.
In miami fed suffered from heat stroke so who's fault is that rafa had to play in the same conditions. if roger had been fit my foot... roger was risen already in his game already starting to teach the likes of Roddick, safin, and hewitt etc a few lessons. Fed is an amazing Player no doubt about that but rafa presents a problem with his heavy top spin, mental strength because lets face it most players once fed has won the first set with unanswerable tennis fed oppenents game goes to the dogs but rafa shrugs it off and starts again, that might cause more problems for Fed than we even realize.

I find it amazing that fed fans tend to not give credit to rafa for acrually playing in such a away that fed can't figure it out, its not all down to fed not working it out. Could it be that fed was not paying well because rafa made it so. If it was just down to fed he should play himself. :rolleyes:
Rafa was at the point still making his way up the rankings and not having enough experience to close the match, fed was forced to lift his level. Rafa had never up that point been in a master series final or played a 5 setter. Where as fed had already been around the block. Notice after that final rafa has not lost to fed, he learnt a thing or two.

Dubai is no different rog played such high level tennis, his shot selection was second to none, moving rafa about and hitting the ball at the top of the bounce with power and great direction. Its not asurprise or it shouldn't that fed's level drops against rafa. Fed was guilty imo of taking his foot of the peddle, partly as well rafa lifted his game, took it one point at a time always getting to one more ball and forcing fed to go for too much played more to the fed back hand with heavier top spin forcing fed to play form much further back. Fed's first serve went, few forhands went long and back hands wide none of this is a surprise because in most of his past match clay and hard those are the shots that go. Once rafa notices a weakness he goes for the kill.

In short rafa has the game to take fed on a hard court none of those results were a fluke or that it was not fed's day this that and the other, fed has not yet worked it out and can't seem to play at that high level for the hole match against rafa because rafa tennis is hard to deal with consistently for 2hrs or more. Fed is great no doubt but i call it as i see it. I still believe that fed has the edge on hard court even though it is 2-1 rafa on hard court but that remains to be seen. It seems on hard Rafa is able to impose his game on fed.

randomtennis
06-13-2006, 06:58 PM
It will be very competitive on the hard court.. it is where neither has a very big advantage... clay is nadal.... grass is federer..... indoor on hard court will be a scrap

oneandonlyhsn
06-13-2006, 07:22 PM
:zzz: Somebody wake me up when there is something else to discuss on MTF

Allez
06-13-2006, 07:31 PM
Perhaps the thread starter should have qualified the thread title a bit more. For example if he's saying that Rafa has won more titles than Federer on HC, well that's just plain dumb. If hes saying H2H Rafa has so far proven the better player on the day, then yes, he has won 2 out of 3. If he's saying that Rafa has achieved a lot more at 20 on hard courts than Roger at the same age on the same surface then yes, yes he's won Montreal, Beijing, Madrid and Dubai and Roger had won 1 title. So what the hell does all of this tell us ? I don't know! All I know is that neither player owns the other on hard courts and I suspect their H2H on that surface will end up being something like 6-5 to Roger. Of course Nadal will have to reach more finals but at only 20 years old you have to fancy his chances. If they ever meet on grass, then I give Federer a 60% edge.

bokehlicious
06-13-2006, 08:03 PM
:o

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9528/52102005m2yo.jpg

Johnny Groove
06-13-2006, 08:47 PM
This should be an MTF Law>>

If you want vcash just start a thread that calls Federer's dominance into question and his hyper-sensitive fans will come out in droves to defend his honor.

ok :yeah: by the way, this thread is vintage MTF :haha:

edit: Law 24 in the books :wavey:

Good ways to earn vcash are creating threads that are either a quote from a person calling someone else out, a thread meant for bashing someone, threads proclaiming yourself to be the next federer when in fact, you eat bagels all day, or, more specifically, a thread that calls out Federer's dominance; each of these will illicit tons of posters from both sides of the issue, with flamewars, namecalling, and hilarity to ensue, while the thread creator swims in vriches

dmit424
06-13-2006, 08:50 PM
Nadal's future is going to be weird. Lol. As in... He could either a.)improve his flat shots in order to be successful on grass and dominant on hard, improve his first serve, improve his net play, or b.)Kind of grind it out and be very good for 2 years, like Hewitt was, and then kind of fade away as others just pass him by, like it happened to Hewitt.

