PDA

View Full Version : Federer vs. Nadal - The Saga Continues



tralalala
07-06-2008, 08:49 PM
Well, Federer came back from 2 sets down to lose 9-7 in the fifth. Saving multiple match (and championship) points on the way. Congratulating Nadal on his victory, and leaving a record 5 Wimbledon titles in a row.

If that's not what makes a champion, I don't what what does.


And yes, I stand my ground about Nadal - He's a cuntwad prick.. He'll never be half the man Federer is - Gracious, polite, doesn't over-act, one handed backhand, quiet. Utter brilliancy. Federer is the best player that ever lived, period.

chalice
07-06-2008, 08:59 PM
Fuck sake, get over it.

It was a fantastic match and Nadal was on fire all year. He deserved it. Fact.

Dry your eyes.

Nobody'll ever beat Borg for consecutive wins.

JPaul
07-06-2008, 09:01 PM
@ tralalalalala

That's debatable.

Sampras won Wimbledon 7 times and the US Open 5, 14 Grand Slam titles. World No 1 for 6 consecutive years.

Federer may be the best player who ever lived, he hasn't proven it yet. I do think that he will tho'.

It's similar to the Tiger Woods situation in my opinion.

tralalala
07-06-2008, 09:07 PM
The hell.. Sampras was as good as shite on clay. Federer is orsum on all 4 courts (hard, grass, clay and carpet). Heck, Sampras even lost to the Israeli number 1 on clay :blink:

That's what differs Federer from Sampras - Federer rules all types of surfaces. Sampras didn't - Never got further than the 4th round at Roland Garros. For fuck sake, Federer has reached 17 (yes, that's not a type, seventeen) CONSECUTIVE grand slam semi-finals. Second place on the list reached 6 consecutive semi finals. If that doesn't define greatness, I don't know what does.

On top of all that, if you put Nadal's and Federer's physical attributes under analysis, you'll see Nadal has every possible advantage on Federer, and yet he's still only ever beaten him twice on a non-clay court (including today). Federer has beaten Nadal on clay once. So, they are quite equal as such, but the fact Nadal has to use his strength to get that tiny edge, is what actually makes Federer be seen as the better tennis player, because he can stand up to that strength and equal it with technique and tactics.

JPaul
07-06-2008, 09:17 PM
Biggest tournament in the World - Wimbledon. Second biggest US Open. That's the ones that Sampras won most.

Consecutive number one positions shows consistency, both in range and frequency. Number of semi-finals is a record of how many times you lost as well as the number of times you won.

I didn't say Federer wasn't great. He is. Neither did I say that he wasn't the best player ever, I think he probably is. He just hasn't proven it yet. He may never, who knows he may never win another tournament. You can't be the best based on what you may achieve. That makes you potentially the best.

Alien5
07-06-2008, 09:29 PM
Well, Federer came back from 2 sets down to lose 9-7 in the fifth. Saving multiple match (and championship) points on the way. Congratulating Nadal on his victory, and leaving a record 5 Wimbledon titles in a row.

If that's not what makes a champion, I don't what what does.


And yes, I stand my ground about Nadal - He's a cuntwad prick.. He'll never be half the man Federer is - Gracious, polite, doesn't over-act, one handed backhand, quiet. Utter brilliancy. Federer is the best player that ever lived, period. the best man won, get over it.

JPaul
07-06-2008, 11:00 PM
Better

tralalala
07-07-2008, 07:05 AM
Biggest tournament in the World - Wimbledon. Second biggest US Open. That's the ones that Sampras won most.

Consecutive number one positions shows consistency, both in range and frequency. Number of semi-finals is a record of how many times you lost as well as the number of times you won.

I didn't say Federer wasn't great. He is. Neither did I say that he wasn't the best player ever, I think he probably is. He just hasn't proven it yet. He may never, who knows he may never win another tournament. You can't be the best based on what you may achieve. That makes you potentially the best.

You sound like the English press during Larsson's days at Celtic..... :lol:

The fact Federer can be at his best on all 4 surfaces, shows he is able to adjust his game frequently. Sampras couldn't do that. In addition to this, Federer has won 12 Grand Slams in 5 years. Sampras did his deed in 12.

So yes, maybe Federer hasn't "shown it yet", but in my opinion, 5 Wimbledon's in a row, and another 7 Aus/US Opens in your resume, is good enough for me.

Barbarossa
07-07-2008, 09:36 AM
The way Nadal is playing at the moment he'll eclipse both of them.

IdolEyes787
07-07-2008, 11:06 AM
The way Nadal is playing at the moment he'll eclipse both of them.

It's easier to get to the top than to stay there.More distractions,less motivation. Agreed Nadal is number 1 in the world at the moment,let's see where he is two years from now.
After all what separates a true champion from merely a great player is the ability to win consistently over a long period.

Pete Sampras was terrific at what he did,serve and volley,but he was very one dimensional and lacked creativity.Don't care how many titles he won on favourable surfaces Borg and McEnroe were both better players(and a hell of a lot more fun to watch).

