federer single handedly changed and improved the game of Tennis, like no other era he is truly the greatest player of all time. All the legends, with respect, would not stand a chance in todays game, and Roger is still arguably the best at 30!!!!
If all the legends were in their prime playing at the same time, federer would still be miles above all of them. Its my opinion but yours doesn't count because i'm right and if you don't agree it's something personal you have against Roger.
I hate to say it but I don't think Nadal will ever reach the level he was playing at from early '08 to early '09. Too many injuries and i get a feeling that his desire has waned a bit. Also big guys who hit flat (Soderling, Del Potro) aren't bothered by his huge, high bouncing topspin.
most average people happened to watch a game between nadal and fed, talking about tennis experience of the average guy. so these were the big names in the last years and bith nadal and federer fans should be quite happy :) I wish nadal recovers soon!
Nadal is nearly unbeatable on clay. You can't knock Federer for that. Roger is top 10 all time on clay, easily. But Few players are even close to Nadal when it comes to clay.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
there's only one thing he's failed to do: beat Nadal at his best condition at French Open.
We all know it. If Nadal wasnt troubled this year by his knees and family problems, he would have beaten roger. Fed was down 2 sets to love against Delpo for God's sake! Would love to see him finally do it this year.
Stop throwing a pity party for Nadal. You're talking as if his injury was due to an unlucky accident. Nadal worked for his injury for his whole career -you run every ball - sooner or later you'll get injured-as simple as that
I might as well say - had Nadal not played 200 % in every tournament he wouldn't get injured BUT he'd have to forget about the Wimbledon and Australian Open titles.
Everyone seem to forget how Nadal took the top spot in tennis after Fed got mono
Heck, man. I'm simply comparing Nadal at his best vs Fed at his best. So far recently (not talking about when Nadal's game wasnt this polished yet), whenever the two play at their best, Nadal has come out on top. I know Nadal's injury would come sooner or later, but when his top form was unbeatable.
What I'd love to see is Nadal coming back to his Wimbledon 2008 form, and Fed beating him at all four GS finals XDXD
Lol... Nadal was not polished untill the Wimbledon 2008 final? It's weird how miracelously everyone got better (including Nadal) in 2008! Nadal played very similar tennis as in 2006-2007 it's just that Federer was way out of his shape, Nadal has never beaten a prime Federer out of the Fench Open and of course Fed's never beaten Nadal at the French.
And for fuck sake stop talking about Nadal's injuries. Nobody seems to goddamn remember Fed's mono and how it affected his whole 2008 season.
The only time both of them played on a similar level (well but not brilliantly) was the Wimbledon 2007 final. In 2008 Federer committed way too many unforced errors and in the 2009 Ozzie final his serve was miserable.
It's a myth about Nadal's improvements every year. He just gained more confidence in each season, gained more experience but his tennis purely was pretty much the same.
I agree that Nadal had his best period in 2008 till mid 2009. What you fail to acknowledge is that Federer had his worst period exactly in the same time. He suffered mono for most of 2008, then the back injury in late 2008 and early 2009 probably cost him the Australian Open final.
@89Pleasek no its not a myth. He improved his serve, backhand and angles and thats why he defeated federer, got it? Poor roger with his "mono", funny how he was able to reach grandslam finals and reach the final of wimby without losing a set despite playing with "mono". What a joke
Lol, Stepanek, Fish, Karlovic, Simon, Roddick and Blake improved too in 2008? And after Federer found some form they all magically lost theirs? Wtf this is magic or what?
The truth lies in between. Nadal did improve in 2008, but he also won the Wimbledon final thanks to Federers dropped form.
Anyway, if it was only Nadal who improved in 2008, Federer would go on to win the Australian Open that year (not losing in straight sets to Djokovic), at least 2-3 masters titles, the masters cup and surely wouldnt lose to players in the calibre of stepanek or karlovic. As I said, as much as Nadal improved, Federer lost his form.
And if you want to measure both Federer's and Nadal's greatness why can't you do it in the same standards? It's like Federer "has to" (achieve something) and Nadal only "can, but doesn't have to". That's unfair.
And how do you know when Nadal is at his best? By watching him play? By looking at the statistics? By seeing what he has achieved recently? That's also hard to measure. Even Federer was going a bit off the radar in 2007 - in that year he wasn't playing as brilliantly as in 2006 f.e.
"Roger could not beat Nadal in top form, from 2008 FO to 2009 AO, in all their three meetings. Nadal was UNSTOPPABLE at his peak. "
Well Roger could not beat Nadal in that meetings cause he was playing poorly himself. I could say exactly the same thing that Nadal could not beat Federer at his best on grass (examples 2006-2007) but only on clay.
@89Pleasek yes when federer reached the final of wimby 08 without losing a set he was playing average. When he destroyed Del Potro and Roddick in aussie open 09, he was playing really average too. Typical federer fanboy.
Stepanek, Roddick, Fish, Blake, Simon, Karlovic improved too in 2008? And after Federer found some form later on they suddenly lost theirs? Wtf is this magic?
The truth lies in between. Nadal did improve in 2008 but he won the Wimbledon final also thanks to Federer and his high number of unforced errors out of nowhere.
@89Pleasek yes its all about federer, he cant be beaten ever and if he does its because he didnt play well. Face the fact,s Nadal defeated federer fare and square but federer fanboys such as urself will never admit it.
'when federer reached the final of wimby 08 without losing a set he was playing average'
so you describe federer's run to the wimbledon final (and his actual form) based on players like a 28-year old safin, rusty hewitt (the only seeded player up to the final) and hrbaty. Youre a genius.
Its not like suddenly everyone got better in 2008 is it? How do you explain the fact that federer won no masters titles in 2008 and only 4 tournaments (1 slam and 3 small ones)
@89Pleasek seeding is not a legitimate argument. Tsonga reached the final of aussie open 08 as an unseeded player, but beat #2 Nadal and #9 seed Murray. Federer beat Soderling to win the fo, soder was not highly ranked but he beat #1 ranked Nadal on the way. Safin beat #3 seed Djokovic at wimby, proving he was not washed up. Seedings dont necessarily determine how well a player is going to play in a grandslam.
I do admit Nadal beat Federer fair and square in the Australian Open final. Federer could've served better that day but I'm not so sure he'd win it with a great serve. The problem for Nadal is that he can't keep it up for long. The Australian Open back in 09 was the last tournament we saw a classic Nadal, he hasn't produced too many goods ever since. Thats why he will never match Federer. Federer even tho he's 29 can still keep it up, Nadal at 24 is pretty much done and dusted.
@89Pleasek Nadal has been plagued by injuries and bad knees which does not go well with his style of play. Nadal wore Federer out. Federer may be the best ever, but Nadal deserved the win and in 2008 up until the beginning of 09 played as well as any player in history for a 1 year period. At his best Nadal proved that he can beat Federer on any surface. In fact if you look at their overall record they are about equal. Nadal is not washed up. I do think Federer is slightly better though.
@89Pleasek Nadal may have gotten inside Federer's head a bit and threw his game off. He may have not been at his absolute best. I personally think they are both great, but people should keep in mind that while grand slam titles are the most important measure of a player's success, they are not the only measure. There is the Davis Cup, Olympics, Master's series and the overall winning %. I maintain that when you look at everything, it is a very close comparison.
I dont agree that DC is one of the most important measures of one's greatness. What can Fed do that he's the only decent player in his team? Look at Spain, Nadal, Verdasco, Ferrer, Ferrero, Lopez - all top players on clay. The Olympics -not sure, still its only played once every 4 years, Federer was unlucky that the Olympics were in 2008 - hist worst year after 2004 onwards. Id say Federers 4 Masters Cups are more important than Nadals 18 masters series shields.
@89Pleasek @89Pleasek I was not so much thinking about the Davis Cup title as much the individual Davis Cup matches played. I only mention it since it is outside of the ATP world, and it should be factored in to an evaluation of each player. I agree that the Olympics don't occur often enough to place a lot of weight on them.
@89Pleasek As far as weighing the importance of Masters Cups compared to individual Masters tournaments. That can be debated. My only point was that the# of Slam titles tells a big part of the story but not the whole story.
@89Pleasek I never said DC was one of the most important measures, only that it is one of many to consider. Federer's Masters Cups are impressive, but so is the fact that Nadal has more titles than Federer at a younger age. Don't get me wrong though. If someone asks who I'd say is the better player overall, I'd say Federer. I think he's the best of his time, and better than Sampras. As far as their head to head record. most of those were on clay, which accounts for the disparity.
DC should not be considered when measuring one's greatness. As I said, what can Fed do he's the only decent player in his team? And compare this to Nadal's team. Even if Rafa didnt play a single match Spain would still be the favorite.
Nadal is 24. Federer at the same age had 6 slams, 2 Masters Cups, 8 Masters titles, twice year-end-no-1. The fact that Nadal started winning yearlier doesnt mean hes gonna maintain that into his mid 20's. Both Nadal and Federer are past their respective primes, still the best duo out there, tho.
