Roger Federer still has no consistent rival [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roger Federer still has no consistent rival

TheMightyFed
09-06-2005, 02:48 PM
There was a hype on Nadal following his win in Montreal, but, be it tireness or ball dimension or whatever, he's not there for the real challenge: beating Fed in a Slam final on non-clay surface... by the way I never heard Federer complaining about the balls or bounces or that kind of stuff,
He's still young and he has a great year, but he'll have to be consistently in quarters in slams if he wants to be a threat. His scheduling must be redone, because playing so many matches on clay takes its toll, physically but also in terms of adaptation to other surfaces. Other guys ? I hope a Blake or a Gasquet will be consitent enough in the coming months to propose something new to Fed on his favourite surfaces, because if he keeps the kind of record he has on grass/hard (1 loss in one year), it will lack some spice a bit, don't you think ?

auwkeung
09-06-2005, 02:52 PM
Gasquet has been going down hill a bit since RG i think

and Roger beat Blake in Cincy......the determining factor should be whether Blake can keep up to the level of play when he played against Nadal

Action Jackson
09-06-2005, 02:52 PM
There was a hype on Nadal following his win in Montreal, but, be it tireness or ball dimension or whatever, he's not there for the real challenge: beating Fed in a Slam final on non-clay surface... by the way I never heard Federer complaining about the balls or bounces or that kind of stuff,
He's still young and he has a great year, but he'll have to be consistently in quarters in slams if he wants to be a threat. His scheduling must be redone, because playing so many matches on clay takes its toll, physically but also in terms of adaptation to other surfaces. Other guys ? I hope a Blake or a Gasquet will be consitent enough in the coming months to propose something new to Fed on his favourite surfaces, because if he keeps the kind of record he has on grass/hard (1 loss in one year), it will lack some spice a bit, don't you think ?

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

rofe
09-06-2005, 02:54 PM
There was a hype on Nadal following his win in Montreal, but, be it tireness or ball dimension or whatever, he's not there for the real challenge: beating Fed in a Slam final on non-clay surface... by the way I never heard Federer complaining about the balls or bounces or that kind of stuff,
He's still young and he has a great year, but he'll have to be consistently in quarters in slams if he wants to be a threat. His scheduling must be redone, because playing so many matches on clay takes its toll, physically but also in terms of adaptation to other surfaces. Other guys ? I hope a Blake or a Gasquet will be consitent enough in the coming months to propose something new to Fed on his favourite surfaces, because if he keeps the kind of record he has on grass/hard (1 loss in one year), it will lack some spice a bit, don't you think ?

Don't worry, your avatar will take care of Roger on hardcourts Real Soon Now (TM).

Jogy
09-06-2005, 02:55 PM
by the way I never heard Federer complaining about the balls or bounces or that kind of stuff
after Gasquet match in Monte Carlo he did...
every else fault it was, but not him for losing to Gasquet

in one or two years Federer will be the past and other will have attention

Shabazza
09-06-2005, 02:57 PM
Gasquet has been going down hill a bit since RG i think

you can't be serious! Gasquet going downhill after RG :rolleyes:

mdhubert I agree with you, so I don't have a problem with Roger losing just 1 hc match a year ;)

BlackSilver
09-06-2005, 02:58 PM
There was a hype on Nadal following his win in Montreal, but, be it tireness or ball dimension or whatever, he's not there for the real challenge: beating Fed in a Slam final on non-clay surface... by the way I never heard Federer complaining about the balls or bounces or that kind of stuff,
He's still young and he has a great year, but he'll have to be consistently in quarters in slams if he wants to be a threat. His scheduling must be redone, because playing so many matches on clay takes its toll, physically but also in terms of adaptation to other surfaces. Other guys ? I hope a Blake or a Gasquet will be consitent enough in the coming months to propose something new to Fed on his favourite surfaces, because if he keeps the kind of record he has on grass/hard (1 loss in one year), it will lack some spice a bit, don't you think ?

Hum, I think I am going to sleep..........
........
.......

joycomesmorning
09-06-2005, 03:01 PM
I agree...and tennis is the poorer for that....

The Sanguinetti-Srichaphan match proved beyond any doubt that spectators don't need big-time names to really get into a match...they need intense lay-it-on-the-line competition...

I don't care about either of those players emotionally...but for a couple of hours, I did...it was the best tennis of the Open...

Without competition, tennis will survive...but it will never THRIVE

jcm

TheMightyFed
09-06-2005, 03:05 PM
after Gasquet match in Monte Carlo he did...
every else fault it was, but not him for losing to Gasquet
\
Yoda, is it you ? ;)

TheMightyFed
09-06-2005, 03:15 PM
Hum, I think I am going to sleep..........
........
.......
more than 2 lines seems to be difficult for you... mmmhh, sorry :devil:

Shabazza
09-06-2005, 03:18 PM
I agree...and tennis is the poorer for that....

The Sanguinetti-Srichaphan match proved beyond any doubt that spectators don't need big-time names to really get into a match...they need intense lay-it-on-the-line competition...

I don't care about either of those players emotionally...but for a couple of hours, I did...it was the best tennis of the Open...

Without competition, tennis will survive...but it will never THRIVE

jcm
:worship: at the Sanguinetti-Srichaphan match

Billy Moonshine
09-06-2005, 03:19 PM
I hate Federer's dominance.
He is a genius and I only dislike him because it's in my nature to prefer the underdogs, which every player on the tour is when they face him, except Safin, who i adore for his volatile character and explosive, inspiring game.
Pete had Andre, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Ivanesivic.
Lendl had Wilander, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg.
Roger has....Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nadal. All of whom are fab players but Safin is too crazy to be a consistent threat. He just isn't there in the final stages of a tournament to challenge him. Hewitt is a great player but lacks the firepower to blow Fed of court a la Safin and Fed knows exactly how to dismantle him. Roddick is too one dimensional and poses no challenge. Agassi at his peak would have been a challenge but now he is a few steps slower and Fed exploits this. Nadal has Feds number on clay and maybe at the Oz open he could beat him, but forget Wim and US.
In my opinion Fed will dominate Wim and US for next six yeers.
What needs to happen is for a young promising player with a great fast court game to dedicate themselves to their craft and challenge him or for the other players to seek out sports psychologists, get super fit so they can outlast him and keep working hard. Otherwise the atp tour is going to be a great specatcle like a beautiful painting in a gallery, but it's a sport and what we want to see is competition and if we don't get it, well, tennis and it's stars might suffer for it with low viewing figures and smaller paychecks. Hopefully Gasquet and the other newcomers can keep working hard to change the status quo.
I wish i had a sensible answer for why noone can challenge Fed and i think that it's down to safin and nalbandian to get it together and pose a challenge next year.

Dirk
09-06-2005, 03:25 PM
Roger complained that the clay court wasn't watered after the 1st set but he gave Richard all the props for that win. If Roger stays healthy he will be one of the top faves are every slam. Richard could be the best of the new bunch. If he stays on course he could have a shot at all the slams. Murray also looks very good and has a smoothness to his game.

TheMightyFed
09-06-2005, 03:31 PM
I hate Federer's dominance.
He is a genius and I only dislike him because it's in my nature to prefer the underdogs, which every player on the tour is when they face him, except Safin, who i adore for his volatile character and explosive, inspiring game.
Pete had Andre, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Ivanesivic.
Lendl had Wilander, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg.
Roger has....Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nadal. All of whom are fab players but Safin is too crazy to be a consistent threat. He just isn't there in the final stages of a tournament to challenge him. Hewitt is a great player but lacks the firepower to blow Fed of court a la Safin and Fed knows exactly how to dismantle him. Roddick is too one dimensional and poses no challenge. Agassi at his peak would have been a challenge but now he is a few steps slower and Fed exploits this. Nadal has Feds number on clay and maybe at the Oz open he could beat him, but forget Wim and US.
In my opinion Fed will dominate Wim and US for next six yeers.
What needs to happen is for a young promising player with a great fast court game to dedicate themselves to their craft and challenge him or for the other players to seek out sports psychologists, get super fit so they can outlast him and keep working hard. Otherwise the atp tour is going to be a great specatcle like a beautiful painting in a gallery, but it's a sport and what we want to see is competition and if we don't get it, well, tennis and it's stars might suffer for it with low viewing figures and smaller paychecks. Hopefully Gasquet and the other newcomers can keep working hard to change the status quo.
I wish i had a sensible answer for why noone can challenge Fed and i think that it's down to safin and nalbandian to get it together and pose a challenge next year.
good post. Long, but good. Anyway, Fed will still be beautiful to watch... Props to Safin in Aussie Open

mangoes
09-06-2005, 03:32 PM
Gasquet is a natural talent..............give him a little more time and I think he will come into his own. Right now his physical fitness is a big issue. However, moreso than even Nadal, Gasquet is showing he can handle all surfaces.

