nadal il voie tout en rouge cè un taureau dans une arène il rate jamais ça cible sur terre battu domage pour roger dètre au mauvais endroit au mauvais moment cè quand mème une final roger mais tu reste quand mème lun des meilleur joueur après nadal bien suur ,,,
@MrSocrate94 de loin et sa carriere ne fait que commencer!!!! son palmares va etre extraordinaire !! et c est deja le cas pas de doute et peut un des sportif du siecle
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I gave you those stats from the US open website of Nadal and fed at age 24 (btw Federer had attended more GS events than Nadal at this age)- Nadal leads in much more than masters. But you still argue over this. "Nadal in 5 years, nadal in 4 years" will he have another 4 French""will he have this""will he have that"- pointless. Right here, right now, all we have is the vs by age. Nadal leads. Wait to argue with me when Nadal's career is finished. Until then you don't have crap to argue.
@89Pleasek Oh like earlier. You don't want to accept it now- than Nadal is better by age so you create an excuse so you dont have to think about it. nadal in 4 years, will he have this, will he have that etc Mr Fortune teller said "i wont have crap" because they are too pussy to admit anything right here right now. Its what i was saying earlier about 'your argument', at least my argument (and other nadal fans) is set in stone and cant be changed. Your argument is about the future and unknown.
"Oh like earlier. You don't want to accept it now- than Nadal is better by age so you create an excuse so you dont have to think about it"
Im not making any excuses, I agreed. You need more than that?
"Your argument is about the future and unknown."
I told you before, let's wait and see. If Nadal wins more Slams than Federer, I give him all credit (well unless he doesn't have piss easy draws as in the US Open this year) and admit that he was better. Untill then Federer is superior.
so he had to play a number 1 player... 5 times!? Very tough time he was in. very tough. you lose, again
oh yea and how many times did Nadal beat the no 1 player on clay, his BEST and Federer's WORST surface? He didn't beat Federer outside of clay in a big match till 2008 when Federer was struggling big time and even then he was on the brink of defeat.
@89Pleasek its not Federers worst surface. He made 5 FO finals DIDNT HE??? Nadal was/is just better. Nadal has beat Federer 14-7. Dont give me this shit best and worst surface. Its bull. They meet on any surface they both want to win- equally. Australian open 09 final fed said "its killing me"- what do you think he was referring to.
If its not Federers worst surface, then what is? Grass or hard courts? Dont be dellusional. Nadal beat Federer on clay 10 times out of a total of 14. Their h2h is skewed and everyone with a little common sense knows it
Nadal is skewing a lot of head to heads with current players, even compare him to Djokovic 15-7 looks like a nice beatdown, eh? You'd never know that Djokovic actually leads their h2h on hard courts 7-4. Again, not saying that clay is not a surface and shouldn't be counted but FFS it's half as important as hard courts right now!
@89Pleasek It doesn't 'look' like a beat-down- it 'is' a beat-down. The only reason it is so skewed is because Nadal won. Plain and simple. Why don't you please explain 'in detail' why Nadal is so good on clay that he can skew h2h vs opponents? is he just too good or something.
"Why don't you please explain 'in detail' why Nadal is so good on clay that he can skew h2h vs opponents? is he just too good or something."
Nadal is the best clay court player out there, possibly the best in history on the surface but that doesn't give him the right to skew the head to head with his oponents. Look at his h2h with top 10 players with whom he played mostly on hard courts. Davydenko (4-5), Del Potro (3-4, lost last 3 matches), Blake (4-3, only started winning after 2008) etc
@89Pleasek You say "it doesn't give him the right" like it is his fault or something.. I'm sorry, but it does give him the right to try his best to beat anyone he verses on it. if that means so called 'skewing" the h2h, then so be it.
Federer has never had a positive h2h with each top 10 player at any time in his career. Just a random stat.
"Federer has never had a positive h2h with each top 10 player at any time in his career. Just a random stat. " And why exactly did you bring that up?
Nadal never had a 13-0 lead in his h2h against anyone, Nadal never beat anyone 15 times in a row. Nadal never went a full year without losing to a top 10 player. Nadal never had a season with 10 or less losses. Just random stats.
If you wanna unskew the h2h with Federer, let's change the proportions. Out of 20 matches they played 12 on hard courts, 6 on clay and 2 on grass courts. Believe it or not, it will all decide WHEN they played the majority of the matches.
Version 1 - before 2008.
Nadal out of 6 matches wins 5 on clay.
Federer wins both on grass.
Federer (that's an assumption) probably wins 8 out of 12 on hard courts.
Im still lolling at you that clay isnt Federers worst surface.
yes, so clay wasnt sampras' worst surface but guys like schaller, Champion, Delgado were actually better than him.
Clay IS Federer's worst surface cause it slows down his shots, especially his serve, just like it did to Sampras. Hard IS Nadal's worst surface cause he can't run down balls freely and his loopy game is not as effective as on clay.
@89Pleasek You like back trailing. I should just post the same comment over again because it is the core problem. You wont accept that what i am doing is fine. I posted stats by age that show nadal was better than federer at 24. I am not saying nadal will be goat- i am saying that at 24yo nadal has done better than fed at 24 yo.
You have a problem with this. maybe you just want complete control or don't want to think of it as a possibility or something.
"You have a problem with this. maybe you just want complete control or don't want to think of it as a possibility or something." Wtf is your problem? I already agreed. But that doesn't mean I can't predict how things will end up. You're mixing the 2.
@89Pleasek It sure does mean you can't predict how things will end up. Because predict means "to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell". Do you have prophetic information? Don't think so.
What you are doing is called guessing: "think: expect, believe, or suppose"
But then what is the point of arguing with guesses?
Now the h2h would be so much fun to predict if they were the same age and played 60 % on hard courts, 30 % on clay and 10 % on grass. That combo would probably be the best for Federer.
"Do you have prophetic information? Don't think so.
What you are doing is called guessing: "think: expect, believe, or suppose"
It's not pure guessing.I'm actually predicting what could happen in the future based on the huge amount of tennis I saw in the past.I've seen lots of guys play extremely well even at 17 or 18 but playing nothing when they "should" hit their prime in their mid 20's.Nadal became a pro at 15,does that tell you something?
@89Pleasek No, you 'believe' that because Nadal turned pro at 15 means that he cant keep it up to 29 etc. 'Turn pro' is just a name tag. it has nothing to do with being near your peak or not. Its still guessing. Well then, do you think nadal has just entered his peak?. i do. But doesn't this go against your previous experience/knowledge of players at 17,18 not doing well when they should reach their peak.
Nadal is at his peak since 2008, in 2009 he screwed himself up by overplaying but that was only his fault.
"No, you 'believe' that because Nadal turned pro at 15 means that he cant keep it up to 29 etc. 'Turn pro' is just a name tag"
This would be illogical for a guy who plays such physical tennis to last till his late 20's. Nadal himself admitted he doesn't see himself playing into his 30's. It's not my free will prediction this time
@89Pleasek But you have to admit that nadal now is playing a lot better than in 2008. 2009, really shit play from the injury. But dont you think the the physicality of his game has actually decreased each year (now dramatically from when he started). Look at his body now compared to 2008, he is less bulky, less running. Better serve, better net play ( i think he was always quietly good). But he continually says "i still expect a lot more years"" Iam not finished" " iam only 24" etc.
I don't think that Nadal in his best shape on clay in 2008 and no way he is "a lot" better in 2010 compared to 2008. He's a better hard court player but clay and grass is more or less the same. Nadal was at his absolute peak in mid 08-mid 09 and even 2010 doesn't top that. Just compare his 2008 Wimbledon run (won 20 consecutive sets! He was a set away from winning the tournament without losing one) compare it to 2010 (2 5-setters to random players, Soderling almost bageled him).
"I don't think that Nadal in his best shape on clay in 2008"
What I mean was : I think Nadal was in his best shape on clay in 2008. The way he dealed with an in-form Djokovic and Federer (even though he killed himself with unforced errors) at the French is beyond imagination. Let's be honest, he played nobodies in the 2010 clay court season, his main rivals were Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer, are you kidding me?
@89Pleasek "his main rivals were Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer" Arent these the other 3 players besides Nadal that excel on clay? Almagro madrid SF, Versasco MC final, Ferrer rome Final. Apart from federer these 3 are the other best on clay I think. Soderling FO Final- who beat Nadal 09- and Federer 2010. Agree, no djokovic- but at the same time- who ever makes the final IS the toughest competition available- they played the best in their 1/2 after all.
"Apart from federer these 3 are the other best on clay I think. "
Lol. Just lol. You forgot about Djokovic, Del Potro, Davydenko, Soderling, Federer himself. Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer being Nadal's main rivals on clay this season shows you how sucky it was. Neither of the aforementioned top tenners played well on clay this year, Federer only in Madrid and Soderling only at the French Open.
"Arent these the other 3 players besides Nadal that excel on clay?"
They don't excel anywhere. Any top ten player playing at their normal level would beat them up badly. Almagro and Verdasco are probably the biggest chokers in the game right now next to Gasquet.
"who ever makes the final IS the toughest competition available"
Crap. The 2010 clay court season sucked big time.It was mostly the top 10 sucking badly rather than the 3 Almagro, Verdasco, Ferrer playing well.They just took advantage
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@89Pleasek "The 2010 clay court season sucked big time.It was mostly the top 10 sucking badly rather than the 3 Almagro, Verdasco, Ferrer playing well"
YES this is true- but therefor Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer were tougher to beat than any of the top 10- Who after all sucked badly.
"YES this is true- but therefor Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer were tougher to beat than any of the top 10- Who after all sucked badly."
Well somebody had to fill the semi and final spots. I'm not saying that Nadal wouldn't've won some matches on clay cause he'd probably win most or all of them, but Del Potro Federer or Djokovic in good shape might just make it a little harder for him. Federer was playing AWEFULLY at the time and almost took Nadal to distance in Madrid.
If you look at the whole 2009 season, it was average but he was in the form of his life for the first 4-5 months of 2009, if it wasn't for the injury he'd probably have a better year than he has in 2010.
"But he continually says "i still expect a lot more years"" Iam not finished" " iam only 24" etc. "
What did you expect him to say? "I'm 24 but I feel like a 40 year old" "I'm done" "My knees will screw me up next year"?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@89Pleasek I don't really believe he 'was' in the form of his life for the 1st 4-5 months of 09 (i believe he 'should' have been). He was already injured at the Australian Open- he won the final but the way he played does not compare at all to the way say he played the 2010 US open. Aus open was just defence continual, huge struggle to keep shots deep, so much running (he plays this way when he knows upping the tempo could cause injury)- Madrid QF(b4 djoko match) injury developed worse.
"He was already injured at the Australian Open" I stopped reading after this crap sentence. Nadal was in great shape, possible his then best shape, didn't drop a single set till the semis, Verdasco played out of his mind and still lost, Federer played ok in the final and lost in 5.
Nadal was at his very best in the late clay court season, the whole grass court season + the whole hard court season till the US Open, then again from the AO 2009 till Miami. He started to play worse on clay
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@89Pleasek No I'm telling you he was. He was injured at the Australian open. Take a look at the new Asian Documentary about him- there is a text translation. He was going to pull out of the final because of injury. He told his team and coach that he "could no longer do this". They interviewed Toni who said they were very close to not playing. He was playing the whole tournament with leg bandage for prevention but the SF he was injured from the sheer amount of stress on his body.
Well it wasn't that bad if he came out and played his absolute best. This is utter crap. If he was really injured he'd either not play the final or lose badly cause it's not like Federer played poorly, he played well (had a crap 1st serve % tho) and lost in 5 to a brilliant Nadal. Stop coming up with info out of your ass.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@89Pleasek Its not info out of my ass when his coach tells for the first time in an interview that he was very close to not even playing the final. As a whole he was a physical wreck, the pushing of his body here is what caused the more serious injury through Madrid a few months later. The only thing brilliant he was doing was brilliant defense.
No one on earth could be playing their best in a tennis match after having played a 5 set 5 hr 14 min match the previous day. Its humanly impossible.
"As a whole he was a physical wreck, the pushing of his body here is what caused the more serious injury through Madrid a few months later. The only thing brilliant he was doing was brilliant defense."
Did you see his offence? At certain stages of the match he was more aggresive than Federer, so another load of crap.
"No one on earth could be playing their best in a tennis match after having played a 5 set 5 hr 14 min match the previous day" He had 2 days thats primo and hes freaking nadal
Now let's go with the majority of matches after 2008.
Clay - 5 wins for Nadal out of 6
Grass - I'd still give an edge to Federer here but since we got 2 matches to spare, it's 1-1
Hard - out of 12 matches they probably go 50/50 or Nadal wins 1 more which is 5-7 or 6-6
Total h2h:
Nadal leads 12-8 or 13-7.
You see that the 5 year difference is a huge factor. The only year years when the rivalry was pretty fair were 2006-2008. Before that it was Federer and after that it's Nadal.
@89Pleasek What user mattcheetos was doing is much more of an argument than what you come up with. 14-7 is fact. nadal 18 masters, 9 slams at 24 years old is fact. You base arguments on opinion and not facts- "federer doesn't care about masters". when reading you kept talking about agassi and sampras and others etc- mentioning that the slams is the only thing that matters- when really it is everything about the player that matters. you have nothing to compare fed to nadal other than the 16GS.
you took it out of the context, I said he doesnt care about the Masters as for the Slams, he still plays very well tho but there's a certain limit he won't exceed, Nadal is obsessed with winning in every single tournament
"you have nothing to compare fed to nadal other than the 16GS."
what a piece of shit, nadal has nothing on federer except the 14-7 h2h which he has only thanks to clay, Federer has all the possible Slam records in the books, he's even equaled with Nadal as far as consecutive FO finals are concerned, the Slam total, the semi/quarter streak, the 5 slam in a row x2, 4-0 in Masters Cup, 237 weeks at no 1, 285 total, 5 times ended year as no 1 I can go on forever
@89Pleasek Nadal at 24 vs fed at 24. Match record- Nadal- 460-98 Federer- 390-119 Win % .824 - .766 Titles- 42 - 33 GS- 9 - 6 GS played- 26 - 27 Davis cup- 3 - 0 Oly Gold- 1 - 0 Win streak- 32 - 34 Rank- 1 - 1 Weeks no 1- 60 - 93 Record vs Number 1- 14-7 - 2-3 You use stats that aid the fact that Federer is older. Get over it. Can't wait to see your next "argument". Instead of admit that Nadal prevented federer from 18 masters you say "Federer doesn't care" haha. Excuses. -PWNED-
this is pointless, well do the comparison when they both retire, Borg was even better than Nadal at all ages and how did he finish.
"Nadal prevented federer from 18 masters" Pfff haha thats the biggest bullshit ever, look how Federer has played in these tournament since 2007, it's not like he's been beaten by Nadal only cause that's the case on clay. I don't even know why I'm argueing, ok if the number of MS titles is the only thing that Nadal can fight against Federer, then ok let it be lol
@89Pleasek They have played in 9 masters finals with Nadal winning 6. So yes, Nadal prevented fed from 18 masters. Haha: Federer 5 FO finals- yet when i read your earlier posts you wanted to remove clay from Nadal-Federer h2h. Arrogant.
"Players peak different ages" what age did Nadal peak then 19!!! hahaha.
The stat is federer lost 3 times to number 1 players and won 2 times- you are funny. so he had to play a number 1 player... 5 times!? Very tough time he was in. very tough. you lose, again
"Federer 5 FO finals- yet when i read your earlier posts you wanted to remove clay from Nadal-Federer h2h. Arrogant."
I said: even at the French Open Federer is tied with Nadal as far as consecutive FO finals are concerned. I don't wanna take clay out of their h2h cause clay is still a surface. But it's not fair that they played on clay most of the time and it's a mere 25-30 % of the atp world tour. they shouldve played 60% of the time on hard courts, 30 % on clay and 10 % on grass to be fair
"They have played in 9 masters finals with Nadal winning 6. So yes, Nadal prevented fed from 18 masters." It's all yours, if the freaking Masters titles mean so much to you (and Nadal), then let it be.
""Players peak different ages" what age did Nadal peak then 19!!! hahaha."
Nadal at 19 was more mature than Federer at 19. It means nothing less, nothing more than Nadal will fade away quicker and surely won't be playing as well as Federer at 29.
Btw Davis Cup is not a singles competition and Federer doesn't give a damn about it too as for now, the last time he wanted to win badly was 2003, since then he doesn't even bother to show up in the first rounds.
"Record vs Number 1- 14-7 - 2-3"
That's because Federer has been the no 1 player for 5,5 years you dumb fuck, he was playing the no 1 players only before 2003 so before he even reached his prime
@89Pleasek the record vs number 1 shows that fed had fuck all competition when he was entering his peak. Agassi and sampras were shadows of their former selves. How many GS winners were in their peak years when fed was 21,22- Zero. Hahaha my last post was a collection of data of fed vs nadal and once again you are excuse machine. Get a sack and admit the truth. Nadal leads federer by age. get over it. its staring you in the face.
"Nadal leads federer by age. get over it" Is this what you're on about all the time? Stats don't lie, what I was saying is that the fact that Nadal has better stats at 24 doesn't mean he's gonna achieve more. I can name you 5 other Slam champions that were brilliant at a very young age (Wilander, Becker, McEnroe, Borg, Becker, Wilander, Edberg etc.) and achieved almost nothing after they hit 25.
@89Pleasek Oh but you still couldn't admit it could you. Yes, its exactly what i am on about and you know it is. but you keep trying to argue with it with quotes like "i would like to see nadal with ..etc.. in 4 years"- instead of just admitting that the truth is that 'Nadal has done better than federer by age'. You have posted pages trying to argue about future events and unknown things when you know people commenting are talking about age comparing anyway.
"instead of just admitting that the truth is that 'Nadal has done better than federer by age"
I never said he didn't
"when you know people commenting are talking about age comparing anyway."
It's like predicting that Nadal is going to win 5 more French Open titles by the ease he's doing it now. Who expected Federer to play so poorly in 2008 after 2007? Who expected Nadal to go a full year without a title after mid 2009?
His 2-3 record vs no 1 was from around 2001-2003 and Hewitt was at the top at the time.
"How many GS winners were in their peak years when fed was 21,22" Wtf are you talking about, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, Coria were all in their peak around 2002-2004 and believe me they were tougher than today's Djokovic Murray or Del Potro not to mention Soderling/Berdych and others. Even goddamn Agassi at 32 was winning majors, he'd probably win more if it wasn't for Federer.
@89Pleasek I know some of these players were GS winners- i meant players who had won GS multiple times. What I am trying to say is- there wasn't a Sampras, Agassi, Nadal in his peak. There was no one like this. Federer had free reign till nadal came. Its amazing that nadal put up such a fight from ages 19 and up. He would have been number 1 from the age of 19.
"What I am trying to say is- there wasn't a Sampras, Agassi, Nadal in his peak"
That never happens. Nadal entered his peak around 2008 and Federer was already post his.
Sampras reached his peak around 1993 and Edberg/Becker were post his.
McEnroe reached his peak in 1981 and Borg was post his.
It NEVER happens that 2 multiple Slam winners are in their peak at the same time cause it's ususally a brief 3-4 years, the only time I can think of is Edberg-Becker around 1990.
With Federer-Nadal playing in their respective peaks, the 2007 Wimbledon final came very close cause Federer was still playing very well and Nadal was about to enter his prime soon after that. It's very hard for 2 players to be in their peaks simultaneously especially when there's a 5 year difference between them
"Match record- Nadal- 460-98" I wanna see Nadal have a 81 match win % at 29. "GS- 9 - 6" I wanna see Nadal win 7 more. "Win streak- 32 - 34" I wanna see Nadal having a 41 win streak, he won't do it even if he played only clay tournaments. "Weeks no 1- 60 - 93" To top Federer he'd have to stay at no 1 for the next 4 years. I wanna see him do that. "You use stats that aid the fact that Federer is older. Get over it." That's because players peak in different stages, you moron
@89Pleasek "i never get owned you dumb fuck cause i actually use arguements, unlike some nadal fans who stick with their h2h as a proof of nadals superiority"
Lol this is true 100% you are too dumb to get it- you use 'arguments'.............
Whereas Nadal fans use facts and statistics..... that you cant argue with. You can't argue with facts and statistics- the only way to is to use other stats- which you dont do- you just argue.
@89Pleasek "i never get owned, i actually use arguements, nadal fans stick with their h2h as a proof of nadals superiority"
LOL this is true 100%- You use arguments. You don't even understand.
News flash Nadal fans use statistics and facts to argue. You can't argue with them so you use opinion "arguments". You can only argue facts with... Other facts... You don't do this because you cant when it comes to Nadal and federer.
You = OWNED. "federer doesnt care about masters" LOL- great "argument"
@89Pleasek@89Pleasek "i never get owned, i actually use arguments, nadal fans use h2h as a proof of nadals superiority"
LOL this is true 100%- You use arguments. You don't even understand.
News flash Nadal fans use statistics and facts to argue. You can't argue with them so you use opinion "arguments". You can only argue facts with... Other facts... You don't do this because you cant when it comes to Nadal and federer.
You = OWNED. "federer doesnt care about masters" LOL- great "argument"
@89Pleasek "i never get owned, i actually use arguments"
LOL this is true 100%- You use arguments. You don't even understand.
News flash Nadal fans use statistics and facts to argue. You can't argue with them so you use opinion "arguments". You can only argue facts with... Other facts. You don't do this because you cant when it comes to Nadal and federer.
You = OWNED. "federer doesnt care about masters" LOL- great "argument"
And Nadal has what, the h2h (but how many of his wins came on clay, 10?), more Masters Series titles, anything else? Oh yes he won more ATP 500 titles. Don't make me laugh, the ATP1000 tournaments are big but no that big to use it as an arguement. Sampras won 11 of those compared to 17 but look who owned who as far as Slams are concerned.
I'm not saying Nadal can't beat some of Federer's records but there's no guarantee that his body will hold up so as for now, you're the one who's pwned.
Colonialists thrive on monopolies. The monopoly is the Grand Slams played exclusively amongst the cartel of western club members: USA, UK, France and Australia . The ITF’s headquarters is in you guessed it... London, England.
HOW ABOUT HOLDING THE GRAND SLAM IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR A CHANGE!!!!
After Lendl came Sampras. After Sampras came Federer. Now there is Nadal and Federer still competing. Will Federer lose again and again and will Nadal break his record?
And who will come after those two players? Del Potro? Jan Silva?
I guess, he must play with spin like Nadal, the touch of Federer and even more speed. We will see.
Well, i don't think so, cannot say Nadal would beat Federer 2004-2007, Federer was more solid, more quick, with no period of sleep, now sometimes Federer plays incredible then after makes a lot of fault. Don't forget the score 6/4 7/6, Nadal plays well, a lot of lines and success, Federer was not so far. By the past, Nadal already took 6/1 6/2 on the 2 latest sets so... Nadal is Terre Battue Born don't forget. Federer is more complete in his game than all player in the world tour.
@JarreFan73 Maybe you weren't around, but Federer started out as a serve and volleyer. I remember watching him get knocked out at the US Open when I was younger and thinking that he played like a second rate Pete Sampras. He would go on to develop the all-around game later. Same way that Nadal started as a purely defensive baseliner and can now hit huge serves, skillful volleys, and great overheads. Today's Nadal is much more than just a bad matchup for Fed. He's a great player PERIOD.
Rafael acts like he doesn't know that a girl was right there, but he did it intentionally so that it will seem that he accidentally touches thats woman's breast, shes a very beautiful woman, u should be ashamed Rafael for what you did., haha
Sorry if it's a dumb question but how many rackets does nadal take for a match? is it normal to take so many? especially for a player who does not break them on a regular basis..
@empireofthesun To answer your question, Rafa normally carries 6 rackets per match and he uses all of them. This is normal because even though he is not a player who breaks his rackets during tantrums, the tennis racket's strings get worn out and loose very quickly at top level play, hence in order to prevent playing with a poorly stringed racket he carries 6 and generally uses them all throughout the match, changing at intervals at which he sees fit.
Nadal made an amazing clay season and deserved the victory but Federer played good as well and could have won : he won more points than nadal in this final.
Some interesting comments on here, but when it comes down to it. Nadal has the edge over Federer in their rivalry. People can go on and on about how Federer was the greatest of all time, the fact is people will ask, why he couldn't dominate Nadal? Simple, Nadals style of play bothers Federer, and thats why he is leading 14-7 in their rivalry. I think the Nadal of today would beat the Federer of 2004-2007. Nadal is a much more offensive and stronger player today, back then he was just a kid.
@FaithIsAnnoyed that is not true.if you look federer in ao 2007 example you can see that nobody cant beat federer when is he on 100 procent.nadal is not dominate like federer was from 2004 to 2007.
@FaithIsAnnoyed sorry to say but nadal plays the same way he played then. Roger does not that is why nadal can pretty much beat him on any surface now. Federer's level of play has way diminished watch how he moves now. Kinda pathetic to watch.
@kwaseb No he doesn't. Watch any of his matches from 05,06,07 and look just how much running he does. He has refined his offense to take control of the point earlier. You can say that Rogers age/drop of play is the reason that Nadal can beat him on any surface now- But don't forget that the Nadal in 05,06,07 was just a kid (literally) and had the task of facing Fed in his prime years- Yet he still held a 14-7 h2h and also won 6 GS by the age Fed won 1.
@carlitob92 That's the "only" reason-The greatest Clay court player of all time- no big deal.
Fed is amazing but I think its time people realize how good Nadal has been for his age. He won 1st GS at age 19- Fed - 22. Nadal had 6 GS by age 22. Nadal made 3 Wimbledon Finals in 1st 5 attempts (incl 1 win)- Fed had only made 1 final in that time (and 1st GS win). Fed at his peak always faced a young Nadal. Yet the record remains 14-7= Nadal at his peak would crush Fed at his peak- Just like 14-7.
I'm tired of the confrontation argument. Federer is good against aggressive and flat hitting players (see confrontations against delpo, roddick, davydenko) and bad against defensive players (loses against simon, murray and nadal). That doesnt mean much.
And majority of their confrontations were on clay. without clay federer lead 5/4.
And no, there werent more of their matches when Nadal was young than when Federer was in decline.
Nadal will be greater only if he beats the GS record
@69wiwi69 Thanks. I would like to disagree with 1st point and say atm the flat hard hitters are troubling Fed- Berdych Sod Potro. I don't think it is fair to completely remove a surface from a h2h to try and even it out. The truth is when you do this all you are admitting is that Nadal is just too good on that surface... So you would rather remove it from the equation? why? Clay is NOT Federers worst sufrface- Its just that Nadal is exceedingly good on it. Without Nadal, Fed Continued....
no, why would you take out clay? the problem is that clay is only a mere 25-30 % part of the season yet out of 21 times they played 12 on it. If this rivalry was fair they'd have to play 12 matches on hard courts, 6 on clay and 2 on grass (that's the surface % of a season), change the data and they go 50-50, still it's only hypothetical, clay plays the biggest role in their h2h tho
@89Pleasek You missed the point. THERE IS NO PROBLEM IN CLAY TAKING UP 25-30% OF THE SEASON, the problem for you is that Nadal OWNS it... so much so that he can stamp his authority on it DESPITE it taking up only 25% of the season. As you say, its only hypothetical. REALITY is that Nadal owns Fed 14-7 and 6-2 in GS finals. The surface makes no difference. What surface has fed shown this type of dominance over Nadal on???- like you say "WITHOUT CLAY THEY GO 50-50". Oh lets remove it then!!??
