Is Nadal Finished?

[gladiator4000]

lol..yeah his decline started with the rise of the next generation..how ironic is it?

and really move over this 2004-07 argument.Wilander didnt wanna start another controversy so he said fed is the best ever...do you remember in 2007 he said Fed doesnt have balls while facing Nadal? that raised a lot of eyebrows and he was heavily criticised. He was being diplomatic.But is it wrong to say that beating hewitt in the final is easier than beating djokovic who had the best ever of anyone in the open era since laver maybe? or beating nadal in the finals? anyone who claims otherwise is kidding themselves. He is spot on when he made the comment that he won too many slams by beating a bunch of no namers.

Really ironic hey, nadal took 3 years before beating fed in a grand slam, someone was always going to step up, you study your opponents and analyze with stratigic planning.
Its the same that brisbanes reign ended around the same time the swans and the eagles started their in 2005/2006 grand finals.
given they were the 2 teams that consistently beat the lions in their premierships years.
Does that mean that the eagles and swans premiership years surpass the lions??
If federer wins at least one more grand slam that will disprove everyones theory that he is incapable of getting past nadl or djocovic.
All he needs is one more and that shows he can beat anyone yet again.
Wait and see how it all pans out.

 

[Lemma]

All Fed lacks is that mongrel and fight that Nadal has had all his career, and Novak has now

 

[gladiator4000]

All Fed lacks is that mongrel and fight that Nadal has had all his career, and Novak has now

Yes thats spot on, when fed played nadal 2 weeks back the commentators said something along the lines of, like to big rog throw his fists up and celebrate a point the way nadal does with that same aggression.

The only reason nadal has fed covered is most games been on clay court and the mental angry edge that fed lacks.

If fedrer could adapt the same sort of aggression which personally I dont think is in his nature, he would sky rocket back to number 2 at the very least.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

Are you serious about 2005, federer against a clay specialist, nadal his entire life played on clay so naturally federer wasnt going to beat him
Facts are federer beat the man sampras who was going for a record 7th straight wimbledon, it was touted the boy who stoped the king, thats fact there.
2008 AO federer was not in his prime, he was 27 and Nadal leads their head-to-head 18–9. However, most of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface.
Djocovic is yet to beat federer in an actual grand slam final The two have met 24 times with Federer leading 14–10, and 5–4 in Grand Slam events

Dude seriously get your facts right. You said the fact is Fed beat Sampras who was going for 7 straight Wimbledon titles. That is wrong. Sampras won 3 in a row, lost to Kraijec or however you spell his name, *mid tournament one year, and then won another 4 in a row. He never won 6 in a row and gunning for 7.

And just on that match between Fed and Sampras, you are comparing a guy who was a nobody with alot of hunger against a guy who was past it and had nothing to prove.

And let me make my point about what if Federer had played Sampras in Sampras' *era. This is how I think it would go, assuming both at their peak. They would consistently meet in the final at Wimbledon, Sampras'' serve wiuld be too much for Fed to handle and Sampras would win. What this would do is cause Fed to fret, doubt himself, go into his shell and get insecure about Pistol Pete, because lets face it, Federer has a propensity to do that, ie against Nadal. Sampras on the other hand, would never fret, doubt himself or get insecure about any of his opponents, even when Agassi beat Sampras at the AO 95, Sampras got him back at the USO later that year. Sampras always said llaying Agassi took his game to another level, he thrived on the rivalry. So when faced with a challenge to his supremacy, Sampras toughened up. So when the going got tough, Pete got going. With Fed, when the going gets tough, he starts crying. You see where I'm coming from? Fed may have more all court talent, but Sampras had the big serve, the big second serve, the big forehand and just as importantly, the mental toughness. People say that with Fed against Nadal, it's mental. Well it's simple, don't lose to him in the first place to let it get mental. If Fed played peak Sampras at Wimbledon in the 90s, you don't think Sampras would whip him every now and again? Going on what we know now, beat Fed twice and you get in his head. At 90s Wimbledon Sampras' serve, the biggest weapon in the history of the game, would have tormented him. And then this torment would extend to other slams except the FO. I think people have forgotten just how good Sampras was. He was deadly and unrivalled, especially at W.

