HISTORY is on the line on Sunday! *many reasons* [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

HISTORY is on the line on Sunday! *many reasons*

Sleepy24seven
06-04-2011, 12:04 AM
If Nadal wins, he will become the greatest clay counter ever. Bjorn borg has 6, but I am sure even bjorn borg would say with 6Nadal is the best ever on clay given the competition.

moreover, he will be in double digits, (i'm not sure if djoke can put as much a fight on grass against him) so he would be really close to #11 which would bring him merely 4 slams away from 15 and arguable G.O.A.T) and would be kinda funny because everyone was wanting djok to lose, and it would only prove to be the start of another nadal run.

If Fed wins, he will have another slam, and surely be the current G.O.A.T. (won't be questioned unless Nadal reaches one less than his slam count)

Also, if Fed wins, Djoker is number 1 for the first time, and has officially accomplished a new Feat, and would upgrade his status a bit.

Doesn't matter who wins, a lot is on the line.

gameset&match
06-04-2011, 12:11 AM
Sunday's final may also end up counting for two slams rather than just the one as I would expect the winner to be favourite to go on and win Wimbledon given the confidence boost it would give them. 16-11 or 18-9 would be a significant difference in the GOAT debate.

Sleepy24seven
06-04-2011, 12:16 AM
Yup, nadal can cut the margin very quickly. If Nadal gets to 15 and fed is at 16... Nadal is in the G.O.A.T. discussion for sure. If fed wins, he is unquestioned g.o.a.t for a while i think.

oranges
06-04-2011, 12:24 AM
If Nadal wins, he will become the greatest clay counter ever. Bjorn borg has 6, but I am sure even bjorn borg would say with 6Nadal is the best ever on clay given the competition.



:spit: Is this a joke? Given the competition? :haha:

SerialKillerToBe
06-04-2011, 12:26 AM
Am I the only one that doesn't see Rafa winning Wimbledon even if he wins RG this year?

Sleepy24seven
06-04-2011, 12:28 AM
2000's competition> late 60's, and 70's. Deal with it, like it or not borg will so say himself, along with all the other great people.

Clay Death
06-04-2011, 12:28 AM
there is no such thing as GOAT folks.

this concept is based on a very flawed logic.

oranges
06-04-2011, 12:31 AM
2000's competition> late 60's, and 70's. Deal with it, like it or not borg will so say himself, along with all the other great people.

:haha:

MalwareDie
06-04-2011, 12:34 AM
If Nadal wins, he will become the greatest clay counter ever. Bjorn borg has 6, but I am sure even bjorn borg would say with 6Nadal is the best ever on clay given the competition.

Complete trash, and the same goes for the rest of your post. This is the most dire clay field in the history of tennis. You should be banned from posting.

Sleepy24seven
06-04-2011, 12:35 AM
Am I the only one that doesn't see Rafa winning Wimbledon even if he wins RG this year?

while not as good on clay, Rafa has improved his grass abilities. If Nadal faces Fed/Murray in the final at Wimbledon. I think nadal would have the edge for sure.

SheepleBuster
06-04-2011, 12:37 AM
Here is how the match will go. As always when Rafa plays Roger, he wins the coin toss and elects to receive. He then breaks in the first game, and that's that. No history. Just the sad truth that even the hottest of fires can be choked out when you take the oxygen out.

Sleepy24seven
06-04-2011, 12:39 AM
Complete trash, and the same goes for the rest of your post. This is the most dire clay field in the history of tennis. You should be banned from posting.

and what excuse will you come up with when nadal eventually passes 6?? I'm not partial to either Nadal or Fed or whomever.. facts are facts like it or not, I'm just stating them.

Sleepy24seven
06-04-2011, 12:45 AM
and if Fed wins, all the whoever else is greater than him would be on the rocks until someone matches him or Nadal is very close to his slam count.

Chase Visa
06-04-2011, 12:46 AM
:spit: Is this a joke? Given the competition? :haha:

Well yeah, but since 2005 Rafa's winning record on clay has been something like 95% or somewhere around that.

oranges
06-04-2011, 12:48 AM
and what excuse will you come up with when nadal eventually passes 6?? I'm not partial to either Nadal or Fed or whomever.. facts are facts like it or not, I'm just stating them.

:haha: You're the most hilarious tard on this board

Getta
06-04-2011, 12:58 AM
If Nadal wins, he will become the greatest clay counter ever. Bjorn borg has 6, but I am sure even bjorn borg would say with 6Nadal is the best ever on clay given the competition.


no.

and, i'm a Nadal fan.

Sleepy24seven
06-04-2011, 12:59 AM
:haha: You're the most hilarious tard on this board

Pressed much? It really doesn't matter if you don't like Fed or Nadal...they are in the history books as greats..

oranges
06-04-2011, 01:06 AM
^^ That is the only non-nonsense sentence you've made so far :lol:

TennisOnWood
06-04-2011, 01:11 AM
Its much more then that in terms of record and numbers... as always when this two clash

Sleepy24seven
06-04-2011, 01:12 AM
Tomorrow during the match you will hear Nadal is the best clay counter ever if he wins, heck, you might hear it even if he loses. If fed wins, you will hear that he is def the greatest of all time.

I advise you not to watch if you are a pressed mug, and think this has anything at all to do with YOU or your feelings.

Johnny Groove
06-04-2011, 01:26 AM
If Nadal wins, he is the clay GOAT. Of course if you ask Borg, he will say Nadal, if you ask Nadal, he will say Borg. But the numbers don't lie. If Nadal wins on Sunday, he will have been more dominant on clay than Borg was, not just at RG, but at all other clay events as well.

It would also give him a great confidence boost for Wimbledon, but that is a whole other can of worms. Just cause he wins RG doesn't automatically mean he will win Wimbledon.

Now, if Federer wins on Sunday and clinches his 17th slam, he will unquestionably become the GOAT.

Either way, Wimbledon will be massive. If Fed wins both and get to 18, he is the GOAT for sure.

If Nadal wins both and gets to 11, well, he will jump into the top 3 of the Open Era behind Federer and Sampras and just ahead of Borg. As for all time, Nadal will be top 5-6 of all time.

Getta
06-04-2011, 01:31 AM
If Nadal wins both and gets to 11, well, he will jump into the top 3 of the Open Era behind Federer and Sampras and just ahead of Borg.

Bjorn Borg won 11 majors.

numbers don't lie, people do lie.

Sleepy24seven
06-04-2011, 01:32 AM
If Nadal wins, he is the clay GOAT. Of course if you ask Borg, he will say Nadal, if you ask Nadal, he will say Borg. But the numbers don't lie. If Nadal wins on Sunday, he will have been more dominant on clay than Borg was, not just at RG, but at all other clay events as well.

It would also give him a great confidence boost for Wimbledon, but that is a whole other can of worms. Just cause he wins RG doesn't automatically mean he will win Wimbledon.

Now, if Federer wins on Sunday and clinches his 17th slam, he will unquestionably become the GOAT.

Either way, Wimbledon will be massive. If Fed wins both and get to 18, he is the GOAT for sure.

If Nadal wins both and gets to 11, well, he will jump into the top 3 of the Open Era behind Federer and Sampras and just ahead of Borg. As for all time, Nadal will be top 5-6 of all time.

exactly..this has nothing to due with my personal beliefs.. but the record books. Nole fan's get the added bonus if Fed wins heh.

Clay Death
06-04-2011, 01:35 AM
history is made at all slams no matter who wins.

slam winner is instantly immortalized.

the history on this sunday will be made by the clay warrior.

fed too is making history. this will be his 5th roland garros final.

Johnny Groove
06-04-2011, 01:41 AM
Bjorn Borg won 11 majors.

numbers don't lie, people do lie.

I know. But Borg never won the USO.

To me, 1 AO, 1 USO, and 3 Wimbledon> 5 Wimbledon.

But barely. And Borg retiring right when Johnny Mac started to beat him shows to me a sense of weakness. Could you imagine Nadal doing that?

Getta
06-04-2011, 01:51 AM
I know. But Borg never won the USO.

To me, 1 AO, 1 USO, and 3 Wimbledon> 5 Wimbledon.

But barely. And Borg retiring right when Johnny Mac started to beat him shows to me a sense of weakness. Could you imagine Nadal doing that?

Rafa prefers to keep it a low-profile affair.

and he still does have passion and gusto... and a great ass...

2003
06-04-2011, 02:34 AM
Also if Federer wins he will have at least 2 of every slam!

tests
06-04-2011, 02:56 AM
Also if Federer wins he will have at least 2 of every slam!

ok this is gptting out of control. Rogr stands no chancp against nadal. No chanc. Only nadal will bp making history

ballbasher101
06-04-2011, 03:08 AM
history is made at all slams no matter who wins.

slam winner is instantly immortalized.

the history on this sunday will be made by the clay warrior.

fed too is making history. this will be his 5th roland garros final.


History is not kind to runner-ups. History is written by the victors. Being a runner-up is like being a bridemaid at a wedding and we all know how bridemaids are treated. They are forced to wear the ugliest of dresses in order to make the bride look good. It's winner takes all. When you play the game of tennis you win or you die :lol:. There are no grey areas I'm afraid.

Getta
06-04-2011, 03:28 AM
History is not kind to runner-ups. History is written by the victors.

that reminds me of the ancient Olympic games where only the first place finisher counted for victor. coming in second or third place counted for nothing.

and, ancient Greeks knew they were right.

Hazem
06-04-2011, 03:41 AM
Also iF Federer won he will be the only player in open era that makes 2 career grand slams or in another words will be the only player in open era to win all grand slams at least twice.
If this happened it seems to be a miracle not a record!!

Mjau!
06-04-2011, 03:50 AM
I know. But Borg never won the USO.

To me, 1 AO, 1 USO, and 3 Wimbledon> 5 Wimbledon.

But barely. And Borg retiring right when Johnny Mac started to beat him shows to me a sense of weakness. Could you imagine Nadal doing that?

The YEC was more important than the AO back then, which means that Borg has the equivalent of 13 slams on 3 different surfaces. Clearly superior to Nadal! I suggest you learn a thing or two about the history of the game before delivering an :o verdict.

Silvester
06-04-2011, 03:51 AM
Hoping for a Federer win!!! Even if he wins though, Nadal will get to 10+ slams in the next few years, no way he doesn't win another slam even if he loses on sunday unless major injury occured.

SerialKillerToBe
06-04-2011, 03:55 AM
Hoping for a Federer win!!! Even if he wins though, Nadal will get to 10+ slams in the next few years, no way he doesn't win another slam even if he loses on sunday unless major injury occured.

If Nadal can't beat a 30 year old Federer on clay he may as well retire for his fans.

Paylu2007
06-04-2011, 04:10 AM
:haha: You're the most hilarious tard on this board
lol agree.

I know. But Borg never won the USO.

To me, 1 AO, 1 USO, and 3 Wimbledon> 5 Wimbledon.

But barely. And Borg retiring right when Johnny Mac started to beat him shows to me a sense of weakness. Could you imagine Nadal doing that?

The only difference between the GS nowadays are 2 things: The name and the color of the court.

Ackms421
06-04-2011, 04:15 AM
If Nadal can't beat a 30 year old Federer on clay he may as well retire for his fans.

Nah, not fair. This is the sharpest Federer has looked in a couple of years (except 2010 YEC). And, Nadal is playing at 60-70% or so. Sure he's gotten sharper as the tournament has progressed, but he's not firing on all cylinders. Federer certainly is though. The balls are anti-Nadal/pro-Federer as well.

So, slightly different variables than ever before, but, yeah it's still clay. Nadal should still take it. It could be a tough 4 or 5-setter. It won't be a walk in the park. Federer's backhand has looked superb...

ballbasher101
06-04-2011, 04:46 AM
Nah, not fair. This is the sharpest Federer has looked in a couple of years (except 2010 YEC). And, Nadal is playing at 60-70% or so. Sure he's gotten sharper as the tournament has progressed, but he's not firing on all cylinders. Federer certainly is though. The balls are anti-Nadal/pro-Federer as well.

So, slightly different variables than ever before, but, yeah it's still clay. Nadal should still take it. It could be a tough 4 or 5-setter. It won't be a walk in the park. Federer's backhand has looked superb...

Do you remember what Wilander said. He said Federer's cojones shrink upon seeing Nadal. It is true. They could play on a super quick clay court using super quick balls but the result will still be the same. It saddens me to say this but it is true. Federer has already lost twice to Nadal this year and Nadal was not even playing all that well when he beat Federer.

tests
06-04-2011, 04:50 AM
History is not kind to runner-ups. History is written by the victors. Being a runner-up is like being a bridemaid at a wedding and we all know how bridemaids are treated. They are forced to wear the ugliest of dresses in order to make the bride look good. It's winner takes all. When you play the game of tennis you win or you die :lol:. There are no grey areas I'm afraid.

exactly. Anyone remember the countless finals borg lost in the USO?

Wat about lendl?

tests
06-04-2011, 04:52 AM
Do you remember what Wilander said. He said Federer's cojones shrink upon seeing Nadal. It is true. They could play on a super quick clay court using super quick balls but the result will still be the same. It saddens me to say this but it is true. Federer has already lost twice to Nadal this year and Nadal was not even playing all that well when he beat Federer.

to be fair, nadal did not have to play well. All fed did was shank everything and anything.

ballbasher101
06-04-2011, 05:06 AM
to be fair, nadal did not have to play well. All fed did was shank everything and anything.


There lies the problem. In the past Federer actually used to get chances but now their matches are not even close. Against Nadal Federer freezes and one of the things to suffer most is the serve. His serve percentage against Nadal in big matches just goes down and it is not like Nadal is an aggressive returner. If Nadal played like Federer I and a lot of other people would admire and adore his tennis but the manner of the victories is not pleasing to the eye. Not everyone is blessed with breathtaking talent hence why I do respect Nadal and all that he has achieved.

Ackms421
06-04-2011, 05:16 AM
There lies the problem. In the past Federer actually used to get chances but now their matches are not even close. Against Nadal Federer freezes and one of the things to suffer most is the serve. His serve percentage against Nadal in big matches just goes down and it is not like Nadal is an aggressive returner. If Nadal played like Federer I and a lot of other people would admire and adore his tennis but the manner of the victories is not pleasing to the eye. Not everyone is blessed with breathtaking talent hence why I do respect Nadal and all that he has achieved.

Nah, the talent is there. His training is the problem. He grew up on slow clay in Spain. Watch his decisions on crucial points. It's nothing but talent.

NadalPhan
06-04-2011, 05:19 AM
There lies the problem. In the past Federer actually used to get chances but now their matches are not even close. Against Nadal Federer freezes and one of the things to suffer most is the serve. His serve percentage against Nadal in big matches just goes down and it is not like Nadal is an aggressive returner. If Nadal played like Federer I and a lot of other people would admire and adore his tennis but the manner of the victories is not pleasing to the eye. Not everyone is blessed with breathtaking talent hence why I do respect Nadal and all that he has achieved.


Also, when you see some of Rafa's shots, you would think that he would get crushed every single time for a winner, but instead his opponent hits a ball 20 feet off the line.

That being said, Nadal does actually have a beautiful game when he's being aggressive. It's just that you won't see it often from him.

NadalPhan
06-04-2011, 05:20 AM
Yes Ackms, the talent is definitely there. It's just that he's a defensive minded player.

Rakuten
06-04-2011, 05:36 AM
I can't decide if Nadal's mentality is helped or hindered by Federer's win today.

Sure Nadal's record at RG is an obvious advantage, but he has been pretty negative about his ability to win this tournament and a lot of pressure on himself. Is that totally attributed to Djoker's streak? and if so, do you think he will be put off by the fact that he wasn't the one to take him out?

Mentally, I think both are going into the final on an even keel.

I still think Nadal will win. If not, it will be the best match of Fed's career.

tests
06-04-2011, 05:40 AM
Also, when you see some of Rafa's shots, you would think that he would get crushed every single time for a winner, but instead his opponent hits a ball 20 feet off the line.

That being said, Nadal does actually have a beautiful game when he's being aggressive. It's just that you won't see it often from him.


The thing about nadal is that other than wimbledon, he plays such a defensive minded game that it is SO boring to watch. Of course he deserves respect.. hes going to be a 10 time fucking slam winner for christ sake. But i feel that a lot of his slams were won in a "physical" manner more so than in a tennis manner. I am not saying nadal is not talented... you have to be in order to win 10 slams. But nadal just out animals you.. its kind of like a boxing match when playing against him.

Anyways, i think the match nadal played at the uso final is the "aesthetically pleasing nadal," while the won he plays at RG (last year final), and the aus open are kind of ZZZZ

ballbasher101
06-04-2011, 05:41 AM
I can't decide if Nadal's mentality is helped or hindered by Federer's win today.

Sure Nadal's record at RG is an obvious advantage, but he has been pretty negative about his ability to win this tournament and a lot of pressure on himself. Is that totally attributed to Djoker's streak? and if so, do you think he will be put off by the fact that he wasn't the one to take him out?

Mentally, I think both are going into the final on an even keel.

I still think Nadal will win. If not, it will be the best match of Fed's career.


There are three things certain in life: death, taxes and Federer losing to Nadal in a major final.

tests
06-04-2011, 05:42 AM
I can't decide if Nadal's mentality is helped or hindered by Federer's win today.

Sure Nadal's record at RG is an obvious advantage, but he has been pretty negative about his ability to win this tournament and a lot of pressure on himself. Is that totally attributed to Djoker's streak? and if so, do you think he will be put off by the fact that he wasn't the one to take him out?

Mentally, I think both are going into the final on an even keel.

I still think Nadal will win. If not, it will be the best match of Fed's career.

you have to look at it this way. Nadal knows that the only person who beat him the past 5-6 months on clay was djokovic. PERIOD.

The guy who beat him is eliminated.. and the guy who nadal historically owns is in the final. Kind of like sampras agassi. Did you really think agassi would beat sampras at wimbledon or USO?

Nadal imho cannot be more delighted than he currently is. I bet he was giggling and shit after fed served that ace... and probably said "thanks roger.. you know i am the true number one {when roger did that finger wag]"

tests
06-04-2011, 05:42 AM
There are three things certain in life: death, taxes and Federer losing to Nadal in a major final.

hahahaha.

NadalPhan
06-04-2011, 05:54 AM
There are three things certain in life: death, taxes and Federer losing to Nadal in a major final.

He's the only guy who has beaten Nadal in a slam final, and he's done it twice.

tests
06-04-2011, 05:58 AM
He's the only guy who has beaten Nadal in a slam final, and he's done it twice.


to be fair, nadals other opponents were people who are not capable of beating him in a slam final.

Feds only lost to nadal and potro in slams finals.


I still don't think fed has much of a chance come sunday. Only way he wins is if nadal makes UFES.... and you know that won't happen

Rakuten
06-04-2011, 07:56 AM
I bet he was giggling and shit after fed served that ace... and probably said "thanks roger.. you know i am the true number one {when roger did that finger wag]"

I was sort of wondering about that finger wag. obviously Fed wasn't referring to himself or Novak. :)

The only way Roger stands a chance is if he plays like vintage Roger, but even that RF couldn't beat Nadal at RG. However, if Federer is good enough to beat the only guy that has beat Rafa this year....I dunno, I feel like there might be some transitive equation at work here.

Neither player is as invincible as they have been in the past 5 years. That's all I'm gonna say.

tests
06-04-2011, 08:15 AM
I was sort of wondering about that finger wag. obviously Fed wasn't referring to himself or Novak. :)

The only way Roger stands a chance is if he plays like vintage Roger, but even that RF couldn't beat Nadal at RG. However, if Federer is good enough to beat the only guy that has beat Rafa this year....I dunno, I feel like there might be some transitive equation at work here.

Neither player is as invincible as they have been in the past 5 years. That's all I'm gonna say.

i agree. But rafa looks invincible when playing fed

BULLZ1LLA
06-04-2011, 08:29 AM
moreover, he will be in double digits, (i'm not sure if djoke can put as much a fight on grass against him) so he would be really close to #11 which would bring him merely 4 slams away from 15 and arguable G.O.A.T) and would be kinda funny because everyone was wanting djok to lose, and it would only prove to be the start of another nadal run.


(The Nadal run never ended, he'll have won 4 of the last 5 slams if he wins on Sunday, that's incredible and yep a chance at 5 of 6 by winning Wimbledon. It's pretty obvious the Australian Open is the worst slam for Rafa. His record at the US Open is superior now, so I don't consider it a big deal if Rafa doesn't win the AO, he's very comfortable at the other slams :yeah: )

BULLZ1LLA
06-04-2011, 08:32 AM
I can't decide if Nadal's mentality is helped or hindered by Federer's win today.

Sure Nadal's record at RG is an obvious advantage, but he has been pretty negative about his ability to win this tournament and a lot of pressure on himself. Is that totally attributed to Djoker's streak? and if so, do you think he will be put off by the fact that he wasn't the one to take him out?

Mentally, I think both are going into the final on an even keel.

I still think Nadal will win. If not, it will be the best match of Fed's career.

(Don't worry about mentality, when Toni starts elaborating on Rafa's "weaknesses" mid-slam, you know its all a psychological show :lol: It's funny how people believe words before they believe actions. Rafa hasn't dropped a set since round one, and if we look back at Rafa's SF performance in RG 2010, it wasn't very convincing. Even his RG 2008 form wasn't perfect, before the final)

ossie
06-04-2011, 08:33 AM
rafa will officially become the greatest clay courter of all time.

tests
06-04-2011, 08:54 AM
rafa will officially become the greatest clay courter of all time.


man.. it just pisses me off that rafa has gotten almost ALL of his grand slam wins against federer.. a guy he matches up PERFECTLY TO.

A_Skywalker
06-04-2011, 09:05 AM
man.. it just pisses me off that rafa has gotten almost ALL of his grand slam wins against federer.. a guy he matches up PERFECTLY TO.

Its not like there were other players that could beat him on clay :confused:

tests
06-04-2011, 09:08 AM
Its not like there were other players that could beat him on clay :confused:


you are right, heh. I guess its just frustrating watch someone convert 2/2000000 bps vs him on clay.

Commander Data
06-04-2011, 09:20 AM
If Nadal wins, he will become the greatest clay counter ever. Bjorn borg has 6, but I am sure even bjorn borg would say with 6Nadal is the best ever on clay given the competition.

moreover, he will be in double digits, (i'm not sure if djoke can put as much a fight on grass against him) so he would be really close to #11 which would bring him merely 4 slams away from 15 and arguable G.O.A.T) and would be kinda funny because everyone was wanting djok to lose, and it would only prove to be the start of another nadal run.

If Fed wins, he will have another slam, and surely be the current G.O.A.T. (won't be questioned unless Nadal reaches one less than his slam count)

Also, if Fed wins, Djoker is number 1 for the first time, and has officially accomplished a new Feat, and would upgrade his status a bit.

Doesn't matter who wins, a lot is on the line.

You have not done your homeworks. Fed beating Nadal in the RG final would be the missing piece to complete Feds resume. It may not be needed for Fed but it would be huge.

Commander Data
06-04-2011, 09:25 AM
history is made at all slams no matter who wins.

slam winner is instantly immortalized.

the history on this sunday will be made by the clay warrior.

fed too is making history. this will be his 5th roland garros final.

CD becoming one of the most reasonable posters on here.



ancient Greeks knew they were right.

contrary to the current Greeks, which know they are wrong :D

careergrandslam
06-04-2011, 09:35 AM
i think this is federers best chance to beat nadal at RG.

looking back at his past RG finals with rafa, their matches have been very close apart from 2008. that was an outlier.
now considering that this year they use lighter balls which allows good servers to get free points, federer has the advantage.

for me, nadal has not been the beast he was in finals in years past, even the 2 finals he won this year, he has been playing pretty poor.

the crowd will be more vocal than normal because they will desperately want fed to beat nadal.

i find it hard to believe that federer can lose to nadal on 5 occasions at RG. i just think when ur as great as federer and as close as the matches have been between them at RG, i think the law of averages comes into play here.


fact is federer is playing very confidently serving well with the lighter balls and backhand not breaking down even when novak was pounding it. fed will feel invincible after beating novak. fed will want revenge for his 2008 final humiliation. while nadal is fighting his inner demons, his confidence in finals must have taken a hit after losing 2 clay finals in a row without winning a set on each occasion. he makes uncharacteristic errors when things get close, he gets very tight, and his serve has been easily breakable entire tournamnent, his backhand is a liability thus having to constantly dance around his backhand to hit a forehand, his passing shots have not been great this tournament, he loses focus and concentration.

if the weather is heavy and cloudy, it favours federer even more because the balls dont bounce high enough to his backhand, thus he can rally with rafa without much problems.

when its a match between a confident player vs non-confident player, u put the confident player as the favourite despite past history.

for these reasons, i put federer as favourite for the title.

BULLZ1LLA
06-04-2011, 10:56 AM
man.. it just pisses me off that rafa has gotten almost ALL of his grand slam wins against federer.. a guy he matches up PERFECTLY TO.

