Official Nadal vs. Federer thread.

[Hawks1523]

Like people have said, for Novak to win multiple slams and be up there with Rafa and Fed, he needs to work on his heart muscle, instead of whimping out when he's behind and cry it's too hot. Other people managed to get through it, keep yourself hydrated and cooled as much as you can in the breaks, ****ing sook.

 

[Xtreme]

Brilliant match, thought Federer was going to come out on top after the 4th set. But in grand tradition the person that won the 1st and 3rd sets... also won the 5th.

It had to be tainted a little, couldn't believe that w***er of a spectator yelling 'out' at a crucial stage.

Awesome ceremony at the end aswell, felt a little for Federer (although i was doing the Nelson Muntz "Ha Ha" whenever they showed his girlfriend on screen ).

Nadal is in a world of his own, although he's more vunerable against the other top players..... he clearly has the wood over Federer. If they contested EVERY grand slam final for the next couple of years, it would be amazing.

Will wonder how long he can keep the grinding through points going. Early on in his career he was compared with Hewitt (with his endurance) - it was mainly used as a 7 promotional tool (so it may not be entirely accurate). But one thing that still comes up, is the likelyhood that Nadal will peak and then drop ala Hewitt.... but possibly before his peak tennis age.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I think its great that Fed cried (I predicted it, in fact), its great to see someone with seemingly everything they could want in life actually care about things like this.

 

[Sid]

I never felt Federer was going to win. I am surprised that he won 2 sets after reflecting on the match. Federer's body language was extremely poor most of the time, and could just not win enough points on pressure. There is definitely a lot more pressure on him than Nadal. It is hard for someone like him to fall to number 2 after being deemed one of the best players ever.

Nadal has the perfect game to match him. I think the first thing Federer needs to do is to come to terms with being number 2. The pressure is getting to him. He's still playing like he's the world number 1. Does not look hungry enough compared to Nadal.

 

[emperor]

I thought the presentation was brilliant, so many emotions.

The funniest part for me was when Rafa first went up to the microphone, he said something like, ''Well...uh..hello?'' I LOL'd

It was funny but in a good way. He then said 'Good Evening' in a very formal tone, which cracked me up.

You could tell Federer was struggling as he and Nadal were waiting for the post match formalities, so it wasn't surprising his emotions got the better of him. Good on both of them for playing such an engrossing match, and its obvious they both love tennis a great deal.

Always had the feeling Nadal would triumph, Federer just seemed to be ever so slightly off the boil and very nervous throughout and then really lost the plot in the last set. Great final

 

[chrisjie]

Lol @ the person who yelled 'out' during the 2nd last point.

Part of the reason I don't go to the tennis anymore is the large amount of ******ed fans who yell out between 2nd serves and while people are throwing the ball up etc. They really need to kick these people out. But I guess it's too hard to police.

 

[XFactor1979]

federer v nadal is the greatest rivalry ever

not just world sport

but even in the movies, we had christian bale's batman vs heath ledger's the joker

federer is bale's batman, and nadal is ledger's joker

it makes compelling viewing seeing those two men slug it out on opposite sides of the court. different playing styles, different physiques

it will be a sad day when this rivalry ends. just the idea of the whole contest of it, like the degree of uncertainty you get, how every point is very difficult to win against one another. i dont want to see nadal win in straight sets, that would mean that the contest is over.

 

[XFactor1979]

I think its great that Fed cried (I predicted it, in fact), its great to see someone with seemingly everything they could want in life actually care about things like this.

goddamn right you are

thats why hes a true champion

 

[Karl Pilkington]

goddamn right you are

thats why hes a true champion

The thing I don't understand is people saying Federer has an ego - OF COURSE he has an ego! He's likely to go down as one of the top 4 sportsmen of all time, and about the only thing those people share (Jordan, Ali, Woods, Federer) is a very solid ego.

The fact he can act so humble, show emotion and come across as a normal guy is testament to his character - the fact is he's got a huge ego, so does Nadal, so does every guy in the top 10. Guys who don't have a healthy ego always stumble at the finish line (Rafter).

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He's likely to go down as one of the top 4 sportsmen of all time, and about the only thing those people share (Jordan, Ali, Woods, Federer) is a very solid ego.

Lol, turn it up. He is not even the best tennis player- Rod Laver is. Unril he wins not 1 but TWO total grand slams then Federer is not even the best tennis player..as for sportsmen..Federer MIGHT make the top 10 but I am being generous..Pele would be ahead, so would Schumacher, Laver, etc

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Lol, turn it up. He is not even the best tennis player- Rod Laver is. Unril he wins not 1 but TWO total grand slams then Federer is not even the best tennis player..as for sportsmen..Federer MIGHT make the top 10 but I am being generous..Pele would be ahead, so would Schumacher, Laver, etc

Laver was playing in the amateur era, with wooden rackets. His achievement was amazing no doubt, but I'll take Federer thanks.

Schumacher? Not imo, you can't really have drivers in the same category because so much of their success is based on something almost entirely out of their control (the car and the team).

Pele is debateable at best.

Either way, the point wasn't about who the best sportsmen are, the point was ALL great sportsmen have a huge ego.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Federer has to win the French to even have a claim as the best tennis player ever, at the moment he is not really any better than Nadal and Nadal has more chance of doing "the slam" as he can effectively play on clay and win most times. Schumacher would be up there whether we agree or not, Jack Nicholas would be higher than Federer, so would Pele but I don't follow soccer he'd still be higher than Federer on my list. Not all sportsmen have big ego's, has Federer got a big ego NO, but has he got a bigger ego than Rafa YES.

 

[Power King]

The thing I don't understand is people saying Federer has an ego - OF COURSE he has an ego! He's likely to go down as one of the top 4 sportsmen of all time, and about the only thing those people share (Jordan, Ali, Woods, Federer) is a very solid ego.

The fact he can act so humble, show emotion and come across as a normal guy is testament to his character - the fact is he's got a huge ego, so does Nadal, so does every guy in the top 10. Guys who don't have a healthy ego always stumble at the finish line (Rafter).

Doesn't stand out from tennis as those guys do with their sport, especially not Jordan or Ali. Is no doubt one of the best tennis players ever though.

And that is the thing - "so humble". Of course, when he is winning. Ever seen full conferences of when he has lost or is discussing an upcoming tournament?

I don't mind arrogance, and I certainly love emotion, I just don't like disrespect toward opponents which he has showed time and time again. In my opinion, he barely gives enough credit when credit is due.

There is a difference between this and having an ego.

The naive public's blindness certainly doesn't help either.

As for Laver playing in an amateur era. I believe one of his slams came as an amateur, and the other as a professional. Not sure how much you know about tennis, but did you see the caliber of players that Laver had defeated when he did the slam as a pro? They were all there on Sunday night.

Also, I don't necessarily think winning a slam on every surface makes you the greatest ever. There are so many different things to take into consideration. Otherwise, Agassi would probably stand out more (though he is one of the greatest ever anyway, but that's for another thread's debate).

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I think in a lot of ways its a cultural and language barrier for both Nadal and Fed. Both of them probably say things that sound worse to us, as English is their second (or third) language. It happens a lot with foreign athletes and I think its best to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think either of them are arrogant, in fact, its the best rivalry I've ever witnessed in sport precisely because they've made it 100% about teh actual sport, and nothing to do with the personalities.

I do think they both have big ego's without being over the top. Nadal is so similar to Michael Jordan, mentally, that its scary.

 

[mdc]

Doesn't stand out from tennis as those guys do with their sport, especially not Jordan or Ali. Is no doubt one of the best tennis players ever though.

Aside from footy, there are only 2 sports I've watched with regularity through the 90's and the 00's - NBA and Tennis...and Federer has been a lot more dominant in tennis than Jordan was in the NBA. That's just a fact. Can't comment on Ali.

As for Laver, come on. I don't see how anyone wouldn't recognise Federer as by far the most talented/accomplished player tennis has ever seen, with Sampras/Nadal both having a genuine argument for 2nd place.

