Can Federer beat Nadal in slams here after? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Can Federer beat Nadal in slams here after?

Start da Game
06-16-2009, 06:40 PM
federer was quick and impressive to grab the FO once rafa bowed out early.......but the question remains.......can federer beat nadal in slams here after? he has done it only twice in the past, both victories on grass at wimbledon.......last time, 2 years ago.......what do you all think?

Certinfy
06-16-2009, 06:41 PM
Yes most defo.

bokehlicious
06-16-2009, 06:42 PM
As long as most of the time some big hitter manages to take down Rafa before the finals, who cares?

Start da Game
06-16-2009, 06:46 PM
As long as most of the time some big hitter manages to take down Rafa before the finals, who cares?

the point is, federer trails 2-6 in slams against his biggest opponent in his career.......won't that be a minus on his resume and isn't it important for him to gun down rafa a few times at slams?

bokehlicious
06-16-2009, 06:51 PM
the point is, federer trails 2-6 in slams against his biggest opponent in his career.......won't that be a minus on his resume and isn't it important for him to gun down rafa a few times at slams?

It might be a minus :shrug: but as long as he holds the slams record (and plenty of other records), no-one will really care (except for doubters/haters).

Start da Game
06-16-2009, 06:55 PM
It might be a minus :shrug: but as long as he holds the slams record (and plenty of other records), no-one will really care (except for doubters/haters).

yep his record is impressive but stats and records is what matters? not victories over big players? i still remember how satisfied federer was when he beat rafa at wimbledon in 2007.......

Vida
06-16-2009, 06:56 PM
It might be a minus :shrug: but as long as he holds the slams record (and plenty of other records), no-one will really care (except for doubters/haters).

many people will care. how can you be the goat, if you are owned by a (much younger) fellow rival?

bokehlicious
06-16-2009, 06:59 PM
many people will care. how can you be the goat, if you are owned by a (much younger) fellow rival?

Again, as long as this rival doesn't hold most records, only haters will care :shrug:

Vida
06-16-2009, 07:04 PM
simply not true mate. there are plenny of people who are neither fanboys nor haters, simply objective observers. they do exist you know.

and objectively looking at things - he is owned, and records, though amazing, can be put into context. I guess you can guess which.

born_on_clay
06-16-2009, 07:08 PM
Federer is too weak mentally to win against healthy Rafa especially in Grand Slams

Burrow
06-16-2009, 07:15 PM
many people will care. how can you be the goat, if you are owned by a (much younger) fellow rival?

Well there you have it... :retard:

Shadow Knows
06-16-2009, 07:16 PM
Of course he can. Nadal owes his Wimbledon and Australian Open wins entirely to random distribution and ad scoring. Federer outplayed him each time, both in the aggregate and in three of five sets.

"Champions win the big points" is only true because it's circular. He who wins the most highly-leveraged points will necessarily be victorious; however; there's precious little evidence that players control the distribution of their performance. Over meaningful samples, the percentage of break points saved or converted regresses toward the percentage of points won on serve or return overall, and the number of service and return games won regresses toward the number expected given the percentages of points won.

Ad scoring doesn't separate champions from pretenders, it just adds an element of randomness that confuses the issue.

Joao
06-16-2009, 07:17 PM
Here we go again ...

Federer has had many victories in GS over "big players" like you call them, including 2 against Nadal. I agree it would be nice if he could get a few more against Nadal, but really it's not that important if Nadal ends up with significantly less GS than Federer. Nadal will not be included in the "GOAT" discussion (if he doesn't get at least 10GS) whereas as of today Federer already is included. And if Nadal is not in the discussion, you can only compare Federer to players who are in the discussion. So no, those victories against Nadal won't be that important.

But, to answer the question, I definitely think Federer will "get" Nadal again in a GS.

Ariadne
06-16-2009, 07:18 PM
Does not matter as long as he reaches slam finals and wins them regardless of Nadal's presence or lack thereof. I for one, actually WANT Nadal to face off against Federer in more slam finals (other than the French :o) to address the head-to-head.

Vida
06-16-2009, 07:20 PM
Well there you have it... :retard:

nadal was pounding fed while he was in his prime, and you wont tell me that last years wimby was an 'old fed' - for example. dont even mention monorail, people who actually have that might get insulted.

Vida
06-16-2009, 07:22 PM
Here we go again ...

Federer has had many victories in GS over "big players" like you call them, including 2 against Nadal. I agree it would be nice if he could get a few more against Nadal, but really it's not that important if Nadal ends up with significantly less GS than Federer. Nadal will not be included in the "GOAT" discussion (if he doesn't get at least 10GS) whereas as of today Federer already is included. And if Nadal is not in the discussion, you can only compare Federer to players who are in the discussion. So no, those victories against Nadal won't be that important.

But, to answer the question, I definitely think Federer will "get" Nadal again in a GS.

interesting argument, but sadly holds no merit. what difference does it matter if Nadal isnt a goat candidate? you can only wage those who he played against.

guy is great, but is still owned. those are the facts, and from there on it is a matter of opinion, taste and preference.

Arkulari
06-16-2009, 07:25 PM
Federer is too weak mentally to win against healthy Rafa especially in Grand Slams

I hate that people always think that Rafa is tired or injured when he loses, the guy is human as well!!! :banghead:

if it was only for mental issues, Roger would have never beaten him on Madrid, he would have found a way to choke :shrug:

Roger has a shot at either Wimbledon or the USO (specially the latter), but I don't see him beating Rafa at the AO or at RG :shrug:

Joao
06-16-2009, 07:26 PM
interesting argument, but sadly holds no merit. what difference does it matter if Nadal isnt a goat candidate? you can only wage those who he played against.

guy is great, but is still owned. those are the facts, and from there on it is a matter of opinion, taste and preference.

Well all people are talking about nowadays is about who's the GOAT. So if Nadal is not in the discussion, his H2H against Federer won't matter ... well at least not for the GOAT discussion which was one of the points of the OP.

prima donna
06-16-2009, 07:33 PM
but I don't see him beating Rafa at the AO or at RG :shrug:
Roger lost in five sets in Australia, so the gap is by no means as wide as it is at Roland Garros. Moreover, Roger is a 3-time Australian Open champion, which proves that he's no slouch at the venue in question.

On that basis, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

Arkulari
06-16-2009, 07:37 PM
we can agree on disagree :yeah: :hug:

prima donna
06-16-2009, 07:43 PM
we can agree on disagree :yeah: :hug:
I suppose, although I do think that it's rather far-fetched to dismiss Roger's chances at beating Nadal in Australia on the basis that he lost a closely contested match in five sets.

There isn't much substance to support such an assertion; on the other hand, Roger has lost four times to Nadal at Roland Garros, thus it's logical that one might be dismissive of his chances.

Start da Game
06-16-2009, 07:59 PM
simply not true mate. there are plenny of people who are neither fanboys nor haters, simply objective observers. they do exist you know.

and objectively looking at things - he is owned, and records, though amazing, can be put into context. I guess you can guess which.

concurred, raising questions doesn't constitute a hate-filled jab or makes the questioner a hater.......just out of curiosity that we discuss a lot of things, which i think is much better than terming players pigs and saying they are roasted with just one defeat.......

concurred again.......however way you look at it, he is owned by a certain player and he needs to set the matters straight by beating that very player if he wants to be the GOAT......i don't know how this will not be on fed's agenda in the coming seasons.......it wouldn't be a big deal if fed lost to him in masters but it's the slams that we are looking at here and one cannot brush aside the slam contests just like that.......trailing 2-6 in slams against your biggest rival is normally not a GOAT's stat, at least in my view.......

Vida
06-16-2009, 08:03 PM
Well all people are talking about nowadays is about who's the GOAT. So if Nadal is not in the discussion, his H2H against Federer won't matter ... well at least not for the GOAT discussion which was one of the points of the OP.

but than there isnt a goat, since none of the players who played against each other in some time-related proximity, were goat candidates. Agassi wasnt surely, nor was JMac, Connors perhaps to Borg, but that is far fetched as well. Of the guys before, Laver never had a rival who was a goat candidate, none that I can remember at least, Gonzales was too old... so by your line of reasoning, there isnt a goat, and paradoxically I agree with that.

the way I see it, there is no goat at present (maybe Gonzales who played like 40 years), but for Fed to be goat, he would have to do much more. he doesnt have no 1 total record, nor GS total record. he has a disastrous record against Nadal - and Murray. so not even game-wise (something that many Fed fans insist upon) he is 'the best'. besides, the 'weak competition' does have something to with it. roddick is feds baby, but a VERY consistent one, Nalby, Safin, Hewitt have theirs non-game minuses, and so on. so lets wait until feds career is over.

Vida
06-16-2009, 08:04 PM
concurred, raising questions doesn't constitute a hate-filled jab or makes the questioner a hater.......just out of curiosity that we discuss a lot of things, which i think is much better than terming players pigs and saying they are roasted with just one defeat.......

concurred again.......however way you look at it, he is owned by a certain player and he needs to set the matters straight by beating that very player if he wants to be the GOAT......i don't know how this will not be on fed's agenda in the coming seasons.......it wouldn't be a big deal if fed lost to him in masters but it's the slams that we are looking at here and one cannot brush aside the slam contests just like that.......trailing 2-6 in slams against your biggest rival is normally not a GOAT's stat, at least in my view.......

quite so.

Lebeuf
06-16-2009, 08:13 PM
Federer is too weak mentally to win against healthy Rafa especially in Grand Slams

Were you really born on clay?
Like your mother was playing tennis ( on clay ) while pregnant and then she had you there ?

twisturhead
06-16-2009, 08:15 PM
of course he CAN, but WILL he if they meet?

Burrow
06-16-2009, 08:18 PM
nadal was pounding fed while he was in his prime, and you wont tell me that last years wimby was an 'old fed' - for example. dont even mention monorail, people who actually have that might get insulted.

Did Nadal have the number 1 ranking while Federer was in his prime? No.

Are you saying Federer was playing as well as he did against Phillipoussis and Roddick in last years Wimbledon?

Federer is 5 years older than Nadal, if Nadal was born in 81, he would be done by now and he would just be another one of Federers bitches on any surface other than the dirt.

Jaz
06-16-2009, 08:22 PM
Completely irrelevant, people remember those that won the most, Federer 5... yes they will remember Nadal winning, for a few years, eventually in 20 years time, when there are newer generations of fans, they will only know that Federer won atleast 5, and Nadal atleast 1.

Vida
06-16-2009, 08:24 PM
fed didnt play roddick in last years wimbledon. fed played damn well last years wimbledon no mater how you slice it. it was a clear cut loss.

ranking? how does it blur the H2H?

third paragraph is a speculation, and it might be countered with the fact that young Nadal pretty much owned prime Fed. imagine what he would do to him if they were same age.

Start da Game
06-16-2009, 08:28 PM
Did Nadal have the number 1 ranking while Federer was in his prime? No.