@89Pleasek I think were clearly wrong about Nadal being past his prime, since he's won 2 slams and completed the career slam since you mentioned that. But you might be right about Federer being past his prime. Over the past 2 1/2 years whenever Nadal has been healthy he has been the better player. If Federer wants to go down in history as the greatest ever, he's got to get the upper hand against Nadal. I'm not sure who is better. Too bad they are not the exact same age.
I still think that Nadal is a kind of player that peaks early and fades early like Borg, Wilander or McEnroe. Maybe I'm a bit biased but I can't imagine him winning even on clay at 27,28.
@89Pleasek At one point I thought that also, but it seems like he's learning to pace himself better and avoid constant injuries. I think with Borg, it was more of a mental decision to leave the game rather than a physical one. I would not write Federer off yet. I think he still may have a few slams left in him.
With all the alterations that Nadal has made in his game, his style is still mostly physical and he relies on his body too much. I won't believe that he can win Slams in his late 20's untill I see it. I think we just witnessed Nadal's best year (2010) so do think he can keep it up for long
@89Pleasek I think it's not so much how he plays, but if he decides to rest in between important tournaments, and about taking time off when his body needs it. He may very well be done by his late 20s, as you said. A lot of the greats were. Borg was long retired and Sampras' prime was certainly over before 30.
Pretty much everyone is going downhill when they hit 25. Actually the only player I can think of who had a lot of success later in his career was Agassi but that's 1 exception. Even look at Federer, by the way he was playing in his prime, playing economical tennis, sparing energy you'd think that he would go on forever. Already at 26 he started to decline but he was good enough to rack up some majors. Only the fact that he's Roger Federer allows him to play that well at almost 30.
@jknj1975 Correct. Unless he plays Davis Cup, he doesn't play a tournament for a month after a Grand Slam. That's how you can stay mentally fresh. I see Nadal retiring before Federer.
@raikahoken You absolutely know nothing about tennis. He was down 2 sets to 1 against Del Potro. Del Potro has a fantastic clay court game because like what Soderling was able to do against Nadal, Del Potro was able to destroy high balls as well. What did you expect, Roger to win straight sets rest of the way when he has history + whole tennis world on his shoulders saying this is his year to win? This is why Roger is winning and your here typing. You play against the ATP, NOT against Nadal.
you people really need to understand what I'm writing and not make up meanings from it. First of all, I AM ROGER'S FAN!!! HE'S MY FAVORITE PLAYER!!! From my very first post it's clear, if you people read it carefully. I'm only trying to point out the true and obvious: Roger could not beat Nadal in top form, from 2008 FO to 2009 AO, in all their three meetings. Nadal was UNSTOPPABLE at his peak.
Your arguement would make sense that Nadal was unstoppable in 2008 IF Federer had won the Australian Open title that year, Indian Wells/Miami, Canada or Cincinnati and the Masters Cup. He only won the US Open title that year, not even one masters title.
Federer was just playing poorly in 2008, that's why MAGICALLY Nadal and everyone around started to play better. It only SEEMED they played better cause Federer played well below his standards.
We all know that his form aint gonna stay for long (again, my first post indicate this knowledge if you read it properly), but the truth remains: he was unquestionably number one when he's at his best. That, to me, is the only blemish in his career: that he could never beat Nadal when he's in this form. So I want Nadal to finally return to that form and Federer to beat him fair and square. Is there something wrong with that?
I never said you were a Nadal freak. But it's even more surprising to hear that you're a Federer fan and still question his greatness.
Ok, then, listen.
Federer's peak years were 2004-2007. A the end of 2007 he was 2-2 against Nadal in Slam finals, never lost to him outside of clay.
Their head-to-head was 8-6 in Nadal's favor at the end of 2007 (6-1 on clay 0-2 on grass and 2-3 on hard courts). Did anyone question Federer's achievements at the end of 2007?
that's true - but really, it's Nadal's problem that he can't stay fit, or was able to play at high standards just for 4 seasons. He was a bit too overambitious and now he's paying the ultimate price. You gotta feel it for Nadal a bit, cause his injuries issues are not fun, but don't tell me that was undpredictable. Lots of tennis experts said, even back in 2005, that Nadal won't lost long in tennis with that kind of style.
and one more thing - imagine Federer having a double-handed backhand (lets say as good as Nalbandian's, Safin's or Agassi's) and neutralized Nadal's top spin, of course having all the other shots at his normal level, like his forehand or serve.
Would it make a difference against Nadal at the French Open back in 2005-2008? I think it would hugely increase Federer's chances.
Nadal is just the most uncomfortable player for Federer, not only on clay, but on any surface cause of that top spin.
