Which is harder?Beating Rafa on clay or beating Federer on grass? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Which is harder?Beating Rafa on clay or beating Federer on grass?

Pages : [1] 2

konyalikartal
06-09-2005, 07:52 PM
I think beating Rafa on clay is much more difficult; because he is more invincible on clay than Federer on grass. Also I think that Federer will be beaten in this year's Wimbledon and his grass winning streak will come to an end.

Leo
06-09-2005, 07:59 PM
Federer hasn't lost a grass court match since what, Wimbledon '02? Nadal just lost a clay court match in April. You tell me who is tougher right now.

robinhood
06-09-2005, 07:59 PM
I think beating Rafa on clay is much more difficult; because he is more invincible on clay than Federer on grass.
Excuse me, but I am not so sure where you get this idea. If you are purely going by their records, Rafa has lost a match on clay twice this year, and Fed hasn't lost on grass the last two years and running.

Also I think that Federer will be beaten in this year's Wimbledon and his grass winning streak will come to an end.
:o

deekaye
06-09-2005, 07:59 PM
On what basis do you predict Federer will lose at Wimbledon? Losing a semifinal on clay to Nadal,a match he could have won from 1 set all but for an unusual number of unforced errors at crucial stages? What has this to do with grass,a surface that is worlds apart. Maybe you have a crystal ball?


Deekaye

konyalikartal
06-09-2005, 08:24 PM
I am not looking at their win-loss records. I got this idea when they both play at their best in clay and grass respectively. According to me Rafa's play is much more dominant on clay than Federer's on grass.

Skyward
06-09-2005, 08:38 PM
According to me Rafa's play is much more dominant on clay than Federer's on grass.

You must be the ATP tour player and played both of them on clay/grass

Shabazza
06-09-2005, 08:46 PM
I am not looking at their win-loss records. I got this idea when they both play at their best in clay and grass respectively. According to me Rafa's play is much more dominant on clay than Federer's on grass.
:rolleyes:

NATAS81
06-09-2005, 08:49 PM
This is a difficult question to ask because the quality of grass players is better than that of clay.

In other words, there's more grass players who have a chance of beating Federer, than clay players beating Nadal.

So you can't say Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on grass.

To answer the question, it's more likely Nadal wins RG than Federer winning Wimbledon.

Breakaway
06-09-2005, 08:49 PM
I think that Federer is harder to beat on grass than Rafa on clay. JMHO. :)

jayrhum
06-09-2005, 08:49 PM
The more difficult is to beat me on ice.
Never suffered a loss...

NATAS81
06-09-2005, 08:50 PM
The more difficult is to beat me on ice.
Never suffered a loss...
Sergei Federov's wrist shot says otherwise :devil:

jayrhum
06-09-2005, 08:53 PM
Sergei Federov's wrist shot says otherwise :devil:Mate, it's me Pavel... I'm the "Russian Rocket" at Ice tennis... ;)

Fumus
06-09-2005, 08:53 PM
Beating Rafa on clay is going to be harder. Rafa's type of game and the restraints of clay will require a great deal of effort on your part physically. Rafa's not going to give you any cheap points and you are going to have to win long rallies. It's going to require alot of running, and superb shot making, game in and game out for a number of hours. Many oppoents like Ferrer, Puerta, etc can take a set off Rafa but are exhausted for the next 3 or 2 (depending on tourny) and are dead tired. The only player who lasted with Rafa like that this year was Coria and even he lost.

Beating Federer on Grass is much more cut and dry. If you can serve big and return big, you can blow Roger off the court. It will be challenging for obivous reasons but not like what it takes to beat Nadal. Bully Roger around and he will lose and it won't take half as long on grass due to the pure nature of the surface.

Clearly beating Roger on Grass is easier.

NATAS81
06-09-2005, 08:55 PM
Mate, it's me Pavel... I'm the "Russian Rocket" at Ice tennis... ;)
Odd, well your first post led one to belive you were the goalie, lol

Don't trade hockey nick names with me, I'm Dominator Dominik Hasek fastest pad movement you've seen since watching US goalie stone USSR in the Olympics :p

jayrhum
06-09-2005, 09:01 PM
Odd, well your first post led one to belive you were the goalie, lol

Ah no, I really meant at tennis on ice... :lol: (have to take my pills :crazy: )

NATAS81
06-09-2005, 09:02 PM
Ah no, I really meant at tennis on ice... :lol: (have to take my pills :crazy: )
:silly:

Nacho
06-09-2005, 09:07 PM
it's true roger hasn't lost on grass since wimby 2002, but hey, it's not like there are zillions of grass tourneys

if I'm not mistaken roger has won 4 tourneys on grass in the past 2 years (he's about to win his 5th, but meh)

rafa has won 4 tourneys on clay in the past 2 months...

that being said, it's quite obvious roger would have won more tourneys had the grass season been longer...

in case you haven't noticed, this is a very stupid post as I have no idea who is more dominant :retard:

tennischick
06-09-2005, 09:08 PM
The more difficult is to beat me on ice.
Never suffered a loss...
nah, try playing me on cardboard -- i rule!!! ;)

Denise
06-09-2005, 09:17 PM
RAFA on clayyyy ;);)

Fumus
06-09-2005, 09:21 PM
nah, try playing me on cardboard -- i rule!!! ;)

Can I play you on my bed. :devil:

Shabazza
06-09-2005, 09:26 PM
Beating Rafa on clay is going to be harder. Rafa's type of game and the restraints of clay will require a great deal of effort on your part physically. Rafa's not going to give you any cheap points and you are going to have to win long rallies. It's going to require alot of running, and superb shot making, game in and game out for a number of hours. Many oppoents like Ferrer, Puerta, etc can take a set off Rafa but are exhausted for the next 3 or 2 (depending on tourny) and are dead tired. The only player who lasted with Rafa like that this year was Coria and even he lost.

Beating Federer on Grass is much more cut and dry. If you can serve big and return big, you can blow Roger off the court. It will be challenging for obivous reasons but not like what it takes to beat Nadal. Bully Roger around and he will lose and it won't take half as long on grass due to the pure nature of the surface.

Clearly beating Roger on Grass is easier.

so you're saying that it's always harder to beat someone on clay than on grass, cause the surface is slower and the match will take longer (considering Rafa can only lose in 3 or 5 sets)? Wrong. It's not about the way you win, but about the possibility of winning!
To bully Roger around on grass at least as hard as getting Rafa to sruggle in a rally on clay and getting winners against him! (It was the same with Sampras, who was nearly unbeatable when playing his best on grass.)

Your reasoning is wrong.

Fumus
06-09-2005, 09:33 PM
so you're saying that it's always harder to beat someone on clay than on grass, cause the surface is slower and the match will take longer (considering Rafa can only lose in 3 or 5 sets)? Wrong. It's not about the way you win, but about the possibility of winning!
To bully Roger around on grass at least as hard as getting Rafa to sruggle in a rally on clay and getting winners against him! (It was the same with Sampras, who was nearly unbeatable when playing his best on grass.)

Your reasoning is wrong.

Oh so, beating Roger on grass is hard cuz beating Pete was...good logic. :)

Which is harder?Beating Rafa on clay or beating Federer on grass?

It doesn't say which is less likely. It says which is harder and well...beating Rafa is harder.

Oh yea and it is about the way you win. That's the question, how hard is it!

Shabazza
06-09-2005, 09:54 PM
Oh so, beating Roger on grass is hard cuz beating Pete was...good logic. :)

Which is harder?Beating Rafa on clay or beating Federer on grass?

It doesn't say which is less likely. It says which is harder and well...beating Rafa is harder.

Oh yea and it is about the way you win. That's the question, how hard is it!

I understand the question as referring to the possibility of beating them - if he would have asked: "Which is tougher to beat?" then it's the way of beating them imho ;)
I mentioned Sampras to make clear that it is as hard, beating an exceptional grass specialist as it is to beat an exceptional claycourter...and yes I'm comparing Sampras and Federer in this way :)

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2005, 10:03 PM
This is a difficult question to ask because the quality of grass players is better than that of clay.

In other words, there's more grass players who have a chance of beating Federer, than clay players beating Nadal.

So you can't say Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on grass.

To answer the question, it's more likely Nadal wins RG than Federer winning Wimbledon.

Erm?

There are more grass players who can upset Federer than Nadal on clay? This is the complete opposite of my reasoning.

IMO you simply cannot compare the two. Something like 45% of the ATP schedule is on clay compared to 3 weeks on grass. There are far more players who call clay their favourite surface than grass. That's why the pool of contenders at RG is much deeper than at Wimbledon.

There are more quality grasscourt players than clay? :confused: In all due respect, that is totally absurd to me.

Finally, since there are more tournaments on clay, Nadal will play more matches on that surface that Fed will on grass... it's more probable that he will drop a match here and there, even if they were equally good on their respective surfaces.

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2005, 10:04 PM
Federer hasn't lost a grass court match since what, Wimbledon '02? Nadal just lost a clay court match in April. You tell me who is tougher right now.
Yes, and Nadal has probably played about as many clay court tournaments this year as Fed has played grass tournaments since 2002. That's why you can't really compare them.

Federer Fan
06-09-2005, 10:08 PM
Fumus is a....
http://www.malevolenteye.com/NZphotos/Troll_and_FOTR_premiere/troll_closeup.jpg

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2005, 10:08 PM
Are you trying to tell us that Fumus has saggy boobs?

tennischick
06-09-2005, 10:09 PM
Can I play you on my bed. :devil:
you have a cardboard bed? :smoke:

Federer Fan
06-09-2005, 10:09 PM
And he will always be a...
http://lisboaarquivo.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/troll.jpg

Federer Fan
06-09-2005, 10:10 PM
He can't help it because being a...http://www.brogge-gugge.ch/Fotos/2000/Troll-Kopf-277x335.jpg


because it runs in his blood.

NYCtennisfan
06-09-2005, 10:17 PM
Beating Federer on Grass is much more cut and dry. If you can serve big and return big, you can blow Roger off the court.

When is the last time someone blew him off of the court? He has played all the big servers and they can't blow him off of the court.

Here are three examples:

2004 Bangkok: Andy starts off by serving 4 aces in the opening game and serves at 80% but still doesn't "blow Roger off of the court".

2003 TMC Sf: Andy serves at 75% but still loses the 1st set in a tiebreaker.

2005 AO SF: Safin serves 80% on first serves in his first 5 service games but it isn't enough as Federer wins the set.

Cervantes
06-09-2005, 10:19 PM
Beating Roger on grass is easier cause on grass luck can get you a long way. Just get him to two breakers and hit one netball in each, easy as that ;)

konyalikartal
06-09-2005, 10:20 PM
Fumus thought exactly the same way that I thought. It is the point in this thread. My point is to show this truth. Any good grass court player can take out Federer in grass providing that good service and return and keeping his cool. Last year Andy was almost doing this. If he took especially the second or third set I think Federer will blown out after this. Besides any good clay court player can't beat Rafa although he plays one of his best matches like Puerta did in the final and didn't even take Rafa to fifth set. Also another point is that the tactic for beating Roger is so simple in grass. Good Serve, return, some volley (not need to be very good) and mental strentgh; but tactic for beating Rafa is so complicated. All the world class players and clay court specialists tried several tactics for beating Rafa like serve and volley, dropshot, baseline rallies, good serve etc. but nothing took Rafa to fifthe set in Roland Garros 2005!!! Also last point that makes almost impossible to beat Rafa on clay is that his enormous mental strength and keeping his cool. He won't give you one easy point almost during the whole match. He is also the best in this category by far in the world.

Seleshfan
06-09-2005, 10:22 PM
Well assuming that Federer doesn't get a bad case of the munchies or giggles, of course I'm going to say Federer. Federer on an acid trip, however, would be easier to beat than Nadal on any surface.

Mrs. B
06-09-2005, 10:26 PM
Well assuming that Federer doesn't get a bad case of the munchies or giggles, of course I'm going to say Federer. Federer on an acid trip, however, would be easier to beat than Nadal on any surface.

:haha: :haha:

nermo
06-09-2005, 11:11 PM
Right now..i dont think it depends on Federer or Nadal as much as it depends on other players.. most of claycourt specialists are now not able to beat Nadal cuz he s good enough physically and mentally..while most of clay court specialists are not in form at the time being...speaking for Coria, Moya, Gaudio, ...others are not strong enough..

while on Grass..i think there re lots of players eager for winning and are more competitive right now than clay players...Hewitt, Safin, (Roddick) ,but it doesnot also mean that its easy to Beat Federer ..especially when he finds his serve..but there are better Grass Competitors than clay ones.. :angel:

lina_seta
06-10-2005, 12:09 AM
mmm i sould still say federer of course... (records speak for themselves)

thats cuz roger could have won RG playing good tennis at it.. and keeping a good level, but he fail to ccomplish that... but its more than obvious that he could have defeated nadal if he had kept his A game like in the second set.. up 5-1? but well if nadal hadnt win RG then the whole thread would be veerryyy one sided! then again.. beating roger in any surface can proof difficult and we dont know yet if nadal can beat roger in grass so... but roger beating nadal in clay, yes..

thing is.. nadal is also vencible in clay but right now other clay courters are in their weak/fading stage and the amount o claycourters arent very high ... whereas hardcourters do well in grass too.. and there are a bunch of those... so going 2 years undefeated in grass is more difficult

conclusion...
beating federer in grass is more difficult

rue
06-10-2005, 12:29 AM
I think that it is a bit hard to compare who is tougher to beat because the grass court season is so short, unless if they played on grass just as long as they do on clay then we can make a comparison. I would have to say that Nadal is much tougher to beat because he has only lost two matches on clay so far and even though Federer has won over 24 matches in a row, this has been over the last couple of years which makes it hard to compare the two.

