A critique of the current Top 10 players and their shortcomings. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

A critique of the current Top 10 players and their shortcomings.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 09:42 AM
I think that it's important we remind ourselves, though these players are competing at such a high level, there is always room for improvement. I'd like to address a few issues that each player has and what improvement not only would do for their career in 2006, but beyond that point.

1. Federer -Can we really call anything about the gentleman from Basel a weakness ? No, but they are mild shortcomings, but for the most part to critique such genius play would be like complaining that an old Picasso is losing it's color after some time, it is the nature of humans to be imperfect.
Very well --
"Weaknesses":
(1). Transitioning game from baseline to net (especially on Forehand side) looks rather uncomfortable at times.
(2). 1st serve percentage - Roger's serve actually digressed this year, it seemed with all of the 'tweeking' if you will, that he did of his game, in the process his serve has abandoned him at times. The Swiss already possesses a 2nd serve far superior to anyone on tour, thus that needs little correcting, however it would come in handy to add a few mph/km to his serve against more successful returners, i.e; Nalbandian.

2. Nadal - Well, his game is rather flawed if you look at it from an offensive point of view, but if you are able to approach it from a defensive standpoint, the boy has nearly a perfect game that is tailormade for his style of play.
A great forehand and steady backhand, possessing wicked angles.
Weaknesses:
(1). 1st and 2nd serve, particulary on faster surfaces, the spaniard's serve has been exposed at times during this season, he will most certainly have to conjure up something aside from that kick serve he so often uses, I do say that he has a rather keen sense for ball placement and thus, he has been only mildly exposed by the likes of Berdych whom take pleasure in returning serves that would be swatted by Juniors at the top of their game.
(2). If the Spaniard ever hopes to compete at Wimbledon, he will most certainly have to improve his nearly non-existent net game and even then, this would require a more offensive approach. I find it quite interesting to see if he can transition, I have my doubts.

3. Roddick - The product of an incomplete game, his game is missing a major assett: A respectable backhand., I mean, surely he cannot continue to run around it and have any sort of longevity, especially with his build. He has lost weight and seems to have achieved improved fitness & stamina.

Weaknesses:
1). Backhand - His slice is mediocre at best and seems to be more of a fluke of nature than actual shot, my word, if you are to consider that any type of strategy against world class players in 2006 he will surely disappear from the Top 10.
2). Net play - He has at times shown the ability to come to net and be successful (i.e; against a disinterested Hewitt in Cincy), however, most of the time I gather that he is merely bluffing and has little idea of what to do at net, he simply lacks the innate abilities of reflex and quick thinking to prevail at net, he will surely go away like a whisper in the night if he continues to employ such a tactic.

4. Hewitt - The Australian has improved his 1st & 2nd serve, though he could double-fault a little less (held the record in 2004 for most doubles), aside from that his game is nearly flawless and he's proven this, by only being beaten by the best, (AO) - Safin, Wimbledon - Federer, USO - Federer, he is simply outclassed by these opponents due to their superior talents, but he has few holes to attack in his game other than the fact that the nature of his game is Defensive, thus he does not control his own destiny in matches against World Class players like Safin or Fedex, but who does ?

5. Davydenko -
A steady journeyman, much of his game looks quite consistent, I would say that if he wishes to remain on top that he should add a few pounds to his frail physique, he does come off as a bit slight and thus could fall victim to power.
6. Nalbandian -
His game has little holes or weaknesses, the main problem seems to be the fact that he lacks mental strength, aside from that, he is a genius at contra-tennis and there is not much to criticize aside from his rather AWFUL serving display at times; however, he compensates for this shortcoming with his superior returning game.
7. Agassi - Who am I to critique a legend ?
8. Coria - Well, where do we start ?
Weaknesses:
(1). Lacks mental strength, since FO 2004.
(2). Serve has really abandoned him.
9. Ljubicic - Ivan has a rather strong game and he has matched up against the world #1 toe to toe, even at his best (earlier in the year) at both Rotterdam and Dubai. The only obvious hole in his game is a forehand that at times tends to be rather erratic, but aside from that he possesses an intimidating all-court game.
10. Gaudio - Should I just replace his name with Gasquet now or later ? I don't think this will stand for much longer. So, my work is done.

its.like.that
11-29-2005, 10:05 AM
lol

nice work, I can see you don't make a living off your analytical skills.

its.like.that
11-29-2005, 10:22 AM
The Italian language is the essence of beauty, one should not butcher it. Simple suggestion.

:confused:

how is that at all relevant to the drivel you have posted above?

prima donna
11-29-2005, 10:27 AM
:confused:

how is that at all relevant to the drivel you have posted above?

It's equal and fair in relevance when a comparison is drawn between your intentions for acknowledging this thread (clearly because you have a hard-on for me, for some reason you are obsessed with the color red and that's rather coincidential, I do say, considering you are quite the menstrual case).

Aside from that, each fact and opinion is duly noted, said in good nature and completely for the sake of educational discussion, unlike you, I possess the intent and desire to learn or discuss, remember: Great minds discuss world events, small minds discuss people.

Your tennis knowledge is at best limited and you merely use General Messages as a venue to gather vCash, so that you may continue to masquerade around Non-Tennis harassing the common poster and basking in your insignificance. Bravo, Paisano.

DrJules
11-29-2005, 10:44 AM
I think that it's important we remind ourselves, though these players are competing at such a high level, there is always room for improvement. I'd like to address a few issues that each player has and what improvement not only would do for their career in 2006, but beyond that point.

1. Federer -Can we really call anything about the gentleman from Basel a weakness ? No, but they are mild shortcomings, but for the most part to critique such genius play would be like complaining that an old Picasso is losing it's color after some time, it is the nature of humans to be imperfect.
Very well --
"Weaknesses":
(1). Transitioning game from baseline to net (especially on Forehand side) looks rather uncomfortable at times.
(2). 1st serve percentage - Roger's serve actually digressed this year, it seemed with all of the 'tweeking' if you will, that he did of his game, in the process his serve has abandoned him at times. The Swiss already possesses a 2nd serve far superior to anyone on tour, thus that needs little correcting, however it would come in handy to add a few mph/km to his serve against more successful returners, i.e; Nalbandian.


Physical fitness is still not as good as some players; still has 8-9 losing record in 5 set matches

Still makes a lot of simple volley errors. Actually seems to find difficult volleys easier.

Believe Karlovic has better second serve.

2. Nadal - Well, his game is rather flawed if you look at it from an offensive point of view, but if you are able to approach it from a defensive standpoint, the boy has nearly a perfect game that is tailormade for his style of play.
A great forehand and steady backhand, possessing wicked angles.
Weaknesses:
(1). 1st and 2nd serve, particulary on faster surfaces, the spaniard's serve has been exposed at times during this season, he will most certainly have to conjure up something aside from that kick serve he so often uses, I do say that he has a rather keen sense for ball placement and thus, he has been only mildly exposed by the likes of Berdych whom take pleasure in returning serves that would be swatted by Juniors at the top of their game.
(2). If the Spaniard ever hopes to compete at Wimbledon, he will most certainly have to improve his nearly non-existent net game and even then, this would require a more offensive approach. I find it quite interesting to see if he can transition, I have my doubts.

Stands far too deep in the court exposing himself to acute angles.

Hits far too many short groundstrokes; they have have too much top spin and lack penetration. Watch US Open match against James Blake.

His volleying from playing doubles is good, but how can he utilize it when he stands so far back.

3. Roddick - The product of an incomplete game, his game is missing a major assett: A respectable backhand., I mean, surely he cannot continue to run around it and have any sort of longevity, especially with his build. He has lost weight and seems to have achieved improved fitness & stamina.

Weaknesses:
1). Backhand - His slice is mediocre at best and seems to be more of a fluke of nature than actual shot, my word, if you are to consider that any type of strategy against world class players in 2006 he will surely disappear from the Top 10.
2). Net play - He has at times shown the ability to come to net and be successful (i.e; against a disinterested Hewitt in Cincy), however, most of the time I gather that he is merely bluffing and has little idea of what to do at net, he simply lacks the innate abilities of reflex and quick thinking to prevail at net, he will surely go away like a whisper in the night if he continues to employ such a tactic.

Although ranked 3 I consider him in many ways number 2; I think he will probably do better than Nadal in AO, Wimbledon and US Open while Nadal will certainly do better in the Fench Open.

He lacks the hand eye co-ordination and balls skills of other top players, but does have more power and mostly mentally tougher - win over Ferrer in Paris. He makes the most of what he has.

4. Hewitt - The Australian has improved his 1st & 2nd serve, though he could double-fault a little less (held the record in 2004 for most doubles), aside from that his game is nearly flawless and he's proven this, by only being beaten by the best, (AO) - Safin, Wimbledon - Federer, USO - Federer, he is simply outclassed by these opponents due to their superior talents, but he has few holes to attack in his game other than the fact that the nature of his game is Defensive, thus he does not control his own destiny in matches against World Class players like Safin or Fedex, but who does ?

I feel he lacks power rather than talent. Safin and Federer physically generate more power; they have better physical builds for tennis.

5. Davydenko -
A steady journeyman, much of his game looks quite consistent, I would say that if he wishes to remain on top that he should add a few pounds to his frail physique, he does come off as a bit slight and thus could fall victim to power.
6. Nalbandian -
His game has little holes or weaknesses, the main problem seems to be the fact that he lacks mental strength, aside from that, he is a genius at contra-tennis and there is not much to criticize aside from his rather AWFUL serving display at times; however, he compensates for this shortcoming with his superior returning game.

Nalbandian should show more commitment and desire to fulfill his potential. It is always a shame when somebody wastes the talents they have been given. If he showed the desire and dedication of Federer and Nadal he would be in the top 3. His serve is improving.

7. Agassi - Who am I to critique a legend ?
8. Coria - Well, where do we start ?
Weaknesses:
(1). Lacks mental strength, since FO 2004.
(2). Serve has really abandoned him.

Coria lacks the power to challenge the best players. His physique is probably too small to be a world beater. Even if Federer and Coria had the same ability the size of Federer would ensure that he always won.

9. Ljubicic - Ivan has a rather strong game and he has matched up against the world #1 toe to toe, even at his best (earlier in the year) at both Rotterdam and Dubai. The only obvious hole in his game is a forehand that at times tends to be rather erratic, but aside from that he possesses an intimidating all-court game.
10. Gaudio - Should I just replace his name with Gasquet now or later ? I don't think this will stand for much longer. So, my work is done.


Ivan Ljubicic needs to work on his movement; compared to Federer and Safin his speed and balance are poor. If he moves better he will hit his ground strokes better.

Gaudio. Everyone predicts each year that he will drop out of the top 10, but he stays there. He may not be a world beater or top 5 player, but he is steady and always does well in the optional 5 tournaments.

Castafiore
11-29-2005, 10:46 AM
It's equal and fair in relevance when a comparison is drawn between your intentions for acknowledging this thread (clearly because you have a hard-on for me, for some reason you are obsessed with the color red and that's rather coincidential, I do say, considering you are quite the menstrual case).
:scratch: Okay, enlighten me, oh prima donna:
how can a person have a "hard-on" and be a menstrual case at the same time?

its.like.that
11-29-2005, 10:55 AM
It's equal and fair in relevance when a comparison is drawn between your intentions for acknowledging this thread (clearly because you have a hard-on for me, for some reason you are obsessed with the color red and that's rather coincidential, I do say, considering you are quite the menstrual case).

ummm... a comparison between my intentions for acknowledging your stupidity and what else??? :confused:

and yes I have a hard on for you and menstruate at the same time - brilliant!!! :D


Aside from that, each fact and opinion is duly noted, said in good nature and completely for the sake of educational discussion, unlike you, I possess the intent and desire to learn or discuss, remember: Great minds discuss world events, small minds discuss people.

educational discussion isn't really something anybody would associate with you, but hey, what the hell, I would LOVE to discuss world events with Great minds (such as yourself I am assuming? :confused: )


Your tennis knowledge is at best limited and you merely use General Messages as a venue to gather vCash, so that you may continue to masquerade around Non-Tennis harassing the common poster and basking in your insignificance. Bravo, Paisano.

:bigclap:

I apologise for disturbing the thinktank that is GM, run by the likes of yourself, Tennis Fool, tangy, universal idiot, and so on...

Of course everyone is free to have their own opinions, I was just telling you that yours is wrong. :D

E chi se ne frega? Coglione :kiss:

prima donna
11-29-2005, 11:04 AM
ummm... a comparison between my intentions for acknowledging your stupidity and what else??? :confused:

and yes I have a hard on for you and menstruate at the same time - brilliant!!! :D




educational discussion isn't really something anybody would associate with you, but hey, what the hell, I would LOVE to discuss world events with Great minds (such as yourself I am assuming? :confused: )




:bigclap:

I apologise for disturbing the thinktank that is GM, run by the likes of yourself, Tennis Fool, tangy, universal idiot, and so on...

Of course everyone is free to have their own opinions, I was just telling you that yours is wrong. :D

E chi se ne frega? Coglione :kiss:

To be frank, I don't really care about your opinion. You're on my list of posters that can't put personal vendettas aside and stop bitching for longer than approximately 10 seconds to think properly. There are lots of those when it comes to me, don't worry. I tend to attract them for some reason. This is a public board, which means that you are given the opportunity to publically display your idiocy. Anyway, as for the hard on remark, it would have been more clever if you'd come up with it yourself, but being that one is to be taken literally and not the other, you're shit out of luck anyway.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 11:12 AM
Physical fitness is still not as good as some players; still has 8-9 losing record in 5 set matches

Still makes a lot of simple volley errors. Actually seems to find difficult volleys easier.

Believe Karlovic has better second serve..
It is factual that Karlovic possesses a superior serve in general, but the Swiss has one better than most, aside from anyone else that may pop up late in big tournaments it's I'd say the best 2nd serve in the business.



Stands far too deep in the court exposing himself to acute angles.

Hits far too many short groundstrokes; they have have too much top spin and lack penetration. Watch US Open match against James Blake.

His volleying from playing doubles is good, but how can he utilize it when he stands so far back.
I've not seen him playing doubles, so can offer no commentary regarding so.
I agree, his game is too much driven around clay-play, which is less offensive and far slower, he may never conquer the cement at Flushing Meadow.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 11:20 AM
7. Agassi - Who am I to critique a legend ?
Er, it could be argued that who are you to criticise any of these players :cuckoo:

I await the day when you post something which is intelligent, I won't hold my breath though :rolleyes:

DrJules
11-29-2005, 11:20 AM
It is factual that Karlovic possesses a superior serve in general, but the Swiss has one better than most, aside from anyone else that may pop up late in big tournaments it's I'd say the best 2nd serve in the business.





I was answering your comment "The Swiss already possesses a 2nd serve far superior to anyone on tour". Karlovic is on the tour in top 100.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 11:25 AM
I was answering your comment "The Swiss already possesses a 2nd serve far superior to anyone on tour". Karlovic is on the tour in top 100.
Noted and accurate assessment, to be quite honest, I completely forgot about Karlovic. I can't dismiss him as a player that can't and won't make the late stages at a Slam (possibly Wimbledon), so you've got me fair and square. :)

*Ljubica*
11-29-2005, 11:25 AM
Er, it could be argued that who are you to criticise any of these players :cuckoo:

I await the day when you post something which is intelligent, I won't hold my breath though :rolleyes:

:worship: "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to adee-gee again" :worship:

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 11:26 AM
2. Nadal -
Weaknesses:
(1). 1st and 2nd serve, particulary on faster surfaces, the spaniard's serve has been exposed at times during this season, he will most certainly have to conjure up something aside from that kick serve he so often uses, I do say that he has a rather keen sense for ball placement and thus, he has been only mildly exposed by the likes of Berdych whom take pleasure in returning serves that would be swatted by Juniors at the top of their game.
(2). If the Spaniard ever hopes to compete at Wimbledon, he will most certainly have to improve his nearly non-existent net game and even then, this would require a more offensive approach. I find it quite interesting to see if he can transition, I have my doubts.
(1). He has the highest first serve % on the tour this year. On his 2nd serve, he is 2nd only to Federer in terms of % of points won. He is 11th in the service holds % list, an impressive stat when you consider the majority of his matches are on clay and therefore are likely to involve more breaks. His serve could be improved, but its certainly not as weak as you portray it.
(2). Try watching some of his Davis Cup matches from 2004, his volleying is solid enough. I didn't see Hewitt coming to the net an awful lot when he won Wimbledon, and Federer came to the net only a handful of times in the last few years. It's not necessary for Nadal to come to the net, he just needs more matches on grass, and unfortunately the grass court season isn't long enough for him to get enough matches in to feel comfortable on it.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 11:27 AM
:worship: "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to adee-gee again" :worship:
:angel:

Cervantes
11-29-2005, 11:29 AM
Hewitt: needs to improve his technique on the forehand side. At the moment, he can't put away the easy balls, which is his fatal weakness.

Nalbandian: serve!!!! Agassi did it, Hewitt did it, now it's time for David to improve his serve. Without a powerful serve you can't win big tournaments in men's tennis. (except for the TMC perhaps ;))

Action Jackson
11-29-2005, 11:30 AM
To be frank, I don't really care about your opinion. You're on my list of posters that can't put personal vendettas aside and stop bitching for longer than approximately 10 seconds to think properly. There are lots of those when it comes to me, don't worry. I tend to attract them for some reason. This is a public board, which means that you are given the opportunity to publically display your idiocy. Anyway, as for the hard on remark, it would have been more clever if you'd come up with it yourself, but being that one is to be taken literally and not the other, you're shit out of luck anyway.

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

Grinder
11-29-2005, 11:32 AM
You make some good points here. I think some people on this board are just stuck with the mindset that, if they don't like someone, then their opinions are invalid.

its.like.that
11-29-2005, 11:39 AM
To be frank, I don't really care about your opinion. You're on my list of posters that can't put personal vendettas aside and stop bitching for longer than approximately 10 seconds to think properly. There are lots of those when it comes to me, don't worry. I tend to attract them for some reason. This is a public board, which means that you are given the opportunity to publically display your idiocy. Anyway, as for the hard on remark, it would have been more clever if you'd come up with it yourself, but being that one is to be taken literally and not the other, you're shit out of luck anyway.

:sobbing: why don't you care about me?... I care about you, I promise. :inlove:

if there are a lot of people who think you are a moron - HEY, DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING !?!?!?!?!?! SOUND THE ALARM!!!! :D

and your last sentence epitomises the profound use of logic and intellect that your posts are always overflowing with. :bowdown:

its.like.that
11-29-2005, 11:42 AM
You make some good points here. I think some people on this board are just stuck with the mindset that, if they don't like someone, then their opinions are invalid.

:retard:

shut your face clown, go start a protest or a rally or something if it means that much to you.

:kiss:

stebs
11-29-2005, 04:16 PM
Nice evaluation.

To all the people getting angry at Prima Donna why must you?? no need to be rude to anyone to be honest. better to leave everything behind you and start afresh. If you have quiblles with someone regarding their post then that's fair enough but there is no point in coming to a thread and insulting the starter just because you don't like them. Having said that the world will probably hate me so sorry.

Anyway back to tennis. I feel most of those things are accurate but I'm not sure about Hewitt having a lack of talent. I think that Roger is certainly better but I'm not sure that Marat is. Marat has more technical tennis raw ability i certainly belive that but for a sport you need more than technical ability and Hewitt is a great fighter. He may not be able to take Safin when he is on top form but he is as good in general in my opinion.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 04:28 PM
I didn't see Hewitt coming to the net an awful lot when he won Wimbledon, and Federer came to the net only a handful of times in the last few years. It's not necessary for Nadal to come to the net, he just needs more matches on grass, and unfortunately the grass court season isn't long enough for him to get enough matches in to feel comfortable on it.