Blake being a rival for Roger..................DON'T MAKE ME CHOKE ON MY LUNCH. Everyone has a great match or tournament at some point in their career. However, I can think of several players that can kick Blakes' big cinderella ass on any given day. The potential for a great blake era has passed. The Newbies are here and they are already demonstrating the level and quality of tennis they are capable of achieving.

And while I don't believe in making excuses for players, we didn't see the very best out of Nadal during that match with Blake. Nadal, himself, admitted he played badly.

In my opinion, Safin is the second best player in the world, but he is emotionally challenged.............lolol...

Nadal, in my opinion, is the third best player in the world. But, I have a big issue with him staying so much on the clay and avoiding other surfaces. That is why, I do not think he should be no. 1 in the world as yet.

Hewitt is right up there in the top 5, but I do not think Andy should be in that list. I personally think that at 35, Agassi is a better player than Andy.

TheMightyFed
09-06-2005, 03:39 PM
Blake being a rival for Roger..................DON'T MAKE ME CHOKE ON MY LUNCH. Everyone has a great match or tournament at some point in their career. However, I can think of several players that can kick Blakes' big cinderella ass on any given day. The potential for a great blake era has passed. .
Don't forget he had a bunch of injuries and sad events in recent months, he showed against Nadal he can play awesome, maybe the events he had to go through built the motivation to drive him to the top, he's not that old...

mangoes
09-06-2005, 03:42 PM
Don't forget he had a bunch of injuries and sad events in recent months, he showed against Nadal he can play awesome, maybe the events he had to go through built the motivation to drive him to the top, he's not that old...


I am extremely sick and tired of hearing of James Blakes' woes. Other players have faced difficult situations in life, but they don't milk it for sympathy. James blake was no great player before the woes in his life. He is having a good tournament, nothing more.

Blake isn't like Gasquet, naturally gifted, who we know that given a little more time, he will become a major contendor in tennis.

Billy Moonshine
09-06-2005, 03:48 PM
I am extremely sick and tired of hearing of James Blakes' woes. Other players have faced difficult situations in life, but they don't milk it for sympathy. James blake was no great player before the woes in his life. He is having a good tournament, nothing more.

Blake isn't like Gasquet, naturally gifted, who we know that given a little more time, he will become a major contendor in tennis.

Mangoes, I totally agree with u. I like Blake but the media are using his woes to make a story and he is milking it in his post match interviews. Although I think this is because the media are asking him about it and encouraging him to do so, but he could say that it's the past and leave it at that.

ExpectedWinner
09-06-2005, 03:53 PM
Pete had Andre, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Ivanesivic.
Roger has....Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nadal. All of whom are fab players but Safin is too crazy to be a consistent threat. He just isn't there in the final stages of a tournament to challenge him. Hewitt is a great player but lacks the firepower to blow Fed of court a la Safin and Fed knows exactly how to dismantle him. Roddick is too one dimensional and poses no challenge. Agassi at his peak would have been a challenge but now he is a few steps slower and Fed exploits this. Nadal has Feds number on clay and maybe at the Oz open he could beat him, but forget Wim and US.


I want to rewrite it.

Ivanisevic was too crazy to challenge Pete consistently. Chang was a great player but lacked firepower. Edberg/Becker were removed from their prime. Sadly, Andre had other interests and wasn't comitted to hard training during Pete's prime time. By the time Pete was almost 28, Andre had "only" 3 Slams.

TheMightyFed
09-06-2005, 03:57 PM
I am extremely sick and tired of hearing of James Blakes' woes. Other players have faced difficult situations in life, but they don't milk it for sympathy. James blake was no great player before the woes in his life. He is having a good tournament, nothing more.

Blake isn't like Gasquet, naturally gifted, who we know that given a little more time, he will become a major contendor in tennis.
I know I know and I'm also fed up with it, but I was just picking up a guy that was 20 something before some career break, plays well on hardcourt, is hungry, and hasn't played Fed in 12 finals in a row. This guy could be top 5 IMO and is James Blake, that's it. Don't mix media stuff and cold analysis on "who is not yet the bitch of Federer on hard court ?". After all, he's "only" 0-2 against Rog ! And Blake is not Gasquet, on that we agree 100 %

skel1983
09-06-2005, 04:00 PM
Federer is so crafty, no one will get near him for the forseeable future, he just ups his level as the opponent gets a bit tougher, nothing special does his job and turns it on when he needs to.

