Roger Federer - Forehand Topspin Side View

[caseyyleblanc]

SO PRETTY

[rebelian7]

I learned by watching Federer and Pete Sampras (for serve, since there aren't many videos of him)

[leotibot]

I have learned more by watching Federer serving than any lesson by the pros.

[dirtyninja13]

hey im a intermediate player in tennis, and i was wondering if head liquidmetal radical is good for me(head=100 sq inches). please reply back thanks yo

[themaliced]

its not bad, just know that its a powerful frame and shots can get away from you if you're not careful, i used this stick for about 2 years

[themaliced]

why thumbs down =( i answered his question

[jessejonathan89]

@dirtyninja13 That's isn't determined on how good you are, but how your swingstyle/playing style is.. Like whats your current racket?

[00Affinity00]

OMG~! I AM SO SORRY!

I guess I fell for it. I thought I was chatting with a NORMAL person. But Alas, my judgement was faulty.

Now I have to suffer the wrath of a brat who thinks saying F*** and other obscene language is cool and whose opinion is high and mighty...

Now I have to bathe in gasoline and set myself aflame to repent on my sins. For I have mistaken a retard for a grown man...

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[EternalChaos000]

LOL..

[00Affinity00]

Heck... You could argue with me all year but it won't change a thing...

Federer is GOAT. Deal with it!

But don't take my word for it. Why not search online with the keywords "Federer" and "GOAT"

[00Affinity00]

I think its simple really...

Sure Nadal Beats Federer

But Federer beat everyone else...

If we're gonna talk about H2H records, then he has a problem with Nadal and maybe Murray...

But that's just 2 people. 2 people who have not consistently reached as many GS Finals as Federer.

I mean its logic really. You can search google for stats if you want.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Want to do it too?

Notice how he brushes teh ball up. Strings are always facing his opponent. If you prefer to see it this, way all the way since contact, he could see through his strings if he moved his head.

This is because he gets the racket low and then DRIVE it upward. The path sideeways looks like this: /

Except it's more curvy, more circular than linear.

This diving and upward thrust makes this circle finish, this windshield wiper like action after contact.

[balela90]

I love this guy.

He is lovely. I am unloved with him, no words!

LOVE...

[tolendoi123]

Look at that gracefulness...^_^

and the serve thing Roddick's serve is more powerful than Roger's for sure but Roger is just to smart when it comes to placing the ball... anyways Roger's forehand is the best

[sukivan27]

roddick's serve is superior on fast surfaces. because most tournaments are played on hard courts (or grass), he leads the ATP in aces, service winners, and service games won. however, federer's serve is typically more effective on clay because of his superior accuracy.

at the end of the day, Federer with roddick's serve would be an improvement; roddick with federer's serve would likely be a downgrade.

[dieuxroux]

I kinda like Federer's 2nd serve vs. Roddick's...

So, since this is internet and I can write whatever I want to, Federer could use Roddick's first serve, but should keep his second.

[aclasschris]

Federer's serve better than Roddick's? I think even Roger would admit Andy has a better serve.

[poombamaniac]

Andy has a harder serve, it's not necessarily as much of a weapon as Federer's is. Federer can serve crazy 2nd serves that kick like crazy.

[aclasschris]

Roddick has one a grand slam, and is number 6 in the world. All well being called a 1 trick pony. The trick...the serve. His second serve kicks higher than federer's. Forehand aside the rest of his game is pretty weak.

[davoho]

mmmmm... a formidable argument, punctuated by calling me an idiot...

I think the statistics that accumulate over the course of the season can say more to sway you then anything I say.

How many times has Federer served over 1000 aces in a season... and you can't argue that he doesn't play very many matches.

[iamke55]

Roddick's serve isn't just faster, it's more consistent and much more accurate, and heavier because of its spin. But both serves are equally clutch at saving break points.

[tennismike22]

What I like about this shot is how far inside the baseline he takes it. weeeeew! That is extremely hard to hit and even harder to return. Fantastic! For all those who want to compare Nadal to Federer, just run the numbers and Federer is far ahead of him. And it's the scoreboard that counts since they play in the same era. Play on Players!

[uniquehand]

but nadal plays with more spin on the ball. But i agree with you, having more pace and with spin that federer has is the best.

[lulleeh1993]

Nadal is playing exactly the way he should against Federer... that's why he wins! Federer don't like when the ball comes variated with much top spin on his backhand.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Actually, no player on earth like high balls on his backhand.

[zzzzsh]

dude...i've seen several of ur posts...WTF, stop trying to prove roger federer is the greatest...there is no GOAT in anything in life, whether sports, writer,director, opera...anything

i think its about time u get a frekin life of ur own

what say?

[GueorguiJoukov]

Well, if we agree on the fact we can do well and do wrong and that some a better than others, there MUST be one greater than any other.

This is inalienable from the principle of quality. Unless you can demonstrate here that the world number one is just as good as the amateur, thinking about tennis game quality, and that you can show me nothing is wrong or good, well, I am right to say there must be a best player.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Well, I think it's suitable to discuss about game playing if we wanna get better and as an amateur I want to know as much as possible the pro players which are obviously the most well in position to demonstrate by doing.

Well, again, I am using logical conclusions while an other gives impressions and opinions. And since at the exam logic seems to prevail, I will stand by my thoughts until you show me to be wrong or admit you are wrong. You could as well deny it and stay wrong.

[GueorguiJoukov]

You can cry, you can yell, you can insult and can get as subjective as you can be, but one thing remains:

the quality of your statement here stay unchanged and it won't make neither me, nor you, any more right or wrong.

To conclude further, no matter our statements or conclusions, the state of what we observe stay unchanged.

Then, if I am right, whether you admit it or not, Roger Federer as shown for a matter of fact to be the greatest as he's better than any other.

[zzzzsh]

u r the biggest moronic old FUCK i've seen in these posts... u need to a get a life!!

NOW, talking about GOAT... what greatest of all time, Roger cannot even dominate another GREAT RAFA.... which brings up the questions, how would roger fare against other previous greats...not so good, i might add. Rogers consistency is his greatness, while at the same time, his inability to beat his rival his downfall

[GueorguiJoukov]

The greatest can be define as two things which are the same, but expressed diferently.

The greatest is the one which is the most perfect which is exactly as saying the one which has the fewest flaws.

Roger has one and onyl one flaw and it is his record against Nadal who happens to be a lefty playing heavy spin on a one handed backhand.

I can hold against Sampras he wasn't a good baseliner, wasn't nearly as complete and wasn't able to play on clay and he has fewer titles...

[GueorguiJoukov]

Federer's game in in fact the nearest to this depiction of game's greatest or, if you prefer, the game with fewer flaws.

It's perfectly fair for Nadal to be a lefty, playign heavy spin, good for him. But, you see my friend, this does have an incidence on the results.

Also, if I follow your logic, the best player has the best H2H record. Which means it is IMPOSSIBLE for a player to have a winning record against Nadal and a loosing against Federer and this is true for any other two player sets.

[GueorguiJoukov]

See how ridiculous your statement is?

I doubt you will ever admit the limit of this H2H record as a valuable argument and, if at best has to be considered, it doesn't outweight in any maner the rest of his game.

And, I can domolish the most of it. Did you knwo they played 12 of these games on clay? More improtant, that Federer leads 5-4 outside of it? And even more interesting than most ofthese games were very thight?

What does this worth when seeking for the greatest skills? Not much.

[GueorguiJoukov]

I might be the greatest moron you ever faced, but I showed you to be wrong over and over and the best you have done is insulting me. From these two men, one able to think, the other being stubborn, which is the best?

I think, I explain, I demonstrate and you quote your own opinions based on impressions, like, subjectiveness...