Ofcourse, Hewitt and Nadal are different. Here are some points, though.
1.)Nadal, at this point, doesn't have mental distractons. Hewitt isn't Hewitt without mental things going on.
2.)Nadal's forehand is completely different from Hewitt's.
3.)Everyone has been saying that if Hewitt develops more power, he could be a top-3 player again... And he was very skinny, so he certainly had alot of room to improve in that area... but he didn't add all that much power. Nadal is not going to get stronger, yet his forehand is still less powerful than Federer's or Safin's or Roddick's... but...
4.)Maybe it's just because he loves that topspin and it's more of a problem of flattening it out rather than having more power or anything like that. Same with serves.
5.)Nadal is a defensive player, like Hewitt was, like Chang was. Ofcourse, Nadal is very DIFFERENT, but he is still a defensive-minded player, imo. Just watch how was he is behind the baseline, even on hard courts often. I think defensive players walk a thin line. An injury, a slight dip in fitness, and other players catching up to them and exploiting them are bigger problems for them than players who just have weapons they strike with.

Players will always, eventually, figure out how to break down (offense) a wall (defense). I think Nadal will be one of the greatest clay court players of all time, and Federer will never become a better clay player than Nadal is now (or will be), but I don't think Nadal is going to win more than 2 slams on another surface, and it may be less.

IMO.

Johnny Groove
06-13-2006, 09:02 PM
Nadal's future is going to be weird. Lol. As in... He could either a.)improve his flat shots in order to be successful on grass and dominant on hard, improve his first serve, improve his net play, or b.)Kind of grind it out and be very good for 2 years, like Hewitt was, and then kind of fade away as others just pass him by, like it happened to Hewitt.

Ofcourse, Hewitt and Nadal are different. Here are some points, though.
1.)Nadal, at this point, doesn't have mental distractons. Hewitt isn't Hewitt without mental things going on.
2.)Nadal's forehand is completely different from Hewitt's.
3.)Everyone has been saying that if Hewitt develops more power, he could be a top-3 player again... And he was very skinny, so he certainly had alot of room to improve in that area... but he didn't add all that much power. Nadal is not going to get stronger, yet his forehand is still less powerful than Federer's or Safin's or Roddick's... but...
4.)Maybe it's just because he loves that topspin and it's more of a problem of flattening it out rather than having more power or anything like that. Same with serves.
5.)Nadal is a defensive player, like Hewitt was, like Chang was. Ofcourse, Nadal is very DIFFERENT, but he is still a defensive-minded player, imo. Just watch how was he is behind the baseline, even on hard courts often. I think defensive players walk a thin line. An injury, a slight dip in fitness, and other players catching up to them and exploiting them are bigger problems for them than players who just have weapons they strike with.

Players will always, eventually, figure out how to break down (offense) a wall (defense). I think Nadal will be one of the greatest clay court players of all time, and Federer will never become a better clay player than Nadal is now (or will be), but I don't think Nadal is going to win more than 2 slams on another surface, and it may be less.

IMO.

I guarantee you that Nadal will win the AO and the USO each at least once in his career

Allez
06-13-2006, 09:11 PM
Nadal is NOT Hewitt.

BlackSilver
06-13-2006, 09:17 PM
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 09:28 PM
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/

Brazil didn't have a game. You scored thanks to individual firepower, but you were lucky to win! You will need to start REALY playing and constructing chances! It is a shame with such players to look so flat!

stebs
06-13-2006, 09:30 PM
Your post was interesting but i tend to disagree thats rafa is not better or least can beat fed on hard courts.
In miami fed suffered from heat stroke so who's fault is that rafa had to play in the same conditions. if roger had been fit my foot...

Umm. That's actually what I said in my post. That Rafa may well have won anyway, and no, it is not Rafa's fault that Roger had heatstroke but he did and whoevers fault it was it makes a difference to who we can view that match.

roger was risen already in his game already starting to teach the likes of Roddick, safin, and hewitt etc a few lessons. Fed is an amazing Player no doubt about that but rafa presents a problem with his heavy top spin, mental strength because lets face it most players once fed has won the first set with unanswerable tennis fed oppenents game goes to the dogs but rafa shrugs it off and starts again, that might cause more problems for Fed than we even realize.

Yes, I did not say anything that doesn't agree with this.

I find it amazing that fed fans tend to not give credit to rafa for acrually playing in such a away that fed can't figure it out, its not all down to fed not working it out. Could it be that fed was not paying well because rafa made it so. If it was just down to fed he should play himself. :rolleyes:

Again, where do you think I disagree with you on this. Rafa is an incredible player and I give him as much credit as many Rafa fans do.

Rafa was at the point still making his way up the rankings and not having enough experience to close the match, fed was forced to lift his level. Rafa had never up that point been in a master series final or played a 5 setter. Where as fed had already been around the block. Notice after that final rafa has not lost to fed, he learnt a thing or two.

Yes, again I agree. I don't really get where you're coming from here, you say you disagree with me but none of this disagrees with my post. I don't think Rafa learnt anything from that match more than he would from any other match. I think he has improved as a tennis player since then but I don't think Rafa has changed the way he plays against Roger.