 

[Butcher32]

Do you think fed can win a grand slam this year or next before he hangs his racket up

i posted it 2 years ago and i will say it again, federer will only win a grand slam IF he doesnt face Nadal or Djokovic and has an easy draw.I will still stick to that.

Really ironic hey, nadal took 3 years before beating fed in a grand slam, someone was always going to step up, you study your opponents and analyze with stratigic planning.
Its the same that brisbanes reign ended around the same time the swans and the eagles started their in 2005/2006 grand finals.
given they were the 2 teams that consistently beat the lions in their premierships years.
Does that mean that the eagles and swans premiership years surpass the lions??
If federer wins at least one more grand slam that will disprove everyones theory that he is incapable of getting past nadl or djocovic.
All he needs is one more and that shows he can beat anyone yet again.
Wait and see how it all pans out.

Huh? in 2007 Nadal was 21 years old.How many slams did Federer win when he was 21 again? thats right none.He won the Roland Garros got Nadal got injured, he knows that well.Nadal on the other hand beat federer on his favourite surface.Fed has nothing against Nadal..which will call him the GOAT. You are talking about team sport, which is different than individual sports. Name one GOAT in the history of individual sport where A GOAT has been consistently owned by his nearest rival? theres NONE.If Djokovic hasnt shown up Nadal would have been very close to Federer, its federers good fortune that he was born in a transition period in tennis and the rise of Djokovic, which has contributed to his goat status.Now Novak can end up being the best ever who knows?

 

[gladiator4000]

Dude seriously get your facts right. You said the fact is Fed beat Sampras who was going for 7 straight Wimbledon titles. That is wrong. Sampras won 3 in a row, lost to Kraijec or however you spell his name, *mid tournament one year, and then won another 4 in a row. He never won 6 in a row and gunning for 7.

um seriously unless your computer has a virus then you seriously need to get your facts in order.
He beat sampras in the 2001 wimbledon, federer stopped him going for his 8th wimbledon
Sampas won all but 1996 when he was injured, between 1993 and 2000 he won al bar 1996 hard to argue given he was ill and his coach had just died.

And just on that match between Fed and Sampras, you are comparing a guy who was a nobody with alot of hunger against a guy who was past it and had nothing to prove.

not true the guy was aiming for another grand slam and was stopped pure and simple.
Sampras went on to win another 2 slams

And let me make my point about what if Federer had played Sampras in Sampras' *era. This is how I think it would go, assuming both at their peak. They would consistently meet in the final at Wimbledon, Sampras'' serve wiuld be too much for Fed to handle and Sampras would win. What this would do is cause Fed to fret, doubt himself, go into his shell and get insecure about Pistol Pete, because lets face it, Federer has a propensity to do that, ie against Nadal. Sampras on the other hand, would never fret, doubt himself or get insecure about any of his opponents, even when Agassi beat Sampras at the AO 95, Sampras got him back at the USO later that year. Sampras always said llaying Agassi took his game to another level, he thrived on the rivalry. So when faced with a challenge to his supremacy, Sampras toughened up. So when the going got tough, Pete got going. With Fed, when the going gets tough, he starts crying. You see where I'm coming from? Fed may have more all court talent, but Sampras had the big serve, the big second serve, the big forehand and just as importantly, the mental toughness. People say that with Fed against Nadal, it's mental. Well it's simple, don't lose to him in the first place to let it get mental. If Fed played peak Sampras at Wimbledon in the 90s, you don't think Sampras would whip him every now and again? Going on what we know now, beat Fed twice and you get in his head. At 90s Wimbledon Sampras' serve, the biggest weapon in the history of the game, would have tormented him. And then this torment would extend to other slams except the FO. I think people have forgotten just how good Sampras was. He was deadly and unrivalled, especially at W.