(But look at Rafa's opponents before the GS Finals, he's had to beat Murray twice at Wimbledon, Soderling twice at RG and twice at Wimbledon, Djokovic once at US Open. These are the toughest players of the era, and Rafa has had to beat them in the toughest rounds since they would be easier to beat in the Final)

tests
06-04-2011, 11:34 AM
(But look at Rafa's opponents before the GS Finals, he's had to beat Murray twice at Wimbledon, Soderling twice at RG and twice at Wimbledon, Djokovic once at US Open. These are the toughest players of the era, and Rafa has had to beat them in the toughest rounds since they would be easier to beat in the Final)

Same can be said about federer (who has beaten potro in two slams, soderling, berdych ,murray, djoker etc etc).

Maybe im just getting tired of these fedal finals? Most likely, anyone other than djokovic and POSSIBLY murray wont fare that well against nadal in a grand slam final (or fed for that matter), so it makes sense why we have seen a shit ton of fedal grand slam finals. Its just, for the sake of tennis, and GENERAL tennis fans, it would be awesome if the matches actually had a surprise element to it. I mean lets be honest here, whenever we watch (atleast for me) a fedal final, you have this instinctual feeling that nadal will come through no matter what. I thought fed would prove us wrong at australian open 2009... but he did not. He had a HUGE breakdown in the 5th set, when he had just wont he 4th set in convincing fashion.


Its ironic though how nadal denied federers chances at history numerous times (completely 4 slams in one year... tying sampras at 2009 aus.... passing borgs wimby at 2008). It would almost be fitting if fed does the same to nadal (and that iMHO would be signs of a great rivalry). But thats wishful thinking on any tennis fans part.

Verve
06-04-2011, 11:42 AM
Same can be said about federer (who has beaten potro in two slams, soderling, berdych ,murray, djoker etc etc).

Maybe im just getting tired of these fedal finals? Most likely, anyone other than djokovic and POSSIBLY murray wont fare that well against nadal in a grand slam final (or fed for that matter), so it makes sense why we have seen a shit ton of fedal grand slam finals. Its just, for the sake of tennis, and GENERAL tennis fans, it would be awesome if the matches actually had a surprise element to it. I mean lets be honest here, whenever we watch (atleast for me) a fedal final, you have this instinctual feeling that nadal will come through no matter what. I thought fed would prove us wrong at australian open 2009... but he did not. He had a HUGE breakdown in the 5th set, when he had just wont he 4th set in convincing fashion.


Its ironic though how nadal denied federers chances at history numerous times (completely 4 slams in one year... tying sampras at 2009 aus.... passing borgs wimby at 2008). It would almost be fitting if fed does the same to nadal (and that iMHO would be signs of a great rivalry). But thats wishful thinking on any tennis fans part.

Well said, that's exactly how I feel, too.

Moreso than the great match-up Federer is to Nadal, he just melts down upon seeing Rafa's face like a little schoolboy who's been punished too many times by the same teacher. If he would finally play freely and with balls, play bald and use his opportunities, THEN we might see a surprising result for once. Fed should use his role of the underdog MUCH more: what has he got to lose? Hell, people thought he might never again reach a RG final. It's his worst surface, against - for him - the worst opponent. He should just enjoy the challenge, live the moment, and come out pounding and playing lights-out-tennis to fight bravely in what will probably be his last RG final. Everything is a bonus.

But against the 5-time winner, who's owned him time and time again on this court, with most probably humid, heavy conditions favouring the Spanish warrior, I don't see Fed winning. I'd love to be proven wrong, but you've got to be realistic. I see Fed taking a set maybe, then getting nervous from excitement and down on himself, and losing it in 4. Prove me wrong, Fed, and I'll gladly eat my words!! ;)

tests
06-04-2011, 11:44 AM
Well said, that's exactly how I feel, too.

Moreso than the great match-up Federer is to Nadal, he just melts down upon seeing Rafa's face like a little schoolboy who's been punished too many times by the same teacher. If he would finally play freely and with balls, play bald and use his opportunities, THEN we might see a surprising result for once. Fed should use his role of the underdog MUCH more: what has he got to lose? It's his worst surface, against - for him - the worst opponent. He should just enjoy the challenge and come out pounding and playing lights-out-tennis. Everything is a bonus.

But against the 5-time winner, who's owned him time and time again on this court, with most probably humid, heavy conditions favouring the Spanish warrior, I don't see Fed winning. I'd love to be proven wrong, but you've got to be realistic. I see Fed taking a set maybe, then getting nervous from excitement and down on himself, and losing it in 4. Prove me wrong, Fed, and I'll gladly eat my words!! ;)

IMHO, fed taking one set would be a HUGE accomplishment for him at this age. If fed can take a set from nadal, than i will fancy his chances at wimbledon (if he plays just as well as he have here).

Lets just hope nadals cyclone of death doesn't kill fed heheh

BULLZ1LLA
06-04-2011, 11:49 AM
Same can be said about federer (who has beaten potro in two slams, soderling, berdych ,murray, djoker etc etc).

Maybe im just getting tired of these fedal finals? Most likely, anyone other than djokovic and POSSIBLY murray wont fare that well against nadal in a grand slam final (or fed for that matter), so it makes sense why we have seen a shit ton of fedal grand slam finals. Its just, for the sake of tennis, and GENERAL tennis fans, it would be awesome if the matches actually had a surprise element to it. I mean lets be honest here, whenever we watch (atleast for me) a fedal final, you have this instinctual feeling that nadal will come through no matter what. I thought fed would prove us wrong at australian open 2009... but he did not. He had a HUGE breakdown in the 5th set, when he had just wont he 4th set in convincing fashion.


Its ironic though how nadal denied federers chances at history numerous times (completely 4 slams in one year... tying sampras at 2009 aus.... passing borgs wimby at 2008). It would almost be fitting if fed does the same to nadal (and that iMHO would be signs of a great rivalry). But thats wishful thinking on any tennis fans part.

(Yep it does feel like this tying of Borg is a lot like Federer trying to tie Sampras with the AO 09. I guess we'll see what the difference is mentally between Rafa and Federer. This is going to be a really dramatic 1st set, seeing as Rafa has only ever lost one match after winning the 1st set)

Voo de Mar
06-04-2011, 12:33 PM
Nadal's 6 would be more impressive than Borg's 6 because when the Swede won his first two titles in Paris, first two rounds were “the best of three” :o

Johnny Groove
06-04-2011, 03:40 PM
The YEC was more important than the AO back then, which means that Borg has the equivalent of 13 slams on 3 different surfaces. Clearly superior to Nadal! I suggest you learn a thing or two about the history of the game before delivering an :o verdict.