Ok I get it now, so if they played 21 times on clay and Nadal led 19-2 wouldn't that be skewed?
Nobody doubts in Nadal's ability of literally owning the surface but the guy skewed the h2h with Federer by avoiding him on grass and hard courts for years.
@89Pleasek Wow, this is delusional. you still don't get that its not the amount of times they play on the surface, BUT WHO WINS that makes it SKEWED or not. The problem is that Nadal is too good on clay- that's what makes it skewed.
"The problem is that Nadal is too good on clay- that's what makes it skewed. "
But still Federer had to make those finals to meet Nadal, Nadal started winning on grass and hard courts only as late as 2008/2009 when Federer was past his prime and only occasionally before that.
We live in a hard court era not a clay court era ffs, clay shouldn't decide anything
@69wiwi69 would have won the FO many times, Just like how Nadal would have won Wimby in 06,07 without Fed in the finals. What makes this amazing though is how Nadal was able to stamp his authority on clay and also make Wimby finals when he was obviously no where near his peak yet.
Federer has vs Nadal 14 (or around) times before Nadal turned 22.
Nadal can no longer be called a defensive player. When Nadal plays defense now, it is his safety because of physical problems. cont....
and as 69wiwi69 said, the Federer-Nadal h2h will be worthless if Nadal doesn't at least get close to 16+ Slams of Federer's. Untill then it's Federer>Nadal
@89Pleasek Oops I meant: 5-2 in GS finals and 1 semi-final makes it 6-2 in GS.
Keep holding onto that GS record because its the only thing (/one of) that Fed actually leads Nadal in- No surprise it advantages the player who is older. Ill just stick to comparing their achievements by age. Go onto ATP site and look at who Fed vs in GS finals before Nadal came along. NADAL HAS HAD TO VS PRIME FED FROM BEGINNING OF HIS CAREER... and still has + H2H vs him!!.
"Keep holding onto that GS record because its the only thing" lol, what am I suppose to stick with? The number of Masters Series won? According to you Sampras only has the GS case vs Agassi cause Andre won more Masters titles than he did, won the Olympic Gold (Sampras didn't), won the French Open (Sampras didn't).
@89Pleasek I am strictly comparing Nadal and Federer by AGE COMPARISON. Already assuming that they are the TWO GREATEST PLAYERS TO EVER PLAY. What else can I compare???. I am told that Nadal and Fed are the two greatest players- who also played in the GREATEST MATCH of all time. Sampras and Agassi comparisons are lost in this discussion. I never mentioned them. I am only comparing the two greatest players- Nadal and Federer.
Nadal matured earlier, just like Borg. Why don't you compare them according to the year they entered the tour? Nadal did at just 15 in 2001 and Federer at 17 in 1998, based on that Nadal at the end of 2010 is as Federer as the end of 2007. As I said before, there's no guarantee that Nadal will keep up winning 2-3 Slams for the next couple of years. Wilander had 7 at the age of 24 and finished with 7, Becker won 5 out of his 6 before he hit 23. That proves nothing
@89Pleasek Laver would have crushed 16GS record. He ended up with 11GS despite not being allowed to play a GS tourney for 5 years (5 of his PRIME years). Its not the be all end all. The only reason some people want it to be is because its the only thing they can hold onto.
You know nothing, he went 50/50 in Slams with Rosewall in 1963-1967 and won 6 Slams before 1963 playing only Emerson. Rosewall was more likely (if any of the 2) to beat Federer's Slam total.
Rosewall won 23 Slams (or Slam equivalents), 4 as an ametur, 15 as a pro and 4 in the open era. He was 6-4 in Slam finals vs Laver, didn't lose a single match in the pro Slams in 1960-1963, so who has a stronger case?
@89Pleasek When did I mention Rosewall exactly??? Amateur slams and Slam equilavents DONT MEAN CRAP. I chose Laver because he won 11 TRUE GS while not being allowed to play a TRUE GS for 5 YEARS. What I said was true. I don't need to bring other players into the equation. Its unnecessary and besides the point- THAT GS RECORD ISN'T THE BE ALL END ALL. FEDS 16 ISNT EVEN AS IMPRESSIVE THAN HIS SEMI-FINAL STREAK OR NADAL'S 18 MASTER 1000 titles at 24 Years old.
"I chose Laver because he won 11 TRUE GS while not being allowed to play a TRUE GS for 5 YEARS"
Bullshit, you ignored my previous comment completely. Laver had 1 real oponent before he entered the pro circuit in 1963 and what would you know he got beaten badly, especially by Rosewall. If you wanna add some GS to his tally from the pro circuit in 63-67 you should take away his 6 Slams before that as well!
"FEDS 16 ISNT EVEN AS IMPRESSIVE THAN HIS SEMI-FINAL STREAK OR NADAL'S 18 MASTER 1000 titles at 24 Years old"
Federer's 16 Slams is not as impressive as Nadal's 18 Masters titles. Ok, after that I think further arguement is pointless cause you're a brainless bias
Why Federer play against Nadal at all,he should withdraw.Same goes for both against Djokovic.
djoleluk 4 days ago
putain la balle de match
sa me ferai rager moi...
sa m'est arrivé sur une balle de jeu c'est térrible
MrThekillerdu44 1 week ago
Les commentaires sont d'une intelligence folle.
SubocReteigtop 1 month ago
je vous adore vous etes les 2meilleurs =) vous pouvez aller sur ma chaine pour avoir des vues ou mettez des j'aime=) merci
ThePA45 2 months ago
à chaque fin de balle le commentateur dit: "oooh..."
MrVwrc 3 months ago
@MrVwrc "Ohhh c'est magnifique.. Ohhh remarquable ... ohhh c'est beau" c'est assez chiant quand même !
Reyvius78 2 months ago
uploader fucking bitch show mostly nadal shots
99681655 3 months ago
NADAL THE BEST EVER XD
14LivingDead 7 months ago
eh wtf does he almost walk over that girl or what? XD
wouterkenderoeck007 7 months ago
Go Rafa!
serbianpupil 8 months ago
Love this guy, he'll be the best player ever!
serbianpupil 8 months ago
Comment removed
Dimi93full 8 months ago
Đường bóng đi ảo vãi @@
WCTVietnam 8 months ago
They are better than me =(
JuIcYpLoTe 8 months ago
2 grandes légendes qui s'affrontent, c'est toujours spectaculaire et beau à voir.
2 great legend affronting each other, it's always spectacular and beautiful to see.
MyVesperia 9 months ago
quel monstre ce nadal
philsoc11 10 months ago
Grande Rafa!!!
cammpinno 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who is this Roger Federer? His ground strokes looks good, will make it big one day
OliverJamieTwist 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who is this Roger Federer? His ground strokes looks good, will make it big one day
OliverJamieTwist 10 months ago
Let´s face it: a healthy Nadal is unbeatable on clay.
martinezaguado 11 months ago 3
Oh Nadal bumped into the cute madrid court girl on 5:43 T_T
Fixious 11 months ago
@Fixious I'm sure she liked that ! :)
BubulleMister 10 months ago
If Federer is the Greatest of All Time, then what is NADAL ?
This kid is just unbelievable !
I didn't like Tennis until I SAW Nadal playing ! I just LOVE it now.
GanzLONDON 11 months ago
@GanzLONDON I agree ! Nadal made me love tennis too !
eloise2paris 11 months ago 3
@GanzLONDON because of rafa, i am watching tennis again...just love rafa
chachris08 8 months ago
nadal il voie tout en rouge cè un taureau dans une arène il rate jamais ça cible sur terre battu domage pour roger dètre au mauvais endroit au mauvais moment cè quand mème une final roger mais tu reste quand mème lun des meilleur joueur après nadal bien suur ,,,
MrMonmax 1 year ago
Love form Saudi Arabia!
ghaafy 1 year ago
guys this is a treasure of tennis and got to say mind blowing points by nadal
ahmedlama2 1 year ago
go rafa, go!!
stef0241 1 year ago
Nadal highligths or match highligths ?
fearlesslandrew 1 year ago
1.02: incredible shot
CJVdeGruijter 1 year ago 28
@MrSocrate94 de loin et sa carriere ne fait que commencer!!!! son palmares va etre extraordinaire !! et c est deja le cas pas de doute et peut un des sportif du siecle
pichuchu1 1 year ago 14
incroyable nadal quelle classe et c est coup sont d une pureté le meilleur de tout les temps !!
pichuchu1 1 year ago 76
Comment removed
Soueb100 1 year ago
that big ripping grip is a little ugly maybe, but killer on clay...
jhgosnell 1 year ago
what is clearly impressive how many chances federer had again vs nadal ...how many times he got broken after having game point ...nadal is a beast
dangerouspaul 1 year ago
Comment removed
Soueb100 1 year ago
Comment removed
Soueb100 1 year ago
Un nouveau forum de tennis pour les passionnés : tennisworldtour.da-forum.com
TENNISWORLDTOUR 1 year ago
Comment removed
federerbestclass 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I gave you those stats from the US open website of Nadal and fed at age 24 (btw Federer had attended more GS events than Nadal at this age)- Nadal leads in much more than masters. But you still argue over this. "Nadal in 5 years, nadal in 4 years" will he have another 4 French""will he have this""will he have that"- pointless. Right here, right now, all we have is the vs by age. Nadal leads. Wait to argue with me when Nadal's career is finished. Until then you don't have crap to argue.
