Do you think Nadal will end his career with more slams than Federer? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Do you think Nadal will end his career with more slams than Federer?

lleytonfan!
06-14-2009, 06:12 AM
At the moment it's 14-6, but Nadal is 5 years younger, and he has Federer's number, at 13-7 wins.

lessthanjake
06-14-2009, 06:41 AM
No. The rugged style that Nadal plays will probably lead his body to break down sooner. Furthermore, Federer will probably add 2-3 slams to his total before he's done. That would mean Nadal would need to win like 10 more. I dont think his body can last him for a bunch more years so he would really have to tear it up in the next few years to get there. I don't think he will

leng jai
06-14-2009, 06:49 AM
Yep.

Goldenoldie
06-14-2009, 07:06 AM
No, he has the ability, but not the stamina

vamosinator
06-14-2009, 07:17 AM
As Roddick says, tendinitis doesn't shorten your career. Also ask Serena and Venus Williams, oh and Michael Jordan, all had major tendinitis throughout their careers. Nadal will be going past age 30 and still contending for slams and yes will pass Sampras total slams comfortably and get a nice lead:o

RonE
06-14-2009, 07:44 AM
He will win 30, no scratch that 40 slams by winning the calendar year grand slam every year for the next 10 years.

Vamos Rafalalalalalalalalalalalala! :worship:

theprodigy
06-14-2009, 07:55 AM
No.

I'd give him 10-12 slams, while Roger will probably get 17-19.

rwn
06-14-2009, 08:01 AM
At the moment it's 14-6, but Nadal is 5 years younger, and he has Federer's number, at 13-7 wins.

No, he´s tired after 3 matches in a tournament. No stamina.

Audacity
06-14-2009, 08:02 AM
I don't think Roger will win 17-19 slams. Having said that, I don't think Nadal will win more then 11 or 12. There always seems to be younger players that will challenge the top players.

Mechlan
06-14-2009, 08:12 AM
Federer could win one, maybe two more. I can see Nadal getting about 10 total.

bokehlicious
06-14-2009, 09:13 AM
Nadal will be going past age 30 and still contending for slams and yes will pass Sampras total slams comfortably and get a nice lead:o

Passing Sampras' 14 slams should be a piece of cake for The Rafa :shrug: but beating Roger's 27 slams remains to be seen... :shrug:

Castafiore
06-14-2009, 09:14 AM
Don't you guys get tired of the same old trolling over and over and over and over?

Get creative, do something new.

Certinfy
06-14-2009, 09:30 AM
The guy will only last a few more years...

ImmzB
06-14-2009, 10:10 AM
Yeah

vamosinator
06-14-2009, 10:17 AM
Federer will retire at a younger age than Nadal, I think Federer said 2012? 30 is quite young to be retiring these days. It sounds about right considering his deteriorating back. Whereas Nadal only has tendinitis which will simply require a lighter schedule as the years go on. That is very easy when you can win on all surfaces, many options of when to take a break each year:o

born_on_clay
06-14-2009, 10:37 AM
Of course he will
Rafa will end his career with all time best 24 Slams

Arkulari
06-14-2009, 10:58 AM
I see Rafa reaching double digits, but not reaching Roger's record :shrug:

vamosinator
06-14-2009, 10:59 AM
I still consider it Sampras' record, nobody in their right mind would say Federer's slams came in an era as strong as Sampras', the 90s were the GOAT of eras....:o

juja_06
06-14-2009, 11:02 AM
yeah we will see what happens next maybe nadal will retire before federer

batavlada
06-14-2009, 11:53 AM
I see Nadal ending career before Federer and less slams.

Allez
06-14-2009, 12:17 PM
Well he is only 23 and therefore has all the time in the word to become the ultimate GOAT.

Burrow
06-14-2009, 12:20 PM
The guy will only last a few more years...

Yes, I don't see why people think he will last until his late twenties, he plays such a physically demanding style and I could see his body giving in on him in a couple of years.

Burrow
06-14-2009, 12:22 PM
Of course he will
Rafa will end his career with all time best 24 Slams

:spit:

SaFed2005
06-14-2009, 12:41 PM
Nadal will get 20+ slams with ease, no? I mean the guy only loses if he is tired or injured. No player can outplay him so as long as he is not tired and not injured he should win everything, no?

tennizen
06-14-2009, 12:42 PM
No

syc23
06-14-2009, 01:17 PM
I still consider it Sampras' record, nobody in their right mind would say Federer's slams came in an era as strong as Sampras', the 90s were the GOAT of eras....:o

Absolutely spot on. Nadal has won 6 slams so far in the Federer era and I regard that a better achievement than Fedmug who has won when there was little
challenge. Fedmug just got lucky having played likes of Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Djokovic and Murray in their first ever slam final therefore the Swiss was at an
advantage. When Fedmug actually played Nadal in a final on a level playing field (Wimby '07 excepted), he's had his arse handed to him by Nadal.

Saturn66
06-14-2009, 01:34 PM
No.

Jelena
06-14-2009, 01:38 PM
At the moment it's 14-6, but Nadal is 5 years younger, and he has Federer's number, at 13-7 wins.
I don't think so. I think Rafa will be forced to finish his career before he can reach the 14 at least. Til now Roger didn't finish his career, so his number can still get higher.

FedFan_2007
06-14-2009, 01:56 PM
This thread was never in doubt.

Andi-M
06-14-2009, 03:25 PM
Depends on whether there will be another multi-slam champ type to challenge him, since Fed has had more competietion he has not been winning every slam in sight. same will go for Nadal if he has a challenger or 2 then he'll get 10/11 if not he'll get 16/17. I think there will be though....

Sapeod
06-14-2009, 03:28 PM
Two words





FUCK NO!!!

miura
06-14-2009, 03:45 PM
No I don't think he will. Reason? His knee problems.

Start da Game
06-14-2009, 03:49 PM
yes, rafael can surpass federer......contrary to the popular belief, the style is not directly linked to longevity......for instance edberg with a smooth and less demanding (physically) style faded earlier than the more physical player becker.......agassi, who relied more on fitness and speed than pete, outlasted him by several years.......then there is jimbo, the godfather of all the 'retrieve everything' players, played solid tennis even at 40......lendl was another one........

now here we are talking about a player who's perhaps the most tenacious fighter in the history.......rafa needs a few cheap draws and that will make his job easier.......he hasn't been handed many till now.......however, he has the game and other quintessential qualities to surpass sampras and federer.......

swebright
06-14-2009, 03:53 PM
Rafa won't have the longevity of Roger; his body will give up even before Roger does.

bluefork
06-14-2009, 03:54 PM
Absolutely spot on. Nadal has won 6 slams so far in the Federer era and I regard that a better achievement than Fedmug who has won when there was little
challenge. Fedmug just got lucky having played likes of Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Djokovic and Murray in their first ever slam final therefore the Swiss was at an
advantage. When Fedmug actually played Nadal in a final on a level playing field (Wimby '07 excepted), he's had his arse handed to him by Nadal.

