Is Federer vs. Nadal a future rivarly? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Federer vs. Nadal a future rivarly?

rue
04-04-2005, 02:59 AM
From what we saw today I really think that there may be a potential rivalry that could develop between these two. Nadal is still really young and as he improves his game I think these two could form a great rivalry. No one else has been able to come close to beating Federer with the exception of Safin, but no one is sure whether Safin will have it within himself to form a rivalry with Federer.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 03:07 AM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.

Action Jackson
04-04-2005, 03:10 AM
Who gives a crap about rivalries, just another media marketing term to sell the game.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 03:11 AM
Who gives a crap about rivalries, just another media marketing term to sell the game.
Um, I give a crap? Frankly, if Hewitt could actually still beat Federer sometimes, I would take interest in their matches. As it is, I don't.

Regardless, as I said, Nadal is not the right person to look to as a future contender. He should still be playing juniors.

uNIVERSE mAN
04-04-2005, 03:12 AM
Chloe? You're saying this?? :scared:

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 03:12 AM
Chloe? You're saying this?? :scared:
Yup. It's totally true too. I don't know why Rafa bothers. He's clearly not good enough to play on the ATP.

PaulieM
04-04-2005, 03:14 AM
there's definitely potential for a great rivalry, time will tell.

uNIVERSE mAN
04-04-2005, 03:15 AM
nice try! :boxing:

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 03:16 AM
Rafa should take his cheese digging back to the juniors where it belongs!



This isn't ever going to get boring. I might have to do a new variation on the "Rafa blows" signature each week

Action Jackson
04-04-2005, 03:16 AM
Um, I give a crap? Frankly, if Hewitt could actually still beat Federer sometimes, I would take interest in their matches. As it is, I don't.

Regardless, as I said, Nadal is not the right person to look to as a future contender. He should still be playing juniors.

I could have worded and should have worded that better, had a bad day already.

In reality I have a problem with the world rivalry and the need for some fans and media to go on about it and bemoan the lack of them in tennis. There are some fans who just enjoy the matches even the Enqvist vs Söderling ones.

If they are good matches, then enjoy the ride and appreciate them, but is there a real need to go on about rivalries.

Action Jackson
04-04-2005, 03:17 AM
Yup. It's totally true too. I don't know why Rafa bothers. He's clearly not good enough to play on the ATP.

You speak the truth cantankerous one.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 03:19 AM
You know the worst part of Rafa's game? He wears CAPRIS. Intollerable. Capris are for junior calibre players with no future. Like Rafa.

uNIVERSE mAN
04-04-2005, 03:23 AM
I could have worded and should have worded that better, had a bad day already.

In reality I have a problem with the world rivalry and the need for some fans and media to go on about it and bemoan the lack of them in tennis. There are some fans who just enjoy the matches even the Enqvist vs Söderling ones.

If they are good matches, then enjoy the ride and appreciate them, but is there a real need to go on about rivalries.

What about the commercial aspect of the game? it needs to be sold to ordinary folks more than the die-hard fans since they out-number us by far. If these "rivalries" mean more viewers, we all win too.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 03:23 AM
Maybe I should start a Rafa hate thread where we can talk about such fascinating topics as:

1) His capris
2) How he's a junior calibre player
3) How he can only hit topspin forehands. Nothing else.
4) How he has no serve.
5) How Federer will win all remaining matches 6-0 6-0 6-0
6) How he picks his butt
7) How he pumps himself up.
8) How his left arm is bigger than his right arm.
9) How he has long hair.
10) How he's peaked at 18.
11) How he's just so totally overrated.
12) How he is "anti tennis"
13) *insert topic I have missed here*

I'll consider this possibility for tomorrow.

Sorry to hijack the thread with a summary of every asinine comment I've read so far today. I couldn't help it.

Action Jackson
04-04-2005, 03:26 AM
What about the commercial aspect of the game? it needs to be sold to ordinary folks more than the die-hard fans since they out-number us by far. If these "rivalries" mean more viewers, we all win too.

Tennis is a niche sport and always will be a niche sport, it'll never be number 1 sport in any country it's played in for many obvious reasons, which I don't need to go in here.

If someone is interested enough in the game, they'll follow it whatever, if not who needs fairweather fans. Some people are intelligent enough to work that out for themselves.

Action Jackson
04-04-2005, 03:27 AM
Maybe I should start a Rafa hate thread where we can talk about such fascinating topics as:

1) His capris
2) How he's a junior calibre player
3) How he can only hit topspin forehands. Nothing else.
4) How he has no serve.
5) How Federer will win all remaining matches 6-0 6-0 6-0
6) How he picks his butt
7) How he pumps himself up.
8) How his left arm is bigger than his right arm.
9) How he has long hair.
10) How he's peaked at 18.
11) How he's just so totally overrated.
12) *insert topic I have missed here*

I'll consider this possibility for tomorrow.

Sorry to hijack the thread with a summary of every asinine comment I've read so far today. I couldn't help it.

Go ahead and you'll get help as well.

Don't forget from the great ys Nadal is a lefthander.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 03:28 AM
I refuse to acknowledge ys' trolls. I have to draw the line somewhere.

Action Jackson
04-04-2005, 03:30 AM
I refuse to acknowledge ys' trolls. I have to draw the line somewhere.

Well you know where my line is drawn and as for the match I am not going to comment on it as there is no need as the Mensa Tennis Forums have spoken enough already.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 03:32 AM
Well you know where my line is drawn and as for the match I am not going to comment on it as there is no need as the Mensa Tennis Forums have spoken enough already.
I'm just glad that the people who actually know what they are talking about give Rafa more credit that *some* people around here do - his opponents :)

Action Jackson
04-04-2005, 03:34 AM
I'm just glad that the people who actually know what they are talking about give Rafa more credit that *some* people around here do - his opponents :)

Just remember he is a Spaniard and a dirty claycourter, we can't have these type of people in hardcourt finals.

Scotso
04-04-2005, 03:34 AM
Where is the "No, Rafa will kick his ass from now on" option? :confused:

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 03:39 AM
Just remember he is a Spaniard and a dirty claycourter, we can't have these type of people in hardcourt finals.
He got really lucky this week. That will never happen again.

Action Jackson
04-04-2005, 03:41 AM
He got really lucky this week. That will never happen again.

How could I have thought otherwise.

WyveN
04-04-2005, 04:45 AM
Way to early to call it a rivalry but it has far more potential then Roger and most of the top 20.

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 05:11 AM
Given Nadal's success in his career you'd almost have to question if Roger is competition for Nadal seeing how Rafa has surpasses Federer in this aspect.

He already has the advantage on clay and took Roger to 5 on a HC. Certainly rival stuff.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 05:31 AM
No, you have it all wrong. Federer only struggles against Rafa because he has coincidentally played at 5% of his abilities both times they have played. Next time he will play at 15% and win 0 and 0. Rafa's really just not very good. Fed's just kidding when he says that. So is Hewitt. So is Roddick. So is Moya. Okay, Moya's opinion doesn't count.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 05:32 AM
I'd like to know who continues to vote "absolute no fucking way! Nadal is a no talent suck!" so that I have some sort of idea who I'm ripping in this thread. :)

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 05:43 AM
I'd like to know who continues to vote "absolute no fucking way! Nadal is a no talent suck!" so that I have some sort of idea who I'm ripping in this thread. :)
You mean so you know who to goodrep. ;)

bad gambler
04-04-2005, 05:45 AM
chloe is on the warpath :lol: :scared:

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 05:47 AM
chloe is on the warpath :lol: :scared:
Certainly Chloe is in the running to win the Roland HateDal Slam.

MissMoJo
04-04-2005, 05:50 AM
If he plays like he did today in the first three sets consistently, yep

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 05:54 AM
chloe is on the warpath :lol: :scared:
At least I waited half a day until I could be good natured about it :p

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 05:55 AM
Certainly Chloe is in the running to win the Roland HateDal Slam.
I will not be denied my dream :hearts:

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 05:56 AM
If he plays like he did today in the first three sets consistently, yep
No, see, Rafa wasn't playing in those first sets. Roger was just feeding him balls and throwing him a bone every other point by shanking a volley. Rafa will only ever "play" like that again if Roger lets him.

Needless to say, their first two matches don't count, because Roger wasn't trying.

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 05:56 AM
No, see, Rafa wasn't playing in those first sets. Roger was just feeding him balls and throwing him a bone every other point by shanking a volley. Rafa will only ever "play" like that again if Roger lets him.

Needless to say, their first two matches don't count, because Roger wasn't trying.
Rodge just wanted to give his "insiders" better live betting odds.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 05:57 AM
Rodge just wanted to give his "insiders" better live betting odds.
How kind of him :D

bad gambler
04-04-2005, 05:57 AM
Rodge just wanted to give his "insiders" better live betting odds.

i've got the fed express at number 1 on my speed dial, just say the word.....

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 05:58 AM
Come on you 9 "RAFA BLOWS NOBODY WILL HIT WITH FED EVA!" voters. Get a backbone and put forth your reasons!

bad gambler
04-04-2005, 05:58 AM
Come on you 9 "RAFA BLOWS NOBODY WILL HIT WITH FED EVA!" voters. Get a backbone and put forth your reasons!

the obvious reason is to wind you up :p

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 05:59 AM
i've got the fed express at number 1 on my speed dial, just say the word.....
Only Coria surely would follow at a close #2..

lmfao @ his 1st set collapse 1-6 to that one dude @ Mi AM Aiiii

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 06:00 AM
Come on you 9 "RAFA BLOWS NOBODY WILL HIT WITH FED EVA!" voters. Get a backbone and put forth your reasons!
They're busy examing his various Exhibit A-Z pictures of him in Capris.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 06:02 AM
the obvious reason is to wind you up :p

I disagree. Most of those votes were there before I entered the thread. I like when polls are public so that I know who is and isn't worth discussing things seirously with :p

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 06:03 AM
They're busy examing his various Exhibit A-Z pictures of him in Capris.
They're probably wondering where they can get a pair :)

I'm going to go buy myself loose fitting capris this week :yeah:

MissMoJo
04-04-2005, 06:04 AM
How kind of him :D
Rafa and Gaston should establish the FedCor appreciation society....it's the least they could do

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 06:05 AM
I disagree. Most of those votes were there before I entered the thread. I like when polls are public so that I know who is and isn't worth discussing things seirously with :p
Browse through ys' scriptures and you'll find one first-hand.

