Age, Experience, Federer & Nadal - BS. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Age, Experience, Federer & Nadal - BS.

prima donna
08-23-2005, 05:55 PM
The argument that Rafael Nadal is 19 and his accomplishments shouldn't be measured by the same level of expectation of an older player such as Federer, Safin or Roddick.

I am seriously opposed to this argument, for the simple reason that it has holes all over it, there's lots of contradiction.

Many people believe that Nadal may be on Roger Federer's level ...

Alright, so let's say that I subscribe to this theory (which I don't)

1). Nadal is younger, so he's faster and more energetic.
2). Nadal is an equal to Federer.
3). Nadal has the beauty of youth, which often times means that he is fearless.

Why is it an applicable excuse (especially if you pay attention to point #3) that he cop out in the first round of a Master's Event like Cincy or that he lose in the 2nd round at Wimbledon ? First round of a tune-up, people have already began to create excuses for Nadal incase he gets knocked out in earlier rounds

"Well, he's young and has many left "
"He lacks experience "

The kid has talent and is fearless, many people are under the illusion (that's just what it is) that he is on Fedex's level, so who cares what Fedex did at 19 ? He's a late bloomer by Tennis standards, doesn't really matter how fast you get to a point, once you've reached that level then each player is there regardless of age. I don't buy into the experience argument, it's flawed and weak ... by the time you're old enough to have any experience the speed of youth is gone, thus making it really useless; if experience teaches, Agassi should be #1 in the world; however, his old brittle body just won't allow it. I'd think that after the beatings Sampras administered he's become well adjusted, atleast psychologically, to playing against the greats.

If you ask me, also, just because you start out at a younger age does not mean you will have an extended career! Look at Martina Hingis for example, 15 years old turned professional and she's how old now ? 23 ?!? Doing commentary for tennis matches and reduced to being a World Team Tennis participant, something that the 45 year old John McEnroe has taken up merely as a hobby. The clock is ticking on Nadal just as much as it is Federer, can anyone name a player that has dominated from the age of 15 to the age of 30 ?

Michael Jordan was a late bloomer.
Pete Sampras never really "dominated" unless we're talking Wimbledon, he was consistently in the Winner's Circle ... winning 1 or 2 Slams a year for a 10 + year period.

I've simply grown tired of seeing people use the excuse that Nadal or Sharapova both happen to be younger players, so that they have to gain experience and then comparing older players records at the same age. Time waits for no one, so what ? You're having success at 18, you're the early bird special and another player is having success at the age of 23, seems like a double standard...

Nadal beats Roger in Paris, which enhances his reputation and he's considered a knight a shining armor to many whom have grown tired of seeing Federer's success.
I heard things like...
"Nadal is quicker, more energetic and younger!"
"Nadal is fearless, he's a bull on the court"
"Nadal is twice the player Roger was at that age"
"Nadal is in Federer's league"
He loses a few matches ...
"Nadal has never played on grass"
"Nadal is young and must gain experience"
"Nadal choked away the match"
"Nadal was tired from winning in Canada"
Same stuff with Sharapova, something has to give ...

Either these players are younger, inferior, lack experience and will someday work up to the level of their predecessors ...
Or ...
They are younger, faster, already at the same level thus experience should not matter and they should be measured by the same standards regardless.[/FONT]

mitalidas
08-23-2005, 06:00 PM
just can't compare them. There are definitely things that come with very young age-- and that is the fearlessness like Hingis had-- and there are things that come with older age --like experience. But there are individual-specific attributes as well, such as when a player blooms or peaks. Lleyton is an example of someone who bloomed very early and Fed is definitely one who took a while longer
You can compare these players on some objective levels (like age and years on the tour), but obviously not on other things --like intrinsic competitiveness or fearlessness

ExpectedWinner
08-23-2005, 06:05 PM
To be honest, I have no idea what experience Nadal can gain over the years, except for mastering the grass/ indoors. He's already playing like he's 28 between the ears.

mitalidas
08-23-2005, 06:09 PM
To be honest, I have no idea what experience Nadal can gain over the years, except for mastering the grass/ indoors. He's already playing like he's 28 between the ears.

well, with experience sometimes comes the fear of failure. knowing what can go wrong even at MPs and knowing how matches can turn around. There is much less of the feeling of playing with nothing to lose, when everyone is gunning for you. Its just not possible to predict what will happen to Fed or nadal or whoever if they were to suddenly drop in the rankings
Lleyton was playing beyond his years, beating Pete 6, 1, and 1 at the USO finals, but one year later he was going out rounds 1 and 2, and dropped to #17, even though he had more experience by then

ExpectedWinner
08-23-2005, 06:21 PM
well, with experience sometimes comes the fear of failure. knowing what can go wrong even at MPs and knowing how matches can turn around. There is much less of the feeling of playing with nothing to lose, when everyone is gunning for you. Its just not possible to predict what will happen to Fed or nadal or whoever if they were to suddenly drop in the rankings
Lleyton was playing beyond his years, beating Pete 6, 1, and 1 at the USO finals, but one year later he was going out rounds 1 and 2, and dropped to #17, even though he had more experience by then

Well, I was talking about the positive side of the experience. Nadal already knows how to deal with crowds, when slow down and when speed up, when to take an injury time out ;) , what to say in the interview. Most important, he plays the right shot at the right time.

As for Hewitt, I think he's lost a step already.

PamV
08-23-2005, 06:31 PM
well, with experience sometimes comes the fear of failure.

It's also easier to play fearlessly when one doesn't have points to defend. So basically by next year we will see Nadal trying to again win all the same clay court titles and knowing that if he only were to make it to a QF or SF that he would lose points.

Clara Bow
08-23-2005, 06:36 PM
I actually think that very few people think that Nadal is on the same level as Federer. Federer has proven himself to be a great on a number of surfaces and is a singular talent. He just has so much skill and can switch up his game like no one else. Nadal is still getting his feet under him in some surfaces, and who knows if he will ever be a factor on grass. (But just because he has not proven himself on all surfaces does not mean that he should be painted as someone who will always and only be a one-surface wonder – his game is still developing and no I am not just saying this as an "excuse" I am saying it as someone who has noticed it though watching match play.) I think Nadal is viewed as a threat to Federer in a way because he has gotten under his skin in their matches. But that does not equate with saying that Nadal is the superior or even equal talent.


Different players mature at different levels, I think most accept this. One thing that I have found to be quite interesting in terms of Nadal is the trend to say that since he has been an “early bloomer” that likely means that he will burn out and be a has been by 24 or so. Or that since he is an early bloomer he will be incapable of adding additional layers to his game play. Just because someone has success early does not mean that their game will stagnate and they will not continue to evolve.

WF4EVER
08-23-2005, 06:53 PM
Funny that you should mention Sharapova as well because once she started winning and the expectations of her rose, I wondered how she'd handle it the next time around. SHe certainly hasn't shone the way she did last year and I wonder if the same will ring true for Nadal. Sure he's fearless now, but can he handle the pressure the next time around?

I also think becuase he's relatively new on the tour he has had the advantage of surprise against many of the players, but when they've adjusted to his style of play, will he still be as dominant as he is now, and will ROger still ocntinue to struggle against him?

On another note, is he too young to suffer from burnout?

PamV
08-23-2005, 06:54 PM
I think that the situation is made a little more unique in that Nadal and Federer can go most of the year competing in different tournaments and so they are not facing the same fields and may not have to play each other that often. It makes it harder to really compare them. The times they will be in the same tournaments are the majors and the TMS. However, they don't necessarily both attend all of the TMS. Basically the hardcourts are where we will see them on neurtal court surface.

As a Fed fan, I find it a little unfair that Nadal has made it to the #2 rank without having to frequently face Roddick, Hewitt, Safin or Agassi. Roger had to face them often in 2003 and 2004.....and that's when they were playing better than they are today. He also had to conquer his nemesis Nalbandian and Henman when they were at their peak. To me it seems like Nadal just appeared on the clay court scene exactly when Coria and JCF were down and that there was no real clay court competition to speak of.

However, I will give it to Nadal for having the stamina to play so many tournaments and keep on going.

Dirk
08-23-2005, 07:01 PM
It's so hard to say. Nadal only has to become great on grass and indoors to contend for the number one over a healthy Federer.

tangerine_dream
08-23-2005, 07:04 PM
Compare the 19 year old Nadal with the 19 year old Federer and see what you come up with.

Castafiore
08-23-2005, 07:08 PM
Compare the 19 year old Nadal with the 19 year old Federer and see what you come up with.
Ah...I know the "tennis for dummies" answer to that one:
the early bloomer vs the late bloomer argument. :cool: ;)


Guys, it's too soon to make many predictions here. Time will tell.
Like Clara Bow says, not a lot of people put Nadal currently on the very same level as Federer because Roger is the clear number one at the moment.
Time will tell what sort of career Rafa will have.

nobama
08-23-2005, 07:08 PM
How is it unfair? To say something is unfair is to imply that there is injustice or favoritism. I certainly don't think that is the case. It's like saying Roger playing Andy and Lleyton in finals all the time is unfair because they're hopeless against him so he always wins. It seems you're basically downplaying Nadal's victories claiming there's no decent clay court players out there right now. I wouldn't agree with that. Coria took him to a tough 5 setter in Rome, Puerta was no pushover in the RG finals, and I still think if Fed had it going on in between the ears that day he could've beaten Nadal in the SF at RG. I think there has been competition, it's just that Nadal is better than everyone else on clay right now.

prima donna
08-23-2005, 07:09 PM
Compare the 19 year old Nadal with the 19 year old Federer and see what you come up with.

I did that and this is the response:

The kid has talent and is fearless, many people are under the illusion (that's just what it is) that he is on Fedex's level, so who cares what Fedex did at 19 ? He's a late bloomer by Tennis standards, doesn't really matter how fast you get to a point, once you've reached that level then each player is there regardless of age.

nobama
08-23-2005, 07:10 PM
Compare the 19 year old Nadal with the 19 year old Federer and see what you come up with.Why does that matter? Let's wait and see where Nadal's at when he's 24.

oneandonlyhsn
08-23-2005, 07:11 PM
There is no comparison between Roger and Nadal at 19. Rafa has a much better head on his shoulders, and self belief at that age than Fed did. Fed was a headcase, who I think really started to believe after he defeated Sampras in Wimby 01 (a classic)

PamV
08-23-2005, 07:22 PM
Young Fed's progress was hurt when his long time junior's coach and mentor Peter Carter died in South Africa. I suppose we could compare to what would have happened to Nadal if his uncle had died last year before Nadal made his rise.

Also we could ask how much sooner Fed would have matured if he'd had a countryman/former #1 player as a mentor the way Nadal has Moya. Who knows?

Castafiore
08-23-2005, 07:30 PM
:bolt: pffft...this is going to end in one of these ugly Rafa vs Roger threats, isn't it?

However you turn it: it's not possible to compare the two at this point and the only way to start comparing them at the moment is by adding a large number of if's and but's in it.

Time will tell.

ExpectedWinner
08-23-2005, 07:30 PM
Young Federer didn't know what shot to play at the crucial time. At 18- 19 he already had a variety in his game , but he couldn't use it to his advantage on regular basis. In a way, his own game was his major enemy at the time.

tennischick
08-23-2005, 07:34 PM
it will be very interesting to see how Nadal defends all of these points next year. will be he a bright light that simply flames out? or is he a talent to be reckoned with for years to come? i make no predictions. time will tell. ;)

PamV
08-23-2005, 07:35 PM
Young Federer didn't know what shot to play at the crucial time. At 19 he already had a variety in his game , but he couldn't use it in his advantage.

I am not sure what you mean. The first time I saw Federer was when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon when he was 19. Federer looked completely matured at that point mentally and with shot selection. Of course he didn't go on to win the next round and that probably had more to do with his emotions than abilities.

Any way ... I am just saying that to discuss how Nadal matured so early and Federer didn't requires looking into how they both came up through the ranks. Federer would have been more stable if Carter hadn't died. Federer felt guilty over that and it affected his playing for a while. Also if Federer had had the Swiss equivalent of a Moya taking him under his wing from a young age that could have made a difference in maturing faster.

None of it matters now. We can only look at what they are doing in the present.

PamV
08-23-2005, 07:38 PM
:bolt: pffft...this is going to end in one of these ugly Rafa vs Roger threats, isn't it?

However you turn it: it's not possible to compare the two at this point and the only way to start comparing them at the moment is by adding a large number of if's and but's in it.

Time will tell.

I just get tired of the bragging about how early Nadal developed. I am sure lots of other players would have done that as well in his shoes with Moya and his Uncle taking care of him. That's not to take away from where he is now. It's just kind of pointless to compare that aspect because they didn't have equivalent early years.

ExpectedWinner
08-23-2005, 07:44 PM
I am not sure what you mean. The first time I saw Federer was when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon when he was 19.

The first time I saw Federer was when he beat Pioline in Tashkent in Sept 1999 at the age of 18. You saw him 2 years later when he was almost 20. That might explain why you don't understand what I'm talking about. He played very mature tennis against Pioline only to struggle the next round against Wessels. One day he knew what to do and the next day he looked clueless.

Whistleway
08-23-2005, 08:00 PM
Why do you have to put down Nadal? Just sit back and watch the show than cribbing and starting crazy threads like this !!

Havok
08-23-2005, 08:21 PM
I think that the situation is made a little more unique in that Nadal and Federer can go most of the year competing in different tournaments and so they are not facing the same fields and may not have to play each other that often. It makes it harder to really compare them. The times they will be in the same tournaments are the majors and the TMS. However, they don't necessarily both attend all of the TMS. Basically the hardcourts are where we will see them on neurtal court surface.

As a Fed fan, I find it a little unfair that Nadal has made it to the #2 rank without having to frequently face Roddick, Hewitt, Safin or Agassi. Roger had to face them often in 2003 and 2004.....and that's when they were playing better than they are today. He also had to conquer his nemesis Nalbandian and Henman when they were at their peak. To me it seems like Nadal just appeared on the clay court scene exactly when Coria and JCF were down and that there was no real clay court competition to speak of.

However, I will give it to Nadal for having the stamina to play so many tournaments and keep on going.

I get what you're saying, but face it Nadal is a clay court lover. Yes he can play pretty darn well on all surfaces (little exception on the grass) but he will forever have a WAY better career on the clay. Those players that you listed (hewitt, Agassi, Roddick) suck on clay and will probably never be able to hold their seed long enough to face Nadal in a clay court event. Safin has the good for clay, but he's so mentaly fucked that he puts himself out of the picture right away. Even if JCF was still around, Nadal would be able to win vs him because he has an amazing defensive/offensive gameplan on the dirt. He's already beaten Coria when he was at his best (please don't start judging that by the 05 clay season Coria had, if you watched just 5 minutes of that Rome finals you would know that both players were on their games and Nadal battled through and won vs a very good Coria). Anyways you can't really compare the two because there is a big age difference, and their games aren't similar one bit. When both players retire, then is the only "fair" time to actually compare the two. Right now let their tennis do the talking and let them finish their careers (both have many more years to come on the tour).

jacobhiggins
08-23-2005, 09:02 PM
Comparing Nadal and Federer at 19 does not prove anything. Nadal is a much better player then Federer was at this age. Federer was not there mentally and was not entirely sure how to use his variety. Nadal on the other hand is extremley mentally tough and knows what he does best and does it! However, theres always that old saying in sports, it's harder to stay Number 1 then it is to get to Number 1, and it's true! Federer has become a mental dynamo, not only when he plays matches, but as the Number 1 player in the world. Nadal looks great now, but I don't think he will get that much better, or Super Great as some people are predicting. People, he's playing extremely good tennis right now and I think a lot of his fans are going to be filled with dissapointment if he dosen't keep improving! Of course he will gain more experience and might learn to hit his shots a little harder but I would not expect a SUPER NADAL in 2 or 3 years. He might be at his pinnacle tennis self right now, so enjoy the ride!