Mjau giving me a history lesson :lol:

Yes the YEC was more important back then, but equal to a slam? That is debatable at best.

BULLZ1LLA
06-04-2011, 04:35 PM
Nadal's 6 would be more impressive than Borg's 6 because when the Swede won his first two titles in Paris, first two rounds were “the best of three” :o

(LOL yep that makes all the difference :lol: , anyways Rafa has plenty of time to get the 7th or more, but either way Rafa will never call himself the best)

Mjau!
06-04-2011, 04:43 PM
Mjau giving me a history lesson :lol:

Yes the YEC was more important back then, but equal to a slam? That is debatable at best.

No it isn't! It was the 4th most important tournament at the time. Do you really think it's fair to compare Nadal's number of titles in the 4 most prestigious events today to Borg's number of titles in the 3 most prestigious events back then? It's an :o biased comparision!

DorianGray7
06-04-2011, 04:53 PM
Fuck it, I know all the logic/reasoning + the haters that Roger doesn't have a chance and its NID.

But fuck it I'm going for Roger on this one. He has the better serve, has the crowd behind him, and has nothing to lose. Plus he will stick it to all the pathetic haters and doubters who think he is finished and is a mug.

I believe in miracles. It can happen, Roger was supposed to have no chance against Djokovic, he won.

Johnny Groove
06-04-2011, 05:03 PM
No it isn't! It was the 4th most important tournament at the time. Do you really think it's fair to compare Nadal's number of titles in the 4 most prestigious events today to Borg's number of titles in the 3 most prestigious events back then? It's an :o biased comparision!

As is comparing a RR tournament to a slam requiring 7 best of 5 set wins. Of course it is a difficult comparison, yes, Borg was an all-time great, but to me, Nadal winning RG and then Wimbledon again this year and getting to 11 slams would, to me, have him surpass Borg.

You may have your own opinion, and that is fine. We can agree to disagree.

NadalPhan
06-04-2011, 05:16 PM
there is no such thing as GOAT folks.

this concept is based on a very flawed logic.

Word.

If you want a GOAT debate, it should only be against the same players in that era.

Sophocles
06-04-2011, 05:17 PM
Obviously it would be amazing for Fed if the impossible happened & he actually won. But losing won't matter that much. He was losing to Nadal in the R.G. final when he was dominating the game. He's already done what he needed to do by beating Djokovic. If he couldn't beat Djokovic, his chances of even making a slam final, let alone winning one, would have been much lower. And Federer doesn't want to keep his slam record against Nadal by seeing Nadal lose. He wants to keep it by winning more slams. After yesterday's match, that no longer seems a forlorn hope.

Mjau!
06-04-2011, 06:22 PM
As is comparing a RR tournament to a slam requiring 7 best of 5 set wins. Of course it is a difficult comparison, yes, Borg was an all-time great, but to me, Nadal winning RG and then Wimbledon again this year and getting to 11 slams would, to me, have him surpass Borg.

You may have your own opinion, and that is fine. We can agree to disagree.

What? Beating McEnroe, Connors and Lendl in the same tournament is less impressive than beating Verdasco, Youzhny and Gluten-Nole? :rolleyes: It is CLEARLY a much more reasonable comparision than just looking at the 4 slams when Björn-Rune did not even bother to play Australia (except once when 17) because it wasn't that important.

Hazem
06-04-2011, 07:17 PM
Nadal's 6 would be more impressive than Borg's 6 because when the Swede won his first two titles in Paris, first two rounds were “the best of three” :o

This is a note. But in another point of view, if this continued till now Nadal couldn't advance even to the second round as he would be defeated to Isner!

Johnny Groove
06-04-2011, 07:32 PM
What? Beating McEnroe, Connors and Lendl in the same tournament is less impressive than beating Verdasco, Youzhny and Gluten-Nole? :rolleyes: It is CLEARLY a much more reasonable comparision than just looking at the 4 slams when Björn-Rune did not even bother to play Australia (except once when 17) because it wasn't that important.

Well now the question becomes, which is more impressive:

Borg winning the 79 Masters beating Connors and Mac 7-6 in the third and 6-2 6-2 Gerulaitis in the finals and the 80 Masters losing 0-6 3-6 to the Great Gene Mayer in RR before beating Mac and Connors in 3 in RR and SF and winning against a rookie Lendl in straight in the final.

Or: Nadal defeating Federer in the finals of 6 slams and Djokovic in another combined with 6 best of 5 sets wins to get there on clay, grass, slow, and fast hard courts in Australia, New York, Wimbledon, and Paris?

Everyone will have a different opinion.

Mjau!
06-04-2011, 08:08 PM
Well now the question becomes, which is more impressive:

Borg winning the 79 Masters beating Connors and Mac 7-6 in the third and 6-2 6-2 Gerulaitis in the finals and the 80 Masters losing 0-6 3-6 to the Great Gene Mayer in RR before beating Mac and Connors in 3 in RR and SF and winning against a rookie Lendl in straight in the final.

Or: Nadal defeating Federer in the finals of 6 slams and Djokovic in another combined with 6 best of 5 sets wins to get there on clay, grass, slow, and fast hard courts in Australia, New York, Wimbledon, and Paris?

Everyone will have a different opinion.

The argument isn't whether Borg's 2 YEC titles are more impressive than Nadal's 9 GS titles combined, :stupid:. Are you sure you've stopped :smoke:?

:o

swebright
06-04-2011, 09:09 PM
I am more interested in whether Federer will make Nole number #1.

GugaF1
06-04-2011, 11:42 PM
Wasn't it in Borg era that non top players around the top 100 were common to have other profssions such as Dentists, lawyers and such? Someone pelase correct me if I wrong on this. It just show how the nostalgiatards are ridiculous they will defend anything from the past.

Johnny Groove
06-04-2011, 11:59 PM
The argument isn't whether Borg's 2 YEC titles are more impressive than Nadal's 9 GS titles combined, :stupid:. Are you sure you've stopped :smoke:?

:o

I was talking about if Nadal hypothetically won the Channel Slam again this year and was tied w/ Borg at 11 slams, darling.