 

[Power King]

Federer is possibly the most well-rounded tennis player, but it doesn't make him the best. In terms of match-ups, I'd argue for at least three players at their peak who would be better than him from the 90's onwards, and if playing at the same time as Federer, would not have allowed him to have as many grand slams as he has. People could argue that Federer is a more well-rounded player than Nadal, but is Nadal the greater player? Absolutely. People have also forgotten what kind of player McEnroe was.

That's for another thread's debate though.

Also regarding Jordan, I just disagree. Completely.

The truest of champions are able to come back to the sport and own it after being absent from the sport for a considerable amound of time. Ali and Jordan did this. I think the ability to do this is simply not understood by the public. Again though, topic for another thread.

edit: I'm not saying Federer isn't one of the best ever because he is. What I am saying is that he doesn't stand out as the greatest of his sport untouched, at least not as much as those other guys in their sports.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I know slams are just a guide, but Federer HAS to win the French to be rated ahead of anyone. if anything I would argue Sampras was more dominant at Wimbledon than he was at the moment. As for Nadal I actually think he is a huge chance to do the "slam" this year and win all 4. If he does that, yes he is better than Federer. McEnroe I agree with but I really only saw the back end of his career and I am going off what people tell me about him, Bjon Borg was another that could be rated ahead of Federer.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Nadal could well be the Jordan to Federer's Bird.

I think we can all agree though, that this is AT LEAST the greatest rivalry Tennis has ever seen.

 

[mdc]

Federer is possibly the most well-rounded tennis player, but it doesn't make him the best. In terms of match-ups, I'd argue for at least three players at their peak who would be better than him from the 90's onwards, and if playing at the same time as Federer, would not have allowed him to have as many grand slams as he has. People could argue that Federer is a more well-rounded player than Nadal, but is Nadal the greater player? Absolutely. People have also forgotten what kind of player McEnroe was.

This is a bizarre statement. Technically, Federer is miles ahead. In terms of grand-slams, Federer is miles ahead.

And remember, until recently, clay was always regarded as the "minor" surface.

I guess there's nothing left but to agree to disagree. IMO, if Federer's playing his best tennis, no player in history can touch him. He's got the best forehand I've ever seen, one of the best 1-handed backhands ever, defensively second only to Nadal, his serve when on song is one of the better ones, his volleying is sublime...how many other athletes in any sport dominate their sport in so many different disciplines?

Also regarding Jordan, I just disagree. Completely.

The truest of champions are able to come back to the sport and own it after being absent from the sport for a considerable amound of time. Ali and Jordan did this. I think the ability to do this is simply not understood by the public. Again though, topic for another thread.

edit: I'm not saying Federer isn't one of the best ever because he is. What I am saying is that he doesn't stand out as the greatest of his sport untouched, at least not as much as those other guys in their sports.

What a laughable criterion.

And Jordan certainly didn't "own" the league when he came back in 94 the same way he did before he left. He was blessed to be part of some of the best teams of all time, but his individual brilliance was on the wane. And even his best seasons, when he did dominate, are not that far ahead of some of the other NBA greats. Statistically, his best is only a few percent ahead of those other greats.

 

[Ricketts]

is Nadal the greater player? Absolutely.

Maybe at the moment yes, but not overall.
The man has won 13 (?) to Nadal's 6 (?) i think.
It's still more than double, at this point in time.

 

[Power King]

This is a bizarre statement. Technically, Federer is miles ahead. In terms of grand-slams, Federer is miles ahead.

And remember, until recently, clay was always regarded as the "minor" surface.

I guess there's nothing left but to agree to disagree. IMO, if Federer's playing his best tennis, no player in history can touch him. He's got the best forehand I've ever seen, one of the best 1-handed backhands ever, defensively second only to Nadal, his serve when on song is one of the better ones, his volleying is sublime...how many other athletes in any sport dominate their sport in so many different disciplines?



What a laughable criterion.

And Jordan certainly didn't "own" the league when he came back in 94 the same way he did before he left. He was blessed to be part of some of the best teams of all time, but his individual brilliance was on the wane. And even his best seasons, when he did dominate, are not that far ahead of some of the other NBA greats. Statistically, his best is only a few percent ahead of those other greats.

I don't know why you would consider clay the minor surface. Because it is less common to play on clay in Australia and America?

Nadal is absolutely the greatest player in the world today, it is not Federer anymore.

What more can Nadal do?

Current French Open champion (clay).

Current Wimbledon champion (grass).

Current Aust Open champion (hard court).

Helped Spain toward the Davis Cup.

Won the Olympic gold medal.

He knocked Federer out of four consecutive french opens, has beaten him in the final of the above opens where he became champion, hasn't lost to Federer since 2007, and is ranked #1 right now.

I fail to see how anyone can argue against Nadal being the greatest player (not talking all time as that will always be debated, am talking right now).

Federer is one of the greatest in history no doubt. We can agree to disagree then on Federer at his best beating anyone in history. Apart from Nadal, I believe there are other players who would beat Federer, of course it's hypothetical and a good debate for another thread. Nadal is one example though currently. If Federer played his best tennis against Nadal, would he win? Maybe, maybe not. The fact of the matter is nadal has continued to deny Federer to play to his best because the nadal match-up is one that Federer cannot handle.

As for the laughable criterion, do you really think it's laughable? Think about it for a second. If you are at the top of your sport, and you retire, or get prevented from competing in it for years, how hard do you think it would be to come back to the top of the sport, when you are denied consistently playing at top level competition for such a long period of time? Really think about it. It is possibly the hardest thing to do in sport in my opinion. Now I did not say that it is a criterion to be considered great, you wrote that. What I am saying is that if you can do it, you are a true champion, and I don't think anyone can deny this. We can argue about how good Jordan was post-1994, however a difference between basketball and boxing/tennis is that it's a team sport, compared to an individual sport. In a team sport, things are more subjective. You could use your logic regarding how good Chris Judd was at the eagles, given the superb help he had from his teammates. Say Ben Cousins absolutely dominated the AFL this season, that would place him higher in my eyes than if he had retired at the end of 2007, because he would manage to come back to the top of a sport after basically 2 seasons of not playing consistently at the highest level, before being thrown right in amongst it in 09.

Regardless of the tone in this post, I am enjoying this discussion with you.

 

[mr.11]

I don't know why you would consider clay the minor surface. Because it is less common to play on clay in Australia and America?

Nadal is absolutely the greatest player in the world today, it is not Federer anymore.

What more can Nadal do?

Current French Open champion (clay).

Current Wimbledon champion (grass).

Current Aust Open champion (hard court).

Helped Spain toward the Davis Cup.

Won the Olympic gold medal.

He knocked Federer out of four consecutive french opens, has beaten him in the final of the above opens where he became champion, hasn't lost to Federer since 2007, and is ranked #1 right now.

I fail to see how anyone can argue against Nadal being the greatest player (not talking all time as that will always be debated, am talking right now).

Federer is one of the greatest in history no doubt. We can agree to disagree then on Federer at his best beating anyone in history. Apart from Nadal, I believe there are other players who would beat Federer, of course it's hypothetical and a good debate for another thread. Nadal is one example though currently. If Federer played his best tennis against Nadal, would he win? Maybe, maybe not. The fact of the matter is nadal has continued to deny Federer to play to his best because the nadal match-up is one that Federer cannot handle.

As for the laughable criterion, do you really think it's laughable? Think about it for a second. If you are at the top of your sport, and you retire, or get prevented from competing in it for years, how hard do you think it would be to come back to the top of the sport, when you are denied consistently playing at top level competition for such a long period of time? Really think about it. It is possibly the hardest thing to do in sport in my opinion. Now I did not say that it is a criterion to be considered great, you wrote that. What I am saying is that if you can do it, you are a true champion, and I don't think anyone can deny this. We can argue about how good Jordan was post-1994, however a difference between basketball and boxing/tennis is that it's a team sport, compared to an individual sport. In a team sport, things are more subjective. You could use your logic regarding how good Chris Judd was at the eagles, given the superb help he had from his teammates. Say Ben Cousins absolutely dominated the AFL this season, that would place him higher in my eyes than if he had retired at the end of 2007, because he would manage to come back to the top of a sport after basically 2 seasons of not playing consistently at the highest level, before being thrown right in amongst it in 09.

Regardless of the tone in this post, I am enjoying this discussion with you.

