Thank You Rafael Nadal, For Making Tennis Fun Again [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Thank You Rafael Nadal, For Making Tennis Fun Again

Johnny Groove
04-25-2006, 11:11 PM
Admit it. The past 2 years or so of Federer dominance and rare as diamond losses are as boring as watching paint dry. The last 2 years, Federer has really destroyed every player he's come across and gave press conferences afterwards that said that the player was good and spoke as if he had just edged out a win, when indeed he was busy winning in straights of a slam final ala Wimbeldon 05 or USO 04. Or when he beat Roddick at Cincinnati in 05 and said something to the effect of how he loves playing Roddick and it wasnt just because he won everytime.

2004 and 2005 were the dullest years of tennis following the everyday excitement of 2003 with a Roddick that could actually play, a Ferrero that had skillz, and a not yet fully developed and dominating Federer that lost to Nalbandian and Roddick.

Then came along Rafael Nadal, the only player that has the cojones to stand up to the bully on the playground in Roger Federer. And in 2006, he has actually made him look more and more human everytime he steps on the other side of that little net in the middle. He has gotten in Federer's head and made him actually say things like him being one dimensional, saying hes better than Rafael on clay, and what have you. Personally, I hope that they meet in the final of every tournament they play in and Nadal wins consistently.

Now, this "new kid on the block" mentalilty has caused fans of both to be critical of the other. As a Rafa fan, I may have some tilt on my views, but from what I've seen, Fed Fans seem to be more radical in their views. Such as the post that Tangy has in her blog at www.roddickwatch.blogspot.com :wavey: (Great blog Tangy, where is Roddick Monthly, though? :sad: ) However, Nadal fans arent out of the clear. I've seen Nadal fans post some things that are seriously out of line and uncalled for. I dont have any links, but they are present.

Finally, this rivalry needs to be advertised and built up by the ATP and other tennis television, newspaper, and internet entities to be the main draw of tennis event when the Roddick-Federer "rivalry" crashed out miserably. If marketed correctly, this could really bring tennis revenues and help out the sport considerably. Thank you Rafael Nadal, for making tennis (and tennis message boards) fun again.

rofe
04-25-2006, 11:24 PM
I actually agree with your sentiment but not your choice of words or the fact that you started Yet Another Thread (TM).

And why the childish attitude in this paragraph? :rolleyes:


Then came along Rafael Nadal, the only player that has the cojones to stand up to the bully on the playground in Roger Federer. And in 2006, he has actually made him look more and more human everytime he steps on the other side of that little net in the middle. He has gotten in Federer's head and made him actually say things like him being one dimensional, saying hes better than Rafael on clay, and what have you. Personally, I hope that they meet in the final of every tournament they play in and Nadal wins consistently and Federer has 78 UE's per match as well.

Skyward
04-25-2006, 11:28 PM
1.Admit it. The past 2 years or so of Federer dominance and rare as diamond losses are as boring as watching paint dry.

2. Personally, I hope that they meet in the final of every tournament they play in and Nadal wins consistently and Federer has 78 UE's per match as well.


What's the difference between 1 and 2 in terms of entertainment?

Johnny Groove
04-25-2006, 11:29 PM
sorry, forgot to edit that part out :o

Sjengster
04-25-2006, 11:30 PM
:haha: Use your free hand for something more constructive, Blazey.

Johnny Groove
04-25-2006, 11:31 PM
:haha: Use your free hand for something more constructive, Blazey.

4/20 was last week, Rafa v. Fed is this week ;)

Sjengster
04-25-2006, 11:34 PM
If you were honest enough to say that you didn't like Federer, I could cope with that, but saying "Ah good, now we've got a REAL rivalry!" and then declaring "OMG I hope Rafa wins everytime!!!" are not compatible statements.

Deboogle!.
04-25-2006, 11:37 PM
Functionally speaking, if one person is dominating or if two people are dominating, I don't really think it's that different and I wasn't any more entertained by tennis in 2005 and the start of this year than I was in 2004

ChloeLove
04-25-2006, 11:37 PM
It's not a bad post, in fact I agree with most of it. Apart from a few things here and there. Their rivalry is enjoyable, and i'm glad that someone can challenge Federer.

Johnny Groove
04-25-2006, 11:38 PM
If you were honest enough to say that you didn't like Federer, I could cope with that, but saying "Ah good, now we've got a REAL rivalry!" and then declaring "OMG I hope Rafa wins everytime!!!" are not compatible statements.

I just said that I hope Nadal wins consistently, I didnt say that I hope he won EVERY TIME. Consistent how I meant it was that they had great matches and that Nadal would win and stay consistently ahead in the H2H, not that he would DOMINATE him. Sorry if its a bit unclear :confused:

Sjengster
04-25-2006, 11:41 PM
Comments such as "bully in the playground" Federer (oh what a bully, everyone knows how nasty he is in the lockerroom to everyone else!) and hoping that he makes 78 UE per match seem to indicate that you hope he falls from his present status very swiftly. Which is fine, but when it's replaced by more of the same from somebody else, except a similar thread with someone else's name in the title in a few years' time.

Johnny Groove
04-25-2006, 11:46 PM
Comments such as "bully in the playground" Federer (oh what a bully, everyone knows how nasty he is in the lockerroom to everyone else!) and hoping that he makes 78 UE per match seem to indicate that you hope he falls from his present status very swiftly. Which is fine, but when it's replaced by more of the same from somebody else, except a similar thread with someone else's name in the title in a few years' time.

bully on the playground was to denote that he was the person that always won. He always picked on the other players on the court and toying with them with incredible shots, while Nadal is the kid getting picked on that fights back again and again, unlike the one-off guys that fight the bully like Safin, Gasquet, and Nalbandian. It was a metaphor man.

And I dont think that someone (Nadal) will knock him off his perch for at least another 365 days. I also dont think that Rafa will be as dominate and remain as the king of the hill as far away from the field as Federer. If Rafa ever gets #1, he will have to continue to fight for it, just as he plays on the court. And that in and of itself is exciting, no?

cobalt60
04-25-2006, 11:48 PM
Well there might be a rivalry but I would prefer a lot more upsets of those two. I don't find either one very "exciting" although I prefer watching Fed play tennis. Nadal just doesn't "do it" for me; whatever it is ;)

Hank777
04-25-2006, 11:49 PM
I agree with blazey, It's exciting 4 tennis and really ... I'm so tired of Federer, you know I just don't get the arrogance.

If FEDERER said something like: I just can't figure how to play him, or I feel I can get to him, but he's really capable on the dirt anything in which he sort ADMITS that he has NOT the upper hand as he usually does, that would make him look so much better, but no .... why not say things like, RAFA is not necessarily better than me on clay OMG come on now ... :p :eek: :eek:

NATAS81
04-25-2006, 11:53 PM
Nadal/Federer is like McEnroe/Borg. Energetic against reserved. The difference is Federer doesn't dominate Nadal like Borg did with Johnny Mac, so there is no reason to quit.

I hope they play each other in a Grand Slam again so I get to see it. It's fun to watch the contrasting styles. It would be even better if Nadal talked a ton of smack like McEnroe did. It seems Federer has taken over that role though with his recent comments. :lol:

el güero
04-26-2006, 12:08 AM
A good post :yeah: I totally agree that tennis has become much more interesting with Rafa challenging Fed on a consistent basis. I just wish someone else could come along to make it still more interesting. Or that we would have at least more of these "one-off guys that fight the bully". ;)

heya
04-26-2006, 12:20 AM
Nadal won't make his family worried about boring cockiness. There're contributions to make to society. He would never want to end up like the McEnroe brothers, who enjoy humiliating any tennis player who so much as skips Davis Cup and doesn't conform to their perfect little rules. Nadal has no delusions of self-grandeur.

Five
04-26-2006, 01:37 AM
yes gracias Rafa for saving tennis from being a boring thing :worship:
Federer :yawn:

Seneca
04-26-2006, 06:00 AM
Ok, so we have a tennis circuit in which there are two players, A and B (and a bunch of others):

Player A wins everything on hard courts and all the clay tournaments player B hasn't bothered to enter.

Player B wins everything on clay tournaments and those hard court tournaments player A hasn't bothered to enter.

Player B is more likely to crash out on earlier rounds at hard court tournaments but he wins a majority of A vs. B -duels on all surfaces.

---------
For me, this still doesn't offer much excitement. The final matches between A and B are of high quality and evenly matched but the rest of the tour seems just like a semi-unnecessary build-up for the Big One which more often than not eventually is the final. I must admit I was on the edge of my seat for most of the Monte Carlo final, such was the drama and quality of play.

But I miss the ATP Tour of 2000-2003. Even with Hewitt and Agassi seemingly dominating, when you were watching a 4th round GS match you could often feel that there were two potential tournament champions on the court, even if they had to face Kuerten at RG the next round or Agassi at AO.

I'm placing big hopes on the French Open to produce a final which doesn't include Federer or Nadal, preferably even a qf stage without them would be most welcome.

hitchhiker
04-26-2006, 06:03 AM
lol tennis exciting?

i think even the clay lovers will admit monte carlo 2006 was one of the dullest and most predictable clay masters tournaments of the past decade

did anything interesting happen apart from a few coria marathons?

Allez
04-26-2006, 06:15 AM
As Roddick, once said, both players have to win every now and again for it to be called a rivarly. To me this is not exciting at all. I like Rafa, but I just don't want him beating Rogi all the time. Where's the fun in that ? Unless you're a Rafa fan and you dislike Roger :shrug:

I♥PsY@Mus!c
04-26-2006, 06:40 AM
Tennis is not exciting for me in these years, :rolleyes: but it's good to see Nadal can beat Federer,he dominates the clay though.

connectolove
04-26-2006, 07:32 AM
For Blaze-2004 to be a Nadal's fan, the post is very good and not too "fan" oriented.

I totally agree with him, thanks to Nadal the tennis world has made an impressive turn and has become a lot more entertaining. It is great and I love watching Nadal play, he is phenomenal.

Allstar
04-26-2006, 07:40 AM
I guess it depends on what gets you going. Obviously tension and 5 set thrillers are great, no one could dislike them but for me personally I wouldnt care if Federer never lost another set. I just love watching him, I could never get bored of it whoever he is playing. But the one thing that annoys me is when Fed plays poorly by his standards, Ljubicic in Miami and Nadal last week are good examples (although there were good parts against Nadal but 78 UE isnt great watching) Whilst its good Nadal is challenging him, I hate seeing Fed playing way below his best, its frustrating. And the only way its going to get really competitive is if he does play below his best. So there's a trade off I guess

David Kenzie
04-26-2006, 07:44 AM
For me entertainement comes from the quality of the tennis most of all. I don't give a shit if someone is dominating or if there is a so called "rivalry". I am a fan of tennis not of one single player as some people seem to think is required. Nadal brings plenty of entertainement to the tour, and that's why I like him just like Federer.

bokehlicious
04-26-2006, 07:53 AM
If you were honest enough to say that you didn't like Federer, I could cope with that, but saying "Ah good, now we've got a REAL rivalry!" and then declaring "OMG I hope Rafa wins everytime!!!" are not compatible statements.

:yeah: People are always annoyed by domination unless it's their fave who dominates :angel:

Jairus
04-26-2006, 07:57 AM
Admit it. The past 2 years or so of Federer dominance and rare as diamond losses are as boring as watching paint dry. The last 2 years, Federer has really destroyed every player he's come across and gave press conferences afterwards that said that the player was good and spoke as if he had just edged out a win, when indeed he was busy winning in straights of a slam final ala Wimbeldon 05 or USO 04. Or when he beat Roddick at Cincinnati in 05 and said something to the effect of how he loves playing Roddick and it wasnt just because he won everytime.

2004 and 2005 were the dullest years of tennis following the everyday excitement of 2003 with a Roddick that could actually play, a Ferrero that had skillz, and a not yet fully developed and dominating Federer that lost to Nalbandian and Roddick.

Then came along Rafael Nadal, the only player that has the cojones to stand up to the bully on the playground in Roger Federer. And in 2006, he has actually made him look more and more human everytime he steps on the other side of that little net in the middle. He has gotten in Federer's head and made him actually say things like him being one dimensional, saying hes better than Rafael on clay, and what have you. Personally, I hope that they meet in the final of every tournament they play in and Nadal wins consistently.

Now, this "new kid on the block" mentalilty has caused fans of both to be critical of the other. As a Rafa fan, I may have some tilt on my views, but from what I've seen, Fed Fans seem to be more radical in their views. Such as the post that Tangy has in her blog at www.roddickwatch.blogspot.com :wavey: (Great blog Tangy, where is Roddick Monthly, though? :sad: ) However, Nadal fans arent out of the clear. I've seen Nadal fans post some things that are seriously out of line and uncalled for. I dont have any links, but they are present.

Finally, this rivalry needs to be advertised and built up by the ATP and other tennis television, newspaper, and internet entities to be the main draw of tennis event when the Roddick-Federer "rivalry" crashed out miserably. If marketed correctly, this could really bring tennis revenues and help out the sport considerably. Thank you Rafael Nadal, for making tennis (and tennis message boards) fun again.

To be totally fair, while it may seem boring and not that close, I think we often overestimate the difference between two players. I feel like I've played matches that ended 3 and 3 that were very close, just a few points here and there. A set that goes to 7-5 or closer is a real tense thriller (as a player). I guess that if I was a pro, I would still find that to be the case, so maybe Fed really does feel like a lot of his matches were close wins, even if they were straight sets...just a possibility.

almouchie
04-26-2006, 08:11 AM
I love the thread
talking about both Federer & Nadal in as much objectiveness as possible
Tennis needs them to step up & make a rivalry of their encounters
much like ti needs the other players to step it up
the recent domination by Federer, has left a big question mark.
that only when Nadal imerged that we saw someone beating Federer & in some fashion
On one could expect a player to trounce ROger, but to beat him deservedly is a new thing on the tour
Nadal has shown us & the other player that he is beatable
& that should make other try harder
as some of u said, having both in tournie is like waiting for a final to watch as it usually is the case, the earlier rounds dont put in much excitment for the mere fact that neither can go all the way
it wil be exciting to see the build up to RG
for the 2 of them to face in a GD final would be media frenzy

oz_boz
04-26-2006, 08:29 AM
Nadal/Federer is like McEnroe/Borg. Energetic against reserved. The difference is Federer doesn't dominate Nadal like Borg did with Johnny Mac, so there is no reason to quit.

