Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Federer vs. Nadal - The Saga Continues

  1. #1
    tralalala's Avatar The Almighty
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,396
    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.
    Last edited by tralalala; 07-06-2008 at 09:02 PM.

  2. Lounge   -   #2
    chalice's Avatar ____________________
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    13,074
    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.

  3. Lounge   -   #3
    JPaul's Avatar Fat Secret Agent
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    19,934
    @ 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.

  4. Lounge   -   #4
    tralalala's Avatar The Almighty
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,396
    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

    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.

  5. Lounge   -   #5
    JPaul's Avatar Fat Secret Agent
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    19,934
    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.

  6. Lounge   -   #6
    Alien5's Avatar μετά BT Rep: +6BT Rep +6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Posts
    13,107
    Quote Originally Posted by tralalala View Post
    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.

  7. Lounge   -   #7
    JPaul's Avatar Fat Secret Agent
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    19,934
    Better

  8. Lounge   -   #8
    tralalala's Avatar The Almighty
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,396
    Quote Originally Posted by JPaul View Post
    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.....

    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.

  9. Lounge   -   #9
    Barbarossa's Avatar mostly harmless
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Over here!
    Posts
    19,631
    The way Nadal is playing at the moment he'll eclipse both of them.

  10. Lounge   -   #10
    IdolEyes787's Avatar Persona non grata
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    State of Grace
    Posts
    29,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbarossa View Post
    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).

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •