Does Federer's H2H record against Nadal raise questions about his legacy? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Does Federer's H2H record against Nadal raise questions about his legacy?

Pages : [1] 2 3

Cresswekk
02-01-2009, 12:24 PM
How can you be the GOAT if your biggest rival has beaten you on every surface in grand slam finals, holds a career winning record over you and has a winning record overall in grand slam finals??

SheepleBuster
02-01-2009, 12:25 PM
Hold on to your pants!

zicofirol
02-01-2009, 12:26 PM
i agree, he cant...

RagingLamb
02-01-2009, 12:27 PM
This is a point that other's have made as well (e.g. Brad Gilbert).

I think this will be a big problem for him and his legacy, unless he turns it around somehow (in slams at least) before he bows out.

Fedex
02-01-2009, 12:29 PM
Federer is a joke.... he needs to retire before he further embarrasses the sport.

thrust
02-01-2009, 12:31 PM
How can you be the GOAT if your biggest rival has beaten you on every surface in grand slam finals, holds a career winning record over you and has a winning record overall in grand slam finals??

TRUE!! I would not say Roger's reputation is quite in tattere, but now that he has another great player to compete against he no longer can be the GOAT. NOT YET!! BRAVO RAFA YOU ARE TODAY'S GREATEST AND PERHAPS THE GOAT.

tae04
02-01-2009, 12:33 PM
such a crybaby out there

marcRD
02-01-2009, 12:38 PM
Its called matchup. Nadal is a matchup made in hell for Federer, every weapon Federer has Nadal can neutralize it while Nadals weapons go straight to Federers weaknesses.

Lets see now, Federer cant use his slice as it goes straight to Nadals low swinging forehand which can rip it apart without any problems. He cant even return serves with a slice. Federers forehand is very easy to defend against for Nadal because it is not flat and hard like Tsonga or Djokovic. Federers approach shots are great against anyone except Nadal who constantly destroy Federer at the net. Federers serve is not really powerful enought to make it unreturnable for Nadal.

Now to Nadals strengths: The forehand crosscourt with alot of spin goes straight to Federers weakness, the backhand. Normaly it wouldnt be a weakness because his backhand crosscourt slice is one of the greatest defensive shots in the game, but as he barely can use it against Nadal he needs to invent crazy things with his backhand. Slice it down the line or hit crazy crosscourt flicks high on his backhand. Nadals serve is not powerful like Federer likes serves to be, it has alot of spin, which means just blocking it or slicing it like Federer likes to do wont do it. Nadals second serve is very weak but as Federer doesnt like to attack second serves he cant get any advantage on Nadals weakes shot.

So what we have is Nadal just fitting into the description of the player to beat Federer like a glove fits on a hand, it is just destiny. Federer had the worst imaginable opponent in the history of tennis to play in his era and face him in grand slam final after grand slam final.

I dont even care about all this talk about how Federer is a mental dwarf against Nadal, I think mentaly he is slightly less strong than he usually is but that is not a surprise when he has to face such an uncomfortable opponent with an answer to every weapon from Federer and with weapons which Federer cant answer.

azinna
02-01-2009, 12:38 PM
Doesn't help that he went Novotna as he accepted another runner's up trophy......

orangehat
02-01-2009, 12:39 PM
He'll have to hope he doesn't face Nadal in U.S. Open ..

00923
02-01-2009, 12:43 PM
How can you be the GOAT if your biggest rival has beaten you on every surface in grand slam finals, holds a career winning record over you and has a winning record overall in grand slam finals??

The GOAT talk needs to be put to rest once and for all.

FNT
02-01-2009, 12:43 PM
His legacy is just fine, in 10-15 years no one will remember the exact losses and wins, they'll just say "Federer is a 13 (maybe 14-15)-time Slam winner who lost a couple of 5-setters to another All-Time Great". All of those losses in clay Masters Series tourneys won't matter that much. He won his Slams, that's what will count.
He has his game and dominance to show for it. Sure, Nadal was beating him when he (Rafa) was entering his prime while Roger was already over the hill. So what?
P.S. In a couple of years or whenever Rafa's legs and knees will start betraying him, a lot of people will spew the same bullshit about "mug era for clay", "he was lucky to face Federer who was bad on clay", "he only won ... Slams off clay" (and if it's fewer than 5 or 6, people will call them lucky). That's revisionist history at its finest.

madmax
02-01-2009, 12:43 PM
c'mon Roger, show him you got some steel balls and beat him in French Open at last...I've had enough of bending over

Fedex
02-01-2009, 12:44 PM
Was Federer ever really a great player? Have we been deceived all these years? I'm starting to wonder...

Cresswekk
02-01-2009, 12:46 PM
Was Federer ever really a great player? Have we been deceived all these years? I'm starting to wonder...


Well most of his grand slams came against a server like Roddick, a runner like Hewitt and a nothing like Ferrero.

Now he has a real rival, he's flopping.

RagingLamb
02-01-2009, 12:47 PM
His legacy is just fine, in 10-15 years no one will remember the exact losses and wins, they'll just say "Federer is a 13 (maybe 14-15)-time Slam winner who lost a couple of 5-setters to another All-Time Great". All of those losses in clay Masters Series tourneys won't matter that much. He won his Slams, that's what will count.
He has his game and dominance to show for it. Sure, Nadal was beating him when he (Rafa) was entering his prime while Roger was already over the hill. So what?

Roger over the hill at 27? Poor guy.

Anyhow, his record against Nadal will strengthen the voices of those who've complained of the competition Federer faced when he racked up the majority of those majors.

Steelq
02-01-2009, 12:51 PM
c'mon Roger, show him you got some steel balls and beat him in French Open at last
:haha::haha:He cant beat Nadal even on HC,and you are expecting him do that on clay.

Kip
02-01-2009, 12:53 PM
As far as I am concerned, his legacy is just fine.

The only thing I feel holding him back could possibly be his own stubbornness. Maybe I am wrong, but it is rather obvious that he has to play a different game with Rafa than with the rest of the tour to win. And i just get the sense with him thus far that he is either gonna win playing the way he does against everyone else or not at all.

Am I off here?

Maybe Roger will wake-up a bit if rafa continues kicking his butt like this on every surface almost.

i was so frustrated watching him today, especially on the return of 2nd serves on the bh side! I was wishing Serena would come out and play the returns for him today! :lol: At least she would actually hit the return and not baby it.

FedFanUS
02-01-2009, 12:55 PM
I'm a Fed Fan as you can tell but he's a mental midget against Nadal. Rafa just has more cajones on the big points. There are times where Roger just seems plain soft to me and that is why he won't ever go down as the best.

gaitare
02-01-2009, 12:57 PM
Well most of his grand slams came against a server like Roddick, a runner like Hewitt and a nothing like Ferrero.

Now he has a real rival, he's flopping.

You forgot about Philippoussis, who's reality show-only, and Murray, ugly has-been with one grand slam final in his bag.

marcRD
02-01-2009, 12:57 PM
As far as I am concerned, his legacy is just fine.

The only thing I feel holding him back could possibly be his own stubbornness. Maybe I am wrong, but it is rather obvious that he has to play a different game with Rafa than with the rest of the tour to win. And i just get the sense with him thus far that he is either gonna win playing the way he does against everyone else or not at all.

Am I off here?

Maybe Roger will wake-up a bit if rafa continues kicking his butt like this on every surface almost.

i was so frustrated watching him today, especially on the return of 2nd serves on the bh side! I was wishing Serena would come out and play the returns for him today! :lol: At least she would actually hit the return and not baby it.

Yeah, I feel like Federer needs to learn how to put pressure on Nadals second serve. I think this is the only thing he could actually change in this matchup, maybe try to hit his forehands flatter and improve his serve a little. I hope Federer wont be in another french open final this year.

FedFanUS
02-01-2009, 12:57 PM
As far as I am concerned, his legacy is just fine.

The only thing I feel holding him back could possibly be his own stubbornness. Maybe I am wrong, but it is rather obvious that he has to play a different game with Rafa than with the rest of the tour to win. And i just get the sense with him thus far that he is either gonna win playing the way he does against everyone else or not at all.

Am I off here?

Maybe Roger will wake-up a bit if rafa continues kicking his butt like this on every surface almost.

i was so frustrated watching him today, especially on the return of 2nd serves on the bh side! I was wishing Serena would come out and play the returns for him today! :lol: At least she would actually hit the return and not baby it.
I agree with you and want Cahill said on the broadcast that he is too damn stubborn! How many times are you going to let that guy beat you the same damn way? Change up the gameplan! Because if you don't you are never going to beat that guy in the major tournaments.

groundstroke
02-01-2009, 12:58 PM
If Federer wins 2 more slams, then he will be the best ever regardless of whether Nadal beats him at every surface.

Nadal is in the same position Fed was in a long time ago (2004), he's captured 3 Slams, now just that 1 Slam that's missing from his cabinet.

Smasher
02-01-2009, 01:00 PM
The guy has 13 slams, cut the crap. He could marry a cow (I don't mean Mirka), retire right now and he would still be one of the greatest players ever. It's useless to compare achievements in different eras and trying to lift one above other greats is stupid because of that.

groundstroke
02-01-2009, 01:01 PM
If Federer wins 2 more slams, then he will be the best ever regardless of whether Nadal beats him at every surface.

Nadal is in the same position Fed was in a long time ago (2004), he's captured 3 Slams, now just that 1 Slam that's missing from his cabinet.

FNT
02-01-2009, 01:03 PM
Roger over the hill at 27? Poor guy.

Anyhow, his record against Nadal will strengthen the voices of those who've complained of the competition Federer faced when he racked up the majority of those majors.

Well, his odometer is running at 800 matches, that's a lot of punishment for your body to take.

And if Fed only lost a couple of those Slam finals to Roddick, people would be saying: "Well, he defeated his great contemporary Roddick who had a booming serve and stayed in Top 10 for ages".

Had he won against Rafa today and in Wimby last year, people would be saying "Ha, congrats, he beat a vamos-clay-crappy-moonballer on grass, boo-hoo". Sampras in some of his finals beat such giants as Pioline and Todd Martin, and lost to Safin of all people. If only Roger let some of those guys win 5 Slams or so, there would be plenty of talk about great era for tennis.

Anyhow, my point is: if you win 10+ Slams, your legacy is fine. If he wins a couple of more, he has legitimate reasons to consider himself the GOAT (although as I posted in another thread, there won't be a definitive GOAT in my opinion until someone obliterates every record). All those weeks at No. 1, GS wins, GS finals, GS semifinals since forever etc. etc. have to count for something.

holagirl56
02-01-2009, 01:15 PM
Well, his odometer is running at 800 matches, that's a lot of punishment for your body to take.

And if Fed only lost a couple of those Slam finals to Roddick, people would be saying: "Well, he defeated his great contemporary Roddick who had a booming serve and stayed in Top 10 for ages".

Had he won against Rafa today and in Wimby last year, people would be saying "Ha, congrats, he beat a vamos-clay-crappy-moonballer on grass, boo-hoo". Sampras in some of his finals beat such giants as Pioline and Todd Martin, and lost to Safin of all people. If only Roger let some of those guys win 5 Slams or so, there would be plenty of talk about great era for tennis.

Anyhow, my point is: if you win 10+ Slams, your legacy is fine. If he wins a couple of more, he has legitimate reasons to consider himself the GOAT (although as I posted in another thread, there won't be a definitive GOAT in my opinion until someone obliterates every record). All those weeks at No. 1, GS wins, GS finals, GS semifinals since forever etc. etc. have to count for something.

Stop, you're making too much sense.

marcRD
02-01-2009, 01:15 PM
Sometimes I wonder how it can take 5 sets for Nadal to finish Federer, there is nothing I can see Federer doing to defeat Nadal nowadays. I still think he is a better player on both grass and hardcourt but the matchup is so damn punishing for Federer.

MacTheKnife
02-01-2009, 01:20 PM
Federer's legacy is and will be fine. It's always interesting to see how the teenagers and fanboys respond to the current situation in tennis at any point in time. All the pressure is on Federer right now, he is the one trying to tie that 14th slam record. A few years from now the role for Nadal will be reversed, he'll be the old guy trying to make history against some young buck that can throw caution to the wind. We'll see how that works out.

FNT
02-01-2009, 01:21 PM
Oh, and by the way, Nadal is 2-2 against Roddick off clay, and 4-4 against Hewitt. What a freaking mug, right?

Primus
02-01-2009, 01:21 PM
Bad matchup is when you gotta deal with a player way lower of your ranking and skills and who's game just don't fit yours. How on earth can you say that the best player in the world is bad matchup to anyone??? Of, course it's bad matchup, he's bad matchup for everybody.

bandabou
02-01-2009, 01:32 PM
No perce..but he needs to win one of these close matches against Rafa. Just to show that he has 'cojones" so to speak. I do agree that Roger is stubborn when playing Rafa..he isn't adapting to the challenge, but 27? Hmm..still might have something left.

groundstroke
02-01-2009, 01:44 PM
Well, his odometer is running at 800 matches, that's a lot of punishment for your body to take.

And if Fed only lost a couple of those Slam finals to Roddick, people would be saying: "Well, he defeated his great contemporary Roddick who had a booming serve and stayed in Top 10 for ages".

Had he won against Rafa today and in Wimby last year, people would be saying "Ha, congrats, he beat a vamos-clay-crappy-moonballer on grass, boo-hoo". Sampras in some of his finals beat such giants as Pioline and Todd Martin, and lost to Safin of all people. If only Roger let some of those guys win 5 Slams or so, there would be plenty of talk about great era for tennis.

Anyhow, my point is: if you win 10+ Slams, your legacy is fine. If he wins a couple of more, he has legitimate reasons to consider himself the GOAT (although as I posted in another thread, there won't be a definitive GOAT in my opinion until someone obliterates every record). All those weeks at No. 1, GS wins, GS finals, GS semifinals since forever etc. etc. have to count for something.

Federer is 2 Grand Slams away from having the most ever, 2 Grand Slams away from having the most finals ever, he has already has a record for most consecutive GS semi finals (19 times) and most consecutive weeks at number 1.

groundstroke
02-01-2009, 01:45 PM
Well, his odometer is running at 800 matches, that's a lot of punishment for your body to take.

And if Fed only lost a couple of those Slam finals to Roddick, people would be saying: "Well, he defeated his great contemporary Roddick who had a booming serve and stayed in Top 10 for ages".

Had he won against Rafa today and in Wimby last year, people would be saying "Ha, congrats, he beat a vamos-clay-crappy-moonballer on grass, boo-hoo". Sampras in some of his finals beat such giants as Pioline and Todd Martin, and lost to Safin of all people. If only Roger let some of those guys win 5 Slams or so, there would be plenty of talk about great era for tennis.

Anyhow, my point is: if you win 10+ Slams, your legacy is fine. If he wins a couple of more, he has legitimate reasons to consider himself the GOAT (although as I posted in another thread, there won't be a definitive GOAT in my opinion until someone obliterates every record). All those weeks at No. 1, GS wins, GS finals, GS semifinals since forever etc. etc. have to count for something.

Federer is 2 Grand Slams away from having the most ever, 2 Grand Slams away from having the most finals ever, he has already has a record for most consecutive GS semi finals (19 times) and most consecutive weeks at number 1.

marcRD
02-01-2009, 01:54 PM
Bad matchup is when you gotta deal with a player way lower of your ranking and skills and who's game just don't fit yours. How on earth can you say that the best player in the world is bad matchup to anyone??? Of, course it's bad matchup, he's bad matchup for everybody.

He is a bad matchup for Nalbandian? Tsonga? I dont think so, he is a bad matchup for Murray? No, Murray just lost to him because he had too much respect for him when he was younger. Is he a bad matchup for Djokovic? Not in any way, he is just a better player than Djokovic that is all. Is there any weapon that Djokovic and Murray cant use against Nadal which they use constantly against other players? No, they can play their normal game and feel comfortable against Nadal, they dont use slices or go to the net that much anyway. There is no denying that Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer, this has been the case since the beginning of Nadals career when he was not that great as he is now.

TheBoiledEgg
02-01-2009, 01:55 PM
whats the bright idea of coming in on top spin FH's :rolleyes: dont think i've ever seen Roger come in on a slice, maybe cos his slice just sits up :help:
the likes of Edberg, Rafter must be :haha:@Roger
Roger....go learn some basic skill of slice
Roger's volley's were pretty pathetic too.

marcRD
02-01-2009, 01:59 PM
whats the bright idea of coming in on top spin FH's :rolleyes: dont think i've ever seen Roger come in on a slice, maybe cos his slice just sits up :help:
the likes of Edberg, Rafter must be :haha:@Roger
Roger....go learn some basic skill of slice
Roger's volley's were pretty pathetic too.

You cant slice against Nadal, that is just suicide. He loves to swing on low balls with his forehand, it is just so natural for Nadal.

goldenlox
02-01-2009, 02:23 PM
Sampras had a long career, NEVER reached an FO final, and a lot of people think he's the best ever.
Federer is not going to win every major. Sampras won 14 in 14 years.
A lot of this will play out by how many majors they both win in their careers.
Nadal still has a long way to go to 15, Federer can still get there in 2009

Jaz
02-01-2009, 02:26 PM
whats the bright idea of coming in on top spin FH's :rolleyes: dont think i've ever seen Roger come in on a slice, maybe cos his slice just sits up :help:
the likes of Edberg, Rafter must be :haha:@Roger
Roger....go learn some basic skill of slice
Roger's volley's were pretty pathetic too.

You didn't watch the match did you?

Rogers Volleys were pretty good. His backhand leaked errors, but he also got some winners with it.

He was pretty passive and didn't really attack much imo. BP conversion was dreadful, service returns on BP were terrible.

I think Roger has seriously got to look at the backhand. More importantly, he tactically and emotionally can't beat Nadal.

SushiMinimal
02-01-2009, 02:50 PM
Nadal is going to get 15 grand slams before federer retires so the discussion will be whether sampras, federer or nadal is the best in history. Two years ago we all thought federer was going to be the best and nobody was going to argue that. I think that's why roger was crying.

Joretus
02-01-2009, 03:47 PM
His legacy is just fine, in 10-15 years no one will remember the exact losses and wins, they'll just say "Federer is a 13 (maybe 14-15)-time Slam winner who lost a couple of 5-setters to another All-Time Great". All of those losses in clay Masters Series tourneys won't matter that much. He won his Slams, that's what will count.
He has his game and dominance to show for it. Sure, Nadal was beating him when he (Rafa) was entering his prime while Roger was already over the hill. So what?
P.S. In a couple of years or whenever Rafa's legs and knees will start betraying him, a lot of people will spew the same bullshit about "mug era for clay", "he was lucky to face Federer who was bad on clay", "he only won ... Slams off clay" (and if it's fewer than 5 or 6, people will call them lucky). That's revisionist history at its finest.

Yeah, I agree totally. Ppl pays way too much time dissing all possible players and not giving credit to these great players.

Commander Data
02-01-2009, 04:07 PM
Well, his odometer is running at 800 matches, that's a lot of punishment for your body to take.

And if Fed only lost a couple of those Slam finals to Roddick, people would be saying: "Well, he defeated his great contemporary Roddick who had a booming serve and stayed in Top 10 for ages".

Had he won against Rafa today and in Wimby last year, people would be saying "Ha, congrats, he beat a vamos-clay-crappy-moonballer on grass, boo-hoo". Sampras in some of his finals beat such giants as Pioline and Todd Martin, and lost to Safin of all people. If only Roger let some of those guys win 5 Slams or so, there would be plenty of talk about great era for tennis.

Anyhow, my point is: if you win 10+ Slams, your legacy is fine. If he wins a couple of more, he has legitimate reasons to consider himself the GOAT (although as I posted in another thread, there won't be a definitive GOAT in my opinion until someone obliterates every record). All those weeks at No. 1, GS wins, GS finals, GS semifinals since forever etc. etc. have to count for something.

Damn you make sense, what's wrong with you? get out of here, this is MTF! We are supposed to talk crap here. Just look at me...

Deejay
02-01-2009, 04:25 PM
I think people are obviously blowing things out of proportion after this loss. Federer will go on and break Sampras' record no problem, he's only 27 and as it stands, theres only one guy in the world that can beat him in a grand slam over 5 sets. The smaller events dont matter anymore to Federer, its plainly obvious. And lets face it, Rafa wont win every single slam between now and the time Federer retires so you would be crazy to think that he won't keep adding the odd slam or two over the next couple of years. His legacy is fine...

kyleskywalker007
02-01-2009, 04:34 PM
I just hope Federer somehow beats Nadal at the French. He needs a lesson! I don't care if he has to sell his soul to the devil!

MacTheKnife
02-01-2009, 04:36 PM
I think people are obviously blowing things out of proportion after this loss. Federer will go on and break Sampras' record no problem, he's only 27 and as it stands, theres only one guy in the world that can beat him in a grand slam over 5 sets. The smaller events dont matter anymore to Federer, its plainly obvious. And lets face it, Rafa wont win every single slam between now and the time Federer retires so you would be crazy to think that he won't keep adding the odd slam or two over the next couple of years. His legacy is fine...

Well said. People seem to forget, there was a two year gap between Sampras' last two. This is a tennis world that is living totally in the now. Fed will have at least 12 to 16, maybe more opportunities to pull off a couple more.

marcRD
02-01-2009, 04:53 PM
We are talking about someone who has been in 14 out of the last 15 grand slam finals and 19 straight grand slam semifinals. Unless Nadal is going to completely dominate grass and hardcourt in the future, ofcourse Federer will win more grand slams.

Johnny Groove
02-01-2009, 05:03 PM
Its not really in tatters, but Fed isn't getting younger. He needs to beat Nadal SOMEWHERE, just to get some belief back.

marcRD
02-01-2009, 05:06 PM
He should face Nadal in Indian Wells, Dubai or something. Just play without fear and test new things and damn I hate that clay season, Federer should just do a Sampras and dont put much effort on clay this season. I mean, you think having been beaten in 10 clay finals has done any good for Federer against Nadal?

Get a coach, just do something new. Get some ideas about how to beat Nadal.

Johnny Groove
02-01-2009, 05:08 PM
He can't really skip the clay season, he has tons of points to defend

the cat
02-01-2009, 05:08 PM
Was Federer ever really a great player? Have we been deceived all these years? I'm starting to wonder...
No you haven't been deceived. And even if Federer is slightly past his prime as an all time great player he has made 4 grand slam finals in a row winning one. That's still very impressive. :worship: And Nadal has needed 5 sets in the last 2 grand slam finals they have played each other to beat Federer. Roger is still right there. It's just Nadal has the edge on him at this point.

marcRD
02-01-2009, 05:12 PM
He can't really skip the clay season, he has tons of points to defend

Who cares about points? He should only care about slams. Sampras didnt get a beating on his confidence when he played on clay every year, he could rest and practise for Wimbledon instead. What has Federers endless battle to win RG ever done for him? Points by getting to every master series final out there and RG final too. That is just worthless points, Federer needs to focus on what is important. He could maybe beat Nadal before in a RG final, not anymore. So why bother getting to the final? Sure there is that outside chanse that Nadal will get injured and Federer would be the favorite against anyone in the final in that case, but it is still too much speculation.

Bernard Black
02-01-2009, 05:15 PM
I can't be bothered to trawl the archives but I'm sure you'll find every great player throughout history had one or two opponents they struggled with. It's the nature of the game, and specific match-ups, or in this case bad match-ups are all a part of it. In 30 years, when looking back people will note that Nadal was much younger than Federer so it was a natural progression that someone should come along and dethrone him. It's extremely rare in any sport that someone retires at the top.

Federer's record speaks for itself, and that's all we need to consider.

Johnny Groove
02-01-2009, 05:16 PM
Who cares about points? He should only care about slams. Sampras didnt get a beating on his confidence when he played on clay every year, he could rest and practise for Wimbledon instead. What has Federers endless battle to win RG ever done for him? Points by getting to every master series final out there and RG final too. That is just worthless points, Federer needs to focus on what is important. He could maybe beat Nadal before in a RG final, not anymore. So why bother getting to the final? Sure there is that outside chanse that Nadal will get injured and Federer would be the favorite against anyone in the final in that case, but it is still too much speculation.

So you think Federer should just skip the clay season and give up on winning RG? That would be the biggest wussy move in the history of sport :rolleyes:

"I don't play on clay anymore because its pointless because I can't beat Nadal" :rolleyes:

the biscuit
02-01-2009, 05:20 PM
"I don't play on clay anymore because its pointless because I can't beat Nadal" :rolleyes:

At least he'd speak the truth w/o beating around the bush for once.

marcRD
02-01-2009, 05:24 PM
So you think Federer should just skip the clay season and give up on winning RG? That would be the biggest wussy move in the history of sport :rolleyes:

"I don't play on clay anymore because its pointless because I can't beat Nadal" :rolleyes:

Well, he shouldnt make anything official about it. He should play all master series and RG. He should practice like he was playing on fast courts, no special practise for clay season. He should take it easy and just dont take it hard if he loses against some nobodies in early rounds. If he still gets to a final against Nadal he should test some new stuff and have fun. Drop shots, volleying short and having fun.

MacTheKnife
02-01-2009, 06:07 PM
He "could" win the FO without beating Nadal. I mean one never knows, no ??

TheBoiledEgg
02-01-2009, 07:00 PM
He "could" win the FO without beating Nadal. I mean one never knows, no ??

just slip some rat poison in Rafa's drink :devil:

MisterQ
02-01-2009, 07:12 PM
I'd love to be left with a tattered legacy like Federer's! :worship:

Vida
02-01-2009, 07:29 PM
If Federer doesn't win his next 2 Slams against Nadal, but against someone like Roddick or some kid that chokes, than hell yeah his legacy will be tarnished. He was hyped as a GOAT, the magnonimous ruler of the world!.... But considering he is owned to the bone by a player who barely entered prime, all that goes down the drains.

dabeast
02-01-2009, 07:44 PM
This is MTF kneejerk reaction bullshit at its finest.

No one in the world plays like Federer. He has the most complete game on the tour and in tennis history. Who the hell cares that his achilles' heel, one Rafael Nadal, happens to own him mentally? That's why this rivalry will cement Federer as a true legend, because these two push each other to the limits and make the rivalry memorable. If he didn't have a great rival in Nadal, Federer wouldn't be remembered for some of the best matches, some of which he lost.

It's like what Toni Nadal said, "Rafa is the best in the world, currently. But Federer has the best game." Everyone knows Federer is technically more proficient and versatile, Nadal will never have that talent nor anticipation of the game.

If the former greats like Laver and Sampras and Becker talk about Fed like he's the greatest they've ever seen, that they've never seen anyone play like him, then you can be sure they know what they're talking about. No one's ever mentioned that Nadal's brand of tennis is special.

Secondly, Federer makes the game look incredibly easy, like a form of art. And that's always a sign of genius.

Finally, Federer elevated the sport to such a level that it took the tour 4 years to catch up. More like, he slowed down though, and waited for the rest.

If all these factors don't convince you that he is the greatest that we will ever see in this lifetime, then too bad because I'd rather see him play live before he retires and not some grunting, moonballing, ass-picking, incredibly dull what's-his-name on TV.

brent-o
02-01-2009, 07:50 PM
His legacy is just fine, in 10-15 years no one will remember the exact losses and wins, they'll just say "Federer is a 13 (maybe 14-15)-time Slam winner who lost a couple of 5-setters to another All-Time Great". All of those losses in clay Masters Series tourneys won't matter that much. He won his Slams, that's what will count.
He has his game and dominance to show for it. Sure, Nadal was beating him when he (Rafa) was entering his prime while Roger was already over the hill. So what?
P.S. In a couple of years or whenever Rafa's legs and knees will start betraying him, a lot of people will spew the same bullshit about "mug era for clay", "he was lucky to face Federer who was bad on clay", "he only won ... Slams off clay" (and if it's fewer than 5 or 6, people will call them lucky). That's revisionist history at its finest.

You really think people won't remember the French Open beatdown or these other Federer meltdowns against Nadal? Also, the bolded statement is complete bullshit. So, when was Federer's prime? 2004 and that's it?

CyBorg
02-01-2009, 08:17 PM
I think that Roger's legacy is perfectly fine. He's just not the greatest of all time and he should live with it and so should his fans.

Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, quite simply, have better resumes - considerably better.

But that's ok. Federer will still go down as one of the best, with a problematic blemish. But that's only a problem if you consider not being the greatest as a problem.

Sean
02-01-2009, 08:27 PM
Im a huge Sampras fan and i dont think 14 will be beaten by Federer, my guess is Nadal will never lose another match to Federer, I doubt Murray will either. GOAT he is not, but he is one of the greats even if he is a blubbering baby.

GugaF1
02-01-2009, 08:30 PM
What a bunch of baloney. Like someone said before Nadal is just a bad match up for Federer that happens to be a greater player then let's say Richard Krajiceck, Wayne Ferreira, Korda and whoever else had a bad match up with Pete Sampras not even couning clay courters. Like there was with Rod laver as well, towards the mid end of his career would get crushed by Jimmy connors and others.


It is a tough match up for Federer, and Nadal will also go down as one of the greatest players in history so no big deal at all. By the contrary, very few players have given Federer a tough match up in has carrer and the one that does it it is in the GOAT category now.

KarlyM
02-01-2009, 08:31 PM
How can you be the GOAT if your biggest rival has beaten you on every surface in grand slam finals, holds a career winning record over you and has a winning record overall in grand slam finals?? Then it means he's been tested - he had a rival that can seriously beat him. It still won't take away from all his tons of records and accomplishments. -->
He won 13 slams over a 5 year period. He was ranked #1 for more consecutive weeks than any male or female player. He is the only player to win 5 consecutive titles at 2 different GS's in the open era. He was the 1st man to reach at least the final at all the GS's during a calendar year since Laver in 1969 (and Fed did this twice). He's the only player in the open era to reach the final of all the GS's at least 3 times.
These are just some of his accomplishments - he's done things that most of the legends haven't (including Pete). The fact that Fed has someone beating him will make it all the more special if he passes the 14 GS mark. If he ever wins RG it would just be icing on the cake - he doesn't really need it but it would fill his one empty hole in the tons he's already filled. I'm not some blind Fedtard (I was rooting for him to lose AO, RG, and Wimbledon so there's more competition) - but there's no denying he's one of the (if not the) best player(s) ever. He 27 and has no real serious injuries. He still has time to win 2 more GS's. He can hire a coach and figure out his problems.

Igaarg
02-01-2009, 08:34 PM
I think that no one never will agree in the question "Who is the greatest tennis player of all times". We can agree who are the best (Sampras, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Laver, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Federer, etc.), and whatever happens, Roger is in that group since a couple of years. Anyone has his own reasons to choose one among the others.
To me Roger is the best ever.

CescAndyKimi
02-01-2009, 08:48 PM
C'mon...Federer has been playing roddick, hewitt et al in finals..now that 3 people come along who can challenge him he looks a bit wank. I for one don't think he's the GOAT, the competition he has had has been mediocre at best, and now that people have come along he's out of his depth. Good player, not the GOAt imo though.

Bernard Black
02-01-2009, 09:04 PM
If Federer doesn't win his next 2 Slams against Nadal, but against someone like Roddick or some kid that chokes, than hell yeah his legacy will be tarnished. He was hyped as a GOAT, the magnonimous ruler of the world!.... But considering he is owned to the bone by a player who barely entered prime, all that goes down the drains.

So to be considered one of the greatest you're saying a player has to finish with a winning record against everyone? That's a tall order, and even if it did happen said player would be considered to have played in a weak area with no serious contenders.

I think the legacy will be sealed if Federer is seen to continue fighting despite the setbacks. Think Muhammad Ali - he is considered by many to be the greatest boxer of all time, not because he had a long title reign, or because he finished with a brilliant record (it was tarnished with many defeats past his prime, not too unlike Federer now) but because he was an artist in the ring, a pure boxer with flawless technique and a huge heart.

Federer just needs to find that last ounce of inspiration from somewhere, and he clearly still has passion for the sport so I wouldn't write him off yet. Not many predicted Sampras winning his fourteenth slam the way he did, it came out of nowhere, it hasn't even got to that stage yet with Federer - he's still always considered among the favourites, so that should tell us something.

ugotlobbed
02-01-2009, 10:04 PM
u guys are idiots, absolutely

Vida
02-01-2009, 10:08 PM
So to be considered one of the greatest you're saying a player has to finish with a winning record against everyone? That's a tall order, and even if it did happen said player would be considered to have played in a weak area with no serious contenders.

I think the legacy will be sealed if Federer is seen to continue fighting despite the setbacks. Think Muhammad Ali - he is considered by many to be the greatest boxer of all time, not because he had a long title reign, or because he finished with a brilliant record (it was tarnished with many defeats past his prime, not too unlike Federer now) but because he was an artist in the ring, a pure boxer with flawless technique and a huge heart.

Federer just needs to find that last ounce of inspiration from somewhere, and he clearly still has passion for the sport so I wouldn't write him off yet. Not many predicted Sampras winning his fourteenth slam the way he did, it came out of nowhere, it hasn't even got to that stage yet with Federer - he's still always considered among the favourites, so that should tell us something.

For one, fed is one of the greatest even if he were to retire tonight. I mean 13 Slams in this day and age... So no, Im not saying that, but in terms of legacy, and in case he doesn't win any more Slams against Nadal (which Im not saying will happen by all means), yeah, Id say that what will be left after him will be slightly dented.

Cause look, you play with cards that are handed to you. No one can blame Fed for taking advantage of his huge game against somewhat limited competition in the past. If it were to be no Nadal, and Fed is to win ummmm 16 Slams in total, cool, Id say he is the man. But now that he has Nadal, and given that he took most of his Slams vs youknowwho, he - in my view - outta not only break Petes, but do it against Nadal, in order to "fulfill" (to put it awkwardly) what he was beefed up by circumstances. Goat talk and all that.

If he doesn't and remains at 13, it will seem like he had the world on his palm only to drop it to a rival. Media will feed on it, with tears on front page to spice it up lol.

ugotlobbed
02-01-2009, 10:13 PM
learn how to average and divide, nadal has 6 gs, federer has 13, countless number of masters year end championships, how many does nadal have? 0, nadal is just really good on clay otherwise he would only have 2 gs as good as safin

Vida
02-01-2009, 10:16 PM
learn how to average and divide, nadal has 6 gs, federer has 13, countless number of masters year end championships, how many does nadal have? 0, nadal is just really good on clay otherwise he would only have 2 gs as good as safin

yeah he really sucks on HC and grass.

Andi-M
02-01-2009, 10:23 PM
13 Grandslams is a great legacy + he may well add to it. I dont see how these losses to Nadal really taint that.

Nadal may have great sucess against Federer but there will a player at some point in his career that will struggle with thats the sport you cant OWN everybody.

A_Skywalker
02-01-2009, 10:23 PM
learn how to average and divide, nadal has 6 gs, federer has 13, countless number of masters year end championships, how many does nadal have? 0, nadal is just really good on clay otherwise he would only have 2 gs as good as safin

Federer is really good on hard courd, but if he wasnt he would have 5 GSs. So where is your logic? Should we not count the surfaces where the players is the best?

GlennMirnyi
02-01-2009, 10:25 PM
Federer doesn't deserve to be called GOAT, ever.

Sampras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.

ugotlobbed
02-01-2009, 10:26 PM
did i say he sucks, dont use sarcasm in bad context it makes u look like an idiot, im simply stating that the ppl who are jumping to the conclusion that nadal is better than federer in an overall sense or will be are full of shit, nadal still has a long long way to go to catch federer

ugotlobbed
02-01-2009, 10:27 PM
my logic is that there are 3 other surfaces to 1 clay

moon language
02-01-2009, 11:04 PM
No one's ever mentioned that Nadal's brand of tennis is special.


Uhh, yes they have, plenty of times.

star
02-01-2009, 11:06 PM
I don't think anyone who has 13 grandslam victories can ever be considered to have a career in tatters.

Federer is going to be one of the greatest players in tennis. I think that's undisputed. I think it also very likely that he will be able to win at least two more slams in his career if he can stick with it. Obviously, those next two slam victories will be more difficult to achieve.

It's no shame to lose to Nadal. Nadal is a great champion. Federer and Nadal went 5 grueling sets at Wimbledon and five sets at the AO. Federer replies to those who criticize his tactics against Nadal: You try to play him. I think that's well said. Federer had tried a lot of different things against Nadal over the years. Several times Federer has said he was solving the puzzle, but the fact remains that Nadal is simply a very bad match up for Federer. But some credit should go to Federer in this final. He kept fighting throughout the match. Only in the fifth set he had nothing left to give.

Also, Nadal is in the heart of his career while Federer is passing into the years of decline for a tennis player. Federer is still going to have fine victories, but he can't regain the same absolute dominance he once enjoyed. I don't think even Federer expcts that. Obviously, he is a great competitor and will continue to play tennis at a very high level.

GlennMirnyi
02-01-2009, 11:09 PM
It is a shame to lose to Nadull outside clay.

duong
02-02-2009, 01:19 AM
Federer's legacy will not be a record number, or a title of what you call Goat,

but a style of tennis :

an enchanted bracket between an era of crazy brutal servers (Sampras's era)
and an era of crazy defensers-runners (Murray, Simon) sometimes also brutal (Nadal) (who will meet few brutal servers like Tsonga).

Later I will remember with pleasure what I thought was made of technical delight and creativity, called tennis.

Federer, Nalbandian, Gasquet (some people thought the future would be made of "baby-Federer" :lol: while it will be made of "baby-Nadal and Sampras") ... it was a pleasure enjoying this tennis.

Now go back to the squalid bases of tennis,

which made of Sampras (crazy brutal servers) on one side, Borg on the other side (crazy defensers), maybe Nadal later (crazy brutal defensers) the GOAT of a sport which is far more dull than I dreamt.

McEnroe and Federer represent something else than a GOAT.

duong
02-02-2009, 01:22 AM
Federer doesn't deserve to be called GOAT, ever.

Sampras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.

Maybe but 10 times more dull

peterparker
02-02-2009, 01:27 AM
I don't think anyone who has 13 grandslam victories can ever be considered to have a career in tatters.

Federer is going to be one of the greatest players in tennis. I think that's undisputed. I think it also very likely that he will be able to win at least two more slams in his career if he can stick with it. Obviously, those next two slam victories will be more difficult to achieve.

It's no shame to lose to Nadal. Nadal is a great champion. Federer and Nadal went 5 grueling sets at Wimbledon and five sets at the AO. Federer replies to those who criticize his tactics against Nadal: You try to play him. I think that's well said. Federer had tried a lot of different things against Nadal over the years. Several times Federer has said he was solving the puzzle, but the fact remains that Nadal is simply a very bad match up for Federer. But some credit should go to Federer in this final. He kept fighting throughout the match. Only in the fifth set he had nothing left to give.

Also, Nadal is in the heart of his career while Federer is passing into the years of decline for a tennis player. Federer is still going to have fine victories, but he can't regain the same absolute dominance he once enjoyed. I don't think even Federer expcts that. Obviously, he is a great competitor and will continue to play tennis at a very high level.


good post. :wavey:

RagingLamb
02-02-2009, 01:29 AM
Well, his odometer is running at 800 matches, that's a lot of punishment for your body to take.

And if Fed only lost a couple of those Slam finals to Roddick, people would be saying: "Well, he defeated his great contemporary Roddick who had a booming serve and stayed in Top 10 for ages".

Had he won against Rafa today and in Wimby last year, people would be saying "Ha, congrats, he beat a vamos-clay-crappy-moonballer on grass, boo-hoo". Sampras in some of his finals beat such giants as Pioline and Todd Martin, and lost to Safin of all people. If only Roger let some of those guys win 5 Slams or so, there would be plenty of talk about great era for tennis.

Anyhow, my point is: if you win 10+ Slams, your legacy is fine. If he wins a couple of more, he has legitimate reasons to consider himself the GOAT (although as I posted in another thread, there won't be a definitive GOAT in my opinion until someone obliterates every record). All those weeks at No. 1, GS wins, GS finals, GS semifinals since forever etc. etc. have to count for something.

I think Roger will beat the GS record (even possibly this year), and I agree that there is no definitive GOAT.

But as far as Roger goes, it's tough to be called greater than anyone in history, when you can't even dominate the one player that challenges you in your own era. This I believe will plague his reputation, not ruin it, but raise questions about it. Unless he turns this around somehow, and he still has a lot of time left, so he should be optimistic.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 01:41 AM
Bottom line is Roger did what he needed to do - absolutely dominate his mini-generation(Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalby, etc..). He beat all of them like a drum, to an extent never seen before in tennis history. That alone makes him a legend. Winning a couple more slams in the Nadal era would be icing on the cake.

duong
02-02-2009, 01:42 AM
This is MTF kneejerk reaction bullshit at its finest.

No one in the world plays like Federer. He has the most complete game on the tour and in tennis history. Who the hell cares that his achilles' heel, one Rafael Nadal, happens to own him mentally? That's why this rivalry will cement Federer as a true legend, because these two push each other to the limits and make the rivalry memorable. If he didn't have a great rival in Nadal, Federer wouldn't be remembered for some of the best matches, some of which he lost.

It's like what Toni Nadal said, "Rafa is the best in the world, currently. But Federer has the best game." Everyone knows Federer is technically more proficient and versatile, Nadal will never have that talent nor anticipation of the game.

If the former greats like Laver and Sampras and Becker talk about Fed like he's the greatest they've ever seen, that they've never seen anyone play like him, then you can be sure they know what they're talking about. No one's ever mentioned that Nadal's brand of tennis is special.

Secondly, Federer makes the game look incredibly easy, like a form of art. And that's always a sign of genius.

Finally, Federer elevated the sport to such a level that it took the tour 4 years to catch up. More like, he slowed down though, and waited for the rest.

If all these factors don't convince you that he is the greatest that we will ever see in this lifetime, then too bad because I'd rather see him play live before he retires and not some grunting, moonballing, ass-picking, incredibly dull what's-his-name on TV.

Yes, but it's technics and artistry :

in the old times maybe it was tennis, but that's not modern tennis :

modern tennis's efficiency is made of :

- either great defense (Borg, Nadal)

- or great serve (Sampras)

it's much poorer than Federer's and McEnroe's game, but it's just effective.

More precisely, I believe that even with that powerful serve weapon, Sampras's tennis was not as effective as Federer's.

After 1996, he faced a really poor competition.

Then imo, Sampras is not in any competition for something like GOAT.

But Borg (and maybe Nadal one day) may be considered as a better applicant for this title of GOAT of the open-era than Federer.

star
02-02-2009, 01:42 AM
I think Roger will beat the GS record (even possibly this year), and I agree that there is no definitive GOAT.

But as far as Roger goes, it's tough to be called greater than anyone in history, when you can't even dominate the one player that challenges you in your own era. This I believe will plague his reputation, not ruin it, but raise questions about it. Unless he turns this around somehow, and he still has a lot of time left, so he should be optimistic.

Do you really think he has a lot of time left to turn things around? In my estimation he has few prime years left. Perhaps 3. And all of those years aren't the sweet years of 22 -26. Those years are really the heart of a player's career. I think Federer is in good shape and doesn't put a lot of stress on his body, but it's the mind that wanes as well. Evert has spoken eloquently about the difficulty concentrating as she grew older, and she was the queen of concentration.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 01:43 AM
Federer's legacy will not be a record number, or a title of what you call Goat,

but a style of tennis :

an enchanted bracket between an era of crazy brutal servers (Sampras's era)
and an era of crazy defensers-runners (Murray, Simon) sometimes also brutal (Nadal) (who will meet few brutal servers like Tsonga).

Later I will remember with pleasure what I thought was made of technical delight and creativity, called tennis.

Federer, Nalbandian, Gasquet (some people thought the future would be made of "baby-Federer" :lol: while it will be made of "baby-Nadal and Sampras") ... it was a pleasure enjoying this tennis.

Now go back to the squalid bases of tennis,

which made of Sampras (crazy brutal servers) on one side, Borg on the other side (crazy defensers), maybe Nadal later (crazy brutal defensers) the GOAT of a sport which is far more dull than I dreamt.

McEnroe and Federer represent something else than a GOAT.

+11111. I was up pacing for hours after the match thinking exactly that. What is most important - slam wins or how you play tennis? Crazy brutal defensive style with some crazy winners or sublime artistry like Fed/Nalby/Gasquet. I knew a long time ago which I preferred. Let the fanbois revel in the slam count of their new hero(Nadal), but one thing I know - Nadal will never display the sublime art that Federer did from 2004-2007.

peterparker
02-02-2009, 01:44 AM
Federer's legacy will not be a record number, or a title of what you call Goat,

but a style of tennis :

an enchanted bracket between an era of crazy brutal servers (Sampras's era)
and an era of crazy defensers-runners (Murray, Simon) sometimes also brutal (Nadal) (who will meet few brutal servers like Tsonga).

Later I will remember with pleasure what I thought was made of technical delight and creativity, called tennis.

Federer, Nalbandian, Gasquet (some people thought the future would be made of "baby-Federer" :lol: while it will be made of "baby-Nadal and Sampras") ... it was a pleasure enjoying this tennis.

Now go back to the squalid bases of tennis,

which made of Sampras (crazy brutal servers) on one side, Borg on the other side (crazy defensers), maybe Nadal later (crazy brutal defensers) the GOAT of a sport which is far more dull than I dreamt.

McEnroe and Federer represent something else than a GOAT.


Federer is an all time great. But I will guess that only a few will think fondly of 2002-2005 ("enchanted bracket").

The fact is that the current era has everything interesting from 2002-2005 and other interesting guys like nadal, murray, djokovic, tsonga and a high performing verdasco. The only difference is that federer is losing more than before.

No reason to put down a whole group of players just because you don't like the guy at the top.

duong
02-02-2009, 01:49 AM
Federer is an all time great. But I will guess that only a few will think fondly of 2002-2005 ("enchanted bracket").

The fact is that the current era has everything interesting from 2002-2005 and other interesting guys like nadal, murray, djokovic, tsonga and a high performing verdasco. The only difference is that federer is losing more than before.

No reason to put down a whole group of players just because you don't like the guy at the top.

I think mainly of Federer to make a characteristic of what I liked watching in that era,

but he was not totally alone : I also think of Nalbandian, Gasquet, Youzhny, even Blake sometimes.

You may find these other players "interesting" (I think Djokovic is, sometimes Tsonga), but I think of the best memories I will keep.

swebright
02-02-2009, 01:49 AM
I will say it again: Roger is better than Sampras, based on his consistancy on all four surface. His achievement on Clay put him above Sampras.

Yey.. Cardinals will have a come from behind win!!!

RagingLamb
02-02-2009, 01:50 AM
Do you really think he has a lot of time left to turn things around? In my estimation he has few prime years left. Perhaps 3. And all of those years aren't the sweet years of 22 -26. Those years are really the heart of a player's career. I think Federer is in good shape and doesn't put a lot of stress on his body, but it's the mind that wanes as well. Evert has spoken eloquently about the difficulty concentrating as she grew older, and she was the queen of concentration.

He does have a lot of time left to break the GS record, and if he beats Nadal to do it, then I think it will be seen as him finally overcoming his greatest challenge.

But I agree with you that he's reaching a dangerous time in his career, and his AO loss may send him into a deep slump.

peterparker
02-02-2009, 01:55 AM
I think mainly of Federer to make a characteristic of what I liked watching in that era,

but he was not totally alone : I also think of Nalbandian, Gasquet, Youzhny, even Blake sometimes.

You may find these other players "interesting" (I think Djokovic is, sometimes Tsonga), but I think of the best memories I will keep.

my point is all those players are still here. Nalbandian, gasquet, youzhny, blake are still playing at a high level (youzhny is hurt, but blake's performance is in line with what he has done before). They have not disappeared.

In fact I doubt their average level in tournaments will change very much at all for another year or two.

swebright
02-02-2009, 01:56 AM
He can proudly retire right now. No shame in that. But I think he will keep on playing unlike some people who quit if they can't be #1 (shame on them).

Media and fans on bandwagon or overreacting?

MarcelJordan
02-02-2009, 01:57 AM
As a Federer fan, it was heartbreaking for me to see him lose. The bright side is that he had more points than Nadal and just didn't get the breaks he should have. Im glad we have a guy like Fed who shows his soft side, proving beyond of a doubt that he's always been human and all have our frailities.

No one plays like Fed, especially the usual ugly face contortions EVERY OTHER tennis professional Nadal included makes. Fed is grace defined. Mixing power with prestige. Tennis was never meant to be a "bully" sport and Im glad Fed said it rightly "I love this game so much". Sigh.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 01:58 AM
Its not really in tatters, but Fed isn't getting younger. He needs to beat Nadal SOMEWHERE, just to get some belief back.

Thanks for staying classy Blaze.

duong
02-02-2009, 02:01 AM
my point is all those players are still here. Nalbandian, gasquet, youzhny, blake are still playing at a high level (youzhny is hurt, but blake's performance is in line with what he has done before). They have not disappeared.

In fact I doubt their average level in tournaments will change very much at all for another year or two.

yes, and Federer is also there

... but I will not watch them in the final rounds of the tournaments.

And when they meet another kind of player, they have to adapt

... like Federer who had to take part in the boxing match with Nadal.

And more importantly I think of a further future.

I think it will be quite dull, for me at least.

star
02-02-2009, 02:06 AM
He does have a lot of time left to break the GS record, and if he beats Nadal to do it, then I think it will be seen as him finally overcoming his greatest challenge.

But I agree with you that he's reaching a dangerous time in his career, and his AO loss may send him into a deep slump.


I agree that he still has a good possibility of breaking Sampra's record, but when you said "turn things around" I thought you meant to get back to dominating as he had before. I think those days are over.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 02:07 AM
yes, and Federer is also there

... but I will not watch them in the final rounds of the tournaments.

And when they meet another kind of player, they have to adapt

... like Federer who had to take part in the boxing match with Nadal.

And more importantly I think of a further future.

I think it will be quite dull, for me at least.

Yeah lost in all the Fedal stuff is the fact there are 10-20 other guys out there hungry for titles. I'm amazed Roddick hasn't broken down in tears a few times by now after all the beatdowns by Federer. Maybe that he hasn't pushed him to 5 sets has something to do with it.

RagingLamb
02-02-2009, 02:09 AM
I agree that he still has a good possibility of breaking Sampra's record, but when you said "turn things around" I thought you meant to get back to dominating as he had before. I think those days are over.

Yeah, I doubt he can turn his overall record around against Nadal.

But he still has a chance outside of clay, where he's only lost 2 slam finals against Nadal. So it's not as hopeless as it may seem at the moment.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 02:12 AM
The way for Federer to turn things around(not dominate again, just win 50%) is to re-examine his entire outlook on tennis. This is not just about forehand, backhand, serve, movement, but why does he continue to play? He said today - "I love tennis so much", but it just doesn't seem so. He seems like more like Sisyphus to me then a rollicking Apollo.

star
02-02-2009, 02:15 AM
Yeah, I doubt he can turn his overall record around against Nadal.

But he still has a chance outside of clay, where he's only lost 2 slam finals against Nadal. So it's not as hopeless as it may seem at the moment.

It just depends on what one is expecting from Federer in the downhill side of his career. Winning one slam a year would be terrific production from him between 28 and 30.

I don't really see this defeat shattering him completely. He came back pretty well after losing at Wimbledon and I don't think this will be any different.

Igaarg
02-02-2009, 02:24 AM
It is a shame to lose to Nadull outside clay.

You are watching from 2005 or 2009? It hurts a lot to me say that Nadal has improve a lot, because I donīt like him or his game at all and his victories over Federer, but itīs the truth. If you say that Nadal itīs only clay right know, you are blind. Or maybe there is a theory out therer that Nadal is a real mug and the all top 100 are muger and the tennis is dead. Iīll never like Nadalīs game, he plays ugly, and I still think that Fed is more complete and better and :worship:, but Nadal is not just a clay court player.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 02:26 AM
Can we stop with the "Nadull" and "Fedtard" stuff? It just creates more poison and division.

leng jai
02-02-2009, 05:16 AM
Can we stop with the "Nadull" and "Fedtard" stuff? It just creates more poison and division.

Someone has to counter your endless ass licking.

denisgiann
02-02-2009, 06:32 AM
This is crazy mtf talk again.How can people say that Sampras is >>>>>> than Federer?Sampras hasnt even seen an RG final and most of his years he wasnt even a real competitor there.Federer fought over the clay seasons and reached the final 3 times....one of the main reasons his head to head with nadal is so lopsided.If he didnt bother like Sampras he wouldnt have to face him that much in clay finals....and then their head to head would be really close.Iam not even mentioning the speed of wimbledon courts when Pete was racking up the slams....if that was the same today...fed would keep winning wimbledon until the end of days:cool:......and iam not even talking about master series tournies and stuff.The only thing that Sampras has over Federer is one more slam.Oh yes and a better serve.And after a while....he ll have..only the...latter...lol.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 06:34 AM
One of the reason I'm mulling quitting MTF is "leng jai", "RFK", Glenn Miryni and those types. They are pure toxicity.

dabeast
02-02-2009, 08:29 AM
Uhh, yes they have, plenty of times.

Yeah, by whom exactly? Nadal's style cures the worst cases of insomnia.

Please don't ever mention Nadal and GOAT in the same sentence. How many year-end TMC Championships has he got? Zilch. Go tell the organisers to speed up the fucking courts and then maybe we'll see how many more slams the moonballer can get.:wavey:

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 08:33 AM
Yeah, by whom exactly? Nadal's style cures the worst cases of insomnia.

Please don't ever mention Nadal and GOAT in the same sentence. How many year-end TMC Championships has he got? Zilch. Go tell the organisers to speed up the fucking courts and then maybe we'll see how many more slams the moonballer can get.:wavey:

Nadal just won on the faster Plexicushion surface. It's faster then the Rebound Ace which Federer won 3x on. Stop the hate.

dabeast
02-02-2009, 08:39 AM
Nadal just won on the faster Plexicushion surface. It's faster then the Rebound Ace which Federer won 3x on. Stop the hate.

Shut it, you closet Rafatard :o

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 08:56 AM
Shut it, you closet Rafatard :o

Not in your wildest dreams. I'm just being objective.

Bazooka
02-02-2009, 11:59 AM
Sometimes I wonder how it can take 5 sets for Nadal to finish Federer, there is nothing I can see Federer doing to defeat Nadal nowadays. I still think he is a better player on both grass and hardcourt but the matchup is so damn punishing for Federer.

I can only disagree with you, sorry.

Yes, bad matchup.

Yes, difficult.

But no thanks, that doesn't explain that % first serve, the DF on Break points, or the sheer amount of UE specially in the fifth, when it was Rafa who had player 10 hours combining the last two matches.

He had his chances, did not take them, and was owned. Same as in Wimbledon final.

Rafa has bad matchups too, and has worked hard to have a decent hth with them. Still can lose, for sure. But Roger has no coach, because, you know, he's the GOAT and all that, so no one is qualified to give him any advice.

Oh, and about the left hand crap, sorry, too many years without a leftie getting to #1 to really consider that half a valid excuse.

He should evolve or die, end of story.

Matt01
02-02-2009, 12:05 PM
Yeah, by whom exactly? Nadal's style cures the worst cases of insomnia.

Please don't ever mention Nadal and GOAT in the same sentence. How many year-end TMC Championships has he got? Zilch. Go tell the organisers to speed up the fucking courts and then maybe we'll see how many more slams the moonballer can get.:wavey:


I didn't know that the TMC Championships are now the deciding factor when determining GOAT :rolleyes:

MalwareDie
02-02-2009, 03:49 PM
Not in your wildest dreams. I'm just being objective.

I think you're a closet Mugboartard too from what I see in GM. Mugboar onnly won AO because he had a cakewalk draw and his opponent was Roger. He is too afraid of Mugboar to beat him down.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 04:46 PM
I think you're a closet Mugboartard too from what I see in GM. Mugboar onnly won AO because he had a cakewalk draw and his opponent was Roger. He is too afraid of Mugboar to beat him down.

Your join date is 2 years after mine. I can only imagine how long you've been following pro tennis. "Mugboartard"? Are you even a fan of tennis at all, or a fanboy?

Rafa = Fed Killa
02-02-2009, 04:57 PM
One of the reason I'm mulling quitting MTF is "leng jai", "RFK", Glenn Miryni and those types. They are pure toxicity.

:sad: Are you going to cry like your hero Fed.

Pansy tennis and its fans are done, only SPARTAN tennis will survive. Man up, you have potential to become a real tennis fan, join the light.

FedFan_2007
02-02-2009, 04:59 PM
:sad: Are you going to cry like your hero Fed.

Pansy tennis and its fans are done, only SPARTAN tennis will survive. Man up, you have potential to become a real tennis fan, join the light.

Don't make me laugh. I'm a fan of tennis artistry, wins & losses are not the beginning and end of it for me. Maybe one day you'll understand.

Rafa = Fed Killa
02-02-2009, 04:59 PM
I think you're a closet Mugboartard too from what I see in GM. Mugboar onnly won AO because he had a cakewalk draw and his opponent was Roger. He is too afraid of Mugboar to beat him down.

Is this the new breed of Fedtards :confused:

Admits Federer is a scared little pansy but still cheers for him :confused:

Rafa = Fed Killa
02-02-2009, 05:00 PM
Don't make me laugh. I'm a fan of tennis artistry, wins & losses are not the beginning and end of it for me. Maybe one day you'll understand.

Tennis is a sport, not an art.

I will always enjoy brutal tennis where you leave your opponent a broken mess mentally and physically.

That is why RAFA will be the GOAT.

duong
02-02-2009, 05:12 PM
Tennis is a sport, not an art.

I will always enjoy brutal tennis where you leave your opponent a broken mess mentally and physically.

That is why RAFA will be the GOAT.

Btw, do you know that Spartans were homosexuals ? :lol:

oz_boz
02-02-2009, 09:29 PM
Sigh..what is best to keep up your legacy, retire a la Borg before you are completely behind in h2h or keep on reaching great results but being thoroughly hammered a la Agassi (ended up 3-8 vs Fed)? By that reasoning Roger's legacy would be better had he not reached the final in Wim or AO, or numerous clay finals where his h2h vs Nadal is seriously affected. Sampras never even got to the big stage in clay, would that make him greater?

So yes, cut the crap. Fed's legacy as GOAT candidate is fine, he has the numbers to back it.

Sometimes I wonder how it can take 5 sets for Nadal to finish Federer, there is nothing I can see Federer doing to defeat Nadal nowadays. I still think he is a better player on both grass and hardcourt but the matchup is so damn punishing for Federer.

I agree, Nadal just steps the pedal down when he needs to, like being 0-40 down at the end of a set or reaching tiebreaks, Fed can't do anything now with his timing a tad worse due to slower footwork. He misses ca 10 running fhs every match that he would have got in 05-07 and those are enough to turn the result in Rafa's favour.

Rafa = Fed Killa
02-02-2009, 10:45 PM
Btw, do you know that Spartans were homosexuals ? :lol:

As per the movie, the Athenians were.

And sexual preference has nothing to do with toughness. Gay or straight Fed is still a pansy who is owned by Rafa.

tripb19
02-03-2009, 12:23 AM
Fed will only ever win the French if he doesn't play Nadal there.

amonb
02-03-2009, 12:57 AM
This is MTF kneejerk reaction bullshit at its finest.

No one in the world plays like Federer. He has the most complete game on the tour and in tennis history. Who the hell cares that his achilles' heel, one Rafael Nadal, happens to own him mentally? That's why this rivalry will cement Federer as a true legend, because these two push each other to the limits and make the rivalry memorable. If he didn't have a great rival in Nadal, Federer wouldn't be remembered for some of the best matches, some of which he lost.

It's like what Toni Nadal said, "Rafa is the best in the world, currently. But Federer has the best game." Everyone knows Federer is technically more proficient and versatile, Nadal will never have that talent nor anticipation of the game.

If the former greats like Laver and Sampras and Becker talk about Fed like he's the greatest they've ever seen, that they've never seen anyone play like him, then you can be sure they know what they're talking about. No one's ever mentioned that Nadal's brand of tennis is special.

Secondly, Federer makes the game look incredibly easy, like a form of art. And that's always a sign of genius.

Finally, Federer elevated the sport to such a level that it took the tour 4 years to catch up. More like, he slowed down though, and waited for the rest.

If all these factors don't convince you that he is the greatest that we will ever see in this lifetime, then too bad because I'd rather see him play live before he retires and not some grunting, moonballing, ass-picking, incredibly dull what's-his-name on TV.

I'd rather watch nadal anyday. The man just oozes class!!! The way he acts on and off the court!!! When things aren't going right for fed in a match he acts like a spoilt bitch (and then has the cheek to have a pop at murray!!)The fact is there are much better tennis players now in the top four than there was 5 years ago and this is why fed ain't winning another slam..... Shame?!?! :)

duong
02-03-2009, 09:55 AM
As per the movie, the Athenians were.

And sexual preference has nothing to do with toughness. Gay or straight Fed is still a pansy who is owned by Rafa.

You should learn more about Spartans.
I only have some links in French but I believe you can find some in English.

In Sparta, homosexuality was an institution and a part of the initiation to become strong. It had something to do with toughness in their mind, but in the opposite of the modern meaning.

Goes against some modern prejudice ? True, but yet, it was like that in Sparta.

Igaarg
02-03-2009, 01:28 PM
I'd rather watch nadal anyday. The man just oozes class!!! The way he acts on and off the court!!! When things aren't going right for fed in a match he acts like a spoilt bitch (and then has the cheek to have a pop at murray!!)The fact is there are much better tennis players now in the top four than there was 5 years ago and this is why fed ain't winning another slam..... Shame?!?! :)

And when things aren´t ging right for Rafa he acts like Heidi or something? what about Murray, Marat (love them so much) Roddick, Djoko (ret)or other players? who is smiling when the match goes wrong?
And the "much better players" we can discuss all day long.
When Rafa loses is always because he is tired. ALWAYS.

Igaarg
02-03-2009, 01:29 PM
I don´t want to became in a Nadal hater, I don´t really hate the guy.

Harmless
02-03-2009, 01:44 PM
As per the movie, the Athenians were.


RFK, you're an entertaining fella, one has to at least partially admire your fervor. :D
But buddy, basing such a large part of your creed on a 21st century Hollywood film made on a partially dramatized account of a battle 2500 years ago is not something that a person hoping to be taken 12% seriously should do.

I've always been fascinated with the ancient Greek cultures and have a fairly wide knowledge about them, and yes, Spartans considered homosexuality a large, if not vital, part of their warrior culture.

You should write less, wiki more. ;) :p

jbud
02-03-2009, 03:41 PM
No player can be considered the greatest of all time, if they have an inferior record against their biggest rival. Federer has time to reverse his losing streak against Nadal, but he definitely has his work cut out to reverse his major record against the Spaniard. Ultimately no player can rival Rod Laver unless they win the calendar Grand Slam. By virtue of Laver winning the 1962 and 1969 Grand Slam, after a long absence from the four major championships due to his professional status, he is the greatest player of all time. Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg and Federer have each put together amazing careers, but they are on the second tier of great players. Perhaps in four years time, Nadal will join them. Sampras and Federer are certainly the greatest players of the Open Era.

duong
02-03-2009, 03:48 PM
No player can be considered the greatest of all time, if they have an inferior record against their biggest rival. Federer has time to reverse his losing streak against Nadal, but he definitely has his work cut out to reverse his major record against the Spaniard. Ultimately no player can rival Rod Laver unless they win the calendar Grand Slam. By virtue of Laver winning the 1962 and 1969 Grand Slam, after a long absence from the four major championships due to his professional status, he is the greatest player of all time. Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg and Federer have each put together amazing careers, but they are on the second tier of great players. Perhaps in four years time, Nadal will join them. Sampras and Federer are certainly the greatest players of the Open Era.

Fiy, Borg played in the open era

jbud
02-03-2009, 04:00 PM
Fiy, Borg played in the open era

Yes, I know. He was a wonderful player and had a great record.

Tennisman82
02-03-2009, 04:11 PM
Federer's legacy is most certainly not in tatters but it has taken a beating in the past 12 months.

But at the end of the day decades from now it’s the slam titles each player has won that’ll be remembered, nothing else. And remember it’s not like Federer has a losing record against some atrociously-ranked journeyman, it’s the top player in the world and arguably the greatest clay court player ever!

Tennisman82.

Tennisman82
02-03-2009, 04:32 PM
This is MTF kneejerk reaction bullshit at its finest.

No one in the world plays like Federer. He has the most complete game on the tour and in tennis history. Who the hell cares that his achilles' heel, one Rafael Nadal, happens to own him mentally? That's why this rivalry will cement Federer as a true legend, because these two push each other to the limits and make the rivalry memorable. If he didn't have a great rival in Nadal, Federer wouldn't be remembered for some of the best matches, some of which he lost.

It's like what Toni Nadal said, "Rafa is the best in the world, currently. But Federer has the best game." Everyone knows Federer is technically more proficient and versatile, Nadal will never have that talent nor anticipation of the game.

If the former greats like Laver and Sampras and Becker talk about Fed like he's the greatest they've ever seen, that they've never seen anyone play like him, then you can be sure they know what they're talking about. No one's ever mentioned that Nadal's brand of tennis is special.

Secondly, Federer makes the game look incredibly easy, like a form of art. And that's always a sign of genius.

Finally, Federer elevated the sport to such a level that it took the tour 4 years to catch up. More like, he slowed down though, and waited for the rest.

If all these factors don't convince you that he is the greatest that we will ever see in this lifetime, then too bad because I'd rather see him play live before he retires and not some grunting, moonballing, ass-picking, incredibly dull what's-his-name on TV.

Yes tell me about it....after every major Federer loss people here start writing this guy off in absurd proportions! Thankfully there are still some of us who can think clearly and not let emotions get in the way.

Anyway very well said, couldn’t agree more.

What Federer has achieved thus far is very hard to comprehend, and he’s just 27. He’s got another three years to add to his already off-the-charts record.

Tennisman82.

Tennisman82
02-03-2009, 04:53 PM
It just depends on what one is expecting from Federer in the downhill side of his career. Winning one slam a year would be terrific production from him between 28 and 30.

Yes it would be. But he & Nadal are so far ahead of everybody else that they both should continue to feature in GS finals for some time, so itís possible he can win more than one in a year, but unlikely.

I don't really see this defeat shattering him completely. He came back pretty well after losing at Wimbledon and I don't think this will be any different.

Fed is only human and will be continue to be hurt by the devastating loss on Sunday but he'll come back strong, as always. Don't be surprised to see Federer in the finals of RG, Wimbledon & the USO again.

Tennisman82.

wally1
02-03-2009, 07:26 PM
RFK, you're an entertaining fella, one has to at least partially admire your fervor. :D
But buddy, basing such a large part of your creed on a 21st century Hollywood film made on a partially dramatized account of a battle 2500 years ago is not something that a person hoping to be taken 12% seriously should do.

I've always been fascinated with the ancient Greek cultures and have a fairly wide knowledge about them, and yes, Spartans considered homosexuality a large, if not vital, part of their warrior culture.

You should write less, wiki more. ;) :pIf RFK wants to know about the Spartans he should read Thucydides and (to a lesser extent) Herodotus. This was also a fantastic tv series:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spartans-Channel-4-Bettany-Hughes/dp/B0002PC25Y/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1233692580&sr=1-3

meihaditalab
02-03-2009, 07:28 PM
haha

thrust
02-03-2009, 09:04 PM
Sigh..what is best to keep up your legacy, retire a la Borg before you are completely behind in h2h or keep on reaching great results but being thoroughly hammered a la Agassi (ended up 3-8 vs Fed)? By that reasoning Roger's legacy would be better had he not reached the final in Wim or AO, or numerous clay finals where his h2h vs Nadal is seriously affected. Sampras never even got to the big stage in clay, would that make him greater?

So yes, cut the crap. Fed's legacy as GOAT candidate is fine, he has the numbers to back it.



I agree, Nadal just steps the pedal down when he needs to, like being 0-40 down at the end of a set or reaching tiebreaks, Fed can't do anything now with his timing a tad worse due to slower footwork. He misses ca 10 running fhs every match that he would have got in 05-07 and those are enough to turn the result in Rafa's favour.

Sampras has 14 GS, Roger-13. Sampras has 6 years ending at #1. Roger has 4. Sampras has 276 weeks at #1, Roger abouut 236 or so. Pete is still ahead of Roger. Also, noone dominated Sampras in GS finals as Rafa has with Roger. The GOAT is Laver!

duong
02-04-2009, 09:23 AM
Sampras has 14 GS, Roger-13. Sampras has 6 years ending at #1. Roger has 4. Sampras has 276 weeks at #1, Roger abouut 236 or so. Pete is still ahead of Roger. Also, noone dominated Sampras in GS finals as Rafa has with Roger. The GOAT is Laver!

The GOAT is Laver ahead of Borg (and maybe with some older ones like Pancho Gonzales),

but Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.

Sampras had just poor competition from 1996-1997.

the graduate
02-04-2009, 09:46 AM
Roger s legacy is intact in fact it was enhanced by that bawling,fans relate to him more

FedFan_2007
02-04-2009, 09:56 AM
Sampras slams:

#1 - 1990 US Open
#2 - 1993 Wimbledon
#3 - 1993 US Open
#4 - 1994 Australian Open
#5 - 1994 Wimbledon
#6 - 1995 Wimbledon
#7 - 1995 US Open
#8 - 1996 US Open
#9 - 1997 Australian Open
#10 - 1997 Wimbledon
#11 - 1998 Wimbledon
#12 - 1999 Wimbledon
#13 - 2000 Wimbledon
#14 - 2002 US Open

In 1996-1997 when he won 3 slams, clearly competitive. In the equivalent period for Federer 2006-2007 he won 6 slams!

duong
02-04-2009, 10:08 AM
Sampras slams:

#1 - 1990 US Open
#2 - 1993 Wimbledon
#3 - 1993 US Open
#4 - 1994 Australian Open
#5 - 1994 Wimbledon
#6 - 1995 Wimbledon
#7 - 1995 US Open
#8 - 1996 US Open
#9 - 1997 Australian Open
#10 - 1997 Wimbledon
#11 - 1998 Wimbledon
#12 - 1999 Wimbledon
#13 - 2000 Wimbledon
#14 - 2002 US Open

In 1996-1997 when he won 3 slams, clearly competitive. In the equivalent period for Federer 2006-2007 he won 6 slams!

No the most competitive period for Sampras was 1995 and before, 1996 was still quite a good competition.

But from 1997, he had quite quiet old times ... and in Wimbledon no great opponents, and the fact that the surface helped much the serve, which you don't lose when you get older was clearly his main advantage.

Anyway, apart from figures, Sampras is not a competitor for Federer, but Laver and Borg are greater than Federer.

For those who are only preoccupied about this record, Borg would have won at least 15 if he had played the Australian Open and Roland-Garros 1976, and if they had used "normal" balls in RG 1977.
And even more if he had not stopped at 25 ... if he had not had Connors and MacEnroe for competitors, who were clearly greater players than all those whom Sampras met ...

Sampras's record means nothing, and Federer's mind shouldn't be so much stuffed about this record.

He will be one of the greats, but never what you call the "greatest", and the same for Sampras.

Bernard Black
02-04-2009, 10:51 AM
No the most competitive period for Sampras was 1995 and before, 1996 was still quite a good competition.

But from 1997, he had quite quiet old times ... and in Wimbledon no great opponents, and the fact that the surface helped much the serve, which you don't lose when you get older was clearly his main advantage.

Anyway, apart from figures, Sampras is not a competitor for Federer, but Laver and Borg are greater than Federer.

For those who are only preoccupied about this record, Borg would have won at least 15 if he had played the Australian Open and Roland-Garros 1976, and if they had used "normal" balls in RG 1977.
And even more if he had not stopped at 25 ... if he had not had Connors and MacEnroe for competitors, who were clearly greater players than all those whom Sampras met ...

Sampras's record means nothing, and Federer's mind shouldn't be so much stuffed about this record.

He will be one of the greats, but never what you call the "greatest", and the same for Sampras.

Assumption - making your point invalid. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Borg but fact is he burnt himself out early, and lost motivation for the game so all this could have, would have, should have talk is rubbish in my opinion. His achievements are amazing but it wasn't injury that prevented him from carrying on so you can't even say it was down to bad luck he didn't achieve more. As for the Australian Open, he chose not to play it so you can't just add this to his slam tally considering his decision helped his preparation for the other slams

As for Sampras' record meaning nothing, I couldn't disagree with you more. Grand slams are the pinnacle of the sport so it's ludicrous to suggest that the number of slams won means nothing about the greatness of the player. Of course if you look into it more deeply there are other factors to consider such as the level of competition at the time, but it's surely the best way we have of measuring a player's success.

Stroba
02-04-2009, 12:25 PM
I'm not going to watch any statistics, but I'm pretty sure every great player had problems with one or a couple of players in their career. Larsson vs Sampras coming to mind for instance.
If Roger ends up with a bad record against Nadal, who probarbly will end up as an all time great himself by the time he retires, I don't see how this tatters Federer's legacy.

star
02-04-2009, 12:57 PM
You should learn more about Spartans.
I only have some links in French but I believe you can find some in English.

In Sparta, homosexuality was an institution and a part of the initiation to become strong. It had something to do with toughness in their mind, but in the opposite of the modern meaning.

Goes against some modern prejudice ? True, but yet, it was like that in Sparta.

Yes, in a simplistic way you could say that the Spartans were homosexuals and also pedophiles. It's more accurate perhaps to say they practiced homosexuality and paedophilia. I think putting a modern twist on the practices and mores of the ancient world is not conducive to understanding. it was an institution in the schools for boys. The adult mentors chose (and sometimes fought over the highly born) students and these relationships sometimes took the mentors to positions of power later on. But, that's only one aspect of the society. The men also married and women in the Spartan society had a great deal of freedom -- much more than Athenian women, for example. For that time and place they also had the opportunity for some power.

But, sadly, this was a society built on servitude. The Helots did not have the same freedoms, and it's posited that one of the reasons the Spartan women had so much freedom was because they had Helots to labor for them.

I'd recommend The Spartans by Paul Cartledge for a very readable overview of Spartan society.

duong
02-04-2009, 01:17 PM
Yes, in a simplistic way you could say that the Spartans were homosexuals and also pedophiles. It's more accurate perhaps to say they practiced homosexuality and paedophilia. I think putting a modern twist on the practices and mores of the ancient world is not conducive to understanding. it was an institution in the schools for boys. The adult mentors chose (and sometimes fought over the highly born) students and these relationships sometimes took the mentors to positions of power later on. But, that's only one aspect of the society. The men also married and women in the Spartan society had a great deal of freedom -- much more than Athenian women, for example. For that time and place they also had the opportunity for some power.

But, sadly, this was a society built on servitude. The Helots did not have the same freedoms, and it's posited that one of the reasons the Spartan women had so much freedom was because they had Helots to labor for them.

I'd recommend The Spartans by Paul Cartledge for a very readable overview of Spartan society.

I clearly said that it goes against some prejudice of modern times,

and that it was an institution of their society.

I never put a modern twist on their practice.

Actually RFK does it when considering Nadal as a "Spartan".

But making a difference between "being" homosexuals and "practicing" homosexuality is very American, I think.

duong
02-04-2009, 01:28 PM
Assumption - making your point invalid. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Borg but fact is he burnt himself out early, and lost motivation for the game so all this could have, would have, should have talk is rubbish in my opinion. His achievements are amazing but it wasn't injury that prevented him from carrying on so you can't even say it was down to bad luck he didn't achieve more. As for the Australian Open, he chose not to play it so you can't just add this to his slam tally considering his decision helped his preparation for the other slams

In that time, the Australian Open was just very little thing, then you cannot say that he "chose" not to play this tournament.

And the point about stopping the game early is far from being the only point. And even if I understand your argument about that, I don't think that you can just say that he wasn't able of anything more because he stopped early. That he chose, I agree with that, but this choice is not less respectable than Sampras's or Agassi's choice.

Btw, if you talk about other figures, Borg has many other very impressive records ...

I still think Sampras is not at all comparable to him.

And Federer should do more to be able to that. And far more than this bullshit record.

I say it objectively (at least in my mind) as I was not a big Borg's fan. And Roland-Garros was so boring when he was there, as it is now with Nadal ...

Crazy Girl
02-05-2009, 07:57 PM
Federer is a joke.... he needs to retire before he further embarrasses the sport.:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
Roger never will embarasse the sport.
He had been, he is and he shall be forever the greatest ambassador for this beautiful sport.
He will be forever "The best" for tennis.
Surely "The most Beloved".
So, take a breath and put your soul "in peace", please.

Bazooka
02-05-2009, 08:43 PM
Well, I admire Federer and probably he is the most complete player ever, with the most exquisite technique, a joy to watch. However, being still in his prime (makes almost all slam finals, is ranked #2 with thousands of points of margin) he is being dominated by another player in all surfaces, even in those not natural to Nadal. That never happened to Sampras, or MacEnroe. Borg somehow supossed it was beggining to happen to him, so he couldn't stand the pressure and retired too soon.

So I am afraid yes, this questions his GOATness. However, the presence of Nadal also gives him the chance to achieve true GOATness, undisputed, universally accepted GOATness. If he somehow turns the tide and defeats Nadal in all surfaces in at least one final, no Laver, Sampras, or Borg will have done a similar feat.

History is a bitch, you know. So you want to be the best ever? in all surfaces? even in clay? History gives you a Nadal, your worse matchup possible, and tells you, comeon, show me how good you really are. So far, he hasn't been strong enough mentally to do it.

And I am sorry, it's all mental. Remember 2008 finals of Montecarlo and Hamburg. He had both matches in his hands, yet he lost in a way that simply destroyed his faith. He was 5-1 40 15 and serving in one set, yet he managed to lose in straights. Bottom line: he is worse than Nadal in clay, but out of so many confrontations in RG with him he should have won at least once, because it's closer than it looks. Maybe it's too late now.

duong
02-05-2009, 08:54 PM
And I am sorry, it's all mental. Remember 2008 finals of Montecarlo and Hamburg. He had both matches in his hands, yet he lost in a way that simply destroyed his faith.

he just made UE (also Nadal became a lion at these moments) : he does it more and more often,

and especially when he leads and relaxes.

That's something crucial about clay game : being able not to make UE means a better player.

And that's why Nadal is a far far better player than Federer on clay.

In Roland-Garros, the bounce is even higher, the surface is quite slow, then Federer never had any chance to beat Nadal there.

Not a single chance
... and I'm afraid noone else will, except if Nadal has some physical problems, or if Del Potro becomes much better.

Djokovic has even smaller chances than Federer to beat Nadal in Roland-Garros, because he doesn't have the same power as Federer
... and when you have to attack against Nadal in such a slow surface as Roland-Garros, you need a lot of power.

Noone has this power on the tour ... except maybe Del Potro one day.

FedFan_2007
02-05-2009, 09:15 PM
Maybe Roger should skip the entire clay season, since he has no chance at #1...

Bazooka
02-06-2009, 12:53 AM
he just made UE (also Nadal became a lion at these moments) : he does it more and more often,

and especially when he leads and relaxes.

That's something crucial about clay game : being able not to make UE means a better player.

And that's why Nadal is a far far better player than Federer on clay.

In Roland-Garros, the bounce is even higher, the surface is quite slow, then Federer never had any chance to beat Nadal there.

Not a single chance
... and I'm afraid noone else will, except if Nadal has some physical problems, or if Del Potro becomes much better.

Djokovic has even smaller chances than Federer to beat Nadal in Roland-Garros, because he doesn't have the same power as Federer
... and when you have to attack against Nadal in such a slow surface as Roland-Garros, you need a lot of power.

Noone has this power on the tour ... except maybe Del Potro one day.

Even if Nadal is much better, Federer could have won, specially in 2006.

Also, imagine for a minute what would have happened if he never chocked (or Nadal didn't react like he did) in 2008 final in Montecarlo. Nadal had been so shocked after losing Wimbledon final that he had won nothing in 10 months, then all of a sudden, he was losing to Federer in Montecarlo final. If Federer had won in straights, like it was logical (I think they were 4 0 in the second at some point...), I think his chances at RG would have been really higher than ever. Maybe Roger has lost his last chance at a career slam by chocking that day.

Bazooka
02-06-2009, 12:54 AM
Maybe Roger should skip the entire clay season, since he has no chance at #1...

Great idea, that way he would lose around 3.000 points and be ranked #4 or something :P

duong
02-06-2009, 01:14 AM
Even if Nadal is much better, Federer could have won, specially in 2006.

Also, imagine for a minute what would have happened if he never chocked (or Nadal didn't react like he did) in 2008 final in Montecarlo. Nadal had been so shocked after losing Wimbledon final that he had won nothing in 10 months, then all of a sudden, he was losing to Federer in Montecarlo final. If Federer had won in straights, like it was logical (I think they were 4 0 in the second at some point...), I think his chances at RG would have been really higher than ever. Maybe Roger has lost his last chance at a career slam by chocking that day.

In 2006 Federer could have won in Roma and Monte-Carlo, that's for sure. But in Roland-Garros I believe he had no chance none of these years.

In 2008, Nadal was just incredible on clay :eek:

It's true that he missed the beginning of Monte-Carlo final, but he had been so strong whole week that I think he would have come back.
Even if it's 4-0, on clay, serve doesn't allow you easy points, and to win 4 points it's hard.

Federer can regret last sunday's final, and also Wimbledon's, but I don't think he can regret so much on clay, apart from Roma 2006 :shrug:

MalwareDie
02-06-2009, 03:12 AM
Federer can regret last sunday's final, and also Wimbledon's, but I don't think he can regret so much on clay, apart from Roma 2006 :shrug:

What about Hamburg 2008?

Bazooka
02-06-2009, 09:00 AM
What about Hamburg 2008?

Hamburg clay is a different surface. I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal lost a match there sometimes.

Bernard Black
02-06-2009, 10:26 AM
Be more aggressive and creative, basically don't get bogged down in lengthy baseline rallies - pretty obvious really.

If in doubt on the backhand - slice it. Only go for the drive if it offers the opportunity for a winner or taking Nadal off court.

I keep thinking everytime they play Federer will adopt an awesome new tactic but he just plays the same, he really should listen to our expert advice! :D

andylovesaustin
02-06-2009, 02:40 PM
First, Federer's legacy is not in tatters, but he needs to stop the sobbing at trophy ceremonies already, particularly when he loses. There is no reason for that type of outburst, particularly after all he's won and all the opponents he has demolished, their dreams crushed.

I think Fed goes into each match with a game plan, but there is something Rafa is doing, not allowing Fed taking control. It's as if Rafa takes control even when he loses a set, and Fed can't execute his plan. Fed just wants Rafa to go away, but it ain't a gonna happen. I think Fed needs to expect this--that he will never break Rafa's spirit.. ever even in defeat.

Similarly, Fed needs to adopt the same attitude... like a warrior who will not be broken even in defeat. I really think Fed puts too much pressure on himself. Why should Roger be the one with the pressure? Roger has 14 grand slams and nothing to prove. He needs to shift the dynamic to Rafa needing to prove something. Roger needs to take control with his attitude, and then let everything else fall into place.

Roger needs to quit whining about how he wishes Rafa were right-handed, for example, and just friggin play to the best of his ability. If Rafa still beats him.. well that's fine. But no more excuses.

I believe Fed will dominate Rafa once he learns how to beat him. It's just a matter of time.

manuel84
02-06-2009, 03:04 PM
In tatters? People like Sampras and Borg traditionally figure in GOAT discussions and their resumes are not without loopholes.

star
02-06-2009, 03:35 PM
In tatters? People like Sampras and Borg traditionally figure in GOAT discussions and their resumes are not without loopholes.


It's just hyperbole to engender controversy -- like most threads in GM. :)

duong
02-06-2009, 04:12 PM
Why should Roger be the one with the pressure? Roger has 14 grand slams and nothing to prove.

Because when he loses one match, he's considered as one of the weakest players of history by everyone,

and they send him mails "Oh Roger, what happens, what's wrong with you, you really need some help"

He said last year that what he's really fed-up with is all these people proposing to help him as if he had a very bad problem.

This Wilander for instance who said he should win more than 20 grand slams ... :lol:

What happens when the number 1 in the world Nadal loses, especially if he loses against Federer ?

Will anybody ask "what's wrong with you ?" and whine ?

No.

Then who has the pressure ?
If there is pressure, only Federer has.

Because everybody considers that he SHOULD win
... because he's supposed to be the greatest, invincible and so on ... people (including so-called tennis "experts") still believe he's far better than Nadal :bs:

star
02-06-2009, 04:16 PM
Roger has 14 grand slams and nothing to prove.


13, no? ;)

thrust
02-06-2009, 04:23 PM
13, no? ;)

YES!!

andylovesaustin
02-06-2009, 04:43 PM
13, no? ;)

Ah here it is..

Yes 13 yes! LOL Pete has 14, no??

Roger no have 14 yet!

Hasta pronto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A_Skywalker
02-06-2009, 04:52 PM
First, Federer's legacy is not in tatters, but he needs to stop the sobbing at trophy ceremonies already, particularly when he loses. There is no reason for that type of outburst, particularly after all he's won and all the opponents he has demolished, their dreams crushed.

I think Fed goes into each match with a game plan, but there is something Rafa is doing, not allowing Fed taking control. It's as if Rafa takes control even when he loses a set, and Fed can't execute his plan. Fed just wants Rafa to go away, but it ain't a gonna happen. I think Fed needs to expect this--that he will never break Rafa's spirit.. ever even in defeat.

Similarly, Fed needs to adopt the same attitude... like a warrior who will not be broken even in defeat. I really think Fed puts too much pressure on himself. Why should Roger be the one with the pressure? Roger has 14 grand slams and nothing to prove. He needs to shift the dynamic to Rafa needing to prove something. Roger needs to take control with his attitude, and then let everything else fall into place.

Roger needs to quit whining about how he wishes Rafa were right-handed, for example, and just friggin play to the best of his ability. If Rafa still beats him.. well that's fine. But no more excuses.

I believe Fed will dominate Rafa once he learns how to beat him. It's just a matter of time.


Yeah, thats what people say from 3 years. So far Nadal is playing better in every match they play. I love how he learns Nadal ;)

Harmless
02-06-2009, 07:32 PM
Yes, in a simplistic way you could say that the Spartans were homosexuals and also pedophiles. It's more accurate perhaps to say they practiced homosexuality and paedophilia. I think putting a modern twist on the practices and mores of the ancient world is not conducive to understanding. it was an institution in the schools for boys. The adult mentors chose (and sometimes fought over the highly born) students and these relationships sometimes took the mentors to positions of power later on. But, that's only one aspect of the society. The men also married and women in the Spartan society had a great deal of freedom -- much more than Athenian women, for example. For that time and place they also had the opportunity for some power.

But, sadly, this was a society built on servitude. The Helots did not have the same freedoms, and it's posited that one of the reasons the Spartan women had so much freedom was because they had Helots to labor for them.

I'd recommend The Spartans by Paul Cartledge for a very readable overview of Spartan society.

I haven't read that one before, thanks for the reading suggestion. :yeah:
I didn't mean to flat out imply that Spartan men were homosexuals, fullstop, it's a very complex issue that is next to impossible to explain to someone with hardly any knowledge of the ancient world, I know. I just wanted to point out to RFK how it's not very consistent of him to not know even the basic gameshow trivia about a culture whose principles he likes to propagate, in half-jest or not.
It just always irks me how so many people are more willing to accept 29th hand modern-day accounts of an ancient civilization then actually do a little reading on the subject matter. :rolleyes:

andylovesaustin
02-06-2009, 09:17 PM
Yeah, thats what people say from 3 years. So far Nadal is playing better in every match they play. I love how he learns Nadal ;)


Yeah, it's funny how time just passes by! LOL

So.. yeah.. maybe "dominate" was too strong a word!

But don't ya think Roger will beat Rafa to win Grand Slam event again?

I think he will.. but yeah dominate.. probably not! LOL

Bounty Hunter
02-06-2009, 09:29 PM
Fed's legacy isn't in tatters, no one can stay at the top forever. Every so many years we get a new champion and Nadal is at the top at the moment. Their always a new champ around the corner.


Let's enjoy what we have at the moment. :)

FedFan_2007
02-06-2009, 09:43 PM
Fed's legacy isn't in tatters, no one can stay at the top forever. Every so many years we get a new champion and Nadal is at the top at the moment. Their always a new champ around the corner.


Let's enjoy what we have at the moment. :)

:yeah: Good non-tard comment!

Bargearse
02-06-2009, 09:53 PM
Maybe Roger should skip the entire clay season, since he has no chance at #1...

Federer would NEVER do that. He still thinks he is "close" to beating Nadal at Roland Garros. If close means the distance between say, the US and the moon, sure! He's got a hope.

He can always pray for a miracle that another player will beat Nadal before the final, or maybe Nadal will get injured. Then his chances of a win there will improve.

andylovesaustin
02-06-2009, 10:31 PM
Federer would NEVER do that. He still thinks he is "close" to beating Nadal at Roland Garros. If close means the distance between say, the US and the moon, sure! He's got a hope.

He can always pray for a miracle that another player will beat Nadal before the final, or maybe Nadal will get injured. Then his chances of a win there will improve.

I think Roger has a great chance at the French Open this year! I really do. I think Rafa is going to be tired with all the pressure living-up to being #1 in the world. I think he's going to play himself into exhaustion. I love Rafa.. but you know the way he plays.. he gonna be tired, no?

To me if Roger can hang in there, I think this year might be his best shot at winning the French Open. You know what? He should just focus on it.. and get a coach! Roger needs a coach.

It would be so ironic if Roger could tie Pete's record by winning the one Grand Slam Pete couldn't even come close to winning. I hope Roger goes after it!

It sure would be fun to watch.

star
02-07-2009, 12:02 AM
I think Roger has a great chance at the French Open this year! I really do. I think Rafa is going to be tired with all the pressure living-up to being #1 in the world. I think he's going to play himself into exhaustion. I love Rafa.. but you know the way he plays.. he gonna be tired, no?

To me if Roger can hang in there, I think this year might be his best shot at winning the French Open. You know what? He should just focus on it.. and get a coach! Roger needs a coach.

It would be so ironic if Roger could tie Pete's record by winning the one Grand Slam Pete couldn't even come close to winning. I hope Roger goes after it!

It sure would be fun to watch.

:lol: It would be not ironic exactly, but certainly poetic. At anyrate, every year I worry about Rafa being too tired to take RG. Last year I even thought that perhaps Federer after losing to Djokovic at the AO might have the pressure off his shoulders and win RG. But that didn't happen -- in an emphatic way.

JennyS
06-09-2009, 04:47 PM
This is my analysis on Rafa's dominance over Roger:

How Roger Federerís Clay Court Success Doomed Him Against Nadal

Despite completing a career Grand Slam and tying Pete Samprasís record of 14 Major Championships, many critics are not ready to crown Roger Federer best player of all time. The reason? Federer is 7-13 against Rafael Nadal lifetime and 2-6 against him in Grand Slams (all but one of those matches were finals). So their argument is, how can the best player of all time be dominated by the second best player of HIS time?

But letís look at their head-to-head more closely. Despite the fact that Federer tends to play only four clay court tournaments per year, he has played Nadal on clay (11 times) more than he has on any of the other surface combined (9 times). Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi played each other on clay only five times total, despite being much closer in age and despite playing each other over a much longer period of time.

If Federerís head to head against Nadal is so important, would he be considered a BETTER player had he lost one round EARLIER in several of those claycourt tournaments instead of to Nadal? Letís pretend Federer lost one round earlier in 6 of the 9 tournaments he lost to Nadal in. He would be losing to the likes of Fernando Gonzalez, David Nalbandian and Nikolay Davydenko, but at least his record against Nadal would be improved. And his French Open record would still be superior to Pete Samprasís!

While Federer has easily been the second best player on clay, and Nadal has cleary been the second best player on grass, Nadal has underachieved on hardcourts. In 2006 and 2007, the two years that Federer and Nadal were 1-2 the entire year, Federerís claycourt results were superior to Nadalís hardcourt results.

During that span, Federer and Nadal appeared in the same claycourt tournament 8 times and met in 7 of those (Nadal winning 6 of those matchups). Meanwhile, during the same period, Nadal and Federer played in the same hardcourt tournament 18 times, but only played each other 3 times. (Federer won two of the three matches).

Since January 2008, Nadal has played in 17 hardcourt tournaments and has won only four of them (although these wins included the Australian Open and the Olympics). Federer has won almost as many claycourt titles (three) including the French Open, despite only playing nine clay court tournaments during the same time period.

One could easily conclude that Nadalís nine claycourt victories gave him extra confidence he needed in his 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Australian Open victories over Federer. When you lose to a player 9 times on clay, one could see why Federer tightens up against Nadal, no matter the surface they play on.

Federer's record against Nadal should not detract from his legacy. Should he reverse his fortunes against Nadal and win the majority of their future matchups, that won't add to his legacy either. Any player that wins three Grand Slams in a year three different times, makes 20 consecutive appearances in a Grand Slam semifinal, has won the career Grand Slam and has 14 Grand Slams should be considered one of, if not the greatest player of all time.

mitalidas
06-09-2009, 05:48 PM
If they both are at 14 slams at retirement, both have a career slam, and Nadal still maintains a positive H2H, then one can begin an argument for Nadal being hailed better. Other things matter too. 20 consecutive slam semis, record for weeks as #1, etc.

Hewitt and Krajicek had great records against Sampras. But Hewitt does not even factor into this discussion, because just winning slams is not enough for GOAT discussions.

Same way then, Nadal needs to get a career slam, or 14+, etc. and he will undoubtedly factor into this, but not just because he has a winning record against Federer.

Polikarpov
06-09-2009, 05:59 PM
They just don't meet outside clay considerably enough. And on his best surface, Roger only gets one shot a year -- MAX -- to try to defeat Rafa. Realistically, Roger isn't going to reverse that H2H, but I'm hoping he makes it a decent one -- preferably winning in slam finals.

fast_clay
06-09-2009, 06:00 PM
no

victory1
06-09-2009, 06:04 PM
It could have been worst for Federer because 2 of his 7 wins are in the Semi at the Tennis Masters Cup, so he did not have to wait for Nadal to make a final! Federe has made 10 clay finals in 4 years to play Nadal while only playing an average of 3 clay tournaments a year.

feuselino
06-09-2009, 06:05 PM
very well said. Except the "doomed" in the title :)

calvinhobbes
06-09-2009, 06:50 PM
Federerīs GOAT status has come in spite of having a bad year between OZ 2008 and OZ 2009as opposed to the excellent results of Nadal on that same year. To be the GOAT after such circumstances is a double merit, because it implies new virtues as patience and perseverance. In his H2H against Nadal those three points are stumbles, not falls.

ballbasher101
06-09-2009, 06:57 PM
This is my analysis on Rafa's dominance over Roger:

How Roger Federerís Clay Court Success Doomed Him Against Nadal

Despite completing a career Grand Slam and tying Pete Samprasís record of 14 Major Championships, many critics are not ready to crown Roger Federer best player of all time. The reason? Federer is 7-13 against Rafael Nadal lifetime and 2-6 against him in Grand Slams (all but one of those matches were finals). So their argument is, how can the best player of all time be dominated by the second best player of HIS time?

But letís look at their head-to-head more closely. Despite the fact that Federer tends to play only four clay court tournaments per year, he has played Nadal on clay (11 times) more than he has on any of the other surface combined (9 times). Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi played each other on clay only five times total, despite being much closer in age and despite playing each other over a much longer period of time.

If Federerís head to head against Nadal is so important, would he be considered a BETTER player had he lost one round EARLIER in several of those claycourt tournaments instead of to Nadal? Letís pretend Federer lost one round earlier in 6 of the 9 tournaments he lost to Nadal in. He would be losing to the likes of Fernando Gonzalez, David Nalbandian and Nikolay Davydenko, but at least his record against Nadal would be improved. And his French Open record would still be superior to Pete Samprasís!

While Federer has easily been the second best player on clay, and Nadal has cleary been the second best player on grass, Nadal has underachieved on hardcourts. In 2006 and 2007, the two years that Federer and Nadal were 1-2 the entire year, Federerís claycourt results were superior to Nadalís hardcourt results.

During that span, Federer and Nadal appeared in the same claycourt tournament 8 times and met in 7 of those (Nadal winning 6 of those matchups). Meanwhile, during the same period, Nadal and Federer played in the same hardcourt tournament 18 times, but only played each other 3 times. (Federer won two of the three matches).

Since January 2008, Nadal has played in 17 hardcourt tournaments and has won only four of them (although these wins included the Australian Open and the Olympics). Federer has won almost as many claycourt titles (three) including the French Open, despite only playing nine clay court tournaments during the same time period.

One could easily conclude that Nadalís nine claycourt victories gave him extra confidence he needed in his 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Australian Open victories over Federer. When you lose to a player 9 times on clay, one could see why Federer tightens up against Nadal, no matter the surface they play on.

Federer's record against Nadal should not detract from his legacy. Should he reverse his fortunes against Nadal and win the majority of their future matchups, that won't add to his legacy either. Any player that wins three Grand Slams in a year three different times, makes 20 consecutive appearances in a Grand Slam semifinal, has won the career Grand Slam and has 14 Grand Slams should be considered one of, if not the greatest player of all time.


What an inspired post :clap2:

JennyS
06-09-2009, 07:00 PM
What an inspired post :clap2:

Thanks!

Kuhne
06-09-2009, 07:04 PM
If Roger played against rafa more often, specialy early in their carreers, their h2h would be different, Rafa started geting to Roger when Roger was in a huge slump and in my opinion Roger still is not playing as good as he could, he basicaly gave away sets in the french open not because he was outplayed, he just errored his way through the match, even like that, the man keeps geting to semifinals and at least averaging 1 slam per year. THAT is why he is the best ever. last year was a bad year for roger, he fucking won estoril and didnt win anything else, what are the odds of not winning any hardcoure tourneys, getting owned by everyone including murray and then manage to win the US Open anyways?

that shit is epic and a man who COULDN'T EVEN GET TO THE QUARTERS OF THE GRAND SLAM HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE "BEST EVER" AT cannot compare. I am sorry, you fail

Allez
06-09-2009, 07:19 PM
Great post. I did consider posting something similar but it would not have been half as good as yours :worship::worship::worship:

DorianGray7
06-09-2009, 07:19 PM
I just hate it how after last year's Wimbledon everyone was saying about how Rafa completely crushed Federer and how Federer was finished for good and never win another grand slam. WTF?

It's now the era of Rafa. !@!@!

I don't know if all the Rafatards and pig fans were watching the same match as I was but Federer nearly won. Federer was the one who pulled back after being 2 sets down, Rafa won by a very very slim margin. SO HOW IN THE WORLD DID RAFA EVER CRUSH FEDERER AT Wimbledon? :mad: Seriously Federer haters overplay everything and jump on anything to make it seem like he failed.

I hope Rafa gets to the finals at Wimbledon this year and Federer beats him in 5 sets.

madmax
06-09-2009, 07:31 PM
I just hate it how after last year's Wimbledon everyone was saying about how Rafa completely crushed Federer and how Federer finished for good and never win another grand slam. WTF?

It's now the era of Rafa. !@!@!

I don't know if all the Rafatards and pig fans were watching the same match as I was but Federer nearly won. Federer was the one who pulled back after being 2 sets down, Rafa won by a very very slim margin. SO HOW IN THE WORLD DID RAFA EVER CRUSH FEDERER AT Wimbledon? :mad: Seriously Federer haters overplay everything and jump on anything to make it seem like he failed.

I hope Rafa gets to the finals at Wimbledon this year and Federer beats him in 5 sets.

well said:worship: Last year Roger's game was out of sorts and short of confidence in every aspect - he was making tons of errors, not serving well and etc. And is still took Nadal almost 5 hours to defeat him 9-7 in the fifht set and playing in darkness...this stuff just tells how dominant Roger is green stuff, and he almost pulled another victory last year. Basically all the Roger's loses to spaniard are first and foremost due to MENTAL part of the game, he simply hates playing that energized bunny running down all of his shots and gets irritated easily. If only he wouldn't be so stubborn and stayed patient throughout the matches, I'm pretty sure he would have a positive H2H with Nadal. But things might have changed in the last months and Roger is much more relaxed and better player than last year - simply put I wouldn't bet my money on spaniard this time arround

JennyS
06-09-2009, 07:35 PM
The Wimbledon final was so close and both of them played well. The biggest difference was that Nadal did better on breakpoints than Roger did.

Allez
06-09-2009, 07:39 PM
Nadal may not have crushed Roger but he certainly crushed his hopes of going one better than Borg.

mitalidas
06-09-2009, 07:41 PM
Nadal may not have crushed Roger but he certainly crushed his hopes of going one better than Borg.

Federer returned the favor at the French.

FedFan_2007
06-09-2009, 07:41 PM
Yes Roger is very DOOMED right now!!! :rolleyes:

Allez
06-09-2009, 07:45 PM
Federer returned the favor at the French.
Actually it was Robin. Had Nadal won that match Roger would have folded in the final as he has the last 3 years...especially last year :eek:

mitalidas
06-09-2009, 07:51 PM
Actually it was Robin. Had Nadal won that match Roger would have folded in the final as he has the last 3 years...especially last year :eek:
Correct. On both counts.

JennyS
06-09-2009, 08:12 PM
well said:worship: Last year Roger's game was out of sorts and short of confidence in every aspect - he was making tons of errors, not serving well and etc. And is still took Nadal almost 5 hours to defeat him 9-7 in the fifht set and playing in darkness...this stuff just tells how dominant Roger is green stuff, and he almost pulled another victory last year. Basically all the Roger's loses to spaniard are first and foremost due to MENTAL part of the game, he simply hates playing that energized bunny running down all of his shots and gets irritated easily. If only he wouldn't be so stubborn and stayed patient throughout the matches, I'm pretty sure he would have a positive H2H with Nadal. But things might have changed in the last months and Roger is much more relaxed and better player than last year - simply put I wouldn't bet my money on spaniard this time arround

Now that Roger has the French Open/tying Pete Sampras monkey off his back, he can relax more. He said he would be at peace for the rest of his career. Obviously passing Pete is still important, but I think the career Slam and tying him was actually a bigger hurdle for him.

Here's something else that few people ever mention: Pete didn't go up against any young guns in his last 5 Slam finals wins: Cedric Pioline, Goran Ivanesivic, Andre Agassi, Patrick Rafter and Agassi: all were a little older or younger than him.

The last 5 guys that Roger beat? Gonzalez (one year older than Roger), Nadal (5 years younger than Roger), Djokovic (6 years younger than Roger, Murray (6 years younger) and Soderling (2 years younger). So 3 out of the 5 are a lot younger than him.
Cons

Allez
06-09-2009, 08:19 PM
Here's something else that few people ever mention. Pete was pretty much the same age as the players he beat in Grand Slam finals: Agassi is 1 year and 3 months older than Pete. Goran is the same age as Pete and Patrick Rafter is a little younger. These were the players Pete beat from 1998-2002 in Grand Slam finals.

Roger on the other hand, has beaten Nadal (5 years younger than Roger), Djokovic (6 years younger than Roger) and Murray (6 years younger) in Grand Slam finals the past few years.
Cons

What should we read into this little tidbit :shrug:

HKz
06-09-2009, 08:24 PM
Great post JennyS, couldn't have said it better myself. But for the sake of arguing, this is a really tired argument. I would write a whole long essay about this, but I feel that it is really stupid trying to argue that Rafalafa hinders Rogerís chances of being the greatest ever. The problem is, critics look at tennis right now and think it is all about Federer and Nadal, as if the other hundreds of players don't count. Look, this isn't boxing where head to head is a lot more important. But last time I checked, it takes AT LEAST 7 matches to win a Grand Slam, and Roger definately does not play Rafalafa 7 times in a row; he obviously plays other people. And also the thing to take into consideration, Nadal usually never makes it as far as Federer does in these tournaments, so in a way, you could almost give Federer a head to head win over Nadal for him not getting far and not playing him. Plus a lot of Roger's losses come from simply being almost scared of Nadal and playing a mentally horrible game. Sure it is part of the game, but people make it seem as though Rafalafa really destroys Federer from the baseline or whatever Nadal does with that racket (poor racket..). But if you look at all their matches, aside from the 2008 French Open, Federer has had so many chances. 2007 French Open, Roger had I think 17 or 18 break points and he converted only one, which was in the set he won. 2008 Wimbledon, Roger had numerous chances to stay and get back in the first, he took a lead in the second and he even had a break point in the 5th which if would have won, would have allowed him to serve out the match. 2009 Australian Open, tightened up to make the tiebreak in the 1st set, had so many chances in the 3rd set to serve it out, etc. Look I mean you have to give credit to Rafalafa for being rock solid and hanging in there to give time for Roger to destroy himself, but Rafalafa definately did not defeat Roger with his Roddick-superior serving, amazing groundstrokes and J-Mac-like volleys.

Look, critics need to just look at a player's career as a whole and look simple at their achievements. If there was honestly somebody dominating them, then why don't they have the accomplishments of the player they are beating? It is because tennis as a whole, they arenít dominating them, they are just winning most of the times they do play each other and the truth is Nadal wins the battles but Federer wins the war. I've stopped listening to a lot of critics though because they are usually stupid old non-professional playing tennis idiots like Bud Collins who don't know what they are talking about. I mean seriously, Bud Collins said that Federer's win at the French has less meaning because he didn't play Nadal. What kind of shit is that? It isn't Roger's fault that Nadal can't make it even into the quarters of his best surface and tournament. In fact, it should make Roger look even better and Rafalafa even worse. Federer even has 5 semis in a row at the French Open, a record that clay-god-Nadal doesn't even have and won't have a chance to have until 5 years from now, and I'm laughing right now about whether that will be true.

John McEnroe has said numerous times, even to Roger himself, that he considers him the greatest of all time. Many current and former pros have echoed the same thing as well, so we should all be looking up to the actual tennis players because I'm pretty sure they are the only ones who know what it is like on the tour. Not a dumb ass old man like Bud Collins who all he has been doing is sitting on the sideline and making the stupidest observations. Last thing I would like to say is that it would be really stupid to hold a vote on who is the greatest of all time because you would want to wait till Roger and Rafalafa both have ended their careers to compare them. I mean there are many critics that actually stupidly say this. It is as if they already know Rafalafa is going to end up in that conversation with who is the greatest, with his current measly 6 titles (4 of which are from the French). But okay, what if Rafalafa does have a good career, and what if by the time he retires there is somebody new, then will somebody say wait, let's see how this guy's career turns out. At least by then, idiots like Bud Collins would be dead. But you see the invalid reasoning for that? Nobody said, oh let's wait for Hewitt's career to end to see where Sampras stands, and we all saw how that turned out. The fact when people say Roger is the greatest tennis player of all time, there is an invisible line after it saying "up to now.Ē Honestly, I think they are pretty jealous at what Roger has accomplished at only 27, unlike Sampras who was 32 or 31 when he got his 14th, or they are scared that Roger will completely destroy records and make future tennis so lame because no one will be able to break anymore records.

HKz
06-09-2009, 08:28 PM
Actually it was Robin. Had Nadal won that match Roger would have folded in the final as he has the last 3 years...especially last year :eek:

Allez, Roger is the one that made the final and Nadal didn't. I'm pretty sure that shows how Rafalafa was in the whole tournament. Honestly, if Nadal made the final with that form, and seeing how Roger played virtually flawless and rock solid against a nervous Soderling, and not to mention having another clay win against Nadal in Madrid, I'm pretty sure the outcome would be the same. The fact that Roger made just the finals and Nadal couldn't even make the semis makes Roger look even better and Nadal even worse.

rwn
06-09-2009, 10:25 PM
Actually it was Robin. Had Nadal won that match Roger would have folded in the final as he has the last 3 years...especially last year :eek:

Nadal would have won with his lifethreatening injury ? What an amazing player that Nadal is, no ? VAMOSSSSSSSSS!

dodo
06-09-2009, 10:27 PM
Well put, although it is kind of common knowledge, i would think.
Then again, it will only be remembered as a footnote by Fed fans. Same as Roger taking the RG trophy without a big noisy showdown against the reigning champ (W'08 style) will only be remembered by Rafa fans.

JennyS
06-09-2009, 10:46 PM
How about this argument: Rafa can't win a Grand Slam without beating Roger, so he depends on Roger to win a Slam. How about winning a Slam WITHOUT beating Roger in a final. The only other player he beat in a final was MARIANO PUERTA! How about beating Murray or Djokovic in a GS final? :D

BIGMARAT
06-09-2009, 11:00 PM
Nadal will always be a poor second. Just be thankful Federer rest a little bit, sleep with mirka and make a baby, or else, he did'nt had a chance to win a slam other than Clay.

Rafa is just the greatest clay court player ever period! That's his only legacy.

Joao
06-09-2009, 11:39 PM
Great post JennyS, couldn't have said it better myself. But for the sake of arguing, this is a really tired argument. I would write a whole long essay about this, but I feel that it is really stupid trying to argue that Rafalafa hinders Rogerís chances of being the greatest ever. The problem is, critics look at tennis right now and think it is all about Federer and Nadal, as if the other hundreds of players don't count. Look, this isn't boxing where head to head is a lot more important. But last time I checked, it takes AT LEAST 7 matches to win a Grand Slam, and Roger definately does not play Rafalafa 7 times in a row; he obviously plays other people. And also the thing to take into consideration, Nadal usually never makes it as far as Federer does in these tournaments, so in a way, you could almost give Federer a head to head win over Nadal for him not getting far and not playing him. Plus a lot of Roger's losses come from simply being almost scared of Nadal and playing a mentally horrible game. Sure it is part of the game, but people make it seem as though Rafalafa really destroys Federer from the baseline or whatever Nadal does with that racket (poor racket..). But if you look at all their matches, aside from the 2008 French Open, Federer has had so many chances. 2007 French Open, Roger had I think 17 or 18 break points and he converted only one, which was in the set he won. 2008 Wimbledon, Roger had numerous chances to stay and get back in the first, he took a lead in the second and he even had a break point in the 5th which if would have won, would have allowed him to serve out the match. 2009 Australian Open, tightened up to make the tiebreak in the 1st set, had so many chances in the 3rd set to serve it out, etc. Look I mean you have to give credit to Rafalafa for being rock solid and hanging in there to give time for Roger to destroy himself, but Rafalafa definately did not defeat Roger with his Roddick-superior serving, amazing groundstrokes and J-Mac-like volleys.

Look, critics need to just look at a player's career as a whole and look simple at their achievements. If there was honestly somebody dominating them, then why don't they have the accomplishments of the player they are beating? It is because tennis as a whole, they arenít dominating them, they are just winning most of the times they do play each other and the truth is Nadal wins the battles but Federer wins the war. I've stopped listening to a lot of critics though because they are usually stupid old non-professional playing tennis idiots like Bud Collins who don't know what they are talking about. I mean seriously, Bud Collins said that Federer's win at the French has less meaning because he didn't play Nadal. What kind of shit is that? It isn't Roger's fault that Nadal can't make it even into the quarters of his best surface and tournament. In fact, it should make Roger look even better and Rafalafa even worse. Federer even has 5 semis in a row at the French Open, a record that clay-god-Nadal doesn't even have and won't have a chance to have until 5 years from now, and I'm laughing right now about whether that will be true.

John McEnroe has said numerous times, even to Roger himself, that he considers him the greatest of all time. Many current and former pros have echoed the same thing as well, so we should all be looking up to the actual tennis players because I'm pretty sure they are the only ones who know what it is like on the tour. Not a dumb ass old man like Bud Collins who all he has been doing is sitting on the sideline and making the stupidest observations. Last thing I would like to say is that it would be really stupid to hold a vote on who is the greatest of all time because you would want to wait till Roger and Rafalafa both have ended their careers to compare them. I mean there are many critics that actually stupidly say this. It is as if they already know Rafalafa is going to end up in that conversation with who is the greatest, with his current measly 6 titles (4 of which are from the French). But okay, what if Rafalafa does have a good career, and what if by the time he retires there is somebody new, then will somebody say wait, let's see how this guy's career turns out. At least by then, idiots like Bud Collins would be dead. But you see the invalid reasoning for that? Nobody said, oh let's wait for Hewitt's career to end to see where Sampras stands, and we all saw how that turned out. The fact when people say Roger is the greatest tennis player of all time, there is an invisible line after it saying "up to now.Ē Honestly, I think they are pretty jealous at what Roger has accomplished at only 27, unlike Sampras who was 32 or 31 when he got his 14th, or they are scared that Roger will completely destroy records and make future tennis so lame because no one will be able to break anymore records.

Very good! I totally agree with having to look at a career as a whole not just a H2H between 2 players. H2H are about match ups ... the important thing is to look at achievements and titles won not a few matches lost here and there.
The stupidest thing I've read so far in the media is "how can Federer be considered the GOAT if he isn't even the best of his own era? I mean, if Federer isn't the best of his time, I don't know who is! The closest one to come to mind is Nadal. But his record doesn't even come close to what Federer has done since 2003. Sure their H2H is greatly in favor of Nadal, but why doesn't Nadal have the 13 GS then?

I think people should really wait until both careers are over and then decide who did best. Right now, Federer's career is so much better it's not even funny.

luie
06-09-2009, 11:45 PM
Nadull could beat federer on one leg,but luckily he decided to tank RG 09 to help federer's legacy.What a great guy.Kudo's to nadull.
Btw he is cute to.

RagingLamb
06-10-2009, 12:06 AM
Here's something else that few people ever mention: Pete didn't go up against any young guns in his last 5 Slam finals wins: Cedric Pioline (2 years older), Goran Ivanesivic (1 month and 1 day older), Andre Agassi (2 years older), Patrick Rafter (1 year younger) and Agassi: all were a little older or younger than him.

The last 5 guys that Roger beat? Gonzalez (one year older than Roger), Nadal (5 years younger than Roger), Djokovic (6 years younger than Roger, Murray (6 years younger) and Soderling (2 years younger). So 3 out of the 5 are a lot younger than him.
Cons

Pete may not have met younger opponents in the finals, but he did meet them along the way to those finals. And the ones that Roger met may have been younger, but only one of them had ever even reached a GS final before their meeting with Roger. That's important, unless you think experience is not really a factor in a GS final.


If Federer’s head to head against Nadal is so important, would he be considered a BETTER player had he lost one round EARLIER in several of those claycourt tournaments instead of to Nadal? Let’s pretend Federer lost one round earlier in 6 of the 9 tournaments he lost to Nadal in. He would be losing to the likes of Fernando Gonzalez, David Nalbandian and Nikolay Davydenko, but at least his record against Nadal would be improved. And his French Open record would still be superior to Pete Sampras’s!

I don't think Roger's record against Nadal is that big a deal in his legacy, but I disagree that it should be dismissed.

Fed's H2H against Nadal is heavily influenced by the clay court encounters, but the fact is that Roger is a great clay courter and was good enough to beat everyone else (Sampras certainly was not), but got dominated by 1 player on clay. He also went on to lose to Nadal in slams on his best surfaces, i.e. HC, and grass.

Sampras was not a good clay courter, but his record against the good clay courters of his time is:

2-3 vs. Agassi (0-1 at RG)
1-2 vs. Bruguera (1-1 at RG)
0-2 vs. Chang (0-1 at RG)
1-2 vs. Courier (1-1 at RG)
1-0 vs. Muster (1-0 at RG)

5-9 total (3-4 at RG). You could argue that Nadal is better on Clay than all of those players (very likely, though something we'll never know for sure), but then again, Sampras is not nearly as good as Roger on Clay.

How about this argument: Rafa can't win a Grand Slam without beating Roger, so he depends on Roger to win a Slam. How about winning a Slam WITHOUT beating Roger in a final. The only other player he beat in a final was MARIANO PUERTA! How about beating Murray or Djokovic in a GS final? :D

Nadal has no control over who he meets in GS finals. But if he does meet others and gets beaten by them consistently, then you could make the argument that it was just the matchup that worked in his favor. I.e. Nadal was very fortunate to meet Federer in the finals of the slams he did win, otherwise his slam record would be very different.

Arkulari
06-10-2009, 02:09 AM
the global H2H is 13-7

3-3 HC
1-2 Grass
9-2 Clay

they are equal on hard, Roger has a grass advantage, so the real turning point of this H2H is clay, where Rafa owns not only Roger but pretty much every other player under the sun :shrug:

they haven't met in much finals outside of clay, I think never in a TMS outside of clay on the final? don't really remember, now Rafa is really starting to make to the finals outside of clay, so that would give us a much better insight ;)

Rafa is really the worst possible match-up for Roger, but does that screw with Roger's legacy? no way, simply shows that if Rafa wasn't around, Roger would have already gotten like 20 slams or so :scared: and if Roger wasn't around, Rafa will probably have gotten around 9 slams by now :shrug:

mistercrabs
07-04-2009, 03:31 PM
The only reason Federer has a losing record to Nadal is his remarkable consistency. Federer has a slight edge on head-to-heads on Hard/Grass, but is losing badly on clay. But of course they played 11 of their 20 matches on clay. Now nobody denies that Nadal is maybe the GOAT on clay, so it's not a huge embarrassment that Federer's got a crap record there. But the reason most of their matches have even been on clay is that Federer consistently gets to clay finals, whereas Nadal is relatively inconsistent on hard.

In short, if Nadal had been as consistent on other surfaces as Federer has been on clay, then their head-to-head would be a lot tighter.

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 03:33 PM
It's really all about the Grand Slam Finals. Federer only beat Nadal at Wimbledon and it was clearly at a time when Nadal was still getting his grass game together and in fact injured in the 2007 loss :eek:

mistercrabs
07-04-2009, 03:38 PM
It's really all about the Grand Slam Finals. Federer only beat Nadal at Wimbledon and it was clearly at a time when Nadal was still getting his grass game together and in fact injured in the 2007 loss :eek:

But once again, it's Federer's consistency. They meet in the middle on grass and have great matches. But whereas Federer was been remarkably consistent with getting to RG finals, Nadal has only reached one hard court final, where they had a tight match. I truly believe that if Nadal got to almost every single GS final like Federer does, it would be an even head to head.

fsoica
07-04-2009, 03:41 PM
actually, i think it is quite embarassing for Roger, hence his crying in wimby and melbourne...

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 03:44 PM
I think the 6-2 fifth set Melbourne loss and the Roland Garros loss where he only won 4 games, those were the mental scars that might always play on his mind :eek:

fsoica
07-04-2009, 03:46 PM
I think the 6-2 fifth set Melbourne loss and the Roland Garros loss where he only won 4 games, those were the mental scars that might always play on his mind :eek:

man, i think i asked before, but no answer: if Rafa will NOT win in New York, what your nickname will be: RafawonUSOpen2010 ?


cause i intend using this one after september ;)

tea
07-04-2009, 03:46 PM
The only reason Federer has a losing record to Nadal is his remarkable consistency. Federer has a slight edge on head-to-heads on Hard/Grass, but is losing badly on clay. But of course they played 11 of their 20 matches on clay. Now nobody denies that Nadal is maybe the GOAT on clay, so it's not a huge embarrassment that Federer's got a crap record there. But the reason most of their matches have even been on clay is that Federer consistently gets to clay finals, whereas Nadal is relatively inconsistent on hard.

In short, if Nadal had been as consistent on other surfaces as Federer has been on clay, then their head-to-head would be a lot tighter.
You said nothing new.;) That is axiomatic and I can't imagine anyone gonna deny it. Oh, are they already?:D

Goldenoldie
07-04-2009, 03:49 PM
Completely irrelevant. It is the number of titles which matters, not who the runner-up is.

mistercrabs
07-04-2009, 03:52 PM
Well then if it's so axiomatic I hope and pray that people will shut their f***ing fat mouths about this head to head, and that includes one species of insect who has some statistic about it in his signature.

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 03:52 PM
man, i think i asked before, but no answer: if Rafa will NOT win in New York, what your nickname will be: RafawonUSOpen2010 ?


cause i intend using this one after september ;)

I don't think Nadal should even play the American hardcourt season after he wins the US Open in 2009. Should just focus on winning the RG/Wim double each year and get 5 of each, maybe sneak some more Aust Opens too but just do a Borg for the next few years, plus play Davis Cup in the 2nd half of each year :eek:

Certinfy
07-04-2009, 03:53 PM
Yh it's not embarassing.

Tho last year's French Open Final was just pure embarassing. haha

Johnny Groove
07-04-2009, 03:54 PM
MTF's threads these days :lol:

Only one response to this thread is necessary. Pictures speak more than words.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ERGrznxTIwo/SYW_fFHzBrI/AAAAAAAAWHs/31nHnw0SkA8/Roger%20Federer%20Crying%20pic%5B4%5D.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JYnju_tDnIA/SYj9uagrrxI/AAAAAAAABso/z1EycDjh56o/s400/Federer_Crying.JPG

http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/197578-federer_cry.jpg

mistercrabs
07-04-2009, 03:57 PM
I don't think Nadal should even play the American hardcourt season after he wins the US Open in 2009. Should just focus on winning the RG/Wim double each year and get 5 of each, maybe sneak some more Aust Opens too but just do a Borg for the next few years, plus play Davis Cup in the 2nd half of each year :eek:

Given the collapse of his physical and emotional health, Nadal would be lucky to win his opening match against the Taiwanese number 7. Believe me, he'll be out of the top 10 by this time next year.

GlennMirnyi
07-04-2009, 03:58 PM
Losing to a moonballer is always an embarrassment.

Vegeto
07-04-2009, 04:00 PM
It is not about to win over one player. it's to win over many players and win titles.
I believe that if they set up tennis matches where Fed vs Nadal only (all surfaces), Fed can definitely lead H2H.

7-13, I think Fed can finally catch up to like 12-14 when all is said and done. And it's not embarrassment at all.

And is it embarrassment for Nadal to have a winning H2H record against the player who is considered GOAT but cannot achieve close to that GOAT's achievement?

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 04:00 PM
Given the collapse of his physical and emotional health, Nadal would be lucky to win his opening match against the Taiwanese number 7. Believe me, he'll be out of the top 10 by this time next year.

I didn't believe the tennis experts when they said he would never win slams outside of RG so I have no reason to believe anything else either. I just see Nadal as another case of Venus Williams. Remember when in 2001 her tendinitis was so bad she could hardly jump to serve the ball in her 6-1 6-1 loss to Hingis at the Aus Open? :eek:

mistercrabs
07-04-2009, 04:01 PM
I didn't believe the tennis experts when they said he would never win slams outside of RG so I have no reason to believe anything else either. I just see Nadal as another case of Venus Williams. Remember when in 2001 her tendinitis was so bad she could hardly jump to serve the ball in her 6-1 6-1 loss to Hingis at the Aus Open? :eek:

So you're implying that eight years from now Nadal will be playing as well as Venus just did in the final? Well we can only hope!

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 04:03 PM
It is not about to win over one player. it's to win over many players and win titles.
I believe that if they set up tennis matches where Fed vs Nadal only (all surfaces), Fed can definitely lead H2H.

7-13, I think Fed can finally catch up to like 12-14 when all is said and done. And it's not embarrassment at all.

And is it embarrassment for Nadal to have a winning H2H record against the player who is considered GOAT but cannot achieve close to that GOAT's achievement?

Yeah Nadal winning the Career Grand Slam 5 years younger than Federer is a real GOAT failure, and winning the SINGLES Gold Medal and being the first player since 1980 to win RG/Wim double :eek:

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 04:08 PM
Hmm ... If Nadal win this year US open, he still needs much more to come close to Fed's achievement.

Obviously, he's only 23 :eek:

Vegeto
07-04-2009, 04:09 PM
Hmm ... If Nadal win this year US open, he still needs much more to come close to Fed's achievement.

Vegeto
07-04-2009, 04:13 PM
Obviously, he's only 23 :eek:

Age-concerning achievement is not equal to (GENERAL) achievement.
say Nadal has better age-concerning achievement but not better achievement. :]

juan77
07-04-2009, 04:19 PM
Federer beat Nadal on his favorite surface in his own backyard in straight sets when they last played each other. That defeat sowed the seeds of Nadal's defeat in the French Open. It stripped away the aura of Nadal's supposed invincibility on clay and gave other players the belief that they have a chance to beat Nadal on clay. As they say, he who laughs last laughs the most!

Vegeto
07-04-2009, 04:24 PM
^YAY, Fed will not lose to Nadal forever. He will actually find a way to win some more.

Ariadne
07-04-2009, 04:24 PM
I think the 6-2 fifth set Melbourne loss and the Roland Garros loss where he only won 4 games, those were the mental scars that might always play on his mind :eek:

:eek::o:eek::o
:eek::o:eek::o
:eek::o:eek::o
:eek::o:eek::o
:o:eek::o

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 04:25 PM
juan LOL Soderling beat Nadal on clay shortly after Federer did, like it really means anything to beat an injured Nadal :eek:

The Australian Open Final says it all, for Nadal to beat Federer 6-2 in the 5th set....and after 6hrs semi-final :eek:

Vegeto
07-04-2009, 04:26 PM
^mental scars that ALWAYS play on his mind? how can he manage to win again in straight set on clay? I'm sure he already got pass those scars.

Action Jackson
07-04-2009, 04:27 PM
So much arse clown material these days.

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 04:27 PM
Age-concerning achievement is not equal to (GENERAL) achievement.
say Nadal has better age-concerning achievement but not better achievement. :]

I never said that, I'm saying Nadal is only 23 so why would he have a better achievement than Federer? You can only even assess Nadal's career when he's 28. All we can say now about Nadal in comparison to Federer is that Nadal is beating Federer in all the big matches :eek:

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 04:32 PM
So much arse clown material these days.

Wow you are a moderator :eek:

tea
07-04-2009, 04:49 PM
juan LOL Soderling beat Nadal on clay shortly after Federer did, like it really means anything to beat an injured Nadal :eek:

The Australian Open Final says it all, for Nadal to beat Federer 6-2 in the 5th set....and after 6hrs semi-final :eek:
Getting out of fuel just after a couple of months this year says it all about what a stable champion Nadal is and where his strengths are.:D

FedFan_2007
07-04-2009, 05:20 PM
What's more embarrassing? Fed's losing record in GS finals to Rafa? Or Rafa's crazy scheduling and style of play that causes him to lose to Soderling and skip the entire grass season? I think the latter is far more embarrassing.

sawan66278
07-04-2009, 05:23 PM
No embarrassment...just evidence one can utilize to argue that Federer is not the GOAT. Not that there is an GOAT.

Arkulari
07-04-2009, 05:34 PM
No embarrassment...just evidence one can utilize to argue that Federer is not the GOAT. Not that there is an GOAT.

(bolded) finally, something you say makes actual sense :worship:
there's no GOAT (no possible comparison between eras), and the acknowledgment of the accomplishments of one player cannot depend sorely on h2h but on his own game and his own won tournaments and stuff :shrug:

Guy Haines
07-04-2009, 05:38 PM
It's only an embarrassment if you're the kind of FedTard who demands ultimate winning perfection and can't deal with the fact that all champions have an Achilles. Or in less fortunate/gifted circumstances, a bad knee.

juan77
07-05-2009, 04:45 AM
Here's my take on the Fed-Nadal saga:

Nadal came along at a time when Fed was the dominant player on tour. Fed had gotten used to playing in cruise control mode by then - dazzle the opponent with magical play for a set or two, and just wait for the opponent to fold up like a cheap tent. Nadal is not the kind of player who rolls over against anyone - even if the player is THE Roger Federer. He got into Fed's head by deliberately taking his time between points, taking forever to serve, asking ball boys for a towel after almost every point, etc. Fed badly wanted to win the French Open and Nadal was the immovable obstacle in his path. The media also jumped on the hate wagon and started pointing out his lack of success at the French Open as a glaring hole in his resume. The frustration of losing at the French Open every year plus the incessant pressure got to Fed and ruined his confidence against Nadal on all surfaces.
Now that he has won at Roland Garros, I hope Fed can relax and enjoy tennis without any pressures. He is probably the last top player with a beautiful game and there won't be another like him when he leaves.

garad
07-30-2009, 07:14 PM
This is a well written, logically constructed article that shows the real value of (and futile agenda behind) the 13-7 H2H argument in Federer GOAT debate:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/226249-logical-flaw-in-the-interpretation-of-rafas-13-7-h2h

Discuss.

ORGASMATRON
07-30-2009, 07:23 PM
Ive written an article about this myself. The Fedal h2h is like a conspiracy to keep Roger from becoming the GOAT, which he clearly already is. Its up there with Watergate and the like.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 07:25 PM
Everything is a lie and a conspiracy.

GlennMirnyi
07-30-2009, 07:29 PM
Why would someone be such an idiot to write an article about something that's not arguable?

Numbers are numbers.

This is the same as writing an article about 2 + 2 = 4.

It means Frauderer has lost 13 times to Nadull and that he defeated Nadull 7 times. Nothing more, nothing less.

ORGASMATRON
07-30-2009, 07:32 PM
Why would someone be such an idiot to write an article about something that's not arguable?

Numbers are numbers.

This is the same as writing an article about 2 + 2 = 4.

It means Frauderer has lost 13 times to Nadull and that he defeated Nadull 7 times. Nothing more, nothing less.

:lol: :retard:

garad
07-30-2009, 07:47 PM
Why would someone be such an idiot to write an article about something that's not arguable?

Numbers are numbers.

This is the same as writing an article about 2 + 2 = 4.

]It means Frauderer has lost 13 times to Nadull and that he defeated Nadull 7 times. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nowhere in that piece it is argued that this is not true. You obviously did not read it or did not understand it. Which is it?

garad
07-30-2009, 07:50 PM
Everything is a lie and a conspiracy.

The use of 'conspiracy' is actually the weakest point here, but the author has otherwise pretty good points.

guga2120
07-30-2009, 07:53 PM
That's a pretty ridiculous article. The clay h2h is a fallacy to a point though, b/c Roger's 2 victories were against a shell of what Rafa, is normally on clay.

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 07:59 PM
The main problem I have with that article is that its statistics on number of wins in tournaments both entered starts things ini 2003. That is not fair because Nadal was not playing that well until 2005. I'd be curious to find out what the numbers would be if you took off 2003 and 2004.

Dini
07-30-2009, 08:01 PM
That's a pretty ridiculous article. The clay h2h is a fallacy to a point though, b/c Roger's 2 victories were against a shell of what Rafa, is normally on clay.

I think that is pretty ridiculous too. Federer was "tired" against Nadal in rome 2006 too if you want to go down that route.

A win is a win and a h2h is a h2h.

Sunset of Age
07-30-2009, 08:04 PM
I think that is pretty ridiculous too. Federer was "tired" against Nadal in rome 2006 too if you want to go down that route.

A win is a win and a h2h is a h2h.

Yep. That's the long and short of it all.
ALL players get their nasty share of being tired, injured, ill, and notwhat.
Please, for once, quit those terrible Double Standards... tards. :(

jonathancrane
07-30-2009, 08:04 PM
I think that is pretty ridiculous too. Federer was "tired" against Nadal in rome 2006 too.

A win is a win and a h2h is a h2h.

Don't try to argue with a clown

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 08:26 PM
nah, not going to read it.