I still think my point stands way stronger and I have reasons for this while you.. well.. have nothing behind it.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Well, I think you need to get a life more than I do. What a pity to argue without any foundation and not even being able to understand what his own point means.

If you are right, this is inevitable that from player A, B and C , A cannot have have a winnign record over B and a loosing over C if C doesn't have a winning record over B.

This must be true for any player sets, no matter the time, era and number of players implied. Be 3, 4 or 10 000 players, it must be true from game one.

[GueorguiJoukov]

This implies Nadal is better than Sampras because he won over Federer who leads Sampras 1-0.

This is also an other consequence of what you claim.

I think James black lead Nadal 3-2 and he doesn't lead Federer... When they face at the Australian Open last year, Federer was leading Blake 7-0 and Blake leads Nadal... Which means you are WRONG. He was 3-0, but Nadal won last 2 games. But yet, it show somthing: results doesn't dictate skills.

[zzzzsh]

u bloody old fuck... u ugly swine

GET A BLOODY LIFE...AND U R SO WRONG!!

rafter is 3-0 against federer, and sampras owns rafter...so sampras better than federer

no other GOAT contender has losing records against their rivals.

roger can only beat journeymen, and when faced with another great, ie nadal or murray, he chokes...some GOAT huh??

[GueorguiJoukov]

I just showed logically H2H record were worthless.

Explain me how this can be true:

A>B

B>C

C>A

Because this is what you propose by saying these records imply better player beating other lesser great players.

Federer leads Sampras 1-0 my friend.

Well, if there was a record for the player with most record, well Federer would have it.

"roger can only beat journeymen"

Hence why he has the record for consecutive wins against top ten players.

[GueorguiJoukov]

How am I so wrong? I showed H2H record were worthless in terms of greatness.

Since you can't think by your own or willingyl avoid to, I will do it for you.

Nadal is better than Federer because he leads H2H

Federer is better than Blake because he leads H2H

Blake is better than Nadal because he leads H2H

If Federer is better than Blake who is better than Nadal, how come he is lesser good?

The answer: It's not true Nadal is better than Federer because of the H2H record.

[GueorguiJoukov]

You can cry, yell, insult me, but it will never make you right or me wrong.

If you prefer not to call him the GOAT, call him the player with fewest flaws. Because this is what he is.

What can you hold for him? Titles, records, the most complete game, the most flawless technic and his consistancy.

What can you hold against him? 13 of 20 games versus one player over the thousand he played.

Even if I was wrong and that it would be so important, it's not enough to outweight the rest!

[GueorguiJoukov]

Numbers show me to be right, logic show me to be right, his game play show me to be right and a tremendously long record list show me to be right.

And I have demoslished the only argument you were able to put on.

I'm a nice guy so, I'll explain you how to prove me to be wrong.

Show me how this can be true:

A>B

B>C

C>A

Then prove me this single lien is enough to outweight in quality the mountain of arguments standing for him.

[GueorguiJoukov]

What can I hold against Sampras?

Well, Federer's records, Federer's titles, his game isn't nearly as complete, wasn't as fluent, wasn't able to play clay courts, wasnt' as consistant, wasn't a technically good.

He's very good player, but shows too much flaws to be greater than Federer.

No matter the player, no matter the time, you will find Roger being more compelte, more consistant and better all around the different surfaces.

Against Roger, well you can at best hang up this H2H with Nadal.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Basically the best player is the one with fewer flaws, weaknesses and show the best abilities over a consistant base and this is what Federer did and does.

What if he wins more GS titles? How can argue with someone that with 16, 17 or even 20 titles, the others bellow are greater champions?

Will you argue his game play, titles, records and achievements are worthless because you don't like him or his behaviour?

Federer is a great champion, a great player and a great man, what to ask more?

[GueorguiJoukov]

Yes you can argue, try to demonstrate things and I encrourage you to highlight your ideas.