Are you saying Federer was playing as well as he did against Phillipoussis and Roddick in last years Wimbledon?

Federer is 5 years older than Nadal, if Nadal was born in 81, he would be done by now and he would just be another one of Federers bitches on any surface other than the dirt.

you don't reach finals of wimbledon without dropping a set if you are not playing well.......nadal beat federer on every surface even when nadal was a baby and fed was at his very best.......miami 04, dubai 06 on hards, numerous clay victories.......fed trails 2-6 in slams against nadal.......and a half dead rafa at AO final this year made him choke........who's whose bitch?

twisturhead
06-16-2009, 08:31 PM
you don't reach finals of wimbledon without dropping a set if you are not playing well.......nadal beat federer on every surface even when nadal was a baby and fed was at his very best.......miami 04, dubai 06 on hards, numerous clay victories.......fed trails 2-6 in slams against nadal.......and a half dead rafa at AO final this year made him choke........who's whose bitch?

you should be rafa's bodyguard

Start da Game
06-16-2009, 08:38 PM
you should be rafa's bodyguard

rafa can protect himself unless he is unfairly pitted against 2 players like tsonga and safin, in a boxing ring.......still, that would be a contest.......

Wolbo
06-16-2009, 08:40 PM
fed trails 2-6 in slams against nadal.......Get your facts straight, it's 2-5 not 2-6.

Start da Game
06-16-2009, 08:43 PM
Get your facts straight, it's 2-5 not 2-6.

FO 05 semi
FO 06 final
FO 07 final
FO 08 final
Wim 08 final
AO 09 final

:)

NadalSharapova
06-16-2009, 09:31 PM
Get your facts straight, it's 2-5 not 2-6.

2-5 in slam finals, 2-6 in slams

get your facts right.

MrChopin
06-16-2009, 09:41 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a223/Mr_Chopin/lifepreserverz4.jpg?t=1245183896

Commander Data
06-16-2009, 09:42 PM
the point is, federer trails 2-6 in slams against his biggest opponent in his career.......won't that be a minus on his resume and isn't it important for him to gun down rafa a few times at slams?

Yeah sure. would be great for his resume if he can beat rafa again in a Slam. If he loses more Slam Finals off clay against Nadal, his main rival, it is not pretty for his legancy.

i think, things look good, though. Fed was just a shadow of himself last year. he is now quicker, has better serve more confidence in his shots and added the drop shot to punish grinders the play 6 m behind the baseline like Nadal or Murray.

Myrre
06-16-2009, 10:02 PM
Nadal can barely beat Federer when Nadal is at his best and Federer is playing crap. Now that Federer is getting better and Nadal is struggling it will be over in 3 easy sets.

FedFan_2007
06-16-2009, 10:34 PM
Roger needs to get a couple GS victories over Nadal to enhance his legacy.

NadalSharapova
06-16-2009, 10:37 PM
Nadal can barely beat Federer when Nadal is at his best and Federer is playing crap. Now that Federer is getting better and Nadal is struggling it will be over in 3 easy sets.

Depends how you look at it.

Federer couldn't beat Nadal when Nadal was exhausted (AO 09) and injured (wimbledon 08), when nadal was healthy he beat fed 6-1 6-3 6-0 (FO 08)

NadalSharapova
06-16-2009, 10:39 PM
Yeah sure. would be great for his resume if he can beat rafa again in a Slam. If he loses more Slam Finals off clay against Nadal, his main rival, it is not pretty for his legancy.

i think, things look good, though. Fed was just a shadow of himself last year. he is now quicker, has better serve more confidence in his shots and added the drop shot to punish grinders the play 6 m behind the baseline like Nadal or Murray.

only time fed could beat nadal at a slam was when nadal was a rookie grass courter. He is no longer new to grass, he is an accomplished grass courter so fed has no chance.

However fed does have the chance that nadal might lose before final. Thats his only hope and its happened in 2 of the last 5 slams

scarecrows
06-16-2009, 10:44 PM
If Fed serves like at RG there's zero chance for rafito

guga2120
06-16-2009, 10:49 PM
Federer is too weak mentally to win against healthy Rafa especially in Grand Slams

This is the key, and it always will be with Rafa. If he is, he will beat Roger every time.

Burrow
06-16-2009, 10:53 PM
fed didnt play roddick in last years wimbledon. fed played damn well last years wimbledon no mater how you slice it. it was a clear cut loss.

ranking? how does it blur the H2H?

third paragraph is a speculation, and it might be countered with the fact that young Nadal pretty much owned prime Fed. imagine what he would do to him if they were same age.

I didn't mean that, I meant Roddick in 04/05.

If Nadal was better than Federer then why did he not achieve number 1 ranking in 06 or 07 even?

head to head means bugger all for calculating greatness, grand slams are the primary source, not matches against others.

You just seem bitter. You obviously dislike Roger Federer.

Burrow
06-16-2009, 10:54 PM
Depends how you look at it.

Federer couldn't beat Nadal when Nadal was exhausted (AO 09) and injured (wimbledon 08), when nadal was healthy he beat fed 6-1 6-3 6-0 (FO 08)

yes and federer didn't at all pale in comparison to the player he was in previous years, did he? :rolleyes:

rubbERR
06-16-2009, 10:55 PM
can he? yes, but that wont stop NadalSharapova until Federer has positive record against Nadal Grandslams tournaments, probably his greatest fan alive this planet

Johnny Groove
06-16-2009, 10:57 PM
We will see in 20 days.

luie
06-17-2009, 12:11 AM
Depends how you look at it.

Federer couldn't beat Nadal when Nadal was exhausted (AO 09) and injured (wimbledon 08), when nadal was healthy he beat fed 6-1 6-3 6-0 (FO 08)
Nadull is always exhausted & injured in some part of his anatomy whats you point.:rolleyes:

Joao
06-17-2009, 12:25 AM
This same tired argument keeps popping up in every single thread about Nadal and/or Federer. You guys never learn do you?

The same people who are saying that a healthy Nadal will ALWAYS defeat (any kind of) Federer are the same people who were saying 1 month ago that Nadal would never lose at RG ... guess what? You were wrong! But hey keep making fools of yourselves if that's what turns you on ...

luie
06-17-2009, 12:37 AM
]only time fed could beat nadal at a slam was when nadal was a rookie grass courter. He is no longer new to [/B]grass, he is an accomplished grass courter so fed has no chance.

However fed does have the chance that nadal might lose before final. Thats his only hope and its happened in 2 of the last 5 slams
This arguement could easily be turned around. Nadull could only beat fed on clay when he was a rookie and didn't have patience & the right strategy for clay & nadull. Now that he started attacking nadal's BH and keeping away from nadull's forehand to BH rallies he is finally adapting to nadull, as well as his use of the drop-shot to win points because players stand very far behind the base line & by drawing them to the net he gains the advantage because he is the better player @ net.He is no longer playing these grinders at their game but imposing his game on them some-what.He also going to the net more but but then go back to the baseline so as to "fake" nadull he drops the ball short if federer was at the net but now a good shot becomes a short ball & and easy put away etc.
Also there are a lot of older players that win the french open Gomez 30,agassi 29,Muster 28,so maybe as a player gets older they are more able to come to terms with clay. Possibly.
In an interview Ivan lendl stated as you grow older you lose a step or two but your stamina actually increases as you age.So since clay is a test of endurance & speed of feet is not an absolute necessity because you have "more" time to play your shots. That is probably why other younger players were exhausted and fed looked fresh because as he aged his endurance level went-up.
This led to him beating nadal in madrid & winning the FO & why his so-called rivals failed. Nadal never met a prime(clay) federer with the right balance & strategy on clay.
If clay is the "battle field of the gods" in 2009 fed became a greater clay god than nadull.
Basically this is not true & nadull might have well beaten fed logically speaking but arguements can be twisted in a lot of ways to make your favorite look better. In reality nadal beat fed fair & square & federer beat nadal fair & square,no age excuse experience issues fatigue injury etc. HOWEVER this year in reality federer is KING OF CLAY and the #1 clay courter this year. Nadull is overall a better clay-courter but not in 2009.:angel:

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 01:43 AM
Well there's certainly no evidence to the contrary outside of RG. Losing or winning 5 set matches in no way, shape, or form constitutes domination. As for their h2h, no one will give a crap in 20 years. What will stand out is overall slam results.

sykotique
06-17-2009, 01:58 AM
fed didnt play roddick in last years wimbledon. fed played damn well last years wimbledon no mater how you slice it. it was a clear cut loss.

ranking? how does it blur the H2H?

third paragraph is a speculation, and it might be countered with the fact that young Nadal pretty much owned prime Fed. imagine what he would do to him if they were same age.

Hewitt...

Sunset of Age
06-17-2009, 02:18 AM
Hewitt...

Isn't it funny how all those posters claiming that Rafa will win [X - fill in double digit numbers of choice] # of GS titles, based on his young age, always seem to manage to completely ignore the vast number of early bloomers that went into DECLINE early just the same?

Not saying that that will happen per sé with Rafa - please not! - but these claims are rightout silly and only show a serious lack of historical knowledge of the game.

calvinhobbes
06-17-2009, 02:50 AM
If someone is the GOAT, it is because he has compensated an isolated negative H2H with enormous results in other areas. If we consider Laver, Borg, Sampras in their GOAT-like accomplishments, we dont give any consideration to eventual negative H2Hs against their contemporaries, much less against the uprising young men of the new generation. No serious analyst does give a second thought to the idea of searching this petite histoire to impair the image of a big champion. I would say that those small blots remark the real greatness of our potential GOAT, as they show that by no means his era was one of clowns......

FedFan_2007
06-17-2009, 02:55 AM
I think it would be a very big blight if Roger had a negative H2H against one of his peers(Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby, Gonzo, etc...). Having a bad H2H against the next generation should not be held against him if he compensates in other areas like having insane consistency.

BigJohn
06-17-2009, 02:55 AM
Can Federer beat Nadal in slams? I could understand maybe asking that about RG, but in any slam? This is not serious...

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 03:55 AM
federer was quick and impressive to grab the FO once rafa bowed out early.......but the question remains.......can federer beat nadal in slams here after? he has done it only twice in the past, both victories on grass at wimbledon.......last time, 2 years ago.......what do you all think?

Quick and impressive? Well I guess RG only lasted 2 weeks so yeah quick I guess....but impressive?:o

rofe
06-17-2009, 04:05 AM
Fed will never win another GS against Nadal. Nadal will school Fed unless Nadal is tired or injured so even if Fed wins, it won't be legitimate.

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 04:19 AM
Fed will never win another GS against Nadal. Nadal will school Fed unless Nadal is tired or injured so even if Fed wins, it won't be legitimate.

It just amazes me that anyone uses this word when it comes to tennis..:rolleyes:

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 04:27 AM
I think NEVER is an appropriate word in this case. I mean it has been since 2007 Wimbledon that Federer hasn't beat Nadal in a slam and even then it was dubious finish with the quad injury that slowed Nadal (you don't have to be a Nadal fan to see that), and that thriller was before the whole mono thing, and Nadal has improved since then:o

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 04:30 AM
I think NEVER is an appropriate word in this case. I mean it has been since 2007 Wimbledon that Federer has beat Nadal in a slam and even then it was dubious finish with the quad injury that slowed Nadal (you don't have to be a Nadal fan to see that), and that thriller was before the whole mono thing, and Nadal has improved since then:o

And from you, that comes as no surprise.

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 04:32 AM
And I'm not going by anything but logic, just look at Federer's form reduce since 2007 and look at Nadal's form sky-rocket, NEVER is the only logical conclusion as the gap increases with age:o

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 04:34 AM
And I'm not going by anything but logic, just look at Federer's form reduce since 2007 and look at Nadal's form sky-rocket, NEVER is the only logical conclusion:o

See my above post. Will you "never" learn.

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 04:35 AM
Soderling shocking Nadal shares no correlation with the prospect of Federer defeating Nadal in best of 5:o

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 04:39 AM
Soderling shocking Nadal shares no correlation with the prospect of Federer defeating Nadal in best of 5:o

Who said anything about Soderling.

rofe
06-17-2009, 05:34 AM
It just amazes me that anyone uses this word when it comes to tennis..:rolleyes:

In this context it has a very valid use. Even if Fed wins, it will only be because Nadal is exhausted or injured.

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 06:17 AM
Nah I saw Nadal exhausted in the Australian Open Final, and Federer was as fresh as a daisy (he also looked like a daisy) and still Nadal wins 6-2 fifth set:o

Spirit_fire
06-17-2009, 06:55 AM
It doesn't matter that Fed has a negative head to head with Nadal. He's a bad match up for him. Doesn't diminish his legacy or what he's acheived and it doesn't make Nadal a superior player, just one who matches up well with Roger's game. Hewitt had a winning record against Sampras didn't he? Does that mean Hewitt > Sampras?? Ridiculous.

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 07:02 AM
It doesn't matter that Fed has a negative head to head with Nadal. He's a bad match up for him. Doesn't diminish his legacy or what he's acheived and it doesn't make Nadal a superior player, just one who matches up well with Roger's game. Hewitt had a winning record against Sampras didn't he? Does that mean Hewitt > Sampras?? Ridiculous.

It's not a matchup thing, just look at the head2head between Nadal/Djokovic and even the guy who beat him at the US - Murray - the head2heads prove that Nadal is owning anyone who matters, not just Federer. Even the guys who matchup well with Nadal like Tsonga and Gonzo, Nadal has destroyed them recently including the Gold Medal game on a fast hardcourt Nadal straight setted Gonzo:o

Mechlan
06-17-2009, 07:26 AM
It's not a matchup thing, just look at the head2head between Nadal/Djokovic and even the guy who beat him at the US - Murray - the head2heads prove that Nadal is owning anyone who matters, not just Federer. Even the guys who matchup well with Nadal like Tsonga and Gonzo, Nadal has destroyed them recently including the Gold Medal game on a fast hardcourt Nadal straight setted Gonzo:o

Your comparison isn't the same because Tsonga and Gonzalez aren't exactly multiple grand slam winners though, are they? Not a surprise that Nadal has won against them, he is a class better, even though those are bad matchups for him.

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 07:29 AM
Your comparison isn't the same because Tsonga and Gonzalez aren't exactly multiple grand slam winners though, are they? Not a surprise that Nadal has won against them, he is a class better, even though those are bad matchups for him.

Yall weren't saying that after Nadal was thrashed by Tsonga/Gonzo at the Australian Open in recent years:o

Either way, just look at the massive edge Nadal has over Murray and Djokovic head2head, it shows that Federer is just another statistic, its not a matchup thing, just a different level of tennis:o

Dini
06-17-2009, 07:39 AM
What's with the :o after every sentence? Has that replaced the '.'?

Fed will get his chances to beat him in finals again that's for sure. It's only a matter of whether he takes his opportunities and stays on top of his game.

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 07:40 AM
What's with the :o after every sentence? Has that replaced the '.'?

Fed will get his chances to beat him in finals again that's for sure. It's only a matter of whether he takes his opportunities and stays on top of his game.

Yes we can only hope Federer plays Nadal in slams:o

heya
06-17-2009, 07:47 AM
Fedler demanded great fortune, even against a trainwreck Roddick.
No surprise, he needed withered choking boys with embarrassing physicality
such as Rochus, Andreev, Haas and Soderling. Soderling, although an above-average with emotion control person,
is not muscular enough to pummel Federer into a pulp.
Fedler likes lecturing us about his bravery
against his era's tough athletes, yet he also says he was unchallenged for years.
He calls the top 20 players a group that are predictable, unimpressive and "figured out".

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 07:52 AM
Fedler demanded great fortune, even against a trainwreck Roddick.
No surprise, he needed withered choking boys with embarrassing physicality
such as Rochus, Andreev, Haas and Soderling. Soderling, although an above-average with emotion control person,
is not muscular enough to pummel Federer into a pulp.
Fedler likes lecturing us about his bravery
against his era's tough athletes, yet he also says he was unchallenged for years.
He calls the top 20 players a group that are predictable, unimpressive and "figured out".

HEYA aka SHAKESPEARE wins again:o

Mimi
06-17-2009, 07:58 AM
:help::scratch:HEYA aka SHAKESPEARE wins again:o:lol: heya is shakspeare? no wonder her posts are poetic and difficult to understand :p i remember i read "Romeo & Juliet" (forgot what kind of version it is, using "strange" English) when during my English Literature class, i never understood what he was written

Dini
06-17-2009, 08:01 AM
heya never makes sense.

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 08:10 AM
heya never makes sense.

2smart4you is all:o

Mechlan
06-17-2009, 08:12 AM
Either way, just look at the massive edge Nadal has over Murray and Djokovic head2head, it shows that Federer is just another statistic, its not a matchup thing, just a different level of tennis:o

How does Nadal's head to head against Djokovic or Murray make a difference whether Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer?

vamosinator
06-17-2009, 08:33 AM
How does Nadal's head to head against Djokovic or Murray make a difference whether Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer?

Ok you can call him a bad matchup for Federer but also note that he is a bad matchup for EVERYBODY, look at the players he leads in head2head, he leads all the top players regardless of their style of play, in other words its not about 'matchup', he is just a better tennis player than Federer and Murray, and Djokovic, and Roddick etc.:o

Mimi
06-17-2009, 08:42 AM
federer was quick and impressive to grab the FO once rafa bowed out early.......but the question remains.......can federer beat nadal in slams here after? he has done it only twice in the past, both victories on grass at wimbledon.......last time, 2 years ago.......what do you all think?

:bigwave: hello nice to see you making a thread, Start da Game :smooch:

FedFan_2007
06-17-2009, 08:45 AM
mimi - Roger did not "roll" to the FO title once Rafa was out. Come on, you watched the matches along with everyone else. Roger was playing from the R16 on like with a gorilla on his back. Only in the final did he appear to be the "old Roger".

Mimi
06-17-2009, 08:48 AM
mimi - Roger did not "roll" to the FO title once Rafa was out. Come on, you watched the matches along with everyone else. Roger was playing from the R16 on like with a gorilla on his back. Only in the final did he appear to be the "old Roger".
i didn't say roger rolll to the title :confused:, i was just saying hello to the thread starter as i knew him from another forum:wavey:

twisturhead
06-17-2009, 08:49 AM
Ok you can call him a bad matchup for Federer but also note that he is a bad matchup for EVERYBODY, look at the players he leads in head2head, he leads all the top players regardless of their style of play, in other words its not about 'matchup', he is just a better tennis player than Federer and Murray, and Djokovic, and Roddick etc.:o

sure he will win every slam from now until he retires;)

cool bird1
06-17-2009, 09:04 AM
but than there isnt a goat, since none of the players who played against each other in some time-related proximity, were goat candidates. Agassi wasnt surely, nor was JMac, Connors perhaps to Borg, but that is far fetched as well. Of the guys before, Laver never had a rival who was a goat candidate, none that I can remember at least, Gonzales was too old... so by your line of reasoning, there isnt a goat, and paradoxically I agree with that.

the way I see it, there is no goat at present (maybe Gonzales who played like 40 years), but for Fed to be goat, he would have to do much more. he doesnt have no 1 total record, nor GS total record. he has a disastrous record against Nadal - and Murray. so not even game-wise (something that many Fed fans insist upon) he is 'the best'. besides, the 'weak competition' does have something to with it. roddick is feds baby, but a VERY consistent one, Nalby, Safin, Hewitt have theirs non-game minuses, and so on. so lets wait until feds career is over.


Yes he did his name was poncho Gonzalles or something and laver won the first set agist him in there first meeting then lost the next 12 or something like that.

cool bird1
06-17-2009, 09:08 AM
Ok you can call him a bad matchup for Federer but also note that he is a bad matchup for EVERYBODY, look at the players he leads in head2head, he leads all the top players regardless of their style of play, in other words its not about 'matchup', he is just a better tennis player than Federer and Murray, and Djokovic, and Roddick etc.:o


I dont think o Take federer and roddick out of it and Murry and djokovic are still lerning there games where as Nadal like Hewitt was ready at a very young age. I think we shal start to see H2H turning between thoese three.

Commander Data
06-17-2009, 10:04 AM
only time fed could beat nadal at a slam was when nadal was a rookie grass courter. He is no longer new to grass, he is an accomplished grass courter so fed has no chance.

However fed does have the chance that nadal might lose before final. Thats his only hope and its happened in 2 of the last 5 slams

The answer to this nonsense can only be given on court.

It is, however, a fact that Rafael Anal has never beaten Fed bringing his A game in non-clay Slams:o

Federer of 2008 and early 2009 was not peak Fed

ossie
06-17-2009, 10:09 AM
The answer to this nonsense can only be given on court.

It is, however, a fact that Rafael Anal has never beaten Fed bringing his A game in non-clay Slams:o

Federer of 2008 and early 2009 was not peak Fed:haha: only fedtards on mtf seem to know this for a 'fact'

Commander Data
06-17-2009, 12:37 PM
:haha: only fedtards on mtf seem to know this for a 'fact'


So you think Federer in 2008 was peak?:o you are delusional:o. Just look at the number of tournaments he won 2005-2007 and the matches he lost and compare them to 2008 you clown:o. Fed in AO Final was a shadow of his peak:o. Fed has found his Game again, he will not lose Wimbledon this year.:o

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 01:00 PM
What's with the :o after every sentence? Has that replaced the '.'?

Fed will get his chances to beat him in finals again that's for sure. It's only a matter of whether he takes his opportunities and stays on top of his game.

:o = 12 or 13, maybe. Just read the rest of the posts..:rolleyes:

Joao
06-17-2009, 04:53 PM
I can't wait for Federer to beat Nadal in a GS again so that "TheRAFA and Co" can finally shut the hell up!