If sampras serve was too much for fed to handle why did he beat him in 2001?
The guy was virtually unstoppable in wimbledon, fed wa just a kid in experienced and coming up against a guy who was a seasoned campaigner for these slams, funny thing is if fed played in sampras era, sampras would never have reached 14 slams, possibly 7 or 8, feds athleticism would run sampras ragged.
Just on a quick note how many times did pistol pete actually play in a french open final let alone win one with his fast powerful serve??

If he was that good why didnt he make just one, agassi has injuries and alot of controversy in his tennis career and that was his short coming, otherwise he would have dominated sampras.
Nadal has the mental edge to give anyone a hard time, he pushes and gets the best out of everyone.
But given he spends most of his matches agaisnt federer on clay I doubt pete who never made a french open would have recorded a single victory over the spaniard.

 

[gladiator4000]

i posted it 2 years ago and i will say it again, federer will only win a grand slam IF he doesnt face Nadal or Djokovic and has an easy draw.I will still stick to that.

ok stick to it and we will wait and see

Huh? in 2007 Nadal was 21 years old.How many slams did Federer win when he was 21 again? thats right none.He won the Roland Garros got Nadal got injured, he knows that well.Nadal on the other hand beat federer on his favourite surface.Fed has nothing against Nadal..which will call him the GOAT. You are talking about team sport, which is different than individual sports. Name one GOAT in the history of individual sport where A GOAT has been consistently owned by his nearest rival? theres NONE.If Djokovic hasnt shown up Nadal would have been very close to Federer, its federers good fortune that he was born in a transition period in tennis and the rise of Djokovic, which has contributed to his goat status.Now Novak can end up being the best ever who knows?

The majority of his slams are in france
novak has not beaten fed in a grand slam final yet
nadal is fortunate to have grown up playing and training on clay courts, otherwise he would get owned on the other surfaces and have no french opens to back his status up.
Federer has beaten nadal 2 from 5 grand slam finals and 3 of nadals were on french open clay courts, lets wait and see how this year pans out.
By the ay team sport has everything to do with it, if one team has a victory or 2 over anothr team expectecd to win it becomes mental, they all doubt and they all lose self belief and its like a chain with a broken link, one person breaks down the team breaks down.

Nadal and novak still have to catch feds 16 slams lets see if they do it by the end of their careers

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

Gladiator, you said Sampras was going for 7 in a row. He never won 6 in a row to begin with, so how could he be going for 7 in a row. I'm aware that Fed beat him at W, I commented on it. Fed played a Sampras who was past his best.Had he played Sampras when both at their best it would be a different kettle of fish. Sampras' serve was bullet like, on the 90s grass, even moreso. I'm sure that Fed would try to give as good as he gets, and may even win a match or two, but if it got to the point where Sampras started to string a couple of wins together, then it would snowball downhill for Fed because the bloke frets when he starts to lose tothe same opponent. He drops his head, he looks shaky, Sampras would sense that *because he was good at putting doubt in opposition minds. Fed's all court finesse works against everyone except the brute power of Nadal and Nole. Now considering Pete's serve is quicker and more powerful than anything Nadal and Nole have in their bag of tricks, I can't see how Fed would get near Sampras, especially at 90s W. And if he does manage to get serves back, there won't be anything on them, Sampras would knock them away for easy winners. Against Sampras at W, if you dropped serve, it was virtually set over because Sampras was also probably the best frontrunner ever. I'm pretty confident that had he led Nole 4-2 in the final set of a majorfinal, he would serve it out. I'm doubly sure that he would not lose in a slam match after having match point.

And just on the FO, how many FO champions has Fed beaten at RG? Answer, zero. Sampras may not have won a FO, but he's done something Fed has never done, he's beaten a FO champion at RG, twice in fact.

As for Agassi, read his book. Nothing to do with injuries. He basically said Sampras owned him outright, and if you think he was saying that to be nice, again, I suggest you read his book, he pulls no punches.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I'm aware that Fed beat him at W, I commented on it. Fed played a Sampras who was past his best. Had he played Sampras when both at their best it would be a different kettle of fish.

But neither were at their best. It's not like that was peak Federer out there.

I'm sure that Fed would try to give as good as he gets, and may even win a match or two, but if it got to the point where Sampras started to string a couple of wins together, then it would snowball downhill for Fed because the bloke frets when he starts to lose tothe same opponent. He drops his head, he looks shaky, Sampras would sense that *because he was good at putting doubt in opposition minds.

Overstating this massively. Examples of Federer turning it around against opponents after a few losses:

2003 YEC def Agassi (Agassi won the previous 3 matches)
2004 AO def Nalbandian (Nalbandian won 5 of 6 before this match)
2004 AO def Hewitt (Hewitt won 7 of 9 before this match)
2010 AO def Murray (Murray won 6 of 7 between 2008 and 2009)
2011 RG def Djokovic (Djokovic won the previous 3 matches)
2011 USO def Tsonga (Tsonga won the previous 2 matches)

It's one guy with a forehand that renders his backhand useless that he struggles with. A lot more match-up than mental.

And just on the FO, how many FO champions has Fed beaten at RG? Answer, zero. Sampras may not have won a FO, but he's done something Fed has never done, he's beaten a FO champion at RG, twice in fact.

Not sure what the point of a statement like this is. Federer is still many times better on clay than Sampras ever was.

 

[bombermick]

The majority of his slams are in france
novak has not beaten fed in a grand slam final yet

Last year's US Open final? Two match points for Fed
I'll agree that Fed gives Novak far more trouble than Rafa, but Novak wins in H2H against Fed.

 

[gladiator4000]

Gladiator, you said Sampras was going for 7 in a row. He never won 6 in a row to begin with, so how could he be going for 7 in a row. I'm aware that Fed beat him at W, I commented on it. Fed played a Sampras who was past his best.Had he played Sampras when both at their best it would be a different kettle of fish. Sampras' serve was bullet like, on the 90s grass, even moreso. I'm sure that Fed would try to give as good as he gets, and may even win a match or two, but if it got to the point where Sampras started to string a couple of wins together, then it would snowball downhill for Fed because the bloke frets when he starts to lose tothe same opponent. He drops his head, he looks shaky, Sampras would sense that *because he was good at putting doubt in opposition minds. Fed's all court finesse works against everyone except the brute power of Nadal and Nole. Now considering Pete's serve is quicker and more powerful than anything Nadal and Nole have in their bag of tricks, I can't see how Fed would get near Sampras, especially at 90s W. And if he does manage to get serves back, there won't be anything on them, Sampras would knock them away for easy winners. Against Sampras at W, if you dropped serve, it was virtually set over because Sampras was also probably the best frontrunner ever. I'm pretty confident that had he led Nole 4-2 in the final set of a majorfinal, he would serve it out. I'm doubly sure that he would not lose in a slam match after having match point.

And just on the FO, how many FO champions has Fed beaten at RG? Answer, zero. Sampras may not have won a FO, but he's done something Fed has never done, he's beaten a FO champion at RG, twice in fact.

As for Agassi, read his book. Nothing to do with injuries. He basically said Sampras owned him outright, and if you think he was saying that to be nice, again, I suggest you read his book, he pulls no punches.

sampras won all wimbledon titles between 1993 and 2000 bar 1996.
Thats 7 titles, was going for an 8th title in 2001 and fed wasnt even at his peak and sampras was in grand slam mode well seasone.
But I ask you port fans who sem to run down fed alot, just how many french finals has sampras ever made, for someone who has an invincible serve why on earth didnt it serve him in good stead in france.
But he never made a single one, feds done the main thing that sampras never could.
he has won a GRAND SLAM on every court.
Made more slam finals then sampras too.

 

[gladiator4000]

Last year's US Open final? Two match points for Fed
I'll agree that Fed gives Novak far more trouble than Rafa, but Novak wins in H2H against Fed.

Funn that hey, its different players different ranks would seem that it would be the other way around wouldnt it lo
but has novak actually won a grand slam beating fed

 

[Lemma]

Last year's US Open final? Two match points for Fed
I'll agree that Fed gives Novak far more trouble than Rafa, but Novak wins in H2H against Fed.