I think everyone's missing the point: Here are two GREAT tennis players, who complement each other's games. I think we're all very fortunate to have them in the game.
that "stupid" rain delay gave federer a chance to get this awesome game into 5 sets!! plus rafa he played very very good we got to admit that.... but federer can win vs rafa 3-0 in a game of sets that for sure... but federer make better points than rafa did =)
I know this is extreme wishful thinking, but it would be amazing if Roger wins the French open next year and it also happens to break Pete Sampras's 14 grandslam record. Ofcourse that means he has to win teh U.S. and Australian.
It was amazing. What a beautiful victory despite all the odds stacked against him. Shows what a all round player he really is. 5 consecutive grand slams on two of the fastest surfaces on tour, and now on the slowest as well. What a record!!! Go Roger!!!
Bjorn Borg has won against Guy Drut (the olimpic champion of 110hs) in a 1.000 mt. race. The event was at Superstar Competition (in which there were different specialities like decathlon) and he won the title agaist all the famous athlets in the world.
Rafa was regular and Rofer was not. I want to see Roger coming back after a hard training. He'll win all the gram slams in a year. He's capable of it, Nadal isn't yet
what are you talking about? that "stupid" rain delay allowed federer to regroup his thoughts and take it to an amazing 5 setter!! if the rain delay hadn't come he might've lost in 3 sets seeing the way rafa was playing. besides roger isn't done yet. he'll come back next year and win for sure. plus give rafa credit. he played phenomenal.!
OK. Totally agree with you. Thanks to the rain. It allowed us to admire the best tennis match of the last times.Until the next battle.(Excuse my english)
OK. Totally agree with you. Thanks to the rain. It allowed us to admire the best tennis match of the last times.Until the next battle.(Excuse my english)
yes yes, the stupid rain delay tenia nombre: rafa nadal¡¡¡, the number one ya. Yo creo que a ti te contaron el partido y que no lo visto. Sólo así se explica que no seas capaz de admitir que cuando mejor jugó Federer fue precisamente al principio de reanudarse el partido despues de las dos suspensiones. Si no es por la stupid Rain Delay, Rafa gana a Roger en 3 sets. Sure.
I'm a Roger fan, but I don't like Borg, beacause he doesn't really like Roger, he just won't that Rafa broke his record, and now in Wimbledon is the same story, he says that Rafa will win.
I hate him a lot. He isn't a sportsman, he has to learn something to Pete Sampras!
Bjorn Borg con tus comentarios sobre Roger Federer lo único que haces es empañar tu exitosa carrera. Te equivocas a la hora de criticar... das mas que da una opinion, te metes en terrenos que no sabes manejar. Eres un excelente ex-tenista muy bueno NO un opinologo!!! En lo personal el gran Roger Federer hara mas historia que tu y lo sabes, por eso te tiemblan las piernas...
This has been flagged as spam show
federer single handedly changed and improved the game of Tennis, like no other era he is truly the greatest player of all time. All the legends, with respect, would not stand a chance in todays game, and Roger is still arguably the best at 30!!!!
If all the legends were in their prime playing at the same time, federer would still be miles above all of them. Its my opinion but yours doesn't count because i'm right and if you don't agree it's something personal you have against Roger.
ILikeMarmiteALot 3 months ago
goddam change back the fucking grass at wimbie,those english fuckers...are they trying to make another clay grand slam????
KaminariKatta 1 year ago
Fed's prime was 04-07
Now he is living in the afterglow.
he will never be as consistent or as good as those years and yet he is still no.1 and best player on tour.
pmo1983 1 year ago
I hate to say it but I don't think Nadal will ever reach the level he was playing at from early '08 to early '09. Too many injuries and i get a feeling that his desire has waned a bit. Also big guys who hit flat (Soderling, Del Potro) aren't bothered by his huge, high bouncing topspin.
joydivsion77 2 years ago
most average people happened to watch a game between nadal and fed, talking about tennis experience of the average guy. so these were the big names in the last years and bith nadal and federer fans should be quite happy :) I wish nadal recovers soon!
p.s. so that federer can beat him in the final:)
TheEdddi 2 years ago
Nadal is nearly unbeatable on clay. You can't knock Federer for that. Roger is top 10 all time on clay, easily. But Few players are even close to Nadal when it comes to clay.
hoagly 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
there's only one thing he's failed to do: beat Nadal at his best condition at French Open.
We all know it. If Nadal wasnt troubled this year by his knees and family problems, he would have beaten roger. Fed was down 2 sets to love against Delpo for God's sake! Would love to see him finally do it this year.
raikahoken 2 years ago
Stop throwing a pity party for Nadal. You're talking as if his injury was due to an unlucky accident. Nadal worked for his injury for his whole career -you run every ball - sooner or later you'll get injured-as simple as that
I might as well say - had Nadal not played 200 % in every tournament he wouldn't get injured BUT he'd have to forget about the Wimbledon and Australian Open titles.
Everyone seem to forget how Nadal took the top spot in tennis after Fed got mono
Be more objective, people
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Heck, man. I'm simply comparing Nadal at his best vs Fed at his best. So far recently (not talking about when Nadal's game wasnt this polished yet), whenever the two play at their best, Nadal has come out on top. I know Nadal's injury would come sooner or later, but when his top form was unbeatable.
What I'd love to see is Nadal coming back to his Wimbledon 2008 form, and Fed beating him at all four GS finals XDXD
raikahoken 2 years ago
Lol... Nadal was not polished untill the Wimbledon 2008 final? It's weird how miracelously everyone got better (including Nadal) in 2008! Nadal played very similar tennis as in 2006-2007 it's just that Federer was way out of his shape, Nadal has never beaten a prime Federer out of the Fench Open and of course Fed's never beaten Nadal at the French.
And for fuck sake stop talking about Nadal's injuries. Nobody seems to goddamn remember Fed's mono and how it affected his whole 2008 season.
89Pleasek 2 years ago 2
The only time both of them played on a similar level (well but not brilliantly) was the Wimbledon 2007 final. In 2008 Federer committed way too many unforced errors and in the 2009 Ozzie final his serve was miserable.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
@89Pleasek and AllGenreMusic, just because I state the painful truth (I feel it too, btw), doesnt mean I'm a rafa freak as you make me out to be.
raikahoken 2 years ago
It's a myth about Nadal's improvements every year. He just gained more confidence in each season, gained more experience but his tennis purely was pretty much the same.
I agree that Nadal had his best period in 2008 till mid 2009. What you fail to acknowledge is that Federer had his worst period exactly in the same time. He suffered mono for most of 2008, then the back injury in late 2008 and early 2009 probably cost him the Australian Open final.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
@89Pleasek no its not a myth. He improved his serve, backhand and angles and thats why he defeated federer, got it? Poor roger with his "mono", funny how he was able to reach grandslam finals and reach the final of wimby without losing a set despite playing with "mono". What a joke
hhhhdmt 1 year ago
Lol, Stepanek, Fish, Karlovic, Simon, Roddick and Blake improved too in 2008? And after Federer found some form they all magically lost theirs? Wtf this is magic or what?
The truth lies in between. Nadal did improve in 2008, but he also won the Wimbledon final thanks to Federers dropped form.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Of course.
Anyway, if it was only Nadal who improved in 2008, Federer would go on to win the Australian Open that year (not losing in straight sets to Djokovic), at least 2-3 masters titles, the masters cup and surely wouldnt lose to players in the calibre of stepanek or karlovic. As I said, as much as Nadal improved, Federer lost his form.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
And if you want to measure both Federer's and Nadal's greatness why can't you do it in the same standards? It's like Federer "has to" (achieve something) and Nadal only "can, but doesn't have to". That's unfair.
And how do you know when Nadal is at his best? By watching him play? By looking at the statistics? By seeing what he has achieved recently? That's also hard to measure. Even Federer was going a bit off the radar in 2007 - in that year he wasn't playing as brilliantly as in 2006 f.e.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
"Roger could not beat Nadal in top form, from 2008 FO to 2009 AO, in all their three meetings. Nadal was UNSTOPPABLE at his peak. "
Well Roger could not beat Nadal in that meetings cause he was playing poorly himself. I could say exactly the same thing that Nadal could not beat Federer at his best on grass (examples 2006-2007) but only on clay.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
And still it took peak Nadal 5 sets in both the WImbledon and Australian Open finals to defeat an average Federer.
89Pleasek 2 years ago 3
@89Pleasek yes when federer reached the final of wimby 08 without losing a set he was playing average. When he destroyed Del Potro and Roddick in aussie open 09, he was playing really average too. Typical federer fanboy.
hhhhdmt 1 year ago
Stepanek, Roddick, Fish, Blake, Simon, Karlovic improved too in 2008? And after Federer found some form later on they suddenly lost theirs? Wtf is this magic?
The truth lies in between. Nadal did improve in 2008 but he won the Wimbledon final also thanks to Federer and his high number of unforced errors out of nowhere.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek yes its all about federer, he cant be beaten ever and if he does its because he didnt play well. Face the fact,s Nadal defeated federer fare and square but federer fanboys such as urself will never admit it.
hhhhdmt 1 year ago
'when federer reached the final of wimby 08 without losing a set he was playing average'
so you describe federer's run to the wimbledon final (and his actual form) based on players like a 28-year old safin, rusty hewitt (the only seeded player up to the final) and hrbaty. Youre a genius.
Its not like suddenly everyone got better in 2008 is it? How do you explain the fact that federer won no masters titles in 2008 and only 4 tournaments (1 slam and 3 small ones)
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek seeding is not a legitimate argument. Tsonga reached the final of aussie open 08 as an unseeded player, but beat #2 Nadal and #9 seed Murray. Federer beat Soderling to win the fo, soder was not highly ranked but he beat #1 ranked Nadal on the way. Safin beat #3 seed Djokovic at wimby, proving he was not washed up. Seedings dont necessarily determine how well a player is going to play in a grandslam.
hhhhdmt 1 year ago
I do admit Nadal beat Federer fair and square in the Australian Open final. Federer could've served better that day but I'm not so sure he'd win it with a great serve. The problem for Nadal is that he can't keep it up for long. The Australian Open back in 09 was the last tournament we saw a classic Nadal, he hasn't produced too many goods ever since. Thats why he will never match Federer. Federer even tho he's 29 can still keep it up, Nadal at 24 is pretty much done and dusted.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Nadal has been plagued by injuries and bad knees which does not go well with his style of play. Nadal wore Federer out. Federer may be the best ever, but Nadal deserved the win and in 2008 up until the beginning of 09 played as well as any player in history for a 1 year period. At his best Nadal proved that he can beat Federer on any surface. In fact if you look at their overall record they are about equal. Nadal is not washed up. I do think Federer is slightly better though.
jknj1975 1 year ago
I'm not so sure Federer played his best in both the 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Australian Open finals, still, Nadal deserves respect.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek Nadal may have gotten inside Federer's head a bit and threw his game off. He may have not been at his absolute best. I personally think they are both great, but people should keep in mind that while grand slam titles are the most important measure of a player's success, they are not the only measure. There is the Davis Cup, Olympics, Master's series and the overall winning %. I maintain that when you look at everything, it is a very close comparison.
jknj1975 1 year ago
I dont agree that DC is one of the most important measures of one's greatness. What can Fed do that he's the only decent player in his team? Look at Spain, Nadal, Verdasco, Ferrer, Ferrero, Lopez - all top players on clay. The Olympics -not sure, still its only played once every 4 years, Federer was unlucky that the Olympics were in 2008 - hist worst year after 2004 onwards. Id say Federers 4 Masters Cups are more important than Nadals 18 masters series shields.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek @89Pleasek I was not so much thinking about the Davis Cup title as much the individual Davis Cup matches played. I only mention it since it is outside of the ATP world, and it should be factored in to an evaluation of each player. I agree that the Olympics don't occur often enough to place a lot of weight on them.
jknj1975 1 year ago
@89Pleasek As far as weighing the importance of Masters Cups compared to individual Masters tournaments. That can be debated. My only point was that the# of Slam titles tells a big part of the story but not the whole story.
jknj1975 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I never said DC was one of the most important measures, only that it is one of many to consider. Federer's Masters Cups are impressive, but so is the fact that Nadal has more titles than Federer at a younger age. Don't get me wrong though. If someone asks who I'd say is the better player overall, I'd say Federer. I think he's the best of his time, and better than Sampras. As far as their head to head record. most of those were on clay, which accounts for the disparity.
jknj1975 1 year ago
DC should not be considered when measuring one's greatness. As I said, what can Fed do he's the only decent player in his team? And compare this to Nadal's team. Even if Rafa didnt play a single match Spain would still be the favorite.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Nadal is 24. Federer at the same age had 6 slams, 2 Masters Cups, 8 Masters titles, twice year-end-no-1. The fact that Nadal started winning yearlier doesnt mean hes gonna maintain that into his mid 20's. Both Nadal and Federer are past their respective primes, still the best duo out there, tho.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I think were clearly wrong about Nadal being past his prime, since he's won 2 slams and completed the career slam since you mentioned that. But you might be right about Federer being past his prime. Over the past 2 1/2 years whenever Nadal has been healthy he has been the better player. If Federer wants to go down in history as the greatest ever, he's got to get the upper hand against Nadal. I'm not sure who is better. Too bad they are not the exact same age.
jknj1975 1 year ago
I still think that Nadal is a kind of player that peaks early and fades early like Borg, Wilander or McEnroe. Maybe I'm a bit biased but I can't imagine him winning even on clay at 27,28.
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek At one point I thought that also, but it seems like he's learning to pace himself better and avoid constant injuries. I think with Borg, it was more of a mental decision to leave the game rather than a physical one. I would not write Federer off yet. I think he still may have a few slams left in him.
jknj1975 1 year ago
With all the alterations that Nadal has made in his game, his style is still mostly physical and he relies on his body too much. I won't believe that he can win Slams in his late 20's untill I see it. I think we just witnessed Nadal's best year (2010) so do think he can keep it up for long
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@89Pleasek I think it's not so much how he plays, but if he decides to rest in between important tournaments, and about taking time off when his body needs it. He may very well be done by his late 20s, as you said. A lot of the greats were. Borg was long retired and Sampras' prime was certainly over before 30.
jknj1975 1 year ago
Pretty much everyone is going downhill when they hit 25. Actually the only player I can think of who had a lot of success later in his career was Agassi but that's 1 exception. Even look at Federer, by the way he was playing in his prime, playing economical tennis, sparing energy you'd think that he would go on forever. Already at 26 he started to decline but he was good enough to rack up some majors. Only the fact that he's Roger Federer allows him to play that well at almost 30.
89Pleasek 1 year ago 3
@jknj1975 Correct. Unless he plays Davis Cup, he doesn't play a tournament for a month after a Grand Slam. That's how you can stay mentally fresh. I see Nadal retiring before Federer.
GuntherL1 9 months ago
@GuntherL1 Me too. Well, maybe not before, but at about the same time.
isselman2000 5 months ago
@raikahoken You absolutely know nothing about tennis. He was down 2 sets to 1 against Del Potro. Del Potro has a fantastic clay court game because like what Soderling was able to do against Nadal, Del Potro was able to destroy high balls as well. What did you expect, Roger to win straight sets rest of the way when he has history + whole tennis world on his shoulders saying this is his year to win? This is why Roger is winning and your here typing. You play against the ATP, NOT against Nadal.
AllGenreMusic 2 years ago
you people really need to understand what I'm writing and not make up meanings from it. First of all, I AM ROGER'S FAN!!! HE'S MY FAVORITE PLAYER!!! From my very first post it's clear, if you people read it carefully. I'm only trying to point out the true and obvious: Roger could not beat Nadal in top form, from 2008 FO to 2009 AO, in all their three meetings. Nadal was UNSTOPPABLE at his peak.
raikahoken 2 years ago
Your arguement would make sense that Nadal was unstoppable in 2008 IF Federer had won the Australian Open title that year, Indian Wells/Miami, Canada or Cincinnati and the Masters Cup. He only won the US Open title that year, not even one masters title.
Federer was just playing poorly in 2008, that's why MAGICALLY Nadal and everyone around started to play better. It only SEEMED they played better cause Federer played well below his standards.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
We all know that his form aint gonna stay for long (again, my first post indicate this knowledge if you read it properly), but the truth remains: he was unquestionably number one when he's at his best. That, to me, is the only blemish in his career: that he could never beat Nadal when he's in this form. So I want Nadal to finally return to that form and Federer to beat him fair and square. Is there something wrong with that?
raikahoken 2 years ago
I never said you were a Nadal freak. But it's even more surprising to hear that you're a Federer fan and still question his greatness.
Ok, then, listen.
Federer's peak years were 2004-2007. A the end of 2007 he was 2-2 against Nadal in Slam finals, never lost to him outside of clay.
Their head-to-head was 8-6 in Nadal's favor at the end of 2007 (6-1 on clay 0-2 on grass and 2-3 on hard courts). Did anyone question Federer's achievements at the end of 2007?
89Pleasek 2 years ago
Yea and Delpo beat Nadal at the US Open.
warmdust96 2 years ago
that's true - but really, it's Nadal's problem that he can't stay fit, or was able to play at high standards just for 4 seasons. He was a bit too overambitious and now he's paying the ultimate price. You gotta feel it for Nadal a bit, cause his injuries issues are not fun, but don't tell me that was undpredictable. Lots of tennis experts said, even back in 2005, that Nadal won't lost long in tennis with that kind of style.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
and one more thing - imagine Federer having a double-handed backhand (lets say as good as Nalbandian's, Safin's or Agassi's) and neutralized Nadal's top spin, of course having all the other shots at his normal level, like his forehand or serve.
Would it make a difference against Nadal at the French Open back in 2005-2008? I think it would hugely increase Federer's chances.
Nadal is just the most uncomfortable player for Federer, not only on clay, but on any surface cause of that top spin.
89Pleasek 2 years ago
I think everyone's missing the point: Here are two GREAT tennis players, who complement each other's games. I think we're all very fortunate to have them in the game.
4pirsquared 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Borg is a biased idiot who missed his dumb predictions last year.
primussmilodon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i hate this man
UMARWY 3 years ago
Those stupid English fuckers made grass look like clay this year. Had this not happened, Nadal would've lost before the final.
lisek1989lisek1989 3 years ago 11
Funny, since Nadal had been in the finals the previous 2 years.
sanddune 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
too bad, king rafa won, so get used to it! drama queen federer does not deserve to break sampras' record!
stealthpakfa 3 years ago
He did break Pete's record, and keep counting my freind hell keep winning
malpo71 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i will go to switzerland and kill federer before he wins a slam. i will kill that evil!
stealthpakfa 2 years ago
that "stupid" rain delay gave federer a chance to get this awesome game into 5 sets!! plus rafa he played very very good we got to admit that.... but federer can win vs rafa 3-0 in a game of sets that for sure... but federer make better points than rafa did =)
Gonzaletz 3 years ago 5
I know this is extreme wishful thinking, but it would be amazing if Roger wins the French open next year and it also happens to break Pete Sampras's 14 grandslam record. Ofcourse that means he has to win teh U.S. and Australian.
icedevil0289 3 years ago 6
It was amazing in the end wasn't it, shame he didn't break the record but bring on Wimbledon!
hassan230786 2 years ago
It was amazing. What a beautiful victory despite all the odds stacked against him. Shows what a all round player he really is. 5 consecutive grand slams on two of the fastest surfaces on tour, and now on the slowest as well. What a record!!! Go Roger!!!
jumba146 2 years ago 3
Bjorn Borg has won against Guy Drut (the olimpic champion of 110hs) in a 1.000 mt. race. The event was at Superstar Competition (in which there were different specialities like decathlon) and he won the title agaist all the famous athlets in the world.
skyjuke2006 3 years ago
Rafa was regular and Rofer was not. I want to see Roger coming back after a hard training. He'll win all the gram slams in a year. He's capable of it, Nadal isn't yet
LUIShtRUIZht 3 years ago 2
SIMPLE.. Federer lost because his backhand (one handed) can't do high balls.. Nadal's 2 handed backhand shots have a much larger striking zone.
EricTheRed03 3 years ago
I think Nadal's bh is underrated. He can pass time and again from his bh side.
muskinilukun 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Roger Federer only lost because of a stupid Rain Delay.
Legendx713 3 years ago
what are you talking about? that "stupid" rain delay allowed federer to regroup his thoughts and take it to an amazing 5 setter!! if the rain delay hadn't come he might've lost in 3 sets seeing the way rafa was playing. besides roger isn't done yet. he'll come back next year and win for sure. plus give rafa credit. he played phenomenal.!
tanteikudou 3 years ago 15
OK. Totally agree with you. Thanks to the rain. It allowed us to admire the best tennis match of the last times.Until the next battle.(Excuse my english)
Vamos Rafa and Go Roger ¡¡¡
camonbeiby 3 years ago
OK. Totally agree with you. Thanks to the rain. It allowed us to admire the best tennis match of the last times.Until the next battle.(Excuse my english)
Vamos Rafa and Go Roger ¡¡¡
camonbeiby 3 years ago
yes yes, the stupid rain delay tenia nombre: rafa nadal¡¡¡, the number one ya. Yo creo que a ti te contaron el partido y que no lo visto. Sólo así se explica que no seas capaz de admitir que cuando mejor jugó Federer fue precisamente al principio de reanudarse el partido despues de las dos suspensiones. Si no es por la stupid Rain Delay, Rafa gana a Roger en 3 sets. Sure.
camonbeiby 3 years ago
I'm a Roger fan, but I don't like Borg, beacause he doesn't really like Roger, he just won't that Rafa broke his record, and now in Wimbledon is the same story, he says that Rafa will win.
I hate him a lot. He isn't a sportsman, he has to learn something to Pete Sampras!
gelosina 3 years ago
Roger Federer is a classy player and the best. Keep on winning and your the best.
scoobydovido 3 years ago 4
i agree with borg
if fed is gonna win rolland garros
hes gonna have to win it in the next 2 or 3 years hes turnin 27 this year
thethreeAFZss 3 years ago
Bjorn Borg con tus comentarios sobre Roger Federer lo único que haces es empañar tu exitosa carrera. Te equivocas a la hora de criticar... das mas que da una opinion, te metes en terrenos que no sabes manejar. Eres un excelente ex-tenista muy bueno NO un opinologo!!! En lo personal el gran Roger Federer hara mas historia que tu y lo sabes, por eso te tiemblan las piernas...
tingouru123 3 years ago 2
BJORN BORG <3<3<33
osskkaarr 3 years ago
no better than roger
federer the best ever !!!
joesulub 3 years ago 6
what a great champion!
zebster18 4 years ago 11