Cemedy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Wait to argue with me when Nadal's career is finished. Until then you don't have crap to argue."
By the time their done you won't have crap to argue, the only thing left will be some Masters titles and the skewed h2h. Can't wait
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"Wait to argue with me when Nadal's career is finished. Until then you don't have crap to argue."
By the time they finish their careers you won't have crap to argue with except for maybt the Masters titles and the skewed h2h
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Oh like earlier. You don't want to accept it now- than Nadal is better by age so you create an excuse so you dont have to think about it. nadal in 4 years, will he have this, will he have that etc Mr Fortune teller said "i wont have crap" because they are too pussy to admit anything right here right now. Its what i was saying earlier about 'your argument', at least my argument (and other nadal fans) is set in stone and cant be changed. Your argument is about the future and unknown.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"Oh like earlier. You don't want to accept it now- than Nadal is better by age so you create an excuse so you dont have to think about it"
Im not making any excuses, I agreed. You need more than that?
"Your argument is about the future and unknown."
I told you before, let's wait and see. If Nadal wins more Slams than Federer, I give him all credit (well unless he doesn't have piss easy draws as in the US Open this year) and admit that he was better. Untill then Federer is superior.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
so he had to play a number 1 player... 5 times!? Very tough time he was in. very tough. you lose, again
oh yea and how many times did Nadal beat the no 1 player on clay, his BEST and Federer's WORST surface? He didn't beat Federer outside of clay in a big match till 2008 when Federer was struggling big time and even then he was on the brink of defeat.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek its not Federers worst surface. He made 5 FO finals DIDNT HE??? Nadal was/is just better. Nadal has beat Federer 14-7. Dont give me this shit best and worst surface. Its bull. They meet on any surface they both want to win- equally. Australian open 09 final fed said "its killing me"- what do you think he was referring to.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"its not Federers worst surface"
If its not Federers worst surface, then what is? Grass or hard courts? Dont be dellusional. Nadal beat Federer on clay 10 times out of a total of 14. Their h2h is skewed and everyone with a little common sense knows it
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Nadal is skewing a lot of head to heads with current players, even compare him to Djokovic 15-7 looks like a nice beatdown, eh? You'd never know that Djokovic actually leads their h2h on hard courts 7-4. Again, not saying that clay is not a surface and shouldn't be counted but FFS it's half as important as hard courts right now!
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek It doesn't 'look' like a beat-down- it 'is' a beat-down. The only reason it is so skewed is because Nadal won. Plain and simple. Why don't you please explain 'in detail' why Nadal is so good on clay that he can skew h2h vs opponents? is he just too good or something.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"Why don't you please explain 'in detail' why Nadal is so good on clay that he can skew h2h vs opponents? is he just too good or something."
Nadal is the best clay court player out there, possibly the best in history on the surface but that doesn't give him the right to skew the head to head with his oponents. Look at his h2h with top 10 players with whom he played mostly on hard courts. Davydenko (4-5), Del Potro (3-4, lost last 3 matches), Blake (4-3, only started winning after 2008) etc
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek You say "it doesn't give him the right" like it is his fault or something.. I'm sorry, but it does give him the right to try his best to beat anyone he verses on it. if that means so called 'skewing" the h2h, then so be it.
Federer has never had a positive h2h with each top 10 player at any time in his career. Just a random stat.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"Federer has never had a positive h2h with each top 10 player at any time in his career. Just a random stat. " And why exactly did you bring that up?
Nadal never had a 13-0 lead in his h2h against anyone, Nadal never beat anyone 15 times in a row. Nadal never went a full year without losing to a top 10 player. Nadal never had a season with 10 or less losses. Just random stats.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"I'm sorry, but it does give him the right to try his best to beat anyone he verses on it. if that means so called 'skewing" the h2h, then so be it."
He is skewing a lot of head-to-heads. If you want it to be fair and square, take the % of a season on a particular surface when valuing a h2h.
60-65 % on hard courts, 25-30 % on clay, 10 % on grass.
Ok, Nadal is the best clay courter out there by far. But just another random stat, he is 19-28 against top 10 players on hard courts.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
If you wanna unskew the h2h with Federer, let's change the proportions. Out of 20 matches they played 12 on hard courts, 6 on clay and 2 on grass courts. Believe it or not, it will all decide WHEN they played the majority of the matches.
Version 1 - before 2008.
Nadal out of 6 matches wins 5 on clay.
Federer wins both on grass.
Federer (that's an assumption) probably wins 8 out of 12 on hard courts.
That makes it around 11-9 for Federer.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Im still lolling at you that clay isnt Federers worst surface.
yes, so clay wasnt sampras' worst surface but guys like schaller, Champion, Delgado were actually better than him.
Clay IS Federer's worst surface cause it slows down his shots, especially his serve, just like it did to Sampras. Hard IS Nadal's worst surface cause he can't run down balls freely and his loopy game is not as effective as on clay.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek You like back trailing. I should just post the same comment over again because it is the core problem. You wont accept that what i am doing is fine. I posted stats by age that show nadal was better than federer at 24. I am not saying nadal will be goat- i am saying that at 24yo nadal has done better than fed at 24 yo.
You have a problem with this. maybe you just want complete control or don't want to think of it as a possibility or something.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"You have a problem with this. maybe you just want complete control or don't want to think of it as a possibility or something." Wtf is your problem? I already agreed. But that doesn't mean I can't predict how things will end up. You're mixing the 2.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek It sure does mean you can't predict how things will end up. Because predict means "to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell". Do you have prophetic information? Don't think so.
What you are doing is called guessing: "think: expect, believe, or suppose"
But then what is the point of arguing with guesses?
Cemedy 1 year ago
Now the h2h would be so much fun to predict if they were the same age and played 60 % on hard courts, 30 % on clay and 10 % on grass. That combo would probably be the best for Federer.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"Do you have prophetic information? Don't think so.
What you are doing is called guessing: "think: expect, believe, or suppose"
It's not pure guessing.I'm actually predicting what could happen in the future based on the huge amount of tennis I saw in the past.I've seen lots of guys play extremely well even at 17 or 18 but playing nothing when they "should" hit their prime in their mid 20's.Nadal became a pro at 15,does that tell you something?
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek No, you 'believe' that because Nadal turned pro at 15 means that he cant keep it up to 29 etc. 'Turn pro' is just a name tag. it has nothing to do with being near your peak or not. Its still guessing. Well then, do you think nadal has just entered his peak?. i do. But doesn't this go against your previous experience/knowledge of players at 17,18 not doing well when they should reach their peak.
Fascinating make believe h2h work.
Cemedy 1 year ago
Nadal is at his peak since 2008, in 2009 he screwed himself up by overplaying but that was only his fault.
"No, you 'believe' that because Nadal turned pro at 15 means that he cant keep it up to 29 etc. 'Turn pro' is just a name tag"
This would be illogical for a guy who plays such physical tennis to last till his late 20's. Nadal himself admitted he doesn't see himself playing into his 30's. It's not my free will prediction this time
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek But you have to admit that nadal now is playing a lot better than in 2008. 2009, really shit play from the injury. But dont you think the the physicality of his game has actually decreased each year (now dramatically from when he started). Look at his body now compared to 2008, he is less bulky, less running. Better serve, better net play ( i think he was always quietly good). But he continually says "i still expect a lot more years"" Iam not finished" " iam only 24" etc.
Cemedy 1 year ago
I don't think that Nadal in his best shape on clay in 2008 and no way he is "a lot" better in 2010 compared to 2008. He's a better hard court player but clay and grass is more or less the same. Nadal was at his absolute peak in mid 08-mid 09 and even 2010 doesn't top that. Just compare his 2008 Wimbledon run (won 20 consecutive sets! He was a set away from winning the tournament without losing one) compare it to 2010 (2 5-setters to random players, Soderling almost bageled him).
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"I don't think that Nadal in his best shape on clay in 2008"
What I mean was : I think Nadal was in his best shape on clay in 2008. The way he dealed with an in-form Djokovic and Federer (even though he killed himself with unforced errors) at the French is beyond imagination. Let's be honest, he played nobodies in the 2010 clay court season, his main rivals were Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer, are you kidding me?
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek "his main rivals were Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer" Arent these the other 3 players besides Nadal that excel on clay? Almagro madrid SF, Versasco MC final, Ferrer rome Final. Apart from federer these 3 are the other best on clay I think. Soderling FO Final- who beat Nadal 09- and Federer 2010. Agree, no djokovic- but at the same time- who ever makes the final IS the toughest competition available- they played the best in their 1/2 after all.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"Apart from federer these 3 are the other best on clay I think. "
Lol. Just lol. You forgot about Djokovic, Del Potro, Davydenko, Soderling, Federer himself. Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer being Nadal's main rivals on clay this season shows you how sucky it was. Neither of the aforementioned top tenners played well on clay this year, Federer only in Madrid and Soderling only at the French Open.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"Arent these the other 3 players besides Nadal that excel on clay?"
They don't excel anywhere. Any top ten player playing at their normal level would beat them up badly. Almagro and Verdasco are probably the biggest chokers in the game right now next to Gasquet.
"who ever makes the final IS the toughest competition available"
Crap. The 2010 clay court season sucked big time.It was mostly the top 10 sucking badly rather than the 3 Almagro, Verdasco, Ferrer playing well.They just took advantage
89Pleasek 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@89Pleasek "The 2010 clay court season sucked big time.It was mostly the top 10 sucking badly rather than the 3 Almagro, Verdasco, Ferrer playing well"
YES this is true- but therefor Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer were tougher to beat than any of the top 10- Who after all sucked badly.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"YES this is true- but therefor Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer were tougher to beat than any of the top 10- Who after all sucked badly."
Well somebody had to fill the semi and final spots. I'm not saying that Nadal wouldn't've won some matches on clay cause he'd probably win most or all of them, but Del Potro Federer or Djokovic in good shape might just make it a little harder for him. Federer was playing AWEFULLY at the time and almost took Nadal to distance in Madrid.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"2009, really shit play from the injury"
If you look at the whole 2009 season, it was average but he was in the form of his life for the first 4-5 months of 2009, if it wasn't for the injury he'd probably have a better year than he has in 2010.
"But he continually says "i still expect a lot more years"" Iam not finished" " iam only 24" etc. "
What did you expect him to say? "I'm 24 but I feel like a 40 year old" "I'm done" "My knees will screw me up next year"?
89Pleasek 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@89Pleasek I don't really believe he 'was' in the form of his life for the 1st 4-5 months of 09 (i believe he 'should' have been). He was already injured at the Australian Open- he won the final but the way he played does not compare at all to the way say he played the 2010 US open. Aus open was just defence continual, huge struggle to keep shots deep, so much running (he plays this way when he knows upping the tempo could cause injury)- Madrid QF(b4 djoko match) injury developed worse.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"He was already injured at the Australian Open" I stopped reading after this crap sentence. Nadal was in great shape, possible his then best shape, didn't drop a single set till the semis, Verdasco played out of his mind and still lost, Federer played ok in the final and lost in 5.
Nadal was at his very best in the late clay court season, the whole grass court season + the whole hard court season till the US Open, then again from the AO 2009 till Miami. He started to play worse on clay
89Pleasek 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@89Pleasek No I'm telling you he was. He was injured at the Australian open. Take a look at the new Asian Documentary about him- there is a text translation. He was going to pull out of the final because of injury. He told his team and coach that he "could no longer do this". They interviewed Toni who said they were very close to not playing. He was playing the whole tournament with leg bandage for prevention but the SF he was injured from the sheer amount of stress on his body.
Cemedy 1 year ago
Well it wasn't that bad if he came out and played his absolute best. This is utter crap. If he was really injured he'd either not play the final or lose badly cause it's not like Federer played poorly, he played well (had a crap 1st serve % tho) and lost in 5 to a brilliant Nadal. Stop coming up with info out of your ass.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@89Pleasek Its not info out of my ass when his coach tells for the first time in an interview that he was very close to not even playing the final. As a whole he was a physical wreck, the pushing of his body here is what caused the more serious injury through Madrid a few months later. The only thing brilliant he was doing was brilliant defense.
No one on earth could be playing their best in a tennis match after having played a 5 set 5 hr 14 min match the previous day. Its humanly impossible.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"As a whole he was a physical wreck, the pushing of his body here is what caused the more serious injury through Madrid a few months later. The only thing brilliant he was doing was brilliant defense."
Did you see his offence? At certain stages of the match he was more aggresive than Federer, so another load of crap.
"No one on earth could be playing their best in a tennis match after having played a 5 set 5 hr 14 min match the previous day" He had 2 days thats primo and hes freaking nadal
89Pleasek 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@89Pleasek You are trying to argue with something his coach said in an official documentary.
Cemedy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't believe a single word that comes out from that filthy family
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Now let's go with the majority of matches after 2008.
Clay - 5 wins for Nadal out of 6
Grass - I'd still give an edge to Federer here but since we got 2 matches to spare, it's 1-1
Hard - out of 12 matches they probably go 50/50 or Nadal wins 1 more which is 5-7 or 6-6
Total h2h:
Nadal leads 12-8 or 13-7.
You see that the 5 year difference is a huge factor. The only year years when the rivalry was pretty fair were 2006-2008. Before that it was Federer and after that it's Nadal.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
89Pleasek Got owned. Arrogant Fed supporter.
Cemedy 1 year ago
i never get owned you dumb fuck cause i actually use arguements, unlike some nadal fans who stick with their h2h as a proof of nadals superiority
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek What user mattcheetos was doing is much more of an argument than what you come up with. 14-7 is fact. nadal 18 masters, 9 slams at 24 years old is fact. You base arguments on opinion and not facts- "federer doesn't care about masters". when reading you kept talking about agassi and sampras and others etc- mentioning that the slams is the only thing that matters- when really it is everything about the player that matters. you have nothing to compare fed to nadal other than the 16GS.
Cemedy 1 year ago
you took it out of the context, I said he doesnt care about the Masters as for the Slams, he still plays very well tho but there's a certain limit he won't exceed, Nadal is obsessed with winning in every single tournament
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"you have nothing to compare fed to nadal other than the 16GS."
what a piece of shit, nadal has nothing on federer except the 14-7 h2h which he has only thanks to clay, Federer has all the possible Slam records in the books, he's even equaled with Nadal as far as consecutive FO finals are concerned, the Slam total, the semi/quarter streak, the 5 slam in a row x2, 4-0 in Masters Cup, 237 weeks at no 1, 285 total, 5 times ended year as no 1 I can go on forever
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Cemedy 1 year ago
this is pointless, well do the comparison when they both retire, Borg was even better than Nadal at all ages and how did he finish.
"Nadal prevented federer from 18 masters" Pfff haha thats the biggest bullshit ever, look how Federer has played in these tournament since 2007, it's not like he's been beaten by Nadal only cause that's the case on clay. I don't even know why I'm argueing, ok if the number of MS titles is the only thing that Nadal can fight against Federer, then ok let it be lol
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek They have played in 9 masters finals with Nadal winning 6. So yes, Nadal prevented fed from 18 masters. Haha: Federer 5 FO finals- yet when i read your earlier posts you wanted to remove clay from Nadal-Federer h2h. Arrogant.
"Players peak different ages" what age did Nadal peak then 19!!! hahaha.
The stat is federer lost 3 times to number 1 players and won 2 times- you are funny. so he had to play a number 1 player... 5 times!? Very tough time he was in. very tough. you lose, again
Cemedy 1 year ago
"Federer 5 FO finals- yet when i read your earlier posts you wanted to remove clay from Nadal-Federer h2h. Arrogant."
I said: even at the French Open Federer is tied with Nadal as far as consecutive FO finals are concerned. I don't wanna take clay out of their h2h cause clay is still a surface. But it's not fair that they played on clay most of the time and it's a mere 25-30 % of the atp world tour. they shouldve played 60% of the time on hard courts, 30 % on clay and 10 % on grass to be fair
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"They have played in 9 masters finals with Nadal winning 6. So yes, Nadal prevented fed from 18 masters." It's all yours, if the freaking Masters titles mean so much to you (and Nadal), then let it be.
""Players peak different ages" what age did Nadal peak then 19!!! hahaha."
Nadal at 19 was more mature than Federer at 19. It means nothing less, nothing more than Nadal will fade away quicker and surely won't be playing as well as Federer at 29.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Btw Davis Cup is not a singles competition and Federer doesn't give a damn about it too as for now, the last time he wanted to win badly was 2003, since then he doesn't even bother to show up in the first rounds.
"Record vs Number 1- 14-7 - 2-3"
That's because Federer has been the no 1 player for 5,5 years you dumb fuck, he was playing the no 1 players only before 2003 so before he even reached his prime
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek the record vs number 1 shows that fed had fuck all competition when he was entering his peak. Agassi and sampras were shadows of their former selves. How many GS winners were in their peak years when fed was 21,22- Zero. Hahaha my last post was a collection of data of fed vs nadal and once again you are excuse machine. Get a sack and admit the truth. Nadal leads federer by age. get over it. its staring you in the face.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"Nadal leads federer by age. get over it" Is this what you're on about all the time? Stats don't lie, what I was saying is that the fact that Nadal has better stats at 24 doesn't mean he's gonna achieve more. I can name you 5 other Slam champions that were brilliant at a very young age (Wilander, Becker, McEnroe, Borg, Becker, Wilander, Edberg etc.) and achieved almost nothing after they hit 25.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Oh but you still couldn't admit it could you. Yes, its exactly what i am on about and you know it is. but you keep trying to argue with it with quotes like "i would like to see nadal with ..etc.. in 4 years"- instead of just admitting that the truth is that 'Nadal has done better than federer by age'. You have posted pages trying to argue about future events and unknown things when you know people commenting are talking about age comparing anyway.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"instead of just admitting that the truth is that 'Nadal has done better than federer by age"
I never said he didn't
"when you know people commenting are talking about age comparing anyway."
