Roland Garros/French Open
- Thread starter Le Chacal
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=45509.msg1339373#msg1339373 date=1306426302]
Whos watching it?
Nadal having a tough match after winning in 5 sets in 1st round.
He doesnt look at his top.
Djokovic is on another planet but match against Del Potro will be interesting.
[/quote]
Is Novak as untouchable as Federer 04-06.
I think yes.
Must be nailed on to win Wimbledon
Whos watching it?
Nadal having a tough match after winning in 5 sets in 1st round.
He doesnt look at his top.
Djokovic is on another planet but match against Del Potro will be interesting.
[/quote]
Is Novak as untouchable as Federer 04-06.
I think yes.
Must be nailed on to win Wimbledon
Don't know much about tennis, but is Djokovic worth a few quid to win Wimbledon
He's the joint favourite with Nadal at 9/4.
Within 4 years, Nadal will have more grand slams than Federer.
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=45509.msg1342771#msg1342771 date=1307114051]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=45509.msg1342768#msg1342768 date=1307113797]
Within 4 years, Nadal will have more grand slams than Federer.
[/quote]
Djokovic could be a big problem though...
[/quote]
You mean unlike Federer, Nadal may have a rival for most of his career? That's a good thing!
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=45509.msg1342768#msg1342768 date=1307113797]
Within 4 years, Nadal will have more grand slams than Federer.
[/quote]
Djokovic could be a big problem though...
[/quote]
You mean unlike Federer, Nadal may have a rival for most of his career? That's a good thing!
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=45509.msg1342703#msg1342703 date=1307108531]
Wimbledon has been the most difficult grand slam for him so far but considering his form this year, its quite a safe bet
[/quote]
Cool, thanks.
Wimbledon has been the most difficult grand slam for him so far but considering his form this year, its quite a safe bet
[/quote]
Cool, thanks.
So Rafa now has 10 grand slams at the age of 24 ... Imagine if Federer had Rafa in his earlier years, instead of the average field he dominated?
As I've said, I don't know much about tennis, but great players make the rest look average.
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=45509.msg1343642#msg1343642 date=1307309286]
As I've said, I don't know much about tennis, but great players make the rest look average.
[/quote]
I wouldn't call Roger average
As I've said, I don't know much about tennis, but great players make the rest look average.
[/quote]
I wouldn't call Roger average
Most of the top players, past and present, acknowledge Roger as the best player to have played the game.
It's nice to see Federer get back to something approaching his best form. It's a shame that he can't seem to maintain it against Nadal. It's the will of Nadal that beats him more than anything. Wimbledon should be interesting though.
It's nice to see Federer get back to something approaching his best form. It's a shame that he can't seem to maintain it against Nadal. It's the will of Nadal that beats him more than anything. Wimbledon should be interesting though.
It's far easier to look great when you have one of hte weakest men's field in the last 50-60 years.
Nadal's 'field' isn't great either (Bar Federer and a few others, who is there?) but he'll smash Federer's grand slam record most likely (unless he gets injured).
If he is the 'best player to have played the game,' his reign will be very short ...
Nadal's 'field' isn't great either (Bar Federer and a few others, who is there?) but he'll smash Federer's grand slam record most likely (unless he gets injured).
If he is the 'best player to have played the game,' his reign will be very short ...
You'd have thought the greatest ever player wouldn't have repeatedly been beaten by his biggest (and for a long time the only) rival.
A few stats from wiki...
Head-to-head tallies:
All matches: Nadal 17–8
All finals: Nadal 13–6
Grand Slam matches: Nadal 7–2
Grand Slam finals: Nadal 6–2
Tennis Masters Cup/ATP World Tour Finals matches: Federer 3–0
Tennis Masters Cup/ATP World Tour Finals finals: Federer 1–0
ATP Masters Series/ATP World Tour Masters 1000 matches: Nadal 9–3
ATP Masters Series/ATP World Tour Masters 1000 finals: Nadal 6–3
Best of five set matches: Nadal 9–3
Five set matches: Nadal 3–2
Results on each court surface:
Clay courts: Nadal 12–2
Hard courts: 4–4
Grass courts: Federer 2–1
A few stats from wiki...
Head-to-head tallies:
All matches: Nadal 17–8
All finals: Nadal 13–6
Grand Slam matches: Nadal 7–2
Grand Slam finals: Nadal 6–2
Tennis Masters Cup/ATP World Tour Finals matches: Federer 3–0
Tennis Masters Cup/ATP World Tour Finals finals: Federer 1–0
ATP Masters Series/ATP World Tour Masters 1000 matches: Nadal 9–3
ATP Masters Series/ATP World Tour Masters 1000 finals: Nadal 6–3
Best of five set matches: Nadal 9–3
Five set matches: Nadal 3–2
Results on each court surface:
Clay courts: Nadal 12–2
Hard courts: 4–4
Grass courts: Federer 2–1
It seems to me that people call Roger the bestest ever cos he makes the game look beautiful and simple, he strokes the ball delicately, he hits with grace and precision people tend to like that.