But again .. who am I kidding? They've been proven wrong so many times and still the nonsense keeps coming out of their mouth (well out of their fingers). Clearly, they'll NEVER shut up. Now that's a very appropriate word to use in this context!

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 05:16 PM
2-5 in slam finals, 2-6 in slams

get your facts right.

hello......where did i say 'slam finals'? i said 'slams'.......

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 05:31 PM
bad match-up, out of his prime period, these are all just pathetic excuses which anyone can come up with.......you don't reach slam finals without losing a set if you are out of your prime, especially for a late bloomer like federer.......i was expecting something better from fed fans.......making excuses only shows that you are not confident of your player that he can beat rafa in slams here after.......

magnoliaewan
06-17-2009, 05:59 PM
The amount of delusion in this thread is disturbing. The TheRafa, I would wait until Nadal wins more than 10 slams before spouting all the crazies that you are spouting right now.

NadalSharapova
06-17-2009, 06:06 PM
Fed may win more slams, but he will not beat Nadal at a slam. Only way for him to win is to avoid Nadal.

lessthanjake
06-17-2009, 06:09 PM
bad match-up, out of his prime period, these are all just pathetic excuses which anyone can come up with.......you don't reach slam finals without losing a set if you are out of your prime, especially for a late bloomer like federer.......i was expecting something better from fed fans.......making excuses only shows that you are not confident of your player that he can beat rafa in slams here after.......

Just because he makes the finals of Grand Slams doesnt mean that he is in his prime. Players typically lose a step around his age. Federer seems to be no different. The fact that he can still make finals of pretty much every slam even not in his prime is just a testament to how good he was before.

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 06:11 PM
The amount of delusion in this thread is disturbing. The TheRafa, I would wait until Nadal wins more than 10 slams before spouting all the crazies that you are spouting right now.

Throwing around the word "never" in this sport is a sign of immaturity, stupidity, or both. Just have fun with these clowns, they'll grow up one day, or get smarter, as the case may be.

NadalSharapova
06-17-2009, 06:12 PM
Just because he makes the finals of Grand Slams doesnt mean that he is in his prime. Players typically lose a step around his age. Federer seems to be no different. The fact that he can still make finals of pretty much every slam even not in his prime is just a testament to how good he was before.

Federer is never and will never be at his best when playing nadal at a GS. The problem for federer is not himself, its nadal style of play.

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 06:38 PM
it's true that fed may be losing his speed somewhat but when did he ever trouble rafa in slams? rafa was a noob on grass in 2006 and even in 2007 but i give you 2007, the only times when he beat rafa at slams.......rest of the times, it was rafa all the way.......even on clay, it was in 2007 that rafa started playing like a man......until then, he was just a fiery young teenager with scintillating footspeed and that big forehand and really nothing else......his serve, volley were nothing short of pathetic and backhand was just about ok.......still he owned federer at his best on clay in 2005 and 2006......

on another note, when you believe that fed is so good that he is easily making slam finals, how does age affect him only against rafa in the finals? do you remember how he crushed delpotro and roddick before that choke in the final? when you say he is that good, at least he should have taken the AO final against a relatively tired nadal, but he failed.......

so why not just give the credit where it is due.......federer struggles against rafa because,

1) he never had/has the footspeed that can match rafa's.......so, he cannot run around his backhand as efficiently as rafa does......credit to rafa here.......

2) his backhand is weaker than rafa's.......i don't care if it is one handed or two handed.......it is weak.......edberg, kuerten had better backhands than fed.......again, credit to rafa here for having a better backhand.......

3) he is mentally not as strong as rafa.......or else, we wouldn't have witnessed him lose FO 06 final and AO 09 final......so, props to rafa again........

there could be several other things which rafa might be doing well against federer, like strategy, implementation of strategy, better plan B etc.......he owns another top player djokovic in a pretty similar fashion.......he owns another top player murray as well in the same way.......he's beating everyone.......that itself should be sufficient to say that fed is not losing to rafa due to bad match-up, besides those 3 main reasons........

Ariadne
06-17-2009, 06:43 PM
Federer is never and will never be at his best when playing nadal at a GS. The problem for federer is not himself, its nadal style of play.

Fair enough! Can't find anything wrong with that assertion tbh. But that doesn't mean he can't or won't (find a way to) win (at least) a couple of those encounters.

Dini
06-17-2009, 06:43 PM
The only time Nadal has truly demolished Fed was in FO 08. Every other time their matches have been close in Slams.

So how is it that it's not OK for Fed fans to say that Fed is past his peak but it's OK to for Nadal fans to say that he was a rookie in 06 and 07? Double standards much??

Both are excuses. Full stop.

lessthanjake
06-17-2009, 06:46 PM
on another note, when you believe that fed is so good that he is easily making slam finals, how does age affect him only against rafa in the finals? do you remember how he crushed delpotro and roddick before that choke in the final? when you say he is that good, at least he should have taken the AO final against a relatively tired nadal, but he failed.......

Age DOES affect him when he crushes del potro or roddick or someone else. It's just that an aging Federer is still way better than those two.

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 06:56 PM
The only time Nadal has truly demolished Fed was in FO 08. Every other time their matches have been close in Slams.

So how is it that it's not OK for Fed fans to say that Fed is past his peak but it's OK to for Nadal fans to say that he was a rookie in 06 and 07? Double standards much??

Both are excuses. Full stop.

there is one big difference between a rookie and a master.......experience.......please don't tell me that fed is/was out of his best phase when he was just 26 or even 27 now.......sorry,, sampras, laver, lendl, agassi, borg were all fiery at that age and i am sure a champ like fed is nothing different.......if not, it will only be another blot on the paper.......i will leave it for you folks to decide.......

i am not talking about demolitions btw, the discussion is about victories and whether or not fed can beat rafa in slams here after.......

NadalSharapova
06-17-2009, 07:00 PM
The only time Nadal has truly demolished Fed was in FO 08. Every other time their matches have been close in Slams.

So how is it that it's not OK for Fed fans to say that Fed is past his peak but it's OK to for Nadal fans to say that he was a rookie in 06 and 07? Double standards much??

Both are excuses. Full stop.

both are facts, however not to the same degree as some people make it to be.

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 07:02 PM
it's true that fed may be losing his speed somewhat but when did he ever trouble rafa in slams?

Three out of their last 4 slam matches went 5 sets. Most players would consider that somewhat troubling.

Caerula Sanguis
06-17-2009, 07:05 PM
there is one big difference between a rookie and a master.......experience.......please don't tell me that fed is/was out of his best phase when he was just 26 or even 27 now.......sorry,, sampras, laver, lendl, agassi, borg were all fiery at that age and i am sure a champ like fed is nothing different.......if not, it will only be another blot on the paper.......i will leave it for you folks to decide.......

i am not talking about demolitions btw, the discussion is about victories and whether or not fed can beat rafa in slams here after.......

Borg was fiery at 26-27? How old are you and have you even seen him play?

habibko
06-17-2009, 07:09 PM
Yes we can only hope Federer plays Nadal in slams:o

seeing what happened in RG two weeks ago, obviously it's the other way around :sad:

What's with the :o after every sentence? Has that replaced the '.'?

she is just constantly embarrassing herself, nothing strange in it, and she even got herself banned now to add insult to injury :haha: :haha:

Sunset of Age
06-17-2009, 07:11 PM
Borg was fiery at 26-27? How old are you and have you even seen him play?

:lol: - Borg kind of left the building at 26 and made a completely unsuccesful attempt to return thereafter... one of the major examples of a career ending prematurely because of a mental breakdown.

Joao
06-17-2009, 07:16 PM
it's true that fed may be losing his speed somewhat but when did he ever trouble rafa in slams? rafa was a noob on grass in 2006 and even in 2007 but i give you 2007, the only times when he beat rafa at slams.......rest of the times, it was rafa all the way.......even on clay, it was in 2007 that rafa started playing like a man......until then, he was just a fiery young teenager with scintillating footspeed and that big forehand and really nothing else......his serve, volley were nothing short of pathetic and backhand was just about ok.......still he owned federer at his best on clay in 2005 and 2006......

on another note, when you believe that fed is so good that he is easily making slam finals, how does age affect him only against rafa in the finals? do you remember how he crushed delpotro and roddick before that choke in the final? when you say he is that good, at least he should have taken the AO final against a relatively tired nadal, but he failed.......

so why not just give the credit where it is due.......federer struggles against rafa because,

1) he never had/has the footspeed that can match rafa's.......so, he cannot run around his backhand as efficiently as rafa does......credit to rafa here.......

2) his backhand is weaker than rafa's.......i don't care if it is one handed or two handed.......it is weak.......edberg, kuerten had better backhands than fed.......again, credit to rafa here for having a better backhand.......

3) he is mentally not as strong as rafa.......or else, we wouldn't have witnessed him lose FO 06 final and AO 09 final......so, props to rafa again........

there could be several other things which rafa might be doing well against federer, like strategy, implementation of strategy, better plan B etc.......he owns another top player djokovic in a pretty similar fashion.......he owns another top player murray as well in the same way.......he's beating everyone.......that itself should be sufficient to say that fed is not losing to rafa due to bad match-up, besides those 3 main reasons........

Of course it's all about the match-up: Nadal is a very good lefty player with a great forehand that plays right into Federer backhand (which is arguably his weakest shot). And the high bounce of Nadal's shots makes it even more difficult for Federer to execute his backhand slice. It's not that hard to understand really. And if you add on top of that the fact that Federer was at a low point in 2008 all the way up to Madrid 09 (The USO victory although well deserved was very surprising to me), and you can easily explain all those defeats at the hands of Nadal. I mean Nadal is a very difficult opponent for Federer even when Federer is playing at his best ...

You also fail to see that at the AO this year, there was another type of pressure on Fed's shoulders: equalling Sampras'records. Federer has been known to get tight under pressure (FO this year is proof of it; as he put it he played like 4 finals along the way). When you had that to the type of game Nadal brings against Federer, it is not difficult to understand why Federer lost that match. Clearly, if he had played against Nadal at the FO this year, he probably would have lost given that he would have been in the same situation as the AO's: equalling Sampras record + getting the career slam + beating Nadal again in a big match. You can't get worse, pressure-wise. And I'm guessing that if Federer is to meet Nadal in the final of Wimbledon, he will get tight again because of the pressure of beating Sampras record + beating Nadal in a big match again.

Now I'm not trying to make excuse or justify a possible Federer defeat in 2 weeks time but these are factors that people forget about and we all know that you need more than just talent to win a match, especially against Nadal who never gives up ... now Federer should be flying high in confidence because of his win at the French but I wouldn't be surprised if we see him go down again in 5 sets against Nadal for the reasons above.

Having said that Federer is still my pick to get his 15th slam and 6th Wimbledon and hopefully he will do it against Nadal to shut all the haters up!

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 07:33 PM
Borg was fiery at 26-27? How old are you and have you even seen him play?

you are taking everything literally.......everyone knows that borg retired at 26.......should i mention borg separately? it would take another line for me to type zzzz......

i have a collection of borg's matches.......at 26, borg was amazing even in his last match, the wimbledon 81 final......

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 07:33 PM
Three out of their last 4 slam matches went 5 sets. Most players would consider that somewhat troubling.

like fed would say, "taking one to 5 sets is one thing and actually beating him is a whole lot different thing"........

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 07:44 PM
Of course it's all about the match-up: Nadal is a very good lefty player with a great forehand that plays right into Federer backhand (which is arguably his weakest shot). And the high bounce of Nadal's shots makes it even more difficult for Federer to execute his backhand slice. It's not that hard to understand really. And if you add on top of that the fact that Federer was at a low point in 2008 all the way up to Madrid 09 (The USO victory although well deserved was very surprising to me), and you can easily explain all those defeats at the hands of Nadal. I mean Nadal is a very difficult opponent for Federer even when Federer is playing at his best ...

You also fail to see that at the AO this year, there was another type of pressure on Fed's shoulders: equalling Sampras'records. Federer has been known to get tight under pressure (FO this year is proof of it; as he put it he played like 4 finals along the way). When you had that to the type of game Nadal brings against Federer, it is not difficult to understand why Federer lost that match. Clearly, if he had played against Nadal at the FO this year, he probably would have lost given that he would have been in the same situation as the AO's: equalling Sampras record + getting the career slam + beating Nadal again in a big match. You can't get worse, pressure-wise. And I'm guessing that if Federer is to meet Nadal in the final of Wimbledon, he will get tight again because of the pressure of beating Sampras record + beating Nadal in a big match again.

Now I'm not trying to make excuse or justify a possible Federer defeat in 2 weeks time but these are factors that people forget about and we all know that you need more than just talent to win a match, especially against Nadal who never gives up ... now Federer should be flying high in confidence because of his win at the French but I wouldn't be surprised if we see him go down again in 5 sets against Nadal for the reasons above.

Having said that Federer is still my pick to get his 15th slam and 6th Wimbledon and hopefully he will do it against Nadal to shut all the haters up!

sorry, then that is not a champion deed and definitely not a GOAT deed to wilt like that under pressure over and over.......GOATS fight and find a way to win, not choke over and over.......sampras had just one opportunity and he grabbed it to surpass emersson.......sure pete too felt the heat and the occasion started to takeover, rafter shook him like hell for a set and a half, IIRC in fact rafter lead pete 4-1 in the second set after winning the first.......but pete found a way to come on top.......i don't see that in federer.......

and same old 'nadal's forehands to fed's backhand' excuse.......it happens because of fed's inability, not because of a bad match up or something.......it is fed's fault that he doesn't have a solid backhand and again it is his fault that he doesn't have the speed to match rafa.......

so i become a hater now for discussing things.......amazing, continue.......

Chiseller
06-17-2009, 07:44 PM
Is it me or are Nadull fangirls the most immature/obsessed tards ever? Apart from P. Antonius of course.

Commander Data
06-17-2009, 07:47 PM
Is it me or are Nadull fangirls the most immature/obsessed tards ever? Apart from P. Antonius of course.

I think you got that right on both accounts. They are certainly the most annoying (besides P. Antonius and a few crazy Serb tards)

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 07:49 PM
Is it me or are Nadull fangirls the most immature/obsessed tards ever? Apart from P. Antonius of course.

Mostly just blinded to the obvious by fanhood. Works for both sides though. Continuing with meaningless comebacks defying the obvious, making statements like never, impossible, and considering matches that hinge on 2 or 3 points one way or the other to be domination. It's kinda funny actually and adds to the entertainment level here.

Dini
06-17-2009, 07:49 PM
there is one big difference between a rookie and a master.......experience.......please don't tell me that fed is/was out of his best phase when he was just 26 or even 27 now.......sorry,, sampras, laver, lendl, agassi, borg were all fiery at that age and i am sure a champ like fed is nothing different.......if not, it will only be another blot on the paper.......i will leave it for you folks to decide.......

i am not talking about demolitions btw, the discussion is about victories and whether or not fed can beat rafa in slams here after.......

Yeah I do actually think Fed is not as good now at 27 as he was in 2005-2007. :confused: Does that make me delusional? Probably. But I've followed the guy since 2001 (albeit not closely in the beginning) and 2008 and early 2009 certainly was not peak Fed.

And the reason I mentioned FO 08 was because that was the only instance in Slams where Nadal had truly given Fed a thrashing, every other time Fed has had a lot of chances and their matches have been close so I can't see why Fed can't beat him again if he's serving well and controlling his emotions.

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 07:58 PM
And the reason I mentioned FO 08 was because that was the only instance in Slams where Nadal had truly given Fed a thrashing, every other time Fed has had a lot of chances and their matches have been close so I can't see why Fed can't beat him again if he's serving well and controlling his emotions.

Posters around here need some sort of bump material and this thread provides just that. Just like all the threads got bumped earlier about retiring, never win a FO, done, not gonna happen, etc, etc.

This thread will likely end up being bumped one day. It just continues to amaze me the number of apparently "knowledgeable" fans that continue to make statements that any of these guys in the top 5 is never again going to beat another one. AND then, call someone else delusional because they know it's possible.

Commander Data
06-17-2009, 08:02 PM
Yeah I do actually think Fed is not as good now at 27 as he was in 2005-2007. :confused: Does that make me delusional? Probably. But I've followed the guy since 2001 (albeit not closely in the beginning) and 2008 and early 2009 certainly was not peak Fed.

And the reason I mentioned FO 08 was because that was the only instance in Slams where Nadal had truly given Fed a thrashing, every other time Fed has had a lot of chances and their matches have been close so I can't see why Fed can't beat him again if he's serving well and controlling his emotions.

I think you are spot on. What is so surprising about it anyway? Nobody can hold peak form forever. there is a reason nobody ever won a slam 6 times straight! Fed was 5 years at top level it was inevitable that he had a slump sometime soon (2008-2009) doesn't mean he can't get his peak form back, though. what he showed in the FO final was promising. Nadal will have his slump as well (maybe starting now?) and Fed might beat him pretty easily if they happen to meet (see Madrid for example)


Saying "never" is soooo stupid in tennis it is embrassing :o:o:o:o:o:o:o

Dini
06-17-2009, 08:02 PM
Posters around here need some sort of bump material and this thread provides just that. Just like all the threads got bumped earlier about retiring, never win a FO, done, not gonna happen, etc, etc.

This thread will likely end up being bumped one day. It just continues to amaze me the number of apparently "knowledgeable" fans that continue to make statements that any of these guys in the top 5 is never again going to beat another one. AND then, call someone else delusional because they know it's possible.

Well said Glen. FO taught us a big lesson that nothing is a given in tennis. Nothing is automatic either even if a player is fit and healthy. That's why in the end we love it so much, it's because of the unpredictable factor that hangs around every match. It seems people haven't learnt their lesson.

On the other hand writing off Federer or Nadal (seeing as he isn't favourite for Wimby) is one hell of a brave thing to do, knowing how those two rise to the occasion at the big stage.

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 08:05 PM
Posters around here need some sort of bump material and this thread provides just that. Just like all the threads got bumped earlier about retiring, never win a FO, done, not gonna happen, etc, etc.

This thread will likely end up being bumped one day. It just continues to amaze me the number of apparently "knowledgeable" fans that continue to make statements that any of these guys in the top 5 is never again going to beat another one. AND then, call someone else delusional because they know it's possible.

when did i say in this entire thread that federer will never beat rafa again in slams?

Dini
06-17-2009, 08:07 PM
Was MacTheKnife referring to you in his post Start da Game?

I thought he said "posters" which means in general.

Certinfy
06-17-2009, 08:09 PM
Tbh if there is a Rafa vs Fed at Wimby or US Open, i really do think Federer will take the piss out of Nadal.

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 08:10 PM
when did i say in this entire thread that federer will never beat rafa again in slams?

Where did I say you.. scroll earlier in the thread..

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 08:11 PM
I think you are spot on. What is so surprising about it anyway? Nobody can hold peak form forever. there is a reason nobody ever won a slam 6 times straight! Fed was 5 years at top level it was inevitable that he had a slump sometime soon (2008-2009) doesn't mean he can't get his peak form back, though. what he showed in the FO final was promising. Nadal will have his slump as well (maybe starting now?) and Fed might beat him pretty easily if they happen to meet (see Madrid for example)


Saying "never" is soooo stupid in tennis it is embrassing :o:o:o:o:o:o:o

well that's true......nobody can stay on top of their game forever.......but nobody is asking him to do so or prove anything.......if you are a champion of champions or GOAT, prove your mettle against everyone.......that's all i wanted to convey.......why only against a selected section of players like roddick, hewitt, davydenko and the rest? if he proves it, i will be the first one to appreciate him.......

btw what is the "never" that you all keep referring to? who used it and where?

Dini
06-17-2009, 08:14 PM
If 20 Consecutive GS, 19 finals, 14 wins on all surfaces, 4 years ending as number 1, 15 TMS and 4 TMC don't make you appreciate him, then wow you are hard to please.

twisturhead
06-17-2009, 08:14 PM
well that's true......nobody can stay on top of their game forever.......but nobody is asking him to do so or prove anything.......if you are a champion of champions or GOAT, prove your mettle against everyone.......that's all i wanted to convey.......why only against a selected section of players like roddick, hewitt, davydenko and the rest? if he proves it, i will be the first one to appreciate him.......

btw what is the "never" that you all keep referring to? who used it and where?

you are obviously too caught up in this "champions of champions or GOAT" stuff. just go watch some tennis

Sunset of Age
06-17-2009, 08:19 PM
well that's true......nobody can stay on top of their game forever.......but nobody is asking him to do so or prove anything.......if you are a champion of champions or GOAT, prove your mettle against everyone.......that's all i wanted to convey.......why only against a selected section of players like roddick, hewitt, davydenko and the rest? if he proves it, i will be the first one to appreciate him.......

Anyone who has racked up 59 titles, 14 of them being GS, has more than enough 'proven his mettle' to any tennis fan with reasonable expectations of players. That he struggles against Nadal, and, now that he's some five-six years older than the rest of the lot, against Murray and Djokovic as well, doesn't change anything about that.
What did you expect, that his ultimate dominance of 2004 - 2007 would go on forever?

Commander Data
06-17-2009, 08:25 PM
btw what is the "never" that you all keep referring to? who used it and where?

For example everybody that answered with no, implied never (again)...