It's like predicting that Nadal is going to win 5 more French Open titles by the ease he's doing it now. Who expected Federer to play so poorly in 2008 after 2007? Who expected Nadal to go a full year without a title after mid 2009?
89Pleasek 1 year ago
His 2-3 record vs no 1 was from around 2001-2003 and Hewitt was at the top at the time.
"How many GS winners were in their peak years when fed was 21,22" Wtf are you talking about, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, Coria were all in their peak around 2002-2004 and believe me they were tougher than today's Djokovic Murray or Del Potro not to mention Soderling/Berdych and others. Even goddamn Agassi at 32 was winning majors, he'd probably win more if it wasn't for Federer.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I know some of these players were GS winners- i meant players who had won GS multiple times. What I am trying to say is- there wasn't a Sampras, Agassi, Nadal in his peak. There was no one like this. Federer had free reign till nadal came. Its amazing that nadal put up such a fight from ages 19 and up. He would have been number 1 from the age of 19.
Cemedy 1 year ago
"What I am trying to say is- there wasn't a Sampras, Agassi, Nadal in his peak"
That never happens. Nadal entered his peak around 2008 and Federer was already post his.
Sampras reached his peak around 1993 and Edberg/Becker were post his.
McEnroe reached his peak in 1981 and Borg was post his.
It NEVER happens that 2 multiple Slam winners are in their peak at the same time cause it's ususally a brief 3-4 years, the only time I can think of is Edberg-Becker around 1990.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
With Federer-Nadal playing in their respective peaks, the 2007 Wimbledon final came very close cause Federer was still playing very well and Nadal was about to enter his prime soon after that. It's very hard for 2 players to be in their peaks simultaneously especially when there's a 5 year difference between them
89Pleasek 1 year ago
89Pleasek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@89Pleasek "i never get owned you dumb fuck cause i actually use arguements, unlike some nadal fans who stick with their h2h as a proof of nadals superiority"
Lol this is true 100% you are too dumb to get it- you use 'arguments'.............
Whereas Nadal fans use facts and statistics..... that you cant argue with. You can't argue with facts and statistics- the only way to is to use other stats- which you dont do- you just argue.
Cemedy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@89Pleasek "i never get owned, i actually use arguements, nadal fans stick with their h2h as a proof of nadals superiority"
LOL this is true 100%- You use arguments. You don't even understand.
News flash Nadal fans use statistics and facts to argue. You can't argue with them so you use opinion "arguments". You can only argue facts with... Other facts... You don't do this because you cant when it comes to Nadal and federer.
You = OWNED. "federer doesnt care about masters" LOL- great "argument"
Cemedy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@89Pleasek @89Pleasek "i never get owned, i actually use arguments, nadal fans use h2h as a proof of nadals superiority"
LOL this is true 100%- You use arguments. You don't even understand.
News flash Nadal fans use statistics and facts to argue. You can't argue with them so you use opinion "arguments". You can only argue facts with... Other facts... You don't do this because you cant when it comes to Nadal and federer.
You = OWNED. "federer doesnt care about masters" LOL- great "argument"
Cemedy 1 year ago
@89Pleasek "i never get owned, i actually use arguments"
LOL this is true 100%- You use arguments. You don't even understand.
News flash Nadal fans use statistics and facts to argue. You can't argue with them so you use opinion "arguments". You can only argue facts with... Other facts. You don't do this because you cant when it comes to Nadal and federer.
You = OWNED. "federer doesnt care about masters" LOL- great "argument"
Cemedy 1 year ago
And Nadal has what, the h2h (but how many of his wins came on clay, 10?), more Masters Series titles, anything else? Oh yes he won more ATP 500 titles. Don't make me laugh, the ATP1000 tournaments are big but no that big to use it as an arguement. Sampras won 11 of those compared to 17 but look who owned who as far as Slams are concerned.
I'm not saying Nadal can't beat some of Federer's records but there's no guarantee that his body will hold up so as for now, you're the one who's pwned.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
that was a competitive match, both great talents.
mschneider212 1 year ago 12
Indiscutiblemente es el mejor jugador en esta superficie
DrSABEE 1 year ago
Colonialists thrive on monopolies. The monopoly is the Grand Slams played exclusively amongst the cartel of western club members: USA, UK, France and Australia . The ITF’s headquarters is in you guessed it... London, England.
HOW ABOUT HOLDING THE GRAND SLAM IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR A CHANGE!!!!
fromwilliams 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nadal the best
abdelilahm 1 year ago
nadal the best
abdelilahm 1 year ago
After Lendl came Sampras. After Sampras came Federer. Now there is Nadal and Federer still competing. Will Federer lose again and again and will Nadal break his record?
And who will come after those two players? Del Potro? Jan Silva?
I guess, he must play with spin like Nadal, the touch of Federer and even more speed. We will see.
ulizinho 1 year ago
Well, i don't think so, cannot say Nadal would beat Federer 2004-2007, Federer was more solid, more quick, with no period of sleep, now sometimes Federer plays incredible then after makes a lot of fault. Don't forget the score 6/4 7/6, Nadal plays well, a lot of lines and success, Federer was not so far. By the past, Nadal already took 6/1 6/2 on the 2 latest sets so... Nadal is Terre Battue Born don't forget. Federer is more complete in his game than all player in the world tour.
JarreFan73 1 year ago
@JarreFan73 Maybe you weren't around, but Federer started out as a serve and volleyer. I remember watching him get knocked out at the US Open when I was younger and thinking that he played like a second rate Pete Sampras. He would go on to develop the all-around game later. Same way that Nadal started as a purely defensive baseliner and can now hit huge serves, skillful volleys, and great overheads. Today's Nadal is much more than just a bad matchup for Fed. He's a great player PERIOD.
megavolt67 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Rafael acts like he doesn't know that a girl was right there, but he did it intentionally so that it will seem that he accidentally touches thats woman's breast, shes a very beautiful woman, u should be ashamed Rafael for what you did., haha
seriously, Nadal is the Greatest.
glassedmoon 1 year ago
Comment removed
glassedmoon 1 year ago
What happen with Federer last shot??!!!!
johnnygkl 1 year ago
lol, people, achievements don't make the greatest ever. if that's the case, people wont bother bringing up rod laver and pete sampras.
animaanimaanima 1 year ago
COMENTATAIRES BANDE DE CONS
smokemyfriend 1 year ago
nadal impresionante partidazo!!!
luisitocabezota 1 year ago
Those ball girls are hot :D!
onguy3n 1 year ago 2
schooling federer again
Dolcecinnamon 1 year ago
5:44
RAFA touch the boobs
loool
NeverLose11 1 year ago
3:10-what a shot!
reefric 1 year ago
Sorry if it's a dumb question but how many rackets does nadal take for a match? is it normal to take so many? especially for a player who does not break them on a regular basis..
empireofthesun 1 year ago
@empireofthesun To answer your question, Rafa normally carries 6 rackets per match and he uses all of them. This is normal because even though he is not a player who breaks his rackets during tantrums, the tennis racket's strings get worn out and loose very quickly at top level play, hence in order to prevent playing with a poorly stringed racket he carries 6 and generally uses them all throughout the match, changing at intervals at which he sees fit.
lolazo14 1 year ago
@lolazo14 Sampras broke about 6 rackets of the natural gut string in one match in Rome in 1990's if I'm not mistaken, lol
Harppuunamies 1 year ago
Damn.. they make the shots seem so effortless!
Vubbiess 1 year ago
Nadal made an amazing clay season and deserved the victory but Federer played good as well and could have won : he won more points than nadal in this final.
And f***ing matchball
69wiwi69 1 year ago
@Giannantonio83 not if he keeps playing like this !!
ebowass 1 year ago
el matador!!
happinez 1 year ago
nadal and federer= both on a different level to the rest
to even mention andy murray in the same sentance as these guys is embarrassing
azertyuiop32 1 year ago
5:44 LOL
Anthonykero 1 year ago
Some interesting comments on here, but when it comes down to it. Nadal has the edge over Federer in their rivalry. People can go on and on about how Federer was the greatest of all time, the fact is people will ask, why he couldn't dominate Nadal? Simple, Nadals style of play bothers Federer, and thats why he is leading 14-7 in their rivalry. I think the Nadal of today would beat the Federer of 2004-2007. Nadal is a much more offensive and stronger player today, back then he was just a kid.