But don't forget the goal isn't your pride, your success as a thinker... the main goal of each discussion, argumentation is to find the best answer possible.

You ask me to get a life, but I think I am the one who should be sad for the other. You lack of humility, are stubborn and privilege your position over logic.

[zzzzsh]

roger has shown consistency no doubt.... but as soon as he faces another great, he chokes nervous and loses

this man roger is GOAT...of all time..give me a break.

it only says how badly roger would do against other greats.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Out of 4 objects, if 3 are taken away, how many are left? 1, right?

Same goes here. If Roger takes away all victories, explain me how his opponent can have similar stats than Agassi for example?

They simply can't because there wasn't enough titles, tournements left untaken.

When you analyze a situation, you have to look all around. Either his opponents are weaker and make Federer look better or Federer is considerably harder to beat than Sampras ever been.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Federer's game is WAY more complete than Sampras' and he can play all surfaces unlike the American. And as you said, he's unbelivably consistant.

Which means there's lesser to exploit, that he can play like this at almost every game on every surface.

HIS game is CONSIDERABLY better technically and more complete than Sampras' game. This means he IS WAY HARDER TO BEAT.

Roger makes his opponents look foolish.

[GueorguiJoukov]

"no other GOAT contender has losing records against their rivals."

No other GOAT contender have won 15 majors in 6 years, nor showed similar consistancy, nor showed same fluidity and complete game play, nor have anything near a similar record sheet, nor have went to 20 GS finals, nor have went to 10 of these finals i na row or even have entered 6 of them in a row like Federer did in the last 6 events.

He's great, consistant and has the records on his side. What do they have?

[zzzzsh]

dude...what r u talking about?? do u hear urself??

federer has not set the bar high, its just that others r that bad.

sampras dealt with competition and so did other greats.

federer cannot deal with the only competition he has, rafa nadal... it does not matter how consistent he is with journeymen.

federer has come short tooo mannny times when he plays another great rafa..for that reason he cannot be GOAT!!

[GueorguiJoukov]

How many time will I need to reexplain it?

H2H are worthless. I demonstrated it, logically. I don't come here like you and yell whatever comes by my mind.

Roger is the GOAT because he is the player who has the lesser to be reproached of.

federer has come short tooo mannny times when he plays another great

Hence why he has the record for consecutive wins against top ten players.

[GueorguiJoukov]

And if then you cannot listen to me, point me who is greater than Roger.

Sampras? His game is only a shadow of the Swiss.

Everyone under is considerably outnumbered by both these two top record holders. They had more competition or allowed them to be competitive?

Federer has one spot on his file and it is Rafa. Sampras' has many, Borg has many, Laver has many...

[zzzzsh]

look here buddy..it is so obvious u dont know what u r talking about. roger can only dominate journeymen...NOT GREATS.

look how consistent roger is, but when he faces rafa he chokes... roger cannot and never has dominated a great, or is andre @ 32 a GREAT??

sampras laver borg dominated their great rivals..roger is just not good enuff!!

[GueorguiJoukov]

There's an explanation, a reaso nwhy he struggles against Nadal. There's always a reason for everything and as showed way bellow it's not because he's not good enough or because Nadal is simply better.

See here, 60% (12/20) (correct the 55% I wrote) were played on Nadal's clay.

Perfectly fair, but the record isn't well balanced enough to tell who overcome the other. Because obviously this picture favorise Nadal's game.

[zzzzsh]

WRONG

rafa started owning roger since 2004..when he beat an in prime roger in hardcourt miami

stop with the BS clay....rafa can beat roger anywhere...and roger can and most of the times does choke against rafa anywhere

what sort of GOAT is roger, if he cannot dominate any great, and only dominates journeymen..that is my question to u??

[GueorguiJoukov]

First, I am not being on his side.

Secodn to answer you, how can he be the GOAT? Well, because he has thes fewest flaws.

He's got the records.

He's got the best game.