Turkeyballs Paco
09-06-2005, 04:01 PM
I am extremely sick and tired of hearing of James Blakes' woes. Other players have faced difficult situations in life, but they don't milk it for sympathy. James blake was no great player before the woes in his life. He is having a good tournament, nothing more.

Blake isn't like Gasquet, naturally gifted, who we know that given a little more time, he will become a major contendor in tennis.

:D :yeah:

*julie*
09-06-2005, 04:07 PM
Gasquet has been going down hill a bit since RG i think

:eek: He has been quarterfinalist at the Queens, won Nottingham, reached the 4th round in Wimbledon. I agree he didn't make great things in Montreal and Cincy (loosing both in 2nd rounds) but he reached the 4th round at the us open....
RG is his worst GS this year....

oneandonlyhsn
09-06-2005, 04:23 PM
I dont think Hewitt or Roddick are going to be much of a rival for Federer, he has adapted very well to their style of play. I'm not saying that they are not going to defeat him but not consistently enough to pose as as a serious rival. I like the new kids coming up particularly Gasquet because his style is reminiscent of Rogers and in a way its almost like looking at Roger Jr blooming.

mangoes
09-06-2005, 04:27 PM
I dont think Hewitt or Roddick is going to be much of a rival for Federer, he has adapted very well to their style of play. I'm not saying that they are not going to defeat him but not consistently enough to pose as as a serious rival. I like teh new kids coming up particularly Gasquet because his style is reminiscent of Rogers and in a way its almost like looking at Roger Jr blooming.

I completely agree. I feel like I am watching a young, very young, version of Roger when I watch Gasquet...................that's why I truly think in a couple of years, he will be at the top of the game.

richie21
09-06-2005, 04:55 PM
Gasquet has been going down hill a bit since RG i think



yeah apart that since RG , he won his first ATP title and went further in wimbledon and USOPEN (4th rounf)than in RG(3rd round) ....... :rolleyes:

However, moreso than even Nadal, Gasquet is showing he can handle all surfaces.

...which is all but a surprise considering their respective styles of play

Castafiore
09-06-2005, 04:59 PM
Why on earth do people keep hyping up these young players to crazy heights?

Why not give them time to develop their game?
It took the great ones a couple of years to polish their game and to become a force on most surfaces but others have received hype but they could not put it into practice for some reason.

Sampras won his first slam when he was a teenager (19?) and how many years did it take him to get a second slam and to become the force he became? 3 years?

Federer needed a couple of years to become the allrounder he is now.

But, it's not pure mathematics: young player A is a type 1 player so in a couple of years time, he'll more than probably become like Sampras.
young player B is a type 2 player so in a couple of years time, he'll become like Roddick
...
It just does not work that way IMO.

The other side of that prediction coin:
When Xavier was a teenager, the hype surrounding him was that he was going to be a solid top 10 player and even a top 5 player who could challenge the top. He has all the shots for it and there's nothing he can't do with a tennis ball. His game is magic at times. But the solid top 10/5 thing hasn't happened, has it?

And I'm sure that others can give other examples of the flip side of that hype coin.

Also, I often see people take one match and draw ridiculous conclusions from that one event (note: I'm not addressing anyone in here with this).

As we now see it: we have a great generation coming up but we have got to give them time to develop.
The French hype has hurt Gasquet more than it has helped him. He should be given time and space.
The same with Nadal. Some of the hype and the expectations surrounding him just has been too much. They build the expectations up to ridiculous heights and when a young player doesn't reach that height despite having done incredible things, they start talking him down. It's silly.
Federer took several years to become this accomplished and some expect some of these young players to be able to compete with him all year long?
If we're lucky, Federer will have more and more challenging matches when Safin puts his mind in gear, when Gasquet gets stronger, when Nadal can further develop his game, when Berdych gets more consistent.
Maybe it's not going to come from one guy but from a group of players.

People need to have perspective.

Chloe le Bopper
09-06-2005, 05:12 PM
Gasquet has been going down hill a bit since RG i think
l

:confused:

His Wimbledon and USO outings were better than his RG. Futhermore, he's won a title since then.

:confused:

richie21
09-06-2005, 05:14 PM
The other side of that prediction coin:
When Xavier was a teenager, the hype surrounding him was that he was going to be a solid top 10 player and even a top 5 player who could challenge the top. He has all the shots for it and there's nothing he can't do with a tennis ball. His game is magic at times. But the solid top 10/5 thing hasn't happened, has it?



he probably has all the shots for it but contrary to a gasquet, he doesn t seem to have THE shot(BH by example) which would enable him to be a champion

federer express
09-06-2005, 05:17 PM
There was a hype on Nadal following his win in Montreal, but, be it tireness or ball dimension or whatever, he's not there for the real challenge: beating Fed in a Slam final on non-clay surface... by the way I never heard Federer complaining about the balls or bounces or that kind of stuff,
He's still young and he has a great year, but he'll have to be consistently in quarters in slams if he wants to be a threat. His scheduling must be redone, because playing so many matches on clay takes its toll, physically but also in terms of adaptation to other surfaces. Other guys ? I hope a Blake or a Gasquet will be consitent enough in the coming months to propose something new to Fed on his favourite surfaces, because if he keeps the kind of record he has on grass/hard (1 loss in one year), it will lack some spice a bit, don't you think ?

my simple view...

1. nadal has had a great year
2. nadal is one of the best teenagers in the history of the game
3. nadal will get better
4. nadal cannot be blamed for wanting to extend the amazing clay court season he had
5. nadal being criticised/questioned at such an early stage in his career is harsh
6. nadal is a grand slam champion and will win more
7. nadal will give federer problems for years to come
8. nadal's outfit didn't flatter him ;)

Castafiore
09-06-2005, 05:17 PM
he probably has all the shots for it but contrary to a gasquet, he doesn t seem to have THE shot(BH by example) which would enable him to be a champion
Yes, he has.

Malisse has a killer forehand. Nick Bolletieri said that it was the best he has ever seen and he was so impressed that he ordered to make a video from that forehand as teaching material.

silverwhite
09-06-2005, 06:50 PM
Why on earth do people keep hyping up these young players to crazy heights?

Why not give them time to develop their game?
It took the great ones a couple of years to polish their game and to become a force on most surfaces but others have received hype but they could not put it into practice for some reason.

Sampras won his first slam when he was a teenager (19?) and how many years did it take him to get a second slam and to become the force he became? 3 years?

Federer needed a couple of years to become the allrounder he is now.

But, it's not pure mathematics: young player A is a type 1 player so in a couple of years time, he'll more than probably become like Sampras.
young player B is a type 2 player so in a couple of years time, he'll become like Roddick
...
It just does not work that way IMO.

The other side of that prediction coin:
When Xavier was a teenager, the hype surrounding him was that he was going to be a solid top 10 player and even a top 5 player who could challenge the top. He has all the shots for it and there's nothing he can't do with a tennis ball. His game is magic at times. But the solid top 10/5 thing hasn't happened, has it?

And I'm sure that others can give other examples of the flip side of that hype coin.

Also, I often see people take one match and draw ridiculous conclusions from that one event (note: I'm not addressing anyone in here with this).

As we now see it: we have a great generation coming up but we have got to give them time to develop.
The French hype has hurt Gasquet more than it has helped him. He should be given time and space.
The same with Nadal. Some of the hype and the expectations surrounding him just has been too much. They build the expectations up to ridiculous heights and when a young player doesn't reach that height despite having done incredible things, they start talking him down. It's silly.
Federer took several years to become this accomplished and some expect some of these young players to be able to compete with him all year long?
If we're lucky, Federer will have more and more challenging matches when Safin puts his mind in gear, when Gasquet gets stronger, when Nadal can further develop his game, when Berdych gets more consistent.
Maybe it's not going to come from one guy but from a group of players.

People need to have perspective.

:worship:

Federerhingis
09-06-2005, 07:07 PM
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

I sencond this as well :worship: :worship: :worship: And we still havent seen his brilliance, a la '04 US open final or '03 masters cup form.

Flibbertigibbet
09-07-2005, 02:32 AM
Why on earth do people keep hyping up these young players to crazy heights?

Why not give them time to develop their game?
It took the great ones a couple of years to polish their game and to become a force on most surfaces but others have received hype but they could not put it into practice for some reason.

