Federer vs. Nadal - The Saga Continues

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

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.

Better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

The way Nadal is playing at the moment he'll eclipse both of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

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).