Wimbledon ...

[mista geechee]

well, there were two rain delays...that is why it lasted forever as well.

You need to watch more tennis to say that Nadal is "definitively" better than Federer.

Federer has for the years 2004-2007 been the most dominant player in tennis history.

Nadal is a tremendous player and will be for many years to come. But if you have not watched Federer at all before this year, you don't really have any perspective on it.

Nah, I watch plenty of tennis (and every other sport except nascar). And I have been watching Federer's career. I appreciate Federer skills , but I just like to root for Nadal sometimes. Mainly since he's usually an "underdog" (relatively) and Federer always seems like the trendy pick.

Though he may not move as fast or gracefully as Federer , he has exquisite ball placement and a certain "clutch" flair about him. In my opinion , that is.

It's true , Federer has dominated the field , but not Nadal. I don't know the exact record nor do I feel like finding it , but in head to head matchups , Nadal has the edge by a rather large margin. Clay is probably the hardest surface to play on (and most exciting to watch) and Nadal has only lost to him on clay one time.

There was talk of Federer cementing himself as the GOAT. Then this short (so far) rivalry with Nadal started and he's been the fly in his ointment ever since. Nadal is the Eli Manning to Tom Brady's Joe Montana.

And I'm pretty sure that Nadal will have a better career.

 

[Skull Mason]

actually, he is not, federer will still be #1 in the rankings come tomorrow.

I am not "trippin".

Rafa is a great player...when he wins 12 Grand Slams, then he will tie Federer at being the best.

And until anyone wins 14, it is Sampras.

I wasn't aware sampras was still playing...

You keep referring to Federer in a historical sense, we are talking about right now. And you are also very defensive of him, and admit that you couldn't bare to watch the ceremony because he lost.

Federer may still be "#1" tomorrow, but he probably shouldn't be. I also think McEnroe agreed that he should not be on tv today. I am not basing my judgements on the past, I am talking about right now. Everything you say about federer has to do with the last few years, which is nice and all. But Nadal basically SHUT HIM OUT on clay and just dethroned him and his chance at history at wimbledon.

It is 1 and 1A which ever way you choose to look at it, however, when two heavyweights box for the title, and the defending champion loses, guess what, he is not the best in the world anymore, until he beats him in a rematch.

Why is Fed still #1 after losing the last two championships to nadal if you are not taking into account his prior dominance over the field? Does that take precedence over the last two championships in determining who should be #1? The tide is turning in nadal's favor, once he gets his serve up to snuff he will be unstoppable, if not already.

In finals matches throughout their careers against each other nadal is in the lead 10-4. He has also beaten federer on hard court more times than federer has beaten him on clay, even though federer has had more chances to win on clay. Federer is ahead 3-2 on hard surfaces, Nadal 9-1 on clay.

In 2008, they have played each other 4 times and Nadal has won all of them.

 

[mista geechee]

I wasn't aware sampras was still playing...

You keep referring to Federer in a historical sense, we are talking about right now. And you are also very defensive of him, and admit that you couldn't bare to watch the ceremony because he lost.

Federer may still be "#1" tomorrow, but he probably shouldn't be. I also think McEnroe agreed that he should not be on tv today. I am not basing my judgements on the past, I am talking about right now. Everything you say about federer has to do with the last few years, which is nice and all. But Nadal basically SHUT HIM OUT on clay and just dethroned him and his chance at history at wimbledon.

It is 1 and 1A which ever way you choose to look at it, however, when two heavyweights box for the title, and the defending champion loses, guess what, he is not the best in the world anymore, until he beats him in a rematch.

Why is Fed still #1 after losing the last two championships to nadal if you are not taking into account his prior dominance over the field? Does that take precedence over the last two championships in determining who should be #1? The tide is turning in nadal's favor, once he gets his serve up to snuff he will be unstoppable, if not already.

In finals matches throughout their careers against each other nadal is in the lead 10-4. He has also beaten federer on hard court more times than federer has beaten him on clay, even though federer has had more chances to win on clay. Federer is ahead 3-2 on hard surfaces, Nadal 9-1 on clay.

In 2008, they have played each other 4 times and Nadal has won all of them.

There you have it. How can he be better than someone who beats him more than 67% of the time.

Imagine what this conversation would be if Federer and Nadal started playing at the same time.

 

[transformer_99]

Best ever ? I don't think Federer has played the same level of competition that Sampras had to play thru. Roddick being the best the US has to offer ? Can't compare that with Courier and Agassi during the Sampras dominance & reign over the sport. Besides, you also had Lendl and Becker and a bunch of others that were capable of winning an Open, I guess the equipment they use is about the same though, oversized & graphite. The older guys, they had to use the badminton sized heads and wooden rackets, who knows how much better they really were, then again they weren't trying to return tennis balls that have the velocity and action of today's equipment ?

I know Federer had beaten Sampras in 2001 @ Wimbledon, but that was also at the tail end of a career and beginning of a new era of dominance. But neither won Winmbledon that year and the 5 sets were close. Federer has quite a resume and case for best ever, but so do a few others. Borg had Conners and McEnroe, but so did Sampras. That was the transitioning of an era too though. Conners as a champion, seemed to go from the wooden racket era to the larger graphite oversized rackets and still win.

 

[Flashy]

I wasn't aware sampras was still playing.

guess you missed his & RF's exhibitions. Sampras is still deadly @ nearly 37. RF has won 3 of the matches & Sampras beat RF once & is still the best player in tennis history, followed closely by RF.

Sampras also has a genetic blood illness Thalassemia Minor & still managed to be the greatest ever.

You keep referring to Federer in a historical sense, we are talking about right now. And you are also very defensive of him, and admit that you couldn't bare to watch the ceremony because he lost.


So? What is your point? The rankings that Nadal is ranked in are the same RF is ranked in.

Nadal is a phenomenal player. I never said he wasn't . But Nadal, up until now has been wildly inconsistent on hard courts & his dominance has only been on clay. This win is a breakthrough. The hard court season is coming up & we'll see if he keeps it up.

The fact is, without even being "defensive" of RF, he has proven to be the best player on hard courts & grass & #2 on clay even up to last week.

Rafa, up to this week proved that he was the best on clay. This is his first breakthrough off clay.

He is a great player but he has not yet displayed the consistency that RF has on all surfaces. fact

It is not simply historical. up until Monte Carlo this year, (1st clay tourney for rafa) RF was still far & away the #1 player.

RF remains the only player to ever win 3 slams in a year 3 times. RF remains the only player to go to 10 straight slam finals (Rafa has not been to more than 2 in a row)


Federer may still be "#1" tomorrow, but he probably shouldn't be.


Why shouldn't he be? The rankings work this way for a reason. Do you know how the ATP rankings work? I do. They say that RF is still #1, and this is how they have worked for quite a long time. RF still has 4 months to go & the hard court season is notoriously hard. Rafa's already out of Stuttgart (clay) with a knee injury this week. Rafa's style lends itself to lots of injuries since he plays so hard, & the pounding of the hard court season + indoor carpets in Paris, Madrid & the Masters in the fall are going to be the key. Not to mention the Olympics if he goes.

If Rafa can overtake RF then he'll have to do it over the next few months. That is the way the rankings work despite what you want.



I also think McEnroe agreed that he should not be on tv today. I am not basing my judgements on the past, I am talking about right now. Everything you say about federer has to do with the last few years, which is nice and all. But Nadal basically SHUT HIM OUT on clay and just dethroned him and his chance at history at wimbledon.


I don't care what McEnroe said. i have not seen anything on TV today and don't know what he said. Even "right now", in the past year, which is what the rankings are calculating, RF has 2 grand slams & a runner up slam, Rafa has two grand slams & a runner up slam. RF won the masters cup, Estoril, Basel, Cincinnati Masters & it's a fact he's still #1

As for RF being "shut out" on clay, so? He certainly did not play well, but that is not a first. Rafa got smoked and crushed all last year from Wimbledon through Monte Carlo this year. Anyone can have a bad match.

RF wasted Rafa @ the Masters Cup

As for Nadal barely beating him at Wimbledon, it's a massive achievement. but the margin was razor thin.


It is 1 and 1A which ever way you choose to look at it, however, when two heavyweights box for the title, and the defending champion loses, guess what, he is not the best in the world anymore, until he beats him in a rematch.

It is not 1 & 1A. it is 1 & 2. that is tennis. Rafa is a great player, who will eventually replace RF.

Tennis is not boxing & you should know that. Rafa has beaten RF alot over the past few years. It's fact. but during the time of the RF-Nadal rivalry, from their 1st match in 2004, even if rafa has won 12 to 6, RF during that time won 11 Grand Slams.

tennis is not boxing. That is not the way it works. Tennis is about consistency & winning masters & slams. ATM, Rafa is ascending, but until he takes over at #1, he is in fact, not #1



Why is Fed still #1 after losing the last two championships to nadal if you are not taking into account his prior dominance over the field?

Because that is how the rankings work. if you don't like it, take it up with the ATP.

Players receive a certain amount of points for winner, runner up, etc. & the fact, is that consistency has more to do with being #1. As the weeks go by the rankings change, results from further back are dropped to make way for the new results. that's how it works.

The fact is that RF has played Rafa in several finals this year, each match, with the exception of the French was balanced on a knife edge. Until Wimbledon, all were on Clay.

Hamburg was 5-7, 7-6, 6-3
Monte Carlo was 7-5 7-5

In November RF wasted Rafa, 6-4 6-1 @ the Masters Cup, but you don't bray about that.




Does that take precedence over the last two championships in determining who should be #1? The tide is turning in nadal's favor, once he gets his serve up to snuff he will be unstoppable, if not already.


yes, it does take precedence. that is the way the rankings work. Rafa is rising.

He is a great player, but his serve is not up to snuff & he has not played well on hard courts.

Sorry, nobody is unstoppable.


In finals matches throughout their careers against each other nadal is in the lead 10-4. He has also beaten federer on hard court more times than federer has beaten him on clay, even though federer has had more chances to win on clay. Federer is ahead 3-2 on hard surfaces, Nadal 9-1 on clay.

So? actually, their total match record head to head in all matches is 12-6 Nadal

Nadal 9-1 on Clay
RF 2-1 on Grass
RF 3-2 on hard


There are also 2 exhibitions each winning 1 match (games total were 32-30 RF)

Here is something interesting though that of course you do not mention. in their 18 matches, you know what the score is in total games played?

Nadal 326, RF 299

Hardly dominance. avg it out, & Nadal edges matches by 1.5 games.

The margin is razor thin & one of the great rivalries of all time.



In 2008, they have played each other 4 times and Nadal has won all of them.

Indeed he has & only one of those matches was not razor close (French)

in 07 RF was 3-2 against him yet won 3 grand Slams.


The rankings don't just consider your last 2 months of wins. it goes back a full year to determine CONSISTENCY.

Before his yearly clay run in 08 you neglected to mention that in the months before it Rafa


in 08 was bounced early in Rome on clay to Ferrero in the rof 32, 5-7 1-6 (snapping his clay streak)

in 08 lost on hard court in final @ Miami to Davydenko 4-6, 2-6

in the SF on hard courts @ Indian Wells Djokovic crushed him 2-6, 3-6
in the QF's @ Dubai Roddick smoked him 5-7, 2-6
in the rof 16 @ Rotterdam, seppi (#42) from Italy bounced him out 3-6 6-3 4-6
in the SF on hard courts @ Australian Open, Tsonga crushed Rafa 2-6, 3-6, 2-6
in his Australian warmup in Chennai, Youzhny wasted Rafa 0-6, 1-6

That was his 2008 before the clay season.

he won 1 set vs. 15 against all those players. That is the play of a very talented but wildly inconsistent player. 7 matches, vs Youzhny, Tsonga, Seppi, Roddick, Djokovic, Davydenko & Ferrero.

1 solitary set & he lost 15 sets, as the #2 in the world.


It gets worse.

In the Masters Cup in November in the SF he was Crushed by RF 4-6, 1-6
In the Msters Paris in November in the final he was crushed by Nalbandian 4-6, 0-6
In The Masters Madrid in Oct in the QF he was crushed by Nalbandian 1-6, 2-6
In The US Open in the r of16 he was beaten by Ferrer 7-6 4-6 6-7 2-6
In The Masters Cincy he withdrew to injury vs Juan Monaco in the rof 32 while being beaten 6-7, 1-4


winning 1 set, losing 11

so as good as rafa is, before Monte Carlo this year, he had not won a tournament since last July & in all those losses he won only 2 SETS and LOST 26 sets!! in 12 matches!!!

During the same time period from Wimbledon last year, to Monte Carlo this year
Federer won 2 Slams (Wimbledon, US Open)
won the ATP Masters Cincinati crushing James Blake,
barely lost to Djokovic in the final Of Montreal ATP Masters,
lost to Nalbandian in the Final of the Madrid Masters
Won the BAsel tournament
Lost to Nalbandian in the Rof 16 in Paris Masters
Won the Year End tennis Masters Cup, crushing Ferrer.
Lost in Australian Open SF to Djokovic in straight sets
Lost in Dubai in the Rof 32 to Murray
Lost in the Indian Wells SF to Fish in straight sets
Lost in the ATP Miami to Roddick in the QF
Won the Estoril Clay over Davydenko.

Going into Monte Carlo

Federer was #1 -6425 points
Nadal was #2 - 5455 points


as of today after Wimbledon

Federer is #1 -6600
Nadal is #2 - 6055


--

so the fact whether you would like to acknowledge it or not, is that as great a player as Rafa is, the last tournament he won was JULY 2007. (Stuttgart) on clay

it took him nearly a year of getting crushed before he got back to his best &finally won a tournament on clay (Monaco late april 2008)

THAT is why the rankings are taken into account & that is why as great as Rafa is playing, RF is STILL the #1 in the world.

because Rafa is fantastic, but wildly inconsistent. if Rafa shows his consistency over the next couple of months, on the hard courts there are 4 more masters series events this year, the US Open, & the Masters Cup, Rafa will deservedly finish the year #1.

if Rafa falters on hard courts & RF remains consistent, RF remains #1


When Rafa displaces RF at #1 then he will be the best player in the world.

he's almost there but not yet

 

[Flashy]

There you have it. How can he be better than someone who beats him more than 67% of the time.