He's got the most complete one.

He's the only aside Agassi to have won GS on each surfaces.

He's the most consistant, even versus top ten players has his 31 or so consecutive wins and mostly when it counts.

...

About everything you can ask but one thing: a winning record against Rafa.

Now, who is the GOAT then?

[GueorguiJoukov]

Now Roger has to have a winning record against each and every player?

He at least loose to great players. Sampras had loosing records against journeymen.

I think it's worst to loose to normal humans than to great players, but tewll me how the inverse is even worst.

Because he cannot withstand pressure? Hence why he got 15 GS titles, 4 end of year championships, 60 APT titles, all these records and is known for his game... in close calls.

Roger shows the best file, period.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Roger got out of GS tournament to the hands of the future winner or won it himself.

At least means you have to be on your run to defeat him. Not an other player than Nadal stroke him out of a GS final.

Again, it tells me really have to be someone to win. In fact, the statistics tells how harder he is to beat than any other great player and if Federer has an advantage over any other player is that he doesn't have to play against Roger Federer.

[GueorguiJoukov]

"Roger got out of GS tournament to the hands of the future winner or won it himself."

Since his first Gs title, only twice he wasn't defeated by the winner. Kuerten got him at Garros 2004 and Nalbaldian got him at US Open 2003.

[GueorguiJoukov]

"Not an other player than Nadal"

No one but Nadal

[zzzzsh]

"He's great, consistant and has the records on his side. What do they have?"

lol..thanks for the laugh

they have better h2h against other greats.

Roger is great against journeymen...as soon as he faces another great he chokes!! murray and rafa already owns roger whos still in 27

[GueorguiJoukov]

Murray owns Roger? Hence why he lost when it counts in USO final.

I see the point of your argument, and yes it does make some sense. Perhaps you exagerate by saying choking, but nevertheless he lost more than he won.

But how does this tell you he's so average?

Because the point of what I am trying to tell you is that skills isn't the only thing to influence results.

I could reverse you and say Pete was doing well against Agassi as long he wasn't on clay, but had problem with simple men.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Because obviously, he must have faced someone else than his rival to lose considerably more often than Federer.

Which means, while Federer is able to kick everyoen ass and play a great game against good player, Sampras wasn't able to play journeymen.

Because he lost more than Federer and fewer time to his rivals, it means he lost considerably more often than Federer to the hand of everybody.

Not to consider he wasn't facing Agassi each year on clay.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Federer faced Nadal on clay 3 times at Garros.

and 9 more times in other tournaments.

Yes it does show Federer can reach clay tournament finals. But, this instability of 55% of their game being played on clay tells of the unconsistancy of Nadal to reach other surfaces finals.

He rarely let Federer have a shot on somthing else than clay.

You know, H2H doesn't count early tournament exits and as they sit on top, they only can meet in finals.

[zzzzsh]

WRONG

FEDERER faced rafa 4 times at roland garros

has federer faced rafa for the fifth time, he would've been destroyed.

Dude, accept it, roger just got lucky, due to rafas untimely injury...same way roger got lucky to win wimbly 07

[GueorguiJoukov]

Just read and see:

Rafael Nadal is injured because of Rafael Nadal not playing fluently enough and pushing too much.

Nadal has been lucky he faced a mono Roger in Wimbledon. Roger has the number behind my words, not Nadal.

Saw something?

Many things can explain a same results. One is right. You are seemingly against Federer and necessarily take the opposite explanation.

Saying he's been lucky, not accepting results. This is illogical.

[GueorguiJoukov]

4times? they met in semis the year before their first final meeting? Doesn't matter, put it 4 times then.

"has federer faced rafa for the fifth time, he would've been destroyed"

Does this imply Federer cannot beat Rafael Nadal? That Nadal is better than Federer up to a point he cannot win if he isn't lucky?

