• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tennis thread

Jurgen the German said:
I meant when Nadal serves. The rule is 15 seconds correct? He takes up to 45 seconds on average. If I was a pro player, I would constantly remind the umpire the amount of time he takes. He clearly gets irked on the rare times the umpire has the stones to penalise him for it. I'd also kick his water bottles over too just to see what he does :D

I don't like the way Nadal scowls when he's on court. He knows every trick in the book when it comes to bending the rules i.e. calling for the trainer (I except a lot of players do this) when he's not injured and he bumped into Rosol during a changeover at Wimbledon he was obviously trying to psych him out.

I don't get how people could have a problem with Federer. He's always gracious to Nadal when he loses to him. He never claims he is the best player ever even though most people regard him as such, he always dismisses it! People even tried to claim he was patronising to Murray yesterday by saying he would eventually win a slam. What did people want him to say? "you'll never win one of these whilst I'm around Andy." If anything, he looked like he felt bad about beating Murray!

But each to their own I suppose.
Click to expand...

I actually think he was pretty decent with Murray yesterday. Obviously it was a pretty difficult thing for him having to see Murray burst into tears, I doubt he would have expected that despite the fact it was a Wimbledon final. It was almost more about Murray losing as a Brit than Federer equalling Sampras' record in London which is a shame.

Nadal does scowl alot on court I will admit but I think it is his way of trying to fire himself up further. My gripes with Federer are just really in how I perceive his demeanour. You obviously see it differently just as I see it differently in relation to your points re Nadal. Like I said, I think our thoughts on both players are based on liking the actual person as well as their talent on the court.

The serving question, Im not entirely aware of the specific time limit when serving but I know etiquette dictates that you play to the pace of the server. So in theory, if the server wishes to rush through each point at a pace that say the previous point has just ended 5 seconds ago then the receiver is supposed to have made themselves ready. By the same token, if they wish to take a bit longer then so be it. I accept Nadal takes a bit longer than most players but the only player who really ever seems in a rush to serve is Roddingdong - I don't see anyone else really not kinda taking their own time when they are on serve.
 
Superted said:
There's a difference between dominating on grass and dominating on clay. Generally, only the best players win at Wimbledon. Winners of the French are littered with second rate tennis players.
Click to expand...

One off winners yes. The only players who have dominated at Roland Garros are Nadal and Borg in the open era. I think we know that both of them are considered as being in the top 10 best ever players.

2nd rate winners happen at Wimbledon too - Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek spring to mind as second rate by comparison to other players of their era. Neither of those went on and built on that win at Wimbledon.
 
Of course they are. Borg also dominated Wimbledon. Nadal hasn't because there's a better player than him going around.

I never said that the odd winner didn't come through at Wimbledon that you wouldn't consider "great", but look at the list of winners. All the greats win at Wimbledon, so it's the most competitive slam, the one they ll want to win because it is tennis at its purest form. Winners of the French, apart from the two exceptions you stated, I not consider greats (Kuerten, Moya, Fererra, etc)
 
Superted said:
Of course they are. Borg also dominated Wimbledon. Nadal hasn't because there's a better player than him going around.

I never said that the odd winner didn't come through at Wimbledon that you wouldn't consider "great", but look at the list of winners. All the greats win at Wimbledon, so it's the most competitive slam, the one they ll want to win because it is tennis at its purest form. Winners of the French, apart from the two exceptions you stated, I not consider greats (Kuerten, Moya, Fererra, etc)
Click to expand...

I agree in the main but I think it is slightly distorted by the fact that alot of these one off winners occured in the mid-late 90s into the early 2000s so they are well in the memory. For a period of 15-20 years generally the winner of the French came from one of Borg, Wilander or Lendl until the mid 90s. Even Courier won it twice and he whilst maybe not an all time great, he is still probably just below that level. The thing with winners like Moya, Kuerten, Bruguera etc is that they grew up playing on clay all the time, it was pretty much their only surface

So whilst I agree that the French has had alot more one off winners or winners who haven't had particularly steller careers, I disagree that it is almost not as big an achievement to dominate at Roland Garros as it is at Wimbledon because dominating any surface for a period of time is outstanding and imo his dominance there supersedes Federer at Wimbledon due to the fact that the only time he has lost at Roland Garros is 2009 when he was actually injured. Other than that he has won it every single time since he has entered since 2005.
 
But that's my point. Clay tennis is a specialized form, so you get French Open winners who aren't great tennis players. My argument is that Nadals's stats are skewed by his FO numbers. Take them away and he doesn't even compare to Federer.

Take away Fed's Wimbledon titles, he still has Aus & US open titles to back up.
 
Superted said:
But that's my point. Clay tennis is a specialized form, so you get French Open winners who aren't great tennis players. My argument is that Nadals's stats are skewed by his FO numbers. Take them away and he doesn't even compare to Federer.

Take away Fed's Wimbledon titles, he still has Aus & US open titles to back up.
Click to expand...

But you can say that about anyone, If you take away this and that. What about the fact Federer had those 4 years with no competition? What about the fact Federer is 4 years older than Nadal and has had more opportunities at the current time? Its all what ifs. Since Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2008, Nadal has won 7 more Grand slams to Federer's 5 and thats with a year or so of real dificulties with his knees.

Nadal is only the 2nd player to win at least 2 grand slam tournaments on all 3 surfaces. Federer is unlikely to rival that because he is unlikely to win the French Open again. Nadal will more than likely win at least 1 more at the US, AUS and Wimbledon and probably continue to dominate at Roland Garros.
 
Nadal has never won the Aus open and only once in US, so I don't think it's more than likely he will win at least once more at either of those. I'd wager that Fed had more wins in those tournaments in him than Nadal.
 
Superted said:
Nadal has never won the Aus open and only once in US, so I don't think it's more than likely he will win at least once more at either of those. I'd wager that Fed had more wins in those tournaments in him than Nadal.
Click to expand...

Nadal:

French Open Winner - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012

Wimbledon Winner - 2008, 2010

US Open Winner - 2010

Australian Open Winner - 2009

Not to mention losing in the final of the US Open in 2011 and the Australian Open in 2012 which means with the exception of Australia 2011 and Wimbledon 2012, Nadal has been in 5 of the last 7 grand slam finals whilst Federer has been in 2. That suggests to me that Nadal has more within him and Federer is beginning to slow down.

US Open isn't far off and I expect Nadal to win it. If not then I would expect Djokovic to win it ahead of Federer.
 
Missed 2009 - don't know what I was thinking.

Look at it another way: http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Nadal.html

Fed v Nadal at same age. Again take away the French Open, it's not even a debate. And I can take away the FO because it is a specialized tournament that in the last 20 years is dominated by players from Spanish or similar regions who have concentrated on that surface. Take out Federer's Wimbledon wins as well and he's still dominating.
 
Jurgen the German said:
I meant when Nadal serves. The rule is 15 seconds correct? He takes up to 45 seconds on average. If I was a pro player, I would constantly remind the umpire the amount of time he takes. He clearly gets irked on the rare times the umpire has the stones to penalise him for it. I'd also kick his water bottles over too just to see what he does :D

I don't like the way Nadal scowls when he's on court. He knows every trick in the book when it comes to bending the rules i.e. calling for the trainer (I except a lot of players do this) when he's not injured and he bumped into Rosol during a changeover at Wimbledon he was obviously trying to psych him out.

I don't get how people could have a problem with Federer. He's always gracious to Nadal when he loses to him. He never claims he is the best player ever even though most people regard him as such, he always dismisses it! People even tried to claim he was patronising to Murray yesterday by saying he would eventually win a slam. What did people want him to say? "you'll never win one of these whilst I'm around Andy." If anything, he looked like he felt bad about beating Murray!

But each to their own I suppose.
Click to expand...

Agree with every word - obnoxious half-ape who looks like someone shat in his cereal every time he's on court
 
Libero said:
Nadal:

French Open Winner - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012

Wimbledon Winner - 2008, 2010

US Open Winner - 2010

Australian Open Winner - 2009

Not to mention losing in the final of the US Open in 2011 and the Australian Open in 2012 which means with the exception of Australia 2011 and Wimbledon 2012, Nadal has been in 5 of the last 7 grand slam finals whilst Federer has been in 2. That suggests to me that Nadal has more within him and Federer is beginning to slow down.

US Open isn't far off and I expect Nadal to win it. If not then I would expect Djokovic to win it ahead of Federer.
Click to expand...

Federe is by far the greatest in terms of achievements.......Nadal needs more variety to his game and more wins off Clay courts to come close.

I agree saying he wouldn't be the same player without his athleticism is complete rubbish.......that's like saying Sampras would have been brick without his amazing serve!! :)
 
Superted said:
But that's my point. Clay tennis is a specialized form, so you get French Open winners who aren't great tennis players. My argument is that Nadals's stats are skewed by his FO numbers. Take them away and he doesn't even compare to Federer.

Take away Fed's Wimbledon titles, he still has Aus & US open titles to back up.
Click to expand...

Gaston Gaudio and Alberto Costa? Please.......did NOTHING on any other surface.

You only need to look at the lists of slam winners to see 1990-2003 was a mug era......the current era is the strongest ever, Rosol proved that at this years Championships
 
Onto more pressing issues - am I the only one who thinks Radtosssa is an absolute belter up there with Lisicki and Azarenka? My Top 3 seeds, for sure :-"
 
But you said Fed couldn't be considered the greatest ever until he improved his record against Nadal which, when you take out the French Open because it's like a totally different sport, the record is quite good.

I'll be noting this inconsistency in my journal.
 
I didn't say that actually.

I said the only ARGUMENT against him would be his record against Nadal........but concluded that he is the best ever, at the moment.

If Nadal improves him record in other slams then he could overtake him.

So write that in your journal! :)
 
Nadal has 11 slams. I know at one point he was actually on pace to overtake Federer if you look at age comparison. But Nadal has only won two of the last 7 slams, both French Opens. Federer had also won 11 slams by the age of 26. I don't think Nadal will overtake Federer. As it stands, Nadal needs 7 more slams to overtake Federer, and that is assuming Federer doesn't win anymore which is unlikely considering his form has actually improved over the last 18 months.

Nadal often gets knocked out by the quarter finals, 2nd round, 4th round of tournaments, certainly more than Federer does. Federer doesn't fall before the quarters, and he gets to the semis or the final of the French Open every single year.

You can only beat what is in front of you which Federer did. When Federer started to really dominate, I don't think anyone would have been able to touch him, even Nadal and Djokovic at their peaks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back