DDrago2
06-10-2005, 12:48 AM
You say Nadal is so difficult to beat on clay, and still he lost 2 matches this season? And Federer had the game to beat him in RG semifinals, it was the match that could go either way (despite it was 3-1 on the end). Puerta was very close of going into fifth set with Nadal (he held three set points and Nadal was more lucky than anything to have saved them), and who knows what would happen in that fifth set.
Roddick did trouble Federer in the Wimby finals last year, but he was more far from victory than Puerta against Nadal - and Roddick is the 2nd best grass player, and who is Puerta?

And as for "the fact" that it requires more effor to beat Nadal on clay then Federer on grass - this realy amuses me, becuse from the other side it also takes Nadal more effort to win on clay then it takes Federer to win on grass. Federer can toy with most of the players on grass, playing relaxed and without steping on the gass and winnig like 6-2 6-1, while Nadal has to fight and be very focused to dominate a lot of players on clay. So you could say that Federer is more comfortable on grass than Nadal on clay. For example, in their's RG semifinals Federer in one moment had a 5-1 lead over Nadal in 2nd set. I think nobody ever held a 5-1 lead against Federer on grass.

Nadal fans are over-rating Nadals strength on clay. But, I think Federer fans are by the same measure over-rating Federers strenths on grass. Federer can loose from the likes of Mario Ancic or Andy Roddick. But as for the "blowing Roger of the court" - this is obviously written by someone who is realy irritated with Federer's supremacy, since it is more easy to imagine Andy Roddick winning Rolland Garros than Federer being "blown off" on a grass surface.

I think that it is more sensible to wait for Nadal to prove himself on other surfaces than evangelising about his clay-cort game. While Federer is a huge factor on any surface, Nadal can say the same only on clay (and "virtual clay" such as high-bounce slow hard-court such as Miami). I think that a lot of Nadal lovers are iritated by the fact that Federer is clearly a better player at the moment, what stops them from worshiping Nadal the way they would like. I also think that Nadals loss to 147th ranked 30-year-old veteran who didin't win an ATP match for ages also must have hurted them.

NYCtennisfan
06-10-2005, 07:36 AM
You say Nadal is so difficult to beat on clay, and still he lost 2 matches this season? And Federer had the game to beat him in RG semifinals, it was the match that could go either way (despite it was 3-1 on the end). Puerta was very close of going into fifth set with Nadal (he held three set points and Nadal was more lucky than anything to have saved them), and who knows what would happen in that fifth set.
Roddick did trouble Federer in the Wimby finals last year, but he was more far from victory than Puerta against Nadal - and Roddick is the 2nd best grass player, and who is Puerta?

And as for "the fact" that it requires more effor to beat Nadal on clay then Federer on grass - this realy amuses me, becuse from the other side it also takes Nadal more effort to win on clay then it takes Federer to win on grass. Federer can toy with most of the players on grass, playing relaxed and without steping on the gass and winnig like 6-2 6-1, while Nadal has to fight and be very focused to dominate a lot of players on clay. So you could say that Federer is more comfortable on grass than Nadal on clay. For example, in their's RG semifinals Federer in one moment had a 5-1 lead over Nadal in 2nd set. I think nobody ever held a 5-1 lead against Federer on grass.

Nadal fans are over-rating Nadals strength on clay. But, I think Federer fans are by the same measure over-rating Federers strenths on grass. Federer can loose from the likes of Mario Ancic or Andy Roddick. But as for the "blowing Roger of the court" - this is obviously written by someone who is realy irritated with Federer's supremacy, since it is more easy to imagine Andy Roddick winning Rolland Garros than Federer being "blown off" on a grass surface.

I think that it is more sensible to wait for Nadal to prove himself on other surfaces than evangelising about his clay-cort game. While Federer is a huge factor on any surface, Nadal can say the same only on clay (and "virtual clay" such as high-bounce slow hard-court such as Miami). I think that a lot of Nadal lovers are iritated by the fact that Federer is clearly a better player at the moment, what stops them from worshiping Nadal the way they would like. I also think that Nadals loss to 147th ranked 30-year-old veteran who didin't win an ATP match for ages also must have hurted them.

You make some really good points.

sanpo
06-10-2005, 08:29 AM
Oh so, beating Roger on grass is hard cuz beating Pete was...good logic. :)

Which is harder?Beating Rafa on clay or beating Federer on grass?

It doesn't say which is less likely. It says which is harder and well...beating Rafa is harder.

Oh yea and it is about the way you win. That's the question, how hard is it!

Nadal's showing on FO this year was to say his best(and he was playing his best tennis), and I think it would be fair to compare him when Roger was playing his best on grass which may be Wimby last year or even '03.

Even when Nadal was at his BEST on clay this year, he was nearly put twice to play fifth set on FO, (i.e. against Roger and Puerta) and you don't see Roger playing five-setters in wimbledon. That being the basis then we could say Roger is harder to beat.

But that's on the basis of them playing their best. We still have to see how Roger perform this year on wimby because I have the feeling he is far from the form he had on grass las year... :)

Ferrero Forever
06-10-2005, 08:33 AM
This is a good poll, and I would say it is harder to beat Federer on grass.

Clara Bow
06-10-2005, 08:39 AM
Nadal's showing on FO this year was to say his best(and he was playing his best tennis)

Sorry- gotta disagree here. I don't think Nadal played his best tennis at all in RG. His Uncle Toni even said so - he said that Rafa played better at Monte Carlo and Rome and thanks to the Tennis Channel I was able to see those matches and I agree.

I think the best displays of Nadal's tennis talent could have been seen during his match against Canas in Rome. I think at RG you were able to see some of Rafa's gifts, but in my opinion they really were not on full display.

deliveryman
06-10-2005, 09:14 AM
Sorry- gotta disagree here. I don't think Nadal played his best tennis at all in RG. His Uncle Toni even said so - he said that Rafa played better at Monte Carlo and Rome and thanks to the Tennis Channel I was able to see those matches and I agree.

I think the best displays of Nadal's tennis talent could have been seen during his match against Canas in Rome. I think at RG you were able to see some of Rafa's gifts, but in my opinion they really were not on full display.

Do you honestly think a trainer is going to say, "yes he was playing the best tennis he could possibly play" and put a limit on their clients potential? Of course they're always going to say things like, "yes he played well, but he can always improve" or, "he played well, but he can play better." ESPECIALLY him being his uncle.

You obviously don't know anything about the mentality of coaching. All I know is, if my coach said that during a press conference, or to the media, he'd be fired in a heartbeat.

jayrhum
06-10-2005, 09:17 AM
Tony Nadal also applauses on opponent's winners (at least I saw him do that during the RG's Grosjean match)...:worship: So he's not the typical coach I think.

jayrhum
06-10-2005, 09:28 AM
You obviously don't know anything about the mentality of coaching.:retard:
All I know is, if my coach said that during a press conference, or to the media, he'd be fired in a heartbeat.Who's your coach?

nermo
06-10-2005, 09:35 AM
well, in my humble opinion..whether what Tony said was true or not..i think there are lots of things that Nadal has to work on improving.. only as examples..his serve.his backhand( has to be stronger )..i see they improved a lot since Nasdaq final match against Federer..but i think there s still a long way to go here. (i am even sure Nadal knows it himself) .i like Nadal a lot and i d love to think that he ll have a good future..but i also think..he must keep improving cuz sooner or later ..he ll have to

deliveryman
06-10-2005, 09:40 AM
:retard:
Who's your coach?

Have you ever heard of the phrase, "hypothetically speaking?"

Maybe it's a language issue? If not, I hope you were joking.

Clara Bow
06-10-2005, 09:51 AM
Do you honestly think a trainer is going to say, "yes he was playing the best tennis he could possibly play" and put a limit on their clients potential? Of course they're always going to say things like, "yes he played well, but he can always improve" or, "he played well, but he can play better." ESPECIALLY him being his uncle.

You obviously don't know anything about the mentality of coaching.

Wow- thank you for insulting my intelligence. I really appreciate it. Let me go drool in a cup now. As someone who watches the game, I think that Toni has a pretty acute sense of what Rafa's strengths and weaknesses are- and I normally think he is spot on in his assesments. My tennis coach did too- it was harsh, but good to have an improved my game. I actually think that Toni is a damn good coach. And I have seen Rafa play better than he did at RG- ergo- I agree with Toni. If Toni had said that Rafa was playing the best he could play at RG- that would have been a flat out lie, because he had played better.

sanpo
06-10-2005, 09:51 AM
Sorry- gotta disagree here. I don't think Nadal played his best tennis at all in RG. His Uncle Toni even said so - he said that Rafa played better at Monte Carlo and Rome and thanks to the Tennis Channel I was able to see those matches and I agree.

I think the best displays of Nadal's tennis talent could have been seen during his match against Canas in Rome. I think at RG you were able to see some of Rafa's gifts, but in my opinion they really were not on full display.

I have also seen some of his matches on TMS during RG. Though it doesn't differ much altogether, since no offense to any nadal fans here, but he was just consistent all throughout. If there was to be a peak on his play, it was certainly during the first set against ferrer, and if I'm not mistaken he even declared that himself during the press conference.

And basing on your assumption that nadal was playing his best in MC and Rome, remember that he was taken to 5 sets and 4 sets (one set which he was bageled) on both finals.

Clara Bow
06-10-2005, 09:55 AM
And basing on your assumption that nadal was playing his best in MC and Rome, remember that he was taken to 5 sets and 4 sets (one set which he was bageled) on both finals.

Against Coria- who even though he has had a crappy year really has some of the most natural gifts on clay and pulled them out for part of those finals.

jayrhum
06-10-2005, 09:55 AM
Have you ever heard of the phrase, "hypothetically speaking?"

Maybe it's a language issue? If not, I hope you were joking.

Not joking...
And I see you're arrogant again...
"Hypothetically speaking" = BIG LOL
I could tell you that if I had to meet Monica Bellucci, I would make love to her the whole night, but what's the point as it has no chances to happen...

trixy
06-10-2005, 10:03 AM
Beating Federer on grass. The best on Clay is always changing. 2003- Ferrero, 2004-Coria (even though he didn't actually win Roland Garros), 2004-Nadal. While Nadal may seem unbeatable right now in the long haul I think beating Federer in grass is harder. Actually beating Federer on any surface is a big deal anyway.

sanpo
06-10-2005, 10:06 AM
Against Coria- who even though he has had a crappy year really has some of the most natural gifts on clay and pulled them out for part of those finals.

And Roger beating Roddick twice, which is as dangerous in grass as coria is on clay.

Clara Bow
06-10-2005, 10:16 AM
And Roger beating Roddick twice, which is as dangerous in grass as coria is on clay.
Note, I haven't voted in this poll. All I was saying is that the fact that Rafa's finals at MC and Rome went beyond 3 sets does not mean that his skills or play should be discounted because he played a highly skilled player. :)

I still think the last set of the Rome final was one of the two or three best sets of this year.

sanpo
06-10-2005, 10:31 AM
Note, I haven't voted in this poll. All I was saying is that the fact that Rafa's finals at MC and Rome went beyond 3 sets does not mean that his skills or play should be discounted because he played a highly skilled player. :)

I still think the last set of the Rome final was one of the two or three best sets of this year.

The logic was that since neither of them has lost any of their matches in their favorite surfaces (nadal-clay;fed=grass) the only thing that could be argued was how hard they won it, so I brought up this analogy. I voted for Roger btw. :D

deliveryman
06-10-2005, 10:44 AM
Not joking...
And I see you're arrogant again...
"Hypothetically speaking" = BIG LOL
I could tell you that if I had to meet Monica Bellucci, I would make love to her the whole night, but what's the point as it has no chances to happen...

Thanks for proving my point.

Not only that, but you've also answered the age old question: why does everyone hate the French?

*Elsie*
06-10-2005, 10:47 AM
Not only that, but you've also answered the age old question: why does everyone hate the French?
You are wrong. I loooove the French. Especially Jayrhum :angel:

deliveryman
06-10-2005, 10:53 AM
You are wrong. I loooove the French. Especially Jayrhum :angel:

lol

and now a little quote from my favorite, David Letterman:

David: I don't know why everyone was suprised the French didn't help get Saddam out of Iraq.

crowd jeers

David: No. No, seriously. After all, they didn't even help get the Germans out of France.

crowd laughs

Dirk
06-10-2005, 10:56 AM
Beating Rafa on clay is going to be harder. Rafa's type of game and the restraints of clay will require a great deal of effort on your part physically. Rafa's not going to give you any cheap points and you are going to have to win long rallies. It's going to require alot of running, and superb shot making, game in and game out for a number of hours. Many oppoents like Ferrer, Puerta, etc can take a set off Rafa but are exhausted for the next 3 or 2 (depending on tourny) and are dead tired. The only player who lasted with Rafa like that this year was Coria and even he lost.

Beating Federer on Grass is much more cut and dry. If you can serve big and return big, you can blow Roger off the court. It will be challenging for obivous reasons but not like what it takes to beat Nadal. Bully Roger around and he will lose and it won't take half as long on grass due to the pure nature of the surface.

Clearly beating Roger on Grass is easier.

Serving big and returning big? Who has a great serve and great return? apart from Roger and Safin? If Nadal can have another dominate clay year than it will be tough to pick, but his game is much more attackable on clay than Roger's on grass.

jayrhum
06-10-2005, 11:20 AM
deliveryman, you hate all the frenchies just cause I call you arrogant :lol:
Was just trying to help you being a better person...
All I can do now is to wish you good luck for everything.

