Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Does Nadal surpass Federer in Grand Slams?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 28.57%
  • No

    10 71.43%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    #TeamSachs
    Posts
    23,924
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellcrooner View Post
    lol, so federer who only was able to win roland garros because nadal had health issues is the greatest but nadal who has won in all of them if he surpases him isnt the greatest'

    BIG LOL.
    Petros is the greatest, in my opinion, all things considered

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    35,496
    vCash
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellcrooner View Post
    lol, so federer who only was able to win roland garros because nadal had health issues is the greatest but nadal who has won in all of them if he surpases him isnt the greatest'

    BIG LOL.


    Federer was still a consistant threat on clay though. He's gone deep in the finals of RG many times. He had to go against the best of all time in terms of clay so obviously you expect him to lose in RG. Nadal is definitely on another level on clay.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Britannia
    Posts
    6,537
    vCash
    31948
    I think so.

    I remember 3-4 years ago people saying that by today Nadal would no longer be a top player due to his constant health issues.
    And if you look, his game now doesn't rely on his physique as much as it used to. When he was younger he would win by outlasting opponents, no matter how long it would take him and that took a serious toll on his body. It would damn near impossible to have kept up that level of intensity for this long.
    More recently though, and I'm talking last 18 months, from what I've seen, he's refined his game. He's greatly improved his ground strokes whereas in the past he'd just hit the ball as hard as he could, his serve has become much better (second serve stiff a bit iffy) and is now much more accurate and the level of intensity has dropped but the level of performance hasn't.

    Obviously, his longevity won't be the same as someone like Agassi who was still competing until his mid 30s but I see no reason to believe that, barring injury, he can't win five or more slams.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    7,433
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    Novak came out of nowhere and he's the main challenge. But I mean that's how competition works.

    Federer would have won more had it not been for Nadal on clay. Samprass and Agassi would have won more had Gustavo Kuerten not been so good on Clay. Borg, McEnroe and Connors all live in the same era too.
    Whoa! Sampras would've won more had it not been for Kuerten? His best result in France was a semifinal, which he did only once. Guga wasn't a factor for Sampras. He was out in the 3rd round or earlier at Roland Garros 9 out of the 13 times he played there. The guy just couldn't play on clay.

    As far as Agassi, he'd have had more if he'd have had his head on straight early in his career. Should've beat Gomez in the hair weave match, would've beat Courier the following year if not for a rain delay and a coaching job by Higueras. He also skipped Wimbledons and Australian Opens early in his career because of travel and other reasons. He only played the Australian 9 times and won it 4, he may have got the monkey off his back down there very early in his career and started rolling the Slams if he hadn't skipped it for 8 years.

    Lots of factors at play for both guys, but Kuerten wasn't one of them.

    1934 1938 1961 2010 2013

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    35,496
    vCash
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack the Ripper View Post
    Whoa! Sampras would've won more had it not been for Kuerten? His best result in France was a semifinal, which he did only once. Guga wasn't a factor for Sampras. He was out in the 3rd round or earlier at Roland Garros 9 out of the 13 times he played there. The guy just couldn't play on clay.

    As far as Agassi, he'd have had more if he'd have had his head on straight early in his career. Should've beat Gomez in the hair weave match, would've beat Courier the following year if not for a rain delay and a coaching job by Higueras. He also skipped Wimbledons and Australian Opens early in his career because of travel and other reasons. He only played the Australian 9 times and won it 4, he may have got the monkey off his back down there very early in his career and started rolling the Slams if he hadn't skipped it for 8 years.

    Lots of factors at play for both guys, but Kuerten wasn't one of them.
    The former #1 and 3 time clay champion ruled clay for a short period of time. There was also many other clay players in the way of Agassi and Sampras.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    7,433
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    The former #1 and 3 time clay champion ruled clay for a short period of time. There was also many other clay players in the way of Agassi and Sampras.
    There was more parody in the game then, yes, I agree with that. But to say that Kuerten was the reason Sampras never won the French is entirely false. If Kuerten and the entire country of Spain had missed the French he'd still never have won it.

    To say that he kept Agassi from winning more is also false. His reign at Roland Garros was impressive, but very brief in comparison to what Nadal did. Agassi had his chances to win it multiple without Guga's interference.

    1934 1938 1961 2010 2013

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    35,496
    vCash
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack the Ripper View Post
    There was more parody in the game then, yes, I agree with that. But to say that Kuerten was the reason Sampras never won the French is entirely false. If Kuerten and the entire country of Spain had missed the French he'd still never have won it.