Dubai is no different rog played such high level tennis, his shot selection was second to none, moving rafa about and hitting the ball at the top of the bounce with power and great direction. Its not asurprise or it shouldn't that fed's level drops against rafa. Fed was guilty imo of taking his foot of the peddle, partly as well rafa lifted his game, took it one point at a time always getting to one more ball and forcing fed to go for too much played more to the fed back hand with heavier top spin forcing fed to play form much further back. Fed's first serve went, few forhands went long and back hands wide none of this is a surprise because in most of his past match clay and hard those are the shots that go. Once rafa notices a weakness he goes for the kill.

I know I will probably be hated for this but finally i find something we disagree on. rafa was insanely lucky to win in Dubai. Federer was the better player by miles for nearly all the match and though it's the big points that count and Federer choked badly in Dubai I saw nothing in that match to show me that Rafa has the GAME to be better than Fed on hard court. Federer's shots did not "go" as they sometimes do, he just played two lax games which cost him the match. Other than those games he dominated Rafa but Rafa showed fight and did well to stay in a match when he was being outclassed.

In short rafa has the game to take fed on a hard court none of those results were a fluke or that it was not fed's day this that and the other, fed has not yet worked it out and can't seem to play at that high level for the hole match against rafa because rafa tennis is hard to deal with consistently for 2hrs or more. Fed is great no doubt but i call it as i see it. I still believe that fed has the edge on hard court even though it is 2-1 rafa on hard court but that remains to be seen. It seems on hard Rafa is able to impose his game on fed.


In short I disagree, In Miami the first two times they met Rafa was something new, his topspin was different and Roger could not handle his game. Rafa is a fantastic player, you only have to look at his accomplishments to say that but no way does his game look better than Feds on a hard court. It is true that Rafa's tennis is hard to deal with but I saw the brightside after Dubai. Federer dominated the first set and when he was in trouble began to dimnate the third by coming back from 2-0 down to lead 3-2 and looking like he would break. On that day he underestimated Rafa and, as you say, wrongly took his foot off the accelerator. Roger would have to play well to beat Rafa on any court, the kid is a great champion. On hard courts though, if they keep on meeting, Roger will soon have the edge.

mp3junkie
06-13-2006, 10:01 PM
I agree...Nadal will only get better with time...he is 5 years younger than Federer and believe it or not is right on track with his Grand Slams having won 2 by the young age of 20...he is a true fighter...The only way Nadal will burn out is if he is either injured very badly or he falls in love...

I agree with this statement. Unfortunately, if Nadal falls in love, his drive and focus on the tennis court will decline dramatically. This will change everything. His focus will be on his girlfriend and not on tennis as much.

I honestly believe this will happen in the near future...

mp3junkie
06-13-2006, 10:04 PM
I think Nadal will eventually become No 1.

That said, the situation as of now is this:

Fast surfaces: Fed wins every tournament he enters including GS, Nadal wins a lot less and doesn't reach far in the GS and TMS
Slow surfaces: Nadal wins every tournament, beating Fed in the final

It should be quite obvious that Fed is the best player of those two. He has the overall best results. Is that difficult to understand?

Give Nadal a little time...

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 10:04 PM
I agree with this statement. Unfortunately, if Nadal falls in love, his drive and focus on the tennis court will decline dramatically. This will change everything. His focus will be on his girlfriend and not on tennis as much.


So Nadal plays tennis because he can't find a girlfrend? Then better quit immediately

mp3junkie
06-13-2006, 10:12 PM
So Nadal plays tennis because he can't find a girlfrend? Then better quit immediately

You are missing the point. All I am saying is that if and when Nadal falls in love, he will definately get distracted and not focus on tennis much. At his age, his hormones are out of control and if falls deep, it's going to be a problem for him tennis wise. That's all I am saying.

BlackSilver
06-13-2006, 10:27 PM
Brazil didn't have a game. You scored thanks to individual firepower, but you were lucky to win! You will need to start REALY playing and constructing chances! It is a shame with such players to look so flat!


All true, but I was talking about the whole tournament, not about this individual match :)


Anyway, when Robinho entered, our attack started to work reasonably well, the croatians were obliged to make lots of faults. So there still hope for us :)

Not really a surprise, we play this way into a reasonable number of matches, especially at the beginning

Johnny Groove
06-13-2006, 10:44 PM
All true, but I was talking about the whole tournament, not about this individual match :)


Anyway, when Robinho entered, our attack started to work reasonably well, the croatians were obliged to make lots of faults. So there still hope for us :)

Not really a surprise, we play this way into a reasonable number of matches, especially at the beginning

BRAZIL!!!!! WOO!!!!

mdhallu
06-13-2006, 11:25 PM
As i said earlier, even if Nadal had a 12-3 record over Federer there would still be people who would make up excuses and say things like "its the heat" or "Nadal is just a grinder". I found the "its the heat" excuse to be very amusing considering the fact that Federer specifically trains in Dubai where temperatures reach up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit...plus, the match where he lost to Nadal in Dubai wasn't even outside...If Federer has difficulty playing in 90 degree weather then the Australian Open isn't going to be fun

kronus12
06-13-2006, 11:29 PM
This thread is crazy to many ppl abusing each other instead of coming up with good arguments very funny. Federer is at his peak and has nothing more to improve please get a life hes only 24 and last time i check you dont go braindead after 24. Nadal record on hardcourt well is nothing to write home about and federer record well let just leave it at that. A valued point from one of our posters is the reason why Nadal has a better hardcour record then federer because Nadal can not make the finals of hardcourt tournment to challenge federer for the title im not saying federer would win but i am saying that federer is more consistent on hardcourt then nadal. Nadal to become number one is not realistic if federer is still playing he would have to be consistent on all surface unfortuntaly he isnt fact not hopeful thinking.
Yes he can learn but the style he plays is screaming injuries in the future like another grinder hewitt. Alot of posters say he will improve to number one what about the other lot of players i don't think they are going to sit there and let him do it. There some good talent coming through don't sell them short.

Corey Feldman
06-14-2006, 12:40 AM
:o

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9528/52102005m2yo.jpg:lol: :lol: little Rafa is a good climber..

as for this thread, well i'll take it more seriously when/if Nadal beats Fed at one of the HC slams or when/if he wins one of these slams.

also, anyone see this quote from Toni Nadal ..
"Rafa being 6-1 against Roger is not a source of pride for me. I'm happy that Rafa won the tournament, but I would have liked that Federer could have won the Grand Slam, because I think he's a phenomenal player. For me, he is the player I enjoy watching the most."
-- Toni Nadal speaking with the International Herald Tribune.

quite nice of him to be fair, but how much of that do you believe?? :lol:
:bolt:

mdhallu
06-14-2006, 12:45 AM
[QUOTE=Escude]
"Rafa being 6-1 against Roger is not a source of pride for me. I'm happy that Rafa won the tournament, but I would have liked that Federer could have won the Grand Slam, because I think he's a phenomenal player. For me, he is the player I enjoy watching the most."
-- Toni Nadal speaking with the International Herald Tribune.[/B]
QUOTE]
Not a source of pride for him...haha, is he smoking crack? Everytime Federer was beating Nadal in the first set Toni was furious...After Rafa won Toni and Nadal's father were crying. These are just mind games...they know how to say the right things to the press...

MisterQ
06-14-2006, 12:57 AM
:lol: :lol: little Rafa is a good climber..

as for this thread, well i'll take it more seriously when/if Nadal beats Fed at one of the HC slams or when/if he wins one of these slams.

also, anyone see this quote from Toni Nadal ..
"Rafa being 6-1 against Roger is not a source of pride for me. I'm happy that Rafa won the tournament, but I would have liked that Federer could have won the Grand Slam, because I think he's a phenomenal player. For me, he is the player I enjoy watching the most."
-- Toni Nadal speaking with the International Herald Tribune.

quite nice of him to be fair, but how much of that do you believe?? :lol:
:bolt:

It reminds me of when Richard Williams declared that Hingis was his favorite player. And he was completely serious... he admires her a lot!

I'm willing to give Toni the benefit of the doubt. In other words, he would like for Roger to have won the career slam if anyone but Nadal were playing him. ;)

jenanun
06-14-2006, 11:35 AM
In your logic, whether he is getting better or not is totally decided by the records, the statistics? Not in mine.

So last year he lost two matches on clay and won one while this year he lost three and won nothing, means he was better last year on clay? Don't tell me you do think so...

no.. those winning record has nothing to do with federer's 'quality' of tennis...

but yes, his 'results' on clay is worse than last year.... and you are right, coz he has won no title.... and lost more matches...

jenanun
06-14-2006, 11:50 AM
Oh please. So if Roger loses more than 4 times this year he's getting worse? :rolleyes:

again... yes, his 'overall results' will be worse than last year if he loses more than 4 matches...

(or we can use the winning % instead of no. of matches)

but no, his quality of tennis may have improved... or not changed

you can have worse results even you are 'improving quality', when

1. your opponents are improving faster or becoming better than you
2. lack of consistency
3. more difficult draw than the previous year

bokehlicious
06-14-2006, 12:00 PM
but yes, his 'results' on clay is worse than last year.... and you are right, coz he has won no title.... and lost more matches...

But he increased his clay ranking points :cool: