Roddick and Nadal no Rivals of Federer [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roddick and Nadal no Rivals of Federer

TennisAgenda
09-18-2006, 03:09 AM
Pete Sampraas and even Andy Roddick are correct they both said Roger has no rivals. Given the fact Roger once again won 3 out of 4 slams in a year for the second time in three years is an amazing accomplishment. I think for Nadal to get to the top he's got to do well on hardcourts there is no other way around it. Yeah Nadal reached the Wimbledon final but he had the softest draw on earth. He beat three qualifiers and no top 10 players to reach that Wimbledon final. Roddick had a soft draw at the US OPEN. Yet Roger Federer never gets a soft draw he always seems to have to go through the best to win. And for Roddick to say this is very honest indeed. Roddick also took a shot at Nadal saying he wasn't a rival of Federer either. And this is true. Yes Nadal leads Roger 6-2. However, Nadal is a clay court specialists he has yet to breakthrough on the American hardcourts. Nadal is young but i feel like the other kids like Murray and Djokovic are more naturally talented then he is. But right now Nadal is no.2. Players are starting to figure Nadal out. Nadal is excellent on clay but I believe Roger Federer is truly a great legend and he will figure out how to win the French Open he's too good.

Johnny Groove
09-18-2006, 03:10 AM
another suck on Fed's dick and a bash of Nadal. what else is new? :zzz:

tangerine_dream
09-18-2006, 03:11 AM
Roddick and Nadal are TennisAgenda's viagra :inlove:

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 03:15 AM
Pete Sampraas and even Andy Roddick are correct they both said Roger has no rivals. Given the fact Roger once again won 3 out of 4 slams in a year for the second time in three years is an amazing accomplishment. I think for Nadal to get to the top he's got to do well on hardcourts there is no other way around it. Yeah Nadal reached the Wimbledon final but he had the softest draw on earth. He beat three qualifiers and no top 10 players to reach that Wimbledon final. Roddick had a soft draw at the US OPEN. Yet Roger Federer never gets a soft draw he always seems to have to go through the best to win. And for Roddick to say this is very honest indeed. Roddick also took a shot at Nadal saying he wasn't a rival of Federer either. And this is true. Yes Nadal leads Roger 6-2. However, Nadal is a clay court specialists he has yet to breakthrough on the American hardcourts. Nadal is young but i feel like the other kids like Murray and Djokovic are more naturally talented then he is. But right now Nadal is no.2. Players are starting to figure Nadal out. Nadal is excellent on clay but I believe Roger Federer is truly a great legend and he will figure out how to win the French Open he's too good.


Wow. You discovered the 15th planet of the solar system. Congratulations. :rolleyes:

~*BGT*~
09-18-2006, 03:16 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: at all of the responses.

RickDaStick
09-18-2006, 03:19 AM
of course they aren't Roddick is Fed's personal bitch and Nadal well he's just your typical dirtballer only good for a few months of the season.

Fee
09-18-2006, 03:21 AM
Damn, a day late for the arse clown qualie draw. Check the alarm on your clock dude, you might miss work tomorrow.

Corey Feldman
09-18-2006, 03:23 AM
Nobody gets Grand Slams handed to them on a plate...
fed has had many rivals and got through them all.

Havok
09-18-2006, 03:25 AM
Well Rafa owns Fed and Fed owns Roddick so no there aren't any rivalries between these 3. Though I can easily see a great rivalry between Nadal and Roddick.:drool:

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-18-2006, 03:57 AM
Nadal beat Baghdatis in Wimbledon.
Baghdatis is top 10.
Stupid Fedtard Logic.

My brilliance once again blinds the challenged Fedtards.

Pfloyd
09-18-2006, 04:01 AM
No, 6-2 dosent show any challenge towards Federer's dominance over the whole ATP Tour...please....

Corey Feldman
09-18-2006, 04:09 AM
I am glad Rafa leads 6-2 in the matchup category and not 9-2 in the SLAMS WON category, at least.

:D:D:D:D:D

PamV
09-18-2006, 04:09 AM
No, 6-2 dosent show any challenge towards Federer's dominance over the whole ATP Tour...please....

It shows 4 wins on CLAY, and two wins on h/c when Roger was tired after just winning a prior tournament. Roger also lost to Murray in Cincy.

Nadal does have the advantage on clay....that isn't a surprise.

robinhood
09-18-2006, 04:25 AM
First of all, Roddick should not be anywhere near a rivalry talk.
Nadal, regardless of surface, fatigue, coaching, and this, that, and some more, IS a rival.

Since he struggled in the US hard court season, I think he has to prove again that he can play well on surfaces other than clay and reach finals to face Fed.
Fed also will have to beat Nadal again to prove that he can beat Nadal on surfaces other than grass.

Kalliopeia
09-18-2006, 04:28 AM
It shows 4 wins on CLAY, and two wins on h/c when Roger was tired after just winning a prior tournament. Roger also lost to Murray in Cincy.

Sometimes I wonder if Federer fans realize how lame they make him sound when they go on about how he lost because he was tired.

Then again if I was him and knew I was facing Rafa yet again in another final I probably wouldn't get much sleep the night before either.

Pfloyd
09-18-2006, 04:33 AM
It shows 4 wins on CLAY, and two wins on h/c when Roger was tired after just winning a prior tournament. Roger also lost to Murray in Cincy.

Nadal does have the advantage on clay....that isn't a surprise.

There are often reasons for which players do not perfrom there best at any given game (of course, this dosent mean that it happens in every game).

The fact that Federer was tired at one HC, dosent say much, Federer's still lost to Nadal on Dubai too. I mean, it is also true that in then third set if the Miami Final, there was an in call that should have been called out, and that would've given Rafa the advantage on that match too. Of course, it dosent mean Rafa would have won, but to think that Rafa could have had a 3-0 adavantage on Federer on HC, is quite scary.

PamV
09-18-2006, 05:22 AM
I think in that Dubai match Roger was actually holding serve better than Rafa and perhaps even won more points in the match overall. Wasn't the match decided by tie breaks? It's not like Rafa ran away with that one.

It's true that Rafa's style is difficult for Roger because Rafa is a grinder similar to Nalbandian, and Hewitt which were also two guys that Roger had difficulty with until he got used to their games.

Regardless.....I still think the fact is that Roger accomplished a lot by even getting to those 4 matches on clay where he faced Rafa. If it were Sampras he would have not been criticized for getting to those finals and losing to Nadal. It's rather strange to think all that's focused on is that Roger lost the 4 times to Nadal on clay.....not that those were his best results at those tournaments.

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 05:57 AM
~2500 points gap = no rivalry.

Pfloyd
09-18-2006, 05:59 AM
Federer's stated that because Nadal is a lefty, he will always give him trouble....

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 06:02 AM
Now that Beijing points were discounted the gap is 2670 points. The player resulting from the difference between them would be the world's #5. Is that rivalry? :haha:

lordmanji
09-18-2006, 06:11 AM
Nadal beat Federer four times and at the French Open no less, keeping Federer from winning the calendar year slam. He also met Fed at the final of his home court Wimbledon. That is the very definition of rival.

However, for Nadal to rival Federer in HISTORY then you have a point. Federer has 9 slams, Nadal has two. But while its not a full rivalry yet, Nadal is four years younger and already has two slams - accomplishing more than Federer when he was Nadal's age.

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 06:13 AM
Nadal beat Federer four times and at the French Open no less, keeping Federer from winning the calendar year slam. He also met Fed at the final of his home court Wimbledon. That is the very definition of rival.

However, for Nadal to rival Federer in HISTORY then you have a point. Federer has 9 slams, Nadal has two. But while its not a full rivalry yet, Nadal is four years younger and already has two slams - accomplishing more than Federer when he was Nadal's age.

So did Hewitt. Where's he right now?

jenanun
09-18-2006, 06:45 AM
~2500 points gap = no rivalry.

6-2 = no rivalry ;)

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2006, 06:57 AM
6-2 = no rivalry ;)

9 - 2 = no rivalry.

disturb3d
09-18-2006, 07:24 AM
9 - 2 = no rivalry.Uhh, Federer sucks. All his titles came on grass. That's false domination.

Kalliopeia
09-18-2006, 12:19 PM
9 - 2 = no rivalry.

You might have a point if all 11 of those finals had been between Federer and Nadal. But they weren't. Nice try though.

David Kenzie
09-18-2006, 12:38 PM
Real tennis fans can't dislike Roger, it just makes you look silly. Enjoy both players instead of inventing some kind of rivalry.

Fed-Express
09-18-2006, 12:39 PM
Nadal beat Baghdatis in Wimbledon.
Baghdatis is top 10.
Stupid Fedtard Logic.

My brilliance once again blinds the challenged Fedtards.

Yeah, except for the fact that Baghdatis was 16 in Wimbledon.
Your logic is not that good too.
By the way, atm your brilliance seems no more than a black, deep (very deep, if you ask me0) hole :rolleyes:

Corey Feldman
09-18-2006, 01:26 PM
I have to laugh at those who giggle that Fed-nadal is no rivalry as rafa leads 6-2 (+4 differential)

Sampras had a +6 over Agassi
Mcenroe had a +6 over Connors
Becker had a +15 over Edberg
Lendl +8 over Wilander
Borg +5 over Connors

and they are considered some of the finest rivalries of all time :p

magnoliaewan
09-18-2006, 03:54 PM
To me, rivalry or no rivalry doesn't matter. What matters is that Federer is winning 2-3 Grand Slams a year and I'm sure any tennis player would rather be in his position rather than beat Federer in their head-to-heads.

Rex
09-18-2006, 04:43 PM
another suck on Fed's dick and a bash of Nadal. what else is new? :zzz:


cant say it any better myself, people hate nadal because he beats federer. Nadal is a rival, i mean he makes final fo the french, the the final of wimby...dont forget that.....

supersexynadal
09-18-2006, 05:24 PM
It shows 4 wins on CLAY, and two wins on h/c when Roger was tired after just winning a prior tournament. Roger also lost to Murray in Cincy.

Nadal does have the advantage on clay....that isn't a surprise.

EXCUSES EXCUSES!!


Bottom line is people hae to accept tht nadal CAN AND WILL beat federer again and again on hard corts and definately clay. People seem to over estimate his abilty on gass with his "easy draw" at wimby. Nadal on grass is like any other player in the top 50 on grass, maybe even worse so give him some credit. To be honest, i dont think federer put anthing into t at the RG final. I know he really wanted it (and it would have been nice to see him win) but nadal is just better in that department. That match went JUST like the wimbledon final, exept that it was rafas 2nd time to play at wimledon and federer didnt get bageled so that should be considered :rolleyes: Just sit back, relax, and enjoy their matches :angel:

Havok
09-18-2006, 06:59 PM
~2500 points gap = no rivalry.
A rivalry is when two players play against eachother quite often and the h2h isn't so lop sided. Rivalry has nothing to do with their overall achievements, titles won, etc. If you want to birng that in, then that's called COMPARISSON. Rivalry has to do with player a facing player b in actual tennis matches, period. So far Rafa leads 6-2 so yes there is a sort of rivalry there but Nadal still needs to imrpove on surfaces other than clay. He's good off the clay, but still needs improvement.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-18-2006, 09:08 PM
Naldo is one of the few intelligent people here.

oz_boz
09-18-2006, 09:34 PM
A rivalry is when two players play against eachother quite often and the h2h isn't so lop sided. Rivalry has nothing to do with their overall achievements, titles won, etc. If you want to birng that in, then that's called COMPARISSON. Rivalry has to do with player a facing player b in actual tennis matches, period. So far Rafa leads 6-2 so yes there is a sort of rivalry there but Nadal still needs to improve on surfaces other than clay. He's good off the clay, but still needs improvement.

A rivalry has to do with more than h2h, the rivals actually both must have some right to claim they are the very best at something. Noone would talk about the Enquist-Agassi rivalry even if their h2h was even. On the other hand there was a rivalry between Becker and Edberg even if the h2h was 25-10, because both were competing for the Wimbledon title.

I don't think it's far fetched to call Fed-Nadal a rivalry. Fed is 2500 points ahead and has far better hc results, but their clashes in finals this year call make a case for it.