Sampras won his first slam when he was a teenager (19?) and how many years did it take him to get a second slam and to become the force he became? 3 years?

Federer needed a couple of years to become the allrounder he is now.

But, it's not pure mathematics: young player A is a type 1 player so in a couple of years time, he'll more than probably become like Sampras.
young player B is a type 2 player so in a couple of years time, he'll become like Roddick
...
It just does not work that way IMO.

The other side of that prediction coin:
When Xavier was a teenager, the hype surrounding him was that he was going to be a solid top 10 player and even a top 5 player who could challenge the top. He has all the shots for it and there's nothing he can't do with a tennis ball. His game is magic at times. But the solid top 10/5 thing hasn't happened, has it?

And I'm sure that others can give other examples of the flip side of that hype coin.

Also, I often see people take one match and draw ridiculous conclusions from that one event (note: I'm not addressing anyone in here with this).

As we now see it: we have a great generation coming up but we have got to give them time to develop.
The French hype has hurt Gasquet more than it has helped him. He should be given time and space.
The same with Nadal. Some of the hype and the expectations surrounding him just has been too much. They build the expectations up to ridiculous heights and when a young player doesn't reach that height despite having done incredible things, they start talking him down. It's silly.
Federer took several years to become this accomplished and some expect some of these young players to be able to compete with him all year long?
If we're lucky, Federer will have more and more challenging matches when Safin puts his mind in gear, when Gasquet gets stronger, when Nadal can further develop his game, when Berdych gets more consistent.
Maybe it's not going to come from one guy but from a group of players.

People need to have perspective.

:bigclap:

nkhera1
09-07-2005, 02:37 AM
Don't worry, your avatar will take care of Roger on hardcourts Real Soon Now (TM).

Are you being sarcastic?

Scotso
09-07-2005, 03:39 AM
Nadal is 2-1 against him, that's a pretty good rival. A rival is someone you play against. Thus the Federer-Nadal rivalry. Nadal has shown that he can beat Federer (and Federer seems awfully uncomfortable against him). I'm not really sure what you mean. Sure, no one has been as dominant as Federer on hardcourts this year, but Federer was no wear near as dominant on clay as Nadal.

So I could say that Nadal still has no consistant rival.

megadeth
09-07-2005, 05:35 AM
A rival is someone you play against. .

well duh! :rolleyes:

megadeth
09-07-2005, 05:42 AM
Nadal is 2-1 against him, that's a pretty good rival. A
Nadal has shown that he can beat Federer (and Federer seems awfully uncomfortable against him). I'm not really sure what you mean. Sure, no one has been as dominant as Federer on hardcourts this year, but Federer was no wear near as dominant on clay as Nadal.

So I could say that Nadal still has no consistant rival.

when they play 10 or more matches and when their H2H is close, then that's the only time i'd call it a good rivalry.

they haven't met since the french. for sure roger gathered some experience from that on how to deal with nadal.

fed may not have dominated clay, but he's shown that he can win on the stuff. remember that he only entered 2 clay events before RG - MC and Hamburg

Nadal has many rivals ONLY ON CLAY (coria, gaudio, ferrer, moya, gasquet)

he doesn't have a rival anywhere else all right because he can be beaten on the other surfaces... therefore, he can't create a rivalry since he mostly loses on other surfaces...

Castafiore
09-07-2005, 06:55 AM
I think it's too soon to talk about Nadal as a real rival for Federer.
I've said it before but I don't mind repeating myself ;)
Federer took many years to become this brilliant and you expect Nadal (or Gasquet or others youngsters,...) to play on his level (given his experience,...) all year long and on all surfaces? Why?
People want a rivalry. I do too but to build up the expectations too soon and to crazy heights and then, when a young player can't live up to that crazy heigth, the same people point and say that this young player is no rival and others have already figured out his game (and by that, ignoring his potential) is pointless.

Maybe he'll become that rival on many surfaces but...(sounding like a broken record, I know)...it's too soon to say that he will become that true rival but at the same time, it's too soon to dismiss him as a true rival as well.
We can only look at the talent and the potential now and hope for the best, just like I'm hoping that this great new generation will give us a lot of great match-ups once they have become more mature and more accomplished.

What we can do is look at Nadal's talent and potential and hope for the best, taking into consideration that he's only in the early stages of his career and that he needs time to nurture that talent and to develop his game further.