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 06:06 AM
They're probably wondering where they can get a pair :)

I'm going to go buy myself loose fitting capris this week :yeah:
Rafa should still go ab-high with those bad boys. The fashion statement of men's tennis to another level...

Couldn't think of a better way to show your Nadal support. Rock on! :rocker2:

I'm thinking of dying my hair black and adding a hairpiece myself with white Nike headband!!!

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 06:08 AM
Browse through ys' scriptures and you'll find one first-hand.
The thing about ys is that he does know what he's talking about when he wants to... he just doesn't want to very often, for whatever reason.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 06:10 AM
Rafa should still go ab-high with those bad boys. The fashion statement of men's tennis to another level...

While he's at it, maybe he should wear warmup boots too.

Couldn't think of a better way to show your Nadal support. Rock on! :rocker2:

:yeah:

I'm actually not buying them to support Rafa, but I'll be sure to call them my "Rafa pants" anyways.

I'm thinking of dying my hair black and adding a hairpiece myself with white Nike headband!!!

You GO Girl! :rocker2:

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 06:10 AM
The thing about ys is that he does know what he's talking about when he wants to... he just doesn't want to very often, for whatever reason.
Personally it's the WTA methodology rubbing off on his Russian outtakes.

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 06:10 AM
Personally it's the WTA methodology rubbing off on his Russian outtakes.
Possibly, although he did give a fair assessment of Andreev at the USO last year.

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 06:12 AM
While he's at it, maybe he should wear warmup boots too.
Yes! Serena style baby!!! Black leather has the Senioritas melting in the hot Miami sun!!!

I'm actually not buying them to support Rafa, but I'll be sure to call them my "Rafa pants" anyways.
Dawesome!!! Maybe throw a Leafs jersey on top and you'll have your basic favs covered!! lol!!

You GO Girl! :rocker2:
KILLAH!!! :rocker2:

Chloe le Bopper
04-04-2005, 06:13 AM
Yes! Serena style baby!!! Black leather has the Senioritas melting in the hot Miami sun!!!


Dawesome!!! Maybe throw a Leafs jersey on top and you'll have your basic favs covered!! lol!!


KILLAH!!! :rocker2:

I have a picture of Rafa in a Leafs Jersey somewhere :devil:

NATAS81
04-04-2005, 06:15 AM
I have a picture of Rafa in a Leafs Jersey somewhere :devil:
Yes! The most treasured resemblement of all that is RAFALICIOUS in one pic!!! Chlo has spoken! :worship: :lick:

Fumus
06-02-2005, 05:48 PM
*bump*

Chloe le Bopper
06-02-2005, 07:45 PM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.

Some things never change.

I would just like to state that my opinion on this matter has not changed. Rafael Nadal blows. It's only a matter of time before he becomes Ginepri's bitch.

End of discussion.

VingaRafel
06-02-2005, 07:45 PM
Maybe I should start a Rafa hate thread where we can talk about such fascinating topics as:

1) His capris
2) How he's a junior calibre player
3) How he can only hit topspin forehands. Nothing else.
4) How he has no serve.
5) How Federer will win all remaining matches 6-0 6-0 6-0
6) How he picks his butt
7) How he pumps himself up.
8) How his left arm is bigger than his right arm.
9) How he has long hair.
10) How he's peaked at 18.
11) How he's just so totally overrated.
12) How he is "anti tennis"
13) *insert topic I have missed here*

I'll consider this possibility for tomorrow.

Sorry to hijack the thread with a summary of every asinine comment I've read so far today. I couldn't help it.

Hmmm... you forgot to mention: Rafa has stolen every bit of glory Coria had, and has made him his number one .... BITCH !!!

Chloe le Bopper
06-02-2005, 07:46 PM
Hmmm... you forgot to mention: Rafa has stolen every bit of glory Coria had, and has made him his number one .... BITCH !!!
Erm, if you say so.

Gonzo Hates Me!
06-02-2005, 07:48 PM
Right now, the record is 1-1. By the year's end, it will be 4-1 Nadal

Chloe le Bopper
06-02-2005, 07:50 PM
Right now, the record is 1-1. By the year's end, it will be 4-1 Nadal
Only if Fed plays left handed and in a wheelchair.

Dirk
06-02-2005, 07:52 PM
Nadal and roger won't play again after this. People shouldn't expect Nadal to consistently go deep at harcourt events. The summer hardcourts are not as slow as Miami. Forget about them likely meeting indoors for a long time same with grass.

nkhera1
06-02-2005, 07:54 PM
Only if Fed plays left handed and in a wheelchair.

You forgot to add while being blindfolded with his right and left arms being tied behind his back and even then I don't know how much of a chance Nadal has. I see the score being 7-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-7, 7-6 if Nadal gets some lucky breaks. Unfortunately Nadal will then lose to Bye in the next round provided he can beat his opponent.

nermo
06-02-2005, 08:01 PM
you forgot to mention: Rafa has stolen every bit of glory Coria had, and has made him his number one .... BITCH !!! posted by Vingarafel

Dont Agree...Coria is not that Exhausting Player...he dropped his glory himself somewhere..

Gonzo Hates Me!
06-02-2005, 08:06 PM
Only if Fed plays left handed and in a wheelchair.

Hey Fat Ass, grow some confidence in your favorite player. Pray. Hope. Whatever. But you are very mean to Nadal. He hates you

Fumus
06-02-2005, 08:07 PM
Nadal and roger won't play again after this. People shouldn't expect Nadal to consistently go deep at harcourt events. The summer hardcourts are not as slow as Miami. Forget about them likely meeting indoors for a long time same with grass.

Right cuz, just like Karen(Chloe) said, Nadal sucks.

Fumus
06-02-2005, 08:08 PM
Hey Fat Ass, grow some confidence in your favorite player. Pray. Hope. Whatever. But you are very mean to Nadal. He hates you

American College Wooo!! :cool:

Chloe le Bopper
06-02-2005, 08:09 PM
You forgot to add while being blindfolded with his right and left arms being tied behind his back and even then I don't know how much of a chance Nadal has. I see the score being 7-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-7, 7-6 if Nadal gets some lucky breaks. Unfortunately Nadal will then lose to Bye in the next round provided he can beat his opponent.

He'll probably have some matchpoints, but ultimately Roger will save them with a couple awesome headbutts over the net. Poor Rafa.

Chloe le Bopper
06-02-2005, 08:10 PM
Hey Fat Ass, grow some confidence in your favorite player. Pray. Hope. Whatever. But you are very mean to Nadal. He hates you

He'll get over it. JCF did.

Chloe le Bopper
06-02-2005, 08:10 PM
Right cuz, just like Karen(Chloe) said, Nadal sucks.

Karen is NOT an acceptable pet name for me.

Fumus
06-02-2005, 08:12 PM
Karen is NOT an acceptable pet name for me.

lol...I guess I will just have to call you Karen in secret. :)

Chloe le Bopper
06-02-2005, 08:13 PM
lol...I guess I will just have to call you Karen in secret. :)
In secret, yes. Like, in secret when I'm not there and have no way of finding out.

Fumus
06-02-2005, 08:14 PM
In secret, yes. Like, in secret when I'm not there and have no way of finding out.


Haha...yea sorry Karen, I mean..shit...um.... :o

Chloe le Bopper
06-02-2005, 08:21 PM
Haha...yea sorry Karen, I mean..shit...um.... :o
Ugh. Nap time.

Fumus
06-02-2005, 08:21 PM
Ugh. Nap time.

Ohh shush...would you rather I call you Patty?

Chloe le Bopper
06-02-2005, 08:24 PM
Yes. But it really is nap time ;)

Nastase
06-03-2005, 12:13 AM
It's actually a big rivalry indeed.

jacobhiggins
06-03-2005, 04:35 AM
It is on clay, not too sure about other surfaces though, people are forgetting, Nadal is at his peak right now, he dosen't get much better then this, then he is on clay! I think Federer has a lot more variety at the moment then Nadal. Nadal is going to have to work very very hard for the other slams and as of right now, does not have the tools and vareity to compete with Federer. He can get a lot better, but im just saying what I think so.

Chloe le Bopper
06-03-2005, 04:56 AM
It is on clay, not too sure about other surfaces though, people are forgetting, Nadal is at his peak right now, he dosen't get much better then this, then he is on clay! I think Federer has a lot more variety at the moment then Nadal. Nadal is going to have to work very very hard for the other slams and as of right now, does not have the tools and vareity to compete with Federer. He can get a lot better, but im just saying what I think so.
Note the word "future" in the title.

ys
06-03-2005, 05:17 AM
On clay - yes.. In Australia - maybe.. In spring US hardcourts - possible.. On grass or US summer hardcourts or indoors .. very unlikely..

Dirk
06-03-2005, 05:25 AM
Bullseye Ys. :yeah:

RagingLamb
06-07-2008, 03:12 AM
Wow, so many great posts in this thread.

definitely worthy of a bump

@Sweet Cleopatra
06-07-2008, 03:19 AM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.

:lol: :lol:

GlennMirnyi
06-07-2008, 03:22 AM
:lol: :lol:

That was irony if I'm not mistaken.

JimmyV
06-07-2008, 03:24 AM
This was the best thread bump in awhile. Great replies.

Sunset of Age
06-07-2008, 03:30 AM
That was irony if I'm not mistaken.

And quite obviously so, but to some... it will always be in vain. :sad: :sad: :sad:

:haha:

shotgun
06-07-2008, 03:36 AM
It was much more of a rivalry back in 2005 than what it is these days.

RagingLamb
06-07-2008, 03:36 AM
That was irony if I'm not mistaken.

unfortunately that was lost on me.

GlennMirnyi
06-07-2008, 03:37 AM
And quite obviously so, but to some... it will always be in vain. :sad: :sad: :sad:

:haha:

Being Chloe... ;)

Fedex
06-07-2008, 03:41 AM
unfortunately that was lost on me.

Hardly surprising.

RagingLamb
06-07-2008, 03:46 AM
Hardly surprising.

why is that?

Knightmace
06-07-2008, 06:08 AM
Their rivilary is already something special and has the potential to go further.

FedFan_2007
06-07-2008, 06:39 AM
It was much more of a rivalry back in 2005 than what it is these days.

Well on clay 8-1 Nadal, off clay 5-2 Federer. Make of that what you will.

fast_clay
06-07-2008, 10:15 AM
wow...

hey, that chloe chick was really full of sh!t wasnt she...

funny stuff...

Adler
06-07-2008, 10:21 AM
Good call

Bernard Black
06-07-2008, 10:48 AM
unfortunately that was lost on me.

Must admit I completely took the bait too at first, but if you read a bit further on into the thread she gives the game away that she was being ironic. Deadpan much!? Great bump though, regardless.

groundstroke
06-07-2008, 10:56 AM
Oh dear me, Chloe was proved horribly wrong.

robin7
06-07-2008, 10:59 AM
From what we saw today I really think that there may be a potential rivalry that could develop between these two. Nadal is still really young and as he improves his game I think these two could form a great rivalry. No one else has been able to come close to beating Federer with the exception of Safin, but no one is sure whether Safin will have it within himself to form a rivalry with Federer.

U can really foresee the future. Great thread.

dodoboy
06-07-2008, 11:26 AM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.

Fortune teller 2.0 :hearts:

star
06-07-2008, 02:24 PM
Wow, so many great posts in this thread.

definitely worthy of a bump

Not really. :rolleyes:

shotgun
06-07-2008, 02:43 PM
Well on clay 8-1 Nadal, off clay 5-2 Federer. Make of that what you will.

Yes, like I said, not a real rivalry.

Want a real rivalry? Federer-Nalbandian.

GuiroNl
06-07-2008, 02:43 PM
This Chloe :haha:

GuiroNl
06-07-2008, 02:47 PM
Yes, like I said, not a real rivalry.

Want a real rivalry? Federer-Nalbandian.

That's not a rivalry. That's a close H2H.
Don't see how 12GS for Federer and 1 GS final for Nalbandian is a rivalry.

shotgun
06-07-2008, 02:58 PM
That's not a rivalry. That's a close H2H.
Don't see how 12GS for Federer and 1 GS final for Nalbandian is a rivalry.

I never said they had a close battle for GS titles.

In that case, Federer's only rivalry would be with Sampras. :shrug:

Fedex
06-07-2008, 04:46 PM
Yes, like I said, not a real rivalry.

Want a real rivalry? Federer-Nalbandian.

Federer-Nalbandian is a rivalry and their matches on faster surfaces often prove to be higher quality matches than the ones with Nadal. But you can't ignore the significance of each Nadal-Federer match. All of their grand slam finals have been of great historical significance, and they are playing in already their 5th Grand Slam final.

That makes Federer-Nadal a better rivalry in my opinion, even if the Nalbandian-Federer matchups are more competitive.

Petrovic
06-07-2008, 04:54 PM
Sorry guys but the main man to beat will be Joker from now on !
Its gonna be Fedex - Joker on HC.
And soon Rafa - JOker on clay !

Fedex
06-07-2008, 04:58 PM
Sorry guys but the main man to beat will be Joker from now on !
Its gonna be Fedex - Joker on HC.
And soon Rafa - JOker on clay !

Sure....Djokovic to win the next 10 slams!! BOOK IT!!

rafa the best
06-07-2008, 04:59 PM
Chloe le Bopper is such a stupid hater.

A_Skywalker
06-07-2008, 05:16 PM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.

You were so right :D

Fedex
06-07-2008, 05:17 PM
Chloe le Bopper is such a stupid hater.

Are you really that dense?

Sunset of Age
06-07-2008, 05:22 PM
From what we saw today I really think that there may be a potential rivalry that could develop between these two. Nadal is still really young and as he improves his game I think these two could form a great rivalry. No one else has been able to come close to beating Federer with the exception of Safin, but no one is sure whether Safin will have it within himself to form a rivalry with Federer.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

No coincidence that this poster has (where is he/she, btw?) both Fed and Raf in her siggie. :angel:

MrChopin
06-07-2008, 06:28 PM
Sorry guys but the main man to beat will be Joker from now on !
Its gonna be Fedex - Joker on HC.
And soon Rafa - JOker on clay !

and even sooner, Joker - Joker on grass.

GuiroNl
06-07-2008, 08:09 PM
I never said they had a close battle for GS titles.

In that case, Federer's only rivalry would be with Sampras. :shrug:

What? There is some misunderstanding between us.

JediFed
06-07-2008, 08:24 PM
Federer and Nadal have met in 13 finals.

With 5 being GS Finals, that ties Sampras/Agassi who met once in the AO, once in Wimbly and 3 times at the USO.

ys
06-08-2008, 04:29 PM
Chloe le Bopper is such a stupid hater.

You are not a hater. :) But you are obviously stupid :(.. Becca is one of the first and the truest Rafa's fans on these boards, and it takes a serious :devil: mental disability not to see that that post of hers is sarcastic as deep as the Earth liquid core.

I miss Becca here.. :sad:

Her reply to some of these retardish posts above would have been so much fun-to-read..

Chloe le Bopper
07-08-2008, 04:24 PM
You were so right :D

I tend to be right about these mugs :cool:

Chloe le Bopper
07-08-2008, 04:34 PM
Oh dear me, Chloe was proved horribly wrong.

I know.

How embarrassing!!!

Seriously, though. One month proves nothing.

Chloe le Bopper
07-08-2008, 04:38 PM
Must admit I completely took the bait too at first, but if you read a bit further on into the thread she gives the game away that she was being ironic. Deadpan much!? Great bump though, regardless.
The best part is that at no point was I being even remotely subtle.

Ackms421
07-08-2008, 04:50 PM
Um, I give a crap? Frankly, if Hewitt could actually still beat Federer sometimes, I would take interest in their matches. As it is, I don't.

Regardless, as I said, Nadal is not the right person to look to as a future contender. He should still be playing juniors.

:worship:

tangerine_dream
07-08-2008, 05:11 PM
No irony in this post. Here's a nice recap of all of the Roger-Rafa matches (http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/federer_nadal.asp) for those new to the rivalry.

spriwi
07-08-2008, 05:50 PM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.

i love accurate predictions :rolls:

Chloe le Bopper
07-08-2008, 06:07 PM
i love accurate predictions :rolls:
This cannot be said enough: one month proves nothing. It's only a matter of time before order is restored in the tennis world and the pretenders are put back where the belong: in a cardboard box with no holes in it, adorned with the following label: "dirt is for pigs".

FedFan_2007
07-08-2008, 06:30 PM
Hate to admit it, but this is not a rivalry. It's complete ownage by Nadal. No it isn't legitimiate to make a surface breakdown exception and exclude the clay. Clay is 33% of the game and Nadal completely dominates Federer on that surface. Now he's on the verge of dominating Federer off clay too.

FedFan_2007
07-08-2008, 06:30 PM
This cannot be said enough: one month proves nothing. It's only a matter of time before order is restored in the tennis world and the pretenders are put back where the belong: in a cardboard box with no holes in it, adorned with the following label: "dirt is for pigs".

How? Nadal is 22 and has 3-4 years in his absolute prime. Federer has maybe 1 more "peak" year left.

Fumus
07-08-2008, 08:42 PM
This cannot be said enough: one month proves nothing. It's only a matter of time before order is restored in the tennis world and the pretenders are put back where the belong: in a cardboard box with no holes in it, adorned with the following label: "dirt is for pigs".

Absolutely! Nadal has no business winning titles on anything that's not red clay. It just goes to show how weak the rest of the men's field is at the moment!!

ghostbear
07-09-2008, 08:12 PM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.


Great prediction! Don't quit your day job, mate. ;)

zzzyyy
09-28-2013, 11:13 PM
:worship: this thread

zzzyyy
09-28-2013, 11:14 PM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.

:haha::haha::haha:

ignigena
09-28-2013, 11:43 PM
It's amazing the amount of complete ignorants that believe they are right.

Mr. Oracle
09-28-2013, 11:57 PM
It's amazing the amount of complete ignorants that believe they are right. They don't feel any kind of shame in making their opinions pass as facts and when they make predictions they look exactly what they really are.

I concur.

I say when MTF goes one way, bet the other way.

Some MTF prognostications in order of funniness (from most funny).

MTF "next one" picks:

1. Verdasco
2. Gasquet
3. BabyFed
4. GOATbis

I'm sure there are more but I can't remember.

I think there were only a dozen people on MTF back in 2005 :lol:

Mr. Oracle
09-29-2013, 12:01 AM
LOL Chloe's ongoing hatred for Nadal is eclipsed only by a certain someone's hatred for "Federina+Rodduck" :rolls:

heya
09-29-2013, 12:23 AM
Apparently, gloryhunters on TV overshadowed
anything tennis fans could see.
Federer is "man of integrity" "Hawkeye line calls are irrelevant to tennis. I agree with Fed" "He never lies & screams at his opponents".

Kiedis
09-29-2013, 12:32 AM
LOL Chloe's ongoing hatred for Nadal is eclipsed only by a certain someone's hatred for "Federina+Rodduck" :rolls:

You has invoked her and she immediately came here :hysteric:

heya
09-29-2013, 12:40 AM
No,
Chloe (Rebecca)'s sarcastic about her love
Nadal.

evilmindbulgaria
09-29-2013, 02:57 AM
From what we saw today I really think that there may be a potential rivalry that could develop between these two. Nadal is still really young and as he improves his game I think these two could form a great rivalry. No one else has been able to come close to beating Federer with the exception of Safin, but no one is sure whether Safin will have it within himself to form a rivalry with Federer.