Hewitt has strokes that are flat as a pancake (based on defensive standards, a defensive player is going to use a bit of spin and slice obviously), as I've said time and time again, he offers a classical defensive game. He has one of the best returns of serves in the game, sadly, I would not put Nadal in Nalbandian or Hewitt's category and I sure wouldn't Federer, the boy has not the expertise on grass to deal with the awkward bounces and speed, where as Lleyton has a preference for a faster and slicker surfaces, much like many counterpunches of his caliber do.

Hewitt has not enjoyed much success at Roland Garros for a reason, therefore, it would only be foolish to assume that anything he's done Nadal would be capable of. These points are really in themselves, further reasoning for my suggesting that people really ought to pay more attention to players tendencies and their strokes.

Comparing Hewitt whom keeps strokes flatter than a pancake (based on defensive standards once again) to one whom prefers a baseline game consisting of 30 foot balls on the shoulder of opposition, that is ludicrousy at it's best. :)

He will have no choice but to employ S&V if he wants to party with the Queen and her underlings, as did Ivan Lendl (the czech even s&v'd on 2nd serves at Wimbledon) and he was the epitome of a baseliner, if there ever was one. If one cannot adapt, then the next step is to substitute. He cannot adapt to the fast play and strange bounces, thus it would be only logical to employ a serve & volley tactic.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 04:48 PM
Hewitt has strokes that are flat as a pancake, as I've said time and time again, he offers a classical defensive game. He has one of the best returns of serves in the game, sadly, I would not put Nadal in Nalbandian or Hewitt's category and I sure wouldn't Federer, the boy has not the expertise on grass to deal with the awkward bounces and speed, where as Lleyton has a preference for a faster and slicker surfaces, much like many counterpunches of his caliber do.
Listen buddy, you need to get your facts right before making such absurd comments. Nadal doesn't have one of the best returns in the game? Well seeing as his 1st and 2nd serve is so weak, its amazing how well he's done. Have a look at the bottom half of this page, and then tell me Nadal isn't one of the best returners in the world.
http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/matchfacts/default.asp

Hewitt has not enjoyed much success at Roland Garros for a reason, therefore, it would only be foolish to assume that anything he's done Nadal would be capable of. These points are really in themselves, further reasoning for my suggesting that people really ought to pay more attention to players tendencies and their strokes.
Nadal was brought up on clay, Hewitt was brought up on quicker surfaces. That's the main reason why they have had differing success. Nadal has the perfect know-how of how to play on clay, he is probably better than anyone on tour when it comes to structuring a point.

Comparing Hewitt whom keeps strokes flatter than a pancake (based on defensive standards) to one whom prefers a baseline game consisting of 30 foot balls on the shoulder of opposition, that is ludicrousy at it's best.
Yes Nadal has become #2 in the world and a Grand Slam champion by hitting moonballs :bigclap:

prima donna
11-29-2005, 04:56 PM
Listen buddy, you need to get your facts right before making such absurd comments. Nadal doesn't have one of the best returns in the game? Well seeing as his 1st and 2nd serve is so weak, its amazing how well he's done. Have a look at the bottom half of this page, and then tell me Nadal isn't one of the best returners in the world.

Nalbandian and Hewitt are the best 2 defensive returners in the game, it is only fair and right that I supply you with the credentials of being considered "one of the best returners"

i.e; Able to return serve on all surfaces, including Grass & Cement in NYC, where the slower surface does not serve to the advantage of the returner. I actually believe that Nalbandian and Hewitt struggle with more off-speed serves (American twist serve or Kick serve) than they do with a cannonball, as Bill Tilden would call it. Both seem to welcome the challenge and considering that both have a game built on using one's own pace against thyself, it is no suprise that they both have achieved such things on fast surfaces throughout their young careers, against the Top players in the game.

Blake exposed Nadal's flawed return game at the USO, Berdych did at Cincy and Muller at Wimbledon + whomever knocked him out of Halle, the Spaniard is a success at many things, simply not reflexes and speed of ball.

DrJules
11-29-2005, 05:00 PM
Of course, if Nadal is prepared to adapt and change he could win Wimbledon. In the early seventies similar comments were made about Bjorn Borg lacking a sufficient serve. This was acknowledged by Borg and his coach Lennart Bergalin who worked on it. I think in the 5 set semi-final of 1981 against Jimmy Conners Borg served about 16 aces. There is, of course, no reason why Nadal cannot develop a very effective serve. He has the height and physical strength combined with the advantage of being a left hander; sliced serves from left handers are particularly difficult to return on grass. His movement and balance are possibly the best in the game since Borg and he shares his incredible mental toughness. It will be interesting to see if he will move out of his comfort zone to achieve his goal. Borg used serve and volley more in the 1970's while winning 5 Wimbledons in a row (not bad for somebody who was called a clay court specialist :cuckoo: ) than Federer does today; old recorded film shows this unusual fact. I sense he is the first Spaniard since Santana who believes he can someday win Wimbledon, but he will need to attack more even though he does not need to play serve and volley.

Castafiore
11-29-2005, 05:02 PM
Prima donna,

Why do you bother posting in a message board? I've asked you this once before and I'm asking it again.
Because despite what you claim in this thread somewhere, you are not interested in an educational two-way discussion. You just want to give your opinion - only, you don't see it as your opinion but as the truth and the only truth. You are set in your ideas and you show no interest whatsoever to try to see things from the other viewpoint. So, what's your point of posting on a message board other than trolling?

Your ideas about clay court tennis in general and Nadal in particular are just too simplistic.


Every player has bad days, due to a number of reasons and every player has opponents who are difficult to handle for him on a particular surface.
To say that a game of a player is exposed during a limited number of matches and at the same time, to ignore so many other facts of that player's abilities(or being too blind or stubborn or stupid to see it) is just ridiculous. Are you kidding or does your mind really work this way?

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 05:05 PM
Nalbandian and Hewitt are the best 2 defensive returners in the game, it is only fair and right that I supply you with the credentials of being considered "one of the best returners"

i.e; Able to return serve on all surfaces, including Grass & Cement in NYC, where the slower surface does not serve to the advantage of the returner. I actually believe that Nalbandian and Hewitt struggle with more off-speed serves (American twist serve or Kick serve) than they do with a cannonball, as Bill Tilden would call it. Both seem to welcome the challenge and considering that both have a game built on using one's own pace against thyself, it is no suprise that they both have achieved such things on fast surfaces throughout their young careers, against the Top players in the game.

Blake exposed Nadal's flawed return game at the USO, Berdych did at Cincy and Muller at Wimbledon + whomever knocked him out of Halle, the Spaniard is a success at many things, simply not reflexes and speed of ball.
What a steaming pile of bull. Are we going to nit-pick into every loss Nadal had? Well against Blake, he didn't play great and Blake was playing the best tennis of his life. Blake was hitting winners from all over the place and there wasn't a lot Nadal could have done, it's not a great match up for him. His returning skills wasn't what let him down at all that day. The loss against Berdych came straight after his victory in Montreal (yes, this was a quick surface so anyone that got broken by Nadal hang your head in shame). I've accepted he's not great on grass, hence the defeats by Muller and Waske. However, I firmly believe this is because of a lack of matches on grass, I don't think he would have to serve and volley his way to a Wimbledon title. The fact is, the grass court season is too short for Rafa to make a serious attempt at becoming an expert on it, and the fact that he has played so matches on grass while growing up means he'll never be properly comfortable on it.

Right, shall we look into all of Federer's losses now?

prima donna
11-29-2005, 05:08 PM
Of course, if Nadal is prepared to adapt and change he could win Wimbledon. In the early seventies similar comments were made about Bjorn Borg lacking a sufficient serve. This was acknowledged by Borg and his coach Lennart Bergalin who worked on it.
The grass at Wimbledon required that you served & volleyed, it was so unpredictable and even slicker than it is these days, NBC (a station here in the US) did a comparison of the Wimbledon court in the 70's and now in 2005, quite a difference. All of the front court was thrased in the 70's and back-court spotless, with the opposite being true now.

Borg used serve and volley more in the 1970's while winning 5 Wimbledons in a row (not bad for somebody who was called a clay court specialist :cuckoo: ) than Federer does today;
A requirement, Borg's quick reflexes have to do with his hockey experience, but of course few have the ability to make such a transition, aside from Lendl I have not seen it done with much success.

Valid point, indeed.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 05:13 PM
What a steaming pile of bull. Are we going to nit-pick into every loss Nadal had? Well against Blake, he didn't play great and Blake was playing the best tennis of his life. Blake was hitting winners from all over the place and there wasn't a lot Nadal could have done, it's not a great match up for him. His returning skills wasn't what let him down at all that day. The loss against Berdych came straight after his victory in Montreal (yes, this was a quick surface so anyone that got broken by Nadal hang your head in shame). I've accepted he's not great on grass, hence the defeats by Muller and Waske. However, I firmly believe this is because of a lack of matches on grass, I don't think he would have to serve and volley his way to a Wimbledon title. The fact is, the grass court season is too short for Rafa to make a serious attempt at becoming an expert on it, and the fact that he has played so matches on grass while growing up means he'll never be properly comfortable on it.

Right, shall we look into all of Federer's losses now?

For the most part, his fast-court season was much of a failure, excluding the event he won in Canada against a lackluster field and exhausted Agassi, facing Berdych, whom is playing top level tennis on fast surfaces and losing in 3 hard fought sets, proved that he can play on the surface, but having much success is another thing.

I just would like to point out that there is a stark contrast between his success before Halle, Wimbledon, Canada, Cincinatti and NYC, and after.

Surely, you are not implying that it is acceptable to lose in a 1st RD and 2nd Rd, then not make the 2nd week of a slam, lose a MASTER'S event in First Round, after winning one against a suspect draw, those are rather low standards for the #2 in the world.

All this being said, his fast court season left a lot to be desired and before we categorize him with the Nalbandian's, Agassi's, Federer's or Hewitt's of the return of serve, he will have to prove more on faster surfaces against Top Level competition. I am not bashing the boy and I would rather not discuss him further, simply because more threads turn into Nadal-a-thon's when that at all was not their originate intent.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 05:22 PM
For the most part, his fast-court season was much of a failure, excluding the event he won in Canada against a lackluster field and exhausted Agassi, facing Berdych, whom is playing top level tennis on fast surfaces and losing in 3 hard fought sets, proved that he can play on the surface, but having much success is another thing. .
Reaching the final of Miami was extremely poor, and to be 2 sets up and 4-1 up in the 3rd against the almighty Federer was pathetic. In that match, Nadal's poor returning skills earned him 5 breaks of serve against the irresistable Federer. Can't really work that out myself. Winning TMS Montreal and Beijing on hard, and TMS Madrid on indoor hard are quite dreadful achievements too.

I just would like to point out that there is a stark contrast between his success before Halle, Wimbledon, Canada, Cincinatti and NYC, and after.
No-one is saying that clay isn't his favourite surface. I think if you look at his year that it's pretty clear he can play on quicker surfaces too, and is improving all the time.

Surely, you are not implying that it is acceptable to lose in a 1st RD and 2nd Rd, then not make the 2nd week of a slam, lose a MASTER'S event in First Round, after winning one against a suspect draw, those are rather low standards for the #2 in the world.
What? I think you'll find it's pretty draining to win a TMS, he beat his idol in the final and I'm sure we'll forgive him for having a lapse the following week. He played his match against Berdych with no preparation and in a different country.

All this being said, his fast court season left a lot to be desired and before we categorize him with the Nalbandian's, Agassi's, Federer's or Hewitt's of the return of serve, he will have to prove more on faster surfaces against Top Level competition. I am not bashing the boy and I would rather not discuss him further, simply because more threads turn into Nadal-a-thon's when that at all was not their originate intent.
So how many TMS's did Nalbandian, Agassi and Hewitt win on quicker surfaces then?

prima donna
11-29-2005, 05:29 PM
Prima donna,
Why do you bother posting in a message board? I've asked you this once before and I'm asking it again.
Because despite what you claim in this thread somewhere, you are not interested in an educational two-way discussion. You just want to give your opinion - only, you don't see it as your opinion but as the truth and the only truth. You are set in your ideas and you show no interest whatsoever to try to see things from the other viewpoint. So, what's your point of posting on a message board other than trolling?
Simply said, it does not mean that one cannot show or have no interest in the input of other's even if it will have little change or influence over their own opinion. The purpose of a message board is to provide personal input, correct ? I could just be a boring statistic machine and would that be factual enough to back up what I've said ?


Your ideas about clay court tennis in general and Nadal in particular are just too simplistic.
Clay is what it is, but I've made not a single mention of clay in this particular thread. One shouldn't dwell on things said in past threads, you are obviously prima-donna-bias'd, something I find certainly flattering. Clay is a simple game, there is NOT much to it. It's a player-friendly surface and is especially helpful towards beginners, it slows down the momentum of the ball and is much easier to produce "quality" rallies.



Every player has bad days, due to a number of reasons and every player has opponents who are difficult to handle for him on a particular surface.
To say that a game of a player is exposed during a limited number of matches and at the same time, to ignore so many other facts of that player's abilities(or being too blind or stubborn or stupid to see it) is just ridiculous. Are you kidding or does your mind really work this way?
Is it any secret that Nadal's niche is not Grass court play or Hard Courts (atleast one outdoors, for whatever reason, the ball moves faster indoors, so a tad awkward) ? I wouldn't attribute it to a bad day, the latter part of Summer was rough for the Spaniard and I'm sure he'd much rather forget it. It is people like you that keep the Nadal-bird alive, basically, carrying 4 month old discussion from other threads into another.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 05:39 PM
Reaching the final of Miami was extremely poor, and to be 2 sets up and 4-1 up in the 3rd against the almighty Federer was pathetic. In that match, Nadal's poor returning skills earned him 5 breaks of serve against the irresistable Federer. Can't really work that out myself. Winning TMS Montreal and Beijing on hard, and TMS Madrid on indoor hard are quite dreadful achievements too.
No-one is saying that clay isn't his favourite surface. I think if you look at his year that it's pretty clear he can play on quicker surfaces too, and is improving all the time.
What? I think you'll find it's pretty draining to win a TMS, he beat his idol in the final and I'm sure we'll forgive him for having a lapse the following week. He played his match against Berdych with no preparation and in a different country.
So how many TMS's did Nalbandian, Agassi and Hewitt win on quicker surfaces then?

Are we limited to TMS events or can we talk GS's & year ending titles?

Nalbandian won Shanghai
Agassi made U.S Open Final.
Hewitt made Wimbledon SF, U.S Open SF and lost to Fedex in both.

Surely, you are not attempting to critique injured and old players based on one year of play. Andre Agassi has so many TMS events under his belt, that they are beginning to run out of space to add each one of them next to his chair (you are familiar with this process, I am sure, the man has a TMS list longer than all of Mallorca).

The rest of your post is simply excuses, "he played his idol", blah, blah and more blah. Could we stick to the facts ? For the record, Miami is the closest to clay on a hard court, if that made any sense to you at all.

Castafiore
11-29-2005, 05:46 PM
Simply said, it does not mean that one cannot show or have no interest in the input of other's even if it will have little change or influence over their own opinion.
That's just it. You show NO interest in the input of others accept for those who agree with you and each time others present different facts that could present your viewpoint in a different light, you prefer to ignore that or to downplay it or belittle that other perspective.
You could as well be talking to yourself but I guess that you need the audience.

Clay is a simple game, there is NOT much to it. It's a player-friendly surface and is especially helpful towards beginners, it slows down the momentum of the ball and is much easier to produce "quality" rallies. :bs:
What's the use of talking to somebody who writes such nonsense as this?

Okay, time for me to ignore you for a while.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 05:46 PM
Are we limited to TMS events or can we talk GS's & year ending titles?

Nalbandian won Shanghai
Agassi made U.S Open Final.
Hewitt made Wimbledon SF, U.S Open SF and lost to Fedex in both.

Surely, you are not attempting to critique injured and old players based on one year of play. Andre Agassi has so many TMS events under his belt, that they are beginning to run out of space to add each one of them next to his chair (you are familiar with this process, I am sure, the man has a TMS list longer than all of Mallorca).

The rest of your post is simply excuses, "he played his idol", blah, blah and more blah. Could we stick to the facts ? For the record, Miami is the closest to clay on a hard court, if that made any sense to you at all.
So how many titles was that? Nalbandian won Shanghai (strange that you conveniently didn't mention this was a weaker field than it should've been). If you want to talk about near misses talk to Ljubicic.

You are too far up Federer's ass to appreciate the year Nadal has had.

Could you explain the reasons why Federer lost to Safin, Gasquet, Nadal and Nalbandian. I'm intrigued to know.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 06:00 PM
Could you explain the reasons why Federer lost to Safin, Gasquet, Nadal and Nalbandian. I'm intrigued to know.

Sure.

Gasquet (Monte Carlo) - He is simply beaten by the better player, on that particular day, the Frenchman came out flinging winners out of nowhere with that immaculate backhand of his. He is truly a joy to watch and most likely, will be an obstacle for Roger in the coming year's, in my honest opinion, the 2nd best shotmaker in Men's Tennis (duh, we all know who is first)
Safin - Well, injuries played a role, but the fact that Marat played the match of his life doesn't hurt either.
Nalbandian - Same situation as Safin.
Nadal - Won fair and square on his turf, the dirt of Roland Garros. There is no explanation.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 06:06 PM
Gasquet (Monte Carlo) - He is simply beaten by the better player, on that particular day, the Frenchman came out flinging winners out of nowhere with that immaculate backhand of his. He is truly a joy to watch and most likely, will be an obstacle for Roger in the coming year's, in my honest opinion, the 2nd best shotmaker in Men's Tennis (duh, we all know who is first).
I'll agree with that, but can't you see the similarity between that match and the Blake vs Nadal match? Blake was doing exactly the same against Nadal.

Safin - Well, injuries played a role, but the fact that Marat played the match of his life doesn't hurt either.
Nalbandian - Same situation as Safin..
Let's be honest, if I had said this would you let me get away with it.

Nadal - Won fair and square on his turf, the dirt of Roland Garros. There is no explanation.
Muchos Gracias :kiss:

prima donna
11-29-2005, 06:14 PM
I'll agree with that, but can't you see the similarity between that match and the Blake vs Nadal match? Blake was doing exactly the same against Nadal.
No, because James was doing the same thing against a laid off and out of shape Roger in Cincinatti and was dismissed & thoroughly displaced in straights. So, if Rafael is #2 then why can he not accomplish the same feats as Roger at 35% ?


Let's be honest, if I had said this would you let me get away with it.

Well, it is fact. The Swiss is proven to be effective unlike some of his counterparts, thus one could say it is safe to say during a match which he was worked on half of the match is a tad spotty.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 06:19 PM
No, because James was doing the same thing against a laid off and out of shape Roger in Cincinatti and was dismissed & thoroughly displaced in straights. So, if Rafael is #2 then why can he not accomplish the same feats as Roger at 35% ?
That's nonsense and you know it. Blake played the best match of his career against Nadal and even Blake acknowledged that. As I say, its also about match-ups. I could also use the argument that Gasquet played Nadal the match after he beat Federer and also tried to do the same thing thing, but Nadal won that match.