PamV
08-23-2005, 09:16 PM
The first time I saw Federer was when he beat Pioline in Tashkent in Sept 1999 at the age of 18. You saw him 2 years later when he was almost 20. That might explain why you don't understand what I'm talking about. He played very mature tennis against Pioline only to struggle the next round against Wessels. One day he knew what to do and the next day he looked clueless.

In your prior post you talked about Fed at the age of 19. He was 19 when he faced Sampras. That's all I have to go on. I have of course read that when he was younger he used to throw racquets and he would lose matches that he shouldn't lose. My point is just that part of Federer's path to where he is now included the death of his father figure/mentor Peter Carter. Not only did he die, but he died going to the place that Federer told him he must see. So it did affect Federer greatly.

NYCtennisfan
08-23-2005, 09:29 PM
JUst because someone reaches a certain level at a young age doesn't mean that their progression will continue at that same rate. In fact, it rarely happens. As it stands, I have never seen someone as mentally tough as Nadal as such a young age as Nadal. If anything, aging will make him think about what he is doing and might have an adverse affect on him. Who knows? I do know that if he does stay healthy, someday he will be #1. Roger has got a lot of winning to do yet but Rafa will get his time.

Turkeyballs Paco
08-23-2005, 09:31 PM
Rafa is exceptional and I'd like to see him accomplish even more. Seems like some players who get really far in their teens don't keep it up in their twenties. I think 22 or 23 is a good age to peak. Hopefully Rafa hasn't reached his peak yet. We'll just have to watch and see.

ExpectedWinner
08-23-2005, 09:36 PM
My point is just that part of Federer's path to where he is now included the death of his father figure/mentor Peter Carter. Not only did he die, but he died going to the place that Federer told him he must see. So it did affect Federer greatly.

I believe Peter Carter died in the summer of 2002 (correct me if I'm wrong). Unless Federer somehow envisioned his death in advance, I have no idea how it could affect his play in 1999-2002 ( till the accident). If anything, he started to play up to his potential soon after Carter's death.

PamV
08-23-2005, 09:36 PM
Not everything is up to the player himself. Some things are dictated by who else comes up in the field. For example if Berdych or Monfils or Gasquet were to begin playing consistently well they would add to the competion factor.

soonha
08-23-2005, 09:49 PM
theres always that old saying in sports, it's harder to stay Number 1 then it is to get to Number 1, and it's true!

:worship: How true! And it's a truth applicable to all aspects in life.

I wonder how many people appreciate how much incredible what Roger has done for last 2 years is.

ExpectedWinner
08-23-2005, 09:53 PM
I wonder how many people appreciate how much incredible what Roger has done for last 2 years is.

Players of all generations certainly do.

PaulieM
08-23-2005, 09:55 PM
i don't really see a need to compare them, some players achieve stuff early on and go on to not do much later in their careers, some are pretty ordinary to begin with and achieve stuff later in their careers, there are so many factors involved in any individuals career.... there's no telling now how things will end up, so i don't really care to compare them.

Seleshfan
08-24-2005, 12:21 AM
However, theres always that old saying in sports, it's harder to stay Number 1 then it is to get to Number 1, and it's true!

I think you're confusing that old saying in bed, "It's harder to stay hard, then it is to get hard." Keep in mind this was written pre-viagra days. You may also be confusing the old dating saying, which says, "A good man is hard to find, but a hard man is good to find." :)

megadeth
08-24-2005, 12:52 AM
nadal has the same game all through out his matches. he'll be easy to predict soon... and just like muster and kuerten, who haven't tried changing their game after their initial success, it will be an open season on nadal once all these pros figure out the best way to play him...

Seleshfan
08-24-2005, 12:55 AM
It will be an open season on nadal once all these pros figure out the best way to play him...

Mmmmmm....I can smell the bacon now.

rofe
08-24-2005, 01:01 AM
nadal has the same game all through out his matches. he'll be easy to predict soon... and just like muster and kuerten, who haven't tried changing their game after their initial success, it will be an open season on nadal once all these pros figure out the best way to play him...

Maybe, but he has already improved his serve - something he set out to do over the past few months. He may also improve his serve and volley especially if he is still motivated to try to win Wimbledon until the day he dies.

Having said that, his basic way of playing ground strokes will probably never change and that in my opinion looks really ugly.

megadeth
08-24-2005, 01:12 AM
well, i can't wait for TMC, we'll see how he fares with the others. so far, all the titles after the french granted him no meeting with either safin, roddick, or hewitt...

i wonder what defense his fans will say if he loses to them?

uNIVERSE mAN
08-24-2005, 02:11 AM
Why does that matter? Let's wait and see where Nadal's at when he's 24.

He'll be in the second year of a two year steroid ban.

mangoes
08-24-2005, 02:37 AM
First of all, let me begin by saying including Sharapova in this discussion is pointless, it's all about looks for her and a crazy chance that she won wimbledon. At least, when we all complain about Serena, the girl followed up her Wimbledon win with a "Serena Slam". What the hell has Sharapova done other than flaunt her body to make a little extra cash?

I think Nadal is a very gifted player, but I don't see him dominating for years to come. I think that is more likely from Roger, who I predicted before his domination, would become a dominant figure. Just the same, I am going to predict that Gasquet become the greater Tennis player between he and Nadal.

I heard some commentators already ask if Nadal will be better than Federer and surpass Sampras. I think it is a bit premature to dismiss Roger. Roger loves being No. 1 and I get the impression that if staying there requires three pints of blood per day, he will do it. So, I do not think Roger is going anywhere any time soon. I think he is still getting a handle on how to play Nadal, and once he does, well................... I'll bet, playing Nadal, was the focus of his time in Dubai.

And while this may seem petty to say, I am always amazed that Nadal escapes having to play the "giants". I want to see Nadal face Hewitt, Andy, and Marat. Furthermore, that set Agassi took off of Nadal, while some may think it was a fluke, I didn't think so. Agassi changed his playing tactics in that second set, and he managed to take the set. So, I don't think Nadal has an impossible to beat game as yet.

PamV
08-24-2005, 02:40 AM
He'll be in the second year of a two year steroid ban.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Art&Soul
08-24-2005, 03:05 AM
Why does that matter? Let's wait and see where Nadal's at when he's 24.
Oh yeah :)

WF4EVER
08-24-2005, 03:14 AM
I think that the situation is made a little more unique in that Nadal and Federer can go most of the year competing in different tournaments and so they are not facing the same fields and may not have to play each other that often. It makes it harder to really compare them. The times they will be in the same tournaments are the majors and the TMS. However, they don't necessarily both attend all of the TMS. Basically the hardcourts are where we will see them on neurtal court surface.

As a Fed fan, I find it a little unfair that Nadal has made it to the #2 rank without having to frequently face Roddick, Hewitt, Safin or Agassi. Roger had to face them often in 2003 and 2004.....and that's when they were playing better than they are today. He also had to conquer his nemesis Nalbandian and Henman when they were at their peak. To me it seems like Nadal just appeared on the clay court scene exactly when Coria and JCF were down and that there was no real clay court competition to speak of.

However, I will give it to Nadal for having the stamina to play so many tournaments and keep on going.

Excellent points. Unfortunately the only thing that could come to mind after reading this was Martina Hingis, whom many claimed appeared on the scene at the right time to benefit from the weaknesses of the women's tour.

It's very telling whne Nadal has gotten to No. 2 from his successes on clay and the two AMS on hard courts that he won (edit: I meant one and one final, sorry) , because clearly while he appears to be the best claycourter out there, where does he really stand in the ranks of the hardcourt players? Is he better than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin? Will we ever know? And yes, he and Federer have only played twice this year so far, so when will we see regular cometition between these two as we see with Fed/Roddick?

nobama
08-24-2005, 03:19 AM
What's the second hard court title Nadal won? I thought the only won was Montreal? :confused:

mangoes
08-24-2005, 03:25 AM
Excellent points. Unfortunately the only thing that could come to mind after reading this was Martina Hingis, whom many claimed appeared on the scene at the right time to benefit from the weaknesses of the women's tour.

It's very telling whne Nadal has gotten to No. 2 from his successes on clay and the two AMS on hard courts that he won, because clearly while he appears to be the best claycourter out there, where does he really stand in the ranks of the hardcourt players? Is he better than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin? Will we ever know? And yes, he and Federer have only played twice this year so far, so when will we see regular cometition between these two as we see with Fed/Roddick?


I like Nadal a lot, but I have those same issues. I want to see him have to face Hewitt, Roddick and Safin, then go through Roger for the title. Roger had to face those guys plus Agassi to get the no. 1 title.

WF4EVER
08-24-2005, 03:26 AM
My bad. I meant to mention his final appearance in Miami, but thanks for the correction.

While Nadal has been the best player on clay this year, I wondered how he would have fared against Juanqui and Coria in their best years. Coria last year was incredible, but I never got the feeling from seeing him play this year that he had fully recovered from his injury. As for Juanqui, that match against Roddick was quite a surprise for me. He really had a chance to win that match, but his struggle to get back in form has been painful to watch.

tennischick
08-24-2005, 03:46 AM
He'll be in the second year of a two year steroid ban.
:spit: :rolls:

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-22-2005, 12:03 PM
Y are Federer fans so threatened by Nadal.

Some say he takes steroids, others say everyone will figure out his game and own him, some say he is gay, used to say he can't win on hc, has been lucky to make it to #2.

Sad Federer is a classy guy, but some of his fans are petty paranoid children.

I apologise to the Fed fans who don't go into childish name calling and who actually understand tennis.

I just find it frustrating that some Fed fans are so out of touch with reality and are the rudest people on this board.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-23-2005, 08:40 PM
Can anybody answer the above??? :confused:

thrust
09-23-2005, 09:11 PM
Why are Roger^s more avid fans so defensive in comparing Nadal and Roger. Roger,at 24 SHOULD be a better more complete player than a 19 year old. The fact that Rafa is better than Roger was at 19 shows that He has the potential to be as good or better than Roger by the time he is 24. The advantage Rafa has over Hewitt is that he is bigger, stronger, with the type of shots that gives Roger and others a hard time. He certainly has the game to get much better on hard courts very soon. Grass suits Roger^s game more than Nadal^s and Clay suits Nadal^s game more than Roger^s. I think we could have a great rivalry between these two in the next several years. Relax and enjoy it!!

1sun
09-23-2005, 09:47 PM
next year will be interesting to see if nadal can defend his points and to see if roger can handle the pressure nadal will put on him and also if he can defend his points. if they both play doha again next year, we may have a very early match between roger and rafa.

Mechlan
09-23-2005, 10:51 PM
Why are Roger^s more avid fans so defensive in comparing Nadal and Roger. Roger,at 24 SHOULD be a better more complete player than a 19 year old. The fact that Rafa is better than Roger was at 19 shows that He has the potential to be as good or better than Roger by the time he is 24. The advantage Rafa has over Hewitt is that he is bigger, stronger, with the type of shots that gives Roger and others a hard time. He certainly has the game to get much better on hard courts very soon. Grass suits Roger^s game more than Nadal^s and Clay suits Nadal^s game more than Roger^s. I think we could have a great rivalry between these two in the next several years. Relax and enjoy it!!

I think you answered your own question about why some of Roger's fans are so defensive about comparing a 19 year old Roger to Rafa. ;)

AgassiFan
09-24-2005, 01:35 AM
.Y are Federer fans so threatened by Nadal.


True, long-time Federer fans aren't really threatened by anything other than a major injury, which noone can predict or prevent. They respect Nadal's talent, especially on clay, and welcome any and all competition because of the fundamental confidence in Roger's superior all-around ability. In fact, they WANT Roger challenged to the maximum not only because it would make for tremendeously enjoyable spectacles, which would glorify this arguably neglected sport... but also because the ONLY way Roger's legacy as the 'greatest ever' can be cemented is for Roddicks, Safins, Agassis, Gasquets, Nadals, Monfils and Hewitts of this world to, over time, prove themselves as bonafied Masters of the Ball.

However, the countless "JesusFed" front-runners and shallowniks posting on this site and others - they are something else entirely. Nasty, glib creatures, but ultimately harmless and irrelevant.


....

Chloe le Bopper
09-24-2005, 03:00 AM
Oh, good. Another thread about how Roger is King and Rafa is the scrub on his baby toe. It had been a good day since I'd see one like this. Well done!

AgassiFan
09-24-2005, 05:40 PM
Oh, good. Another thread about how Roger is King and Rafa is the scrub on his baby toe. It had been a good day since I'd see one like this. Well done!

It's true 'Becca. The insecure thread starter has tied herself in knots trying to justify her biased bullshit.

prima donna
09-24-2005, 07:58 PM
True, long-time Federer fans aren't really threatened by anything other than a major injury, which noone can predict or prevent. They respect Nadal's talent, especially on clay, and welcome any and all competition because of the fundamental confidence in Roger's superior all-around ability. In fact, they WANT Roger challenged to the maximum not only because it would make for tremendeously enjoyable spectacles, which would glorify this arguably neglected sport... but also because the ONLY way Roger's legacy as the 'greatest ever' can be cemented is for Roddicks, Safins, Agassis, Gasquets, Nadals, Monfils and Hewitts of this world to, over time, prove themselves as bonafied Masters of the Ball.

However, the countless "JesusFed" front-runners and shallowniks posting on this site and others - they are something else entirely. Nasty, glib creatures, but ultimately harmless and irrelevant.


....

I've been supporting Fedex since early 2001 and I still don't respect Nadal's defensive game. I don't view it as tennis, half of the shots he's able to make from behind the baseline (on clay) utilizing his opponent's pace would not be possible if not for technology. Federer is a classic champion. Nadal also defaces the sport of tennis with his constant fist-pumping, jumping around like he's in a music video and screaming VAMOS! Can anyone possibly imagine one of the greats such as Laver or Borg behaving like this ? I'd think not.

In my opinion, the boy is bad for tennis... unless you're looking to attract a different crowd and change it's country club atmosphere. I welcome a challenge and actually, I'd love to see someone consistently be able to beat Fedex. It'd make for great entertainment.

I admire what Safin did in Australia, didn't really appreciate it, but admired and respected it.
I admire also Gasquet, started paying much more attention to his game.

Safin and Gasquet are different, they simply outplayed Roger on that given day. Nadal has never outplayed Roger, more so been very beneficial to the error prone Federer because of the amount of spin Nadal is able to put on each ball throwing his timing off. 60 UFE's in Paris, Nadal has yet to outplay or dominate Roger on any given day, he can't do it.

Great defense is nice, but players like Borg could transition from Defense to Offense almost at will. Nadal is a human backboard, with mediocre shot-making ability. Nadal just chases everything down, he's a ball-boy with a racquet in other words. Wow, this got ugly fast. But you get the point ...

and I'm not female.

P.S - This really applies to any clay court player, they normally have mediocre shot making abilities, because of the way their games were molded. It's just that Nadal is the only one making any noise, I'd be willing to say the same about 90% of "clay specialists" with maybe the exception of Gaston Gaudio or Coria, which clearly are superior shot makers when compared to Nadal but are certainly not in his class when it comes to chasing balls down. :)

Flibbertigibbet
09-24-2005, 10:39 PM
True, long-time Federer fans aren't really threatened by anything other than a major injury, which noone can predict or prevent. They respect Nadal's talent, especially on clay, and welcome any and all competition because of the fundamental confidence in Roger's superior all-around ability. In fact, they WANT Roger challenged to the maximum not only because it would make for tremendeously enjoyable spectacles, which would glorify this arguably neglected sport... but also because the ONLY way Roger's legacy as the 'greatest ever' can be cemented is for Roddicks, Safins, Agassis, Gasquets, Nadals, Monfils and Hewitts of this world to, over time, prove themselves as bonafied Masters of the Ball.

I wouldn't call myself a long-time Federer fan compared to many here, since I started watching him in mid-2003 (tennis in general as well), but I can definitely see the wisdom in that. If Federer happens to win 17-18 slams (very unlikely), but Nadal, Gasquet, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc. only have, say, 3 or 4 slams at the most, it wouldn't seem like there was any good rivalry between the top player and the others like there were in previous generations (Connors-McEnroe-Borg, Lendl-Wilander-Edberg-Becker, Agassi-Sampras-etc.). Not only would that dent Federer's record somewhat, but I wouldn't want that to happen for those other players, because they deserve to have great careers, too. ;)

And yes, it does seem that some Federer fans - not all, but a few - seem to be irritated especially at the prospect of Nadal. After all, Roddick and Hewitt have been vanquished by Federer many times in a row, and Safin is mentally inconsistent and injury-plagued, and Agassi is also older and has been beaten by Federer quite a few times now, and the rest of the players haven't quite proven to be a consistent challenge to Federer. Now, usually the anti-Nadal Federer fans don't mind the rise of Gasquet for two reasons: a) It seems like Gasquet will mature later compared to Nadal, and thus will not be challenging Federer in slams right now, and b) Gasquet plays a more similar style to Federer, compared to Nadal, who has quite a different approach to playing tennis than Roger does - an approach that is demeaned as 'ugly' by some.

Granted, the opinion of its 'ugliness' can stay, and his emotion on court can be criticized (though he's a pretty nice kid off court, at least of what I've heard), but to say that the matches he's played with Federer in 2005 - the two struggles in Miami and Paris - don't compare to the similar struggles Federer has had with Safin, Gasquet, and other players is really patronizing.

Merton
09-25-2005, 01:31 AM
Great defense is nice, but players like Borg could transition from Defense to Offense almost at will. Nadal is a human backboard, with mediocre shot-making ability. Nadal just chases everything down, he's a ball-boy with a racquet in other words. Wow, this got ugly fast. But you get the point ...



So, how can Nadal win so much? Since his shot-making ability is mediocre it would be enough for his opponents to make him run more and more until he either runs out of gas or concedes the points. Therefore, Nadal would lose most of his matches. As far as i can see, the only possible explanantions are:

-The top players allow Nadal to win because they are not smart enough to play the simple winning strategy outlined above.
-Nadal is not a human but a machine or an alien that would never run out of gas.
-There is something wrong in your description above. That is, either Nadal has more than mediocre shot-making ability or he is not just a ball-boy with a racquet or both.

prima donna
09-25-2005, 02:35 AM
-The top players allow Nadal to win because they are not smart enough to play the simple winning strategy outlined above.


You're partially right.

Nadal hasn't been playing Top 10 players long enough for them to figure him out, he's relatively new to the scene. Just ask a guy like Safin, he's never even faced Nadal. He's only faced Roger, really no other Top 10 players more than once. Sad part is, once he's figured out, I don't think he'll be able to adapt very well. A pity, indeed.

But, about the shot-making part, are you implying that he's more than a mediocre shot maker ? If so, pass me a bump of what you're sniffing. :D

Merton
09-25-2005, 02:46 AM
And why figuring out a mediocre shot maker takes that much time? :( They really are not that smart. What exactly takes Fed so long? By the way, saying "top players" i was not limiting the discussion to top-10. For example, Nadal won Ljubisic at Miami. At that time, he was a top player.

prima donna
09-25-2005, 02:55 AM
And why figuring out a mediocre shot maker takes that much time? :(player.

Okay, you're being antagonistic now. My apologies, I mistaked you for a serious poster that had a legitimate inquiry... or ...

Maybe ignorance is bliss, in that case:
Anyone that's played tennis knows it takes time to make an adjustment to a different type of game. Nadal's strength is not shot-making, if you believe that it is then either you're not watching many of his matches or haven't seen some of the greats & their abilities.

If that were his strength, he wouldn't be a doormat on grass. It's wam, bam, thank you ma'am when it comes to the green stuff, he just doesn't have what it takes to be a champion outside of clay where attrition is rewarded. :)

prima donna
09-25-2005, 03:00 AM
Nadal won Ljubisic at Miami. At that time, he was a top player.
Also, I understand that Nadal supporters are desperate to give him credit for beating someone worth acknowledgement off clay ... but the truth is ... Nadal hasn't faced anyone aside from a 60% / exhausted Andre Agassi in the Montreal Final of which Roddick (bageled Nadal in 04 USO) was upset early after winning Toronto, I believe it was.

Nadal hasn't faced anyone, to bring up Ljubicic as an actual worthwhile defeat is not only hilarious, but it's a display of desperation.

A solid win, sure.
Worth bringing up? No...

I don't really count the 2004 Miami victory over Federer, whom had heat exhaustion ... he hasn't accomplished much outside of clay. A true mark of just how poor his shot making abilities are. :D

Federerhingis
09-25-2005, 03:12 AM
The first time I saw Federer was when he beat Pioline in Tashkent in Sept 1999 at the age of 18. You saw him 2 years later when he was almost 20. That might explain why you don't understand what I'm talking about. He played very mature tennis against Pioline only to struggle the next round against Wessels. One day he knew what to do and the next day he looked clueless.