Mjau!
06-05-2011, 12:37 AM
I was talking about if Nadal hypothetically won the Channel Slam again this year and was tied w/ Borg at 11 slams, darling.

*sigh* What does that have to do with this discussion? :facepalm: I know you were putting Nadal's hypothetical 11 slams versus Borg's actual 11 slams, but it has no relevance whatsoever to this argument. Haven't you been paying attention at all? :confused: I have been questioning the logic in comparing Nadal's titles from the 4 most important tournaments in his calendar with Borg's titles from the 3 most important tournaments in his calendar. That is obviously a biased comparision! I have also questioned the notion that beating McEnroe, Connors and Lendl back-back-back is somehow a lesser achievement than defeating the likes of Verdasco, Youzhny and Allergic-Nole. Astonishingly, you counter this by weighing Borg's 2 YEC titles versus Nadal's total GS title count! :cuckoo: When I'm nice enough to point out that you seem to have missed the point by a country mile :angel:, you actually manage to outdo yourself and produce the even more flabbergasting gem above. Wow! :o


:hug:

Johnny Groove
06-05-2011, 01:06 AM
*sigh* What does that have to do with this discussion? :facepalm: I know you were putting Nadal's hypothetical 11 slams versus Borg's actual 11 slams, but it has no relevance whatsoever to this argument. Haven't you been paying attention at all? :confused: I have been questioning the logic in comparing Nadal's titles from the 4 most important tournaments in his calendar with Borg's titles from the 3 most important tournaments in his calendar. That is obviously a biased comparision! I have also questioned the notion that beating McEnroe, Connors and Lendl back-back-back is somehow a lesser achievement than defeating the likes of Verdasco, Youzhny and Allergic-Nole. Astonishingly, you counter this by weighing Borg's 2 YEC titles versus Nadal's total GS title count! :cuckoo: When I'm nice enough to point out that you seem to have missed the point by a country mile :angel:, you actually manage to outdo yourself and produce the even more flabbergasting gem above. Wow! :o


:hug:

I agree to disagree.

Arakasi
06-05-2011, 03:52 AM
I agree to disagree.

Are you being purposefully dense? :cuckoo: Why don't you just respond to the point. If Nadal reaches 11 slams he'll have won them at 4 slams. Borg only played 3 slams. You can't just ignore that fact.

Either:

1) Discount Nadal's Australian Open (which doesn't seem the best solution to me since he won it fair and square)

or 2) Take Borg's 2 titles at the YEC into account since it was the fourth biggest event in his season. This doesn't mean 2 YEC = 2 Slams but it definitely counts for something.

Johnny Groove
06-05-2011, 05:29 AM
Are you being purposefully dense? :cuckoo: Why don't you just respond to the point. If Nadal reaches 11 slams he'll have won them at 4 slams. Borg only played 3 slams. You can't just ignore that fact.

Either:

1) Discount Nadal's Australian Open (which doesn't seem the best solution to me since he won it fair and square)

or 2) Take Borg's 2 titles at the YEC into account since it was the fourth biggest event in his season. This doesn't mean 2 YEC = 2 Slams but it definitely counts for something.

Yes, I understand he only played 3 slams. Yes, I understand that the YEC at that time was the 4th biggest tournament.

I also understand that Nadal's theoretical 11 slams and one of each in this era of competitiveness and depth of field (regardless of what the mugs on MTF will have you believe) is, TO ME, worth more than Borg's 11 slams and 2 YEC against a field that was not anywhere near as deep as it is today.

Add to that the fact that Borg retired at 25 shows to me a sign of mental weakness. Nadal, should he win the Channel Slam again this year, would to me, be more impressive than Borg's career.

But not by much, and certainly there will be those who argue that Borg was greater than Nadal even if Nadal gets to 11, such as Mjau, and I respect that opinion.

Arakasi
06-05-2011, 06:26 AM
I also understand that Nadal's theoretical 11 slams and one of each in this era of competitiveness and depth of field

If Nadal does get to #11 then 9 of his slams will have been on clay and grass. Beyond Fedal the competition is very poor on these surfaces. Especially grass. That isn't to say Nadal still wouldn't have won those slams against better opposition but going down the route of "he faced so much competition" is ridiculous when this is patently a hardcourt era.

Also, you can't rate Nadal for the competition he faced (as erroneous as that might be) and ignore the fact that Borg played in four US Open finals (as well as numerous other semis and quarters) and lost everytime to McEnroe and Connors, all-time greats at the event. He was far more successful than Nadal at the Open even if Rafa is the one who managed to get a title in my opinion.

Indeed, I think Borg displayed more all-surface ability in his career than Nadal even if the latter has the career slam. Despite clay and grass being drastically different in his day (far more so than now) his success is still unmatched on the natural surfaces. Like I said already, only the best managed to stop him at the Open and to top it all off he also won 2 titles at the YEC when it was played on indoor carpet against fierce competition. Comparatively, Nadal has had an easier time of it on clay and grass. On hardcourts he is always vulnerable to the Murrays/Djokovics of this world who clearly aren't in same league as McEnroe/Connors, and he has only won the single indoor title in his entire career.

Borg also missed the French in '77 because he was under contract with WTT.

Add to that the fact that Borg retired at 25 shows to me a sign of mental weakness.

We're discussing achievements not mental strength. In fact you could argue that Borg would have achieved a lot more if he hadn't retired so early but I don't think that's a meaningful argument.

But not by much, and certainly there will be those who argue that Borg was greater than Nadal even if Nadal gets to 11, such as Mjau, and I respect that opinion.

For me Borg is still clearly ahead of Nadal even if he reaches slam #11 in the next month. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

tests
06-05-2011, 07:28 AM
If Nadal does get to #11 then 9 of his slams will have been on clay and grass. Beyond Fedal the competition is very poor on these surfaces. Especially grass. That isn't to say Nadal still wouldn't have won those slams against better opposition but going down the route of "he faced so much competition" is ridiculous when this is patently a hardcourt era.

Also, you can't rate Nadal for the competition he faced (as erroneous as that might be) and ignore the fact that Borg played in four US Open finals (as well as numerous other semis and quarters) and lost everytime to McEnroe and Connors, all-time greats at the event. He was far more successful than Nadal at the Open even if Rafa is the one who managed to get a title in my opinion.