Well, it is fact. The Swiss is proven to be effective unlike some of his counterparts, thus one could say it is safe to say during a match which he was worked on half of the match is a tad spotty.
It's excuses. Against Safin he should have won the match but didn't, how about giving some praise to Safin rather than putting it down to an injury. Against Nalbandian, the only "injury" he had was lack of match practise, which I don't include as an injury.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 06:26 PM
That's nonsense and you know it. Blake played the best match of his career against Nadal and even Blake acknowledged that. As I say, its also about match-ups. I could also use the argument that Gasquet played Nadal the match after he beat Federer and also tried to do the same thing thing, but Nadal won that match.

2005 ATP Masters Series Hamburg, Clay, F
Germany Clay F Federer 6 3 7 5 7 6

That puts that dog to rest, Federer disposed of Gasquet in straights of a Final, when he was playing at an even higher level. Match-ups is right, the same style that wins so many matches on clay is inappropriate tennis for fast surfaces, which in turn will result in you getting destroyed by any worthy man on fast surfaces that knows his business when it comes to attacking, in this case it was James Blake.


It's excuses. Against Safin he should have won the match but didn't, how about giving some praise to Safin rather than putting it down to an injury. Against Nalbandian, the only "injury" he had was lack of match practise, which I don't include as an injury.

Roger at 100% defeated Marat in the final of Halle, possesses a 7-2 record against the Russian or is it 6-2 ? Regardless, it is quite apparent that we are talking different planes here.

Roger cannot be beat when 100% or playing his best tennis, Nadal can and was. But, why's Nadal so intriguing ? Why not Davydenko, I happen to think my job of analyzing him was quite skrewd, be critical.

tangerine_dream
11-29-2005, 06:34 PM
adee-gee: prima donna killa :cool:

:lol:

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 06:35 PM
2005 ATP Masters Series Hamburg, Clay, F
Germany Clay F Federer 6 3 7 5 7 6

That puts that dog to rest, Federer disposed of Gasquet in straights of a Final, when he was playing at an even higher level. Match-ups is right, the same style that wins so many matches on clay is inappropriate tennis for fast surfaces, which in turn will result in you getting destroyed by any worthy man on fast surfaces that knows his business when it comes to attacking, in this case it was James Blake.
Huh? How does Federer beating Gasquet on a seperate occasion put that to rest? Nadal beat Berdych, yet you still used Berdych "destroying" Nadal's serve as an example for your argument. You've lost me.

Roger at 100% defeated Marat in the final of Halle, possesses a 7-2 record against the Russian or is it 6-2 ? Regardless, it is quite apparent that we are talking different planes here.

Roger cannot be beat when 100% or playing his best tennis, Nadal can and was. But, why's Nadal so intriguing ? Why not Davydenko, I happen to think my job of analyzing him was quite skrewd, be critical.
When you say Federer cannot be beaten when he's playing at 100%...is that because he's #1? So if Nadal grabs the #1 spot will you change your mind? As it happens, I disagree with you, when Marat is playing at 100% I don't think anyone can beat him, it just doesn't happen very often and Federer is a lot more consistent.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 06:40 PM
Huh? How does Federer beating Gasquet on a seperate occasion put that to rest? Nadal beat Berdych, yet you still used Berdych "destroying" Nadal's serve as an example for your argument. You've lost me. When you say Federer cannot be beaten when he's playing at 100%...is that because he's #1? So if Nadal grabs the #1 spot will you change your mind? As it happens, I disagree with you, when Marat is playing at 100% I don't think anyone can beat him, it just doesn't happen very often and Federer is a lot more consistent.

Nadal cannot handle Berdych on a fast surface and Tomas has yet to even reach his peak. The point here that you're missing is, Roger avenges all of his defeats and not only does he, but rather convincingly, while we are left to wonder what lies in the future for the boy from Mallorca. He's more of an enigma / mystery than anything else, no one knows if he will ever improve on Grass or reach the 2nd week of a U.S Open. Let's be serious, if Roger lost in a 1st round would anyone think much of it ? No. After that 1st round lost, I seriously questioned Nadal's resolve and it became brutally obvious that he was outclassed and a 2nd-rate player off clay.

I won't entertain that Safin bit, I'm in the mood to take bait today, but even some things are too off the wall for me to attempt making a topic of discussion.

lau
11-29-2005, 06:45 PM
Roger at 100% defeated Marat in the final of Halle, possesses a 7-2 record against the Russian or is it 6-2 ? Regardless, it is quite apparent that we are talking different planes here.

My 2 cents here :angel:
I would say Marat was not at 100% in that final. His knee was already bothering, and A LOT.
Anyway, Roger was the best player that day and Marat was the best player in the AO semifinal. ;) :p

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 06:50 PM
Nadal cannot handle Berdych on a fast surface and Tomas has yet to even reach his peak.
:rolls: ok you are too much. Nadal cannot handle Berdych on a fast surface. And the proof you have is that on their one meeting on a fast surface, Berdych won the match in a final set tie break after Nadal had match points. I'm sorry if this slightly flaws your argument, but what was the result when Federer played Berdych in their only meeting on a quick court? Does this mean Federer can't handle Berdych?

The point here that you're missing is, Roger avenges all of his defeats and not only does he, but rather convincingly, while we are left to wonder what lies in the future for the boy from Mallorca.
Federer avenges all his defeats? So that's why he has a 0-2 record against Hrbaty? I just wait for the next meeting between Federer and Nadal, seeing as that RG defeat must've hurt, I expect Federer should be dishing out a double bagel in their next meeting.

He's more of an enigma / mystery than anything else, no one knows if he will ever improve on Grass or reach the 2nd week of a U.S Open. Let's be serious, if Roger lost in a 1st round would anyone think much of it ? No. After that 1st round lost, I seriously questioned Nadal's resolve and it became brutally obvious that he was outclassed and a 2nd-rate player off clay.
Could you just tell me when Nadal lost in the 1st Round of a slam? Either that didn't happen or my memory is going in my old age :scratch:

I won't entertain that Safin bit, I'm in the mood to take bait today, but even some things are too off the wall for me to attempt making a topic of discussion.
Yes, maybe someday you will come to realise that Roger isn't invincible. It'll probably take a while, obsessions aren't easy to cure.

prima donna
11-29-2005, 07:01 PM
:rolls: ok you are too much. Nadal cannot handle Berdych on a fast surface. And the proof you have is that on their one meeting on a fast surface, Berdych won the match in a final set tie break after Nadal had match points. I'm sorry if this slightly flaws your argument, but what was the result when Federer played Berdych in their only meeting on a quick court? Does this mean Federer can't handle Berdych?

Yes, maybe someday you will come to realise that Roger isn't invincible. It'll probably take a while, obsessions aren't easy to cure.
I share the same admiration for Richard Gasquet, to be a fan of tennis is more important of a label than to be a fan of Roger Federer, first and foremost, no any individual is bigger than the game.

Lots of this post is just off the wall, Roger is proven and Rafael is not, I will leave it at that. It is safe to say Hrbaty would be smacked around and the next time Roger faces Nadal it will be finally decided what is and what is not.

My ego is too big to be a fanatic or consumed by someone or something, my nature is simply very unappealing to the common person and rather maticulous at that.

You cannot deny a Spaniard that has thus far only succeeded on clay is much more questionable than a Swiss gentleman that possesses 6 GS's, 2 year's ending ranked #1 and a cluster of tournaments won on each surface. Rafael isn't even in Roger's rear-view when it comes to accomplishments, matter of fact, based on that same ideology; Roger is the fast lane.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 07:08 PM
I share the same admiration for Richard Gasquet, to be a fan of tennis is more important of a label than to be a fan of Roger Federer, first and foremost, no any individual is bigger than the game.
What the hell has that got to do with the price of cheese?

Lots of this post is just off the wall, Roger is proven and Rafael is not, I will leave it at that. It is safe to say Hrbaty would be smacked around and the next time Roger faces Nadal it will be finally decided what is and what is not.
Just bear this in mind. Federer is 24. Nadal is 19. You can't expect Nadal to have matched his achievements, that's just ludicrous. You seem to have the impression that if Roger really wants to, he can destroy any player on tour. I'm afraid this isn't the case.

You cannot deny a Spaniard that has thus far only succeeded on clay is much more questionable than a Swiss gentleman that possesses 6 GS's, 2 year's ending ranked #1 and a cluster of tournaments won on each surface. Rafael isn't even in Roger's rear-view when it comes to accomplishments, matter of fact, based on that same ideology; Roger is the fast lane.
Actually I will deny that he has only succeeded on clay. Do winning Masters Series not count? I would say by the age of 19 to have won 2 Masters Series off clay, another title on top of that, plus reached R3 minimum of all 3 slams that aren't on clay is pretty impressive. As I say, you cannot compare accomplishments at the moment, Federer has been on tour a lot longer.

Galaxystorm
11-29-2005, 07:09 PM
Nadal cannot handle Berdych on a fast surface and Tomas has yet to even reach his peak.

Did you see the match Nadal-Berdych at Cincy ?? :rolleyes:

Nadal played a horrible match, played a crappy match ( his serve was very weak and he returned horrible that night ) and in spite of this fact he had 8 break points in the last games of the match and even 3 match points ( if my memory doesn't fail me )

If i don't remember badly in these 8 break points that Nadal blew in the last games of the third set , Berdych served 7 first serves and one ace on second serve .

Berdych played a very good match hitting a lot of winners , serving incredibly in the last part of the match and Nadal playing as bad as possible ( even playnig injured from the second set since he pulled a thigh muscle although it's true that Berdych called the trainer too , and Nadal also being tired because of Montreal ) was about to win that match.

You're clearly biased.

Clara Bow
11-29-2005, 07:15 PM
only succeeded on clay

But he did have success in Montreal and Madrid- ergo he has not had success ONLY on clay. You are using a bit of hyperbole in your assements of Nadal's accomplishments (or in your view- his lack of accomplishments).

I don't think that Nadal has equaled Roger's accomplishments at all. But at the same time- he has had some success on the hard courts. You can dismiss the success all you want - but he does have hard court titles- two of which are Masters. I don't know why it is viewied that if one is acknowledging that Nadal has had some hard court success that means that they are downplaying Roger- that is not true.

I don't think that Nadal is as good on hard court as Roger yet. But I don't think that he is the hapless second-rate player that you (pd) sometimes seem to dismiss him as. He has room for improvement, of course. He needs to quit standing so far back on hc, hit a flatter ball and be more aggressive. He did show some of that in Montreal. But just because he still has room for improvement and there are some better hard court players out there does not mean that he is a total wash on the surface or that his titles on the surface don't count for anything. He is improving on hard courts- but at this juncture his performance is uneven, quite so. His 3rd round match against Blake at the USO was not nearly as good as how he played in the final of Montreal. (And of course Blake was playing great.) Frankly- his USO run this year was not very good and he played better in the latter stages of Montreal and at the China Open. But I do think that he does have a foundation that will enable him to continue to improve on the hard court.

On to other players-

Nalbandian- I really think the most important thing he needs to do is improve his serve. Particularly his second serve. Nalby is one of the best returners out there- but he should not have so many giveaways on his own serve. He should look to Hewitt for inspiration. Although Hewitt's service was frankly imo never as stinky as David's can be, it has become more of a weapon for Hewie in the past 18 months or so.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 07:19 PM
Nicely put Clara Bow :D

prima donna
11-29-2005, 07:19 PM
What the hell has that got to do with the price of cheese?.
One should rather easily be able to equate that after making such a far-fetched accusation that one shares a physical or mental bond with another's rectum - " You are too far up Roger's ass ", that the bit regarding Gasquet proves that I am "up the ass" of classy and perfect tennis.


You seem to have the impression that if Roger really wants to, he can destroy any player on tour.
Yes, basically. This line sums it up better than any other, that is my impression. 81-4 and 6 Grand Slams, 2 year's as #1 and dominating anything that walks on court with him is grounds for this basis. He is invincible, when healthy.


Actually I will deny that he has only succeeded on clay. Do winning Masters Series not count? I would say by the age of 19 to have won 2 Masters Series off clay, another title on top of that, plus reached R3 minimum of all 3 slams that aren't on clay is pretty impressive. As I say, you cannot compare accomplishments at the moment, Federer has been on tour a lot longer.

Either way, Nadal has an awfully long way to go before catching up with Roger and most likely, will fail to reach Roger's career accomplishments, even at the age of only 24 throughout his entire career, which will most likely be a short lived one.

2 Years Spent Ranked As #1
2 Year Ending Championships
3 Wimbledon Titles
2 U.S Open Titles
1 Australian Open Title
81 - 4 Record

The Swiss has a resume that even the greats like Edberg or Becker would envy, at this point in his career, which is so young.

A wise fellow New Yorker once screamed from the bleachers, "C'mon, Jimmy [Jimmy Connors], he's [Andre Agassi] a punk, you're a legend" and that describes the comparison between Nadal & Federer. Roger is a legend in training and Nadal is simply not in his class. Boooring.

Clara Bow
11-29-2005, 07:24 PM
"C'mon, Jimmy [Jimmy Connors], he's [Andre Agassi] a punk, you're a legend"

Yeah- that Agassi fellow. He really fell off of the radar. ;)

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 07:25 PM
One should rather easily be able to equate that after making such a far-fetched accusation that one shares a physical or mental bond with another's rectum - " You are too far up Roger's ass ", that the bit regarding Gasquet proves that I am "up the ass" of classy and perfect tennis.
Whatever floats your boat darling. It's just a shame that the classy and perfect tennis of Federer is 1-2 against Nadal, and the classy and perfect tennis of Gasquet is 0-3 on the ATP against Nadal. Wow, this young Spanish kid that can only hit moonballs is destroying tennis. Throw him out!

Yes, basically. This line sums it up better than any other, that is my impression. 81-4 and 6 Grand Slams, 2 year's as #1 and dominating anything that walks on court with him is grounds for this basis. He is invincible, when healthy.
He's been healthy in all 3 matches against Nadal, and hasn't dominated him. Clearly, he isn't invincible, you've gotta learn to deal with it.

A wise fellow New Yorker once screamed from the bleachers, "C'mon, Jimmy [Jimmy Connors], he's [Andre Agassi] a punk, you're a legend" and that describes the comparison between Nadal & Federer. Roger is a legend in training and Nadal is simply not in his class. Boooring.
This just about sums you up. I really cannot wait until Nadal keeps beating Roger, I hope you stick around. It's been a pleasure, but I really must get off now :wavey:

Grinder
11-29-2005, 07:26 PM
:retard:

shut your face clown, go start a protest or a rally or something if it means that much to you.

:kiss:

That's the best you can come up with?

prima donna
11-29-2005, 07:29 PM
He's been healthy in all 3 matches against Nadal, and hasn't dominated him. Clearly, he isn't invincible, you've gotta learn to deal with it.


Roger had a horrible bout with Heat Stroke in 2004 Miami, sorry to say.

adee-gee
11-29-2005, 07:30 PM
Roger had a horrible bout with Heat Stroke in 2004 Miami, sorry to say.
:lol: don't feed me nonsense. If it was so bad he wouldn't have played.

*julie*
11-29-2005, 07:33 PM
Whatever floats your boat darling. It's just a shame that the classy and perfect tennis of Federer is 1-2 against Nadal, and the classy and perfect tennis of Gasquet is 0-3 on the ATP against Nadal.

Sorry, but actually, Nadal leads 3-1 against Gasquet. He withdrew but that still counts. ;)

Deivid23
11-29-2005, 07:35 PM
Myskinalova´s threads being the most popular ones in GM :shrug:

Definetely you guys are on crack :lol:

Corey Feldman
11-29-2005, 07:43 PM
whats going on in here then :)

Galaxystorm
11-29-2005, 07:45 PM
Sorry, but actually, Nadal leads 3-1 against Gasquet. He withdrew but that still counts. ;)

If you count the challenger match is 3-1 , but as you can see Adee-gee meant just ATP matches . And about that challenger match although Nadal hadn't withdrawn Gasquet would have won it since was superior to Nadal from the begining

*julie*
11-29-2005, 08:19 PM
If you count the challenger match is 3-1 , but as you can see Adee-gee meant just ATP matches . And about that challenger match although Nadal hadn't withdrawn Gasquet would have won it since was superior to Nadal from the begining
Oh yes, it was a challenger indeed. :o Forget my post then.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-29-2005, 10:51 PM
In Prima Donna's mind Fed is god. His JesusFed can't lose to some 19 year old punk.

Can't take the truth.

Nadal 2 - Fed 1 almost 3-0.

My name will hold true. :)

its.like.that
11-29-2005, 11:39 PM
adee-gee: prima donna killa :cool:

:lol:

Tangy: intellect killa. :cool:

its.like.that
11-29-2005, 11:42 PM
That's the best you can come up with?

someone intelligent as yourself clearly deserves a proper response.

:rolleyes:

Grinder
11-29-2005, 11:54 PM
someone intelligent as yourself clearly deserves a proper response.

:rolleyes:

So that's how you cover up a lack of comebacks, clever.

prima donna
11-30-2005, 12:00 AM
So that's how you cover up a lack of comebacks, clever.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

mandoura
11-30-2005, 07:56 AM
PD,

You make pretty good points. I agree with a lot of your original post. :)

However, the way you are making a God out of Rogelio is really antagonizing. Thinking of him as "invicible" is a bit delusional, audacious and disrespectful to other players. No one is innvincible. Suggesting that Rogelio is beatable only when he is not at his best is provoking. :)

I am a Roger's fan but I can understand why other palyers' fans are resenting him and, sometimes, cheering his loss. It's because of statements like yours. As one of his fans, I would love to see him win everything and break every record there is. This, however, will not blind me to other excellent players around and giving credit where due. I believe Rafa, Gask (may I Tiff :lol: ), Berdych, Nalby, Hewitt, Marat, and the list is long, are all excellent players and deserve as much respect as Rogelio. :)

Just a friendly suggestion, why don't you try to tone your comments down a bit to give your ideas/comments a chance to go through? Don't you think that this is more important, the exchange of healthy ideas that is, than making a statement about the greatness of Rogelio in every post you make? :)

sigmagirl91
11-30-2005, 08:08 AM
Gask (may I Tiff :lol: )

Sure :D

MariaV
11-30-2005, 08:09 AM
PD,

You make pretty good points. I agree with a lot of your original post. :)

However, the way you are making a God out of Rogelio is really antagonizing. Thinking of him as "invicible" is a bit delusional, audacious and disrespectful to other players. No one is innvincible. Suggesting that Rogelio is beatable only when he is not at his best is provoking. :)

I am a Roger's fan but I can understand why other palyers' fans are resenting him and, sometimes, cheering his loss. It's because of statements like yours. As one of his fans, I would love to see him win everything and break every record there is. This, however, will not blind me to other excellent players around and giving credit where due. I believe Rafa, Gask (may I Tiff :lol: ), Berdych, Nalby, Hewitt, Marat, and the list is long, are all excellent players and deserve as much respect as Rogelio. :)

Just a friendly suggestion, why don't you try to tone your comments down a bit to give your ideas/comments a chance to go through? Don't you think that this is more important, the exchange of healthy ideas that is, than making a statement about the greatness of Rogelio in every post you make? :)

Mando!!!!! :worship: :worship: :worship:

its.like.that
11-30-2005, 08:19 AM
So that's how you cover up a lack of comebacks, clever.

wow, you just have a way with words - amazing.

the only thing lacking here, is a sense of humour on your behalf.

try again.

lau
11-30-2005, 09:27 AM
mandoura :yeah:

DrJules
11-30-2005, 10:11 AM
Could somebody explain the joke about Gasquet. :confused:

sigmagirl91
11-30-2005, 10:38 AM
Could somebody explain the joke about Gasquet. :confused:

What joke?

DrJules
11-30-2005, 12:17 PM
I believe Rafa, Gask (may I Tiff :lol: ), Berdych, Nalby, Hewitt, Marat, and the list is long, are all excellent players and deserve as much respect as Rogelio. :)


What is funny about Gasquet being included in this list. He unquestionably belongs there.

mandoura
11-30-2005, 01:16 PM
What is funny about Gasquet being included in this list. He unquestionably belongs there.

The joke is not about Gasquet, it's about the abbreviation Tiff uses for his name Gask. I find it funny and was asking her permission to use it. :D

Of course he belongs otherwise I wouldn't have included him. :)

And btw, this list is not confined to only the players I mentioned. It is extendable. I really like a lot of players not just the ones I included. :)

alfonsojose
11-30-2005, 01:20 PM
apart from Hewitt and Gaston, the top ten is short :devil:

Dusk Soldier
11-30-2005, 01:26 PM
Could somebody explain the joke about Gasquet. :confused:
Some people like to "americanize" his name and call him Gasket instead of Gasquet.

DrJules
11-30-2005, 02:04 PM
Some people like to "americanize" his name and call him Gasket instead of Gasquet.

Thanks :lol:

mandoura
11-30-2005, 02:08 PM
Thanks :lol:

I made the joke, I used the abbreviation, I explained it first and you are not quoting me. Are you upset with me or something? :sad: :p

DrJules
11-30-2005, 02:26 PM
I made the joke, I used the abbreviation, I explained it first and you are not quoting me. Are you upset with me or something? :sad: :p
:hug:

mandoura
11-30-2005, 04:07 PM
:hug:
:lol: :kiss:

sigmagirl91
11-30-2005, 05:21 PM
Some people like to "americanize" his name and call him Gasket instead of Gasquet.

You mean Gas-K? Remember the dash, OK.

mandoura
11-30-2005, 06:54 PM
You mean Gas-K? Remember the dash, OK.

:o Yes the dash, I forgot it. Will you forgive me Empress? :eek:

*julie*
11-30-2005, 06:55 PM
Some people like to "americanize" his name and call him Gasket instead of Gasquet.

GasQUet really is american.

http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10200

:lol:

Grinder
11-30-2005, 07:19 PM
wow, you just have a way with words - amazing.

the only thing lacking here, is a sense of humour on your behalf.

try again.

Says the person with 16,000 posts in one year...

prima donna
11-30-2005, 07:49 PM
PD,

You make pretty good points. I agree with a lot of your original post. :)

However, the way you are making a God out of Rogelio is really antagonizing. Thinking of him as "invicible" is a bit delusional, audacious and disrespectful to other players. No one is innvincible. Suggesting that Rogelio is beatable only when he is not at his best is provoking. :)

I am a Roger's fan but I can understand why other palyers' fans are resenting him and, sometimes, cheering his loss. It's because of statements like yours. As one of his fans, I would love to see him win everything and break every record there is. This, however, will not blind me to other excellent players around and giving credit where due. I believe Rafa, Gask (may I Tiff :lol: ), Berdych, Nalby, Hewitt, Marat, and the list is long, are all excellent players and deserve as much respect as Rogelio. :)

Just a friendly suggestion, why don't you try to tone your comments down a bit to give your ideas/comments a chance to go through? Don't you think that this is more important, the exchange of healthy ideas that is, than making a statement about the greatness of Rogelio in every post you make? :)
The issue often times has not been with Roger's invincibility (atleast from my side), but with him being compared to Nadal. I resent that, but that's only my opinion. I mean, some fans are acting as if Nadal blew Roger off the court and he can't do that, I will concede that Marat nearly bent Federer's racquet back in his hand he was hitting the ball with so much pop and authority.

The comparisons with Safin aren't problematic. They are for the most part true, Marat is nearly or just as talented. I just find it slighty comical to compare Roger to someone that's had 1 year, be it a very good year, but it is and was only 1 year, after all and does not compare to the 2 successful years Federer's had.

Having that been said, anybody can be beat on any day. Especially if they are not playing their best tennis, these players are competing at a world class level. To me, Nadal's success against Roger has more to do with Roger, than it does Nadal. Roger's weakest surface, Clay and Nadal's game is sublime, obviously Nadal is a worthy opponent, but he is also a tricky one. It would take a few match-ups to get adjusted to him and well, once that adjustment is made there is little he can do to tweek his game (by nature of different styles, Technician/Artist vs Defensive Armor.

All in all, I could tone it down a bit. Maybe I am a tad too aggressive. Thanks for the post, Mandoura. :) --- it's amazing how people react when you approach them in an assertive and non-chalant manner, instead of giving them all of the extra :bs: that comes along with it. Some people could learn from our friend Mandoura. Really.

disturb3d
11-30-2005, 08:06 PM
I just find it slighty comical to compare Roger to someone that's had 1 year, be it a very good year, but it is and was only 1 year, after all and does not compare to the 2 successful years Federer's had.Nadal has every right to be compared with Roger. He almost duplicated the world no.1's 2005 success, in only his first full year on the pro circuit.

The improvement he's shown in a 12 month span is unparallel in tennis.
And seeing as how he's as determined as anyone to improve on his weakest surfaces, I don't see how you could write him off as Roger's potential successor.

sigmagirl91
11-30-2005, 08:10 PM
:o Yes the dash, I forgot it. Will you forgive me Empress? :eek:

Yes....all is forgiven. :)

DrJules
11-30-2005, 08:12 PM
Nadal has every right to be compared with Roger. He almost duplicated the world no.1's 2005 success, in only his first full year on the pro circuit.

The improvement he's shown in a 12 month span is unparallel in tennis.
And seeing as how he's as determined as anyone to improve on his weakest surfaces, I don't see how you could write him off as Roger's potential successor.

Between them, barring injury or other unfortunate events, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Richard Gasquet should dominate the next 5-10 years of tennis winning most of the grand slams.

prima donna
11-30-2005, 08:18 PM
Nadal has every right to be compared with Roger. He almost duplicated the world no.1's 2005 success, in only his first full year on the pro circuit.

The improvement he's shown in a 12 month span is unparallel in tennis.
And seeing as how he's as determined as anyone to improve on his weakest surfaces, I don't see how you could write him off as Roger's potential successor.

One could argue that his success is due to the absence of the top players on the scene, during the 2005 season, Nadal aside from Federer (On Clay) has failed to defeat a Top 5 player.

He is 0-0 against Marat Safin.
He is 0-0 in 2005 against Roddick, whom spanked him at the 2004 USO (6-0)
He is 0-1 against Lleyton Hewitt, whom is quite consistent and most certainly he will have to go through the Australian if he ever hopes to see Roger in a final.
He is 0-1 against Tomas Berdych ( A future top 5 )

His only success has come against Gasquet, on the clay courts and the same with Roger. Both have the same game, one would be wise to suggest it is merely a match-up problem and the remedy for Nadal might be a dose of power. He has proven his superiority over Roddick on Clay, NOT off Clay.

The Top players he has showed little promise against, struggling and Berdych is added in for good measure. The likes of Safin have defeated each of these players and paid their dues, while the Spaniard has had easy sailing through a weak field.

prima donna
11-30-2005, 08:30 PM
Top 5 head to head - 2005

(One must include Safin, though he is #11 or #12 I believe ATM)

Nadal
V. Federer 1-1
V. Safin 0-0
V. Roddick 0-0
V. Hewitt 0-1

Federer:
V. Roddick 2-0
V. Safin - 1-1
V. Hewitt 3-0
V. Nadal 1-1

Roddick:
V. Federer 0-2
V. Safin
V. Hewitt 1-2
V. Nadal 0-0

Hewitt:
V. Federer - 0 -3
V. Safin 0 - 1
V. Roddick 2-1
V. Nadal 1-0


Safin
V. Federer 1-1
V. Roddick 0-0
V. Hewitt 1-0
V. Nadal - 0-0

almouchie
11-30-2005, 08:33 PM
great post Manduro but i guess u must get that a lot ;)
i must say i am a die hard pete sampras admirer, & have not come to like federer, at times he seems arrogant while not admiting so much. & during his matches whne he is down or challenged seem sto react negatively & gets irritated almost in disrespect to opponenet. point in case TMS Shanghai final & RG semis with Nadal

sure he has competition, its just not up to par atm

Castafiore
11-30-2005, 08:34 PM
He is 0-0 against Marat Safin.
He is 0-0 in 2005 against Roddick, whom spanked him at the 2004 USO.
He is 0-1 against Lleyton Hewitt, whom is quite consistent and most certainly he will have to go through the Australian if he ever hopes to see Roger in a final.
He is 1-2 against Tomas Berdych.

This is so typical for you, PD.

You try to back up your opinion with a couple of facts. Others in this thread also replied to you that you make certain good points.
So far, so good (how's that for being nice to you :angel: )

But here's the problem: your view is usually too narrow, you ignore other facts that are crucial and you hide essential aspects that could counter your entire argument.
Each and every time other people in here tried to show the holes in your argument, the elements that you twist, turn, hide or ignore...is just wasted on you because when it does not fit into your own particular viewpoint, you just throw it away.

So, why don't you just focus on your Federer and don't get so upset by Nadal or by people who think highly of him.
Just enjoy the sport, prima donna instead of being so negative.

Just a friendly advise:
Why don't you stop being so obsessed by Rafael Nadal, stop focussing on things and people that bother you and learn to focus more on things that you like. Life is too short to be so bitchy. :)

prima donna
11-30-2005, 08:38 PM
2005 Losses for Nadal:
Q
Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO ) - DOHA
N/A***
2-6 7-6(3) 3-6 *
R16
Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS ) - AO
2***
5-7 6-3 6-1 6-7(3) 2-6 *
Q
Gaudio, Gaston (ARG ) - ON CLAY!
12***
6-0 6 1-6 *
F
Federer, Roger (SUI ) - Miami
1***
6-2 7-6(4) 6-7(5) 3-6 1-6 *
Q
Andreev, Igor (RUS ) - ON CLAY!
65***
5-7 2-6 *
R32
Waske, Alexander (GER ) - HALLE
195***
6-4 5-7 3-6 *

R64
Muller, Gilles (LUX )
89***
4-6 6-4 3-6 4-6 * (WIMBLEDON)
R64
Berdych, Tomas (CZE )
37***
7-6(4) 2-6 6-7(3) *

R32
Blake, James (USA )
37***
4-6 6-4 3-6 1-6 *

The Spaniard, when matched up against the more talented of his counterparts of tour has struggled immensely, especially off clay. Enjoying success off clay, against questionable opposition often times injured or simply ANOTHER usual clay court suspect.