That was the semi-final
He beat Nads in the final

 

[bombermick]

That was the semi-final
He beat Nads in the final

Oops right you are. I'm backing Joker to beat Nadal in the French final this year, have to put some $$ on it.

 

[Butcher32]

The majority of his slams are in france

Borg says Hi.

novak has not beaten fed in a grand slam final yet

Not his fault if fed wasnt good enough to make it through, cause he lost to Djokovic in 3 slam semis out of 4.Cop that

nadal is fortunate to have grown up playing and training on clay courts, otherwise he would get owned on the other surfaces and have no french opens to back his status up.

Ifs and buts....hypotheticals.....scenarios .........carry on.

Federer has beaten nadal 2 from 5 grand slam finals and 3 of nadals were on french open clay courts,

2 of the finals played were on grass and you fail to mention, he came up against a 19 year old in 2006 and 20 year old in 2007.Almost got beaten in 2007 but justice was served in 2008. On clay however he never came close ..not even within 100 miles of beating Nadal at F.O..ended up getting mauled in 2008 and bageled

lets wait and see how this year pans out.
By the ay team sport has everything to do with it, if one team has a victory or 2 over anothr team expectecd to win it becomes mental, they all doubt and they all lose self belief and its like a chain with a broken link, one person breaks down the team breaks down.

Team sports got nothing to do with individual sports.Tredrea was owned by Rutten time and again, yet Port managed to beat Adelaide on a consistent basis.If someone is having a horrid time, you can still get away with it.In tennis you cant, cause its YOU and only YOU.No one can help Federer but Federer himself.Sorry mate you are way off here, cant believe you are arguing that even.

Nadal and novak still have to catch feds 16 slams lets see if they do it by the end of their careers

Not worried, numbers mean nothing to me.To me Federer is not the GOAT and i have given very good reasons to mount an argument

 

[gladiator4000]

Borg says Hi.

LOL Fed never playd borg so thats a meaningless stat.
Nadal has mostly beaten fed on clay, nadal is the clay specialist no doubt.

Not his fault if fed wasnt good enough to make it through, cause he lost to Djokovic in 3 slam semis out of 4.Cop that

Has the joker ever beaten fed in a grand slam final??

Ifs and buts....hypotheticals.....scenarios .........carry on.

Thats true, we are both speculating by raising several points here and there, but the only fact I can claim is that fed did beat sampras at wimbledon, nadal has won most of his games against fed on clay and fe has the most grand salms for the moment.

2 of the finals played were on grass and you fail to mention, he came up against a 19 year old in 2006 and 20 year old in 2007.Almost got beaten in 2007 but justice was served in 2008. On clay however he never came close ..not even within 100 miles of beating Nadal at F.O..ended up getting mauled in 2008 and bageled

in one of the frenh open finals Im sure i was 2007 h he took nadal to five sets beating him the first set.
But in all fairness nadal has lost like 1 games in france.
But I ask you again how many times did sampras feature in a french grand slam final and then I ask you how many has fed?

Team sports got nothing to do with individual sports.Tredrea was owned by Rutten time and again, yet Port managed to beat Adelaide on a consistent basis.If someone is having a horrid time, you can still get away with it.In tennis you cant, cause its YOU and only YOU.No one can help Federer but Federer himself.Sorry mate you are way off here, cant believe you are arguing that even.

Alot of te time Tony lockett was in form and playing with the saints they dominated alot of their games, plugger struck fear and intimidation in to rival teams defences, he missed so many games through uinjuries and suspensions and that cost the saints premierships.
Also wayne carey the king pagans padock kick it long and wde and his strength and brilliance got north to many finals campaigns.
I understand that there are many differences with team sports but they do have some similar traits.
In sydneys grand final and flag year of 2005 and 2006 they falied to beat the crows and the pies.

Not worried, numbers mean nothing to me.To me Federer is not the GOAT and i have given very good reasons to mount an argument

What if fed beats either nadal or djocovic in a grand slam final, will you give him the credit he deserves or shoot him down claiming the other was either injured or it was luck.
dont forget novak trails 0 to 1 against fed in grand slams finals for the moment and the joker leads nadal lol

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

But neither were at their best. It's not like that was peak Federer out there.