He also won Best Sportsman in Spain ahead of some players from Euro Cup(Casillas) and other Spanish success stories like Basketball Pau Gasol

 

[Skeeta Olly]

I fail to see how anyone can argue against Nadal being the greatest player (not talking all time as that will always be debated, am talking right now).

.

Greatest not being the best word for that statement above. You could say that at the moment Nadal is on top of his game and winning consistently against the big names (Federer) and is showing his current domination. Unless that is, you are saying that 'now' Nadal is the greatest player, 'now' also being the category Federer and his 13 Grand Slams fall under, which can be argued.

 

[mdc]

I don't know why you would consider clay the minor surface. Because it is less common to play on clay in Australia and America?

It's no longer the prevailing attitude, but in the past "clay courters" weren't given much respect by the wider tennis community. If you want an example, consider the "adjusted" seedings for Wimbledon a few years back where Spaniards were bumped down from their official ATP rankings, and would then refuse to play, etc...

Nadal is absolutely the greatest player in the world today, it is not Federer anymore.

If what you were trying to say is that he's the best player in the world right now, I absolutely agree.

Federer is one of the greatest in history no doubt. We can agree to disagree then on Federer at his best beating anyone in history. Apart from Nadal, I believe there are other players who would beat Federer, of course it's hypothetical and a good debate for another thread. Nadal is one example though currently. If Federer played his best tennis against Nadal, would he win? Maybe, maybe not. The fact of the matter is nadal has continued to deny Federer to play to his best because the nadal match-up is one that Federer cannot handle.

If Federer plays his best tennis against Nadal, he wins in straight sets (on anything bar a slow surface). You're entirely right though in saying Federer, for whatever reason, hasn't been able to play his best against Nadal for quite some time.

As for other players in history beating Federer at his best, I just don't see it. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if I knew beforehand that Fed would be playing his best tennis, I would back him to beat anyone in straight sets, with the possible exception of Sampras (who might get one set on a tiebreaker).

As an example, I was a massive Agassi fanboy when I played juniors. Thought he was the greatest, and still have a lot of respect for him as a player. But Agassi's best wouldn't come close to either Fed's or even Nadal's best. Wouldn't get a set. Players just got a lot better.

As for the laughable criterion, do you really think it's laughable? Think about it for a second. If you are at the top of your sport, and you retire, or get prevented from competing in it for years, how hard do you think it would be to come back to the top of the sport, when you are denied consistently playing at top level competition for such a long period of time? Really think about it. It is possibly the hardest thing to do in sport in my opinion. Now I did not say that it is a criterion to be considered great, you wrote that. What I am saying is that if you can do it, you are a true champion, and I don't think anyone can deny this. We can argue about how good Jordan was post-1994, however a difference between basketball and boxing/tennis is that it's a team sport, compared to an individual sport. In a team sport, things are more subjective. You could use your logic regarding how good Chris Judd was at the eagles, given the superb help he had from his teammates. Say Ben Cousins absolutely dominated the AFL this season, that would place him higher in my eyes than if he had retired at the end of 2007, because he would manage to come back to the top of a sport after basically 2 seasons of not playing consistently at the highest level, before being thrown right in amongst it in 09.

Unlike AFL, basketball actually has developed a bunch of advanced, robust statistical measures to capture individual performance, that's why I'm happy to discuss it. And the numbers bear out that Jordan simply wasn't as good upon his comeback. It is still supremely impressive he was able to come back and lead his team to 3 more titles, but you have to remember that even without him, the Bulls were one of the best 3 teams in the East.

(As a side-note, do you then downgrade Jordan because his second comeback attempted floundered? You'd have to, no?)

Regardless of the tone in this post, I am enjoying this discussion with you.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

If you want to argue eras, have a look at Sampras'.

There was a whole slew of one-trick pony's around, I'd argue the field then was much easier than what it was compared to now.

If they keep this rivalry up for the next year or two and grab say 6 out of 8 slams between them, I'll happily dub Federer and Nadal the best two players I've ever seen (they might be already).

I've never seen an athlete like Nadal, as far as mental toughness goes. He has raised the bar for 'clutch'.