:worship::worship::worship:

MarsManana
09-29-2013, 03:55 AM
I think this Nadal guy might be something worthwhile.

Mr. Oracle
09-29-2013, 04:51 AM
You has invoked her and she immediately came here :hysteric:

:ignore:

finishingmove
09-29-2013, 05:04 AM
Transitional champions. Who cares?

acionescu
09-29-2013, 09:53 AM
well, it turned out it wasn't a rivalry after all :p


MTF old days :sobbing:

Chris Kuerten
09-29-2013, 10:37 AM
Strong autism @ the people who couldn't figure out that Chloe broad was being sarcastic.

motorhead
09-29-2013, 10:38 AM
terrific bump

Abel
09-29-2013, 10:50 AM
well, it turned out it wasn't a rivalry after all :p


:haha:

Mr. Oracle
09-29-2013, 11:30 AM
No,
Chloe (Rebecca)'s sarcastic about her love
Nadal.

Strong autism @ the people who couldn't figure out that Chloe broad was being sarcastic.

What? :stupid:

BringBakTehGrass
09-29-2013, 12:00 PM
Weak era champions. Raonic will become the GOAT (you heard it here first ;)).

Avi14
09-29-2013, 02:26 PM
Where is the "No, Rafa will kick his ass from now on" option? :confused:

The best prediction by far :worship:

Matt01
09-29-2013, 10:40 PM
The best prediction by far :worship:


Scotso was such a great poster :sad:

I miss him.

Illusive Man
09-29-2013, 10:42 PM
He got really lucky this week. That will never happen again.

'That' referring to hardcourt finals.

Oh jeez.

Jimnik
09-29-2013, 10:47 PM
Where is the "No, Rafa will kick his ass from now on" option? :confused:
Glad I can good-rep you one last time.

RIP man.

Rychu
09-29-2013, 10:49 PM
This has a potential to become a great rivarly between talented young shotmakers

Avi14
09-30-2013, 01:19 AM
Scotso was such a great poster :sad:

I miss him.

Why did he leave the forum?

I just saw that "Jimnik" said "RIP" man.Did the terrible thing happen to him?

Litotes
09-30-2013, 04:31 AM
Why did he leave the forum?

I just saw that "Jimnik" said "RIP" man.Did the terrible thing happen to him?

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=224905&highlight=scotso

Avi14
09-30-2013, 04:54 AM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=224905&highlight=scotso

Thanks for the link.

30 years,too young he was :sad:

nadalfan2013
09-30-2013, 06:04 AM
Nadal - Federer

Overall: Nadal 21-10
Finals: Nadal 14-6
Slams: Nadal 8-2

Rivalry? lol


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Mountaindewslave
09-30-2013, 06:06 AM
Strong autism @ the people who couldn't figure out that Chloe broad was being sarcastic.

this :facepalm:

the # of posters who have bumped this at different points and said something along the alines "well Nadal sure did show Chloe!"

:o as if her comments about his 'capris' and 'junior' tennis weren't enough to make it extremely obvious

now it makes sense why I get into so many silly arguments with people on this site, they are all 5 year old and lack any understanding of context :drink:

Mountaindewslave
09-30-2013, 06:06 AM
Nadal - Federer

Overall: Nadal 21-10
Finals: Nadal 14-6
Slams: Nadal 8-2

Rivalry? lol


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

shut up they're 5 years age difference, 'rivalry' doesn't mean shit when a number of the matches between them were played when Federer was past his peak, in his late 20s / early 30 and Nadal right at his prime

Johnbert
09-30-2013, 06:15 AM
Nadal - Federer

Overall: Nadal 21-10
Finals: Nadal 14-6
Slams: Nadal 8-2

Rivalry? lol


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

slams: federer 17-13
titles: federer 77-60
weeks #1: federer 302-102
wtf's: federer 6-0

dull goat?! lol

Kat_YYZ
09-30-2013, 06:34 AM
this :facepalm:

the # of posters who have bumped this at different points and said something along the alines "well Nadal sure did show Chloe!"

:o as if her comments about his 'capris' and 'junior' tennis weren't enough to make it extremely obvious

now it makes sense why I get into so many silly arguments with people on this site, they are all 5 year old and lack any understanding of context :drink:

I honestly think many just failed to read past the first "nasty" post of hers before hitting "quote" and replying. Which is sad in itself.

Sometimes looking at the older threads, it feels like the "trolling" and teasing was more fun and lighthearted in those days. Probably resulting in fewer nasty personal attacks and infractions and bans. Well, I wasn't here then so maybe I'm wrong and just romanticizing it.

Shepherd
09-30-2013, 07:45 AM
shut up they're 5 years age difference, 'rivalry' doesn't mean shit when a number of the matches between them were played when Federer was past his peak, in his late 20s / early 30 and Nadal right at his prime

Shut your pipehole already. Federer wasn't consistently beating Nadal when he was 21, 24, 26, 28 or 30 years old. You name it.

For the GOAT to be past his peak by the age of 26 is ridiculous considering his supporters claimed Nadal will be in a wheelchair by the age of 25 and he wins two grand slams and five masters at the age of 27. And Federer did something similar, he played three GS finals in 2008 and four GS finals in 2009. He also won AO 2010 and was a point away from reaching a final at the USO. Last year a 30+ Federer won Wimbledon and went on an amazing streak from late 2011 to mid 2012 where he won nine tournaments and an olympic silver medal.

I remember how Federer fans were creaming their pants and there was little to no talk of a weak field, clowning Djokovic or the absence of Nadal. Isn't that interesting? How the same people perceive certain wins as completely legitimate and then downgrade every result that doesn't suit their agenda?

''Post peak'' is a term for bittered tards to keep their sanity. Welcome to their club.

Litotes
09-30-2013, 08:02 AM
Shut your pipehole already. Federer wasn't consistently beating Nadal when he was 21, 24, 26, 28 or 30 years old. You name it.

For the GOAT to be past his peak by the age of 26 is ridiculous considering his supporters claimed Nadal will be in a wheelchair by the age of 25 and he wins two grand slams and five masters at the age of 27. And Federer did something similar, he played three GS finals in 2008 and four GS finals in 2009. He also won AO 2010 and was a point away from reaching a final at the USO. Last year a 30+ Federer won Wimbledon and went on an amazing streak from late 2011 to mid 2012 where he won nine tournaments and an olympic silver medal.

I remember how Federer fans were creaming their pants and there was little to no talk of a weak field, clowning Djokovic or the absence of Nadal. Isn't that interesting? How the same people perceive certain wins as completely legitimate and then downgrade every result that doesn't suit their agenda?

''Post peak'' is a term for bittered tards to keep their sanity. Welcome to their club.

It would have been strange to talk about the absence of Nadal during his 2011-12 run when Nadal was in fact not absent. Of the nine tournament wins eight came with him active (though not always entered into the specific tournament Fed won). Fed's only title when Nadal was out injured was Cincinnatti 2012.

The fact that some Fed supporters foolishly claimed Nadal would be in a wheelchair at 25 should not be taken as evidence of anything. Certainly it is within the realms of possibility that Fed should start to decline earlier than Nadal. Look at Usain Bolt now. He's 27. He's still winning, but his recorded times are a lot weaker than a few years ago. Could be same story for Fed 2007/8 --> - still good enough to win, at least some of the time, but not as good as before. History is littered with great athletes that lost part of their magic earlier than one would have expected. And some exceptions that kept going far beyond anyone's expectations. If prediction was easy, all bookies would be bankrupt.....

BananaShot
09-30-2013, 09:39 AM
Nadal - Federer

Overall: Nadal 21-10
Finals: Nadal 14-6
Slams: Nadal 8-2

Rivalry? lol


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

:yeah:

Potato nose = Rafa's pet

Christian Keys
09-30-2013, 09:43 AM
Nadal - Federer

Overall: Nadal 21-10
Finals: Nadal 14-6
Slams: Nadal 8-2

Rivalry? lol


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Yes, nice job excluding the fact that there is a 5 years difference between the two. :rolleyes:

A_Skywalker
09-30-2013, 09:50 AM
It wasn't a rivalry, in the important matches the winner was always known, but can any problem be found ?

Bazooka
09-30-2013, 09:51 AM
Yes, nice job excluding the fact that there is a 5 years difference between the two. :rolleyes:

When Nadal was 19 and Federer the GOAT, he still was ahead, except on indoor or grass. So I don't see how them being the same age would have helped, seeing how much Nadal's game on HC has dramatically improved.

Slasher1985
09-30-2013, 09:58 AM
When Nadal was 19 and Federer the GOAT, he still was ahead, except on indoor or grass. So I don't see how them being the same age would have helped, seeing how much Nadal's game on HC has dramatically improved.

This never happened, because Federer became GOAT once he overtook Sampras, and Nadal was no longer 19 then.

But it's true. Nadal's HC game has dramatically improved, but many MTFers are contesting that this became true once the ATP slowed down the hard courts.

Bazooka
09-30-2013, 09:59 AM
This never happened, because Federer became GOAT once he overtook Sampras, and Nadal was no longer 19 then.

It was a manner of speech. You know what I mean.

And Federer is the player that has profitted the more from the slowing of HC surfaces, IMHO. But I beg, let's not talk about that, or we will witness an homogeneization and slowing of ALL the GM threads ;)

GSMnadal
09-30-2013, 10:35 AM
:lol: at people suggesting Federer is 'unlucky' that he's 5 years older than Nadal. That age gap is the only reason he has 17 slams and a CGS at the moment and not close to single digits.

super-power
09-30-2013, 12:06 PM
There's a lot of gold in this thread but I feel time has answered that question very well. At one point there was a rivalry but Rafa has since then went on to dominate their h2h so the rivalry is non existent now. Age is not as big a factor in this h2h especially when you consider the fact that Roger was still & is still beating players that he had/has a winning h2h with. It's not like Roger is not still making deep runs in slams or tournaments. Rafa is just a great player in his own right & if it had not been for injuries he could already have 14-16 slams. Then this would be a different discussion all together.

Johnbert
09-30-2013, 12:14 PM
:lol: at people suggesting Federer is 'unlucky' that he's 5 years older than Nadal. That age gap is the only reason he has 17 slams and a CGS at the moment and not close to single digits.

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb437/benmcclain66/0_out_of_10_troll.jpg

Johnbert
09-30-2013, 12:15 PM
There's a lot of gold in this thread but I feel time has answered that question very well. At one point there was a rivalry but Rafa has since then went on to dominate their h2h so the rivalry is non existent now. Age is not as big a factor in this h2h especially when you consider the fact that Roger was still & is still beating players that he had/has a winning h2h with. It's not like Roger is not still making deep runs in slams or tournaments. Rafa is just a great player in his own right & if it had not been for injuries he could already have 14-16 slams. Then this would be a different discussion all together.

:zzz::zzz::zzz:

duarte_a
09-30-2013, 01:56 PM
There's a lot of gold in this thread but I feel time has answered that question very well. At one point there was a rivalry but Rafa has since then went on to dominate their h2h so the rivalry is non existent now. Age is not as big a factor in this h2h especially when you consider the fact that Roger was still & is still beating players that he had/has a winning h2h with. It's not like Roger is not still making deep runs in slams or tournaments. Rafa is just a great player in his own right & if it had not been for injuries he could already have 14-16 slams. Then this would be a different discussion all together.

:superlol:

Pangloss
09-30-2013, 02:25 PM
:superlol:

You think it's laughable that if not for injuries Nadal might have an additional 1-3 slams?

Bazooka
09-30-2013, 02:27 PM
Well, at least RG 2009, but probably no more.

And really, all players have health ups and downs, and all would have won more if never had trouble, so pointless debate.

rafa_maniac
09-30-2013, 03:02 PM
It's blatantly obvious that surface advantage is the biggest factor in this rivalry. Federer leads 2-0 on carpet, 2-0 on indoor hard, 2-1 on grass, and Nadal leads 13-2 on clay, and 7-2 on outdoor hard.

To those saying, "Federer is lucky he wasn't born at the same time as Nadal", you could also say, "Nadal is lucky they didn't play in a previous decade when carpet and indoor hard were much more prominent surfaces".

Conjecture works both ways, no?

Federer and Nadal have never played on carpet. Nadal is unlucky to be playing in the most HC dominated era in history so this whole "surfaces helped Nadal" debate has never made any sense to me.

BringBakTehGrass
09-30-2013, 03:14 PM
Federer and Nadal have never played on carpet. Nadal is unlucky to be playing in the most HC dominated era in history so this whole "surfaces helped Nadal" debate has never made any sense to me.

My mistake. I was thinking it changed from carpet to hard when it moved to London, but of course it was in '06.

Aristotle
09-30-2013, 03:33 PM
shut up they're 5 years age difference, 'rivalry' doesn't mean shit when a number of the matches between them were played when Federer was past his peak, in his late 20s / early 30 and Nadal right at his prime

:facepalm: :lol:

GSMnadal
09-30-2013, 03:39 PM
http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb437/benmcclain66/0_out_of_10_troll.jpg

Exactly. A 0 on the troll scale because it's the truth

tribalfusion
09-30-2013, 05:20 PM
Shut your pipehole already. Federer wasn't consistently beating Nadal when he was 21, 24, 26, 28 or 30 years old. You name it.

For the GOAT to be past his peak by the age of 26 is ridiculous considering his supporters claimed Nadal will be in a wheelchair by the age of 25 and he wins two grand slams and five masters at the age of 27. And Federer did something similar, he played three GS finals in 2008 and four GS finals in 2009. He also won AO 2010 and was a point away from reaching a final at the USO. Last year a 30+ Federer won Wimbledon and went on an amazing streak from late 2011 to mid 2012 where he won nine tournaments and an olympic silver medal.

I remember how Federer fans were creaming their pants and there was little to no talk of a weak field, clowning Djokovic or the absence of Nadal. Isn't that interesting? How the same people perceive certain wins as completely legitimate and then downgrade every result that doesn't suit their agenda?

''Post peak'' is a term for bittered tards to keep their sanity. Welcome to their club.


This. Spot on.

Kyle_Johansen
09-30-2013, 08:01 PM
Only 12 of their 31 matches have come in Roger's best days (and yes, those weren't Rafa's best days off clay, but still very decent). Yes, Fed was still making Slam finals and winning them in 2008-2010, but he was not the same force that he was from 2003-2007, and of course after 07 Rafa started entering his best years.

Fed being 5 years older only helps Djokovic, Murray, and the rest of the field, but not Rafa, since he's always had Fed's number. However, a 24-26 year old Fed would be harder for Rafa to beat in Slams outside clay than a 28-31 year-old Roger.

Big Bodacious
09-30-2013, 08:03 PM
No

A_Skywalker
09-30-2013, 09:37 PM
Only 12 of their 31 matches have come in Roger's best days (and yes, those weren't Rafa's best days off clay, but still very decent). Yes, Fed was still making Slam finals and winning them in 2008-2010, but he was not the same force that he was from 2003-2007, and of course after 07 Rafa started entering his best years.

Fed being 5 years older only helps Djokovic, Murray, and the rest of the field, but not Rafa, since he's always had Fed's number. However, a 24-26 year old Fed would be harder for Rafa to beat in Slams outside clay than a 28-31 year-old Roger.

excuses. you use them as you want to favor Federer, when infact similar excuses can be said for Nadal, but noone has to as he isn't owned by anyone. He is winning against every competition they throw him.

BauerAlmeida
09-30-2013, 11:00 PM
If they were the same age and peaked at the same time, Nadal would win in RG and Federer would win in the other 3 slams.

viva-rafa
09-30-2013, 11:09 PM
If they were the same age and peaked at the same time, Nadal would win in RG and Federer would win in the other 3 slams.

:lol: Nice imagination :)

heya
09-30-2013, 11:20 PM
Don't mind the clammy Fed fanatics.
They deduce that tub Nalbandian, the oaf Safin & a poor athlete & a constantly absent player who melted down in tough matches (such as Hewitt & Roddick) were better than anyone in the current top 6, except for Federer. What a joke.

Why not bring top 4 Ljubicic & Blake back? No fear from the "2004 superstars".
Ljubicic beat Agassi & Blake beat Fed. Clearly, they are superior to Djoker.

star
09-30-2013, 11:30 PM
Only 12 of their 31 matches have come in Roger's best days (and yes, those weren't Rafa's best days off clay, but still very decent). Yes, Fed was still making Slam finals and winning them in 2008-2010, but he was not the same force that he was from 2003-2007, and of course after 07 Rafa started entering his best years.

Fed being 5 years older only helps Djokovic, Murray, and the rest of the field, but not Rafa, since he's always had Fed's number. However, a 24-26 year old Fed would be harder for Rafa to beat in Slams outside clay than a 28-31 year-old Roger.

But, Rafa beat Federer in 2004, no?

And 2005

And 2006

And 2007.

evilmindbulgaria
09-30-2013, 11:46 PM
Only 12 of their 31 matches have come in Roger's best days (and yes, those weren't Rafa's best days off clay, but still very decent). Yes, Fed was still making Slam finals and winning them in 2008-2010, but he was not the same force that he was from 2003-2007, and of course after 07 Rafa started entering his best years.

Fed being 5 years older only helps Djokovic, Murray, and the rest of the field, but not Rafa, since he's always had Fed's number. However, a 24-26 year old Fed would be harder for Rafa to beat in Slams outside clay than a 28-31 year-old Roger.

Kyle, I am so glad you removed that "Unbiased, tennis fan..." bullcrap from your signature. Your posts are getting more condescending towards Rafa faster than you can say "Double Career Slam"!

Jimnik
09-30-2013, 11:54 PM
One day this will blossom into a great seniors tour and exhibitions rivalry.

Jimnik
09-30-2013, 11:56 PM
Or maybe they can make films together, as Roger said.

jJV-mF6chSg&list=PLWLWWrzZ95Dmfs2lzCggyvaXYD4bU8210&index=8

heya
10-01-2013, 12:05 AM
LOL Dangerous 2004-2006 era.
RobotDick choked away the WTFs vs. Nadal & Fed (3 match points).
Murray 1.0 beat down Roddick on indoor hardcourt & grass. When he choked to Roddick at 2009 Wimbledon, Robotdick cried like a cheap whore & stunk up the final.

Novak stripped Roddick of his manhood at WTF and on Olympic grass....
This was 9-10 years after Rusedski & Sampras destroyed Roddick at "lightning fast" Wimbledon & US Open.

Even a useless Novak had a break in both sets
on Queen's Club grass against Nadal.

Mr. Oracle
10-01-2013, 12:16 AM
Novak would do well not to disappoint you like Rodduck did.
If things go sour, I'll still be your #1 fan, follower, and lap dog.

Johnny Groove
10-01-2013, 12:19 AM
Old mug Roddick 5-2 heyday Djokobull by hardcourt.

star
10-01-2013, 12:19 AM
Kyle, I am so glad you removed that "Unbiased, tennis fan..." bullcrap from your signature. Your posts are getting more condescending towards Rafa faster than you can say "Double Career Slam"!

Kyle's tennis blog links to Ru'an's tennis blog. That is all you need to know.

Bazooka
10-01-2013, 10:03 AM
If they were the same age and peaked at the same time, Nadal would win in RG and Federer would win in the other 3 slams.

So... no change from what really happened when it was Jesus Federer vs. Kid Nadal? it would be exactly the same? Hard to believe Nadal wouldn't take at least some of the best of 5 when he always was consistent vs Fed in HC best of 3 even when he was a child.

underspin
10-01-2013, 10:08 AM
Kyle's tennis blog links to Ru'an's tennis blog. That is all you need to know.

In fairness to Kyle, he's never hidden the fact that he's biased, he's a proud Federer fan, but that doesn't mean he can't try to form an objective opinion. Personally I like Nadal more than Federer but I still try to be fair.

cocrcici
10-01-2013, 10:10 AM
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGbTEx8Ovn9vkz0Sy2sFvXsjl-wsdbtnFok5C_Opbx82FdtrMz

Slice Winner
10-01-2013, 10:25 AM
Has the thread title been misspelt this whole time?

duarte_a
10-01-2013, 10:29 AM
If they were the same age and peaked at the same time, Nadal would win in RG and Federer would win in the other 3 slams.

Yep.

duarte_a
10-01-2013, 10:30 AM
Kyle's tennis blog links to Ru'an's tennis blog. That is all you need to know.

Nice blog then. No fear to tell the truth.

Kyle_Johansen
10-03-2013, 02:24 AM
There's not much biased in that post of mine. It is a fact that the majority of their matches have come after 2007 when Rafa hit his prime and Roger was exiting his, even if he was doing so slowly. I'm not saying that Roger would be leading the H2H if they were the same age, or that he would have had more success (though you think he would) - but the H2H would likely be closer. It was 8-6 after 2007 for Rafa, so pretty much like what the Murray/Federer H2H is now. People can think that Roger was as good in 2008-2010 as he was from 2004-2007 all they want, but he wasn't, and it's not really close. The peak level may have still been there, but the consistency was a shell of what it once was - and that wasn't due to the rise of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

At the end of the day Rafa is a tough match for Roger everywhere but indoors and those losses from 06 to 08 (at the FO 2006-2007, Rome 2006, and Hamburg 2008 especially) really gave him mental scars that showed at the French 08, Wimbledon 08, and Australia 09.

And as for what would have happened in their careers if they were the same age, that depends. If they were the same age in the mid 2000s when they were #1 and #2 would they have played in the AO and USO finals? Would Rafa have been stopped by injury or a tough opponent like Davydenko or Nalbandian? If they were the same age in their prime in the last five years dealing with Djokovic and Murray also, would they not be #1 and #2 and therefore play more semis?

Frankly, I don't know what my point was in that last post other than saying that Djokovic and Murray benefited from Fed being 6 years older and it wouldn't make a difference to Rafa as we know.

And I still don't and never will understand why Rafa's own fans bring down his abilities and accomplishments from 2005 to 2007 to make Roger look weaker. I'm sure in 2005 few thought Rafa would become the great all-round player he has become, but it's not like clay was the only surface he could play on as if he was Berlocq. He made 4 HC finals in 05 and won 3. He won his only indoor title in 2005.

Big Bodacious
10-03-2013, 02:54 AM
Kyle, I am so glad you removed that "Unbiased, tennis fan..." bullcrap from your signature. Your posts are getting more condescending towards Rafa faster than you can say "Double Career Slam"!

+1

In fairness to Kyle, he's never hidden the fact that he's biased, he's a proud Federer fan, but that doesn't mean he can't try to form an objective opinion. Personally I like Nadal more than Federer but I still try to be fair.

wrong

Hangaroo
10-03-2013, 03:58 AM
The peak level may have still been there, but the consistency was a shell of what it once was - and that wasn't due to the rise of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

I'm sorry but you are clearly writing off Rafa, Nole and Andy here by claiming that it was all on Fed's racket. It is not. Nole in 2006-2008 was a shell of the mental and physical beast he evolved into. Rafa was a one surface wonder who used to fight it out on hard courts using his clay game, he was reasonably successful only because of his sheer will to fight. Andy was still in awe of Rafa and Roger and was trying to find his feet. Roger played exceptional tennis in 2008 Wimby final, definitely the same level (if not better) compared to the 2007 final. Rafa was able to pull it off by the skin of his teeth only because was better and more mature player compared to the year before. You are indirectly discrediting Fed by claiming that he started declining at 26.

Kyle_Johansen
10-03-2013, 04:33 AM
I'm sorry but you are clearly writing off Rafa, Nole and Andy here by claiming that it was all on Fed's racket. It is not. Nole in 2006-2008 was a shell of the mental and physical beast he evolved into. Rafa was a one surface wonder who used to fight it out on hard courts using his clay game, he was reasonably successful only because of his sheer will to fight. Andy was still in awe of Rafa and Roger and was trying to find his feet. Roger played exceptional tennis in 2008 Wimby final, definitely the same level (if not better) compared to the 2007 final. Rafa was able to pull it off by the skin of his teeth only because was better and more mature player compared to the year before. You are indirectly discrediting Fed by claiming that he started declining at 26.

Of course it wouldn't all be on Fed's racket, but he would have a definite edge over Novak and Andy. 2011 Djokovic was beaten by Roger and nearly beaten at the USO, so I think a younger Fed would have handled him just fine. Not all the time of course, but more often than not.

And Andy is still in awe if Rafa and Roger.

I disagree that Roger played exceptional tennis in the 2008 final. He didn't even really play that great in the 2007 final, but he was very clutch on the big points and Rafa less so. In 2008 it was Roger's fight that made the match what it was and nothing else - he could have lost in straights as he was down 0-30 at 3-3 I think in the 3rd.

And I maintain that Novak was better in 2007-2008 than he was in 2009-2010.

And finally, everyone has varying degrees of bias. If having an opinion that Roger is the best ever and that the period in which he dominated wasn't "weak" is bias, then yes, I am biased. But honest to God, very few here are unbiased in some way.

Kyle_Johansen
10-03-2013, 05:08 AM
You know, this has crossed my mind recently. Detractors say that 04-07 was weak because Roger had no competition. In those 4 years Fed won 11 of the 16 Slams played. So if he won less, and Roddick, Nalbandian, and Hewitt had won more, the era would be considered stronger? I don't get that logic. Between 04 and 06, Roger took them out 11 times combined (in the 12 Slams that were played - Hewitt 5, Roddick 3, Nalbandian 3) in the quarters, semis, and finals.

So let's say that Nalbandian beats Roger at the AO in 2004 and wins the title, and Roddick beats him at Wimbledon and wins the title, and then Hewitt beats him at the USO in 2005 and wins that title, and Nalbandian beats Baghdatis and then Fed to win the AO in 2006, and Andy beats him at the USO - and after all that, Roger only ended up winning 6 Slams in those four years and not 11, while Hewitt got one more and Roddick and Nalbandian got two, then it wouldn't be as weak?

Baseline86
10-03-2013, 05:17 AM
There's not much biased in that post of mine. It is a fact that the majority of their matches have come after 2007 when Rafa hit his prime and Roger was exiting his, even if he was doing so slowly. I'm not saying that Roger would be leading the H2H if they were the same age, or that he would have had more success (though you think he would) - but the H2H would likely be closer. It was 8-6 after 2007 for Rafa, so pretty much like what the Murray/Federer H2H is now. People can think that Roger was as good in 2008-2010 as he was from 2004-2007 all they want, but he wasn't, and it's not really close. The peak level may have still been there, but the consistency was a shell of what it once was - and that wasn't due to the rise of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

At the end of the day Rafa is a tough match for Roger everywhere but indoors and those losses from 06 to 08 (at the FO 2006-2007, Rome 2006, and Hamburg 2008 especially) really gave him mental scars that showed at the French 08, Wimbledon 08, and Australia 09.

And as for what would have happened in their careers if they were the same age, that depends. If they were the same age in the mid 2000s when they were #1 and #2 would they have played in the AO and USO finals? Would Rafa have been stopped by injury or a tough opponent like Davydenko or Nalbandian? If they were the same age in their prime in the last five years dealing with Djokovic and Murray also, would they not be #1 and #2 and therefore play more semis?

Frankly, I don't know what my point was in that last post other than saying that Djokovic and Murray benefited from Fed being 6 years older and it wouldn't make a difference to Rafa as we know.

And I still don't and never will understand why Rafa's own fans bring down his abilities and accomplishments from 2005 to 2007 to make Roger look weaker. I'm sure in 2005 few thought Rafa would become the great all-round player he has become, but it's not like clay was the only surface he could play on as if he was Berlocq. He made 4 HC finals in 05 and won 3. He won his only indoor title in 2005.
Agree 100% on this.

Baseline86
10-03-2013, 05:30 AM
You know, this has crossed my mind recently. Detractors say that 04-07 was weak because Roger had no competition. In those 4 years Fed won 11 of the 16 Slams played. So if he won less, and Roddick, Nalbandian, and Hewitt had won more, the era would be considered stronger?

Beg to disagree on that, although guys like hewitt, safin and even roddick declining earlier on age shows they were not as much compromised with tennis in the way today,s top are. Guys like djoker, ferrer, murray and let alone rafa would literally sell their mothers if it was a requesite to win a tennis match, I see way more hunger in more players, It was not the case that safin, hewitt, roddick, etc didnt love tennis but the compromise with their own careers was nowhere nowhere close to what you can find among the tops on the current era.
You see the top 10 nowadays they barely have fights/discussions like on the past, they are all having same girlfriends for years, they dont care much about enjoining fame status but rather hiw to improve on circuit.

Shepherd
10-03-2013, 07:54 AM
You know, this has crossed my mind recently. Detractors say that 04-07 was weak because Roger had no competition. In those 4 years Fed won 11 of the 16 Slams played. So if he won less, and Roddick, Nalbandian, and Hewitt had won more, the era would be considered stronger? I don't get that logic. Between 04 and 06, Roger took them out 11 times combined (in the 12 Slams that were played - Hewitt 5, Roddick 3, Nalbandian 3) in the quarters, semis, and finals.

So let's say that Nalbandian beats Roger at the AO in 2004 and wins the title, and Roddick beats him at Wimbledon and wins the title, and then Hewitt beats him at the USO in 2005 and wins that title, and Nalbandian beats Baghdatis and then Fed to win the AO in 2006, and Andy beats him at the USO - and after all that, Roger only ended up winning 6 Slams in those four years and not 11, while Hewitt got one more and Roddick and Nalbandian got two, then it wouldn't be as weak?

We've been through this before.

Yes, he was beating them regularly and he's got the H2H to prove it, but I stand by my initial argument that he couldn't have prevented all of them from reaching multiple slam finals. From 2003 to 2007 (20 grand slams) Federer reached 14 grand slam finals.

Rafael Nadal - 5
Andy Roddick - 4
Lleyton Hewitt - 2
Marat Safin - 2
Juan Carlos Ferrero - 2
Marcos Baghdatis - 1
Fernando Gonzales - 1
Andre Agassi - 1
David Nalbandian - 0
Nikolay Davydenko - 0
Ivan Ljubičić - 0

During Federer's strongest era it was Nadal who was his most serious and frequent rival. We're talking about an 18-21 year old Nadal who was a great player, no doubt about that, but he was not yet considered to be a future multiple slam winner outside of clay. He was considered a clay specialist.

As pointed out by Federer fans this Nadal was beaten by the likes of Baghdatis, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Roddick on HC therefore it wasn't Nadal who was stoping them from reaching GS finals, at least not on HC. Yet it was only Roddick who managed to reach four finals compared to Federer's 14. It is not possible Federer stopped them all in the QF and SF.

Of course, they were eliminating each other. Which brings me to my initial argument. They are without a doubt a great group of players and I would not deny their peak level is on par with the best but none of them is consistent enough to regularly deliver the goods and challenge Federer.

Now just for comparison. Nadal's main rivals have been Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. I don't know how to define Nadal's peak because of this remarkable 2013 season but I'll go with his rise to the number one, so 2008-2013 (24 grand slams). Nadal has played 13 grand slam finals.

Novak Djokovic - 11
Andy Murray - 7

heya
10-03-2013, 08:43 AM
If you imply that Roddick's Slam final appearances equated to Murray, Djoker & Nadal's Slam finals, you're seriously "special".
Despite my disgust with Novak's lowly behavior at French Open & US Open, it's too insulting to compare Novak to Roddick's rule breaking & vile 'career'.

The same Roddick who hated tennis and said he "stopped obsessing about Federer". LOL

The same Roddick that forgot to sit in his own chair and Benneteau (9 time finalist) told him to move out of his chair.

The same Roddick that didn't bring his racket to Wimbledon (his so-called favorite Slam). :devil:

The same Roddick who begged Federer to win the French Open because he "won" 2003 US Open and felt "special" as a "Slam champ'. LMAO

NadalDisciple
10-03-2013, 09:02 AM
Roger fans should get their heads out of the sand. Insinuating that 08 wimbledon, and 09 aus open was not peak federer is pure madness. Fact is rafa could play against any type of roger federer and still whip him. Even on grass where rodger is considererd one of the greatest players on the surface he was beaten by rafa, and pushed to 5 sets in 07.

Its a taugh match up. Rafas weapons hurt him more than his hurt nadal and ends up losing more times than not. Plus rodger is an awful tactician. His in game adjustments when playing nadal are pointless most of the time. He's very used to the fact that if he plays well he'll probably win, but that's not the case against rafa.

Tough matchups or not, rodger isn't the GOAT if he's lost so much against his biggest rival. Djokovic is a tough match up for nadal but you don't see Rafa getting spanked every match.

Bazooka
10-03-2013, 09:17 AM
You know, this has crossed my mind recently. Detractors say that 04-07 was weak because Roger had no competition. In those 4 years Fed won 11 of the 16 Slams played. So if he won less, and Roddick, Nalbandian, and Hewitt had won more, the era would be considered stronger? I don't get that logic. Between 04 and 06, Roger took them out 11 times combined (in the 12 Slams that were played - Hewitt 5, Roddick 3, Nalbandian 3) in the quarters, semis, and finals.

So let's say that Nalbandian beats Roger at the AO in 2004 and wins the title, and Roddick beats him at Wimbledon and wins the title, and then Hewitt beats him at the USO in 2005 and wins that title, and Nalbandian beats Baghdatis and then Fed to win the AO in 2006, and Andy beats him at the USO - and after all that, Roger only ended up winning 6 Slams in those four years and not 11, while Hewitt got one more and Roddick and Nalbandian got two, then it wouldn't be as weak?

No matter if Federer would have not been there, it would not have made Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Gonzalez or Blake a multi-slam winner or a Legend. Those were pretty good players, but nothing like the top contenders today.

Dkokovic is more of a threat to the rest of the tour than Safin was in 2004-2006. Murray is more of a threat than Hewitt was in 2004-2006. Nadal is harder to beat in slams now than Nalbandian or Roddick were in 2004-2006. It is much more expensive to buy a slam now than it was in 2004-2006 (clay aside).

If you can't see that Fed had at least 3 slams with low competition compared to today's, is because you choose not to. AO 2006, WIM 2006, USO 2004 just to name a few on top of my head, now tell me which of Nadal's slams was easier to win than those, the only one which can compare is RG 2010 (which cancels out Roger's RG 2009). Murray, Djokovic and Nadal always had to defeat at least one Tennis Legend to win a slam.

Backhand_Maestro
10-03-2013, 11:06 AM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.

Maybe I should start a Rafa hate thread where we can talk about such fascinating topics as:

1) His capris
2) How he's a junior calibre player
3) How he can only hit topspin forehands. Nothing else.
4) How he has no serve.
5) How Federer will win all remaining matches 6-0 6-0 6-0
6) How he picks his butt
7) How he pumps himself up.
8) How his left arm is bigger than his right arm.
9) How he has long hair.
10) How he's peaked at 18.
11) How he's just so totally overrated.
12) How he is "anti tennis"
13) *insert topic I have missed here*

I'll consider this possibility for tomorrow.

Sorry to hijack the thread with a summary of every asinine comment I've read so far today. I couldn't help it.




Utter genius!

:haha:

Kyle_Johansen
10-04-2013, 06:56 PM
Djokovic is considered a legend already with 6 Slams. Are you saying that Roddick wouldn't be considered the same if he had the same amount of Slams and more time at #1? Basically, he would have had at least 6 Slams if not for Federer and he would be thought of in a much different light today.

And yes, Federer did deny his rivals GS finals and potential Grand Slams. I'm not talking about Blake, Ljubicic, Gonzalez, and Baghdatis here, I'm talking about Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, and even Davydenko. Obviously stopping Roddick many times in Slam finals and semis is the one that comes to mind the most, but he did so with Hewitt (5 times in 2004-2005), Nalbandian (AO 2004, USO 2005, RG 2006), and Davydenko (AO and USO 2006, RG and USO 2007). If Roger was less consistent and didn't get in their way all the time, then they would all be seen differently, even if it only meant that Nalbandian, Hewitt, and Davydenko would have had more GS finals.

I see this a lot and it bothers me, that people see Fed's opponents and that they don't have resumes like Djokovic and Murray and therefore they were weak players. Anyone who watched Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Safin, Agassi, and Blake would know they were not weak players and they were very dangerous when on their games. Many times, they just had the misfortune of running into Roger or else they would have had greater success. And the thing about that time is that Roger was always there. You couldn't win a Slam without getting by him and that in itself makes the period very tough to have played in - just as today you can't win a Slam without going through Nadal or Djokovic to do it.

NadalDisciple
10-04-2013, 07:24 PM
roddick can only serve and that's what held him back from being a legend. Hewitt simply has no weapons. Basically a shit version of Murray. Nalbandian is incredibly talented in every way but he's never had his head in the right place. Safin similar to that. So basically safin, nalbandian and federer were supposed to be the Nadal, murray and djokovic of their generation and instead the other two simply didn't reach the heights they were supposed to because of external factors.

What makes the current combo great is that each of them take this sport extremely seriously and are dedicated to their craft in a way that rodger was, and the rest weren't. The generation was really poor. They were being outdone by a 17 year old who could only play on one surface.

As I said the field is irrelevant . The relevant players are the ones that compete for the top tropheys and during feds assault on grand slams they weren't any. Its not feds fault, its just the simply truth. When rafa and murray came on tour and faced him were saw him start losing to players on a regular basis. Sure murray couldn't do it in big games, but he was doing it quite ofted. Rafa could do it a lot too, including in big games. For me its clear evidence that he isn't as good as suggested by 'he's the goat, no doubt' claimers.

Kyle_Johansen
10-04-2013, 07:45 PM
Murray has rarely ever had his head in the right place in his career so far, so I don't see how he is that much different to a Safin/Nalbandian in that regard. Roddick was not just a serve and he never was. He had a big forehand for a long time and a tremendous fire/intensity. Hewitt did have weapons - a great return, great ball-striking ability, fantastic passing shots and lobs, excellent speed and defense, and oh yeah, the mind of steel he had (and still possesses).

star
10-04-2013, 07:56 PM
Roger fans should get their heads out of the sand. Insinuating that 08 wimbledon, and 09 aus open was not peak federer is pure madness. Fact is rafa could play against any type of roger federer and still whip him. Even on grass where rodger is considererd one of the greatest players on the surface he was beaten by rafa, and pushed to 5 sets in 07.

Its a taugh match up. Rafas weapons hurt him more than his hurt nadal and ends up losing more times than not. Plus rodger is an awful tactician. His in game adjustments when playing nadal are pointless most of the time. He's very used to the fact that if he plays well he'll probably win, but that's not the case against rafa.

Tough matchups or not, rodger isn't the GOAT if he's lost so much against his biggest rival. Djokovic is a tough match up for nadal but you don't see Rafa getting spanked every match.

And took him to 4 sets in 2006 with tiebreaks in two of those sets.

And let us not forget 6-3, 6-3 in Miami in 2004

or 2-6, 6-4, 6-4 in Dubai in 2006

anticaria
10-04-2013, 09:48 PM
Absolutely not. Nadal is an overrated junior calibre player with no serve who can't do anything except smack topspin forehands from 10 feet behind the baseline all day. He's probably peaked already and will never be better than he is now. Federer will win all their remaining matches to love. Nadal's only chance to win points will be if Federer plays in a wheelchair. Even then it will be difficult.

priceless! :devil:

Gabeh99
10-04-2013, 09:57 PM
It is if you're living in 2004
Oops didn't realize this was started in 2005. lol
It makes sense that way.