And yep, WWII is such a hilarious topic to :haha:

Good luck again.

foul_dwimmerlaik
06-10-2005, 11:21 AM
The main quiestion here is: for whom?

If Roddick, eg, has an outside chance of beating Fed on grass, against Rafa on clay - you get the picture. For Coria, otoh, the opposite is true.

deliveryman
06-10-2005, 11:23 AM
no I don't hate the french because you called me arrogant.

Anyway, this is getting off topic so I'll just end it.

Neumann
06-10-2005, 11:56 AM
While Federer is a huge factor on any surface, Nadal can say the same only on clay (and "virtual clay" such as high-bounce slow hard-court such as Miami).

But what is this??? Is it a general delusion?? Are most of the people of the world on drugs or what? I really don't have a clue :confused: why so many people think that Miami is played on hard courts, and I am getting sick of this confusion. IT IS SO OBVIOUS THAT IT IS CLAY, RED CLAY, DIRT OR CRUSHED BRICK!!!

Thanks God that many of the MTF smart posters do have eyes and they see that the "thing" under the feet of Federer and Nadal in that entertaining final was the same dirt that you can roll over in the Philippe Chartrier or Monte Carlo, for instance.

In fact, it is quite clear that the high bounce and slow courts of the AO are also of clay, and I would say that most of the tournaments until RG are on clay.

And with the slowing down of the Wimbledon and USO courts the whole circuit will be played on clay soon (which will happen once Nadal the claycourter-forever dares to win a couple of matches in a row in those tournaments). And that will be translated in an inevitable #1 spot in the entry ranking owned by Puerta.

God helps us!! :wavey:

bandabou
06-10-2005, 12:12 PM
Both are tough....but gotta go with Roger....25 match winning streak, wimbledon back to back..doesn´t get much better than that.

Billy Moonshine
06-10-2005, 12:24 PM
Both are of course very difficult to beat. However Roger could meet a big server, get served off the court. Rafa on clay can break back. He has proven this a few times this season. Id say rafa edges it 55-45.

yanchr
06-10-2005, 01:02 PM
Which is harder? What do you mean by HARDER? More effort required or more difficult?

Beating Nadal on clay requires more effort than beating Federer on grass. It's quite understandable for the sake of the unique quality of either clay or grass and the special quality of their respective game style.

But it's more difficult to beat Federer on grass than to beat Nadal on clay. I'm not looking at the win-loss records here. For me it's tough to compare given the big contrast of the number of clay tournaments and grass ones. I'm looking at the real matches they played on the respective surface. From what I saw, Federer has hardly been pushed to the edge of losing on grass. I mean except for last year's Wimbledon final, when I actually felt he might lose, there were almost no matches where I got the feeling that he might lose, simply a feeling of that he just couldn't lose and wouldn't lose. As for Nadal, there were already quite some occasions where I felt he could lose, he was not at all in the driver's seat, eg, MC against Gasquet, Roma final, RG semi and final, even if he turned out to win them all. From looking at this year's results only, you are to some degree safe to tell that Nadal is almost invincible on clay, but if you have watched the real matches, I bet you will be struggling with this feeling, unless you are a blind fan. I admit there are still too few matches on grass to tell if Federer is close to invincible on grass, but from the finite grass matches I saw him play, I think I'm already quite safe to claim that.

Nathy
06-10-2005, 02:23 PM
Beating Federer on grass. The best on Clay is always changing. 2003- Ferrero, 2004-Coria (even though he didn't actually win Roland Garros), 2004-Nadal. While Nadal may seem unbeatable right now in the long haul I think beating Federer in grass is harder. Actually beating Federer on any surface is a big deal anyway.

I agree :yeah:

Kristen
06-10-2005, 02:25 PM
I don't know. What came first. The chicken, or the egg?

Nathy
06-10-2005, 02:27 PM
I don't know. What came first. The chicken, or the egg?

:lol:

konyalikartal
06-10-2005, 02:32 PM
I mean which is more difficult not the effort. It is obvious that beating Rafa on clay requires more effort; no need to open a poll about this. According to me the 24 match winning streak of Federer's grass matches don't mean too much about how hard it is to beat him on grass. Of course he is the best on grass that's for sure but 24 match winning streak is only 4 tournament wins. Think that grass court season and clay court season switches then Rafa also has a 24 match winning streak and 2 year undefeated and seems like he will be undefeated in forthcoming years because of the invincibility of him in clay court. Do you think that Federer would become that long undefeated if there are so much grass court tournaments in one year? I don't think so because this means that playing Roddick or Hewitt at least twice in a season; that also means a loss for him because they can have a great chance to beat him on grass if they play more than once between small intervals. On the contrary; this year Rafa beat the world class clay court specialists at least twice like Coria, Ferrero, Ferrer, finalist Puerta, beat last year's Roland Garros champion Gaudio, also beat the all around world class players like Federer. You see that he beat all the guys in one season on clay. I don't think that Federer will beat this large spectrum of players in one season. There's great possibility that he may lose to one of them.

Skyward
06-10-2005, 02:42 PM
Do you realize that you are trying to compare apples and oranges?

Puschkin
06-10-2005, 02:53 PM
Do you realize that you are trying to compare apples and oranges?

That's why I decided not to vote and not to comment ;)

Action Jackson
06-10-2005, 02:55 PM
I don't know. What came first. The chicken, or the egg?

It depends if the egg was a man if so, the egg came first.

Kristen
06-10-2005, 02:57 PM
It depends if the egg was a man if so, the egg came first.
:haha: Ahh so true :p

Rogiman
06-10-2005, 03:01 PM
Both are of course very difficult to beat. However Roger could meet a big server, get served off the court.

And you've got the past results from the last couple of years to back yourself up, right...?

Because he lost to ,how many...? zero big servers

bad gambler
06-10-2005, 03:05 PM
federer i suppose

konyalikartal
06-10-2005, 06:12 PM
I am not comparing the apples with oranges. I want to show that Federer's 2 years unbeaten run and 27 matches winning streak is nothing to do with how hard it is to beat Federer on grass because grass season is so short and there are so few tournaments. We can easily say that there is only Wimbledon not even one TMS event; but there are 3 TMS events on clay in one season.

Nathy
06-10-2005, 06:21 PM
I am not comparing the apples with oranges. I want to show that Federer's 2 years unbeaten run and 27 matches winning streak is nothing to do with how hard it is to beat Federer on grass because grass season is so short and there are so few tournaments. We can easily say that there is only Wimbledon not even one TMS event; but there are 3 TMS events on clay in one season.

Make smth..

Fed on grass: 27 matches, 27 victories

Rafa on clay: 27 matches, ? victories? I don't know but I don't think they are 27 (he has been beaten in April...)...

Skyward
06-10-2005, 06:30 PM
I want to show that Federer's 2 years unbeaten run and 27 matches winning streak is nothing to do with how hard it is to beat Federer on grass

Yes, it has something to do with an enormous amount of luck, shitty opponents, rain delays, and the fact that Sampras/Krajicek/ Becker are no longer competing. :rolleyes:

Fedex
06-11-2005, 03:03 PM
I think beating Rafa on clay is much more difficult; because he is more invincible on clay than Federer on grass. Also I think that Federer will be beaten in this year's Wimbledon and his grass winning streak will come to an end.
Well if Nadal wins back to back RG titles, and gets a streak going like Federer has on grass, then you might have a point, but until then I would take Federer. There is alot more competition on clay right now than grass, so Nadal will certainly lose some matches on clay; its been over 2 years since Federer last lost a match on grass.

Fedex
06-11-2005, 03:05 PM
According to me Rafa's play is much more dominant on clay than Federer's on grass.
Not true. In 2003 Federer won Wimbledon, and only dropped one set in the process. I doubt we will se someone dominate like that at RG.

Fedex
06-11-2005, 03:07 PM
Beating Federer on Grass is much more cut and dry. If you can serve big and return big, you can blow Roger off the court.
:haha: :rolls: You never fail to dissapoint. :)

WyveN
06-11-2005, 03:09 PM
One of the craziest topics here :lol:

Fedex
06-11-2005, 03:09 PM
Beating Federer on Grass is much more cut and dry. If you can serve big and return big, you can blow Roger off the court. It will be challenging for obivous reasons but not like what it takes to beat Nadal. Bully Roger around and he will lose and it won't take half as long on grass due to the pure nature of the surface.

Clearly beating Roger on Grass is easier.
If its as simple as you're making it out to be, then why hasn't Roddick beaten Federer at Wimbledon the last couple of years?

WyveN
06-11-2005, 03:12 PM
If its as simple as you're making it out to be, then why hasn't Roddick beaten Federer at Wimbledon the last couple of years?

Well according to Fumus you need to serve and return very well. Maybe if Agassi and Sampras somehow have a child ;)

renatoal
06-11-2005, 04:38 PM
Beat Federer is always harder ...

Nathy
06-11-2005, 04:58 PM
Well according to Fumus you need to serve and return very well. Maybe if Agassi and Sampras somehow have a child ;)

:lol: :haha: I wish they do :p

Sjengster
06-11-2005, 07:18 PM
Going into this week Nadal had a 24-match winning streak on clay, Federer a 24-match winning streak on grass. It's pointless trying to argue which one is harder to defeat on their favourite surface. I would say it requires a greater physical effort to beat Nadal because clay is a more physically demanding surface, but the fact is for the vast majority of lower-ranked players they are an equally tough proposition. There aren't many players who can both serve and return Federer off the court, just as there are not many who can break down Nadal's defences and outlast him in gruelling baseline rallies.

monicain
06-11-2005, 07:31 PM
I dont see in Nadal that invincible aura like Federer has.

I mean, none of Federer matches on grass was on a verge of losing. Everybody could easily pick him as clear favourite since the start of every single grass tournaments and he never dissapointed them. His movement on grass, his volley, his game overall has made his opponenet looked unhelpingly pathetic. I cant recall my memory when was the last time I saw Federer struggling on grass.

The main factor is: there are bunches of good claycourters and a finger-counted good grasscourter, not to mention classic ones. On clay Nadal will face the like of Ferrero, Gaudio, Moya, Coria but that's not all. Even a relatively very low ranked player could cause some damage on clay. I mean, look at RG and wimbledon kings. Loads of low-ranked players were crowned as RG king while for the grass counterpart, I can only think of Goran--and he's no new comer anyway. On grass, Federer could be challenged by, err, maybe Roddick? Henman? (I wouldnt even bother to count Hewitt as a grasscourter). Roddick cant volley. Henman hasnt won a single trophy on the surface. Safin hates grass. Who's left?

Nadal's clay result this year reminds me alot of Roddick's 2003 hardcourt season. Winning 2 TMS en route to their 1st GS title, both seems to have made their status invincible on their surface. But even in his best days, Roddick somehow lost to Federer on american hardcourt in Houston.

To win against Federer you need your best performance, just like what Safin has done in Melbourne. To win against Federer on grass? Stop daydreaming now.

soonha
06-11-2005, 07:56 PM
According to me the 24 match winning streak of Federer's grass matches don't mean too much about how hard it is to beat him on grass.Of course he is the best on grass that's for sure but 24 match winning streak is only 4 tournament wins.
What are you talking about? "Only 4 wins"? Do you know 2 of them were the Wimbledon and back-to-back?

Think that grass court season and clay court season switches then Rafa also has a 24 match winning streak and 2 year undefeated and seems like he will be undefeated in forthcoming years because of the invincibility of him in clay court. Do you think that Federer would become that long undefeated if there are so much grass court tournaments in one year? I don't think so because this means that playing Roddick or Hewitt at least twice in a season; that also means a loss for him because they can have a great chance to beat him on grass if they play more than once between small intervals. On the contrary; this year Rafa beat the world class clay court specialists at least twice like Coria, Ferrero, Ferrer, finalist Puerta, beat last year's Roland Garros champion Gaudio, also beat the all around world class players like Federer. You see that he beat all the guys in one season on clay. I don't think that Federer will beat this large spectrum of players in one season. There's great possibility that he may lose to one of them.
Do you know your logic have started badly wrong in the first place? When you started this poll at first, you might think that 'clay is Nadal's favorite surface and grass is Federer's. Both of them have great streaks there. Then which one is difficult to beat on each other's favorite surface'. Right? And then you claimed that beating Federer on grass is much easier. If I understand properly, your claim seems to be mostly based on this: there are less grass tournaments and specialists in the tour so that Federer hasn't been challenged enough and his winning streak on grass was much easier to achieve comparing to Nadal's.....

Now I'll show you theoretically why you are wrong. It's very simple.

It's true that there are no many grass tournaments and therefore specialists enough to directly compare Federer's streaks to Nadal's. It's a pity. Then how about this? Let's compare Federer's streak on hard court to Nadal's on clay. In fact, this is not fair for Federer because hard court is his less favorite surface. So far this year, win/loss(%) of Federer on hard: 26/1(96.3), Nadal on clay:[B]38/2(95.0) Oh, Nadal won much more matches? OK, then in Federer's case, we need to go back to 2004:since last USO 2004, 42/1(97.7).

Now do you realize how much weak your logic was? Even on hard court, his less favorite surface(don't say it's not), Federer has greater stat than Nadal's. In addition, Federer has already 26 and 24 consecutive winning streaks this year on hard court(plus clay). Then again, theoretically what would happen on grass, Federer's favorite surface? You can never say he wouldn't remain undefeated "that long" on his favorite surface, if there are so much grass court tournaments in one year as you said.

Besides at the moment of you said any player can be undefeated by such a unprovable reason like "invincibility", you were just showing us how much your logic was weak.