Imagine what this conversation would be if Federer and Nadal started playing at the same time.

there you do not have it.

As great as Rafa is, 10 of their matches came on clay, Rafa's preferred surface, and he is the greatest clay court player of all time. Roger leads 5-3 on other surfaces.

Considering Rafa is the greatest clay court player of all time, and Roger has always been competitive with him on clay, except for the French this year, nothing is settled.

In fact, it shows just how good Roger is. If Rafa was not the player he is on clay, Roger in all likelihood would have won the French in 05, 06, 07 and 08.

Federer has always consistently gotten to the finals on Rafa's preferred surface, in Masters and the French...Rafa has not been to a hard court final Slam Final, but has made great strides on Grass, in getting to the Wimbledon Final three straight times.

Rafa has only been to 6 hard court/indoor master series events Finals in 5 years, only winning 3.

 

[Flashy]

Best ever ? I don't think Federer has played the same level of competition that Sampras had to play thru. Roddick being the best the US has to offer ?

There are more tennis players than just americans you know. :wink:
Lleyton Hewitt was #1 when Roger ascended, and he was a great player in his prime.

Agassi was 33, but was still very competitive




Can't compare that with Courier and Agassi during the Sampras dominance & reign over the sport.


Well I would put Rafa Nadal in the past three years well ahead of Courier and Agassi, and until this year Federer managed 12 slams.



Besides, you also had Lendl and Becker and a bunch of others that were capable of winning an Open,


Lendl won his last slam (the AOpen, 1990) several months before Pete Won his first. (US Open 1990)

also, Pete did not dominate for their reign (Lendl, Becker, Courier Edberg)
Pete won his first slam in 1990 August (US Open), but then it took three years before he got his second (Wimbledon 03)
aside from Courier, during Pete's dominant years, everyone else had dropped...Lendl was 30 in 1990, Becker was 29 when he won his last slam in 96, Edberg was past it in 1992 at 26 winning his last slam...and AGassi pre -1998 was hardly the player who came back with a vengeance post 1998


I guess the equipment they use is about the same though, oversized & graphite. The older guys, they had to use the badminton sized heads and wooden rackets, who knows how much better they really were, then again they weren't trying to return tennis balls that have the velocity and action of today's equipment ?


Federer does not use an oversize racket...most do not. Agassi was the only to use a truly oversize racket.

Rod Laver said that the speed of the modern game is so far ahead of the older game that it is ridiculous

The speed of the game is so fast now, that the balls are bigger to slow them down, they have slowed down the fast Wimbledon courts so they are almost unrecognizable, slowed down the hard courts, and sped up the clay courts.

It is absurd.



I know Federer had beaten Sampras in 2001 @ Wimbledon, but that was also at the tail end of a career and beginning of a new era of dominance.

Sampras was still good enough to win two slams in 2000 and 2002. He was 30, and Federer was only 19


But neither won Winmbledon that year and the 5 sets were close. Federer has quite a resume and case for best ever, but so do a few others.
Borg had Conners and McEnroe, but so did Sampras. That was the transitioning of an era too though. Conners as a champion, seemed to go from the wooden racket era to the larger graphite oversized rackets and still win.

Borg was my favorite player growing up, and as much as i loved him, he was poor on hard courts and never won the Aussie or the US Open even when they were still grass. Not to mention when he essentially had a nervous breakdown and quit the game, we never got to see how good he could be. He was only 25 when he left....who knows how much more he had in him.

that said, The speed of the modern game places Federer side by side with Sampras IMO, and Federer's excellence on clay for me puts him over the top.

Sampras, Federer and Borg have always been my three favorites. If Federer is able to take a couple more slams, which is certainly not out of the question, and tie or break Pete, i would say the greatest title has to go to Roger, just barely over Pete.

At the moment, the GOAT is Sampras, then Federer. (IMO)

 

[mista geechee]

there you do not have it.

As great as Rafa is, 10 of their matches came on clay, Rafa's preferred surface, and he is the greatest clay court player of all time. Roger leads 5-3 on other surfaces.

Considering Rafa is the greatest clay court player of all time, and Roger has always been competitive with him on clay, except for the French this year, nothing is settled.

In fact, it shows just how good Roger is. If Rafa was not the player he is on clay, Roger in all likelihood would have won the French in 05, 06, 07 and 08.

Federer has always consistently gotten to the finals on Rafa's preferred surface, in Masters and the French...Rafa has not been to a hard court final Slam Final, but has made great strides on Grass, in getting to the Wimbledon Final three straight times.

Rafa has only been to 6 hard court/indoor master series events Finals in 5 years, only winning 3.

We can go through all the numbers we want. But the most simple fact of the matter is that Nadal has beat Federer more times than Federer has beat Nadal. I don't understand how such an inextricable fact can be overlooked. Or how you can make an attempt to comprimise that.

Clay is the hardest surface to play on. Federer is always formidable on clay , until he meets Nadal. And now this year , Nadal gave him an ass stomping of epic proportions in Paris , only to follow it up dramatic victory in Wimbledon, England. First one to do that since Bjorn , and he did it against the great (and I don't mean that facetiously) Roger Federer. How can you not see this as a "changing of the guard" ?

Victory is the untimate sign of greatness. Statistics and records only get you so far. I mentioned his record against Federer in the finals because that's what everybody remembers. Doesn't matter how many (relative) "pee-ons" you beat if you can't beat an equal or greater opponent in extreme pressure situations on the greatest stage (of any sport) with the world watching. The great players are the ones are the ones who don't crack under pressure.

Federer's record against others has no business being a factor in his comparisons to Nadal. Because , as I said , statistics are usually obscure little numbers that never tell the whole story behind anything.

Just because the ATP rankings will still say that Federer is #1 , that doesn't mean that he is a better player than Nadal. Besdes , those ATP rankings , imho , have about as much credibility as the BCS.

 

[Flashy]

Nah, I watch plenty of tennis (and every other sport except nascar). And I have been watching Federer's career. I appreciate Federer skills , but I just like to root for Nadal sometimes. Mainly since he's usually an "underdog" (relatively) and Federer always seems like the trendy pick.

Rooting for someone is different than how they play. I do not know how the #2 player in the world is an "underdog" but to each his own :smile:

Federer is not the trendy pick, he has been the favorite (for good reason) for the past nearly 5 years.


Though he may not move as fast or gracefully as Federer ,


You obviously have not watched much...Rafa is in fact faster than Roger, and a better mover, which is saying something.



he has exquisite ball placement and a certain "clutch" flair about him. In my opinion , that is.

He can in fact be clutch, but he is also wildly inconsistent, and his ball placement has been anything but exquisite, in fact, that is what has contributed to his inconsistency. When his ball placement becomes exquisite, than he will be the best player in the world.

On clay, his topspin forehand and power are unrivalled...it is not about placement, since in those games he wails away from far behind the baseline, using his power and topspin and ability to run down balls to his advantage, which is why he is the best clay courter ever.


It's true , Federer has dominated the field , but not Nadal. I don't know the exact record nor do I feel like finding it , but in head to head matchups , Nadal has the edge by a rather large margin. Clay is probably the hardest surface to play on (and most exciting to watch) and Nadal has only lost to him on clay one time.


No roger has not dominated Roger, but Rafa has also not domianted anywhere other than clay.

Clay i do not consider exciting to watch as great shots are slowed down by dirt. (to each their own) The French is to me the least exciting of the slams.

True, but Rafa is in fact not nearly as strong on other surfaces as on clay, becasue the topspin on his forehand is negated on other surfaces, which is his main weapon, and frankly, as great as Rafa is, if the grass at Wimbledon had not been slowed down so much in the last 10 years, he would have problems there too.

The decrease in speed on grass has ruined Wiimbledon, same as the decrease in speed on hard courts have ruined other tourneys. It is absurd to have different surfaces if you arre going to make them all the same speed...the whole point of different surfaces was to have different speeds and surface challenges.



There was talk of Federer cementing himself as the GOAT. Then this short (so far) rivalry with Nadal started and he's been the fly in his ointment ever since. Nadal is the Eli Manning to Tom Brady's Joe Montana.

Say what you want, but during the short and meatier part of the (2005-2008) rivalry with Nadal, Federer has won 9 grand slams.

He may be a fly in the ointment, but he has not stopped Roger from winning grand slams except for the French, and now 1 Wimbledon.



And I'm pretty sure that Nadal will have a better career.

oh, how so?

More slam wins?
more masters event wins?
more masters cup wins?
more wimbledons?
more US Opens?
more Australian Opens?


Rafa has a LONG way to go before he has the "better career"

 

[mista geechee]

I never said Nadal was an absolute underdog , I said he was a relative underdog to Federer.

Sorry , I just can't buy that Nadal is as graceful as Federer. Nadal moves with more frantic vigor , but not as fluidly as Federer. Yes , he is inconsistent , but his ball placement is exquisite. How can pounding teh ball as hard as you can not have anything to do with ball placement?

How can we begin to discredit Nadal when he dominates the hardest surface to play on. It's damn near impossible to keep your balance , not slide , and get a good volley simultaneously.

True , Federer has complete ownership of the entire field , but a losing record against Nadal.

This is like saying that A (Federer) is better than B (Nadal) because A just happens to be better than C-Z (the rest of the field).

But we will obviously continue to disagree.

 

[Flashy]

We can go through all the numbers we want. But the most simple fact of the matter is that Nadal has beat Federer more times than Federer has beat Nadal.
I don't understand how such an inextricable fact can be overlooked.

So? Michael Stich, Marat Safin, and Richard Krajicek all have winning records against Pete Sampras...are they better than him? I don;t know how such an inextricable fact can be overlooked.

You were an athlete as a recall...ever remember great teams or players, that certain other teams just had their number? I am sure you do.



Or how you can make an attempt to comprimise that.

There is no compromise. Considering the majority of the matches have been played on clay, and Rafa is a tremendous clay court player, probably the best of all time, naturally he has the edge...but he is in fact not better head to head on other surfaces, and it is mainly because he has not been good enough thus far to reach the finals of the Australian and US Open on hard courts to compete against Federer there.


Clay is the hardest surface to play on.

No, it is the slowest surface to play on. Have you ever played on a grass court? The speed is a nightmare. A slow clay court is only hard on people who play a certain way.


Federer is always formidable on clay , until he meets Nadal. And now this year , Nadal gave him an ass stomping of epic proportions in Paris , only to follow it up dramatic victory in Wimbledon, England.

Of course you neglect to mention the ass stomping the Federer gave Nadal in the Masters Series at the end of last year.

you also neglect to mention, that until the clay season began and Rafa turned it around, Rafa was on the receiving end of a dozen stompings by players going back to last year...

Rafa was utterly crushed by a dozen players, winning only 2 sets and losing 26 sets before this May, and not winning a single tournament from last June to this May.

THAT is an ass stomping.





First one to do that since Bjorn , and he did it against the great (and I don't mean that facetiously) Roger Federer. How can you not see this as a "changing of the guard" ?

I did not say that it was not a meaningful win...i said it several places...it was a monumental win, but it is not a changing of the guard...Rafa is in the ascendancy, he has still not surpassed Roger, he very well may do so. The rest of this season will bear that out. If Roger rampages through the Hard court season taking Cincinatti, Canada, The US Open, and then does well in Paris and Madrid, and takes the Masters Cup, Roger is still king, plain and simple.



Victory is the untimate sign of greatness. Statistics and records only get you so far. I mentioned his record against Federer in the finals because that's what everybody remembers. Doesn't matter how many (relative) "pee-ons" you beat if you can't beat an equal or greater opponent in extreme pressure situations on the greatest stage (of any sport) with the world watching. The great players are the ones are the ones who don't crack under pressure.

So what happens when a great player, which Nadal is, does not win a tournament for nearly a year, and loses 12 matches, and only wins 2 sets in that whole time losing 26 others?

So cracking under pressure means you aren't great, but cracking when there's no pressure doesn't?



Federer's record against others has no business being a factor in his comparisons to Nadal. Because , as I said , statistics are usually obscure little numbers that never tell the whole story behind anything.


You only say that because Federer and Nadal against others, bears out the truth.

You do not need statistics to say that Rafa was utterly crushed by 12 opponents and did not win a single a tournament from last June to this May.


Just because the ATP rankings will still say that Federer is #1 , that doesn't mean that he is a better player than Nadal. Besdes , those ATP rankings , imho , have about as much credibility as the BCS.

Well then you, as i said, know nothing about tennis, and should stick to the BCS.

Federer being #1, means he is in fact the better, more consistent player, against all opponents, in all tournaments, on all surfaces, based on the last years worth of results, that are constantly rolling.

The simple fact is that until Nadal unseats Federer, until Rafa proves himself on hardcourts, Federer is , overall the best player.

Federer never had a disaster streak like Rafa had last year to this year.

If Rafa can win the U.S. Open, he will have won 3 slams in a year once...Roger has done it 3 times.

This is Rafa's first season winning two grand slams, and he is doing great, but the season does not end after Wimbledon, and being great for two months, the majority of which was on clay, does not make you the best in the world yet, and that is a fact.

Roger is consistently excellent on all surfaces, Rafa is consistently excellent on one surface (clay), improving rapidly on another (grass) and not nearly as effective Hard Court or Carpet.

that is a fact.


Rafa got stomped all year until the clay court season, so much so that people were beginning to talk about Djokovic being the real #2 threat to Federer.


Rafa is a great player, and he has the edge over Federer on clay, while Federer still has the edge on other surfaces.

Untill Rafa officially puts Federer out of the #1 position, Roger is still the best player in the world.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

stop trippin nadal is the best now

Federer can beat anyone when he's playing his best game. The only exception would be against Nadal on dirt. I'd give Nadal the edge there. Unlike Sampras, Federer has won some big clay tournies, like Rome. Unfortunately, until he wins the French, he'll always have that asterisk.

So many 'experts' claim that Pete is the best because of his Wimbledon singles titles. They are wrong. Agassi would easily wipe Pete off of a clay court, and could hold his own on grass. They were about even on the hardcourts. My point is that Federer also hasn't won the French, but he's come much closer than Pete--who has never even reached the semi's at Roland Garros. He had a horribly lopsided game.

Roger has had a bad year. Don't judge him by that.

I couldn't bear to watch the ceremony, though i was happy for Rafa when he went and hugged his family.

I missed the match. I hear that it was a great 5-setter! I don't know why Federer choked, especially considering how flawlessly he played in the semi's.

Ultimately what cost Roger were the unforced errors...which are highly uncharacteristic of him, especially on grass.

He had 52 unforced errors, Rafa had 27.

Rafa's serve is the weakest part of his game, and in the past, when Roger did not make errors, he was able to break Rafa's serve a bit more easily. Federer had 13 break point conversion chances today, and only won 1. That is not good enough for him against a beast like Nadal.

Ironically, the total points for the match looked like this:
NAdal 209
Federer 204

so five points was the difference...

and 52 errors by Roger is just out of character.

He has been out of sorts ever since the end of 2007 or so, and then getting mono at the Australian Open and this whole spring have really taken alot out of him.

In 2004- through the beginning of 2007, he was devastating.

Actually, Roger should have more unforced errors than Rafa, since he plays a more aggressive game. As long as his winners and errors are close, then he's converting nicely.

I have also noticed a change since the start of the season, but I don't think that it is just the mono. He doesn't seem to have the drive that he's had the previous five years. I think that he needs a break. If not now, then after the US open.

I wasn't aware sampras was still playing...

You keep referring to Federer in a historical sense, we are talking about right now. And you are also very defensive of him, and admit that you couldn't bare to watch the ceremony because he lost.

Federer may still be "#1" tomorrow, but he probably shouldn't be. I also think McEnroe agreed that he should not be on tv today. I am not basing my judgements on the past, I am talking about right now. Everything you say about federer has to do with the last few years, which is nice and all. But Nadal basically SHUT HIM OUT on clay and just dethroned him and his chance at history at wimbledon.

It is 1 and 1A which ever way you choose to look at it, however, when two heavyweights box for the title, and the defending champion loses, guess what, he is not the best in the world anymore, until he beats him in a rematch.

Why is Fed still #1 after losing the last two championships to nadal if you are not taking into account his prior dominance over the field? Does that take precedence over the last two championships in determining who should be #1? The tide is turning in nadal's favor, once he gets his serve up to snuff he will be unstoppable, if not already.

In finals matches throughout their careers against each other nadal is in the lead 10-4. He has also beaten federer on hard court more times than federer has beaten him on clay, even though federer has had more chances to win on clay. Federer is ahead 3-2 on hard surfaces, Nadal 9-1 on clay.

In 2008, they have played each other 4 times and Nadal has won all of them.

One reason why computer rankings are needed is seeding. Seeding protects the top players and makes tournaments more enjoyable--making it likely that the top two players will meet in the final. This isn't needed in, say, boxing because it doesn't have elimination round tournaments.

Head-to-heads do effect computer rankings, but not that much. It's mostly how well you do and in which tournies. Making the 3rd round at the US open is akin to making the finals at the German Open, for example.

I don't think that you are being fair to Federer. He's still winning and doing well, even though he's not winning the majors. Personally, I'd rather lose to Nadal in the Wimbledon finals then beat him at the Canadian Open (or any other Masters Series event).

We can go through all the numbers we want. But the most simple fact of the matter is that Nadal has beat Federer more times than Federer has beat Nadal. I don't understand how such an inextricable fact can be overlooked. Or how you can make an attempt to comprimise that.

Clay is the hardest surface to play on. Federer is always formidable on clay , until he meets Nadal. And now this year , Nadal gave him an ass stomping of epic proportions in Paris , only to follow it up dramatic victory in Wimbledon, England. First one to do that since Bjorn , and he did it against the great (and I don't mean that facetiously) Roger Federer. How can you not see this as a "changing of the guard" ?

Victory is the untimate sign of greatness. Statistics and records only get you so far. I mentioned his record against Federer in the finals because that's what everybody remembers. Doesn't matter how many (relative) "pee-ons" you beat if you can't beat an equal or greater opponent in extreme pressure situations on the greatest stage (of any sport) with the world watching. The great players are the ones are the ones who don't crack under pressure.

Federer's record against others has no business being a factor in his comparisons to Nadal. Because , as I said , statistics are usually obscure little numbers that never tell the whole story behind anything.

Just because the ATP rankings will still say that Federer is #1 , that doesn't mean that he is a better player than Nadal. Besdes , those ATP rankings , imho , have about as much credibility as the BCS.

Where do you think Federer's 7,000 ATP points came from? He earned them by playing great tennis. He can beat 99% of the men out there -- on any surface at any time.

I disagee that clay is the hardest surface to play on. In fact, I'm sure that a clay court specialist, like Rafa, prefers playing on clay. The unfortunate truth about clay specialists is that they are often overrated. Does anyone remember when Thomas Muster reached #1? How about Gustavo Keurton? They sucked on all other surfaces. Nadal won Wimbledon in how many attempts? four? five?

If "victory is the untimate sign of greatness," then hats off to Federer with his mountain of trophies.

oh, how so?

More slam wins?
more masters event wins?
more masters cup wins?
more wimbledons?
more US Opens?
more Australian Opens?


Rafa has a LONG way to go before he has the "better career"

All of the above! When Agassi retired, he had won all four majors. Sampras may have won more major titles, but he didn't win the French. I consider Agassi to be a better player than Sampras because Pete had such a one-dimensional game. Remember in '94 when Pete won Wimbledon with a sprained ankle? He served his way to the title (the longest ralley was 4 strokes!)

 

[Flashy]

I never said Nadal was an absolute underdog , I said he was a relative underdog to Federer.

He isn't an underdog to Federer though.

Sorry , I just can't buy that Nadal is as graceful as Federer. Nadal moves with more frantic vigor , but not as fluidly as Federer.

i did not see he was as graceful as Federer. I said he was faster and a better mover than Federer, which he is.



Yes , he is inconsistent , but his ball placement is exquisite. How can pounding teh ball as hard as you can not have anything to do with ball placement?

He doesn't pound th ball as hard as he can, he has the best topspin forehand in history, which is not about placement but generating spin. His ball placement is not exquisite...his ball placement is the REASON for his inconsistency.

His greatness on clay, is because topsin on clay is deadly, and the more topspin you put on the higher it will bounce. he uses spin, not placement on clay, especially vs. Federer since Nadal is a lefty. he stands ten feet behind the line on clay and wails away, not caring about placement, but trying to put as much spin as possible on the ball so it arrives too high for other players to deal with it effectively. It is his M.O.That is the key to his dominance over Federer on clay, it is Nadals Topspin forehand vs. Federer's one handed backhand, and the height at which the ball arrives to federer's one handed backhand gives Nadal a massive advantage which he uses to bludgeon Federer into mistakes and submission.

It is why his game is not nearly as effective on hard courts. he cannot make the ball bounce as high on a hard court as he can on clay. When he imprroves his placement and other shots on hard courts and grass, he will then be a dominant player, if he can do that.


How can we begin to discredit Nadal when he dominates the hardest surface to play on. It's damn near impossible to keep your balance , not slide , and get a good volley simultaneously.

Who the hell is discrediting him? He is a brilliant player, but you do not know what you are talking about.

Volleying on clay does not even factor into tennis, since clay courters like Nadal, rarely ever approach the net...Nadal is an offensive baseliner, not a serve and volleyer...you don't know anything about clay. The balance is not the problem, it is the speed and the bounce of the ball that makes faster and more powerful players less potent and favors players who can spin and rally for long periods on a surface that slows the speed of the game down. the bounce of a ball of clay is significantly slower than off grass or hard court, allowing a ball that would be normally be a player, to be gotten to, neutralizing more powerfull players and hitters who prosper on hard courts and grass.

Volleying is the last thing you want to do on clay as a strategy.



True , Federer has complete ownership of the entire field , but a losing record against Nadal.

that is all that needs to be said



This is like saying that A (Federer) is better than B (Nadal) because A just happens to be better than C-Z (the rest of the field).

no it isn't, Federer is in fact, the more complete player, on all surfaces, in all facets of the game combined, vs. all opponents in all tournaments.

But we will obviously continue to disagree.

Disagree all you want, you may watch tennis, but you don't know much about it.

My best friend played on the satellite ATP Tour, and i go to numerous matches year round, and have been watching and playing the game for 30+ years.

Nadal is a great player, but it will be awhile before it can be said he is better than Federer.

 

[mista geechee]

So I know nothing of tennis because I think Nadal is better than Federer ? Care to elaborate? And also , please explain how their records against others has any bearing on their record against eachother.

And as to the "cracking" thing. If there is no pressure , then there is no cracking. Then it is just pissing away a perfect opportunity which reflects foolishness , not inferiority.

We can talk about how Nadal constanntly had his ass handed to him by players not named Federer , but that's not teh subject of this conversation. At least I didn't think it was. I thought this was about a Nadal/Federer comparison. Therefore , I only mention his record against Federer. Not because their record against others "bears the truth" , because that is the only relavant and effective tool we have to measure them by.

I can't speak on the tennis played during teh mid-80's or early 90's because I was young then so I'll stay away from the Sampras talk. But , as you remembered , I was an athlete in High School. And no matter how many games we won, if one particular pitcher always was able to get me out without me hitting into a defensive play , or if one particular db was always able to stop me from receiving completions or any significant yards after a catch, or one specific teams point guard/2 guard was always able to breakdown my defense or stifle my offense , then I never considered myself better than that particular person. Because if I was better than I would have beat them.

 

[Flashy]

Federer can beat anyone when he's playing his best game. The only exception would be against Nadal on dirt. I'd give Nadal the edge there. Unlike Sampras, Federer has won some big clay tournies, like Rome. Unfortunately, until he wins the French, he'll always have that asterisk.


you and i are for once, totally in agreement on a topic :wink:


but let me correct one mistake... Federer never won Rome...he has won Hamburg on Clay three times though which obviously is pretty impressive


So many 'experts' claim that Pete is the best because of his Wimbledon singles titles. They are wrong. Agassi would easily wipe Pete off of a clay court, and could hold his own on grass. They were about even on the hardcourts. My point is that Federer also hasn't won the French, but he's come much closer than Pete--who has never even reached the semi's at Roland Garros. He had a horribly lopsided game.

agree. Roger has reached the finals of 9 clay majors, and 3 clay Slams. incredible dominance over all surfaces.



Roger has had a bad year. Don't judge him by that.

Couldn't agree more. anyone who has seen Roger at his best cannot help but be in awe. he is a magician.




I missed the match. I hear that it was a great 5-setter! I don't know why Federer choked, especially considering how flawlessly he played in the semi's.

It was a hell of a match. Roger had so many break points, it was just so uncharacteristic of him only to break Rafa once, since Rafa's serve is his one glaring weakness...i think he (roger) has become a bit unfocused, but only since around spring 2007. He does not play with the same confidence at the big moments that he used to...that is what is really missing...the confidence and clutch Federer.

After he crushed Safin i was sure Roger would play great in the final, but something has just been missing from him for about a year or so. He should have smoked Djokovic in canada last year and after playing a bit lazy at the US Open, he was a bit lazy in the fall...

he was just off all day yesterday, even when he was "on". Nadal was great, but he was playing like Nadal, not superman, Roger has handled that on grass or hardcourt before with little problem.

Roger's 1st serve percentage was low, but as usual he found aces all the time and at crucial moments...

he just let too many break chances get away...when he won the 3rd and 4th set tiebreakers in a row, i said "that's it"...and then he won the first game of the 5th...but he just could not break Rafa...Ironically, if they had gone to a tiebreaker in the 5th set, instead of no tiebreak, Roger would have won i believe...he was holding serve extremely well, and he was able to pick off a point or two on Rafa's serve in every game, but could not get the full break...in a tiebreaker, i think roger would have pulled it out.

I hate to say it, but in the last game, it almost felt like Roger had given up, after his serve was broken...he had one defiant shot to save match point, but he was just sloppy and mishitting all day long...glaring mis-hits.



Actually, Roger should have more unforced errors than Rafa, since he plays a more aggressive game. As long as his winners and errors are close, then he's converting nicely.


yes, but 52 unforced errors is way too much, compared to 27 for Nadal. If you had seen these errors you would not have believed them...nailing easy shots into the net, pulling shots 10 feet wide, terrible mis-hits, he whiffed completely on an easy shot that hit a bit of bad turf, but to completely miss a ball, is not Roger at all. he was missing the conversions he usually makes like when he runs around his backhand to hit a forehand down the line etc.

He also was not converting at the net well at all, and i felt approached far too often (75 times) 42 conversion only...Rafa was 22 of 31

Rafa's fastest serve on the day was only 120 Mph...and his average 1st serve speed was 112 mph!

if you had seen Roger's errors you would have been shocked...they were shockers.



I have also noticed a change since the start of the season, but I don't think that it is just the mono. He doesn't seem to have the drive that he's had the previous five years. I think that he needs a break. If not now, then after the US open.

I agree. frankly, i think he should play some smaller tournaments till he gets his mojo back, but it may just be his time...he'll be 27 in august...so who knows...he is still in great shape physically, but he is having problems with players he should dispatch easily, and is being pushed hard by Nadal and Djokovic.

I think much of it has to do with the drive last year to finally make him a recognizable star in marketing etc...and increasing his profile etc. he was so good from 2004-2007, and nobody outside of tennis was paying attention...then they tried to turn him into a marketing/advertising guy, put him in Vogue, hanging out with tiger woods, and Gavin Rossdale, Anna Wintour going to fashion shows...and bingo, the desire is just that bit less than it was, he was able to hold on and still win three slams last year, but you could see he was losing focus through the summer and into the fall. then the mono, and the doubts start to creep in, and hungry young players coming up...
i hope he can get back.





Where do you think Federer's 7,000 ATP points came from? He earned them by playing great tennis. He can beat 99% of the men out there -- on any surface at any time.

absolutely



I disagee that clay is the hardest surface to play on.

totally agree


In fact, I'm sure that a clay court specialist, like Rafa, prefers playing on clay.

ABSOLUTELY...he looks half the player on hard courts


The unfortunate truth about clay specialists is that they are often overrated.

ABSOLUTELY


Does anyone remember when Thomas Muster reached #1? How about Gustavo Keurton? They sucked on all other surfaces.

Bravo...exactly...couldn't believe Muster was at #1.



Nadal won Wimbledon in how many attempts? four? five?

yup...5




If "victory is the untimate sign of greatness," then hats off to Federer with his mountain of trophies.


Abso-smurf-ly.



All of the above!

exactly



When Agassi retired, he had won all four majors. Sampras may have won more major titles, but he didn't win the French.

True


I consider Agassi to be a better player than Sampras because Pete had such a one-dimensional game.

I don't know about that...generally i consider Sampras better. Sampras wasn't all that one dimensional...his backhand was nothing to write home about, but his serve, his forehand, his volleying, his overheads, his footspeed were all absolutely tremendous.

Both players were ridiculously good.

Aggasi was the best at taking the ball early and was the best returner of serve i have ever seen. he wasn't much of a volleyer cause he was never at the net...

his serve was absolutely awful early on but improved alot, to where it was merely average.

As for him winning all four, it certainly was a great achievement, but remember, the Wimbledon win came in 1992, and never again. the US Open came in 1994 and then again in 1999, the Australian came in 1995...and then 2000, 2001 and 2003.

The French win did not come until 1999 at which time he had come back with a relentless new fitness regime, which helped him immesurably in the french that year, not to mention his competition at the French that year was truly not very good...remember who he beat that year?

in order of play 1st round to final
(world ranking)
Squillari #38
Clement #81
Woodruff #158
Moya #4
Filippini #140
Hrbaty #30
Medveded #100


also Pete owned him 4-1 in grand slam finals, all on hard courts except for at Wimbledon. (12 sets to 2 in the 4 wins)

Andre's renaissance came late in his career, and the competition was really fading at that point 99-03...it was as Sampras was winding down, Federer had not risen, etc.

Not to take away from Andre's achievements, because he was a great player, i just wished he had been dedicated prior to 1999 than after it (so we could have really seen how good he could have been)



Remember in '94 when Pete won Wimbledon with a sprained ankle? He served his way to the title (the longest ralley was 4 strokes!)

Indeed, true, but don't forget against Goran Ivaniesevic he did not have much chance to rally especially on grass...also don't forget, after winning the first two sets in tied breakers, he won the third set 6-0, breaking Goran three times...so that is worth something :wink:

 

[transformer_99]

Flashy, taking Sampras vs Federer head to head, there's really only one match that was Wimbledon and competitive, the rest were exhibitions. The exhibitions, those in my mind can't count, they might as well have been playing doubles with the Jensen brothers. The 2001 Wimbledon match was so tight between Sampras and Federer that it was a point in several of the sets that could have changed the outcome Sampras' way. And like I researched and posted, neither won Wimbledon that year, Quarterfinals was where Federer wound up, losing to Tim Henman ?

As for equipment, I doubt you find anyone playing on the tour during either Sampras or Federers time with anything less than a mid size 90. I think the Sampras racquet size of choice was an 85. But that might account for differences in serve speed, that and today's 90 is lighter than an 85.

I still think Pete in his prime had more to deal with from resurging older players and even the heart of the men's tour. They obviously are both excellent players and it would be nice to see them play in their primes, but I don't think Federer wins 12 against the same competition Sampras won 14 ? And had they both played in their primes, neither breaks into double digit slams during the Sampras era, because they would beat each other and the others that were good enough to beat Sampras.

BTW, a day after winning Wimbledon, Nadal pulled out of the tournament in Germany, citing a bad knee ?

 

[Flashy]

So I know nothing of tennis because I think Nadal is better than Federer ? Care to elaborate?


I already did. I told you i respect your previous sports history which we have discussed in the past, but what you have stated in this thread shows you really do not in fact know anything about tennis, other then you like watching it from time to time.

You can say Nadal is better than Federer, and that's your opinion. But it is not based on anything other than a head to head matchup, the majority of which has taken place on Nadal's favored surface and you have ignored all the mountain of evidence supporting Federer to the contrary.

You have said Nadal is not as fast as Federer (he is faster). you do not understand nadal's clay strategy, and think his placement is "excellent", you ignore his terrible record which you did not know about prior to this year in that he won only two sets in 12 matches in 10 months, losing 26 others sets, which was the worst period in his career.

you do not understand the surfaces and how they play, nor the speed on the different surfaces and how it impacts certain styles of play, and so on.


And also , please explain how their records against others has any bearing on their record against eachother.

You do realize that it is tennis tournaments that are played, not tennis one on one? if they did not play others, than they could in fact never beat others to make it to play each other in the finals. In order to get to face each other, they must win their bracket. Roger has done that far more consistently than Rafa, who has never been to the final of the US Open or the Australian Open, whereas Roger has one both those tournaments numberous times, and has reached every gland slam final numerous times.



And as to the "cracking" thing. If there is no pressure , then there is no cracking. Then it is just pissing away a perfect opportunity which reflects foolishness , not inferiority.

So nadal is than foolish and inconsistent, instead of inferior? Fair enough, then how can a player who is foolish and inconsistent all year, than be better than someone who is mature, smart, and consistent all year on every surface? Maybe he only raises his game against Federer, which seems true...but considering he beats everyone on clay, but not everywhere else shows, that he is in fact, not better than a player who does it consistently on all surfaces.



We can talk about how Nadal constanntly had his ass handed to him by players not named Federer , but that's not teh subject of this conversation.

It most certainly is the subject. We are talking about who is the best player, and until NAdal becomes more consistent on all surfaces, and wins more than Federer, he is in fact, not better than Federer. indeed his 12 wins against Federer are very impressive...but he has also lost 6 times to Federer, and he has only whipped Federer once, while Roger has whipped him once.



At least I didn't think it was. I thought this was about a Nadal/Federer comparison. Therefore , I only mention his record against Federer. Not because their record against others "bears the truth" , because that is the only relavant and effective tool we have to measure them by.


This is not about head to head matches...this is about who is the better player, and at the moment, it is still Roger, until Rafa becomes more consistent.

It is not the only relevant tool. You have totally missed the point. Federer had accumulated over 8300 ranking points at one time, describing in full his total dominance of tournament wins, and all other appearances...to put it in perspective, yesterday's win for Nadal, put him over 6000 points (6055) for the first time ever.

In the past year , the players best tournaments which make up the rankings to this point plays like this...Federer 6 tournament wins, 6 runner ups 2 semifinal appearances and 2 QF appearances, 1 R16 appearance and 1 R32 appearance. Nadal 7 tournament wins, 3 Runner ups, 4 semi final appearances, 2 QF appearances, 1 R16 and 2 R32 appearances.



I can't speak on the tennis played during teh mid-80's or early 90's because I was young then so I'll stay away from the Sampras talk.

thank you, i think




But , as you remembered , I was an athlete in High School. And no matter how many games we won, if one particular pitcher always was able to get me out without me hitting into a defensive play , or if one particular db was always able to stop me from receiving completions or any significant yards after a catch, or one specific teams point guard/2 guard was always able to breakdown my defense or stifle my offense , then I never considered myself better than that particular person. Because if I was better than I would have beat them.

nonsense. you are comparing team sports, playing different positions, which is completely different.


how about this, you are on a high school football team and play in a league with other teams and your arch rival....this is the only possible comparison

For 4 years the schools records looks like this

Your team......Archrival
2004 - 12-1.....7-5.........you don't play the archrival. you lost one of the League Title, District title, section title, state title but win the other 3. You also win the National title.

2005 -12-1......10-3.......you lose to your archrival, but you win the League title, you come 2nd in the district to your archrival, but win the section and the state and National title.

2006 -12-1 same exact scenario as above, except, you lose the district to your archrival, and then beat him to win the section. You still win the league, section, and state and NAtional title.

2007 -12-1 same exact scenario as above.


that is about the only way you could compare it to team sports. While you might have the win over your archrival, they take home the national championship. I'd rather be beaten by a rival, but win all of the marbles.


------
the rankings don't just start over at the beginning of tennis the way they do in football.

There are two different rankings...one is the ATP Tour Rankings, which is the ranking of who is the best in the world...the other is the ATP Race, which calculates a yearly race to see who gets the most points. Nadal is ahead in that race obviously, since that focuses only on from January 2008.

But the ATP RANKING, goes back a full calendar year, and takes the best 18 tournaments of all players, which are always calculated on a rolling basis.

that is the way it goes.

 

[Flashy]

Flashy, taking Sampras vs Federer head to head, there's really only one match that was Wimbledon and competitive, the rest were exhibitions.


Very true, but they both were playing pretty hard in the exhibitions...i was at the one here in NYC and it was simply amazing. Even MCEnroe said if Sampras came back today he would be a top 5 seed at Wimbledon. I have little trouble believing it considering i saw Pete play in his prime in NYC and Florida numerous times, and then watched him again a few months ago. Indeed he is not the same Sampras, but i would have no trouble seeing him reach the Semis at Wimbledon today if he was healthy and training regularly.



The exhibitions, those in my mind can't count, they might as well have been playing doubles with the Jensen brothers.

Well it was a bit different...both guys were popping off huge serves and forehands like you would not believe...it may have said "exhibition" but there was nothing about it that suggested that. Roger may have taken it a bit easy, but it was absolutely mesmerizing tennis.


The 2001 Wimbledon match was so tight between Sampras and Federer that it was a point in several of the sets that could have changed the outcome Sampras' way.

Very true, but Federer was only 19, and would not win his first slam until 2003.


And like I researched and posted, neither won Wimbledon that year, Quarterfinals was where Federer wound up, losing to Tim Henman ?

Yes Henman, in all fairness, that one could have gone either way too. 5-7 6-7(6) 6-2 6-7(6) (RF lost the first set 5-7 lost the 2nd set tiebreaker 8-6, wasted Henman in the 3rd and then lost the 4th set TB 8-6.



As for equipment, I doubt you find anyone playing on the tour during either Sampras or Federers time with anything less than a mid size 90. I think the Sampras racquet size of choice was an 85. But that might account for differences in serve speed, that and today's 90 is lighter than an 85.

true, but rarely was anyone using an oversize, the way Aggasi was (I believe he used a 110)



I still think Pete in his prime had more to deal with from resurging older players and even the heart of the men's tour.

True. but also the quality of play has improved from the early 90s to the mid 2000s, and the players are much stronger and faster and fitter today.


They obviously are both excellent players

very true

and it would be nice to see them play in their primes, but I don't think Federer wins 12 against the same competition Sampras won 14 ?

I have to disagree, only because i think that by today's standards, the Federer of 2004-2007 as a player was a far superior player to the Courier of 1992, the Lendl of 90, the Becker of the early-mid 90s, etc.

Aside from Agassi, i don't see anyone of those guys causing Federer any trouble.


And had they both played in their primes, neither breaks into double digit slams during the Sampras era, because they would beat each other and the others that were good enough to beat Sampras.

HArd to say

BTW, a day after winning Wimbledon, Nadal pulled out of the tournament in Germany, citing a bad knee ?

yeah, stutgart (clay)...doesn't surprise me...he has had a lot of knee problems, and he knows if he wants to beat Roger on the hard courts in canada, cincy, the olympics and at the US Open he is going to have to be at 100%. otherwise what happened to him last season will happen again where he went into the tailspin where he didn't win another tournament till the clay season, and in 12 matches lost 26 sets while winning only two.



on the roger topic
I will simply put these out there:
He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision. Andre Agassi, on Federer, at US Open 2005

He's the best player I've ever played against, full stop ... and he was just too good today. Tim Henman, after losing in the 2nd round of Wimbledon 2006 6-4, 6-0, 6-2

He's not just number one, he's the best in history. He has 12 Grand Slams and I'm sure he'll get the record (14). He can do it all. He serves very well, he has a very good forehand and backhand. He has no weak points.David Ferrer after his loss in Shanghai 2007

Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ever had such quality. Rafael Nadal, after winning French Open 2006


If he is playing very good, I have to play unbelievable. If not, it’s impossible, especially if he’s playing with good confidence. When he’s 100 percent, he’s playing in another league. It’s impossible to stop him. I fight. I fight. I fight. Nothing to say. Just congratulate him. Rafael Nadal, after losing to Federer in the Shanghai Masters Cup semifinal, Nov. 17, 2007.

 

[mista geechee]

So your logic is that , because my opinion differs and I place personal emphasis on different things , my knowledge is somehow inferior to yours? So be it , but that in itself is an opinion. And where did I say I knew nothing of Nadal's prior record against other people ? I simply didn't mention it because that wasn't teh subject.

Nadal has a wider victory margin over Federer on clay than Federer has over Nadal on any other surface.

And no , I wasn't trying to compare , as a whole , the sports I played to tennis. I was comparing the man on man battles within them. After , tennis is a one on one battle.

Bottom line. Nadal has Federer's number. And if he has the capacity for the flashes of brilliance he has shown so far , he obviously ahs a bigger upside than Federer.

And I never implied that he has already had a better career than Federer. I said I think he may. As in he has a chance to surpass him.

 

[transformer_99]

Flashy, the reason I stopped watching tennis was because the women's tour was more competitive after Becker and others started to retire. Courier at one point was very dominating and the trio of Sampras, Courier and Agassi, those three guys would rip the Americans that have been playing during the Federer era.

Tennis ATP and WTA Rankings - CBSSports.com ATP Race Leaderboard

I just don't see an American name on this list that compares to Sampras, Courier, Agassi, and what the heck even an old Jimmy Conners or John McEnroe in a rejuvenated comeback.

A player that I thought more fit than even today's players was Michael Chang, that guy lacked the size so he simply had to be fast and mobile. Agassi was that as well, both were better than most of who they played but when it came to playing the bigger and better players they simply had to be at hyperspeed to win a match/title. I have to give them props for being able to keep that kind of speed and energy up to play the bigger and stronger men.