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2013, 10:41 PM
Murray has rarely ever had his head in the right place in his career so far, so I don't see how he is that much different to a Safin/Nalbandian in that regard. Roddick was not just a serve and he never was. He had a big forehand for a long time and a tremendous fire/intensity. Hewitt did have weapons - a great return, great ball-striking ability, fantastic passing shots and lobs, excellent speed and defense, and oh yeah, the mind of steel he had (and still possesses).

Murray is 10 times more consistent than Safin & Nalbandian (and much less injury prone).

underspin
10-04-2013, 11:15 PM
Murray has rarely ever had his head in the right place in his career so far, so I don't see how he is that much different to a Safin/Nalbandian in that regard.

Safin reached something like seven Slam semis in his whole career, and was a virtual non factor on grass in his prime. Murray has reached thirteen Slam semis and as for Nalbandian; he just wasn't on the same level.

Kyle_Johansen
10-05-2013, 02:41 AM
I didn't say Andy was not more consistent than Safin - he certainly is. But that doesn't mean that Safin wasn't better when at his very best (few were). Same with Nalbandian. I was comparing Andy to Safin/Nalbandian in terms of his mental game, which has gone off the rails a lot in the bigger moments just like it was with Marat and David.

ProdigyEng
10-05-2013, 02:43 AM
I didn't say Andy was not more consistent than Safin - he certainly is. But that doesn't mean that Safin wasn't better when at his very best (few were). Same with Nalbandian. I was comparing Andy to Safin/Nalbandian in terms of his mental game, which has gone off the rails a lot in the bigger moments just like it was with Marat and David.

The Tradesman not only witnessed a school masacre as a kid, but also had the weight of an entire nation on his shoulders.

That is bound to affect his mental strength.

Kyle_Johansen
10-05-2013, 02:44 AM
And NadalDisciple, Wimbledon 2008 and Australian Open 2009 may have been times where Roger was playing good tennis, but take away those two tournaments, and a few others (Hamburg 2008, USO 2008, Madrid 2009, Cincinnati 2009, and USO 2009), he was not the same player he was a few years before. Even now he can play tennis on a similar level that he did then for a tournament or two, but the difference is when you can play at that high level week in and week out, which Roger stopped doing in about 2008.

Unforced Terror
10-05-2013, 02:47 AM
Andy has always been a mental giant warrior vs lesser players and a weak coward vs top players.

He’s basically the bully of tennis.

underspin
10-05-2013, 10:08 AM
I didn't say Andy was not more consistent than Safin - he certainly is. But that doesn't mean that Safin wasn't better when at his very best (few were). Same with Nalbandian. I was comparing Andy to Safin/Nalbandian in terms of his mental game, which has gone off the rails a lot in the bigger moments just like it was with Marat and David.

You said he rarely had his head in the right place. In my interpretation, you have to be pretty solid mentally to make the latter stages of Slams so consistently. And I know Murray's game has occasionally fallen away against the top players due to his mental state, but I believe it usually happens because they are simply playing better than him, not because he mentally collapses.

ys
10-11-2013, 03:45 PM
Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandyan argument for 2004-2006 is funny. They haven't retired in 2006. They played quite a while longer. None of them has ever been considered a serious Slam threat - with healthy Nadal and Djokovic around. That is an evidence of how week 2004-2006 were - if this kind of players were considered a main opposition to #1.

ys
10-11-2013, 03:49 PM
And to complement this.. If you think of the total number of Slams won by currently active players, this time of now must be close to a record or be a record. Nearly 40 Slams held by currently active players sounds like an insanely high number. Which is a great indication of how strong the era is. What was that number back in 2004, again? Must have been less than 20? With 8 out of those held by 35 yo Agassi.

rocketassist
10-11-2013, 03:53 PM
And to complement this.. If you think of the total number of Slams won by currently active players, this time of now must be close to a record or be a record. Nearly 40 Slams held by currently active players sounds like an insanely high number. Which is a great indication of how strong the era is. What was that number back in 2004, again? Must have been less than 20? With 8 out of those held by 35 yo Agassi.

That's cancelled out by the fact only six active players hold them. The lowest amount in the history of the Open Era, sans for the early years of it.

ys
10-11-2013, 04:09 PM
That's cancelled out by the fact only six active players hold them. The lowest amount in the history of the Open Era, sans for the early years of it.
Yeah, how does a zero amount of one slam wonders and gaudios of all kind cancel that? It only indicates that the real top competition is so tough and strong, that getting there is next to impossible for comparably mediocre, even if, otherwise great players.
In any other era likes of Berdich, Davydenko, Tsonga, Soderling could have been multiple Slam winners. Here - they never even came close.

rocketassist
10-11-2013, 04:19 PM
Yeah, how does a zero amount of one slam wonders and gaudios of all kind cancel that? It only indicates that the real top competition is so tough and strong, that getting there is next to impossible for comparably mediocre, even if, otherwise great players.
In any other era likes of Berdich, Davydenko, Tsonga, Soderling could have been multiple Slam winners. Here - they never even came close.

Don't overrate Berdych, and Tsonga as much as I like him, has clear weaknesses. Davydenko and Soderling could possibly have won one, but things didn't go their way.

Litotes
10-11-2013, 04:52 PM
Yeah, how does a zero amount of one slam wonders and gaudios of all kind cancel that? It only indicates that the real top competition is so tough and strong, that getting there is next to impossible for comparably mediocre, even if, otherwise great players.
In any other era likes of Berdich, Davydenko, Tsonga, Soderling could have been multiple Slam winners. Here - they never even came close.

Davydenko, Berdych, Tsonga and Söderling all played in 2004-07, they weren't able to win anything then. If fact, between them they've done much better in 2008 -->

ys
10-11-2013, 05:00 PM
Davydenko, Berdych, Tsonga and Söderling all played in 2004-07, they weren't able to win anything then. If fact, between them they've done much better in 2008 -->

Due to obvious reasons. They really matured as players only closer to 2006-2008. But by then we had 3 all time greats at full swing, leaving very little breathing space for everyone else.

Litotes
10-11-2013, 05:09 PM
Due to obvious reasons. They really matured as players only closer to 2006-2008. But by then we had 3 all time greats at full swing, leaving very little breathing space for everyone else.

Not so obvious, really. They are all older than Nadal so no reason why they shouldn't be able to get results in 2004-07 (except for Tsonga, who was injured), other than there being too much competition for them to handle at the time, and less now. That's just as likely as your explanation.

Just face the facts - you can't tell if one era is stronger than another from these kinds of stats alone. It can't be done. If you think you've done it, you've reached an erroneous or unfounded conclusion.

ys
10-11-2013, 07:12 PM
Just face the facts - you can't tell if one era is stronger than another from these kinds of stats alone. It can't be done. If you think you've done it, you've reached an erroneous or unfounded conclusion.

It's not a fact. I suspect that multiple Slam winners and Hall-of-famers like Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Hewitt or Rafter would probably end up in a class of Davydenko or Berdich, should their era have had a competition level of 2007-2011. The only multiple Slam winner of 2000s that probably would still have won multiple Slams regardless of the eras is Safin, who've beaten the best of his time in his Slam wins.

Litotes
10-11-2013, 07:30 PM
It's not a fact. I suspect that multiple Slam winners and Hall-of-famers like Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Hewitt or Rafter would probably end up in a class of Davydenko or Berdich, should their era have had a competition level of 2007-2011. The only multiple Slam winner of 2000s that probably would still have won multiple Slams regardless of the eras is Safin, who've beaten the best of his time in his Slam wins.

Your suspicion is not founded in anything but personal taste. Notice how you yourself use "suspect" and "probably".

What is the point, anyway? Why fight to claim one era as stronger than another? What are you hoping to achieve?

octatennis
10-11-2013, 07:50 PM
Op was a visionary.

Jimnik
10-11-2013, 07:58 PM
A one-sided rivalry is still a rivalry I guess.

Kyle_Johansen
10-11-2013, 08:13 PM
Yeah, how does a zero amount of one slam wonders and gaudios of all kind cancel that? It only indicates that the real top competition is so tough and strong, that getting there is next to impossible for comparably mediocre, even if, otherwise great players.
In any other era likes of Berdich, Davydenko, Tsonga, Soderling could have been multiple Slam winners. Here - they never even came close.

That was the case in 2004-2006 when Federer was denying his rivals Slams and they would have been more successful in previous eras. And Djokovic was an all-time great in 2008? No, Federer and Nadal were. Then Djokovic entered in 2011 and Murray still isn't an all-time great.

Il Primo Uomo
10-11-2013, 08:48 PM
Where is the "No, Rafa will kick his ass from now on" option? :confused:

R.I.P..

Il Primo Uomo
10-11-2013, 08:49 PM
A one-sided rivalry is still a rivalry I guess.

Giving me Serena-Sharapova teas. Kiiiiiii

QuitYerWhining
10-11-2013, 10:30 PM
That's cancelled out by the fact only six active players hold them. The lowest amount in the history of the Open Era, sans for the early years of it.

The fact that only a few players are breaking through is a sign of a stronger era, not a weaker era. Specifically, it says more about the strength of the top players. This is easy enough to prove by eliminating the best 1 or 2 players from every era, and seeing how much more parity is spattered all over the place. Of course it is nonsense to suggest that any era becomes stronger by eliminating its #1 player.

Conversely, you could imagine an unspeakably and unrealistically crap era where all of the top 1,000 disappear. Or you could imagine a Slam tournament inviting only players ranked #1,001-1,128. It would be a completely unpredictable crapshoot. Come to think of it, we already have something similar in Futures. Some players dominate for a time; they inevitably graduate into Challengers and hopefully into the ATP Tour. But when they dominate, it's a sign that they are getting better--not that the world spun off of its axis and #301 on down all started to become crap for no reason.