Indeed, I think Borg displayed more all-surface ability in his career than Nadal even if the latter has the career slam. Despite clay and grass being drastically different in his day (far more so than now) his success is still unmatched on the natural surfaces. Like I said already, only the best managed to stop him at the Open and to top it all off he also won 2 titles at the YEC when it was played on indoor carpet against fierce competition. Comparatively, Nadal has had an easier time of it on clay and grass. On hardcourts he is always vulnerable to the Murrays/Djokovics of this world who clearly aren't in same league as McEnroe/Connors, and he has only won the single indoor title in his entire career.

Borg also missed the French in '77 because he was under contract with WTT.



We're discussing achievements not mental strength. In fact you could argue that Borg would have achieved a lot more if he hadn't retired so early but I don't think that's a meaningful argument.



For me Borg is still clearly ahead of Nadal even if he reaches slam #11 in the next month. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.


If borg is clearly ahead of nadal, than where do you have him when hes up against a federer?

BULLZ1LLA
06-05-2011, 07:36 AM
(Good chance for Rafa to increase the slam h2h to 7-2, and I think in future there is a good chance it will become 10-2 which would be monumentally dominant)

tests
06-05-2011, 07:38 AM
(Good chance for Rafa to increase the slam h2h to 7-2, and I think in future there is a good chance it will become 10-2 which would be monumentally dominant)

that kind of sucks for federer. He has to face a prime nadal, while he himself is not in his pime (or has flashes of it).

Good for you nadal fans though!

Arakasi
06-05-2011, 07:45 AM
If borg is clearly ahead of nadal, than where do you have him when hes up against a federer?

Federer is ahead of Borg. Very few people would argue with that.

BULLZ1LLA
06-05-2011, 07:48 AM
that kind of sucks for federer. He has to face a prime nadal, while he himself is not in his pime (or has flashes of it).

Good for you nadal fans though!

(Yep it is interesting timing, because imagine if Federer plays till age 35, the gap will be huge. Still, imagine if Federer wasn't on tour during the several years that Rafa was ranked number 2......then Rafa would already hold the record for weeks ranked number one)

tests
06-05-2011, 07:49 AM
(Yep it is interesting timing, because imagine if Federer plays till age 35, the gap will be huge. Still, imagine if Federer wasn't on tour during the several years that Rafa was ranked number 2......then Rafa would already hold the record for weeks ranked number one)

and imagine if rafa wasent there when fed was in his prime.... 3 times he would have won 4 slams in a row.

This is why i think head to head record means very little. I mean, are we really going to hold it against fed if he loses to a prime nadal when he is say 32 or 33?

How about if nadal ends up losing to younger players when he is older?

BULLZ1LLA
06-05-2011, 07:52 AM
and imagine if rafa wasent there when fed was in his prime.... 3 times he would have won 4 slams in a row.

This is why i think head to head record means very little. I mean, are we really going to hold it against fed if he loses to a prime nadal when he is say 32 or 33?

How about if nadal ends up losing to younger players when he is older?

(Depends what you mean by "hold it against". The head2head is always going to show these results. There are 2 wins by Federer in the slam head2head, Wimbledon 2006 and Wimbledon 2007. It wouldn't be fair to 'hold it against' Rafa for losing the 2006 Wimbledon, since he'd only had 4 matches of grasscourt experience before 2006. But we do hold it against him, as people will refer to the head2head at Wimbledon which shows 2-1 Federer. And I do think Rafa needs to beat Federer at Wimbledon at least once more to even it at 2-2)

tests
06-05-2011, 08:06 AM
(Depends what you mean by "hold it against". The head2head is always going to show these results. There are 2 wins by Federer in the slam head2head, Wimbledon 2006 and Wimbledon 2007. It wouldn't be fair to 'hold it against' Rafa for losing the 2006 Wimbledon, since he'd only had 4 matches of grasscourt experience before 2006. But we do hold it against him, as people will refer to the head2head at Wimbledon which shows 2-1 Federer. And I do think Rafa needs to beat Federer at Wimbledon at least once more to even it at 2-2)

Yes but you can say the same thing about nadal not reaching hardcourt slam finals when fed was in his prime. Should we hold it against fed that during 2004-2007, rafa reached 0 hardcourt slam finals (Yes i know he reached the finals of USO last year....)?

This comes back to my previous point. Head to Head does not determine overall greatness. YES nadal and federer are all-time greats... yes nadal and federer are the premiere players of this generation, and YES they are rivals.... but their is also a huge stylistic mismatch between the two.

Are we going to say that davydenko is equal to nadal since davydenko always gets the best of him in their matchups?


Why can't all fans just enjoy tennis as a whole instead of nit-picking and just favoring one single guy?

I love nadals physicality, stamina, mental toughness, and go all out every match game.

I admire federers classic game and "Easy on the eyes" playstyle.

Novak's backhand is a thing of beauty, and his return game is one of, if not the best ive seen.

Murray seems to give it his all and then some in a lot of his matches, and he is quite deceiving on the court.

careergrandslam
06-05-2011, 09:17 AM
nadal has lost his mojo in finals.

tests
06-05-2011, 09:20 AM
nadal has lost his mojo in finals.

:rolleyes:

BULLZ1LLA
06-05-2011, 10:10 AM
Yes but you can say the same thing about nadal not reaching hardcourt slam finals when fed was in his prime. Should we hold it against fed that during 2004-2007, rafa reached 0 hardcourt slam finals (Yes i know he reached the finals of USO last year....)?

This comes back to my previous point. Head to Head does not determine overall greatness. YES nadal and federer are all-time greats... yes nadal and federer are the premiere players of this generation, and YES they are rivals.... but their is also a huge stylistic mismatch between the two.

Are we going to say that davydenko is equal to nadal since davydenko always gets the best of him in their matchups?


Why can't all fans just enjoy tennis as a whole instead of nit-picking and just favoring one single guy?

I love nadals physicality, stamina, mental toughness, and go all out every match game.

I admire federers classic game and "Easy on the eyes" playstyle.

Novak's backhand is a thing of beauty, and his return game is one of, if not the best ive seen.

Murray seems to give it his all and then some in a lot of his matches, and he is quite deceiving on the court.

(We should hold everything against the player that it says in the slam head2head, that is only fair because it works both ways. Federer got to beat inexperienced Rafa twice at Wimbledon, and Rafa got to beat an old Federer at the Australian Open [if we call 2009 Federer old]. It evened out. For the record, I've only been referring to the slam head2head, not the overall head2head. I don't value the overall head2head. So Davy has done nothing vs Rafa, nothing in slams)