I'v not watched tennis properly in years but this is the impression I always get.
I'v not watched tennis properly in years but this is the impression I always get.
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=45509.msg1343905#msg1343905 date=1307359660]
It seems to me that people call Roger the bestest ever cos he makes the game look beautiful and simple, he strokes the ball delicately, he hits with grace and precision people tend to like that.
I'v not watched tennis properly in years but this is the impression I always get.
[/quote]
Bang on.
If he was even 50-50 in his head to heads against Nadal, i would entertain the greatest player ever argument.
Nadal has the higher will to win. A mark of a true champion. I don't think Federer would have done well in an era where players had to truly fight for domination.
Sampras/Agassi/Becker/Edberg/Stich/Courier etc were playing tennis when the top 6 or 8 all had legitimate claims to be able to win every grand slam they participated in, and they won some and lost some. To make matters worse, outsiders like Chang and the big lad Goran were always around to upset the apple cart. When Federer has not shown the mental strength required to dominate the one real competition he had to face, how is it possible to expect him to do well in an era like that?
If you are talking pure talent only then players like Agassi and McEnroe have as much claim to being the greatest ever. I think those guys had the game to succeed even back when wooden rackets were used and hitting 150 mph serve (which Sampras used devastatingly well) wasn't even possible in the wildest dream. So style/talent etc are quite subjective what really matters is how you fare against your opponent. You don't get 16 grand slams are what ever, without doing quite well.....but there is this big white elephant in the room, what are we going to do about it?
It seems to me that people call Roger the bestest ever cos he makes the game look beautiful and simple, he strokes the ball delicately, he hits with grace and precision people tend to like that.
I'v not watched tennis properly in years but this is the impression I always get.
[/quote]
Bang on.
If he was even 50-50 in his head to heads against Nadal, i would entertain the greatest player ever argument.
Nadal has the higher will to win. A mark of a true champion. I don't think Federer would have done well in an era where players had to truly fight for domination.
Sampras/Agassi/Becker/Edberg/Stich/Courier etc were playing tennis when the top 6 or 8 all had legitimate claims to be able to win every grand slam they participated in, and they won some and lost some. To make matters worse, outsiders like Chang and the big lad Goran were always around to upset the apple cart. When Federer has not shown the mental strength required to dominate the one real competition he had to face, how is it possible to expect him to do well in an era like that?
If you are talking pure talent only then players like Agassi and McEnroe have as much claim to being the greatest ever. I think those guys had the game to succeed even back when wooden rackets were used and hitting 150 mph serve (which Sampras used devastatingly well) wasn't even possible in the wildest dream. So style/talent etc are quite subjective what really matters is how you fare against your opponent. You don't get 16 grand slams are what ever, without doing quite well.....but there is this big white elephant in the room, what are we going to do about it?
Nadal is without doubt the best clay courter ever to play the game. He is virtually unbeatable on his day, as evidenced by his record at the French Open. While it could be said that Federer probably should have beaten Nadal on clay a little more often, it's very difficult to hold it against him. There isn't a player in history who could live with Nadal on the surface. He's a freak of nature. When you consider that 12 of Federer's 17 losses to Nadal have come on clay (let's face it, were it not for Nadal, Federer would have won the French Open as regularly as he won the other grand slams), it's not hard to see how their head-to-head record falls so heavily in Nadal's favour.
When you look at their record on other surfaces, it's much more competitive. Federer actually edges it. That's not to undermine Nadal's achievements - precisely the opposite in fact. To have achieved what he has is quite remarkable. Indeed, he may well go on to be acknowledged as the greatest in the future, but what's important to remember is that we're talking about two of the greatest players ever to have played the game, not one. So holding Nadal's victories over Federer as a means of undermining his achievements really misses the point. They are both phenomenal.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, and I made my case about as clearly as I could then. It just amazes me that people are still so quick to undermine Federer, when he has played such an integral part in raising the standard of men's tennis.
When you look at their record on other surfaces, it's much more competitive. Federer actually edges it. That's not to undermine Nadal's achievements - precisely the opposite in fact. To have achieved what he has is quite remarkable. Indeed, he may well go on to be acknowledged as the greatest in the future, but what's important to remember is that we're talking about two of the greatest players ever to have played the game, not one. So holding Nadal's victories over Federer as a means of undermining his achievements really misses the point. They are both phenomenal.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, and I made my case about as clearly as I could then. It just amazes me that people are still so quick to undermine Federer, when he has played such an integral part in raising the standard of men's tennis.
No one is undermining him ... It's just not everyone is as quick to 'throw away' the fact he really came at one of the weakest eras for Men's tennis. You attribute it entirely to his talent - I don't as evident by his 'dominance' over the past 3-4 years with ONE rival peaking. Is he great? Sure. Is he the greatest of all time? Nope, and even if you think he is, Nadal will surely over take his Slam count in the next 3-4 years to challenge that thought on another front too.