IMO, it's a meaningless poll like comparing an apple and an orange as someone pointed out. Or as Fedex said, wait until Nadal will win FO twice back-to-back.

konyalikartal
06-11-2005, 09:43 PM
You simply take the poll to another point. I think your ideas are totally meaningless while you say that my logic is "WEAK". You tell the hard court statistics of Federer to prove that it is better than Nadal's clay court statistics; but it isn't related with this poll. Because of the reason that there are not grass tournaments as many as clay on a year what would the statistics be if there are more grass tournaments is a whole mystery. You can't give any other court statistics of Federer to prove that beating Federer on grass is more difficult. As you see you are comparing apples with oranges. I only give these examples only to show some people that 24 match winning streak and two year unbeaten run of Federer doesn't related with how hard it is to beat Federer on grass because the grass season is too short. Also another thing that Federer really easily taken to tie-breaks especially by good grass court players like Roddick, Hewitt, Grosjean, Karlovic last year and this year Soderling and Haas. And you see that he took almost all of them. My point is that he took all the critical points in these tie-breaks. If he was 50-50 in these tie-breaks he would easily lose 1 or 2 matches. If the grass season is also long then it means more tie-breaks and more loses for Federer because inevitably he lose some critical tie-breaks and for this reason he lose some matches. But in Nadal situation it is totally different. Did Nadal play that much of tie-breaks in this clay court season and Roland Garros? No, because taking Nadal to tie-break in a clay match is much more difficult than taking Federer to tie-break in a grass match. And also if you take the tie-break from Nadal this is only one set and 1/3 of the work has been done. As you see also only Puerta did this and you saw the result at the end. Gone in 4 sets!!! Please answer this question: What would happen if Roddick took the tie-breaks in 2003 and 2004 and Karlovic took the two tie-breaks last year, and this year Soderling took the second set tie-break what would be the result? Let me give the answer. No Wimbledon's, no 2 year unbeaten run and no 28 matches winnig streak!!! My point is that one can easily take Federer to a tie-break in a set if he is good at grass and can easily take down Federer in a grass court match if he plays good enough at the tie-breaks. On the contrary taking Nadal to a tie-break in a match is totally difficult comparing to Federer's and in addition taking this tie-break doesn't mean too much to take him down!!!

Skyward
06-11-2005, 10:08 PM
Too many what ifs to call it logical.

What if heya was the President of the USA and Rducky was the Croatia's Secretary of Defense? http://bestsmileys.com/scared/3.gif

monicain
06-11-2005, 10:16 PM
That's not fair. Not reasonable for a ton of reasons.

A tie-breaker is an everyday stuff on grass. It's part of grasscourt game. Pete Sampras himself went to thousands of tie-breakers in his career on grass. It's just its natural. Just like long rally is to claycourt game. Otherwise someone could say: Nadal had to play a long rally to earn a point while Federer hit much fewer strokes to earn his. Then Federer is superior?

I still cant understand why would Federer's 28 winning streak on grass would be less appreciated than Nadal's 24 on clay. It's been over 2 years and so what? It still is 28 matches. Even harder indeed. To be consistent over 2 years should be harder than just get sparked for a year and then fade away, no? During only one season, Nadal could only faces same opponents. And his own form keeps up well. But its even harder to face opponents over 2 years, some could have emerged to find his form and become a new threat. Federer's own form could drop. But somehow that didnt happened and he had managed to dominate grass over a period of 2 years. I still doubt if Nadal could play like 2 tournaments each years and has his record up to 24. Someone has pointed Ferrero, Moya, Gaudio, Coria has dominated it before recently, and none has preserved their status. In conclusion: Nadal's glory could possibly theorically be only a flash.

So, with all respect to Raphael Nadal on clay, beating him on clay is sooo easy comparatively to beating Federer on grass.

p.s. I still wish the Australian Open switch to carpet, so we could have a totally different 4 kind of surface being equally played at GS level.

Sjengster
06-11-2005, 10:44 PM
Too many what ifs to call it logical.

What if heya was the President of the USA and Rducky was the Croatian's Secretary of Defence? http://bestsmileys.com/scared/3.gif

A prospect almost too horrible to contemplate. I think we would all miss the erudition and articulation that George W Bush brought to the position.

konyalikartal
06-11-2005, 11:04 PM
I don't agree with you monicain. Becoming consistent between two respective and short grass court seasons is nothing compared with becoming consistent throghout a long and more competitive clay court season!!!

heya
06-11-2005, 11:13 PM
Articulate, erudite people like Sjengster & Sky.:hearts:
...Never wrong & always unpredictable.
No double standards but such high standards.:inlove:

DanEd
06-11-2005, 11:17 PM
I agree with you, Beating Rafa on clay is harder
You simply take the poll to another point. I think your ideas are totally meaningless while you say that my logic is "WEAK". You tell the hard court statistics of Federer to prove that it is better than Nadal's clay court statistics; but it isn't related with this poll. Because of the reason that there are not grass tournaments as many as clay on a year what would the statistics be if there are more grass tournaments is a whole mystery. You can't give any other court statistics of Federer to prove that beating Federer on grass is more difficult. As you see you are comparing apples with oranges. I only give these examples only to show some people that 24 match winning streak and two year unbeaten run of Federer doesn't related with how hard it is to beat Federer on grass because the grass season is too short. Also another thing that Federer really easily taken to tie-breaks especially by good grass court players like Roddick, Hewitt, Grosjean, Karlovic last year and this year Soderling and Haas. And you see that he took almost all of them. My point is that he took all the critical points in these tie-breaks. If he was 50-50 in these tie-breaks he would easily lose 1 or 2 matches. If the grass season is also long then it means more tie-breaks and more loses for Federer because inevitably he lose some critical tie-breaks and for this reason he lose some matches. But in Nadal situation it is totally different. Did Nadal play that much of tie-breaks in this clay court season and Roland Garros? No, because taking Nadal to tie-break in a clay match is much more difficult than taking Federer to tie-break in a grass match. And also if you take the tie-break from Nadal this is only one set and 1/3 of the work has been done. As you see also only Puerta did this and you saw the result at the end. Gone in 4 sets!!! Please answer this question: What would happen if Roddick took the tie-breaks in 2003 and 2004 and Karlovic took the two tie-breaks last year, and this year Soderling took the second set tie-break what would be the result? Let me give the answer. No Wimbledon's, no 2 year unbeaten run and no 28 matches winnig streak!!! My point is that one can easily take Federer to a tie-break in a set if he is good at grass and can easily take down Federer in a grass court match if he plays good enough at the tie-breaks. On the contrary taking Nadal to a tie-break in a match is totally difficult comparing to Federer's and in addition taking this tie-break doesn't mean too much to take him down!!!

Neely
06-11-2005, 11:26 PM
I don't agree with you monicain. Becoming consistent between two respective and short grass court seasons is nothing compared with becoming consistent throghout a long and more competitive clay court season!!!
I tend to rather agree with that position quoted above. Of course Monicain is right when saying that it's big if you hold your level on one surface for three years, but carrying a clay winning streak over two TMS, another 56 men draw tournament and a Grand Slam which included longer, physically more demanding and grueling matches than any of Roger's matches on grass is surely not crappy either; but Nadal's winning streak of course came within a shorter span of time and he could make better use out of his "sizzling red hot zone" whereas Federer has most of the times to try getting a rhythm again and again every year until getting into higher gears.


BTW, I liked lots of posts in this thread :yeah: very good elaborations for both positions!

Saumon
06-11-2005, 11:30 PM
the REAL question is "whose is harder? rafa's winning on clay or roger's winning on grass?" :tape: :devil:

soonha
06-12-2005, 02:50 AM
You simply take the poll to another point. I think your ideas are totally meaningless while you say that my logic is "WEAK".
You don't get me, do you? You are just looking at what you want to see. OK, let's me explain you why your logic is weak. Before starting it, I must tell you, though I'm a Federer fan, I'm going to just try to show you the faults of your logic and to prove my logic theoretically and scientifically as possible. It's not just a matter of whom-is-harder-to-beat.

First, here is one apparent undeniable 'fact': the primary objective of this topic you brought on in this thread. That was 'to compare the performances of two players on their respective favorite surfaces', right?(if not, correct me), which however is a fundamental defect from the beginning. You made a mistake of so-called 'false hypothesis'. It is like you want to know which one tastes better between an apple and an orange. How do you know that? The same to be here, what methods do you use to determine which player is better(or hard to beat, whatever) on such different surfaces as clay and grass which are two extremes on a spectrum in terms of the difference? In a word, IMPOSSIBLE just like you can't compare an apple and an orange. This is your first and prime mistake. Let me explain why with taking an example in your words:

You were saying of Federer's winning by tie-breaks against the likes of Roddick. And you claimed that the wins by TBs reflect the less convincing games. Is it true? NO. On the faster courts like grass, serve is a much more imprortant part of the game--> big servers like Roddick have more favors--> service breaks are less frequent--> more sets and matches are determined by TB. Therefore, the #/results of TBs on grass are relevant more to the difference of the style of the game, which is due to the difference of the surfaces, NOT to the quality of the play. If you think that going to TB itself means a lower quality of a play, go and check the TB records of Sampras( Having followed your logic, Sampras would never deserve 14 GS or the greatest tennis player ever). In summary you pulled out Federer's TB wins as an example of his inferiority to Nadal but, as you can see, you've only failed also revealed the defect of your logic for yourself.

Let me point out one more defect in your claim about TBs. If the chance of winning a TB is 50/50 as you said, how come Federer won those TBs(21-5) in 2004? Just a little luck? I doubt it. Mathematically, when a chance is 50/50, the total odds for winning 21 TBs by the chance? 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x.............x 1/2(multiply 1/2 21 times)=??????? I don't know, you tell me. But I'm sure the odds are very, very, very low.

By this time I hope you can get to realize your logic was seriously wrong.

Nonetheless, with all due respect, if we 'reluctantly' take the next best way to compare those two players, we need to try as an objective and reasonable method as we can ever use. Let's see what we got.... OK, you brought the no.of their consecutive winning streaks on each surface, which actually was not a bad try because we could 'quantify' their performances on each surface, i.e. the objectivity of our try could be guaranteed at least in some extents. However, alas, unfortunately they were equal: 24 vs.24.

Then you claimed, "24 match winning streak and two year unbeaten run of Federer doesn't related with how hard it is to beat Federer on grass because the grass season is too short". Once again, you made some mistakes:

First, you should've explained how you could say 'Federer's streak is nothing to do with how hard it is to beat him' simply because of the short length of the grass season, in other words, you should've explained a relationship between the winning streak and the length of the season. If I were you, I'd rather say, on the basis of his win/loss ratio on grass(which is in fact uncalculable cuz loss=0), that it'd be more possible for Federer to win more grass tournaments if the season should be longer and he would have more opportunities to play.

Second, if your intention was to say 'you can't say that Federer's streak is equal to Nadal's, because Nadal's streak has been achieved in one season whereas Federer's in 2 seperated years. You don't know which is more difficult between to win 24 matches in a year and to do the same in 2 yrs. So you can't statistically compare a 2-yr record to a 1 yr record', then OK. It's fair and perfectly logical for me. In fact it's exactly why I brought the hard court stat of Federer. You said, "the hard court statistics of Federer to prove that it is better than Nadal's clay court statistics; but it isn't related with this poll". Again wrong. Here is my hypothesis:

1) You (as well as I) hypothesized at first that clay is Nadal's favorite surface and grass is Federer's, which means each player can perform the best and get their BEST results on the respective surface; 2) you have the no. of their winning streaks as a method of comparison of their performance but can't use a Federer's record, because the no. are not enough for comparison (but here again, I must emphasize, which can't be necessarily followed by such an easy conclusion like 'Federer is much easier to beat' as you claimed); 3) but if Federer's streak on his less favorite surface(i.e. hard court) comparing to grass, would be better than Nadal's on clay, then you could say Federer would have much better streak on grass than Nadal on clay(i.e. Nadal on clay <or= Federer on hard---> Nadal on clay<<Federer on grass).

The results of the examination of above hypothesis? You've already seen it. In conclusion, you can't nullify my hypothesis.

Now if you still think my logic is wrong, bring yours on again or prove me wrong. But mind you, next time you should put on much more objective and acceptable method than you did. If you want to persuade someone esp. who is against you, you can't bring such a subjective, vague and unmeasurable term like "invincibility". And you shouldn't jump to a conclusion so easily without any reasonable explanations.

Besides, never say "what if"s. If you could say it in your own favor, anybody else could do the exactly same against you, like 'what if Federer would win the 4th set of SF at RG?' 'what if the match was delayed and replayed in the following day?'

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 03:10 AM
the REAL question is "whose is harder? rafa's winning on clay or roger's winning on grass?" :tape: :devil:
Nadal's groundstrokes are not as hard as Pim's on ANY surface. Though, he excels alot better on clay than Pim and can set up for said shot.

konyalikartal
06-12-2005, 09:08 AM
Soonha you always misunderstand me. I opened this poll to start some brainstorming between tennis fans because and I find this idea very interesting. At last I succeeded at it, you see, there are very different ideas between tennis fans. Don't say silly topic or things like that. If you don't like it, don't write then. You are ,word by word, telling the same things like before like a parrot, not giving new arguments to prove that my ideas are "WEAK". My advice to you is go and read my sentences in the previous posting once more...

Rogiman
06-12-2005, 09:18 AM
Nadal's groundstrokes are not as hard as Pim's on ANY surface. Though, he excels alot better on clay than Pim and can set up for said shot.

Yes, I guess that's exactly the kind of argument Saumon was trying to make :rolleyes:

Rogiman
06-12-2005, 09:21 AM
Soonha you always misunderstand me. I opened this poll to start some brainstorming between tennis fans because and I find this idea very interesting. At last I succeeded at it, you see, there are very different ideas between tennis fans. Don't say silly topic or things like that. If you don't like it, don't write then. You are ,word by word, telling the same things like before like a parrot, not giving new arguments to prove that my ideas are "WEAK". My advice to you is go and read my sentences in the previous posting once more...

I think she's actually been very thorough and left very little room for misunderstanding.

When Nadal defends his RG title and Federer loses his Wimby come bump this thread.
'til then your arguments are as weak as it gets.

konyalikartal
06-12-2005, 10:51 AM
I want to hear what you will say after Federer loses this year on grass. :devil: Believe me very little time is left and you will be shocked. :eek: Bye bye Fed your only remained winning streak is OVER :wavey:

Saumon
06-12-2005, 01:27 PM
Yes, I guess that's exactly the kind of argument Saumon was trying to make :rolleyes:
:devil:

Qaatar
06-12-2005, 01:45 PM
I want to hear what you will say after Federer loses this year on grass. :devil: Believe me very little time is left and you will be shocked. :eek: Bye bye Fed your only remained winning streak is OVER :wavey:

Soonha was perfectly logical and reasonable in the explanation. Case in point: If your argument was that Fed's grass streak is not as hard to achieve since it is spread over a span of 2 years, and the premise was that grass is Fed's best surface, then how do you explain his hard court successes. If he can have so much success on hard courts in a very long season (stretching from late summer to around early spring), then why can't he do the same on grass? Sure, on grass there are more tiebreaks so he has a bigger chance of losing, but if you also use that as an argument, then grass no longer should be Fed's best surface then, should it? ALL of this is SPECULATION anyways...so if YOU say that we are comparing apples to oranges, then aren't you? What right do you have to say that Fed winning over a span of 2 years *theoretically and potentially* is less difficult than Rafa's streak?

Rogiman
06-12-2005, 01:49 PM
Soonha was perfectly logical and reasonable in the explanation. Case in point: If your argument was that Fed's grass streak is not as hard to achieve since it is spread over a span of 2 years, and the premise was that grass is Fed's best surface, then how do you explain his hard court successes. If he can have so much success on hard courts in a very long season (stretching from late summer to around early spring), then why can't he do the same on grass? Sure, on grass there are more tiebreaks so he has a bigger chance of losing, but if you also use that as an argument, then grass no longer should be Fed's best surface then, should it? ALL of this is SPECULATION anyways...so if YOU say that we are comparing apples to oranges, then aren't you? What right do you have to say that Fed winning over a span of 2 years *theoretically and potentially* is less difficult than Rafa's streak?
Stop talking sense to a mere troll

Fedex
06-12-2005, 02:44 PM
I want to hear what you will say after Federer loses this year on grass. :devil: Believe me very little time is left and you will be shocked. :eek: Bye bye Fed your only remained winning streak is OVER :wavey:
Ah, the trolls have come out to play, have they not? :)

DanEd
06-12-2005, 03:05 PM
well, fed barely defeated a not so good grass player like safin.
he is not invencible on grass. he is very far from being that.

Fedex
06-12-2005, 03:24 PM
well, fed barely defeated a not so good grass player like safin.
he is not invencible on grass. he is very far from being that.
Thats not the point. Some players are tough to beat, regardless of the surface, and Safin is one of them. He is so talented, that even on grass, Federer or anyone else would struggle to beat him.

Qaatar
06-12-2005, 04:00 PM
well, fed barely defeated a not so good grass player like safin.
he is not invencible on grass. he is very far from being that.

Sampras "barely" defeated many of his opponents on grass...so what's your point? Was Sampras not considered close to invincible in his prime on grass?

Experimentee
06-12-2005, 04:04 PM
Federer on grass is tougher to beat.
Firstly history shows that domination on grass is more readily achieved than domination on clay, look at players like Sampras and now Federer who dominate Wimbledon, and it is hard to show such invincibility on clay for more than one or two seasons. That would suggest that clay is harder to dominate on than grass.
Also you should look at their respective records, Nadal has lost twice this year on clay while Fed has not been beaten since 2002 on grass. Nadal has come close to being beaten a few times on clay in addition to those losses. In his match against Fed, Federer could have been the winner had a few more things gone his way, like the conditions, and some net cords, some points here and there.
At their respective peaks on each surface, I'd also say that Federer is unbeatable, while I'm not sure about that with Rafael. He needs to sustain this domination on clay a bit more in order to be compared with Roger.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:08 PM
All it takes is a break by Karlovic, Roddick, Johansson(s), Ancic, Dent, etc and Roger can lose on grass.

The big serve doesn't pose nearly as many problems on clay.

Hence, Nadal is less likely to lose.

I'm not saying Roger's all-world gameplay doesn't make him easier to beat on grass.

It's just that the variables swing heavily in Nadal's favor.

Skyward
06-12-2005, 04:18 PM
well, fed barely defeated a not so good grass player like safin.


Safin's game suits grass more than clay. His Spanish coaches forgot to say him that, but PL is not stupid. :p

Let's not forget that Nadal was defeated by a nobody Andreev on clay. He's not invincible either. :nerner: I easily could leave this fact out, but haters forced me to remind it. :D

Jimena
06-12-2005, 04:19 PM
All it takes is a break by Karlovic, Roddick, Johansson(s), Ancic, Dent, etc and Roger can lose on grass.

The big serve doesn't pose nearly as many problems on clay.

Hence, Nadal is less likely to lose.

I'm not saying Roger's all-world gameplay doesn't make him easier to beat on grass.

It's just that the variables swing heavily in Nadal's favor.

I disagree. Why? Because Roger has shown throughout the past two years that he can break these guys' serves on grass. Nadal has been dominant for one season, and he's been beaten on clay. Roger's been dominant for two seasons and hasn't been beaten, though he's had some tough matches. I don't think we can compare them.

DanEd
06-12-2005, 04:22 PM
every player can lose on any given day.
nobody is invencible

Safin's game suits grass more than clay. His Spanish coaches forgot to say him that, but PL is not stupid. :p

Let's not forget that Nadal was defeated by a nobody Andreev on clay. He's not invincible either. :nerner: I easily could leave this fact out, but haters forced me to remind it. :D

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:23 PM
Let's not forget that Nadal was defeated by a nobody Andreev on clay. He's not invincible either. :nerner: I easily could leave this fact out, but haters forced me to remind it. :D
That was before he found his niche.

Now he's the new king of clay.

I expect this to be a lasting trend for quite some time.

Andreev is quickly becoming a Nikolay Davydenko and following in his footsteps.

I look for the young Russian to have a similar clay season next year.

konyalikartal
06-12-2005, 04:23 PM
I don't understand the sentences like if a few more things gone Federer's way , like the conditions, and some net cords, some points here and there, he could have beaten Nadal on clay. They are meaningless. Then I can easily say that if Nadal takes these two points in Miami he will blow him off the court in 3 sets in a hard court tournament which favors Federer. And also if he lost both tie-breaks against Roddick last two consecutive years in Wimbledon then he couldn't win two titles. Nadal easily beat Federer in 4 sets not even five this makes all your sentences out of discussion...

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:26 PM
I disagree. Why? Because Roger has shown throughout the past two years that he can break these guys' serves on grass. Nadal has been dominant for one season, and he's been beaten on clay. Roger's been dominant for two seasons and hasn't been beaten, though he's had some tough matches. I don't think we can compare them.
Nadal has been dominant for one season. But, he have only seen him for one season really.

Injuries hampered his early development. Which makes his breakthrough season, the best on the ATP on clay BTW, even more incredible.

This easily could've happened a year or two ago.

Gasquet is coming to the forefront. Davydenko, Andreev.

There isn't a vast majority of players who can beat Nadal on clay. The only few are Federer, Coria, possibly Gasquet next year.

These players will give Nadal problems, but even Safin took Roger to three sets today.

If someone can break Roger's serve and has a big serve. The odds are heavily in their favor.

Skyward
06-12-2005, 04:29 PM
That was before he found his niche.

Andreev is quickly becoming a Nikolay Davydenko and following in his footsteps.

I look for the young Russian to have a similar clay season next year.

I don't care when and how Nadal lost. He lost on clay, period. Nobody cares if Federer is tired, injured, not prepared for immediate transition from clay to grass, etc.

Andreev is a very unpredictable player in early rounds. He has a long way to go before he reaches Davydenko's level.

Rogiman
06-12-2005, 04:30 PM
If someone can break Roger's serve and has a big serve. The odds are heavily in their favor.

Do you even bother to think of the nonesense you post from time to time...?
Stop talking cliches and name one big server to defeat Federer in the last couple of years, grass or not.

Skyward
06-12-2005, 04:31 PM
every player can lose on any given day.
nobody is invencible

Here I agree with you.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:31 PM
Everyone is beatable.

Andreev is a very unpredictable player in early rounds. He has a long way to go before he reaches Davydenko's level.
Andreev seems to have followed the Russian rule. Don't think before round three.

We'll have to see exactly how things pan out for him.

I'm not aware of his game, but his stature makes it easier for him to last long in baseline rallies and move quickly.

He won't be the next Nadal, but it wouldn't surprise me if he reaches a clay final.

Jimena
06-12-2005, 04:32 PM
Nadal has been dominant for one season. But, he have only seen him for one season really.

Injuries hampered his early development. Which makes his breakthrough season, the best on the ATP on clay BTW, even more incredible.

This easily could've happened a year or two ago.

Gasquet is coming to the forefront. Davydenko, Andreev.

There isn't a vast majority of players who can beat Nadal on clay. The only few are Federer, Coria, possibly Gasquet next year.

These players will give Nadal problems, but even Safin took Roger to three sets today.

If someone can break Roger's serve and has a big serve. The odds are heavily in their favor.

Again, I disagree. I don't think we can compare them at this point. You're saying that Nadal could've done this last year, if he hadn't been injured. Highly hypothetical, if you ask me. The stars were in his favor this year, with Coria not in tip top shape, Ferrero slowly getting back to where he was two years ago, Moya hurting and past his prime... Great achievement by Nadal, no question about it. But, we'll see if he can keep it up next year as well.

Who are exactly the "vast majority" of players that can beat Federer on grass? There aren't that many, either.

And Roger's a better returner than you're giving him credit for. In fact, on fast courts, he's a better returner than Nadal so far.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:32 PM
Do you even bother to think of the nonesense you post from time to time...?
Stop talking cliches and name one big server to defeat Federer in the last couple of years, grass or not.
We're not talking about past year.

If we did that, this thread is irrelevant as Nadal's growth spurt was shortened by injuries.

Therefore, the thread is invalid.

I opened up the topic, however, by injecting reasoning in Nadal's quick movement and the lack of competition on the clay courts.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:33 PM
Here I agree with you.
This doesn't pertain to the topic.

The topic is who is less likely to lose.

Anyone can lose, yes.

But Nadal has alot less competition, he's younger than Federer and quite frankly excels on clay at this point in his career better than Roger did on grass at 19.

Skyward
06-12-2005, 04:36 PM
I don't understand the sentences like if .

Finally, you've got it right. Look at your posts, there are a gazillion " what ifs" that you are trying to present like facts.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:36 PM
Again, I disagree. I don't think we can compare them at this point. You're saying that Nadal could've done this last year, if he hadn't been injured. Highly hypothetical, if you ask me. The stars were in his favor this year, with Coria not in tip top shape, Ferrero slowly getting back to where he was two years ago, Moya hurting and past his prime... Great achievement by Nadal, no question about it. But, we'll see if he can keep it up next year as well.

Who are exactly the "vast majority" of players that can beat Federer on grass? There aren't that many, either.

And Roger's a better returner than you're giving him credit for. In fact, on fast courts, he's a better returner than Nadal so far.
Moya is past his prime and Ferrero is as well. Moya should quit now while he managed to take a no-namer to 5 sets at RG.

Skyward
06-12-2005, 04:37 PM
This doesn't pertain to the topic.

The topic is who is less likely to lose.

Anyone can lose, yes.

But Nadal has alot less competition, he's younger than Federer and quite frankly excels on clay at this point in his career better than Roger did on grass at 19.

I wasa replying to another poster, not you.

I don't have an answer, and I haven't voted. I refuse to compare apples and oranges( see my posts earlier).

Jimena
06-12-2005, 04:38 PM
This doesn't pertain to the topic.

The topic is who is less likely to lose.

Anyone can lose, yes.

But Nadal has alot less competition, he's younger than Federer and quite frankly excels on clay at this point in his career better than Roger did on grass at 19.

So? Some players develop more quickly. Becker arrived at 17 because, like Nadal, he was extremely developed at a young age. He peaked at 21, extremely young. You never know. You can't compare players like that. It just shows how biased you are.

And about Safin taking Federer to three sets today? Well, Safin should've made huge splashes at Wimbledon long ago, and his lack of grass court tennis prowess really reflects a huge mental block rather than any lack of talent on the surface. I know this, Marat fans know this, Fed fans know this, Peter Lundgren knows this. Why are you using it in an argument when it is entirely refutable and, again, shows your bias?

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:39 PM
I wasa replying to another poster, not you.
That doesn't exclude the fact that your post was diverting from the topic's logic.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:40 PM
So? Some players develop more quickly. Becker arrived at 17 because, like Nadal, he was extremely developed at a young age. He peaked at 21, extremely young. You never know. You can't compare players like that. It just shows how biased you are.

And about Safin taking Federer to three sets today? Well, Safin should've made huge splashes at Wimbledon long ago, and his lack of grass court tennis prowess really reflects a huge mental block rather than any lack of talent on the surface. I know this, Marat fans know this, Fed fans know this, Peter Lundgren knows this. Why are you using it in an argument when it is entirely refutable and, again, shows your bias?
I have no bias first of all.

I don't run around saying Nadal is the man.

Nadal peaked well before 21, and has alot to work with.

If Nadal plays Federer in the RG final, Roger's streak is no more. That is a fact.

Roger wanted to lose so his streak remained in tact.

Skyward
06-12-2005, 04:42 PM
That doesn't exclude the fact that your post was diverting from the topic's logic.

You are waisting my time. The other poster said that everyone was beatable, and I agreed with him.

Btw, I put you on my ignore list. Dont' bother to reply.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:43 PM
You are waisting my time. The other poster said that everyone was beatable, and I agreed with him.
You don't have to post if you don't want to.

We all know what you posted was against the topic, and therefore didn't deserve a response.

Rogiman
06-12-2005, 04:50 PM
I have no bias first of all.

I don't run around saying Nadal is the man.

Nadal peaked well before 21, and has alot to work with.

If Nadal plays Federer in the RG final, Roger's streak is no more. That is a fact.

Roger wanted to lose so his streak remained in tact.

7,000 posts in 5 months suggest you don't ever bother to think before posting.
For a long time now I've realised your posts are nothing but a random gathering of cliches and other BS.

"Nadal has developed early", "Federer can be beaten by a big server", geez, can you really think of something original and stop talking out of your ass?

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:52 PM
7,000 posts in 5 months suggest you don't ever bother to think before posting.
For a long time now I've realised your posts are nothing but a random gathering of cliches and other BS.

"Nadal has developed early", "Federer can be beaten by a big server", geez, can you really think of something original and stop talking out of your ass?
These are original, they aren't in hard copy paperback yet.

When Nadal faces Roger in RG final next year, we'll see who's talking.

Skyward
06-12-2005, 04:53 PM
7,000 posts in 5 months suggest you don't ever bother to think before posting.
For a long time now I've realised your posts are nothing but a random gathering of cliches and other BS.



Thanks for the summary. That's the reason I put her (him) on my ignore list. Nothing personal.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:54 PM
Thanks for the summary. That's the reason I put her (him) on my ignore list. Nothing personal.
I thought you weren't going to bother replying anymore.

World Beater
06-12-2005, 04:57 PM
I have no bias first of all.

I don't run around saying Nadal is the man.

Nadal peaked well before 21, and has alot to work with.

If Nadal plays Federer in the RG final, Roger's streak is no more. That is a fact.

Roger wanted to lose so his streak remained in tact.

If's arent facts. The last sentence makes no sense, even if it was in jest.

If its the final, Nadal may get nervous. Roger may play better. But this is totally irrelevant.

Hewitt was in a similar position, Chang was in a similar position. Nadal has more weapons than both of them and comparable speed but this style of play develops faster. Becker is one exception in an era where backcourt play, returns and passing shots werent as good as they are today.

Comparing Nadal's growth and Federer's growth is irrelevant to the thread. We are talking now, not in the future. Federer has displayed his skill over a greater period of time against all challengers. The fact that he has fewer challengers speaks of how dominant he is.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 04:59 PM
If's arent facts. The last sentence makes no sense, even if it was in jest.

If its the final, Nadal may get nervous. Roger may play better. But this is totally irrelevant.

Hewitt was in a similar position, Chang was in a similar position. Nadal has more weapons than both of them and comparable speed but this style of play develops faster. Becker is one exception in an era where backcourt play, returns and passing shots werent as good as they are today.

Comparing Nadal's growth and Federer's growth is irrelevant to the thread. We are talking now, not in the future. Federer has displayed his skill over a greater period of time against all challengers. The fact that he has fewer challengers speaks of how dominant he is.
If you want to compare similar styles and careers, then there is no other way to go about it than compare their upbringing.

Nadal leads in this category.

His game has alot of time to develop, which is already the fastest speed in the game along with Hewitt.

If Nadal didn't get nervous in his first ever Grand Slam final, I don't see it happening anywhere down the line.

Jimena
06-12-2005, 05:00 PM
I have no bias first of all.

I don't run around saying Nadal is the man.

Nadal peaked well before 21, and has alot to work with.

If Nadal plays Federer in the RG final, Roger's streak is no more. That is a fact.

Roger wanted to lose so his streak remained in tact.
Point by point answer:

1. You have no bias? We all do.

2. You might not run around saying Nadal's the man, I don't run around saying Fed's the man either. However, you prefer Nadal to Fed and defend your position, even if your points don't make sense.

3. We can't call something a "fact" when that "something" hasn't happened. That's a hypothetical we won't know until they meet in an RG final.

4. Do you know Roger's state of mind? Are you a mind reader? Saying "Roger wanted to lose so his streak remained in tact" (sic) is so ridiculous, I don't even know why I bother replying to it. :rolleyes:

World Beater
06-12-2005, 05:01 PM
7,000 posts in 5 months suggest you don't ever bother to think before posting.
For a long time now I've realised your posts are nothing but a random gathering of cliches and other BS.

"Nadal has developed early", "Federer can be beaten by a big server", geez, can you really think of something original and stop talking out of your ass?

If her posts are indeed BS, surely they would be easy to refute. But you do not take this route, why? Instead you hammer her as a user, and not the posts themselves. That doesnt speak to much of you either, irrespective of the quality of his/her posts.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:03 PM
Point by point answer:

1. You have no bias? We all do.

2. You might not run around saying Nadal's the man, I don't run around Fed's the man either. However, you prefer Nadal to Fed and defend your position, even if your points don't make sense.

3. We can't call something a "fact" when that "something" hasn't happened. That's a hypothetical we won't know until they meet in an RG final.

4. Do you know Roger's state of mind? Are you a mind reader? Saying "Roger wanted to lose so his streak remained in tact" (by the way, it's "intact") is so ridiculous, I don't even know why I bother replying to it. :rolleyes:
1. I have bias in Pim. Not in Nadal. Pim isn't involved in this thread. So for this thread, I have no bias.

2. You said I have bias, I didn't say you had bias towards Federer. So, that point is excluded.

3. It is a fact if it happens. If they meet Nadal will win in the RG final. There is no grey line there.

4. I don't know Roger off-court. He could be a forgiving soul. He could be a hell-bent on perfection type of guy. The only way I can judge him is by his results, in which he clearly tanked in the fourth set against the far superior Rafa.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:04 PM
If her posts are indeed BS, surely they would be easy to refute. But you do not take this route, why? Instead you hammer her as a user, and not the posts themselves. That doesnt speak to much of you either, irrespective of the quality of his/her posts.
It's funny Rogiman wants to break down someone elses posts as BS, when 60% of it's posts contain slang verbal abuse.

Apparently, good ole Rogiman is dormant to the fact that they cannot count as well. My post total stands well below 7 G's. Thank you.

World Beater
06-12-2005, 05:08 PM
If you want to compare similar styles and careers, then there is no other way to go about it than compare their upbringing.

Nadal leads in this category.

His game has alot of time to develop, which is already the fastest speed in the game along with Hewitt.

If Nadal didn't get nervous in his first ever Grand Slam final, I don't see it happening anywhere down the line.

The last sentence again is questionable. As expectations grow, pressure does. There is no substitute for youth and fearlessness. I didnt compare anything. I was responding to your post on the growth of the players, which imo have nothing to do with the thread.

Chang lead sampras in the juniors. Heck, everyone led sampras in the juniors. He wasnt great as a junior. What nadal may today is a signal of what may come but by no means a certainty. You cannot jump to conclusions just because Nadal developed earlier than federer. There is no distinct correlation between long term career success and early development.

Just look at Federer and Hewitt. Nadal will be a top player for years to come, but will he continue to dominate on clay? I think so, although i dont think it will be as good as this season.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:10 PM
The last sentence again is questionable. As expectations grow, pressure does. There is no substitute for youth and fearlessness. I didnt compare anything. I was responding to your post on the growth of the players, which imo have nothing to do with the thread.

Chang lead sampras in the juniors. Heck, everyone led sampras in the juniors. He wasnt great as a junior. What nadal may today is a signal of what may come but by no means a certainty. You cannot jump to conclusions just because Nadal developed earlier than federer. There is no distinct correlation between long term career success and early development.

Just look at Federer and Hewitt. Nadal will be a top player for years to come, but will he continue to dominate on clay? I think so, although i dont think it will be as good as this season.
Growth has nothing to do with how well the players respond on said surfaces? So JCF's slacking on clay guarantees him and Moya a spot in the RG semis next year?

Sampras wasn't exactly a clay demon either, was he?

What about Hewitt? He didn't last long against Karlovic even though he was banged up a little.

I don't see Nadal fading one bit on clay, no.

World Beater
06-12-2005, 05:11 PM
Point by point answer:

1. You have no bias? We all do.

2. You might not run around saying Nadal's the man, I don't run around saying Fed's the man either. However, you prefer Nadal to Fed and defend your position, even if your points don't make sense.

3. We can't call something a "fact" when that "something" hasn't happened. That's a hypothetical we won't know until they meet in an RG final.

4. Do you know Roger's state of mind? Are you a mind reader? Saying "Roger wanted to lose so his streak remained in tact" (sic) is so ridiculous, I don't even know why I bother replying to it. :rolleyes:

I dont think preferences have anything to do with her pts. She/he just believes that Nadal is better. I agree with pt 4 though.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:13 PM
I dont think preferences have anything to do with her pts. She/he just believes that Nadal is better. I agree with pt 4 though.
Skyward took the easy way out.

It wouldn't surprise me based on Jimena's flimsy propositions if they decide the same.

World Beater
06-12-2005, 05:17 PM
Growth has nothing to do with how well the players respond on said surfaces? So JCF's slacking on clay guarantees him and Moya a spot in the RG semis next year?

Sampras wasn't exactly a clay demon either, was he?

What about Hewitt? He didn't last long against Karlovic even though he was banged up a little.

I don't see Nadal fading one bit on clay, no.

Did i say it has nothing to do with it? I said it didnt guarantee anything. One more thing that we have seen is that JCF and Moya were good in their respective seasons. So was Guga, where are they now on clay?

Rafa could be in a similar position.

My use of sampras has nothing to do w/ the surface, but his growth. You made it seem you were talking of growth in general. If you werent then, maybe you need to clarify if you are only talking on clay. Cos this thread is abt grass & clay.

Jimena
06-12-2005, 05:21 PM
I dont think preferences have anything to do with her pts. She/he just believes that Nadal is better. I agree with pt 4 though.

But he/she believes Nadal is better based on hypotheticals. Nadal beat Federer at RG, no doubt about that and is a better clay court player. What does that have to do with Fed losing to Nadal in a RG final, or Nadal being a better player than Fed at 19, or how they're going to develop? Nothing.

When he/she talks about these things as fact, it leads me to believe that he/she's biased because there's nothing to back up these points.

bandabou
06-12-2005, 05:21 PM
Well one thing I know for sure: NOBODY has taken Roger to a 5-set tiebreaker in a LOOOOOOOOONNNGGGG time on grass.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:22 PM
Did i say it has nothing to do with it? I said it didnt guarantee anything. One more thing that we have seen is that JCF and Moya were good in their respective seasons. So was Guga, where are they now on clay?

Rafa could be in a similar position.

My use of sampras has nothing to do w/ the surface, but his growth. You made it seem you were talking of growth in general. If you werent then, maybe you need to clarify if you are only talking on clay. Cos this thread is abt grass & clay.
Growth doesn't guarantee anything is such a conservative viewpoint. Of course growth means Nadal is ahead of everyone, and has the advantage.

JCF, Moya, and Guga are past their prime which is very narrow in tennis terms. Nadal is exactly in his prime, at 19 is very normal for tennis.

Monfils, Gasquet will move to the forefront in their development as well. Without growth, we couldn't detect that. That's no fun.

Sampras' growth compares with Federer which is what you were talking about. When you compare them with this thread, Federer is clearly no match for Nadal on clay. Thus, underlining my point.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:24 PM
But he/she believes Nadal is better based on hypotheticals. Nadal beat Federer at RG, no doubt about that and is a better clay court player. What does that have to do with Fed losing to Nadal in a RG final, or Nadal being a better player than Fed at 19, or how they're going to develop? Nothing.

When he/she talks about these things as fact, it leads me to believe that he/she's biased because there's nothing to back up these points.
Where's the bias in Nadal's timeline growth exceeding everybody on tour at age 17?

Where's the bias in Nadal's best winning % on clay this year. Top 3 last year.

That has everything to do with this topic, and I refuse to be misled.

When I bring up these facts, it brings substance to a lively topic.

Don't downplay my theories based on clear-cut statistics.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:24 PM
Well one thing I know for sure: NOBODY has taken Roger to a 5-set tiebreaker in a LOOOOOOOOONNNGGGG time on grass.
Safin took him to a decider today, and there are many others who are just as capable.

Skyward
06-12-2005, 05:24 PM
What does that have to do with Fed losing to Nadal in a RG final

When did Fed lose to Nadal in a RG final? :confused:

World Beater
06-12-2005, 05:25 PM
But he/she believes Nadal is better based on hypotheticals. Nadal beat Federer at RG, no doubt about that and is a better clay court player. What does that have to do with Fed losing to Nadal in a RG final, or Nadal being a better player than Fed at 19, or how they're going to develop? Nothing.

When he/she talks about these things as fact, it leads me to believe that he/she's biased because there's nothing to back up these points.

Ok, I see where you are coming from. Everything with nadal is hypothetical, so to have any discussion we must venture into the unknown. In fact, isnt that what is interesting about this question. The fact that federer lost to Nadal has nothing to do with their respective dominations. The fact that Federer can challenge nadal and nadal cant challenge federer on their fav surfaces respectively is something which he/she hasnt considered either.

I know Nadal hasnt played federer on grass, but the fact that they wont be meeting anytime soon, means i can get away with saying it.

Jimena
06-12-2005, 05:25 PM
Skyward took the easy way out.

It wouldn't surprise me based on Jimena's flimsy propositions if they decide the same.

Uh, don't group me with Skyward, please. You're getting very antagonistic here and there's no need.

And Nadal's better than Fed on clay. But this thread is not about that. It's about comparing apples and oranges: Nadal on clay vs. Fed on grass. Which IMO cannot be compared.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:26 PM
When did Fed lose to Nadal in a RG final? :confused:
If you read through the thread, you will pick up on the fact that this statement was made in a hypothesis of mine towards the 2006 final.

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 05:26 PM
Well one thing I know for sure: NOBODY has taken Roger to a 5-set tiebreaker in a LOOOOOOOOONNNGGGG time on grass.

are you the same bandabou who posts on the wta ?? :eek:

World Beater
06-12-2005, 05:26 PM
When did Fed lose to Nadal in a RG final? :confused:

lol, nvm :o

Last few pages arent worth reading compared to rest of the thread

Jimena
06-12-2005, 05:27 PM
When did Fed lose to Nadal in a RG final? :confused:


EXACTLY. NATAS is saying that it's a "fact" that Nadal will beat Fed in an RG final.

It cannot be a "fact" when it hasn't happened.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:27 PM
Ok, I see where you are coming from. Everything with nadal is hypothetical, so to have any discussion we must venture into the unknown. In fact, isnt that what is interesting about this question. The fact that federer lost to Nadal has nothing to do with their respective dominations. The fact that Federer can challenge nadal and nadal cant challenge federer on their fav surfaces respectively is something which he/she hasnt considered either.

I know Nadal hasnt played federer on grass, but the fact that they wont be meeting anytime soon, means i can get away with saying it.
Why are you breaking this down as Federer vs Nadal? This thread isn't about Federer vs Nadal. It's about who is less likely to win on said surface.

When you break down Nadal lost 8 sets total throughout the clay season, and Roger lost 2 sets in his first grass tourney it becomes even more clear.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:28 PM
Uh, don't group me with Skyward, please. You're getting very antagonistic here and there's no need.

And Nadal's better than Fed on clay. But this thread is not about that. It's about comparing apples and oranges: Nadal on clay vs. Fed on grass. Which IMO cannot be compared.
This is about Nadal on clay. It's stated right in the subject line.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:29 PM
are you the same bandalou who posts on the wta ?? :eek:
I thought the WTA poster's name was bandaBOU. :confused:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:30 PM
EXACTLY. NATAS is saying that it's a "fact" that Nadal will beat Fed in an RG final.

It cannot be a "fact" when it hasn't happened.
I'm saying it is a fact he will win if they meet in the final.

What's not to understand about that?

World Beater
06-12-2005, 05:31 PM
When Nadal faces Roger in RG final next year, we'll see who's talking.

Ok, you brought up that matchup. Not me.

Your speculation on fed vs nadal in rg 2006 has me very confused.

It indeed has nothing to do with fed vs nadal on their surfaces. You say this and then suddenly you go to rampant speculation. I responded to this pt of yours. If i strayed off the thread topic its becos you did first

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 05:32 PM
I thought the WTA poster's name was bandaBOU. :confused:

you're correct!! :p

oopsie :lol:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:33 PM
Ok, you brought up that matchup. Not me.

Your speculation on fed vs nadal in rg 2006 has me very confused.

It indeed has nothing to do with fed vs nadal on their surfaces. You say this and then suddenly you go to rampant speculation. I responded to this pt of yours. If i strayed off the thread topic its becos you did first
It is not just speculation when they were clearly the two best clay players in this clay season.

It's a very real possibility and something that has every right to be talked about as an upcoming matchup.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:33 PM
you're correct!! :p

oopsie :lol:
I strive to serve. :yeah:

Seleshfan
06-12-2005, 05:34 PM
I'm saying it is a fact he will win if they meet in the final.

What's not to understand about that?

Ummm... because it's a prediction. :confused:

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 05:35 PM
I strive to serve. :yeah:

so it is the same poster who posts on the wtaboard !!!! :p

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:35 PM
Ummm... because it's a prediction. :confused:
That wasn't the point he was trying to make.

It's a very real predicition if anyone ever bothered to crunch the numbers.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:36 PM
so it is the same poster who posts on the wtaboard !!!! :p
I would not know as I care to know nothing about the filthy mannerisms of those who infest WTAworld.

World Beater
06-12-2005, 05:36 PM
That wasn't the point he was trying to make.

It's a very real predicition if anyone ever bothered to crunch the numbers.

Prediction != fact

Its that simple

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:37 PM
Prediction != fact

Its that simple
Predictions lead to facts.

It's that simple.

soonha
06-12-2005, 05:38 PM
Soonha you always misunderstand me. I opened this poll to start some brainstorming between tennis fans because and I find this idea very interesting. At last I succeeded at it, you see, there are very different ideas between tennis fans. Don't say silly topic or things like that. If you don't like it, don't write then. You are ,word by word, telling the same things like before like a parrot, not giving new arguments to prove that my ideas are "WEAK". My advice to you is go and read my sentences in the previous posting once more...
Oh, am I telling the same thing? OK, then I gave you up.

It was totally my fault that I didn't realize that you know nothing about statistics or mathemathics. I just regret I took so much time/energy to try to educate you. :o

Open your eyes and listen who talks about even what you hate to hear, OK? Grow up.

I'm done :wavey:

PS. I recommand you to take any statistics class like "how to write and read a scientific article".

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:39 PM
Oh, am I telling the same thing? OK, then I gave you up.

It was totally my fault that I didn't realize that you know nothing about statistics or mathemathics. I just regret I took so much time/energy to try to educate you. :o

Open your eyes and listen who talks about even what you hate to hear, OK? Grow up.

I'm done :wavey:
I must confess your opponent put up a good battle. You can bow out graciously with a strong assessment.

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 05:40 PM
I would not know as I care to know nothing about the filthy mannerisms of those who infest WTAworld.

whether you care or not is not the point, as you cared enough to answer for the bandabou poster !!! :haha: :p

World Beater
06-12-2005, 05:41 PM
Predictions lead to facts.

It's that simple.

nvm

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:41 PM
whether you care or not is not the point, as you cared enough to answer for the bandabou poster !!! :haha: :p
Great. I take all the credit then. Another case is closed.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:41 PM
nvm
:wavey:

Thus Proving, That My Client Is Innocent

Jimena
06-12-2005, 05:43 PM
This is about Nadal on clay. It's stated right in the subject line.

And the subject line is: "Which is harder? Beating Rafa on clay or beating Federer on grass?"

How did it become about Nadal on clay only?

konyalikartal
06-12-2005, 05:43 PM
I know mathematics and statistics better than you. I am an electronics engineer and M.S at statistics. You grow up and educate yourself. Bye...

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 05:44 PM
Great. I take all the credit then. Another case is closed.

I didn't know there was an argument to win here?? :lol:

Seleshfan
06-12-2005, 05:44 PM
That wasn't the point he was trying to make.

It's a very real predicition if anyone ever bothered to crunch the numbers.

I've never questioned the reality of your prediction, I agree your prediction is real. My only question is how you can be so sure it will come true. Crunching numbers cannot predict human emotions, illness, inspiration, faith, doubt, etc.

You're not Miss Cleo from the Astrology forum are you?

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:44 PM
And the subject line is: "Which is harder? Beating Rafa on clay or beating Federer on grass?"

How did it become about Nadal on clay only?
It is about both of them.

I shouldn't have to tell you Nadal on clay is one half of the argument.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:45 PM
I know mathematics and statistics better than you. I am an electronics engineer and M.S at statistics. You grow up and educate yourself. Bye...
Electronic engineers represented well with your rebuttal.

Well done, comrade. :yeah:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:46 PM
I didn't know there was an argument to win here?? :lol:
The case of the missing WTA poster?

Might as well sign the plea bargain.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:47 PM
I've never questioned the reality of your prediction, I agree your prediction is real. My only question is how you can be so sure it will come true. Crunching numbers cannot predict human emotions, illness, inspiration, faith, doubt, etc.

You're not Miss Cleo from the Astrology forum are you?
If the RG personnel are willing to accept that these are the two best clay players, the draw will work itself that it becomes true.

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 05:47 PM
The case of the missing WTA poster?

Might as well sign the plea bargain.

you're so intent on getting the last word that you are losing me!!!

congrats on having the last word though :wavey: :haha:

Jimena
06-12-2005, 05:48 PM
It is about both of them.

I shouldn't have to tell you Nadal on clay is one half of the argument.

But you're talking about Nadal vs. Fed on clay. Which doesn't have much to do with what the thread is about.

Predictions lead to facts.

:eek: and :rolleyes:

Events are facts. Predictions have little to do with facts.

And to quote, WorldBeater, nvm.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:48 PM
you're so intent on getting the last word that you are losing me!!!

congrats on having the last word though :wavey: :haha:
Indeed. And let's go Habs!

Now they can sign Theo after the NHLPA agreed on a mutual salary-cap formula! :woohoo:

Seleshfan
06-12-2005, 05:48 PM
Predictions lead to facts.

It's that simple.

This is not necessarily true. I can make many predictions, doesn't mean they'll lead to facts.

So if I predict I'll win the lottery, this will become fact? Absurd.

You should've written, sometimes predictions become fact.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:49 PM
But you're talking about Nadal vs. Fed on clay. Which doesn't have much to do with what the thread is about.



:eek: and :rolleyes:

Events lead to facts. Predictions have nothing to do with facts.

And to quote, WorldBeater, nvm.
Of course it has to do with the thread, Nadal's domination must have rivals.

Federer doesn't hold a candle.

Predictions of events are well-spoken.

My case speaks for itself.

Those who are in the know will agree it is quite capable.

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 05:50 PM
Indeed. And let's go Habs!

Now they can sign Theo after the NHLPA agreed on a mutual salary-cap formula! :woohoo:

Is this a done deal??? Are you sure?? what are terms of the agreement???

I still the owners and gary bettman were the evil ones in this mess :p

Go Habs Go ;) go FedEx as well :angel:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:50 PM
This is not necessarily true. I can make many predictions, doesn't mean they'll lead to facts.

So if I predict I'll win the lottery, this will become fact? Absurd.

You should've written, sometimes predictions become fact.
I have the 6 lucky numbers from a Chinese fortune cookie right here.

Care for me to relay them to your OPs?

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:52 PM
Is this a done deal??? Are you sure?? what are terms of the agreement???

I still the owners and gary bettman were the evil ones in this mess :p

Go Habs Go ;) go FedEx as well :angel:
I heard it on ESPNEWS a few days ago.

The wierd thing is a friend of mine said an announcement would be made within a week or two.

And that was on June 2nd!

As long as they're playing hockey in September I could care less about Bettman and the owners pride.

Seleshfan
06-12-2005, 05:54 PM
If the RG personnel are willing to accept that these are the two best clay players, the draw will work itself that it becomes true.

Regardless of the draw or if they play in the final, the result you predict is not necessarily true. You cannot "predict" how each player will feel on the day of the final. Maybe Nadal will feel "flat," and Federer inspired. You just can't predict as fact, a player's emotional state for a match so far away.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:56 PM
Regardless of the draw or if they play in the final, the result you predict is not necessarily true. You cannot "predict" how each player will feel on the day of the final. Maybe Nadal will feel "flat," and Federer inspired. You just can't predict as fact, a player's emotional state for a match so far away.
Nadal doesn't get phased.

Haven't you realized that from his first RG performance?

Seleshfan
06-12-2005, 05:56 PM
I have the 6 lucky numbers from a Chinese fortune cookie right here.

Care for me to relay them to your OPs?

I don't want to cheat!! Just give me the mega number. :)

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 05:57 PM
I heard it on ESPNEWS a few days ago.

The wierd thing is a friend of mine said an announcement would be made within a week or two.

And that was on June 2nd!

As long as they're playing hockey in September I could care less about Bettman and the owners pride.

Well this is the latest news. Still no agreement as far as I can tell :sad:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=127569

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:57 PM
I don't want to cheat!! Just give me the mega number. :)
I'm sorry. There are no mega-ball numbers included in the local Chinese fortune cookies.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 05:58 PM
Well this is the latest news. Still no agreement as far as I can tell :sad:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=127569
Well, I heard the salary cap formula was in place.

They just need to agree on a certain proposition.

Skyward
06-12-2005, 05:59 PM
I am an electronics engineer and M.S at statistics. .

Somebody has to come in last in the class. :lol:

Seleshfan
06-12-2005, 06:00 PM
Nadal doesn't get phased.

Haven't you realized that from his first RG performance?

I have not been following this thread, and it just occurred to me, that you may not be serious. Are you being sarcastic with this argument? If not, I'll respond as you are serious.

The fact that Nadal feels one way this year, does not mean he'll feel the same way next year. Perhaps, he'll feel "pression" for defending his title. Who knows?

World Beater
06-12-2005, 06:00 PM
Somebody has to come in last in the class. :lol:

That Hurt :devil:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:00 PM
Well this is the latest news. Still no agreement as far as I can tell :sad:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=127569
I will try to find the story from ESPN a few days ago.

