• 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

I don't think Federer's record against Nadal is all that important. 6 of those defeats came on clay, which Nadal has such massive advantage on. Djokovic absolutely destroyed Nadal at Wimbledon and has a better head to head record against Nadal in grand slam finals, but if their careers ended today, would people say Djokovic is the better player?

When it comes to ability and the array of shots, it's not close IMO, Federer is a better player than Nadal. If Federer had Nadal's athleticism and ability to keep getting the ball back, Fed would win hands down!
 
Agree with that. Also we're currently watching possibly the 3 greatest tennis players of all time in one era. I can't ever remember tennis being played this well this consistently.
 
Nope. Buy put a wooden racket in their hands and what would happen? That's why you can't really compare eras. But I do think Fed is the best ever. Which makes the slagging Murray gets even more baffling. He's lost 3 times in finals to the best player ever, the shame of it!!!
 
Last edited:
superspurs said:
I don't think Nadal will overtake Fed, a fair bit of Federer's success is down to his fitness and lack of injuries, whereas Nadal's swashbuckling style plays havok with his knee's.

Saying that, who knows, Nadal is that good.
Click to expand...

I accept the point, but his knees seem to have been sorted, or aren't the issue they threatened to be.

He only needs 6 to match Federer and will probably have 20+ more opportunities to get them......I can see another 3 French Opens for a start.

I agree with the assessment that Federer is a better player, but to dismiss Nadal due to his physical advantages is unfair IMO
 
Murray hates watching his matches back and he'll be sick for a while watching that one. Federer was class but I think Murray allowed him to show that class. Federer is more often than not a front runner and Muray had every opportunity to take that second set. There were 3 or 4 curcial points where Murray should have put easy winners away. One slid wide, a couple a fraction long. He should have made them and the second set was his. Not to say Federer wouldn't have come back but Murray's serving percentages bombed after that and he let Federer largely dictate. Federer then played some fantastic tennis and Murray was having to fight for every point. He did very well indeed but he really will kick himself. Initially he gave it away but then Federer took it. Murray will certainly win a Grandslam and he had a very, very good opportunity to do yesterday. You just don't win them against opponents like RF when you serve like he did towards the end and make that many unforced errors. Olympics next.
 
Dorothy said:
Murray hates watching his matches back and he'll be sick for a while watching that one. Federer was class but I think Murray allowed him to show that class. Federer is more often than not a front runner and Muray had every opportunity to take that second set. There were 3 or 4 curcial points where Murray should have put easy winners away. One slid wide, a couple a fraction long. He should have made them and the second set was his. Not to say Federer wouldn't have come back but Murray's serving percentages bombed after that and he let Federer largely dictate. Federer then played some fantastic tennis and Murray was having to fight for every point. He did very well indeed but he really will kick himself. Initially he gave it away but then Federer took it. Murray will certainly win a Grandslam and he had a very, very good opportunity to do yesterday. You just don't win them against opponents like RF when you serve like he did towards the end and make that many unforced errors. Olympics next.
Click to expand...

Agreed....those break points in the 2nd set were pivotal.

Shows the fine margins.

Murray needs to play one of the other players to win a slam!!

Federer won against Phillipousis
Nadal against Puerta
Djokovic against Tsonga

Murray playing these guys with multiple slams is very tough, as they feel they have already climbed the mountain
 
I definitely think Nadal is in Federer's head when they meet in finals.

Maybe I was a bit dismissive of Nadal, but I think he is more braun and power whereas Federer has more flair and grace.

Federer is definitely the best player to watch.
 
They talked about Murray on talksport earlier. One caller rang in with the typical I don't like Murray cos he hates England lark, but Adrian Durham played an interview him and Goughie did with Murray where they put the myth to bed that he doesn't like the English.
 
Ive always been a big Nadal fan since I saw him first break onto the scene around '05 and for someone to say in terms of sheer ability it isn't close between him and Federer is just nonsense to my mind. To then back up by saying that if Federer had Nadal's superior athleticism then it wouldn't be for debate trumps it.

Fact is, he doesn't. Its all subjective and down to opinion but to my mind, overall, Nadal is a better player and I think Slams wise will prove it come the end of both their careers. People will trot out about most of his coming on Clay which is a fair point but his dominance on that surface actually surpasses that of Federer's on grass which is an amazing feat. Both are fantastic players and very different personalities and I have to say that on a personal level I don't like Federer but he is still at this moment in time probably the best ever everything considered but I think he will be surpassed by Nadal overall and I think that Rafa will continue to have the edge on head to heads as their careers draw to a close.
 
Libero said:
Ive always been a big Nadal fan since I saw him first break onto the scene around '05 and for someone to say in terms of sheer ability it isn't close between him and Federer is just nonsense to my mind. To then back up by saying that if Federer had Nadal's superior athleticism then it wouldn't be for debate trumps it.

Fact is, he doesn't. Its all subjective and down to opinion but to my mind, overall, Nadal is a better player and I think Slams wise will prove it come the end of both their careers. People will trot out about most of his coming on Clay which is a fair point but his dominance on that surface actually surpasses that of Federer's on grass which is an amazing feat. Both are fantastic players and very different personalities and I have to say that on a personal level I don't like Federer but he is still at this moment in time probably the best ever everything considered but I think he will be surpassed by Nadal overall and I think that Rafa will continue to have the edge on head to heads as their careers draw to a close.
Click to expand...

Nadal's greatest strength IMO is his ability to get the ball back. He is also one of the fittest players on tour which is a big advantage. A player like Djokovic is also superb at getting the ball back and making the opponent play one more shot and he kind of nullifies Nadal! He is easily the best defensive player along with Djokovic, but Federer takes the game to the opponent more and is better to watch.

Federer isn't very quick, his serve is good but it's not a huge weapon, but he has without doubt the finest array of shots I've ever seen!

Nadal winds me up with how much time he takes between each serve. It's gamesmanship at best and he only gets away with it because of his status and ranking.
 
Also, Nadal was nowhere near as dominant when he was number 1 as Federer was at his peak. Federer won three grand slams three years in a row! And he also got to the French Open final most years, so he was not far off doing the Grand Slam 3 years running! His record of getting to quarter finals in slams is also staggering, especially considering Nadal's defeat to Rosol in the 2nd round!
 
Jurgen the German said:
Nadal's greatest strength IMO is his ability to get the ball back. He is also one of the fittest players on tour which is a big advantage. A player like Djokovic is also superb at getting the ball back and making the opponent play one more shot and he kind of nullifies Nadal! He is easily the best defensive player along with Djokovic, but Federer takes the game to the opponent more and is better to watch.

Federer isn't very quick, his serve is good but it's not a huge weapon, but he has without doubt the finest array of shots I've ever seen!

Nadal winds me up with how much time he takes between each serve. It's gamesmanship at best and he only gets away with it because of his status and ranking.
Click to expand...

Federer is extremly graceful and I think he has an elegance to his play that the other two don't have. But I would have to say that imo, Nadal has a bigger array of shots. I have seen him retrieve and make a winner from shots that he has no right even getting near. Being fit is one thing, you still have to execute the shot.

To my mind, Federer benefited from his career taking off at just the right time. He had 3-4 years of being the one main player on the mens tour after the retirement of Sampras and before the real arrival of Nadal and then Djokovic. By the time Nadal had truly arrived and won Wimbledon in 2008, Federer had only lost to Nadal in Grand slam finals, x 1 at Wimbledon and x 3 Roland Garros and had won 12 of his now 17 titles. Nadal has had to compete with forcing his way into winning other Grand Slams against the might of Federer at his peak plus the emergence of Djokovic and Murray all pretty much at the same time whilst Federer had that 3-4 year period where none of the competition was really up to dethroning him.

In fairness to Nadal, you play to the speed of the server - that is the rules. You know what you get with him and if other players use that as an excuse for defeats then to my mind its a poor show.

It looks like your feelings with Nadal are similar to mine with Federer in that it's a preference also based on personality. I don't like Federer because I find he has a terribly arrogant demeanour and comes across at key times as pretty condescending. I remember his speech after winning Wimbledon against Roddingdong in 2009 which came across so poorly about knowing how Roddingdong felt being a runner up that it backed up my feelings about him.

Great Player no doubt but he doesn't come across as a Good Champion to me.
 
Libero said:
Federer is extremly graceful and I think he has an elegance to his play that the other two don't have. But I would have to say that imo, Nadal has a bigger array of shots. I have seen him retrieve and make a winner from shots that he has no right even getting near. Being fit is one thing, you still have to execute the shot.

To my mind, Federer benefited from his career taking off at just the right time. He had 3-4 years of being the one main player on the mens tour after the retirement of Sampras and before the real arrival of Nadal and then Djokovic. By the time Nadal had truly arrived and won Wimbledon in 2008, Federer had only lost to Nadal in Grand slam finals, x 1 at Wimbledon and x 3 Roland Garros and had won 12 of his now 17 titles. Nadal has had to compete with forcing his way into winning other Grand Slams against the might of Federer at his peak plus the emergence of Djokovic and Murray all pretty much at the same time whilst Federer had that 3-4 year period where none of the competition was really up to dethroning him.

In fairness to Nadal, you play to the speed of the server - that is the rules. You know what you get with him and if other players use that as an excuse for defeats then to my mind its a poor show.

It looks like your feelings with Nadal are similar to mine with Federer in that it's a preference also based on personality. I don't like Federer because I find he has a terribly arrogant demeanour and comes across at key times as pretty condescending. I remember his speech after winning Wimbledon against Roddingdong in 2009 which came across so poorly about knowing how Roddingdong felt being a runner up that it backed up my feelings about him.

Great Player no doubt but he doesn't come across as a Good Champion to me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back