Overstating this massively. Examples of Federer turning it around against opponents after a few losses:

2003 YEC def Agassi (Agassi won the previous 3 matches)
2004 AO def Nalbandian (Nalbandian won 5 of 6 before this match)
2004 AO def Hewitt (Hewitt won 7 of 9 before this match)
2010 AO def Murray (Murray won 6 of 7 between 2008 and 2009)
2011 RG def Djokovic (Djokovic won the previous 3 matches)
2011 USO def Tsonga (Tsonga won the previous 2 matches)

It's one guy with a forehand that renders his backhand useless that he struggles with. A lot more match-up than mental.



Not sure what the point of a statement like this is. Federer is still many times better on clay than Sampras ever was.

All those matches you mentioned in which he turned fortunes around are all against very good players, but come on, none, except maybe Djok if he keeps his fortunes going, are in Sampras' class. Also, Agassi was past it in 2003.

As for their match at W, it was a one off match, I'd hardly put any emphasis on that. Sampras beat the likes of Lendl, Connors, Edberg and McEnroe, all legends of the game, early on in his career and late in their careers, but do you see anyone referring to those matches as some sort of indicator of Sampras' GOATness? No, because people prefer to compare Sampras with his direct rivals, apples with apples, not apples with oranges. The way things are starting to look now, Sampras dominated his era moreso than Fed has dominated his. Fed had the good fortune of racking up slams virtually unchallenged between 2004 and 2007, hence why he now has 16, but now all the talk is that he has mismatch and mental issues against his biggest rival. Can't anyone see how ridiculous this looks and sounds, Fed is the GOAT except when he plays Nadal. With Sampras, there's no talk of mismatches against particular opponents, no talk of mental issues either, because his dominance was undisputed, most slams won and superior H2H records. The only blemish on Sampras' career resume is no FO. Just on the FO, whilst he was not able to win it, he did beat Courier, a two time FO winner, and Brugerea, also a two time FO winner, at RG. In answer to your query, my point is, whilst clay was not his best surface, he was not completely useless on it. He did win the Italian Open also. But just because you have a weak record on a particular surface, a surface which blunted his power game, does that mean he should be excluded from GOAT contention, especially considering that he dominated at every other slam and dominated all his rivals?*

And just getting back to Federer's mismatch with Nadal, why wasn't it a mismatch issue for him in London late last year? Why does it suddenly become an issue of mismatch when he faces Nadal in a slam? Let's face it, unlike Sampras v Fed, their rivalry does not extend to one match. It's not like Fed has had limited opportunities against Nadal to turn things around. Surely someone as good as Fed is good enough to overcome this so called mismatch. Surely Fed's apparent Greatest Of All Time ability should be able to rectify this with all the opportunities he's had, even on clay. I think the past champions of the game must privately scoff at all the theories that get thrown up regarding this matter. Surely if Fed is the greatest of all time, he should be able to get the better of everyone from any era over the course of several matches, including Nadal. Yet the ironic thing is, the one player in which we can actually compare him against another potential GOAT, and it's an epic fail for Fed. Go figure. If he had led the H2H against Nadal, even if it was even, heck even if he was only a couple of matches behind, you'd probably get no argument from me or anyone else for that matter. But honestly, 2-8 is too much of a damning stat to simply ignore or disregard. But I know, I know, mismatch and mental issues, I got it.

Based on what I've seen, if Fed and Sampras were the same age playing in the 90s, Sampras' serve at W would have given Fed the same mental problems.*

And if you want to use most slams as the be all and end all re the GOAT, factor in that Rod Laver missed 5 years at his prime age because he turned professional and Borg retired at 26 and rarely played at the AO.

That is all.

 

[Butcher32]

All those matches you mentioned in which he turned fortunes around are all against very good players, but come on, none, except maybe Djok if he keeps his fortunes going, are in Sampras' class. Also, Agassi was past it in 2003.