But didn't Federer win 10 of his slams during the "Nadal era"?

Chiakifug
06-14-2009, 04:03 PM
For the 1372th time, no.

luie
06-14-2009, 04:26 PM
Nope. Murray will stop him dead in his tracks.Nadal main problem imo is that he doesn't have a powerful serve,that's required to prolong one's career when peak physical abilities fail.Murray is the person currently that has the best ROS & nadull serves will be nothing for him to handle,added to that he is a good mover & will extend many points with nadal (off clay) thus possibly exploiting nadull physical issues (excuses) whatever they may be at the time.
Novak & fed could be a factor also but Murray is most equiped to "deal" with nadull.Also there is a possibility that nadull runs into a hot player hitting powerful flat shots of both wings ala blake,tsonga,soderking,del-pony etc.Having said that he will win more slams because he is a relentless fighter that never gives up ,his top spin forehand is safe and he can hit impossible angles with it.Added to this fact he is one of the best "mover" on the planet.

MacTheKnife
06-14-2009, 04:45 PM
For the 1372th time, no.

1373...

Sapeod
06-14-2009, 04:46 PM
But didn't Federer win 10 of his slams during the "Nadal era"?
Yes, but Rafatards don't include that :lol:

RGK
06-14-2009, 04:48 PM
no

marcRD
06-14-2009, 04:51 PM
Some delusional people here, Nadal will be running around the court until his 30s? Really?

Can someone please take some player who did as much running as Nadal on the court and lasted that much time?

Agassi was a really poor example, he rarely even moved at the back of the court, he hit so hard and just found a position where he could push his opponents around. Also look at his swings, so effortless, so short and saving so much energy. Look at the Nadal forehand swing, most brutal swing I have seen.

Start da Game
06-14-2009, 04:52 PM
Yes, but Rafatards don't include that :lol:

how many times did federer beat rafa in slams?

prima donna
06-14-2009, 04:54 PM
No.

Reason: he's not good enough.

Start da Game
06-14-2009, 04:56 PM
Some delusional people here, Nadal will be running around the court until his 30s? Really?

Can someone please take some player who did as much running as Nadal on the court and lasted that much time?

Agassi was a really poor example, he rarely even moved at the back of the court, he hit so hard and just found a position where he could push his opponents around. Also look at his swings, so effortless, so short and saving so much energy. Look at the Nadal forehand swing, most brutal swing I have seen.

there's always a first time for anything.......to be precise, he doesn't need to play along till 30.......he can do it by 27 or 28.......sensible scheduling and small improvements on a continual method is sufficient.......he is already deadly with a decent first serve, ordinary second serve and ordinary volley........

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 04:58 PM
one key is if he gets the mental edge over his main rivals. it's a huge weapon for him.

marcRD
06-14-2009, 05:00 PM
how many times did federer beat rafa in slams?

He didnt need to defeat Rafa, Rafa wasnt good enought to face Federer in those finals. There were enought good players out there who could beat Rafa but not Federer.

MrChopin
06-14-2009, 05:05 PM
how many times did federer beat rafa in slams?

It's 2-2 outside of RG. Not Fed's fault that Rafa has made only one AO final and none at the USO.

***

My answer is a definite "no", but I don't think this question is important even for Nadal or his fans... just stay healthy and keep playing good tennis and he should end up with at least 8-9, which is a fantastic number. Should he get the USO at some point, that would be an additional boost to his all time greatness.

Start da Game
06-14-2009, 05:08 PM
He didnt need to defeat Rafa, Rafa wasnt good enought to face Federer in those finals. There were enought good players out there who could beat Rafa but not Federer.

1. FO 06?
2. FO 07?
3. FO 08?
4. wimbledon 08?
5. australian open 09?

Dini
06-14-2009, 05:11 PM
1. FO 06?
2. FO 07?
3. FO 08?
4. wimbledon 08?
5. australian open 09?

Has nothing to do with what Marc said. :shrug: The truth is that Nadal didn't get beyond the 4th rd, and Fed did this year. He got a chance and took it. He didn't have to beat him because Nadal didn't get to that stage. Pretty simple really.

prima donna
06-14-2009, 05:14 PM
1. FO 06?
2. FO 07?
3. FO 08?
4. wimbledon 08?
5. australian open 09?
Why is this of relevance ? How are these victories going to aid Nadal in his endeavour to win nine more Grand Slams ?

You're conflating individual match-ups with individual accomplishments, which are two entirely separate concepts. What's your rationale for believing that Nadal will win 15 Grand Slams in his career ? Thus far you've mentioned the longetivity theory (which has as an integral part of it the implicit assumption that Nadal will continue to play at this level for many years to come), what else ?

Dini
06-14-2009, 05:14 PM
one key is if he gets the mental edge over his main rivals. it's a huge weapon for him.

I agree. Even a not so fully fit Nadal can beat the top 3 because of mental edge alone. Fed for example craps out every time against him, even before they start getting into the groove of a rally. :sad: :o

Lori42
06-14-2009, 05:16 PM
Yes, he will

rubbERR
06-14-2009, 05:16 PM
no doubt, he is more talented than Federer, Djokovic, Murray. ;)

prima donna
06-14-2009, 05:25 PM
I agree. Even a not so fully fit Nadal can beat the top 3 because of mental edge alone. Fed for example craps out every time against him, even before they start getting into the groove of a rally. :sad: :o
The state of tennis won't remain stationary; the "top three" will eventually be displaced by younger players. What's more, there are many players who are part of the new generation of players that have yet to assert themselves. I don't mean to imply that younger players will be able to match Nadal's level of consistency, but how does that disqualify them from winning a few Grand Slams or derailing him in the process of trying to do so himself ?

Roger has been a professional for 11 years, yet he's played three generations of tennis players. Tennis evolves.

Start da Game
06-14-2009, 05:28 PM
Why is this of relevance ? How are these victories going to aid Nadal in his endeavour to win nine more Grand Slams ?

You're conflating individual match-ups with individual accomplishments, which are two entirely separate concepts. What's your rationale for believing that Nadal will win 15 Grand Slams in his career ? Thus far you've mentioned the longetivity theory (which has as an integral part of it the implicit assumption that Nadal will continue to play at this level for many years to come), what else ?

room for improvement in his game, his mental strength, his superiority over his peers, he owns a surface(clay), so that helps as well.......all he needs to do is devise a sensible schedule or get a frigging scheduler for heaven's sake if he can't do it on his own.......according to my calculation, he should pretty much finish this off before he is 28.......

he cannot lose at french when he is fit......another 3 or 4 french, 2 or 3 wimbledons, 1 more australian and a us title might do.......

Start da Game
06-14-2009, 05:35 PM
Has nothing to do with what Marc said. :shrug: The truth is that Nadal didn't get beyond the 4th rd, and Fed did this year. He got a chance and took it. He didn't have to beat him because Nadal didn't get to that stage. Pretty simple really.

i am not denying federer's french title......but another truth - whenever rafa reached federer, federer lost 6 times and won twice.......lost on clay, grass and hardcourts.......won on grass......

prima donna
06-14-2009, 05:42 PM
room for improvement in his game, his mental strength, his superiority over his peers, he owns a surface(clay), so that helps as well.......all he needs to do is devise a sensible schedule or get a frigging scheduler for heaven's sake if he can't do it on his own.......according to my calculation, he should pretty much finish this off before he is 28.......

he cannot lose at french when he is fit......another 3 or 4 french, 2 or 3 wimbledons, 1 more australian and a us title might do.......
So, basically your theory states that mental strength will prove sufficient to overcome younger and more talented players even as Nadal loses a step or two. Also, younger clay courters won't emerge to challenge Nadal's stranglehold on Roland Garros.

It's only about Nadal's schedule, provided that he be wise about the number of tournaments he plays then such should be sufficient to overcome the natural effects of aging. Gotcha.

Dini
06-14-2009, 05:45 PM
The state of tennis won't remain stationary; the "top three" will eventually be displaced by younger players. What's more, there are many players who are part of the new generation of players that have yet to assert themselves. I don't mean to imply that younger players will be able to match Nadal's level of consistency, but how does that disqualify them from winning a few Grand Slams or derailing him in the process of trying to do so himself ?

Roger has been a professional for 11 years, yet he's played three generations of tennis players. Tennis evolves.

True, it does evolve. But I really can't see the top 4 fading away any time soon really. :shrug:

prima donna
06-14-2009, 05:58 PM
True, it does evolve. But I really can't see the top 4 shifting any time soon really. :shrug:
Depends on how you define 'soon'. Nadal had won one Grand Slam per year until 2008, which may have been his peak (two). Only time will tell. I'm just perplexed as to how an aging Nadal is supposed to amass nine Grand Slams against younger players when from 2005 - 2007 (withdrawing only from '06 Australian Open) he was only able to amass three against older competition.

Grand Slam titles don't just grow on trees. There is no such thing as the top three. Djokovic is as much a part of the top of tennis as Safin is (the last player other than Nadal or Fed to win a Grand Slam prior to Djokovic's 2008 run).

Beginning with 2004, Federer has won 60% of Grand Slams played (13/22), Nadal has won 27% (6/22) and the rest of the field (Gaudio, Safin, Djokovic) have won 13% (3/22). The extent to which Nadal has dominated tennis has been maximized due to the propensity of the media to use the names Federer and Nadal interchangeable, as though a Federer victory counted partially as a Nadal victory.

Added note:
Nadal withdrew from '06 Aussie Open, same for '04 Wimbledon and '04 Roland Garros. He played the '04 Aussie Open and '04 USO - won 32% of slams he's participated in (6/19).

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 06:02 PM
Depends on how you define 'soon'. Nadal had won one Grand Slam per year until 2008, which may have been his peak (two). Only time will tell. I'm just perplexed as to how an aging Nadal is supposed to amass nine Grand Slams against younger players when from 2005 - 2007 (withdrawing only from '06 Australian Open) he was only able to amass three against older competition.

Grand Slam titles don't just grow on trees. There is no such thing as the top three. Djokovic is as much a part of the top of tennis as Safin is (the last player other than Nadal or Fed to win a Grand Slam prior to Djokovic's 2008 run).

Beginning with 2004, Federer has won 60% of Grand Slams played (13/22), Nadal has won 27% (6/22) and the rest of the field (Gaudio, Safin, Djokovic) have won 13% (3/22). The extent to which Nadal has dominated tennis has been maximized due to the propensity of the media to use the names Federer and Nadal interchangeable, as though a Federer victory counted partially as a Nadal victory.

You might be underestimating Nadal's experience factor, and writing him off too early. He just turned 23, not 28. Few people "lose a step" before they turn 26-27. Knees are another story.

rubbERR
06-14-2009, 06:02 PM
dumb guys here, before french open nadal last tournaments: W - F - W - QF - W - W - W - F - And then that French open R16 exit, huh? those are fantastic results :D

GlennMirnyi
06-14-2009, 06:04 PM
:lol:

What a joke.

green25814
06-14-2009, 06:06 PM
He'll get a few more FOs, but nothing else. Too much of a mug on faster surfaces these days, and wont handle the newer players, not to mention his body is falling apart

prima donna
06-14-2009, 06:10 PM
You might be underestimating Nadal's experience factor, and writing him off too early. He just turned 23, not 28. Few people "lose a step" before they turn 26-27. Knees are another story.
Nadal's success has little to do with experience. It has to do with the extreme level of physicality that he brings to the game, which means that once he loses a step or two then it will become all the more difficult for him to win Grand Slams.

The underlying assumption seems to be that Nadal's current level of fitness can be encapsulated and used to defeat younger competition as he ages. This kind of thinking subscribes to the same philosophical approach as the whole fountain of youth theory. Is there a place where wrinkled, old women can go to become young again ? Not counting the nearest plastic surgeon, no. Is there a place where a 25 or 26-year-old can go to recapture his youth so that he can beat a 19-year-old ?

Jelena
06-14-2009, 06:12 PM
how many times did federer beat rafa in slams?
That's not the question ;)

MalwareDie
06-14-2009, 06:12 PM
Nadal is already declining. The 2009 Australian Open is his last Slam win. You heard it here first.

Horatius
06-14-2009, 06:13 PM
He'll get a few more FOs, but nothing else. Too much of a mug on faster surfaces these days, and wont handle the newer players, not to mention his body is falling apart

You guys still imagine that Nadal plays hardcourt like 2005.
Regarding the thread, of course it most likely will not happen, duh.

Snowwy
06-14-2009, 06:14 PM
No.

habibko
06-14-2009, 06:14 PM
no he won't, and Federer isn't even finished with winning slams yet :worship:

Commander Data
06-14-2009, 06:16 PM
Can't we at least wait until he gets to 10 with this discussion? Maybe he does't even get to 10...


I mean he is at 6 right now, he would need at least 9 more (likely more). He just lost RG and is doubtful for Wimby. He will always be beatable on HC and his opponents don't sleep. His health is aquestion mark. Not easy task. I see virtually no chance he wins more then Fed.

I hope he wins 7 RG though. To make him the best clay courter ever.

MacTheKnife
06-14-2009, 06:17 PM
Until now, I thought he could "possibly" do it. Now I do not. I keep seeing the scheduling change as the key to Nadals longevity. Well, that's a pretty big assumption that his level of play is not based on how often he plays. It's a big assumption that if he cuts out tournaments, he'll continue at the same level. The guy appears to me to be one of those guys that just "needs" to play that much. He' shown no evidence of adjusting his schedule so far and the knee thing is not new. There may just be a reason for that. (I don't know) But neither does anybody else. We have not seen a Nadal that plays a minimal schedule. It is also a huge leap to assume that no one else will improve, and no one new will come on the scene.
This is a very fluid sport and if we could predict the future, we'd all be rich. But for Nadal, the numbers just don't add up at 23. Not that many slams have been won by guys past 25, and their styles were a lot different from this. Time will tell.

prima donna
06-14-2009, 06:21 PM
Until now, I thought he could "possibly" do it..
May I inquire as to why you were led to believe that Nadal would win 14 Grand Slams ? I don't mean to antagonize you, but you've been watching tennis longer than most on this board. How is it that knowledgeable tennis viewers have been fooled into buying into this media generated charade ? Nadal is a great player, but there have been many great players before him, yet only two of them have been able to amass 14 Grand Slams.

What makes him so special ?

Dini
06-14-2009, 06:21 PM
But if he cuts down on his schedule that's a ton of ranking points down the drain and number 1 at more threat than it already is. He's gotta start finding the right balance soon and think long term.

Playing Rotterdam this year was a pretty pathetic decision in my opinion.

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 06:27 PM
Nadal's success has little to do with experience. It has to do with the extreme level of physicality that he brings to the game, which means that once he loses a step or two then it will become all the more difficult for him to win Grand Slams.

The underlying assumption seems to be that Nadal's current level of fitness can be encapsulated and used to defeat younger competition as he ages. This kind of thinking subscribes to the same philosophical approach as the whole fountain of youth theory. Is there a place where wrinkled, old women can go to become young again ? Not counting the nearest plastic surgeon, no, there's not. Is there a place where a 25 or 26-year-old can go to recapture his youth so that he can beat a 19-year-old ?

Until now, you're (only partially) right. But my point is that he CAN use experience and changes to his game to improve his results. He's already done it as someone pointed out. Just take a look at his style on hard in 2006 and now and tell me you see no difference. 25-26 yrs old won't be as explosive physically as 9 yrs old, but they have much more experience which is a big plus.

That being said, I won't put my money on Nadal beating Fed's slams count. But then again I would have never thought he'd win slams on hard and grass...

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 06:28 PM
But if he cuts down on his schedule that's a ton of ranking points down the drain and number 1 at more threat than it already is. He's gotta start finding the right balance soon and think long term.

Playing Rotterdam this year was a pretty pathetic decision in my opinion.

Not as bad as not retiring at Madrid's semifinal. Rotterdam has been magnified by the fact that he got injured. It really wasn't that bad, the timing was pretty good actually.

Dini
06-14-2009, 06:31 PM
Not as bad as not retiring at Madrid's semifinal. Rotterdam has been magnified by the fact that he got injured. It really wasn't that bad, the timing was pretty good actually.

I don't know if grinding it out against Monfils, Bolelli, Tsonga was a good idea actually. :shrug: But yeah I agree with you about Madrid- in that sense he's stubborn and he'll end up being his own worst enemy.

MacTheKnife
06-14-2009, 06:34 PM
May I inquire as to why you were led to believe that Nadal would win 14 Grand Slams ? I don't mean to antagonize you, but you've been watching tennis longer than most on this board. How is it that knowledgeable tennis viewers have been fooled into buying into this media generated charade ? Nadal is a great player, but there have been many great players before him, yet only two of them have been able to amass 14 Grand Slams.

What makes him so special ?

Key word is "possibly". I thought that he would somehow begin to show a more mature approach in how to deal with his schedule, and begin to adjust his game to some degree. While I have seen him make improvements, I've seen no evidence of him trying to adjust his style at all to accommodate the simple fact he will grow older. A couple of other factors are figuring in too, and that's that his competition is beginning to adjust to his game, and they are becoming more confident when they play him.
Prior to this year, I had not seen much evidence of that either, specially on the dirt. He has been pushed on that surface far more this year than in the past. I also know there are many factors involved in that, but the result is still the same. More wear and tear on the Nadal body.
What I posted above about him, "needing to play that much" is something new I'm starting to believe. Do I know it's true, absolutely not, it is just a suspicion. But it would not be new in any sport to have a guy that thrived on driving himself hard, and had a difficult time producing a high level without that amount of work.

Assumptions are very prevalent in this sport and I also had one 2 or 3 years ago that Federer was going to get 17-18 slams quite handily. Well that one hasn't worked out to well either.

Dini
06-14-2009, 06:36 PM
I do feel he's being slightly underestimated here. Just the one loss and people start questioning whether he's even going to win anymore outside of FO.

prima donna
06-14-2009, 06:37 PM
Until now, you're (only partially) right. But my point is that he CAN use experience and changes to his game to improve his results. He's already done it as someone pointed out. Just take a look at his style on hard in 2006 and now and tell me you see no difference.
Sure, there's been a slight improvement in his serve. He also plays closer to the baseline on grass courts. Although I'm not so sure why it comes as a big surprise to you that Nadal would win the Australian Open. It has a history of producing winners of his ilk.

What are these changes that you believe he'll incorporate into his game ? Is he suddenly going to become a serve-and-volleyer ? More aggressive play will inevitably lead to a higher error count, which undermines his best attribute: his consistency. I'm not disputing that Nadal can win a few more Grand Slams, but it seems odd to assume that tinkering with his game is going to prove sufficient to win nine more of them.

Oh, and who's to say that Roger won't win another Grand Slam, perhaps even two ? This "Fedal" talk has been blown out of proportion. Why can't Nadal follow his own career path ?

GlennMirnyi
06-14-2009, 06:38 PM
I do feel he's being slightly underestimated here. Just the one loss and people start questioning whether he's even going to win anymore outside of FO.

Nadull is the most overrated player in the history of the sport. What's your problem?

Dini
06-14-2009, 06:39 PM
Nadull is the most overrated player in the history of the sport. What's your problem?

:spit:

6 GS and 15 Masters Shields aged 23. Overrated. :worship:

MalwareDie
06-14-2009, 06:45 PM
Nadull is the most overrated player in the history of the sport. What's your problem?

x2.

prima donna
06-14-2009, 06:47 PM
.
What I posted above about him, "needing to play that much" is something new I'm starting to believe. Do I know it's true, absolutely not, it is just a suspicion. But it would not be new in any sport to have a guy that thrived on driving himself hard, and had a difficult time producing a high level without that amount of work.
You've hit the nail on the head. Nadal does require plenty of match play, his game is based on repetition, not so much precision. He can't just sit around sipping Martinis in Mallorca for three weeks and then suddenly return to dominate the tour.

This is yet another effect of the Fedal syndrome (anything that Federer can do, Rafael should be able to do it as well, given his domination of their so-called rivalry). Roger literally worked himself into shape at Toronto (2006) following an extended, post-Wimbledon break. Each match went to three sets, but his game is about timing, not supreme fitness or repetition.

Start da Game
06-14-2009, 06:50 PM
do not underestimate rafa, he can easily continue till 28, 29 or even 30.......he is blessed with unmatched physique and tolerance levels(mentally and physically towards injuries).......it's just his brainless scheduling that's landing him in troubles quite often.......he has been devising headless schedules right since 2007 and he needed a lesson.......he got it now, an FO loss, biggest loss in his career.......playing exos in abu dhabi, going to rotterdam, playing doubles early in the season were unpardonable mistakes and he paid a steep price for it.......he had to skip either barcelona or madrid and he didn't.......that just added to all the reasons for his flunk at FO......

the deal is this......bagging 3 or 4 more FOs which he can and that's a huge plus to the whole prospect......1 more AO and a US......2 wimbledons will come somewhere down the line......he just needs to schedule wisely, we will see him finish off seasons with ease and little or no injuries.......at the moment, he is fooling himself with overplaying......doubles and useless hardcourt events are a total NO NO......

it seems like he has started to learn.......an immediate NO to the queen's, the only prep for wimbledon.......he would have gone to queen's like a fool, had he won the FO.......

Start da Game
06-14-2009, 06:53 PM
You've hit the nail on the head. Nadal does require plenty of match play, his game is based on repetition, not so much precision. He can't just sit around sipping Martinis in Mallorca for three weeks and then suddenly return to dominate the tour.

This is yet another effect of the Fedal syndrome (anything that Federer can do, Rafael should be able to do it as well, given his domination of their so-called rivalry). Roger literally worked himself into shape at Toronto (2006) following an extended, post-Wimbledon break. Each match went to three sets, but his game is about timing, not supreme fitness or repetition.

that's true as well.......but he plays much more than what's required.......there was no need to involve in doubles, exos and useless tournaments.......if he just plays the mandatory events, he will finish off the season without any injury.......the problem is, he continues to play tournaments like rotterdam and doubles everywhere every year.......like i said in my post above, he may have started to learn from his mistakes, saying NO to queen's.......

prima donna
06-14-2009, 06:54 PM
the deal is this......bagging 3 or 4 more FOs which he can and that's a huge plus to the whole prospect......1 more AO and a US......2 wimbledons will come somewhere down the line
All right.

luie
06-14-2009, 07:11 PM
Some delusional people here, Nadal will be running around the court until his 30s? Really?

Can someone please take some player who did as much running as Nadal on the court and lasted that much time?

Agassi was a really poor example, he rarely even moved at the back of the court, he hit so hard and just found a position where he could push his opponents around. Also look at his swings, so effortless, so short and saving so much energy. Look at the Nadal forehand swing, most brutal swing I have seen.
I think many people overated agassi's longevity playing into his 30's even federer I might add "saying I want to play as long as agassi etc" the point is during 1996 -98 agassi wasn't a consistent slam performer he didn;t go consistently deep in slams on a regular basis ,in 1997 he dropped to 109 in the world and he played a las vegas challenger as part of his recovery back to the top.In short there was less wear & tear on his body during this time thus "preserving"him physically so to speak. Both federer & nadull go consistently deep in slams & other tournys year after year with not let-up,this will definetely take a toll on their bodies as time goes on ,if they have ambitions to play late in their career.
Federer has an advantage atleast his game isn't so taxing on the body coupled with the fact he has a good serve to get cheap points.In any-event anything is possibly but logically speaking based on the history of the sport its a tough ask,more-so if agassi is the role model.

ballbasher101
06-14-2009, 07:24 PM
It has been said by others and I will say it again. The Federer game is smooth and requires little effort thus he gets little to no injuries. The Nadal game is rough and is very bruising to the body thus the foot and knee problems. Nadal is 23 but he has the body of a 27 year old. Winning majors is going to be tough for Nadal so I do not see him winning 14 majors. He could reach 12 majors if he changed his game a bit to make it easy on his body. Another thing he should do is trim the number of tournaments he plays.

Greenday
06-14-2009, 07:25 PM
i am not denying federer's french title......but another truth - whenever rafa reached federer, federer lost 6 times and won twice.......lost on clay, grass and hardcourts.......won on grass......

Dude...! Tennis is about matchups...You dont compare how great a player is with his win-loss record against a particular player....Roger's style suits rafa.....there are plenty of players who can hit rafa off the court on hardcourt....but not roger....all those players who have winning record against rafa are not great than rafa.....Rafa wasn't good enough to make finals on hard court slams.....there are plenty of players who can defeat rafa on a hardcourt slam.......very few who can even challenge roger on a hardcourt slam.....

And Rafa winning more slams than roger by the time he is 28 is not going to happen...NEVER....The guy isn't going to have an easy time defeatig murray , djokovic, federer in a hard court slam.....not to mention the younger generation tht will ne on scene in 2-3 yrs time...

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 07:36 PM
Sure, there's been a slight improvement in his serve. He also plays closer to the baseline on grass courts. Although I'm not so sure why it comes as a big surprise to you that Nadal would win the Australian Open. It has a history of producing winners of his ilk.

:lol: Come on, let your bias aside for a moment. It was a fair and square win by Nadal against Federer on a hard court slam final. No asterisks.

What are these changes that you believe he'll incorporate into his game ? Is he suddenly going to become a serve-and-volleyer ? More aggressive play will inevitably lead to a higher error count, which undermines his best attribute: his consistency. I'm not disputing that Nadal can win a few more Grand Slams, but it seems odd to assume that tinkering with his game is going to prove sufficient to win nine more of them.

Oh, and who's to say that Roger won't win another Grand Slam, perhaps even two ? This "Fedal" talk has been blown out of proportion. Why can't Nadal follow his own career path ?

His consistency could suffer, but it's all about weighing things. He has room for improvement on hard.

prima donna
06-14-2009, 07:48 PM
:lol: Come on, let your bias aside for a moment. It was a fair and square win by Nadal against Federer on a hard court slam final. No asterisks.
What bias ?
Australian Open Champs:
Ivan Lendl
Jim Courier - (92, 93)
Petr Korda
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Thomas Johansson
Novak Djokovic

US Open Champs:
Edberg (91, 92)
Sampras (93, 95, 96, '02)
Agassi (95)
Hewitt (01)
Federer (04, 05, 06, 07, 08)

In what way is it partial to recognize that players of Nadal's ilk have enjoyed success in Australia ? The conditions in Melbourne make it impossible for the court to play identical to Arthur Ashe Stadium in Flushing Meadows. It doesn't matter what surface they put down. It remains the slower of the two hard court slams played.

I'm not taking anything away from Nadal's victory, but why are you surprised that a player like Nadal would win the Australian Open ? There's no reason to be.




His consistency could suffer, but it's all about weighing things. He has room for improvement on hard.
And ? Djokovic has room for improvement on grass, Murray has room for improvement on clay, what does that mean ? A little bit of tinkering here and there and Nadal will find himself with 15 Grand Slam titles in his trophy room ?

habibko
06-14-2009, 07:51 PM
I'm not taking anything away from Nadal's victory, but why are you surprised that a player like Nadal would win the Australian Open ? There's no reason to be.

if AO is the fluke slam, how do you justify Nadal winning Wimbledon?

prima donna
06-14-2009, 07:58 PM
if AO is the fluke slam, how do you justify Nadal winning Wimbledon?
Cite the specific message in which I conclude that Nadal's Australian Open title was a fluke. He won an event which has produced a myriad of champions. That's a simple fact, not a way of undermining his hard court prowess.

Let's expand on that: He'll probably win another Australian Open title before his career is done, but this doesn't alter fundamental facts.

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 08:19 PM
What bias ?
Australian Open Champs:
Ivan Lendl
Jim Courier - (92, 93)
Petr Korda
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Thomas Johansson
Novak Djokovic

US Open Champs:
Edberg (91, 92)
Sampras (93, 95, 96, '02)
Agassi (95)
Hewitt (01)
Federer (04, 05, 06, 07, 08)

In what way is it partial to recognize that players of Nadal's ilk have enjoyed success in Australia ? The conditions in Melbourne make it impossible for the court to play identical to Arthur Ashe Stadium in Flushing Meadows. It doesn't matter what surface they put down. It remains the slower of the two hard court slams played.

I'm not taking anything away from Nadal's victory, but why are you surprised that a player like Nadal would win the Australian Open ? There's no reason to be.

What does "players of Nadal's ilk" mean? The past means nothing. It doesn't make it any easier for players to beat their opponents. Nadal beat Verdasco playing the match of his life and Federer in the final. That is one hell of a win. I was surprised because I didn't expect Nadal to win a hard court slam any time soon, let alone beat Federer in the final. The bookies agreed with me BTW.

Also, the surface at use now at the AO is much faster than the previous Rebound Ace. Significantly faster. Slower than the DecoTurf (the fastest hard court on the tour), but not slow at all. And how exactly do the conditions at the AO make it slow by default when compared to the USO? If anything, the contrary would be true.



And ? Djokovic has room for improvement on grass, Murray has room for improvement on clay, what does that mean ? A little bit of tinkering here and there and Nadal will find himself with 15 Grand Slam titles in his trophy room ?

I never said that.

I haven't seen Murray or Djokovic adjust their games the way Nadal has. Of course that doesn't mean they can't do it.

prima donna
06-14-2009, 08:32 PM
What does "players of Nadal's ilk" mean?
It means that normally success at Roland Garros can be used as a measuring stick for success at the Australian Open. This logic can't be applied to the '80s when the Australian Open was of scarce importance, not to mention the fact that it was played on grass.

Jim Courier ? Kafelnikov ? Look at their results on clay. When you have players like this winning titles at the venue in question, why are you surprised that Nadal would do the same ? Yes, the surface is different, but that doesn't change the conditions. I would expect Nadal to get the better of Roger at this tournament more times than not.


I never said that.
I haven't seen Murray or Djokovic adjust their games the way Nadal has. Of course that doesn't mean they can't do it.
What's implicit in your view is that the window is opening, not closing. Moreover, in your view, there are no outside variables which affect Nadal's play on hard court -- or any surface for that matter.

Nadal will improve his game, ergo he should be able to continue winning slams on hard and grass, as if there weren't other players or as if the extent of his talent were infinite. I'm not being unfair, I just don't think Nadal is good enough to dominate, which is what he'd need to do in order to amass 15 Grand Slams. I think he's very mediocre on hard court. Go watch the Tsonga/Nadal match in '08 for further evidence of this claim, also USO '08.

The reality is that Nadal's future hinges upon his ability to avoid big hitters in the draw -- apparently on all surfaces but grass (where he's defeated the likes of Youhzny, Berdych, Soderling, Baghdatis, Djokovic, Federer, etc).

I doubt that learning to volley better will transform him into the next Pete Sampras.

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 08:37 PM
It means that normally success at Roland Garros can be used as a measuring stick for success at the Australian Open. This logic can't be applied to the '80s when the Australian Open was of scarce importance, not to mention the fact that it was played on grass.

Jim Courier ? Kafelnikov ? Look at their results on clay. When you have players like this winning titles at the venue in question, why are you surprised that Nadal would do the same ? Yes, the surface is different, but that doesn't change the conditions.

How the hell does it not? You still haven't said what conditions you're talking about.

What's implicit in your view is that the window is opening, not closing. Moreover, in your view, there are no outside variables which affect Nadal's play on hard court -- or any surface for that matter.

Nadal will improve his game, ergo he should be able to continue winning slams on hard and grass, as if there weren't other players or as if the extent of his talent were infinite. I'm not being unfair, I just don't think Nadal is good enough to dominate, which is what he'd need to do in order to amass 15 Grand Slams. I think he's very mediocre on hard court. Go watch the Tsonga/Nadal match in '08 for further evidence of this claim.

The reality is that Nadal's future hinges upon his ability to avoid big hitters in the draw -- apparently on all surfaces but grass (where he's defeated the likes of Youhzny, Berdych, Soderling, Baghdatis, Djokovic, Federer, etc).

I doubt that learning to volley better will transform him into the next Pete Sampras.

Let me put it this way: I think Nadal has more room for improvement on hard than Murray, Djokovic or Tsonga have. I didn't say the window is opening, I'm saying it CAN open.

prima donna
06-14-2009, 09:11 PM
How the hell does it not? You still haven't said what conditions you're talking about.
Agassi loved playing in the Australian heat because he'd just run players from side to side until they'd eventually collapse, figuratively speaking. Courier and Kafelnikov were both in excellent shape. Courier would actually go for a jog with his coach following exhausting matches; that is, exhausting according to human standards.

Nadal is in the best shape of all the current players. Why is it surprising that the conditions would work in his favor ? He was good enough to win in Australia three years ago, problem is he encountered Hewitt on two occasions, while losing to Tsonga and Gonzalez in 07' and '08. He probably should've lost to Verdasco this year, but things don't always go as planned.

What would have been different had '06 Fed met the same Nadal who basically dominated him for 2 1/2 sets the previous year in Miami ? Nothing. The draw worked out well this time, and Nadal was finally able to exorcise his demons.

More on the conditions: it's not as though the tournament has undergone a drastic change, like, say, replacing a grass court with rebound ace. Hard is used at two of the Grand Slams, yet one is slower than the other. Why is that so ? Conditions matter. Melbourne isn't Flushing Meadows and Flushing Meadows isn't Melbourne.



Let me put it this way: I think Nadal has more room for improvement on hard than Murray, Djokovic or Tsonga have. I didn't say the window is opening, I'm saying it CAN open.
I think that Nadal has peaked, which isn't to say that he won't win any more Grand Slam titles. I just don't think he's capable of getting any better. It's not as though there aren't improvements to be made, but, in my opinion, he's not as versatile as you seem to believe.

I think he needs the draw to open up in order to give himself a legitimate shot. I'm not falling into the trap of, well, he dominates one of the greatest players of all time, therefore he's capable of doing anything. No, that isn't so. He's very mediocre on hard courts, and he should be losing more often than winning when it comes to the latter stages of hard court events.

You're entitled to disagree, that's fine. We have differing views: you see infinite potential, I see finite potential.

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 09:56 PM
Agassi loved playing in the Australian heat because he'd just run players from side to side until they'd eventually collapse, figuratively speaking. Courier and Kafelnikov were both in excellent shape. Courier would actually go for a jog with his coach following exhausting matches; that is, exhausting according to human standards.

Nadal is in the best shape of all the current players. Why is it surprising that the conditions would work in his favor ? He was good enough to win in Australia three years ago, problem is he encountered Hewitt on two occasions, while losing to Tsonga and Gonzalez in 07' and '08. He probably should've lost to Verdasco this year, but things don't always go as planned.

What would have been different had '06 Fed met the same Nadal who basically dominated him for 2 1/2 sets the previous year in Miami ? Nothing. The draw worked out well this time, and Nadal was finally able to exorcise his demons.

More on the conditions: it's not as though the tournament has undergone a drastic change, like, say, replacing a grass court with rebound ace. Hard is used at two of the Grand Slams, yet one is slower than the other. Why is that so ? Conditions matter. Melbourne isn't Flushing Meadows and Flushing Meadows isn't Melbourne.

You forgot to cite the fact that the higher temperatures and the semi-closed Rod Laver Arena (totally closed at times) make the ball travel much faster through the air than at the USO, on average. Verdasco was the most in-form player at the last USO. The surface at the AO is slower than the one at the USO, but significantly less than it used to be.

I think that Nadal has peaked, which isn't to say that he won't win any more Grand Slam titles. I just don't think he's capable of getting any better. It's not as though there aren't improvements to be made, but, in my opinion, he's not as versatile as you seem to believe.

I think he needs the draw to open up in order to give himself a legitimate shot. I'm not falling into the trap of, well, he dominates one of the greatest players of all time, therefore he's capable of doing anything. No, that isn't so. He's very mediocre on hard courts, and he should be losing more often than winning when it comes to the latter stages of hard court events.

You're entitled to disagree, that's fine. We have differing views: you see infinite potential, I see finite potential.

There is no such thing as infinite potential.

lessthanjake
06-14-2009, 10:11 PM
Let me just clarify about the whole "conditions" thing. Australia is absurdly hot frequently in the Australian Open. Players who have the most stamina (ie. generally clay court players) have an advantage in this regard. Furthermore, the actual surface at Australia is slower than the decoturf of the US Open. Wimbledon has weirdly gotten slow recently, and the new Aussie surface is faster than Rebound Ace BUT the Australian Open is still probably the second slowest surface of the four slams. Combine that with the heat issue, and players who excel on clay also do pretty well there. Courier, Lendl, Kafelnikov, Wilander, and Djokovic all won the Australian Open.

That is not to say that other types of players don't do well too. Sampras and Becker each won twice. The Australian Open probably features the greatest diversity in terms of the types of players who win. However, the point is that it is not a huge surprise that Nadal could win in Australia since clay courters frequently do well there.

prima donna
06-14-2009, 10:14 PM
The surface at the AO is slower than the one at the USO, but significantly less than it used to be.
So, you acknowledge that the conditions and speed are different, just not to such a radical extent as in the 90s, nevertheless the conditions aren't the same.


There is no such thing as infinite potential.
Then what would you call this sort of optimism that you have about Nadal's potential to improve as a player ? This is an effect of the Fedal syndrome, these sorts of discussions wouldn't be happening were it not for Nadal's winning record over a player of Federer's stature. It's rooted in the belief that Nadal's potential is infinite.

I mean, sure, Nadal can do anything that Fed can do. We'll see how that works out.

prima donna
06-14-2009, 10:17 PM
Let me just clarify about the whole "conditions" thing. Australia is absurdly hot frequently in the Australian Open. Players who have the most stamina (ie. generally clay court players) have an advantage in this regard. Furthermore, the actual surface at Australia is slower than the decoturf of the US Open. Wimbledon has weirdly gotten slow recently, and the new Aussie surface is faster than Rebound Ace BUT the Australian Open is still probably the second slowest surface of the four slams. Combine that with the heat issue, and players who excel on clay also do pretty well there. Courier, Lendl, Kafelnikov, Wilander, and Djokovic all won the Australian Open.

That is not to say that other types of players don't do well too. Sampras and Becker each won twice. The Australian Open probably features the greatest diversity in terms of the types of players who win. However, the point is that it is not a huge surprise that Nadal could win in Australia since clay courters frequently do well there.
Exactly what I've been trying to articulate.

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 10:49 PM
So, you acknowledge that the conditions and speed are different, just not to such a radical extent as in the 90s, nevertheless the conditions aren't the same.

Of course they aren't the same. How could they?

Then what would you call this sort of optimism that you have about Nadal's potential to improve as a player ? This is an effect of the Fedal syndrome, these sorts of discussions wouldn't be happening were it not for Nadal's winning record over a player of Federer's stature. It's rooted in the belief that Nadal's potential is infinite.

I mean, sure, Nadal can do anything that Fed can do. We'll see how that works out.

I can answer for myself, not for others. Again, I believe Nadal has a bigger room for improvement, especially on grass, than all the other top guns except maybe Del Potro. It's just my opinion.

Har-Tru
06-14-2009, 10:52 PM
Let me just clarify about the whole "conditions" thing. Australia is absurdly hot frequently in the Australian Open. Players who have the most stamina (ie. generally clay court players) have an advantage in this regard. Furthermore, the actual surface at Australia is slower than the decoturf of the US Open. Wimbledon has weirdly gotten slow recently, and the new Aussie surface is faster than Rebound Ace BUT the Australian Open is still probably the second slowest surface of the four slams. Combine that with the heat issue, and players who excel on clay also do pretty well there. Courier, Lendl, Kafelnikov, Wilander, and Djokovic all won the Australian Open.

That is not to say that other types of players don't do well too. Sampras and Becker each won twice. The Australian Open probably features the greatest diversity in terms of the types of players who win. However, the point is that it is not a huge surprise that Nadal could win in Australia since clay courters frequently do well there.

That's fair enough, I don't negate that. But it's not fair on the other hand to deny the fact that the heat benefits a faster play and therefore attacking styles. Once we start, let's say it all. Also, it's tricky trying to compare past results in Australia because the surface is different now.

BigJohn
06-14-2009, 10:54 PM
Of course not. Nadal will retire before Federer.

TennisGrandSlam
06-14-2009, 10:57 PM
Exactly what I've been trying to articulate.


Nothing is impossible,

but everything is difficult.

Rafa' splendid achievement is based on his health and strength.

Rafa may exhausts his health soon if he continues to play on his current style.

Start da Game
06-15-2009, 06:39 AM
Dude...! Tennis is about matchups...You dont compare how great a player is with his win-loss record against a particular player....Roger's style suits rafa.....there are plenty of players who can hit rafa off the court on hardcourt....but not roger....all those players who have winning record against rafa are not great than rafa.....Rafa wasn't good enough to make finals on hard court slams.....there are plenty of players who can defeat rafa on a hardcourt slam.......very few who can even challenge roger on a hardcourt slam.....

And Rafa winning more slams than roger by the time he is 28 is not going to happen...NEVER....The guy isn't going to have an easy time defeatig murray , djokovic, federer in a hard court slam.....not to mention the younger generation tht will ne on scene in 2-3 yrs time...

match ups? amazing how you all come up with new excuses all the time.......when rafa was beating him only on clay, you all said he was born to win on clay and outside of it, he can't beat fed......when rafa lost those two wimbledon finals, you affirmed your claims that rafa cannot beat fed outside of clay in slams.......now once when rafa got into his own and gunned down federer on grass and hardcourts in slams, you come up with the bad match up excuse.......

look, champion players sort out any player and try to beat them.......rafa has no match up problems, even if he had any, he could sort out everyone.......look, he is beating djokovic and murray in the same way he does against federer.......where is the question of match up?

it's not that federer does not have the game to beat rafa, it's just that he doesn't have the athleticism that matches rafa's.......against rafa, federer doesn't have the required footspeed to run around his backhand, take the balls on his forehand and cover the open court for the next shot, something which rafa does with ease against any opponent and something which federer does against every opponent excluding rafa and murray.......

so credit where it is due........you can't call it a bad matchup if you allow a player to dominate you 6-2 in slams.......there is something more than that........

Start da Game
06-15-2009, 06:48 AM
What bias ?
Australian Open Champs:
Ivan Lendl
Jim Courier - (92, 93)
Petr Korda
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Thomas Johansson
Novak Djokovic

US Open Champs:
Edberg (91, 92)
Sampras (93, 95, 96, '02)
Agassi (95)
Hewitt (01)
Federer (04, 05, 06, 07, 08)

In what way is it partial to recognize that players of Nadal's ilk have enjoyed success in Australia ? The conditions in Melbourne make it impossible for the court to play identical to Arthur Ashe Stadium in Flushing Meadows. It doesn't matter what surface they put down. It remains the slower of the two hard court slams played.

I'm not taking anything away from Nadal's victory, but why are you surprised that a player like Nadal would win the Australian Open ? There's no reason to be.




And ? Djokovic has room for improvement on grass, Murray has room for improvement on clay, what does that mean ? A little bit of tinkering here and there and Nadal will find himself with 15 Grand Slam titles in his trophy room ?

wait, are you trying to say that rafa cannot play on fast courts? tomorrow if he beats federer or murray at the us open, i will be eagerly waiting for the excuse that is brought to the table........

on another account, by the repeated mention of 'slow courts', you are unintentionally admitting that federer cannot handle rafa on slow courts......i thought federer could?

p.s. the new AO surfaces are medium fast......

Mimi
06-15-2009, 06:54 AM
not possible, given his injury-prone body, should he find a way to improve his fitness and serves, i would be happy that he can get 2-3 more, to be honest :wavey:

twisturhead
06-15-2009, 07:50 AM
match ups? amazing how you all come up with new excuses all the time.......when rafa was beating him only on clay, you all said he was born to win on clay and outside of it, he can't beat fed......when rafa lost those two wimbledon finals, you affirmed your claims that rafa cannot beat fed outside of clay in slams.......now once when rafa got into his own and gunned down federer on grass and hardcourts in slams, you come up with the bad match up excuse.......

look, champion players sort out any player and try to beat them.......rafa has no match up problems, even if he had any, he could sort out everyone.......look, he is beating djokovic and murray in the same way he does against federer.......where is the question of match up?

it's not that federer does not have the game to beat rafa, it's just that he doesn't have the athleticism that matches rafa's.......against rafa, federer doesn't have the required footspeed to run around his backhand, take the balls on his forehand and cover the open court for the next shot, something which rafa does with ease against any opponent and something which federer does against every opponent excluding rafa and murray.......

so credit where it is due........you can't call it a bad matchup if you allow a player to dominate you 6-2 in slams.......there is something more than that........

i dont see how this answers if rafa will win more slams than fed

JediFed
06-15-2009, 07:56 AM
He reminds me of Wilander.

Wilander, 7 to Nadal's 6.

Mechlan
06-15-2009, 08:34 AM
so credit where it is due........you can't call it a bad matchup if you allow a player to dominate you 6-2 in slams.......there is something more than that........

Isn't that the definition of a bad matchup? Especially if the other player is beating you on your preferred surfaces?

I always thought that Federer would have a lot of trouble getting the last few slams, and I have the feeling Rafa is starting to enter that stage too. Given his relatively younger age, Rafa might have more years at his peak than did Federer, but his drop will also be a little faster.

Joao
06-15-2009, 04:03 PM
People were all excited about the fact that Nadal had won 6 GS (already!) before he turned 23, a pace that was so promising and so much better than Federer's (3 GS before his 23rd BD). But just to catch up with Federer, Nadal has to win now 8 GS in the next 5 years (to get to 14 GS by the age of 28) and this if Federer never wins another slam. Meaning Nadal has to stay on a 1-2 GS/year pace for the next 5 years. Not impossible ... but is it realistic given his knees problems? I don't think so.

But we'll have a better picture after Wimbledon once we know how his knees have recovered ...

DrJules
06-20-2009, 03:56 PM
The answer looks less and less likely.

Allez
06-21-2009, 09:31 AM
People were all excited about the fact that Nadal had won 6 GS (already!) before he turned 23, a pace that was so promising and so much better than Federer's (3 GS before his 23rd BD). But just to catch up with Federer, Nadal has to win now 8 GS in the next 5 years (to get to 14 GS by the age of 28) and this if Federer never wins another slam. Meaning Nadal has to stay on a 1-2 GS/year pace for the next 5 years. Not impossible ... but is it realistic given his knees problems? I don't think so.

But we'll have a better picture after Wimbledon once we know how his knees have recovered ...

I think this whole "knees" issue is being overhyped. Roddick & Nadal himself have said this is more of a condition than a career threatening injury. Nadal will be on the tour for years to come. 6 slams at the age of 23 is still an impressive enough haul to make it at least plausible that he will have overtaken Federer by the time he's done. Other than Murray and possibly Grigor Dimitrov (when he's ready) I see no one else who can challenge a fully fit Nadal on a consistent basis. Sure you'll get an inspired somebody from time to time (Tsonga, Sordeling etc), but I don't think those will be enough to account for him not winning 8 more slams over the next 8 years (during which time a total of 32 slams will have been played) a feat which can't even be described as "dominance". 1 slam per season over the next 8 years is not such an outrageous prediction for someone of Nadal's calibre.

Bagelicious
06-21-2009, 09:34 AM
I'm with Allez on this, it's still feasible.

Caerula Sanguis
06-21-2009, 09:37 AM
The problem is Federer's not gonna stop at 14 slams.

The Oracle
06-21-2009, 09:38 AM
People give me alotta hardship because of my "anti-Federer"(?) comments.....

But I say no....Federer will have more grand slams than Nadal.....

Allez
06-21-2009, 10:08 AM
The problem is Federer's not gonna stop at 14 slams.

Yeah... there's always that caveat. Let's see where we are at the end of this season. If Fed has won neither one of the remaining 2 slams then Nadal's chances go up dramatically, especially if he wins the Open.

Commander Data
06-21-2009, 10:30 AM
considering Rafas style of play and his health issues the answer is very obvious.