It clearly said a salary-cap formula was reached, and it was on a team-by-team basis.

I guess it's not official unless you hear it from TSN.

That was from the Globe and Mail.

Seleshfan
06-12-2005, 06:01 PM
I'm sorry. There are no mega-ball numbers included in the local Chinese fortune cookies.


pfft! :mad:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:02 PM
I have not been following this thread, and it just occurred to me, that you may not be serious. Are you being sarcastic with this argument? If not, I'll respond as you are serious.

The fact that Nadal feels one way this year, does not mean he'll feel the same way next year. Perhaps, he'll feel "pression" for defending his title. Who knows?
He doesn't feel pressure, no?

I'm being as legitimate as possible.

I can only work with what I'm given by you guys.

Apparently that's not much.

Federer is not in Nadal's league on a clay court right now.

He can beat him in cold weather, but not RG in the summer.

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 06:03 PM
I will try to find the story from ESPN a few days ago.

It clearly said a salary-cap formula was reached, and it was on a team-by-team basis.

I guess it's not official unless you hear it from TSN.

That was from the Globe and Mail.

I pay attention to TSN, Sportsnet, RDS, Radio-Canada, globe and Mail, toronto star, among others (sorry for the list but I follow hockey news very closely :lol: ). They had made the same announcement as ESPN but have since then all backtracked :shrug:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:04 PM
Well, I heard the salary cap formula was in place.

They just need to agree on a certain proposition.
Here is the quote from the link you sent me.

"The Globe and Mail reported Wednesday that a formula for a salary-cap system based on team-by-team revenue had been agreed upon. "

That was what I heard.

I guess you can't take the G&M seriously.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:05 PM
I pay attention to TSN, Sportsnet, RDS, Radio-Canada, globe and Mail, toronto star, among others (sorry for the list but I follow hockey news very closely :lol: ). They had made the same announcement as ESPN but have since then all backtracked :shrug:
Yeah, TSN has been the most reliable for me.

Back when the trading deadline hit in spring of '04 and players were shuffling off left and right, which is another great thing about hockey, TSN.com was the place to find the full official list of all the deadline moves.

The first and only place I would ever go for hockey news.

G&M is based in Toronto, what more can you take from a city who says fire the Coach/GM after every fourth loss.

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 06:06 PM
Here is the quote from the link you sent me.

"The Globe and Mail reported Wednesday that a formula for a salary-cap system based on team-by-team revenue had been agreed upon. "

That was what I heard.

I guess you can't take the G&M seriously.

or the other newspapers, till you hear it from the culprits themselves (Bettman, NHLPA) :lol: :haha:

World Beater
06-12-2005, 06:07 PM
He doesn't feel pressure, no?
.

who are u to say?


I'm being as legitimate as possible.
.

Could have fooled me


Federer is not in Nadal's league on a clay court right now.
.

The world is round



He can beat him in cold weather, but not RG in the summer.

What does temp have anything to do with it? Heat speeds up the surface. this should be better for federer, no?

Federer did beat Nadal in the burning heat of miami. Who wilted in the 5th set?

Jimena
06-12-2005, 06:08 PM
Federer is not in Nadal's league on a clay court right now.

We can agree on that. But he can beat him someday on clay, and Nadal can beat Fed one day on fast hard courts. The fact that Nadal's better on clay at the moment, does not mean that he will forever be better. You just don't know. Many things can happen, and there are many intangibles. You seem to be ignoring them all just to prove your point.

jacobhiggins
06-12-2005, 06:08 PM
I don't know which is harder, I know Federer is the better player though!

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 06:08 PM
Yeah, TSN has been the most reliable for me.

Back when the trading deadline hit in spring of '04 and players were shuffling off left and right, which is another great thing about hockey, TSN.com was the place to find the full official list of all the deadline moves.

The first and only place I would ever go for hockey news.

G&M is based in Toronto, what more can you take from a city who says fire the Coach/GM after every fourth loss.

I do not feel for the Laffs (aka the Leafs). let the Globe and Mail harass them :devil:

the Habs have it worse when it comes to the media though :mad: :lol:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:09 PM
or the other newspapers, till you hear it from the culprits themselves (Bettman, NHLPA) :lol: :haha:
I've always trusted ESPNEWS, they are always factual and only unless they report it from other sources are they wrong.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:11 PM
who are u to say?



Could have fooled me



The world is round



What does temp have anything to do with it? Heat speeds up the surface. this should be better for federer, no?

Federer did beat Nadal in the burning heat of miami. Who wilted in the 5th set?
I guess you missed Federer's domination of Hamburg and last couple of years.

The weather has no indication of match results on a hardcourt, most of them are in hot weather anyway.

Nadal thrives in Miami.

It's probably his favorite tournament in the states given the lation population and the slow surface.

Miami isn't a true fast hardcourt, so that is a good tournament for Nadal.

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 06:12 PM
I've always trusted ESPNEWS, they are always factual and only unless they report it from other sources are they wrong.

I don't follow ESPNEWS :shrug:

I'll take your word for it ;)

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:13 PM
We can agree on that. But he can beat him someday on clay, and Nadal can beat Fed one day on fast hard courts. The fact that Nadal's better on clay at the moment, does not mean that he will forever be better. You just don't know. Many things can happen, and there are many intangibles. You seem to be ignoring them all just to prove your point.
If you've studied my posts, I've stated Federer can beat him at Hamburg.

In cold weather on clay, Federer can beat him.

At RG, Nadal has the edge.

It's just that simple.

No, I don't know.

But, I've spent alot of time studying the relative factors between the two and these stick out.

So I feel I can make an educated opinion based on that.

World Beater
06-12-2005, 06:13 PM
We can agree on that. But he can beat him someday on clay, and Nadal can beat Fed one day on fast hard courts. The fact that Nadal's better on clay at the moment, does not mean that he will forever be better. You just don't know. Many things can happen, and there are many intangibles. You seem to be ignoring them all just to prove your point.

People say roddick, hewitt have come close to beating federer on grass. But everyone ignores the fact that Roger was in the match with nadal, going toe to toe until the middle of the fourth set. But then that Nadal is in a different league than federer on clay. I agree he is better, but to say a different league is a bit much imo :rolleyes:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:14 PM
I don't know which is harder, I know Federer is the better player though!
So Gasquet is better than Federer?

He beat him on clay.

Is Coria better?

He took Nadal to 5 @ Rome.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:15 PM
People say roddick, hewitt have come close to beating federer on grass. But everyone ignores the fact that Roger was in the match with nadal, going toe to toe until the middle of the fourth set. But then that Nadal is in a different league than federer on clay. I agree he is better, but to say a different league is a bit much imo :rolleyes:
Not everyone says that, only people who know what they're talking about.

Nadal had several chances to win Miami.

He will come back prepared and focused.

He can afford to make small adjustments in his game to win the next time.

Federer can adapt as well, that's why he came back from 0-2.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:17 PM
I do not feel for the Laffs (aka the Leafs). let the Globe and Mail harass them :devil:

the Habs have it worse when it comes to the media though :mad: :lol:
The Habs have probably the 2nd best fanbase in Canada behind Toronto.

The fans are not as tough on their team, though.

I'm not aware of the media, but if you say so I'll believe you.

I much prefer the Montreal fan over the Toronto fan.

That is probably because Buffalo hasn't had a heated past with them. lol

World Beater
06-12-2005, 06:17 PM
So Gasquet is better than Federer?

He beat him on clay.
.

Get ur facts straight. Fed has beaten gasquet on clay thus nullifying your rhetorical questions

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:18 PM
I don't follow ESPNEWS :shrug:

I'll take your word for it ;)
ESPNEWS follows through on every report, gives you all the details.

By far the most in-depth sports program out there.

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:20 PM
Get ur facts straight. Fed has beaten gasquet on clay thus nullifying your rhetorical questions
But by that guy's logic Federer is better because he wins most of his matches.

That isn't the case with Gasquet, who split the season series.

World Beater
06-12-2005, 06:23 PM
But by that guy's logic Federer is better because he wins most of his matches.

That isn't the case with Gasquet, who split the season series.

Right, but you were trying to act smart when, well, you didnt exactly succeed.

you cited federer-gasquet not him. Only an idiot wouldnt realize that federer and gasquet are even on clay as per their h-h. Jacob isnt an idiot. He has a personal opinion and you have yours. Federer is a better overall player. Even that you cannot refute

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:24 PM
Right, but you were trying to act smart when, well, you didnt exactly succeed.

you cited federer-gasquet not him. Only an idiot wouldnt realize that federer and gasquet are even on clay as per their h-h. Jacob isnt an idiot. He has a personal opinion and you have yours. Federer is a better overall player. Even that you cannot refute
Actually the overall record of Federer and Nadal is quite similar, so apparently I can.

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 06:31 PM
ESPNEWS follows through on every report, gives you all the details.

By far the most in-depth sports program out there.

very debatable :haha:

but if you must have the last word, you got it!!! :wavey: :rolls:

NATAS81
06-12-2005, 06:33 PM
very debatable :haha:

but if you must have the last word, you got it!!! :wavey: :rolls:
I don't have to have the last word, I just like my sports and am thankful of ESPNEWS.

What's incomprehensible?

Jimena
06-12-2005, 07:10 PM
You don't have to have the last word? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! :lol:

Pardon me while I laugh! That's a good one! :yeah:

Rogiman
06-12-2005, 08:07 PM
I'm off for a couple of hours and look what happens...

At least now everyone in MTF knows what a complete moron NATAS81 is.

If you know nothing at least remain modest and STFU.

bandabou
06-12-2005, 08:55 PM
are you the same bandabou who posts on the wta ?? :eek:
Make a guess...;)

bandabou
06-12-2005, 08:59 PM
I agree that Nadal is a better clay-courter than Rog....but then the next question is: will Roger get the chance to prove that Nadal isn´t in his league on grass either? As in: will Nadal be waiting for Roger in the SF at Wimby?

Rogiman
06-12-2005, 09:08 PM
I agree that Nadal is a better clay-courter than Rog....but then the next question is: will Roger get the chance to prove that Nadal isn´t in his league on grass either? As in: will Nadal be waiting for Roger in the SF at Wimby?
I wish

Dirk
06-12-2005, 09:16 PM
No, Nadal won't likely make it to the 2nd week. He doesn't have the game to beat Roger on grass.

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 11:00 PM
Make a guess...;)

:wavey: ;)

hablovah19
06-12-2005, 11:04 PM
The Habs have probably the 2nd best fanbase in Canada behind Toronto.
The fans are not as tough on their team, though.

I'm not aware of the media, but if you say so I'll believe you.

I much prefer the Montreal fan over the Toronto fan.

That is probably because Buffalo hasn't had a heated past with them. lol

I think there are more Hab fans than Leafs!!! Especially we have a ton not just in Montreal but also all over Canada, noticeably in the west :p
You don't follow the Habs in Montreal, they are tougher on the team than the Leafs. Hockey is like a religion in Montreal, more so, I believe, than in Toronto. Too bad more canadians don't post here to confirm or infirm what I'm saying ...!!! :angel: but the "hatred" between Hab and Leafs fans is diminishing over the years as we don't get to play against each other as much during the playoffs ....

Jogy
06-12-2005, 11:43 PM
At least now everyone in MTF knows what a complete moron NATAS81 is.
the only thing I know is that Rogiman is a complete moron like described by him.

Chloe le Bopper
06-12-2005, 11:43 PM
I like both teams. I probably wouldn't relaly like TOronto if I didn't live close by :p

Lee
06-12-2005, 11:50 PM
I think there are more Hab fans than Leafs!!! Especially we have a ton not just in Montreal but also all over Canada, noticeably in the west :p
You don't follow the Habs in Montreal, they are tougher on the team than the Leafs. Hockey is like a religion in Montreal, more so, I believe, than in Toronto. Too bad more canadians don't post here to confirm or infirm what I'm saying ...!!! :angel: but the "hatred" between Hab and Leafs fans is diminishing over the years as we don't get to play against each other as much during the playoffs ....

I used to live in Calgary and I have to say the fans for Montreal and Toronto are pretty even although Calgary had a better rivalry with Montreal.

Seleshfan
06-13-2005, 12:20 AM
He doesn't feel pressure, no?

I'm being as legitimate as possible.

I can only work with what I'm given by you guys.

Apparently that's not much.

Federer is not in Nadal's league on a clay court right now.

He can beat him in cold weather, but not RG in the summer.


Unlike you, I don't presume to know what a player feels, let alone, how they'll feel a year from now.

Skyward
06-13-2005, 12:27 AM
I like both teams. I probably wouldn't relaly like TOronto if I didn't live close by :p

I live close to Tampa, and I don't like Tampa Bay Lightning :p

Chloe le Bopper
06-13-2005, 12:35 AM
Unlike you, I don't presume to know what a player feels, let alone, how they'll feel a year from now.
BORING.

You really ought to.

Chloe le Bopper
06-13-2005, 12:36 AM
I live close to Tampa, and I don't like Tampa Bay Lightning :p
You don't understand. Toronto Maple Leafs and their fans to Tampa Bay Lightening and their fans.. I am quite confident that you simply can't compare the two. It matters not if Tampa is a better team. It's very hard not to get sucked in here. You grow up around it.. it's everywhere. You either learn to root for them or you hate the Leafs with a passion ;)

Skyward
06-13-2005, 12:46 AM
You grow up around it.. it's everywhere. You either learn to root for them or you hate the Leafs with a passion ;)

I see. It's similar with our pathetic Jacksonville Jaguars football team.