As for their match at W, it was a one off match, I'd hardly put any emphasis on that. Sampras beat the likes of Lendl, Connors, Edberg and McEnroe, all legends of the game, early on in his career and late in their careers, but do you see anyone referring to those matches as some sort of indicator of Sampras' GOATness? No, because people prefer to compare Sampras with his direct rivals, apples with apples, not apples with oranges. The way things are starting to look now, Sampras dominated his era moreso than Fed has dominated his. Fed had the good fortune of racking up slams virtually unchallenged between 2004 and 2007, hence why he now has 16, but now all the talk is that he has mismatch and mental issues against his biggest rival. Can't anyone see how ridiculous this looks and sounds, Fed is the GOAT except when he plays Nadal. With Sampras, there's no talk of mismatches against particular opponents, no talk of mental issues either, because his dominance was undisputed, most slams won and superior H2H records. The only blemish on Sampras' career resume is no FO. Just on the FO, whilst he was not able to win it, he did beat Courier, a two time FO winner, and Brugerea, also a two time FO winner, at RG. In answer to your query, my point is, whilst clay was not his best surface, he was not completely useless on it. He did win the Italian Open also. But just because you have a weak record on a particular surface, a surface which blunted his power game, does that mean he should be excluded from GOAT contention, especially considering that he dominated at every other slam and dominated all his rivals?*

And just getting back to Federer's mismatch with Nadal, why wasn't it a mismatch issue for him in London late last year? Why does it suddenly become an issue of mismatch when he faces Nadal in a slam? Let's face it, unlike Sampras v Fed, their rivalry does not extend to one match. It's not like Fed has had limited opportunities against Nadal to turn things around. Surely someone as good as Fed is good enough to overcome this so called mismatch. Surely Fed's apparent Greatest Of All Time ability should be able to rectify this with all the opportunities he's had, even on clay. I think the past champions of the game must privately scoff at all the theories that get thrown up regarding this matter. Surely if Fed is the greatest of all time, he should be able to get the better of everyone from any era over the course of several matches, including Nadal. Yet the ironic thing is, the one player in which we can actually compare him against another potential GOAT, and it's an epic fail for Fed. Go figure. If he had led the H2H against Nadal, even if it was even, heck even if he was only a couple of matches behind, you'd probably get no argument from me or anyone else for that matter. But honestly, 2-8 is too much of a damning stat to simply ignore or disregard. But I know, I know, mismatch and mental issues, I got it.

Based on what I've seen, if Fed and Sampras were the same age playing in the 90s, Sampras' serve at W would have given Fed the same mental problems.*

And if you want to use most slams as the be all and end all re the GOAT, factor in that Rod Laver missed 5 years at his prime age because he turned professional and Borg retired at 26 and rarely played at the AO.

That is all.

Brilliant post.Amazing that its a "mismatch" issue, unless they play on indoors .Djokovic has pantsed rafa on every surface imaginable last year. Federer on the other hand..has a mismatch issue with nadal on all surfaces but indoors.His brain works well on indoors and he believes he can beat Nadal only on indoors Beat that.

Federer is not the GOAT...if he was the GOAT he could have worked Rafa out. He is a GOAT afterall right??? matchup issue my arse.

 

[Butcher32]

LOL Fed never playd borg so thats a meaningless stat.
Nadal has mostly beaten fed on clay, nadal is the clay specialist no doubt.

Jesus christ, you cant even use the quotes properly so i bother replying to your drivel except this lol material.Way to miss a point.Borg won 6 french open titles too and is a clay court legend.People dont play him down by saying "oh he is a damn claycourter" , Borg is still one of the very best ever, if not the beat ever (there are good arguments in favour of that too).So if Nadal wins 6 slams, out of 10, all of a sudden "he is a damn claycourter"? no one in the history has won 7 french opens or ANY slam FWIW.To win 7 french opens will be amazing.Try to be appreciative instead of being a troll all the time.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

sampras won all wimbledon titles between 1993 and 2000 bar 1996.
Thats 7 titles, was going for an 8th title in 2001 and fed wasnt even at his peak and sampras was in grand slam mode well seasone.
But I ask you port fans who sem to run down fed alot, just how many french finals has sampras ever made, for someone who has an invincible serve why on earth didnt it serve him in good stead in france.
But he never made a single one, feds done the main thing that sampras never could.
he has won a GRAND SLAM on every court.
Made more slam finals then sampras too.

Well at least now you are not saying 7 in a row because before you were saying 7 in a row.

Feder was extremely fortunate to win the FO because the man who owns him there was not standing on the other side of the net, I think injury may have had something to do with that. But even so, Federer certainly has a better record at the FO by virtue of the fact he has made several finals there and Sampras has not. So you have no argument from me there as far as the FO is concerned.

In answer to your question, that being why didn't Sampras' serve do him any good at the FO? Because the clay at the FO was/is designed to do exactly that, do him no good. The Sampras serve was blunted because of the clay. So where the serve at Wimbledon and the other slams would fly like a bullet, at the FO it was made to look like a beach ball bouncing up and down really high. It's like putting lead in the shoes of a sprinter and then asking him to run a marathon against long distance runners. Sampras was a good ground stroker but there were better baseliners than him.

Federer has made more slam finals but that is not the be all and end all. Refer to my previous post.

 

[Lemma]

I don't think not having to beat Nadal devalues Fed's FO achievement. You can only beat your opponent.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

And just getting back to Federer's mismatch with Nadal, why wasn't it a mismatch issue for him in London late last year? Why does it suddenly become an issue of mismatch when he faces Nadal in a slam?

Brilliant post.Amazing that its a "mismatch" issue, unless they play on indoors .Djokovic has pantsed rafa on every surface imaginable last year. Federer on the other hand..has a mismatch issue with nadal on all surfaces but indoors.His brain works well on indoors and he believes he can beat Nadal only on indoors Beat that.

Couple of people struggling with basic tennis knowledge here. The surface in London bounces MUCH lower than the Australian and US Open for example. What does that do? Well, it only changes the match-up completely. Nadal's tactic of bombarding Federer's backhand with heavily spun forehands is blunted. What happens? Federer wins of course.

Both of you just proved it is match-up more than mental without even knowing it. If it was mental, he wouldn't be able to beat him on any surface. He can beat Nadal on that London court any day of the week because the bounce is different to most other tournaments on tour.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Feder was extremely fortunate to win the FO

I agree with a lot of the stuff that you are saying but not this. Federer has made many FO finals and was the best player that tournament. If Rafa couldn't beat Soderling to get to the final then he didn't deserve it. If Soderling couldn't beat Federer in the final then Federer deserves it, so it was a very legitimate grand slam win.

 

[Butcher32]

Couple of people struggling with basic tennis knowledge here. The surface in London bounces MUCH lower than the Australian and US Open for example. What does that do? Well, it only changes the match-up completely. Nadal's tactic of bombarding Federer's backhand with heavily spun forehands is blunted. What happens? Federer wins of course.

Both of you just proved it is match-up more than mental without even knowing it. If it was mental, he wouldn't be able to beat him on any surface. He can beat Nadal on that London court any day of the week because the bounce is different to most other tournaments on tour.

so its the surface and the bounce thats the problem then? not a mental issue thanks...that was my point all along to the blokes who says "federer beat himself" (hello caesar). That was my point all along, he doesnt have the game to beat Rafa, if he cant handle the topspin then its his fault.Rafa is atleast rising the challenge of Djokovic (we will see how it goes in the future), but Fed bend over everytime they meet.

 

[Butcher32]

I agree with a lot of the stuff that you are saying but not this. Federer has made many FO finals and was the best player that tournament. If Rafa couldn't beat Soderling to get to the final then he didn't deserve it. If Soderling couldn't beat Federer in the final then Federer deserves it, so it was a very legitimate grand slam win.

lol if x beats y and y beats z then x would automatically beat z? this is a dumb argument at best.Federer fans all along been complaining that rafas head to head with federer does not resemble the real picture cause nadal hasnt made enough finals at wimbledon and on hardcourts.Soderling that day played out of his skin and also had an injured rafa on the other side of the net.I dont anyone including federer fans would disagreee that if nadal made the finals of F.O even on one leg would have beaten federer.