I definitely understand, he was too inconsistent back then. But boy was I impressed by the way he just took apart the US Davis cup team apart single handedly. Thats when Roddicks nightmares began.

Merton
09-25-2005, 03:27 AM
Also, I understand that Nadal supporters are desperate to give him credit for beating someone worth acknowledgement off clay ... but the truth is ... Nadal hasn't faced anyone aside from a 60% / exhausted Andre Agassi in the Montreal Final of which Roddick (bageled Nadal in 04 USO) was upset early after winning Toronto, I believe it was.

Nadal hasn't faced anyone, to bring up Ljubicic as an actual worthwhile defeat is not only hilarious, but it's a display of desperation.

A solid win, sure.
Worth bringing up? No...

I don't really count the 2004 Miami victory over Federer, whom had heat exhaustion ... he hasn't accomplished much outside of clay. A true mark of just how poor his shot making abilities are. :D

Ljubisic was mentioned as an example. And, yes, back in Miami he was a top-10 caliber player in form. If you remove all the results of Nadal on clay, he still ends up as a top-20 player. By the way, if it takes so much time for the top players to "figure out" Nadal, then you would imagine that a lot of players with mediocre shot-making would try to imitate his style of play. After all, he has not done that bad...

prima donna
09-25-2005, 03:49 AM
Ljubisic was mentioned as an example. And, yes, back in Miami he was a top-10 caliber player in form. If you remove all the results of Nadal on clay, he still ends up as a top-20 player. By the way, if it takes so much time for the top players to "figure out" Nadal, then you would imagine that a lot of players with mediocre shot-making would try to imitate his style of play. After all, he has not done that bad...

If you aspire to win 2 or 3 French Opens and maybe 1 Australian Open throughout a 10 - 15 year career, sure, copy Nadal's game.

Merton
09-25-2005, 03:55 AM
That sounds like a terrible career path :lol:

Flibbertigibbet
09-25-2005, 03:57 AM
Tell me again, exactly why does a mediocre shot-maker have a 2-1 head-to-head record over Roger Federer in his peak level ? :confused: I mean, OK, let's say it's 1-1 (the Miami 2004 win doesn't count 'cause Federer was sick, etc., etc.). Federer's win was a grueling five-set match that Nadal very well could have won in straights; Nadal's win was a four-set match at a Grand Slam semi-final (true, Federer's weakest surface and Nadal's strongest, but hey, it's Federer!)...

prima donna
09-25-2005, 04:18 AM
Tell me again, exactly why does a mediocre shot-maker have a 2-1 head-to-head record over Roger Federer in his peak level ? :confused: I mean, OK, let's say it's 1-1 (the Miami 2004 win doesn't count 'cause Federer was sick, etc., etc.). Federer's win was a grueling five-set match that Nadal very well could have won in straights; Nadal's win was a four-set match at a Grand Slam semi-final (true, Federer's weakest surface and Nadal's strongest, but hey, it's Federer!)...
It's a poor matchup for Federer.

Federer has very exact strokes, they are easily thrown off in poor conditions or when he goes against someone with as much spin coming from his ball (Such as Nadal), I don't think Rafa poses a threat to many Top 10 players. Only to Roger, because their games don't match up well. Fedex will and probably already has figured out Nadal's game. By no means did Nadal ever trouble Federer with his offense, more his defensive abilities, keeping shots normally winners for Roger in play and waiting for him to mishit a ball ...

prima donna
09-25-2005, 04:19 AM
That sounds like a terrible career path :lol:
No, not terrible at all. Just mediocre, very mediocre. Like Nadal's game.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-25-2005, 06:05 PM
Myskina Lova seems to be one of the childish Fed fans I talked about in the last page.
He sees his favourite losing, so he has to say what ever he can to convince himself and others that Nadal is a bad player.
In his mind Fed must be "Christ" so Nadal is the "Anti-Christ" so he is a priest of Fed's church and he must kill the devil.

Once again I apologise to normal Fed fans who can appreciate a different kind of game but please help these Fanatical Fed Fans because they give you a bad name.

jacobhiggins
09-26-2005, 04:45 AM
Federer is a more complete player then Nadal and even at 19 he was a more complete player. He was a headcase, that was the only thing holding him back! He already had variety on every surface that Nadal does not have. Nadal is a GREAT clay court player and a very good hardcourt player but Federer is much more complete in ability and in playing on different surfaces! And I really don't think that's gonna change, Nadal can only get so good and he dosen't have variety like Federer!

prima donna
09-26-2005, 05:29 AM
Myskina Lova seems to be one of the childish Fed fans I talked about in the last page.
He sees his favourite losing, so he has to say what ever he can to convince himself and others that Nadal is a bad player.
In his mind Fed must be "Christ" so Nadal is the "Anti-Christ" so he is a priest of Fed's church and he must kill the devil.

Once again I apologise to normal Fed fans who can appreciate a different kind of game but please help these Fanatical Fed Fans because they give you a bad name.

If you'd pay attention to the small amount of posts that I've actually made, you'll notice that I pay close attention to detail and really nothing else. I prefer facts, simple observations are made.

Marat Safin or Richard Gasquet are much more competition for Roger than Nadal, to me, Nadal is really just a phase. Don't concern yourself with small things, Federer will have competition; however, not the boy from Mallorca.

There's nothing childish about any of my posts, if anything they are filled with such intense seriousness that most people would find them quite dull.