FaithIsAnnoyed 1 year ago 8
@FaithIsAnnoyed exactly !
ebowass 1 year ago
@FaithIsAnnoyed that is not true.if you look federer in ao 2007 example you can see that nobody cant beat federer when is he on 100 procent.nadal is not dominate like federer was from 2004 to 2007.
delicsasa88 1 year ago
@delicsasa88 competition is much stronger now and when Nadal is 100% he can beat anyone on the tour, which he has proven !!
ebowass 1 year ago
@FaithIsAnnoyed sorry to say but nadal plays the same way he played then. Roger does not that is why nadal can pretty much beat him on any surface now. Federer's level of play has way diminished watch how he moves now. Kinda pathetic to watch.
kwaseb 1 year ago
@kwaseb Nadal has won last time an ATP title on hard court at Indian Wells in March 2009..
Harppuunamies 1 year ago
@kwaseb No he doesn't. Watch any of his matches from 05,06,07 and look just how much running he does. He has refined his offense to take control of the point earlier. You can say that Rogers age/drop of play is the reason that Nadal can beat him on any surface now- But don't forget that the Nadal in 05,06,07 was just a kid (literally) and had the task of facing Fed in his prime years- Yet he still held a 14-7 h2h and also won 6 GS by the age Fed won 1.
Nadal at peak > Fed at peak- Like 14-7.
mattcheetos 1 year ago
Comment removed
carlitob92 1 year ago
@FaithIsAnnoyed the only reason why hes up 14-7 is because of the 9-2 record on clay
carlitob92 1 year ago
@carlitob92 That's the "only" reason-The greatest Clay court player of all time- no big deal.
Fed is amazing but I think its time people realize how good Nadal has been for his age. He won 1st GS at age 19- Fed - 22. Nadal had 6 GS by age 22. Nadal made 3 Wimbledon Finals in 1st 5 attempts (incl 1 win)- Fed had only made 1 final in that time (and 1st GS win). Fed at his peak always faced a young Nadal. Yet the record remains 14-7= Nadal at his peak would crush Fed at his peak- Just like 14-7.
mattcheetos 1 year ago 3
@mattcheetos
I'm tired of the confrontation argument. Federer is good against aggressive and flat hitting players (see confrontations against delpo, roddick, davydenko) and bad against defensive players (loses against simon, murray and nadal). That doesnt mean much.
And majority of their confrontations were on clay. without clay federer lead 5/4.
And no, there werent more of their matches when Nadal was young than when Federer was in decline.
Nadal will be greater only if he beats the GS record
69wiwi69 1 year ago
@69wiwi69 Thanks. I would like to disagree with 1st point and say atm the flat hard hitters are troubling Fed- Berdych Sod Potro. I don't think it is fair to completely remove a surface from a h2h to try and even it out. The truth is when you do this all you are admitting is that Nadal is just too good on that surface... So you would rather remove it from the equation? why? Clay is NOT Federers worst sufrface- Its just that Nadal is exceedingly good on it. Without Nadal, Fed Continued....
mattcheetos 1 year ago
no, why would you take out clay? the problem is that clay is only a mere 25-30 % part of the season yet out of 21 times they played 12 on it. If this rivalry was fair they'd have to play 12 matches on hard courts, 6 on clay and 2 on grass (that's the surface % of a season), change the data and they go 50-50, still it's only hypothetical, clay plays the biggest role in their h2h tho
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek You missed the point. THERE IS NO PROBLEM IN CLAY TAKING UP 25-30% OF THE SEASON, the problem for you is that Nadal OWNS it... so much so that he can stamp his authority on it DESPITE it taking up only 25% of the season. As you say, its only hypothetical. REALITY is that Nadal owns Fed 14-7 and 6-2 in GS finals. The surface makes no difference. What surface has fed shown this type of dominance over Nadal on???- like you say "WITHOUT CLAY THEY GO 50-50". Oh lets remove it then!!??
mattcheetos 1 year ago
Ok I get it now, so if they played 21 times on clay and Nadal led 19-2 wouldn't that be skewed?
Nobody doubts in Nadal's ability of literally owning the surface but the guy skewed the h2h with Federer by avoiding him on grass and hard courts for years.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Wow, this is delusional. you still don't get that its not the amount of times they play on the surface, BUT WHO WINS that makes it SKEWED or not. The problem is that Nadal is too good on clay- that's what makes it skewed.
mattcheetos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The problem is that Nadal is too good on clay- that's what makes it skewed. "
But still Federer had to make those finals to meet Nadal, Nadal started winning on grass and hard courts only as late as 2008/2009 when Federer was past his prime and only occasionally before that.
We live in a hard court era not a clay court era ffs, clay shouldn't decide anything
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@69wiwi69 would have won the FO many times, Just like how Nadal would have won Wimby in 06,07 without Fed in the finals. What makes this amazing though is how Nadal was able to stamp his authority on clay and also make Wimby finals when he was obviously no where near his peak yet.
Federer has vs Nadal 14 (or around) times before Nadal turned 22.
Nadal can no longer be called a defensive player. When Nadal plays defense now, it is his safety because of physical problems. cont....
mattcheetos 1 year ago
and as 69wiwi69 said, the Federer-Nadal h2h will be worthless if Nadal doesn't at least get close to 16+ Slams of Federer's. Untill then it's Federer>Nadal
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Oops I meant: 5-2 in GS finals and 1 semi-final makes it 6-2 in GS.
Keep holding onto that GS record because its the only thing (/one of) that Fed actually leads Nadal in- No surprise it advantages the player who is older. Ill just stick to comparing their achievements by age. Go onto ATP site and look at who Fed vs in GS finals before Nadal came along. NADAL HAS HAD TO VS PRIME FED FROM BEGINNING OF HIS CAREER... and still has + H2H vs him!!.
mattcheetos 1 year ago
"Keep holding onto that GS record because its the only thing" lol, what am I suppose to stick with? The number of Masters Series won? According to you Sampras only has the GS case vs Agassi cause Andre won more Masters titles than he did, won the Olympic Gold (Sampras didn't), won the French Open (Sampras didn't).
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I am strictly comparing Nadal and Federer by AGE COMPARISON. Already assuming that they are the TWO GREATEST PLAYERS TO EVER PLAY. What else can I compare???. I am told that Nadal and Fed are the two greatest players- who also played in the GREATEST MATCH of all time. Sampras and Agassi comparisons are lost in this discussion. I never mentioned them. I am only comparing the two greatest players- Nadal and Federer.
mattcheetos 1 year ago
Nadal matured earlier, just like Borg. Why don't you compare them according to the year they entered the tour? Nadal did at just 15 in 2001 and Federer at 17 in 1998, based on that Nadal at the end of 2010 is as Federer as the end of 2007. As I said before, there's no guarantee that Nadal will keep up winning 2-3 Slams for the next couple of years. Wilander had 7 at the age of 24 and finished with 7, Becker won 5 out of his 6 before he hit 23. That proves nothing
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Laver would have crushed 16GS record. He ended up with 11GS despite not being allowed to play a GS tourney for 5 years (5 of his PRIME years). Its not the be all end all. The only reason some people want it to be is because its the only thing they can hold onto.
mattcheetos 1 year ago
You know nothing, he went 50/50 in Slams with Rosewall in 1963-1967 and won 6 Slams before 1963 playing only Emerson. Rosewall was more likely (if any of the 2) to beat Federer's Slam total.
Rosewall won 23 Slams (or Slam equivalents), 4 as an ametur, 15 as a pro and 4 in the open era. He was 6-4 in Slam finals vs Laver, didn't lose a single match in the pro Slams in 1960-1963, so who has a stronger case?
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek When did I mention Rosewall exactly??? Amateur slams and Slam equilavents DONT MEAN CRAP. I chose Laver because he won 11 TRUE GS while not being allowed to play a TRUE GS for 5 YEARS. What I said was true. I don't need to bring other players into the equation. Its unnecessary and besides the point- THAT GS RECORD ISN'T THE BE ALL END ALL. FEDS 16 ISNT EVEN AS IMPRESSIVE THAN HIS SEMI-FINAL STREAK OR NADAL'S 18 MASTER 1000 titles at 24 Years old.
mattcheetos 1 year ago
"I chose Laver because he won 11 TRUE GS while not being allowed to play a TRUE GS for 5 YEARS"
Bullshit, you ignored my previous comment completely. Laver had 1 real oponent before he entered the pro circuit in 1963 and what would you know he got beaten badly, especially by Rosewall. If you wanna add some GS to his tally from the pro circuit in 63-67 you should take away his 6 Slams before that as well!
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Im ignoring you comments because I AM TRYING TO COMPARE NADAL AND FEDERER ONLY. GET IT????????????
mattcheetos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Im ignoring you comments because I AM TRYING TO COMPARE NADAL AND FEDERER ONLY. GET IT????????????"
NO, you were talking about both Federer/Nadal and Laver and you shut your mouth when I provided some stats about Laver
89Pleasek 1 year ago
"FEDS 16 ISNT EVEN AS IMPRESSIVE THAN HIS SEMI-FINAL STREAK OR NADAL'S 18 MASTER 1000 titles at 24 Years old"
Federer's 16 Slams is not as impressive as Nadal's 18 Masters titles. Ok, after that I think further arguement is pointless cause you're a brainless bias
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Well CONSIDERING THAT FEDERER IS 29 and STILL hasn't reached 18 master titles- yet has 16 GS. But Nadal has 18 1000 at 24 y/o.
mattch