Barbarossa
07-07-2008, 11:20 AM
Well he's the first man to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same season since Borg in 1980.

He's pretty entertaining to watch isn't he? Some of his shots are phenomenal.

wazza100
07-07-2008, 11:23 AM
game was freaking awesome

maverick_andy
07-07-2008, 11:25 AM
well, federer came back from 2 sets down to lose 9-7 in the fifth. Saving multiple match (and championship) points on the way. Congratulating nadal on his victory, and leaving a record 5 wimbledon titles in a row.

If that's not what makes a champion, i don't what what does.


And yes, i stand my ground about nadal - he's a cuntwad prick.. He'll never be half the man federer is - gracious, polite, doesn't over-act, one handed backhand, quiet. Utter brilliancy. Federer is the best player that ever lived, period. the best man won, get over it.

+1

IdolEyes787
07-07-2008, 11:27 AM
Well he's the first man to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same season since Borg in 1980.

He's pretty entertaining to watch isn't he? Some of his shots are phenomenal.

No question Nadal is very entertaining to watch.His athleticism is unmatched.

Like JP said it's the better man.Best man stands beside the groom.

Barbarossa
07-07-2008, 11:32 AM
You fancy him :ghey:

IdolEyes787
07-07-2008, 11:39 AM
Mulder's already taken.

tralalala
07-07-2008, 12:51 PM
Wish he'd stop pulling that eternal wedgie out of his arse.. :dabs:

@Idol - Federer has already proven consistency.. 17 consecutive Grand Slam semi finals is a fkload of consistency in my opinion... 5 Wimbledons in a row.. 3 Roland Garros finals in a row.. Do I need to point out any more?

IdolEyes787
07-07-2008, 03:31 PM
I was taking about Nadal.Federer is the greatest player of this generation hands down.
Great match though too bad about the result.

I'm watching the TdF now. Cycling rules.:thumbsup:

tralalala
07-07-2008, 09:12 PM
They're all nobody's though.. Where are the Lance Armstrong and Jan Ullrich days... :P

JPaul
07-07-2008, 09:21 PM
Sorry chaps, I go with the facts and the stats. To discuss greatness you discuss majors and overall rankings. Those show the ability to beat the best and the ability to be consistent.

Were not discussing who was the most entertaining, or the most exciting. It's who was the greatest and Sampras can prove it. I say again I think Federer is a better player, but he hasn't proven it yet.

Bearing in mind that I think Stephen Hendry was a far better snookerist than Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Septimus
07-07-2008, 10:59 PM
I think Federer's reign has come to a end. We've seen a great match between the next Nš 1 (Nadal) and the next Nš 2 (Federer)

tralalala
07-08-2008, 05:47 AM
@JP - Whaddabout Steve Davis..?

@Septimus - He ain't number 2 yet.. For some odd reason I think he'll jump right back up during the US Open :)

OTO
07-08-2008, 07:51 AM
It was a great final.
Bravo Nadal.

deadalive1
07-08-2008, 07:53 AM
The Federer/Nadal match was epic, what a battle. I agree with Nadal taking over the #1 spot. His game keeps getting better and better plus the age factor is coming into consideration for Federer (Federer is 27, Nadal is 22).

tralalala
07-08-2008, 08:47 AM
Sampras won his last Grand Slam at well over 30.. :blink:

IdolEyes787
07-08-2008, 10:58 AM
Sampras's game was much simpler so maybe it was easier to maintain?
But no way is Federer physically over the hill .At 27 he should just be hitting his prime.

You said yourself tralalala , both Nadal and Federer has turned a corner mentally.Nadal knows that he can win now and doubt has crept into Federer's game-it's a lot harder when you think you always have to make perfect shots to win.
People never give the mental aspect of sports enough credit.At the highest level, where everyone is so close physically, it's at least 90%

tralalala
07-08-2008, 11:21 AM
Sure it was easier to maintain cos he only had to maintain it on 2 surfaces, whereas Federer has to do so on all 3 (well, 4 if you include carpet), and also face another player who is starting to excel on all surfaces too. That's why Federer is an awesome player, since mentally he is able to stand up - Everyone thought he'd be down and out in 3 sets after the Roland Garros final, yet he came back from 2 to love down, and took it to the edge.. That's true greatness.

IdolEyes787
07-08-2008, 11:38 AM
Why Sampras is greathttp://bridgettewilsonsampras.celebscentral.net/photo/22656/http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bridgettewilsonsampras1ah4.jpghttp://img55.imageshack.us/img55/8147/bridgettewilsonsampras1ah4.jpg

tralalala
07-08-2008, 02:40 PM
:huh:

IdolEyes787
07-08-2008, 02:43 PM
Bridgette Wilson-Sampras his wife:fist:

wazza100
07-08-2008, 10:09 PM
Bridgette Wilson-Sampras his wife:fist:

I still remember the bus trip part of the movie pure gold "do you double dare me"