[zzzzsh]

sampras wasnt as consistent at dominating journeymen like roger...but neither was he dominated by ANY of his rivals

Roger shows consistency, but is dominated by TWO of his rivals, murray and nadal..and soon djoker

HOW can roger be GOAT..just coz of 15 and the other streaks??

why does ur greatness not take into account how he fares against other greats...clearly, ur a biased SOB!!

[zzzzsh]

murray played 2 days back to back against rafa nadal..and didnt get a day break...roger had a day break....after that, same year...murray owned roger and been owning roger since the USO... roger got lucky he didnt face a fresh murray.

[GueorguiJoukov]

But, you know, Federer was consistant game after game. Never tired, never injured, never complains... He got one mononucleosis.

Then, why does Federer is always fresh? He forfeit one or two games in his career and he always got results. Murray is suddenly great? How? Because he can beat Federer?

He is allowed the excuse of being tired. Here it fits, but, Federer wasn't tired over these 4 years? He still has the number writen on the sheets.

[zzzzsh]

WTF r u talking about...u have no clue...its so obvious

what GOAT... he must be some GOAT if he cannot even dominate his rival and another great

i dont u put so much emphasis on rogers recrods, but not the same against his record against another great??

sampras actually beat greats to win GSs..ie becker agassi, even rafter once.... federer, as soon as faced with another great...he chokes!!

GOAT is laughable!!

now fuk off u old hairy fukface

[GueorguiJoukov]

Actually, you have no clue of what you're saying.

You write the same darn stupidity since 3 pages and writing it an other time won't make it more true.

Roger face Roddick and won... often. He's the only guy aside Roger to be in top ten while never falling out of it since 2003. He would have a handful of trophy if Federer wasn't there.

You cannot deny Roger's game level and his game being complete and consistant to your own admition. Roger is the reason why other looks lesser good.

[GueorguiJoukov]

"he cannot even dominate his rival and another great"

He dominates Roddick. He's a very good player and check the numbers and figure how many titles he'd have if Roger didn't took him out so often.

The problem is that Roger's opponent seem to be lesser great since they simply cannot show similar results.

Again, show me how Sampras' opponent were so much harder to defeat. Consider Sampras' game was quite easier to figure out than Federer's. Much more to exploit.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin... All former wolrd number one who felt down because they simply couldn't hold hands with Roger.

They would be titles more than often if Roger wasn't there. Perhaps there would be one or two players with 5 more GS in their pockets and some Masters and some end of year championships...

[zzzzsh]

listen here oldfuk

u have yet not proved to me how roddick is great??

had sampras not played...courier would've continued to dominate and other would've won many many more majors...ur point is??

sampras had the ability to beat another great, ie becker or agassi... federer is only got at beating up on a 32+ agassi....

how can he be GOAT when he cannot even dominate another great..ie Nadal

journeymen only adds to his greatness in terms of consistency

how about dominate another greaT??

[GueorguiJoukov]

No, I never showed Roddick was great, you are right. But you keep comign back saying Federer is good against journeymen and not against great players.

Which means you consider Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Haas, Ferrer, Nalbadian, Davidenko, Blake, etc. Name all top ten players to have been in since Federer won his first GS. You consider all these play worthless opponents?

Because this is what you say. I tell you Federer has the longest straight against top ten players.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Roddick won one GS, serve like a monster since he entered and is aside Sampras, Karlovic and one other guy to have served more than 1000 aces in one year.

He's got a very heavy forehand. His backhand isn't rocket, but still okay.

I think he's a very competent athlete and a valuable opponent and that Federer makes him look bad.

Because I pretend these top ten players would have similar sheets as Sampras' opponents if Federer wasn't so hard to defeat.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Remember Sampras allowed plenty of margin to play on. He wasn't able to on clay and his baseline game was at best good. Aside his S&V, he had a forehand.

You claim he had harder opponent, I say Federer is harder to beat and to Agassi's own admission, Federer is harder to beat. Why? "there's no where to go" as Andre says.

The guy is complete and you have to play winners. You cannot rely on errors or play on a weak shot since, well, as his shots are very good.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Federer has a loosing record against Nadal. What does it tell me? It tells me Nadal plays better than Federer when he faces Federer.

Nadal was better than Federer in these macth. Doesn't make Federer any lesser skillful or make Nadal any better than Federer.

He was able to put the game out on his side. And, not to remidn you these are very tight margin.

Why? Because he happens to be a lefty playign heavy spin. But this won't last long. Federer started to figure out how to take him out.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Can insult me, can rage, can write what ever you want, but this record only shows who had the best of the other in their meeting.

Doesn't get the skills out of Federer, doesn't make him lesser good and as showed, unless you prove me this is true:

A>B

B>C

C>A

it doesn't make Nadal better than Federer.

And keep saying Federer's opponents are worthless is pretty stupid. Like each top ten players since Sampras is gone is worthless.

[GueorguiJoukov]

Show me how Roddick is such a bad player that even an unskillful Federer can take him out so often. Ridiculous, but you always come up with the same darn stupidity and I already showed a H2H is WORTHLESS when it comes ot see which player is better.

And, again, you can say Federer had it easier, but facts are he has more titles which would be logic if it was easier, butthe problem is that he is a WAY HARDER opponent to beat than Sampras ever been.

[00Affinity00]

I've been reading for quite a while now. So if I follow your logic correctly...

Federer is not GOAT coz Nadal > Federer...

But wait...

Soderling > Nadal

Federer > Soderling

Does that mean Federer beats Nadal in this example? IN ROLAND GARROS 2009!?

Soderling is not even "great"

Federer is considered GOAT coz he got 15 GS wins in 7yrs (and counting btw).

Federer loses against Nadal. But Federer wins against every other player. That's like 9-1 if we count only the top 10.

[00Affinity00]

Another thing...

Nadal's injury is not some unfortunate accident. It was caused by his play style.

Remember any other player who has/had a recurring knee injuries? An injury like that at a very young age is a curse. If he doesn't change the way he plays, I see him retiring very soon...

Being GOAT means being consistent. Nadal maybe one big hump in the road for Roger, but that's it.

Like I said, Even if Federer can't win against Nadal, he can still be GOAT coz he beat everybody else.

[zzzzsh]

One thing.. r u trying to tell me to be GOAT.. sampras,borg or laver HAS to be as consistent as Roger Federer in Slams??

IF SO, then why does dont roger HAVE to dominate his main rival, like all of them did??

My tennis knowledge is above all. You cannot put all the weight in how roger dominates journeymen, and put "zero" weight in Rafa dominating Roger..am i right?

[00Affinity00]

1st I never put "zero" weight on anyone...

2nd I doubt your tennis knowledge is "above all"... (lol'd at that one). If that's true then Peter Bodo and Steve Tignor would be... :p

3rd Consistency is ONE factor to consider in being a GOAT. But its an important one at that.

Fed has 15 GS at the age of 28. Has an all court game. He has trouble with Nadal and that is fact. But being GOAT doesn't mean being perfect.

FED became GOAT coz A BIG NUMBER OF PEOPLE SAID SO.

[zzzzsh]

whatever dude..

whatever make u sleep at night.

maybe someday u'll do something on ur own... other than arguing if one person can be the greatest of all time, when hes dominated in his own rival in his own time.

i've made my case, u've made urs.. as far as i believe opinions dont PROVE GOAT...only way would be to have the GOAT contenders battle it out, in their primes.

[00Affinity00]

I just LOL'd...

Amnesia all of a sudden huh?

you're the one who started arguing the GOAT issue. You even used all that obscene language doing so. Heck! you even used the F word 3 times in one of your posts. (Or was it 2 F words...)

And FYI I have "something to do on my own" (I think they call that WORK). But you managed to catch my attention with all those F words. :D

Opinions are always open. But your use of F words on them is just way too immature.

So yes... I found you interesting... :D

[zzzzsh]

i found ur mom interesting..in bed ;)

and i agree with most ur ur friends.... no one gets down and dirty the way she does, which is definitely not a bad thing.

[00Affinity00]

see... exactly my point...

What kind of adult would talk like the way you do?

I mean really... The "mom" thing is WAY TOO OLD.

First Federer and GOAT, now bed and mom? C'mon... Are you REALLY 31yrs old?

[zzzzsh]

STFU U PIECE OF SHIT

[00Affinity00]

Wow... Nice... And you found this just yesterday?

C'mon... Its been 2 months and you still can't get over the "Fed = GOAT" and the "Bed and mom" thing!?

31yrs old... I think NOT.

[zzzzsh]

i can answer this in one para..it is that simple dude.

fed has consistency (unheard of) unlike other GOAT candidates, but gets dominated by his main rival.

nadal is much like other greats, who can be beaten at times by journeymen

HOWEVER fed being dominated by a great justs show how he would most likely fare against other greats of other eras.

Dominating journeymen, and struggling against a great both has implications, and they dont indicate roger to be GOAT.

[OBeymydreamz]

don't get me wrong, but i think he does hit topspin better than nadal,.. It's just nadal uses it alot more( better to say, its the only shot he uses ) , so it's obvious he does more good shots with topspin than fed,.. ( quality comes out of quantity ) But There is no shot some1 does betta than Rog. peace

[davoho]

what about like a bajillion players with better serves and backhands. Serve: Sampras, karlovic, roddick etc. Backhand: Djoko, Gasquet, Murray

[OBeymydreamz]

ru saying federer has weak serve? ,btw best backhand is nalbandian's btw,..

[davoho]

lol yeah thats exactly what I was saying DUH...

Nalby's backhand is the best and Murray's is not far off but it's shite on clay.

[quantumisafunword]

fed has an awesome backhand and a serve that he has used countless times to get him out of trouble. There are very few with such a complete game as fed.

[davoho]

yeah... DUH

I just think its stupid to say that federer hits EVERY stroke better then anyone else which is what some rabid/foaming at the mouth TMF fans seem to think.

[MizzleHizzle]

I'd say that Federer's serve is better than Roddick's; Federer's is so much more varied in terms of direction, spin and power.

[MizzleHizzle]

Roddick's serve lacks direction, it's either sort of down the T or sort of out wide, but Federer's is a lot more pinpointed, rather than just smacking it as hard as he can in a general direction. I'm not saying that Federer's perfect, but he is pretty damn good.

And another thing, I'm not a 'rabid Fed fan' at all... -_- I'm not really a fan of any tennis player, I just enjoy watching and playing it.

And seriously, ending a comment by calling me a 'cunt'? Grow up, it's just an opinion.

[davoho]

cunt

[KillerFitfh]

yes i agree but we have to admit that roddick's one is more powerful

[Fizban889]

@MizzleHizzle That's ridiculous! Roddick wins way more free points with his serve, and get just as high a percentage of them in.

[Dorfli]

It is very interesting to see how fast he is able to spin around with his right leg, he always is in side position in these shots.His footwork is just amazing.

[tnis45]

One of the best things Federer does is accerlating through the ball as he swings. As a coach this is one of the biggest things I tell everyone, by accerlating through the ball, while keeping control, you will get more spin and more depth on your shots.

[TennisForALiving]

I will send you a message ;)

[chryzparlindungan]

just Nice Spin...

[SunSigil]

it's amazing how Federer can generate so much spin with an eastern grip and how much success he has had with that "old" grip

[sukivan27]

fed doesn't hit with an eastern grip

it's between an eastern and semiwestern; I hit with it sometimes and its not difficult to generate lots of topspin (let alone with his racquet head speed)

[EternalChaos000]

It IS Eastern grip, and it is hard to generate spin with an eastern grip.