I hope they play each other in a Grand Slam again so I get to see it. It's fun to watch the contrasting styles. It would be even better if Nadal talked a ton of smack like McEnroe did. It seems Federer has taken over that role though with his recent comments. :lol:

I agree with you on the Borg/McEnroe thing, but for me Nadal is Borg and Federer McEnroe, not just because of their similarities in playing style - Fed/Mac representing grace and talent, Nadal/Borg standing for consistency.

Apart from Nadal being more extroverted than Borg, just like Björn he seems to be the one who keeps his composure during matches. Roger is more of a headcase, a la McEnroe, just less extroverted.

heya
04-26-2006, 09:53 AM
Isn't it ironic that Federer told Espnews' Hot List show that he didn't resemble McEnroe?
Next thing, he'll say that Nadal doesn't deserve any win because he's the epitome of one dimensional boys who beat intellectual, multidimensional men.

Neely
04-26-2006, 10:16 AM
Yeah, it's good for me that Nadal beats Federer a few times at some tournaments even if that means at the same that Nadal is dominating the clay season, but which is still the better choice for my liking than Federer dominating everything for the whole season. So it's a welcome change because I like Nadal better and I find his way to compete and to play more interesting to watch anyways :) You just have to be careful to assume this makes tennis for fun for all ;)

:yeah: People are always annoyed by domination unless it's their fave who dominates :angel:
Certainly true that it matters who is dominating, then again there are people who chose to have a favourite who is likely to finish with zero ATP titles at the end of their career.

heya
04-26-2006, 10:59 AM
The problem isn't domination, but disgusting personality characteristics and lucky wins certainly tick long-time tennis fans off.

FSRteam
04-26-2006, 12:50 PM
Admit it. The past 2 years or so of Federer dominance and rare as diamond losses are as boring as watching paint dry. The last 2 years, Federer has really destroyed every player he's come across and gave press conferences afterwards that said that the player was good and spoke as if he had just edged out a win, when indeed he was busy winning in straights of a slam final ala Wimbeldon 05 or USO 04. Or when he beat Roddick at Cincinnati in 05 and said something to the effect of how he loves playing Roddick and it wasnt just because he won everytime.

2004 and 2005 were the dullest years of tennis following the everyday excitement of 2003 with a Roddick that could actually play, a Ferrero that had skillz, and a not yet fully developed and dominating Federer that lost to Nalbandian and Roddick.

Then came along Rafael Nadal, the only player that has the cojones to stand up to the bully on the playground in Roger Federer. And in 2006, he has actually made him look more and more human everytime he steps on the other side of that little net in the middle. He has gotten in Federer's head and made him actually say things like him being one dimensional, saying hes better than Rafael on clay, and what have you. Personally, I hope that they meet in the final of every tournament they play in and Nadal wins consistently.
Now, this "new kid on the block" mentalilty has caused fans of both to be critical of the other. As a Rafa fan, I may have some tilt on my views, but from what I've seen, Fed Fans seem to be more radical in their views. Such as the post that Tangy has in her blog at www.roddickwatch.blogspot.com :wavey: (Great blog Tangy, where is Roddick Monthly, though? :sad: ) However, Nadal fans arent out of the clear. I've seen Nadal fans post some things that are seriously out of line and uncalled for. I dont have any links, but they are present.

Finally, this rivalry needs to be advertised and built up by the ATP and other tennis television, newspaper, and internet entities to be the main draw of tennis event when the Roddick-Federer "rivalry" crashed out miserably. If marketed correctly, this could really bring tennis revenues and help out the sport considerably. Thank you Rafael Nadal, for making tennis (and tennis message boards) fun again.

And that would not be borin?!? :scratch:

FSRteam
04-26-2006, 01:19 PM
I just said that I hope Nadal wins consistently, I didnt say that I hope he won EVERY TIME. Consistent how I meant it was that they had great matches and that Nadal would win and stay consistently ahead in the H2H, not that he would DOMINATE him. Sorry if its a bit unclear :confused:

Yeah sure sou didn't mean it that way... :rolleyes:

wimbledonfan
04-26-2006, 01:33 PM
I sure wish Sampras was around to knock some sense into Federer .
He probably thinks he's already the best player of all time .
I just think he needs some humility and you can't ask for a better champion like Nadal to be the one to take him off his thrown of invincibility .

yanchr
04-26-2006, 01:46 PM
I sure wish Sampras was around to knock some sense into Federer .
He probably thinks he's already the best player of all time .
I just think he needs some humility and you can't ask for a better champion like Nadal to be the one to take him off his thrown of invincibility .
Not that I don't like Sampras, but how you wrote your post strikes to me that you can't get happier that there is someone coming out beating Roger when your idol is being consistently talked inferior to Roger. Childish.

wimbledonfan
04-26-2006, 01:58 PM
Yanchr , it's not at all childish , I just think the media and tennis fans around the world are already proclaiming the arrogant Roger to be the classiest and greatest player of all time . I sure wish peak sampras was playing in this generation because he'd probably win 8 + wimbledons on grass since the entire field are baseline players .

I would have loved to see the expression on Rogers face after getting beat by Pete and complaining that his game isn't as fluid and that he's one dimensional with his serve .

yanchr
04-26-2006, 02:09 PM
Yanchr , it's not at all childish , I just think the media and tennis fans around the world are already proclaiming the arrogant Roger to be the classiest and greatest player of all time . I sure wish peak sampras was playing in this generation because he'd probably win 8 + wimbledons on grass since the entire field are baseline players .

I would have loved to see the expression on Rogers face after getting beat by Pete and complaining that his game isn't as fluid and that he's one dimensional with his serve .
Sorry, this seems to me even more childish. Keep on living in your nostalgia...

I agree Roger is arrogant in a way, but I doubt Pete didn't think he is the greatest when he was on tour.

And the thread has nothing to do with Pete if you didn't realize.

purple_star
04-26-2006, 03:28 PM
i dont think this is real fun at all. it would just be the same story - 2 guys winning all the ams and the gs. this is boring still. :o

ugotlobbed
04-26-2006, 04:01 PM
tennis was most entertaining when andre, marat, hewitt, roddick, and nadal were all here, now marat and hewitt is missing

lucashg
04-26-2006, 04:20 PM
I sure wish Sampras was around to knock some sense into Federer .
He probably thinks he's already the best player of all time .
I just think he needs some humility and you can't ask for a better champion like Nadal to be the one to take him off his thrown of invincibility .

Says a Sampras fan.
I can think of at least a handful of better champions to take Federer off his thrown of invincibility than Nadal, and that's just talking personalities and "humility".

Nadal's pathetic on-court behavior is more arrogant than any remark Federer has ever said.

wimbledonfan][/b] Yanchr , it's not at all childish , I just think the media and tennis fans around the world are already proclaiming the arrogant Roger to be the classiest and greatest player of all time . I sure wish peak sampras was playing in this generation because he'd probably win 8 + wimbledons on grass since the entire field are baseline players .

I would have loved to see the expression on Rogers face after getting beat by Pete and complaining that his game isn't as fluid and that he's one dimensional with his serve .

Sampras cannot say Federer is not as fluid as (what again? he thinks, everyone proclaims or Sampras' is? lol), because Roger's game is zillion times more fluid than his was.

Federer has enough variation on his serve, it's not as good as Sampras' was, but it's still good enough to be considered one of the best and most dominating serves of the field today, so I also don't think Sampras can talk about how his serve is so one-dimensional either. I won't even comment about how Sampras beating Roger. Looks like you're creating illusions to delude yourself which makes you look even more childish.

You should write to tennis journalists, specialists and living legends to stop proclaiming Roger is the best player of all time when he's far from it in career achievements as of yet. Let's not even assume he likes all that praise, because it only adds to the pressure he's carrying ever since his career started and especially when it took off in 2003. He might think he's the most talented player ever, which can be considered arrogant, but it's not really far from the truth according to people who know much more about tennis than the average MTF poster.

Rogiman
04-26-2006, 04:25 PM
He's certainly made people around the world follow the game, partly due to his wins against Federer, and that's a good thing for sure.

This thread's subject is definitely relevant, but I would have prefered it to be started by a more objective poster, who could have discussed it with more sense and less bias.

lucashg
04-26-2006, 04:25 PM
To answer the thread: To me it doesn't. While I like Roger dominating, I wish people would challenge him more, but players whose games I enjoy - and Nadal certainly doesn't fit there. His fighting spirit, determination, "personality" and """charisma""" don't do anything for me.

But I could see it being true to a lot of other people that he gets challenged by Nadal, though not in the way Blaze-2004 biasedly describes, that way only Nadal fans and Federer haters would enjoy, I guess.

wimbledonfan
04-26-2006, 04:42 PM
Lucashg , you totally misread my entire argument . I didn't say Federer was one dimensional .

Chocobo
04-26-2006, 05:49 PM
I like the newborn rivalry...Monte-Carlo final was very interesting to watch because of this, and I'd love to see such an opposition in a Slam final.

But what would be even more interesting would be other players to emerge (Gasquet? A retrieved Marat?) and be able to join this competition for Slams...because on the long term, I think we may get tired of this Federer-Nadal domination as quickly as we got tired of "Roger alone in the world"

ivana_milovic
04-26-2006, 05:58 PM
I couldn't agree more with you! Tennis is definitely much more fun now!!!

Fumus
04-26-2006, 06:24 PM
Thank you Ivo for making tennis fun again!!

nobama
04-26-2006, 07:11 PM
I sure wish Sampras was around to knock some sense into Federer .
He probably thinks he's already the best player of all time .
I just think he needs some humility and you can't ask for a better champion like Nadal to be the one to take him off his thrown of invincibility .Whatever. :ras:

lucashg
04-26-2006, 07:27 PM
Lucashg , you totally misread my entire argument . I didn't say Federer was one dimensional .

I didn't misread it then as I hadn't thought of you being the accusor, though probably you through Pete in your dreams.

I like the newborn rivalry...Monte-Carlo final was very interesting to watch because of this, and I'd love to see such an opposition in a Slam final.

But what would be even more interesting would be other players to emerge (Gasquet? A retrieved Marat?) and be able to join this competition for Slams...because on the long term, I think we may get tired of this Federer-Nadal domination as quickly as we got tired of "Roger alone in the world"

Isn't it only a rivalry when Roger starts to win some? :p

I totally agree with your second point. I'd love to see Gasquet in full potential battling out with Roger and Nadal and see Safin put together for one more. Baghdatis, Berdych as well.

I'm already tired of Fed vs Nadal matches. It's not really only because of the outcome, Roger for mental issues and Nadal play, can never be consistent in a match and NO match where he makes 70+ errors can be good enough for his standards. Not to mention that I find Nadal's game ugly and much of the time very boring and annoying, so that's also another reason.

Jogy
04-26-2006, 09:38 PM
Thanks Nadal for teaching the cocky Swiss a lesson :yeah: :banana:

"one dimensional in his game"
"I'm as good as Nadal on clay"

:haha: makes Federer look like a cocky idiot... and people say Roddick or Hewitt are arrogant :lol:

Rogiman
04-26-2006, 09:42 PM
Thanks Nadal for teaching the cocky Swiss a lesson :yeah: :banana:

"one dimensional in his game"
"I'm as good as Nadal on clay"

:haha: makes Federer look like a cocky idiot... and people say Roddick or Hewitt are arrogant :lol:
Actually your mother is the arrogant one - what did she think to herself keeping a brain damaged baby? :shrug:

NYCtennisfan
04-27-2006, 02:28 AM
Originally Posted by wimbledonfan
I sure wish Sampras was around to knock some sense into Federer .
He probably thinks he's already the best player of all time .
I just think he needs some humility and you can't ask for a better champion like Nadal to be the one to take him off his thrown of invincibility .

He was around in 2001 as the four-time defending champ. All I saw was a four year run at the big W end.

Jagermeister
04-27-2006, 03:15 AM
Actually your mother is the arrogant one - what did she think to herself keeping a brain damaged baby? :shrug:

Are we allowed to talk about people's mommas in here? Sweet! Just like that stupid MTV show.

Honestly I'm warming up to Nadal more now, mostly because he's a new face trying to be up there with Uber-Roger. And I say this as a Steffi Graf fan...to me the WTA was such a drag once Monica was taken out of the game. I loved when Steffi had to throw down with Monica (and some of those matches with Gaby too). Altho let's be honest, is a 2- people rivalry really that much more exciting than a one-person dominance?

I find Federer's comments about how Nadal isn't better than him on clay, well, un-Federer-like? Is Nadal getting to him that much?

Bagelicious
04-27-2006, 04:14 AM
I like the newborn rivalry...Monte-Carlo final was very interesting to watch because of this, and I'd love to see such an opposition in a Slam final.

But what would be even more interesting would be other players to emerge (Gasquet? A retrieved Marat?) and be able to join this competition for Slams...because on the long term, I think we may get tired of this Federer-Nadal domination as quickly as we got tired of "Roger alone in the world"


I'll like the rivalry a bit more if Roger can clean that h2h up a little. If things were a little more even and they won close to 50-50 I'd love that matchup because it could only mean high-quality tennis.

I think you're also right about the Federer-Nadal matchup eventually getting boring as well and I would love nothing more than for Marat/Gasquet/random young gun to get into the mix. I'm really hoping Marat can really get something going this year, I'd love to see him battle it out with Roger again!

Allez
04-27-2006, 06:00 AM
Yanchr , it's not at all childish , I just think the media and tennis fans around the world are already proclaiming the arrogant Roger to be the classiest and greatest player of all time . I sure wish peak sampras was playing in this generation because he'd probably win 8 + wimbledons on grass since the entire field are baseline players .

I would have loved to see the expression on Rogers face after getting beat by Pete and complaining that his game isn't as fluid and that he's one dimensional with his serve .

What about the expression on Pete's face when Rogi EXPOSED Sampras for the one dimensional old bore he was at Wimbledon ? Please. Sampras was losing to players far inferior to Nadal on a regular basis. That is why he only has something like 11 Masters. On clay he was the greatest joke of all time, so don't even think of bringing him into a Federer discussion. Roger could play with his left hand and still trounce Pete most of the time. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mimi
04-27-2006, 06:29 AM
if i was not mistaken, the "old" and declining pete (almost 30) lost to the young and promisng Roger in 01 wimby at 5:7 at the 5th set, not a one-sided but rather tough lost, pls show pete some respect, i don't think roger can beat pete with his left hand, even when he is 35 now :rolleyes: , but if you replace "pete" with "yourself", then its more reasonable :rolleyes:

What about the expression on Pete's face when Rogi EXPOSED Sampras for the one dimensional old bore he was at Wimbledon ? Please. Sampras was losing to players far inferior to Nadal on a regular basis. That is why he only has something like 11 Masters. On clay he was the greatest joke of all time, so don't even think of bringing him into a Federer discussion. Roger could play with his left hand and still trounce Pete most of the time. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

wimbledonfan
04-27-2006, 01:05 PM
FYI alez , they didn't always call them masters series titles in the beginning of Petes career . As I said before , if they had called them masters series tournaments when Lendle was playing , he would have the record by a longshot .

The only thing that mattered to Pete was winning the majors and not the preparation tournaments along the way . By the way , there will come a time when Roger will start to lose to inferior players long the way towards the end of his career . This happens to all champions in all sports from Michael Jordan , to Wayne Gretzky and i'm certain Roger is no exception to the rule . His dominance will end and some joe blow will take him out rather routinely.

anserq
04-27-2006, 01:07 PM
When do you expect the downfall of Roger?
FYI alez , they didn't always call them masters series titles in the beginning of Petes career . As I said before , if they had called them masters series tournaments when Lendle was playing , he would have the record by a longshot .

The only thing that mattered to Pete was winning the majors and not the preparation tournaments along the way . By the way , there will come a time when Roger will start to lose to inferior players long the way towards the end of his career . This happens to all champions in all sports from Michael Jordan , to Wayne Gretzky and i'm certain Roger is no exception to the rule . His dominance will end and some joe blow will take him out rather routinely.

wimbledonfan
04-27-2006, 01:12 PM
One other point I have to make . Pete, unlike Roger , was never dominated by a single player throughout his entire career .Richard Krajicek was the only player to win 60 % of his games against Pete . At this rate , it looks like Nadal will have a convincing edge over Federer because Fed just cannot serve and volley like Pete did on hardcourts to really give it to Nadal .

Pete would have punished Nadal for staying so far back when returning serve , but yet Federer doesn't have Petes type of serve to really punish Nadal for doing this . I feel bad reminding you Alez , but it looks like this rivalry may not be a rivalry afterall as Nadal will beat him almost everytime they play .

Rogiman
04-27-2006, 01:17 PM
One other point I have to make . Pete, unlike Roger , was never dominated by a single player throughout his entire career .Richard Krajicek was the only player to win 60 % of his games against Pete . At this rate , it looks like Nadal will have a convincing edge over Federer because Fed just cannot serve and volley like Pete did on hardcourts to really give it to Nadal .

Pete would have punished Nadal for staying so far back when returning serve , but yet Federer doesn't have Petes type of serve to really punish Nadal for doing this . I feel bad reminding you Alez , but it looks like this rivalry may not be a rivalry afterall as Nadal will beat him almost everytime they play .

Man, you choose to ignore the fact that at some point Sampras trailed 2:6 in his head to head with Krajicek, I'd say that is even worse than Federer's situation with Nadal, especially with Krajicek winning the ones that meant to Pete the most (Wimbledon and DC, true, Sampras won their 2000 USO encounter but Krajicek was dead by then).

Dude, you're trying to make Pete look better through diminishing Federer's game and achievements, that's just as bad as Federer's fans doing the same to Pete.

hitchhiker
04-27-2006, 01:18 PM
Pete, unlike Roger , was never dominated by a single player throughout his entire career .

pete also never consistently made it to the business end of major clay tournaments to have the opportunity to be dominated

Rogiman
04-27-2006, 01:21 PM
pete also never consistently made it to the business end of major clay tournaments to have the opportunity to be dominated
Yeah, that's another good point.

Nadal would make Pete look even sillier than what Kafelnikov made him look back in the 96 semis.

And I'm not a Sampras HATA by any stretch of imagination, but that's plain rubbish.

wimbledonfan
04-27-2006, 01:30 PM
Pete always said that he thinks his game can match up with anyone . In other words , he doesn't think there could be a player who would have ever dominated him . We will see if Roger can also do the same by winning some games against Nadal .

Rogiman
04-27-2006, 01:32 PM
Pete always said that he thinks his game can match up with anyone . In other words , he doesn't think there could be a player who would have ever dominated him . We will see if Roger can also do the same by winning some games against Nadal .
But he WAS dominated for a stretch of time by Krajicek 2:6!
Why is him saying no player could dominate him better than Federer saying he thinks he can figure Nadal's game out?

You're full of bias, bro.

wimbledonfan
04-27-2006, 01:38 PM
I think you're just too much of a Fed fan and i'm trying to shed some light , that he's not the messiah of tennis . Part of me is upset because of how people have been showing him no respect even after he won 14 slams and stayed number 1 for 6 years .

Pete figured out how to beat Richard Krajicek and only time will tell if whether Roger can do the same with Nadal . I'm not trying to disrespect his game , I just think he's not as great as people think he is .

wimbledonfan
04-27-2006, 01:40 PM
Serving and volleying is Nadals kryptonite . I truly think Sampras would have dominated that rivarly with the exception of there matches on clay .

FSRteam
04-27-2006, 01:42 PM
[QUOTE=I find Federer's comments about how Nadal isn't better than him on clay, well, un-Federer-like? Is Nadal getting to him that much?[/QUOTE]

Come on look at the stats of that final, it was pretty close!

2 Tie-breaks out of 4 sets!!!
Only one set was one-sided!

Rogiman
04-27-2006, 01:43 PM
Serving and volleying is Nadals kryptonite . I truly think Sampras would have dominated that rivarly with the exception of there matches on clay .
Then he would have totally dominated it, because he would never make it far enough to meet Nadal on clay.

FSRteam
04-27-2006, 01:44 PM
I'll like the rivalry a bit more if Roger can clean that h2h up a little. If things were a little more even and they won close to 50-50 I'd love that matchup because it could only mean high-quality tennis.

Did you see the MC final?!?

THAT was high-quality tennis! Even a ferrero at his past-best wouldn't have done better than fed against a clay court player as incredible as nadal!

FSRteam
04-27-2006, 01:50 PM
One other point I have to make . Pete, unlike Roger , was never dominated by a single player throughout his entire career .Richard Krajicek was the only player to win 60 % of his games against Pete . At this rate , it looks like Nadal will have a convincing edge over Federer because Fed just cannot serve and volley like Pete did on hardcourts to really give it to Nadal .

Pete would have punished Nadal for staying so far back when returning serve , but yet Federer doesn't have Petes type of serve to really punish Nadal for doing this . I feel bad reminding you Alez , but it looks like this rivalry may not be a rivalry afterall as Nadal will beat him almost everytime they play .

You must be kidding, nadal would have passed him every time. Try and think for a while where there almost no more serve and volleyers!?! :scratch:

dEcu_RF
04-27-2006, 02:53 PM
You must be kidding, nadal would have passed him every time. Try and think for a while where there almost no more serve and volleyers!?! :scratch:
not that I completely disagree, on clay obviously Sampras wouldn't have stood a chance, but you have to keep in mind that in the sampras era the hard courts played much faster than today's ( let alone grass-courts) , I guess sampras serve-and-volley game would have prevailed

Marat y David
04-27-2006, 03:52 PM
Yes Rafa has meke tennis fun again watch a match of rafa its not boring like watch a match of roger and you can see rafa for 5 hours(final against coria)and not get bored he is charismatic

Duncan
04-27-2006, 04:52 PM
i hate watching him play, his grunting during big points is silly. He reminds me of Sharapova

Allez
04-27-2006, 05:47 PM
One other point I have to make . Pete, unlike Roger , was never dominated by a single player throughout his entire career .Richard Krajicek was the only player to win 60 % of his games against Pete . At this rate , it looks like Nadal will have a convincing edge over Federer because Fed just cannot serve and volley like Pete did on hardcourts to really give it to Nadal .

Pete would have punished Nadal for staying so far back when returning serve , but yet Federer doesn't have Petes type of serve to really punish Nadal for doing this . I feel bad reminding you Alez , but it looks like this rivalry may not be a rivalry afterall as Nadal will beat him almost everytime they play .

You must be loving the fact that we'll never know how Pete would have fared against Nadal. That way there is always a possibility that you may be right. With Fed we'll all know sooner or later. I'm the first one to admit that currently Nadal's game has Roger stumped, just as Richard's did to Sampras all those years ago. However I have faith that as long as Roger is realistic enough to accept this, and work hard in devising a counter strategy, he will at least beat him when it matters the most (e.g. grand slams). This is not blind fan faith, but it's based on what the guy has achieved and the peerless talent that he is blessed with. The only thing that could stop him from overhauling this ridiculous H2H is his head.

Perhaps Pete would have done well against Nadal, perhaps not. We'll never know, so stop stating your opinions as though they were facts. :rolleyes: What we do know is that Sampras lost to a 19 year old rookie in 2001 on his best surface. It goes without saying that given that FACT, Roger would have dominated Pete on all other surfaces. So Pete might have ended up doing the dirty work of eliminating Nadal only to be flattened by the Fed Express in the championship matches.

ExpectedWinner
04-27-2006, 06:29 PM
.Richard Krajicek was the only player to win 60 % of his games against Pete .

Actually from March, 1993 to March, 1999 ( Pete's prime years) Sampras won 2 matches out of 8 (25%). If anything, Pete was lucky to meet Krajicek only once at a GS touranment during that period of time. Of course, Richard wasn't as consistent as Nadal at the moment, had a lot of injures, did not reach the No2 ranking. Thus, media had never fully concentrated on this "rivalry"/match up issue.

Rex
04-27-2006, 06:33 PM
if you want nadal to win every time, is not that BORING DOMINANCE... well i do agree, its good for now, i do think its great that soemone can actually beat this guy.