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 08:27 PM
Anyone who has racked up 59 titles, 14 of them being GS, has more than enought 'proven his mettle' to any tennis fan with reasonable expectations of players. That he struggles against Nadal, and, now that he's some five-six years older than the rest of the lot, against Murray and Djokovic as well, doesn't change anything about that.
What did you expect, that his ultimate dominance of 2004 - 2007 would go on forever?

in my book, he didn't need to dominate that much honestly.......but he did, well done for it and very much appreciate him for that......but i would like to see how much he wins against the tough customers.......you will never allow your biggest rival to beat you 6 out of 8 times in slams if you are GOAT.......

having said that i consider fed an all time great without any second thought.......

twisturhead
06-17-2009, 08:40 PM
in my book, he didn't need to dominate that much honestly.......but he did, well done for it and very much appreciate him for that......but i would like to see how much he wins against the tough customers.......you will never allow your biggest rival to beat you 6 out of 8 times in slams if you are GOAT.......

having said that i consider fed an all time great without any second thought.......

so in other words everyone else is a clown.........zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Sunset of Age
06-17-2009, 08:47 PM
in my book, he didn't need to dominate that much honestly.......but he did, well done for it and very much appreciate him for that......but i would like to see how much he wins against the tough customers.......you will never allow your biggest rival to beat you 6 out of 8 times in slams if you are GOAT.......

So you are basically assuming that Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc. weren't 'tough customers'? How about the possiblity that Federer, at that time, was just so much BETTER than them, in stead of them being 'weak'?

Federer now is some five, six years older than the 'tough customers' that you point to. The fact that he's still around to reach GS finals, even more, winning them on occasion, makes his achievements even more astonishing than they already are.

having said that i consider fed an all time great without any second thought.......

One would think so, I'd say. :angel:

FedFan_2007
06-17-2009, 08:50 PM
Karin - there is no pleasing the haters.

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 08:51 PM
so in other words everyone else is a clown.........zzzzzzzzzzzzz

did i say that? zzzz......look, i know that you don't win 14 slams just like that, irrespective of how the field was......a player must be truly great to achieve that much in tennis.......but know that preferences vary from person to person.......i am someone who prefer victories over everyone to beating up your pigeons but struggling to get over the line against your big rival(s).......hey don't make me look like a hater.......i know what a great champ fed is and you don't win 14 slams overnight......but it's not for nothing that i am a fan of sampras......i prefer such players who dominated inconsistently but could beat anyone anywhere and you might prefer a player who pwns a articular section of players with utter consistency but has continuous troubles against a certain player(s).......to each his own i guess.......

Caerula Sanguis
06-17-2009, 08:52 PM
well that's true......nobody can stay on top of their game forever.......but nobody is asking him to do so or prove anything.......if you are a champion of champions or GOAT, prove your mettle against everyone.......that's all i wanted to convey.......why only against a selected section of players like roddick, hewitt, davydenko and the rest? if he proves it, i will be the first one to appreciate him.......

btw what is the "never" that you all keep referring to? who used it and where?

You don't have to beat everybody to be GOAT. Like you are taking an exam, you don't have to get a perfect score to be ranked first. You just have to get more than the second guy. I don't see anyone ahead of Federer career stat wise.

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 08:53 PM
So you are basically assuming that Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc. weren't 'tough customers'? How about the possiblity that Federer, at that time, was just so much BETTER than them, in stead of them being 'weak'?

Federer now is some five, six years older than the 'tough customers' that you point to. The fact that he's still around to reach GS finals, even more, winning them on occasion, makes his achievements even more astonishing than they already are.



One would think so, I'd say. :angel:

i have always maintained that safin and nalbandian are much tougher and better than both hewitt and roddick on any surface, i don't care what stats say.......rest, please read my post above.......

as u know basically this thread is about whether or not fed can beat rafa in slams here after and discussions related to it.......

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 08:57 PM
You don't have to beat everybody to be GOAT. Like you are taking an exam, you don't have to get a perfect score to be ranked first. You just have to get more than the second guy. I don't see anyone ahead of Federer career stat wise.

i don't have a problem if fed fans believe that fed is GOAT but where i have a problem is when they try to force it on others.......everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and it doesn't make him/her a hater for voicing an opinion.......

on another note - stats are like bikinis, they conceal as much as they reveal......

Sunset of Age
06-17-2009, 08:59 PM
i don't have a problem if fed fans believe that fed is GOAT but where i have a problem is when they try to force it on others.......everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and it doesn't make him/her a hater for voicing an opinion.......

It isn't just the Fed fans who consider Federer at least a candidate for the GOAT title (whatever that means in the first place), it's about the complete tennis society. You don't have to be a fan of his to be able to acknowledge his feats. :shrug:

FedFan_2007
06-17-2009, 09:03 PM
No matter how many all-time tennis greats say "Roger is the GOAT", you'll always have a few stragglers out there who will say the contrary because it's human nature. Doesn't mean they are true rebels or anything, they're just spitting in the wind.

FedFan_2007
06-17-2009, 09:04 PM
It's like there are a few doubters who insist that Borg is still clay GOAT, whenever 99% of the tennis world knows Rafa is.

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 09:05 PM
No matter how many all-time tennis greats say "Roger is the GOAT", you'll always have a few stragglers out there who will say the contrary because it's human nature. Doesn't mean they are true rebels or anything, they're just spitting in the wind.

there are 1000 better ways to discuss than the way you resorted to, finally......

Dini
06-17-2009, 09:05 PM
Do you really think just the Fed fans think he is GOAT? :lol:

Start da Game
06-17-2009, 09:10 PM
It isn't just the Fed fans who consider Federer at least a candidate for the GOAT title (whatever that means in the first place), it's about the complete tennis society. You don't have to be a fan of his to be able to acknowledge his feats. :shrug:

did i say "only the fed fans" for you to presume whatever? normally, it's the fed fans that force the point because he is their player.....there maybe a few exceptions among other players' fans too though but that goes without saying.......

and why twist? there is a difference between acknowledging his deeds and believing that he is GOAT.......i do the former, but not the latter.......

Joao
06-17-2009, 09:16 PM
sorry, then that is not a champion deed and definitely not a GOAT deed to wilt like that under pressure over and over.......GOATS fight and find a way to win, not choke over and over.......sampras had just one opportunity and he grabbed it to surpass emersson.......sure pete too felt the heat and the occasion started to takeover, rafter shook him like hell for a set and a half, IIRC in fact rafter lead pete 4-1 in the second set after winning the first.......but pete found a way to come on top.......i don't see that in federer.......

and same old 'nadal's forehands to fed's backhand' excuse.......it happens because of fed's inability, not because of a bad match up or something.......it is fed's fault that he doesn't have a solid backhand and again it is his fault that he doesn't have the speed to match rafa.......

so i become a hater now for discussing things.......amazing, continue.......

First of all, I didn't call you a hater. I was just saying that in general ...

Second of all, sure Sampras won that 13th slam to surpass Emerson'record but he did it at Wimbledon, on his favourite surface. AO is not and will never be Federer's favourite surface. So not the same is it?

And federer did not choke over and over like you said. he had one chance to equal Sampras record and he failed but when he got a second chance he took it! The two times Federer lost against Nadal in a GS final (non-clay that is) were at Wimbledon 08 but that match could have gone either way, given the conditions. And at the AO 09 that match depended on more than just a match-up thing as I said before!

And Nadal forehand to Federer backhand is not an excuse, but just a fact. Why do you think that Nadal serves pretty much always to Federer's backhands and why do you think he goes on those "forehands to backhand" long exchanges? Because he knows that it is Fed's shaky side. It's a very good strategy. The fact is that other players try that strategy but very few are as succesfull as Nadal because they're not lefty and in their case it's backhand to backhand ... so no, it's not the same. Furthermore, the high bounce of Nadal's shots make it difficult to return with a one-handed backhand slice because you can't execute that shot when the ball comes over your shoulder. Have you ever tried it? Probably not ... Why do you think two-handed backhand players don't have the same problem to return Nadal high bounce? If Federer had a two-handed backhand, I'm sure he would be much efficient against Nadal high bounce forehand cross court.

So yes, it is a match-up thing. It's Nadal's shots against Federer's shots. And Nadal's shots match very well against Federer's because of everything I said above.

And Federer has the speed. But when you have a lefty as strong as Nadal with very powerful forehand, it is not easy to run around your backhand. Why do you think Federer doesn't have the same problems with Verdasco, even though he is a lefty? Well, he's not as powerful as Nadal, his balls don't bounce as high, and he pretty much he's not at the same level as Nadal as a whole ...

I don't see why you're saying that these are all excuses ...

SaFed2005
06-17-2009, 09:19 PM
Federer will never beat Nadal at slams or anywhere else unless Nadal is "tired" or "inured," no?

habibko
06-17-2009, 09:19 PM
this thread is not about if Federer is the GOAT or not, let's not get off-topic, there are many threads designed for this purpose.

as for the thread question, yes sure Federer can beat Nadal in slams, nobody thought seriously that Federer can beat Nadal on clay this year and he did and in straights no less, their matches are too closely contested for a reasonable person to assume only one player will win all their matches.

Sunset of Age
06-17-2009, 09:24 PM
did i say "only the fed fans" for you to presume whatever? normally, it's the fed fans that force the point because he is their player.....there maybe a few exceptions among other players' fans too though but that goes without saying.......


i don't have a problem if fed fans believe that fed is GOAT but where i have a problem is when they try to force it on others.......everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and it doesn't make him/her a hater for voicing an opinion.......

See your own quote, yes, you at least insinuate that it's merely or even only the Fed fans who think Roger is one of the GOATs. You even go as far as claim that it's 'normally the Fed fans', trying to convince him being the GOAT - ever heard about journalists, media, etc?
I just try to convince you that it's about 90% of the entire tennis community, Fed fan or not, but apparently my attempt has been futile.

Joao
06-17-2009, 09:25 PM
Posters around here need some sort of bump material and this thread provides just that. Just like all the threads got bumped earlier about retiring, never win a FO, done, not gonna happen, etc, etc.

This thread will likely end up being bumped one day. It just continues to amaze me the number of apparently "knowledgeable" fans that continue to make statements that any of these guys in the top 5 is never again going to beat another one. AND then, call someone else delusional because they know it's possible.

Well I'll be the first one to bump this thread up next time Federer beats Nadal again in a GS. And it might be sooner than most Nadal fans think!

Boboskidaj
06-17-2009, 09:32 PM
simply not true mate. there are plenny of people who are neither fanboys nor haters, simply objective observers. they do exist you know.

and objectively looking at things - he is owned, and records, though amazing, can be put into context. I guess you can guess which.Yeah I can guess. Like the fact that Rafa beat him on clay in 4 of these matches where he is the best player in history, on non-clay they are tied at 2-2. He only beat Fed on other surfaces when Fed was in a serious decline, never when Fed dominated because Rafa was always getting bashed before the finals so he never got there. Fed beat him on the highest stage and twice on clay court finals and on Rafa's home turf, nothing left to prove there not a god damn thing, if he beat him once you could say it's a coincidence but not four times.

Maybe you overlooked these facts when you where putting things 'into context'.

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 09:51 PM
this thread is not about if Federer is the GOAT or not, let's not get off-topic, there are many threads designed for this purpose.

as for the thread question, yes sure Federer can beat Nadal in slams, nobody thought seriously that Federer can beat Nadal on clay this year and he did and in straights no less, their matches are too closely contested for a reasonable person to assume only one player will win all their matches.

What are you doing bringing a rational conclusion here.:cool:

habibko
06-17-2009, 09:53 PM
What are you doing bringing a rational conclusion here.:cool:

you are right! Ahem, Federer has Nadal all figured out now, Nadal is evidently finished and past his peak, a pressure-free Federer will now punish Nadal for all the troubles and tears he caused him, it all started in Madrid folks, that humiliation in front of his hometown is only the beginning, JesusFed is back with a vengeance :devil:
PRAY FOR DEATH!

better now? :cool:

icedevil0289
06-17-2009, 09:56 PM
Do you really think just the Fed fans think he is GOAT? :lol:

Lol. Anyways, not all the fed fans consider roger GOAT. I don't.

Dini
06-17-2009, 09:57 PM
Lol. Anyways, not all the fed fans consider roger GOAT. I don't.

Who do you think is?

icedevil0289
06-17-2009, 10:00 PM
Who do you think is?

No one. I think the entire thing is just stupid.

habibko
06-17-2009, 10:01 PM
No one. I think the entire thing is just stupid.

the whole world is collectively stupid as well, but this is all off-topic..

icedevil0289
06-17-2009, 10:02 PM
the whole world is collectively stupid as well, but this is all off-topic..

Haha, good point. Sorry.

Dini
06-17-2009, 10:03 PM
No one. I think the entire thing is just stupid.

:lol:

Well in a way it is because the majority haven't lived in both Laver's and Fed's era to really judge. It's difficult to compare. :shrug:

Anyways, back on topic. Fed will be hungry to reclaim his title, and as long as he gives it his best shot, I'll be satisfied. :D

icedevil0289
06-17-2009, 10:05 PM
:lol:

Well in a way it is because the majority haven't lived in both Laver's and Fed's era to really judge. It's difficult to compare. :shrug:

Anyways, back on topic. Fed will be hungry to reclaim his title, and as long as he gives it his best shot, I'll be satisfied. :D

I agree and if fed can manage to win that title while giving it his best shot, I'll be more than satisfied.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-17-2009, 10:40 PM
Easily

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-17-2009, 10:41 PM
I agree and if fed can manage to win that title while giving it his best shot, I'll be more than satisfied.

didn't expect to see a TTW user here... how is that mod hell hole these days?

lost all its fun when Gamesampras and I were banned

their loss really

MacTheKnife
06-17-2009, 11:01 PM
you are right! Ahem, Federer has Nadal all figured out now, Nadal is evidently finished and past his peak, a pressure-free Federer will now punish Nadal for all the troubles and tears he caused him, it all started in Madrid folks, that humiliation in front of his hometown is only the beginning, JesusFed is back with a vengeance :devil:
PRAY FOR DEATH!

better now? :cool:

Much better, now I feel like I'm reading GM..:yeah:

Commander Data
06-18-2009, 06:38 AM
did i say that? zzzz......look, i know that you don't win 14 slams just like that, irrespective of how the field was......a player must be truly great to achieve that much in tennis.......but know that preferences vary from person to person.......i am someone who prefer victories over everyone to beating up your pigeons but struggling to get over the line against your big rival(s).......hey don't make me look like a hater.......i know what a great champ fed is and you don't win 14 slams overnight......but it's not for nothing that i am a fan of sampras......i prefer such players who dominated inconsistently but could beat anyone anywhere and you might prefer a player who pwns a articular section of players with utter consistency but has continuous troubles against a certain player(s).......to each his own i guess.......

Feds only real flaw is his inability to beat Nadal in RG. lets wait until he retires before making some final judgment, though.

Commander Data
06-18-2009, 06:48 AM
you are right! Ahem, Federer has Nadal all figured out now, Nadal is evidently finished and past his peak, a pressure-free Federer will now punish Nadal for all the troubles and tears he caused him, it all started in Madrid folks, that humiliation in front of his hometown is only the beginning, JesusFed is back with a vengeance :devil:
PRAY FOR DEATH!

better now? :cool:

Thats the spirit.


On a more serious note. Why did this thread shift to "Is Fed the GOAT?" debate Quite some Fed fans, myself included, think that is not the important question right now. Once Fed has retired we can discuss it maybe, he is 27, lots of matches to be played.


He will spank Nadal from now on, reverse the head to head, never lose again to him in GS and beat him twice in RG final :devil::devil::devil:

Start da Game
06-18-2009, 07:31 AM
First of all, I didn't call you a hater. I was just saying that in general ...

Second of all, sure Sampras won that 13th slam to surpass Emerson'record but he did it at Wimbledon, on his favourite surface. AO is not and will never be Federer's favourite surface. So not the same is it?

And federer did not choke over and over like you said. he had one chance to equal Sampras record and he failed but when he got a second chance he took it! The two times Federer lost against Nadal in a GS final (non-clay that is) were at Wimbledon 08 but that match could have gone either way, given the conditions. And at the AO 09 that match depended on more than just a match-up thing as I said before!

And Nadal forehand to Federer backhand is not an excuse, but just a fact. Why do you think that Nadal serves pretty much always to Federer's backhands and why do you think he goes on those "forehands to backhand" long exchanges? Because he knows that it is Fed's shaky side. It's a very good strategy. The fact is that other players try that strategy but very few are as succesfull as Nadal because they're not lefty and in their case it's backhand to backhand ... so no, it's not the same. Furthermore, the high bounce of Nadal's shots make it difficult to return with a one-handed backhand slice because you can't execute that shot when the ball comes over your shoulder. Have you ever tried it? Probably not ... Why do you think two-handed backhand players don't have the same problem to return Nadal high bounce? If Federer had a two-handed backhand, I'm sure he would be much efficient against Nadal high bounce forehand cross court.

So yes, it is a match-up thing. It's Nadal's shots against Federer's shots. And Nadal's shots match very well against Federer's because of everything I said above.

And Federer has the speed. But when you have a lefty as strong as Nadal with very powerful forehand, it is not easy to run around your backhand. Why do you think Federer doesn't have the same problems with Verdasco, even though he is a lefty? Well, he's not as powerful as Nadal, his balls don't bounce as high, and he pretty much he's not at the same level as Nadal as a whole ...

I don't see why you're saying that these are all excuses ...

you sound like "karlovic would be the world beater if he had nadal's speed and djokovic's groundstrokes".......i don't care if he has one handed backhand or two handed.......it is his problem that his backhand is not that solid.......have you seen kuerten and edberg? their backhands?

if fed cannot withstand the balls directed at his backhand, he must run around and do it with his forehand........he fails there too and i have explained why.......he doesn't have the speed either.......where as rafa does it with ease because he HAS the necessary speed......when you say rafa is too powerful, isn't that to his credit?

true that two handers may not have too many problems returning rafa's shots with their backhand.......but isn't he beating those two handers too? djokovic has a much solid backhand than federer and still he was beaten all the times by rafa in slams.......he defeated murray as well.......it shows that rafa could find a way to beat anyone......

even i can go on and list many things which rafa is useless at in comparison to fed.......can he serve like federer? can he approach the net like federer? can he volley like federer?

what do we learn from this? it's not about what you have, it's about what you do with what you have in your arsenal.......

twisturhead
06-18-2009, 07:48 AM
you sound like "karlovic would be the world beater if he had nadal's speed and djokovic's groundstrokes".......i don't care if he has one handed backhand or two handed.......it is his problem that his backhand is not that solid.......have you seen kuerten and edberg? their backhands?

if fed cannot withstand the balls directed at his backhand, he must run around and do it with his forehand........he fails there too and i have explained why.......he doesn't have the speed either.......where as rafa does it with ease because he HAS the necessary speed......when you say rafa is too powerful, isn't that to his credit?

true that two handers may not have too many problems returning rafa's shots with their backhand.......but isn't he beating those two handers too? djokovic has a much solid backhand than federer and still he was beaten all the times by rafa in slams.......he defeated murray as well.......it shows that rafa could find a way to beat anyone......

even i can go on and list many things which rafa is useless at in comparison to fed.......can he serve like federer? can he approach the net like federer? can he volley like federer?

what do we learn from this? it's not about what you have, it's about what you do with what you have in your arsenal.......

OH! i need to defend rafa so much!

Start da Game
06-18-2009, 08:02 AM
this thread is not about if Federer is the GOAT or not, let's not get off-topic, there are many threads designed for this purpose.

as for the thread question, yes sure Federer can beat Nadal in slams, nobody thought seriously that Federer can beat Nadal on clay this year and he did and in straights no less, their matches are too closely contested for a reasonable person to assume only one player will win all their matches.

exactly......agree with everything.......

Mechlan
06-18-2009, 08:07 AM
even i can go on and list many things which rafa is useless at in comparison to fed.......can he serve like federer? can he approach the net like federer? can he volley like federer?

what do we learn from this? it's not about what you have, it's about what you do with what you have in your arsenal.......

If you've ever watched a Nadal/Federer match, you know what Nadal does. He hits his lefty forehand to Federer's backhand 90% of the time. What Nadal has is his greatest weapon feeding into Federer's weakest shot, which is something Federer doesn't have against Nadal, not in the same way. Nadal doesn't need to run around his backhand against Federer. Nadal doesn't need to volley. He doesn't need to approach the net except to put away short balls. He can play completely within himself and still beat Federer. Obviously he's a fantastic player to be able to do it, but I can't believe people are arguing that Nadal doesn't have a matchup advantage here.

Dini
06-18-2009, 08:22 AM
you sound like "karlovic would be the world beater if he had nadal's speed and djokovic's groundstrokes".......i don't care if he has one handed backhand or two handed.......it is his problem that his backhand is not that solid.......have you seen kuerten and edberg? their backhands?

if fed cannot withstand the balls directed at his backhand, he must run around and do it with his forehand........he fails there too and i have explained why.......he doesn't have the speed either.......where as rafa does it with ease because he HAS the necessary speed......when you say rafa is too powerful, isn't that to his credit?

No comment. :spit:

Start da Game
06-18-2009, 08:25 AM
If you've ever watched a Nadal/Federer match, you know what Nadal does. He hits his lefty forehand to Federer's backhand 90% of the time. What Nadal has is his greatest weapon feeding into Federer's weakest shot, which is something Federer doesn't have against Nadal, not in the same way. Nadal doesn't need to run around his backhand against Federer. Nadal doesn't need to volley. He doesn't need to approach the net except to put away short balls. He can play completely within himself and still beat Federer. Obviously he's a fantastic player to be able to do it, but I can't believe people are arguing that Nadal doesn't have a matchup advantage here.

nadal doesn't need to volley? nadal doesn't need to approach the net? dude, i would want nadal to do both and save his energy because we won't see him breaking his knees if he does those two things.......

that's why i say it's not what you have in your repertoire that matters the most.......what matters the most is, what you are able to achieve with what you have got.......nadal despite an average serve and volley, fights with what he has got, and for that he is risking his fitness......now either federer is not ready for such a thing(not exactly what rafa does, he can devise his own method) or he is simply not good enough.......either way, that is his fault......

if federer cannot outlast him with his backhand, he should devise another method.......if he cannot, it shows that it is his fault and rafa is just too much for him.......

Start da Game
06-18-2009, 08:34 AM
let's get back to the topic.......i think fed can beat rafa a couple of times in slams from here on.......but he needs to sort out a few things when playing against him.......i think fed knows what he needs to do against rafa to beat him and a champ like him must have definitely devised some method.......it's just the matter of execution and he is failing there.......i think it is doable if he maintains a coolhead in the process as well.......

Dini
06-18-2009, 08:37 AM
Serve well, have a good forehand day, keep composure in pressure situations and Fed can beat Nadal.

Start da Game
06-18-2009, 08:41 AM
Serve well, have a good forehand day, keep composure in pressure situations and Fed can beat Nadal.

well said, i will add one more thing.......take risks - go for the lines, sneak in to the net even on a slightest opening and try to keep the points as short as possible.......

Myrre
06-18-2009, 10:29 AM
Off course not. Nadal can only be defeated by tiredness and injuries.

Castafiore
06-18-2009, 11:39 AM
Off course not. Nadal can only be defeated by tiredness and injuries.
On the other hand, every match is on Federer's racket and he can only be defeated by mono and back problems.

Right?

Bernard Black
06-18-2009, 11:45 AM
Off course not. Nadal can only be defeated by tiredness and injuries.

Yes, Nadal is only stoppable under the right convenient conditions. All other times - unstoppable.

As for the question, I'm not convinced we'll see too many more meetings between the two. I can see Federer retiring very soon, especially if he claims the Wimbledon or U.S. Open crowns. There's simply nothing left for him to play for if he achieves that, he'll surely want to spend time with his family.

If they do meet though, I'd favour Federer to come out on top at both grass and hardcourt slams if he can stay in good form. One thing I've noticed recently is that he seems to have left behind the stubborn streak that if he plays his own game he can beat anyone. He's not been afraid to change tactics, introduce new shots to his game, or whatever it takes to get the job done. We've seen this with the dropshots, extra spin on the forehand and going for the lines less. Against Nadal on clay he hit down the line a lot more, taking away the angles from the Spaniard making it very difficult for him to impose his game on Federer.

Perhaps Federer has realised he can't hit through everyone like the old days, but needs to play a more crafty, patient game, based on creating openings rather than trying to paint the lines with the flat forehand. I think this will give him a much better chance of beating Nadal at slams in the future.

twisturhead
06-18-2009, 11:49 AM
On the other hand, every match is on Federer's racket and he can only be defeated by mono and back problems.

Right?

yeah they are both invincible and grand slams should only be a 2 man field

Halba
06-18-2009, 11:50 AM
nadal will bag wimbo

he's rested

once he's into the 2nd week, semis he'll run riot

no one can stop him

baseline genius.

he'll bag it wif his 2 forehands and lefty spinning slicing dicing serve

his best hope is to not draw murray in his half. if he doesn't draw murray he will win it as he will have good gas in tank. if fed draws murray he won't win.

twisturhead
06-18-2009, 11:51 AM
nadal will bag wimbo

he's rested

once he's into the 2nd week, semis he'll run riot

no one can stop him

baseline genius.

he'll bag it wif his 2 forehands and lefty spinning slicing dicing serve

his best hope is to not draw murray in his half. if he doesn't draw murray he will win it as he will have good gas in tank. if fed draws murray he won't win.

more evidence suggesting nadal is invincible

Castafiore
06-18-2009, 11:55 AM
yeah they are both invincible and grand slams should only be a 2 man field
:lol: Absolutely.

Commander Data
06-18-2009, 02:12 PM
Yes, Nadal is only stoppable under the right convenient conditions. All other times - unstoppable.

As for the question, I'm not convinced we'll see too many more meetings between the two. I can see Federer retiring very soon, especially if he claims the Wimbledon or U.S. Open crowns. There's simply nothing left for him to play for if he achieves that, he'll surely want to spend time with his family.

If they do meet though, I'd favour Federer to come out on top at both grass and hardcourt slams if he can stay in good form. One thing I've noticed recently is that he seems to have left behind the stubborn streak that if he plays his own game he can beat anyone. He's not been afraid to change tactics, introduce new shots to his game, or whatever it takes to get the job done. We've seen this with the dropshots, extra spin on the forehand and going for the lines less. Against Nadal on clay he hit down the line a lot more, taking away the angles from the Spaniard making it very difficult for him to impose his game on Federer.

Perhaps Federer has realised he can't hit through everyone like the old days, but needs to play a more crafty, patient game, based on creating openings rather than trying to paint the lines with the flat forehand. I think this will give him a much better chance of beating Nadal at slams in the future.

I doubt Federer will retire soon. He has pointed out on every occasion possible, that he feels highly motivated and wants to play until his body gives up. he also said he has not won everything. Olympic 2012 remain a big goal for him. i highly doubt he retires as longs as he wins Slams. He also wants his child to watch him playing, will take a cuople years until the kid realizes what happens before his eyes ;)

Feds going nowhere. :cool:

I agree thought, that we might not see that many more meetings. I think the time where they both are super dominant is coming to an end.

MacTheKnife
06-18-2009, 02:31 PM
This may sound simple, and really it is, it's the execution that's the challenge. Madrid was the text book example of what Federer needs to do to beat Nadal. Have his BH DTL working and stay out of those rallies cross court from his BH to the Nadal FH.
Serve well with placement, at high 60's - low 70% range. Attack short returns and short groundies with a two shot appraoch, open the court by going to the Nadal FH.
Use the drop shot on any surface, he's been afraid to use it other than clay.

These are the things he did at Madrid and he executed well. That's the real key, solid plan and execution.
As for the question, of course he can beat Nadal in slams here after.

Start da Game
06-18-2009, 04:07 PM
This may sound simple, and really it is, it's the execution that's the challenge. Madrid was the text book example of what Federer needs to do to beat Nadal. Have his BH DTL working and stay out of those rallies cross court from his BH to the Nadal FH.
Serve well with placement, at high 60's - low 70% range. Attack short returns and short groundies with a two shot appraoch, open the court by going to the Nadal FH.
Use the drop shot on any surface, he's been afraid to use it other than clay.

These are the things he did at Madrid and he executed well. That's the real key, solid plan and execution.
As for the question, of course he can beat Nadal in slams here after.

concurred......like i said earlier, it's just the matter of execution......it surprises me when fed fans say that fed cannot sort out rafa because he is a bad match-up.......i am not even a fed fan and i believe that fed can do so many things with his game against rafa and i explained them all in the earlier posts.......

Joao
06-18-2009, 04:17 PM
let's get back to the topic.......i think fed can beat rafa a couple of times in slams from here on.......but he needs to sort out a few things when playing against him.......i think fed knows what he needs to do against rafa to beat him and a champ like him must have definitely devised some method.......it's just the matter of execution and he is failing there.......i think it is doable if he maintains a coolhead in the process as well.......

So you agree with me then!? :confused: That's exactly what I've said all along. It's an execution and a mental problem. So yeah, when he sorts that out, Federer will defeat Nadal again in a big match!

Joao
06-18-2009, 04:25 PM
concurred......like i said earlier, it's just the matter of execution......it surprises me when fed fans say that fed cannot sort out rafa because he is a bad match-up.......i am not even a fed fan and i believe that fed can do so many things with his game against rafa and i explained them all in the earlier posts.......

If you can't execute your shots properly because of your opponent's game that makes it a bad match-up ... that is until you figure it out. After that it won't be a bad match-up anymore!

But right now, from what we've seen (at least up to Madrid), Federer hasn't found the proper way to execute his shots. Now in Madrid we did see him change his strategy (BH DTL, dropshots, shortening points etc) which helped him defeat Nadal. But you can always argue that Nadal was a little fatigued. So, let's see what happens next time they both meet.

Bagelicious
06-21-2009, 08:23 AM
I agree thought, that we might not see that many more meetings. I think the time where they both are super dominant is coming to an end.

You know, I love Feds, but I'm excited for this too!

Somewhere out there is a thread with H2H stats of rivals dating back to the 70s (I think it was started by GWHitler, I forget what he's calling himself these days) and what was really interesting in the rivalries was that one player (say player A) owned the other for a stretch of time, then player B figured them out and started owning player A.

So that in light of history, we look back and say "Evert and Navratilova, they had a good rivalry eh? 22-21 H2H looks pretty even doesn't it?" But if you actually looked at the time it was like Evert owned Navratilova like 10-2, then Martina caught up and it turned to 16-10 and then Evert caught up again and so on.

I don't know if there's enough time, but there is a possibility that this could happen with the Roger-Rafa H2H.

Arkulari
06-21-2009, 09:09 AM
it did happen to Hewitt and Federer, the Aussie owned Roger 'till his rise, then Roger owned him, I don't see Lleyton getting back to own Roger, but who knows ;)

Start da Game
06-21-2009, 07:41 PM
You know, I love Feds, but I'm excited for this too!

Somewhere out there is a thread with H2H stats of rivals dating back to the 70s (I think it was started by GWHitler, I forget what he's calling himself these days) and what was really interesting in the rivalries was that one player (say player A) owned the other for a stretch of time, then player B figured them out and started owning player A.

So that in light of history, we look back and say "Evert and Navratilova, they had a good rivalry eh? 22-21 H2H looks pretty even doesn't it?" But if you actually looked at the time it was like Evert owned Navratilova like 10-2, then Martina caught up and it turned to 16-10 and then Evert caught up again and so on.

I don't know if there's enough time, but there is a possibility that this could happen with the Roger-Rafa H2H.

if the same happens in rafa-rog case, then rog will earn much more respectability........i just cannot think of any other player in the history who is owned by his biggest rival is a 14 time slam champion.......

luie
06-21-2009, 07:53 PM
if the same happens in rafa-rog case, then rog will earn much more respectability........i just cannot think of any other player in the history who is owned by his biggest rival is a 14 time slam champion.......
It could happen because nadull is a moonballing grinder & his best is past him. So the decline has started and because he is not a "technical" player his decline will be rapid as the case with grinders through-out history,his knee problems will persist,some-one doesn't pull-out of wimbledon because of pain alone. Nadull is on the decline his movement is his greatest asset,so he has lost a step & shortly he will lose another.Rafa is 23 but tennis players age is not measured in years per say but milage & rafa has alot of milage.
However if that doesn't happen the h2h could be in nadull favor because he will cut-down on HC & indoor tourny's in the hope of preserving whats left of his knees,thus result in less meetings with federer on fed best surface & nadull worst,if fed is still good enough to make clay finals the nadull will continue to have a fovourable H2H but for experts,insiders & tennis fans in general it would be a useless statistic being brushed aside because for what ever reason nadull was never good enough to consistently go deep on HIS worst surface imo.