People have given Federer time to develop his game...so why not give the same opportunity to Nadal (or other young talent for that matter)?
I've said it before but do people really expect him to be the allround accomplished player all at once when Sampras, Federer and other greats needed time to become that brilliant? Did Federer beat the best ones on all surfaces when he was 18 or 19? No, and that's fine because he was still working on his talent and he was still trying to figure out how he was going to be able to take the maximum out of his potential.

Saying that young player one will become a new Federer (and building up another crazy hype) and saying that young player two has peaked is pure speculation at this point and/or wishful thinking.
It's good to dream about the next Federer but you need perspective on these things.
Gasquet, Nadal, Berdych, Verdasco,...they all have talent but they all need more time and space.

TheMightyFed
09-07-2005, 07:21 AM
So I could say that Nadal still has no consistant rival.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: I'm sorry but even on clay the Fed's worst result is a quarter, while Nadal lost a bunch of first-second-third rounds on grass/hard...
Federer is ahead from a global stanpoint, sorry mate... and their H2H record is too small to be significant

Castafiore
09-07-2005, 07:59 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: I'm sorry but even on clay the Fed's worst result is a quarter, while Nadal lost a bunch of first-second-third rounds on grass/hard...
Federer is ahead from a global stanpoint, sorry mate... and their H2H record is too small to be significant
Again, take some perspective.

Where did Federer stand at the age of 19? Did he go far into all the slams all season at the age of 19?

Of course Federer is head and shoulders above the rest, including Nadal.

All some are saying is that Nadal has shown the talent and the ability to BECOME a real rival because he already has given him tough matches in the early stages of his career.
Comparing an experienced and accomplished Federer with a young player is a bit one-sided IMO.

All some are hoping for is that a guy like Gasquet can become a real rival in the future.

I'll add the :rolleyes: :rolleyes: smilies since you seem to like them. :p

Action Jackson
09-07-2005, 08:04 AM
Again, take some perspective.

That is too much for some people. I remember the old days when people thought Federer was overrated and wasn't going to live up to his potential, and it was like that when I joined this board and these questions were still asked in 2003.

Now, he is a superstar and major judicial inquries are held when he loses a match, yes perspective that wonderful commodity that was in short supply.

TheMightyFed
09-07-2005, 08:41 AM
Again, take some perspective.

Where did Federer stand at the age of 19? Did he go far into all the slams all season at the age of 19?

Of course Federer is head and shoulders above the rest, including Nadal.

All some are saying is that Nadal has shown the talent and the ability to BECOME a real rival because he already has given him tough matches in the early stages of his career.
Comparing an experienced and accomplished Federer with a young player is a bit one-sided IMO.

All some are hoping for is that a guy like Gasquet can become a real rival in the future.

I'll add the :rolleyes: :rolleyes: smilies since you seem to like them. :p
What I like is that you treat a guy that wins almost every clay titles in 05, including a slam, like a little junior that needs time to develop... this guy is a clay beast like muster in 95, he won Montreal, is number 2 and was a threat for number 1 spot before the USO, I don't see why we should treat him differently because he's young. Maybe he will disappear in his 20's like a Borg or a Hingis, who knows ? And these two are still greats of the games, they don't need excuse because they were young. I'm tired of your lessons on perspective, Nadal could be a legitimate consistent rival and he's not, that's it. I'm talking about 2005, not 2012, I don't care of what happens in 5 or 7 years from now. And if Gasquet becomes a great multisurface player, I'm more than happy.

nermo
09-07-2005, 08:52 AM
it's too soon to say that he will become that true rival but at the same time, it's too soon to dismiss him as a true rival as well.
We can only look at the talent and the potential now and hope for the best, just like I'm hoping that this great new generation will give us a lot of great match-ups once they have become more mature and more accomplished.

What we can do is look at Nadal's talent and potential and hope for the best, taking into consideration that he's only in the early stages of his career and that he needs time to nurture that talent and to develop his game further.

People have given Federer time to develop his game...so why not give the same opportunity to Nadal (or other young talent for that matter)?
I've said it before but do people really expect him to be the allround accomplished player all at once when Sampras, Federer and other greats needed time to become that brilliant? Did Federer beat the best ones on all surfaces when he was 18 or 19? No, and that's fine because he was still working on his talent and he was still trying to figure out how he was going to be able to take the maximum out of his potential.

Saying that young player one will become a new Federer (and building up another crazy hype) and saying that young player two has peaked is pure speculation at this point and/or wishful thinking.
It's good to dream about the next Federer but you need perspective on these things.
Gasquet, Nadal, Berdych, Verdasco,...they all have talent but they all need more time and space.posted by Castafiore
:hatoff:

Castafiore
09-07-2005, 10:55 AM
I'm tired of your lessons on perspective
Well, mdhubert...I'm a bit tired of seeing many people without perspective so we're just about even, aren't we? ;)

Pointing to "youth" is not an excuse: former players have learned us that it's a valid point of view to take.
Yes, some players have peaked early and have gone downhill fast but there is just no way that you can tell me that this is the case with Nadal.

Maybe time will tell us that you're right. Maybe we will see that he will only be a force on clay and even on that surface will others catch up with him, that he will be good on other surfaces but not good enough to threaten the top players, that he has little to no room for improvement left because he's already at the top of his ability, that others will figure him out whereas he has no room to figure out new ways to beat them.
But on the other hand, maybe this won't be the case. Maybe we haven't seen the top of his talent and ability yet and he has room for improvement and maybe he will need more than one season to get to the top of his ability. That was my point.

There are two sides to that speculation coin and I have the feeling, mdhubert, that you are only paying attention to one side of this coin because you hate the thought that the flip side could become a reality?


Like I said before, I get the feeling that we have a great new generation coming up with Nadal, Gasquet, Berdych, Verdasco, Djokovic, Monfils, Murray,... so I'm going to enjoy them all and hope that they can live up to my expectations of them.

I'm talking about 2005, not 2012, I don't care of what happens in 5 or 7 years from now. And if Gasquet becomes a great multisurface player, I'm more than happy.
You only care about 2005 and not about 2012?
1. Who's talking about 2012?
2. Yes you do care about the future and you're not just looking at the year 2005 when you say that you would love to see Gasquet become a multisurface player (and that would indeed be great!)

1sun
09-07-2005, 12:35 PM
Nadal is 2-1 against him, that's a pretty good rival. A rival is someone you play against. Thus the Federer-Nadal rivalry. Nadal has shown that he can beat Federer (and Federer seems awfully uncomfortable against him). I'm not really sure what you mean. Sure, no one has been as dominant as Federer on hardcourts this year, but Federer was no wear near as dominant on clay as Nadal.

So I could say that Nadal still has no consistant rival.
rogers recrod on hard this year is like 40-1

1sun
09-07-2005, 12:42 PM
I think it's too soon to talk about Nadal as a real rival for Federer.
I've said it before but I don't mind repeating myself ;)
Federer took many years to become this brilliant and you expect Nadal (or Gasquet or others youngsters,...) to play on his level (given his experience,...) all year long and on all surfaces? Why?
People want a rivalry. I do too but to build up the expectations too soon and to crazy heights and then, when a young player can't live up to that crazy heigth, the same people point and say that this young player is no rival and others have already figured out his game (and by that, ignoring his potential) is pointless.

Maybe he'll become that rival on many surfaces but...(sounding like a broken record, I know)...it's too soon to say that he will become that true rival but at the same time, it's too soon to dismiss him as a true rival as well.
We can only look at the talent and the potential now and hope for the best, just like I'm hoping that this great new generation will give us a lot of great match-ups once they have become more mature and more accomplished.

What we can do is look at Nadal's talent and potential and hope for the best, taking into consideration that he's only in the early stages of his career and that he needs time to nurture that talent and to develop his game further.

People have given Federer time to develop his game...so why not give the same opportunity to Nadal (or other young talent for that matter)?
I've said it before but do people really expect him to be the allround accomplished player all at once when Sampras, Federer and other greats needed time to become that brilliant? Did Federer beat the best ones on all surfaces when he was 18 or 19? No, and that's fine because he was still working on his talent and he was still trying to figure out how he was going to be able to take the maximum out of his potential.

Saying that young player one will become a new Federer (and building up another crazy hype) and saying that young player two has peaked is pure speculation at this point and/or wishful thinking.
It's good to dream about the next Federer but you need perspective on these things.
Gasquet, Nadal, Berdych, Verdasco,...they all have talent but they all need more time and space.
people did not give federer time to develop. before wimbledon 03 they were saying he may never make it, and why hasnt he won a slam blah blah blah