Off-Clay titles:
W
Agassi, Andre (USA ) - The aged superstar was not playing nearly at USO Level.
10***
6-3 4-6 6-2 *
W
Coria, Guillermo (ARG ) - Usual clay court suspect.
6***
5-7 6-1 6-2 *
W
Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO ) - Fought back down from 2 sets to none against an exhausted opponent, but really his only noteable title off clay against a player of significance.
13***
3-6 2-6 6-3 6-4 7-6(3) *

disturb3d
11-30-2005, 08:42 PM
One could argue that his success is due to the absence of the top players on the scene, during the 2005 season, Nadal aside from Federer (On Clay) has failed to defeat a Top 5 player.One could argue?? You're the only one attempting such a ridiculous arguement.

You wanna talk about going through greats. What has happened countless times to RG winners; Gaudio and Ferrero?
How about 8 time slam champ; Andre Agassi, on his most comfortable surface.

Is it Nadal's fault that the world's top 5 weren't capable of progressing far enough to challenge him? On my account, I hear he's more than willing to face the greats.

prima donna
11-30-2005, 08:43 PM
Just a friendly advise:
Why don't you stop being so obsessed by Rafael Nadal, stop focussing on things and people that bother you and learn to focus more on things that you like. Life is too short to be so bitchy. :)
Bitchy is not the word to describe my rants or anything else of the sort. I am a rather laid back fellow, quite relaxed; simply refusing to allow the mouse to slip under the rug, so to speak. I will not be blinded by delusional thinking, that is so often accompanied by posts like these.

There is no obsession, as I've never raised the topic of Nadal as a starting point for a thread of mine in months since predicting his 1st week dismissal in NYC. It is his supporters and others which simply cannot let it go. I would much rather discuss 4-slam contenders, i.e; Safin, Gasquet, Roddick or Hewitt (contenders at 3 of the 4 slams) as opposed to a 1 slam contender, the clay court season is only a small fragment of the year.

prima donna
11-30-2005, 08:45 PM
One could argue?? You're the only one attempting such a ridiculous arguement.

You wanna talk about going through greats. What has happened countless times to RG winners; Gaudio and Ferrero?
How about 8 time slam champ; Andre Agassi, on his most comfortable surface.

Is it Nadal's fault that the world's top 5 weren't capable of progressing far enough to challenge him? On my account, I hear he's more than willing to face the greats.
Ferrero, much like Coria, has been unhealthy and suffering from serious mental anguish. The Spaniard has yet to regain the form which rode him to a 2003 Roland Garros title, often times stricken with illness or disinterest. Did you see Agassi limping around in Montreal?

Gaston Gaudio ? A great ? The same one that managed a fluke title, but did 6-0, 6-1 Nadal rather routinely in the beginning of the year. :worship:

Castafiore
11-30-2005, 08:45 PM
I would much rather discuss 4-slam contenders, i.e; Safin, Gasquet, Roddick or Hewitt (contenders at 3 of the 4 slams) as opposed to a 1 slam contender, the clay court season is only a small fragment of the year.
Well, stop responding to Nadal topics and start talking about those other players. That's easy enough, isn't it?

"the clay court season is only a small fragment of the year" :lol:
This is another classic from you. Thanks!

disturb3d
11-30-2005, 08:49 PM
No one is claiming that Nadal is a better player than Roger. Get that straight.

But Nadal, in his first full year on the circuit. Is all but duplicating Roger's most succesful season.
If thats a sign of anything, Nadal has the potential to dethrown the world no.1.

prima donna
11-30-2005, 08:50 PM
Well, stop responding to Nadal topics and start talking about those other players.
Thanks!
With such a demanding attitude, it is no wonder my MTF clutter has consumed your mind; such a state of mind is surely unappealing to the opposite sex.

Castafiore
11-30-2005, 08:52 PM
With such a demanding attitude, it is no wonder my MTF clutter has consumed your mind; such a state of mind is surely unappealing to the opposite sex.
That's a weak and a dumb reply, prima donna and you know it (or at least, I hope you do).

prima donna
11-30-2005, 08:56 PM
No one is claiming that Nadal is a better player than Roger. Get that straight.

But Nadal, in his first full year on the circuit. Is all but duplicating Roger's most succesful season.
If thats a sign of anything, Nadal has the potential to dethrown the world no.1.
Roger Federer (2004 - Most Successful Season)
***Australian Open Champion (GS) - W Safin, Marat (RUS )**7-6(3) 6-4 6-2
Dubai
Indian Wells (TMS)
Hamburg (TMS) (Clay)
Halle (Grass)
***Wimbledon Champion - Roddick, Andy (USA ) 4-6 7-5 7-6(3) 6-4 *
Gstaad (Clay)
***U.S Open Champion - Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS ) 6-0 7-6(3) 6-0 *
Bangkok
TMC


There is no way that winning 3 Slams and TMC, compares to winning 11 tournaments and 1 GS. Sorry.

lau
11-30-2005, 08:59 PM
I`m having a déjà vu.....
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y155/lalaurita/smiles/bostezo.gif

DrJules
11-30-2005, 09:44 PM
Rafael Nadal 19 years and 5 months; 1 grand slam + 4 master titles. How many players under 20 years have achieved so much. So much time in the future to develop and achieve more.

Dusk Soldier
11-30-2005, 10:08 PM
GasQUet really is american.

http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10200

:lol:
A city named after a french immigrant, clever :lol:

prima donna
11-30-2005, 11:50 PM
That's a weak and a dumb reply, prima donna and you know it (or at least, I hope you do).
My new #1 fan. Congrats.

its.like.that
12-01-2005, 12:15 AM
Says the person with 16,000 posts in one year...

brilliance epitomised once again -

obviously 16,000 posts = no sense of humour, how stupid of me :silly:.


you are making the false assumption that everyone takes mtf as seriously as you do ;).

Grinder
12-01-2005, 12:20 AM
brilliance epitomised once again -

obviously 16,000 posts = no sense of humour, how stupid of me :silly:.


you are making the false assumption that everyone takes mtf as seriously as you do ;).

Alright, how do I take this board so seriously?

Merton
07-22-2007, 05:56 PM
*BUMP*

It is interesting to see that four of the top-5 at the end of 2005 are still top-5 now, while the rest are gone, especially PMK being so sticky at the very top is remarkable.

Grinder makes an excellent point somewhere in the thread, attack the post and not the poster. People jumped on the thread starter about Nadal, while the description of PMK is pure crap: He can certainly handle power, variety bothers him.

stebs
07-22-2007, 06:16 PM
*BUMP*

It is interesting to see that four of the top-5 at the end of 2005 are still top-5 now, while the rest are gone, especially PMK being so sticky at the very top is remarkable.

Grinder makes an excellent point somewhere in the thread, attack the post and not the poster. People jumped on the thread starter about Nadal, while the description of PMK is pure crap: He can certainly handle power, variety bothers him.

Although the top 5 is similar I don't think that is going to hold true for much longer. In 12 months time I think Roddick will be top 10 but not top 5 and I don't think Kolya will be top 5 either (though I hope he will). I also think the gap between 1 and 2 will be small (regardless of which players fill the spots) and the gap to 3 will be closer to although not that close.

Merton
07-22-2007, 06:39 PM
Although the top 5 is similar I don't think that is going to hold true for much longer. In 12 months time I think Roddick will be top 10 but not top 5 and I don't think Kolya will be top 5 either (though I hope he will). I also think the gap between 1 and 2 will be small (regardless of which players fill the spots) and the gap to 3 will be closer to although not that close.

Barring injuries, Federer and Nadal will be at the top-2 a year from now and I think Njokovic and Murray will be top-5. I think Roddick will also be there, it will be interesting to see.

Johnny Groove
07-22-2007, 07:22 PM
good stuff here :haha:

adee-gee
07-22-2007, 07:24 PM
Classic thread :rolls:

And we lost to blaze/Glenn :rolleyes:

Johnny Groove
07-22-2007, 07:25 PM
Classic thread :rolls:

And we lost to blaze/Glenn :rolleyes:

me and Gu have at least 30 of these types of threads around here, man :rolleyes: And usually in threads that have nothing to do with nadal

adee-gee
07-22-2007, 07:27 PM
me and Gu have at least 30 of these types of threads around here, man :rolleyes: And usually in threads that have nothing to do with nadal

Yours are all the same, an absolute snorefest. You're like Nadal on clay, boring, untalented and predictable.

Prima Donna and I on the other hand have variety, class and talent. We're like Federer :worship:

Merton
07-22-2007, 07:29 PM
Yours are all the same, an absolute snorefest. You're like Nadal on clay, boring, untalented and predictable.

Prima Donna and I on the other hand have variety, class and talent. We're like Federer :worship:

It is the recency effect but you should be pround champ, imitation is the highest form of flattery. :yeah:

adee-gee
07-22-2007, 07:35 PM
It is the recency effect but you should be pround champ, imitation is the highest form of flattery. :yeah:

You made my day ;) :p

Johnny Groove
07-22-2007, 07:36 PM
Yours are all the same, an absolute snorefest. You're like Nadal on clay, boring, untalented and predictable.

Prima Donna and I on the other hand have variety, class and talent. We're like Federer :worship:

You guys went at it like intellectuals with spectacles in the library at Oxford :rolleyes:

We're Spartan arguers :rocker2: