[hitchhiker]

this era is weak. i know people don't like to hear this but the competition for federer and nadal on grass/clay is non existant which makes them look better then they actually are.

name 5 good grass court players these days

name 5 good clay court players these days (i.e consistent)

[zicofirol]

This post is ridiculous, Nadal does not have the game to win a major oother than RG he might sneek in a AO but he wont come close on grass or at the US open, like Blake proved last year, any power player that gets nadal on a fast surface will beat him. Ljubicic was beating him easily last year in Madrid until he ran out of gas in the 3rd (he had just come from getting to master series final the week before). The win over agassi was impressive but I dont think he can beat good fast court players consistently in a grand slam.

[A_Skywalker]

Originally Posted by zicofirol

This post is ridiculous, Nadal does not have the game to win a major oother than RG he might sneek in a AO but he wont come close on grass or at the US open, like Blake proved last year, any power player that gets nadal on a fast surface will beat him. Ljubicic was beating him easily last year in Madrid until he ran out of gas in the 3rd (he had just come from getting to master series final the week before). The win over agassi was impressive but I dont think he can beat good fast court players consistently in a grand slam.

He's just 19 , what do you want from him ? How do you know he will not come close on US open or grass , he reached 3rd round on Wimbledon when he was 17(seventeen) and he lost it in 5 sets if I am correct . A little training on that surface and everything will come good for Rafa

[Dextertje]

Originally Posted by hitchhiker

this era is weak. i know people don't like to hear this but the competition for federer and nadal on grass/clay is non existant which makes them look better then they actually are.

name 5 good grass court players these days

name 5 good clay court players these days (i.e consistent)

Federer and Nadal would have made others look weak in any era. The underdogs are better nowadays than anytime else. But there are two aliens right now, unfortunately for the rest of the field.

[oz_boz]

If a Fed/Sampras comparison is premature, what can you say about bringing up Nadal in the discussion? But OK, he belongs to the best teens of all time.

[hitchhiker]

Originally Posted by JMPower

Federer and Nadal would have made others look weak in any era. The underdogs are better nowadays than anytime else.

what underdogs?? coria can make QF of a masters while serving 50 double faults per match ffs. is he a alien as well?

ljubicic makes semis of any masters (got injured in monte carlo). another alien?

i cant wait until one of the younger guys begins to play well and dominate this weak field as well, then there will be 3 aliens.

[Gulliver]

I'm always curious when people quote ages. I think this is the least important factor because of the differing rate of development of individuals both mentally and physically, and only comes into play when assessing the likely longevity of a career ( or to compare records at certain ages). In tennis, experience going hand in hand with a fast rate of mental and physical development (+ talent, obviously) will see excellent results at an early age.

Nadal has talent, excellent development and experience. He turned pro in 2001 and has already played 183 matches. Gasquet (same age) turned pro in 2002 and has played 99 matches. So Gasquet, at age 19, is certainly not as good as Nadal in achievement because he lacks the same development and experience. I'd give him the nod on talent, though.

Federer, too, at 19, had the talent and was getting the experience, but lacked strong physical and mental development, and only started to come good on all fronts at age 22. Gasquet might be the same. And Nadal might well be unstoppable at 22 with even more experience, but who knows?

[nobama]

Originally Posted by Gulliver

Federer, too, at 19, had the talent and was getting the experience, but lacked strong physical and mental development, and only started to come good on all fronts at age 22. Gasquet might be the same. And Nadal might well be unstoppable at 22 with even more experience, but who knows?

That's why I think this thread is silly because we don't know and it's all just a guess. Appreciate the success Nadal is now having but nobody knows what will happen in the future. I'm sure back in 2001-2002 nobody thought Federer would have 7 slam titles just a few years later. Let's come back in a few years and see where Nadal is at before proclaiming his immortality.

[Purple Rainbow]

Three years later, time to bump this thread.

Comparisons still invalid?

[christallh24]

Nice bump!

Still to early to call, imo.

[rafa_maniac]

Originally Posted by JuchuPati

oh come on!

Im rafa fan, but I honestly doubt that he will be able to win someday Wimbledon.

Originally Posted by TheMightyFed

given his clay orientation, he would need a hell of an adaptation to do well on grass, difficult to do a great clay court season in these conditions, and he needs the clay points for his ranking.
Forget it.

Originally Posted by SLICK

Right now I think it is best to think of Nadal as a "souped-up" Muster.

Originally Posted by Liverpool4ever

I hate it when people think that just, because Nadal is 19 he still has lots of room for improvement, because infact I think Federer still has greater room for improvement at 24 than Nadal.

Originally Posted by Andre♥

It would be great to see Federer vs Nadal in grass. But that won't happen in the next years. Why? Because Nadal needs a miracle to get into a grass final...

Conclusion:

Federer's worst surface is clay: He's the 2nd best player there.

Nadal's worst surface is grass: He doesn't even belong in the top 20 in this surface.

Federer > Nadal

Originally Posted by jacobhiggins

Nadal will improve, I don't think he's going to become as good as people think he is or he will become that much better.

Originally Posted by zicofirol

This post is ridiculous, Nadal does not have the game to win a major oother than RG he might sneek in a AO but he wont come close on grass or at the US open.

Originally Posted by Gulliver

Nadal might well be unstoppable at 22 with even more experience, but who knows?

Awesome bump

[kafemotor]

Originally Posted by Purple Rainbow

Three years later, time to bump this thread.

Comparisons still invalid?

where have u been? Bump in time...

Originally Posted by Gulliver

I'm always curious when people quote ages. I think this is the least important factor because of the differing rate of development of individuals both mentally and physically, and only comes into play when assessing the likely longevity of a career ( or to compare records at certain ages). In tennis, experience going hand in hand with a fast rate of mental and physical development (+ talent, obviously) will see excellent results at an early age.

Nadal has talent, excellent development and experience. He turned pro in 2001 and has already played 183 matches. Gasquet (same age) turned pro in 2002 and has played 99 matches. So Gasquet, at age 19, is certainly not as good as Nadal in achievement because he lacks the same development and experience. I'd give him the nod on talent, though.

Federer, too, at 19, had the talent and was getting the experience, but lacked strong physical and mental development, and only started to come good on all fronts at age 22. Gasquet might be the same. And Nadal might well be unstoppable at 22 with even more experience, but who knows?

I love this one...

[christallh24]

rafa_maniac, how breathtakingly wrong were some folks, huh?

But, that Gulliver, was pretty much right on the money.

[guptaji]

Originally Posted by Purple Rainbow

Three years later, time to bump this thread.

Comparisons still invalid?

You've got some vision..

Please tell us what will be the status of tennis world in 2012.

[Chair Umpire]

I love thread bumping.