    To say that he kept Agassi from winning more is also false. His reign at Roland Garros was impressive, but very brief in comparison to what Nadal did. Agassi had his chances to win it multiple without Guga's interference.
    I'm not saying he was the only reason. And not just for Sampras. I'm just saying he was one of the best clay players of that time and he made it harder for players such as Samprass, Aggassi and everyone else to win during that short span. Not to mention there were other good players on clay at that time.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    6,695
    vCash
    1500
    It is tempting to say yes because he is 5 away from tying him and it seems as though Federer can not win a single grand slam. However I don't think he's going to. First off He is 26 and that is not that young for a tennis player, especially with Nadal and his previous injuries. It's hard to imagine he plays even competitively at the age of 30.

    IMO he has to keep winning the clay tournaments, because I can't see him winning a grand slam anywhere else. He performs at such a high level on the clay, but when it comes to these other tournaments he either chokes (against Djokovic) or he under-performs like he did in this tournament. Before it was about injuries, blah blah blah now it's not about injuries. It is about underperforming and slowing down imo. He's only going to finish with one major again this year. He won't win the US Open, I can guarantee that. He's great on clay, pretty good on grass, below average on hard court.

    So unless he keeps collecting these French Opens I can't see him winning. Unless Djokovic gets injured It's going to be very difficult for him.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    #TeamSachs
    Posts
    23,924
    vCash
    1500
    his lack of a decent serve is hurting him in the long run...he had one during uso 2010 but uncle toni reportedly told him to trash it away since "he's relying on it too much"...i mean wtf kind of advice is that?

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    35,496
    vCash
    0
    Uncle Toni a crazy mother****er.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    8,263
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by lakers4sho View Post
    his lack of a decent serve is hurting him in the long run...he had one during uso 2010 but uncle toni reportedly told him to trash it away since "he's relying on it too much"...i mean wtf kind of advice is that?
    were did u hear that? he actually served pretty well against rosol. he had around 20 aces and topped out near 130 mph.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    #TeamSachs
    Posts
    23,924
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Gibby View Post
    were did u hear that? he actually served pretty well against rosol. he had around 20 aces and topped out near 130 mph.
    Yeah his serve was fine yesterday

    And it was from an interview sometime last year, i lost track of the link but i'll look for it

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    5,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by zn23 View Post
    It is tempting to say yes because he is 5 away from tying him and it seems as though Federer can not win a single grand slam. However I don't think he's going to. First off He is 26 and that is not that young for a tennis player, especially with Nadal and his previous injuries. It's hard to imagine he plays even competitively at the age of 30.

    IMO he has to keep winning the clay tournaments, because I can't see him winning a grand slam anywhere else. He performs at such a high level on the clay, but when it comes to these other tournaments he either chokes (against Djokovic) or he under-performs like he did in this tournament. Before it was about injuries, blah blah blah now it's not about injuries. It is about underperforming and slowing down imo. He's only going to finish with one major again this year. He won't win the US Open, I can guarantee that. He's great on clay, pretty good on grass, below average on hard court.

    So unless he keeps collecting these French Opens I can't see him winning. Unless Djokovic gets injured It's going to be very difficult for him.
    Whoa! If you call being in the GS finals 8 out of the 11 recent ones and winning 5 of those underperforming then you must be overrating Nadal.
    <3

    lakers4sho | Chavacano | EricBallsachs | Avenged24 | still1ballin | GREATNESS ONE | Chacarron
    LakersMaster24 | KB-Pau-DH2012 | 8kobe24 | championships | Lakers+Giants | LakerShow
    AussieLaker | YouCan'tBeatLA


  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Abyss
    Posts
    4,295
    vCash
    1500
    It's a good question. Nadal likely has a handful of French's in his future so I think that alone bumps him to 13 or 14. He's lost one match there, right? That leaves a lot of opportunity to get 2-3 more in his career where he's always competitive and Federer is nearly out of the picture. Murray can't beat him. Ever. And Novak is in his way for the most part but not invincible. If I had cash to put down on this, I'd put it on Nadal. What makes it iffy is his recent health.
    And Federer is about to get #17. Nadal trounced him head-to-head so in my book, Nadal was better in their era. No excuse for Federer to struggle as much as he did with Nadal on courts other than clay IMO. Better serve and volley was never utilized to his advantage. He wound up being mesmerized by Nadal's game and always seemed to resort to trying to beat him from the baseline. Epic fail. Federer had a chance to go down as one of the all-time greats but if he's not the best in his era, how can that be?

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    8,263
    vCash
    1000
    Hope Murray can keep Federer at 16.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •