good grief, again the record is slanted as they have played much ON CLAY--geesus, can't you get that thru your head?? Nadal is the best ever on clay, case closed. fed has actually beaten him on that surface--Sampras , I'd argue, wouldnt take a set off Nadal at Roland Garros. Sampras wouldn't hold a candle to Fed on clay
you are clueless
You can quote the clay stuff all you want, but Federer doesn't even have a winning record against Nadal on hard-courts, and on grass he only holds a 2-1 advantage.
And you can spout stupid slurs like I'm clueless all you want, but you're the one who said the following:
Fact is, as I said twice earlier, he's played the Aussie 6 times, made the qtrs 4 times, and won it once.
you're slipping sport.....now you want to compare Fed Vs Nadal?
okay, shall we....
Grand Slams-- Federer
total tournaments won-- Federer
weeks at #1--- Federer
um, shall we move on?
btw-- when I said Nadal has issues outside of clay, its because he DOES. He doesnt dominate on any surface other than clay. That is a fact. You may be very impressed with his record at the Aussie Open, i AM NOT. It's rebound ace (the surface), ideal for his game, and just once has gotten past the qtr's, PUKE!!!!
I've already stated in very clear English that Federer's body of work as a total is better than Nadal's. So your continued harping on it is quite boring. Like I said before, I've made two solid points why
it's premature to crown Federer the best ever. You can choose to disagree if you like. But I'm done with you, as you bring absolutely nothing new to the table.
In case you still can't read English, I clarified very clearly what I meant by that statement. If you still are having problems with 2nd grade reading comprehension, then
please reread my comments until it gets through your thick skull.
Oh, and actually for your convenience I clarified it in the next sentence in the thread, so you won't have to read very far to try and figure it out.
Wow
<object width="448" height="374"><param name="movie" value="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/e/16711680/wshhl3ADPz1yk1Dqk119"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/e/16711680/wshhl3ADPz1yk1Dqk119" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" width="448" height="374"></embed></object>
<object width="448" height="374"><param name="movie" value="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/e/16711680/wshhl3ADPz1yk1Dqk119"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/e/16711680/wshhl3ADPz1yk1Dqk119" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" width="448" height="374"></embed></object>
For those critical of the points I make in this thread, this NY Times article
from 3 days ago makes those exact points.
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Nadal May Not Be the Best, but He Beats the Best Ever</nyt_headline>
<nyt_byline> By JOHN BRANCH
</nyt_byline> Published: June 18, 2010
Roger Federer may be the best men’s tennis player in history. Or he may not be as good as his contemporary rival Rafael Nadal.
Wimbledon, which begins Monday, will serve largely as fodder for that confounding debate.
By winning the recent French Open, his fifth title in six years at Roland Garros, the 24-year-old Nadal wrestled the No. 1 ranking back from Federer. Now Federer, who turns 29 in August, is stuck one week short of Pete Sampras’s career mark of 286 weeks at the top, and will find it difficult to get back to No. 1 anytime soon.
That is partly because of the way the rankings are calculated, and largely because Nadal stands in his way.
Nadal has beaten Federer 14 of the 21 times they have met, including six of the last seven matches. Nadal won the last three matchups in Grand Slam finals, on three surfaces — at the 2009 Australian Open (hardcourt), 2008 Wimbledon (grass) and the 2008 French Open (clay).
And while even Nadal points out that most of his head-to-head victories over Federer came on clay (where Nadal holds a 10-2 advantage), Nadal is 4-5 against his rival off it — a mark that can be evened should Nadal beat Federer in the Wimbledon final, as he did two years ago.
Can Federer be declared the best ever if Nadal keeps beating him?
“If somebody says I am better than Roger, I think this person don’t know nothing about tennis,” Nadal said during the French Open, before Federer lost in the quarterfinals to Robin Soderling and before Nadal beat Soderling in the final.
The questioner wanted elaboration.
“So you don’t know nothing about tennis,” Nadal continued. “You see the titles of him and you see the titles of me? It’s no comparison. So that’s the answer. It’s difficult to compare Roger with me now, because he has 16 Grand Slams. I have six.”
It is seven now. And despite Wimbledon’s decision to grant Federer its top seed and make Nadal No. 2, the two will face each other in the final, if form holds.
Theirs is a rivalry in need of refreshment. Federer and Nadal have not played against each other in any of the last five Grand Slam events.
When Federer and Nadal met in the final at Madrid this spring (Nadal won, on clay, in two sets), it was their first meeting since Madrid a year earlier (when Federer won in two sets).
“I hope we can play again in the future,” Federer said at the start of the French Open, “because a year away from each other was maybe a bit long.”
Federer and Nadal have not met at a Grand Slam since the final of the Australian Open in 2009, which Nadal won. That came about seven months after their epic five-set final at Wimbledon in 2008, Nadal’s first major victory on something other than clay.
“It’s always a big match regardless of where it is, how it is,” Federer said in Paris. “It’s one of the great rivalries in sports right now, and obviously, in our game, the biggest one. You try to live up to the expectations, try to win as many as you can. He’s got the better record against me, so every time I play him I try to improve on it.”
What makes the Federer vs. Nadal debate so compelling is that two seemingly contradictory arguments — that Federer is the best in history, and that Nadal is better than Federer — have merit.
No man can match the 16 Grand Slam singles victories of Federer, one of six men to have won each of the big four tournaments at least once. His more remarkable record could be the streak that ended in the quarterfinals at Roland Garros — 23 consecutive appearances in Grand Slam semifinals, dating to 2004. No other man has had more than 10.
Federer looked unfamiliarly overpowered in his French Open loss to Soderling. His loss last weekend to Lleyton Hewitt in the final at Halle, a Wimbledon warmup, was similarly stunning, despite Federer’s assertion that “the loss here does not worry me in any way.” It was Federer’s second loss on grass in his last 78 matches — the other coming to Nadal at Wimbledon two years ago.
But a statistic can always be found in support of either Federer or Nadal, which is why any argument about their relative merits is circular and fascinating.
For those who see Federer’s recent losses as signs of his imminent decline, it is worth remembering that before the French Open, Federer reached the final of his previous eight Grand Slams. He won four of them. Of course, Nadal fans might note that none of those victories came against Nadal, though three of the four finals losses did. (The fourth was to Juan Martín del Potro at last year’s United States Open.)
By contrast, Nadal beat Federer in all but the most recent of his Grand Slam victories — five times in the final, and once (the 2005 French Open) in a semifinal.
Even Nadal’s recent French Open victory had head-to-head repercussions. The men flipped places in the rankings, leaving Federer holding at 285 weeks atop the rankings during his career. Passing Sampras could prove difficult, partly because the Association of Tennis Professionals calculates them using a revolving 52-week calendar.
During the French Open, Federer had a large lead on Nadal, 10,030 points to 6,880. By tournament’s end, Nadal received the 2,000 points awarded to a Grand Slam winner. Federer received only 360 for reaching the quarterfinals.
As those points were added, the results from the 2009 French Open — Federer won, and Nadal lost in the fourth round — were subtracted. Nadal emerged from Paris with 8,700 points, and Federer was second in the world rankings with 8,390.
Catching Nadal will be tricky. Nadal did not play Wimbledon last year because of his sore knees and the breakup of his parents, so he did not accumulate any rankings points. Anything he does at Wimbledon this year will add to his total. Federer, on the other hand, won Wimbledon last year. Anything less than a seventh Wimbledon title, and his points will decrease.
Nadal first reached No. 1 in the summer of 2008, and he spent 46 weeks there until his unexpectedly early exit at last year’s French Open and his decision not to defend his Wimbledon title.
Last year, the revolving points system churned with the calendar. Nadal moved aside for Federer. Now the same thing is happening, but in reverse. Nadal is building points; Federer will struggle not to lose any. And, in a way, perhaps for the first time, it feels that way in their careers, too. Nadal is rising, again; Federer is holding on.
If nothing else, Wimbledon could be where the rivalry renews itself on the court — and anywhere else tennis is debated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/sports/tennis/20nadal.html
from 3 days ago makes those exact points.
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Nadal May Not Be the Best, but He Beats the Best Ever</nyt_headline>
<nyt_byline> By JOHN BRANCH
</nyt_byline> Published: June 18, 2010
Roger Federer may be the best men’s tennis player in history. Or he may not be as good as his contemporary rival Rafael Nadal.
Wimbledon, which begins Monday, will serve largely as fodder for that confounding debate.
By winning the recent French Open, his fifth title in six years at Roland Garros, the 24-year-old Nadal wrestled the No. 1 ranking back from Federer. Now Federer, who turns 29 in August, is stuck one week short of Pete Sampras’s career mark of 286 weeks at the top, and will find it difficult to get back to No. 1 anytime soon.
That is partly because of the way the rankings are calculated, and largely because Nadal stands in his way.
Nadal has beaten Federer 14 of the 21 times they have met, including six of the last seven matches. Nadal won the last three matchups in Grand Slam finals, on three surfaces — at the 2009 Australian Open (hardcourt), 2008 Wimbledon (grass) and the 2008 French Open (clay).
And while even Nadal points out that most of his head-to-head victories over Federer came on clay (where Nadal holds a 10-2 advantage), Nadal is 4-5 against his rival off it — a mark that can be evened should Nadal beat Federer in the Wimbledon final, as he did two years ago.
Can Federer be declared the best ever if Nadal keeps beating him?
“If somebody says I am better than Roger, I think this person don’t know nothing about tennis,” Nadal said during the French Open, before Federer lost in the quarterfinals to Robin Soderling and before Nadal beat Soderling in the final.
The questioner wanted elaboration.
“So you don’t know nothing about tennis,” Nadal continued. “You see the titles of him and you see the titles of me? It’s no comparison. So that’s the answer. It’s difficult to compare Roger with me now, because he has 16 Grand Slams. I have six.”
It is seven now. And despite Wimbledon’s decision to grant Federer its top seed and make Nadal No. 2, the two will face each other in the final, if form holds.
Theirs is a rivalry in need of refreshment. Federer and Nadal have not played against each other in any of the last five Grand Slam events.
When Federer and Nadal met in the final at Madrid this spring (Nadal won, on clay, in two sets), it was their first meeting since Madrid a year earlier (when Federer won in two sets).
“I hope we can play again in the future,” Federer said at the start of the French Open, “because a year away from each other was maybe a bit long.”
Federer and Nadal have not met at a Grand Slam since the final of the Australian Open in 2009, which Nadal won. That came about seven months after their epic five-set final at Wimbledon in 2008, Nadal’s first major victory on something other than clay.
“It’s always a big match regardless of where it is, how it is,” Federer said in Paris. “It’s one of the great rivalries in sports right now, and obviously, in our game, the biggest one. You try to live up to the expectations, try to win as many as you can. He’s got the better record against me, so every time I play him I try to improve on it.”
What makes the Federer vs. Nadal debate so compelling is that two seemingly contradictory arguments — that Federer is the best in history, and that Nadal is better than Federer — have merit.
No man can match the 16 Grand Slam singles victories of Federer, one of six men to have won each of the big four tournaments at least once. His more remarkable record could be the streak that ended in the quarterfinals at Roland Garros — 23 consecutive appearances in Grand Slam semifinals, dating to 2004. No other man has had more than 10.
Federer looked unfamiliarly overpowered in his French Open loss to Soderling. His loss last weekend to Lleyton Hewitt in the final at Halle, a Wimbledon warmup, was similarly stunning, despite Federer’s assertion that “the loss here does not worry me in any way.” It was Federer’s second loss on grass in his last 78 matches — the other coming to Nadal at Wimbledon two years ago.
But a statistic can always be found in support of either Federer or Nadal, which is why any argument about their relative merits is circular and fascinating.
For those who see Federer’s recent losses as signs of his imminent decline, it is worth remembering that before the French Open, Federer reached the final of his previous eight Grand Slams. He won four of them. Of course, Nadal fans might note that none of those victories came against Nadal, though three of the four finals losses did. (The fourth was to Juan Martín del Potro at last year’s United States Open.)
By contrast, Nadal beat Federer in all but the most recent of his Grand Slam victories — five times in the final, and once (the 2005 French Open) in a semifinal.
Even Nadal’s recent French Open victory had head-to-head repercussions. The men flipped places in the rankings, leaving Federer holding at 285 weeks atop the rankings during his career. Passing Sampras could prove difficult, partly because the Association of Tennis Professionals calculates them using a revolving 52-week calendar.
During the French Open, Federer had a large lead on Nadal, 10,030 points to 6,880. By tournament’s end, Nadal received the 2,000 points awarded to a Grand Slam winner. Federer received only 360 for reaching the quarterfinals.
As those points were added, the results from the 2009 French Open — Federer won, and Nadal lost in the fourth round — were subtracted. Nadal emerged from Paris with 8,700 points, and Federer was second in the world rankings with 8,390.
Catching Nadal will be tricky. Nadal did not play Wimbledon last year because of his sore knees and the breakup of his parents, so he did not accumulate any rankings points. Anything he does at Wimbledon this year will add to his total. Federer, on the other hand, won Wimbledon last year. Anything less than a seventh Wimbledon title, and his points will decrease.
Nadal first reached No. 1 in the summer of 2008, and he spent 46 weeks there until his unexpectedly early exit at last year’s French Open and his decision not to defend his Wimbledon title.
Last year, the revolving points system churned with the calendar. Nadal moved aside for Federer. Now the same thing is happening, but in reverse. Nadal is building points; Federer will struggle not to lose any. And, in a way, perhaps for the first time, it feels that way in their careers, too. Nadal is rising, again; Federer is holding on.
If nothing else, Wimbledon could be where the rivalry renews itself on the court — and anywhere else tennis is debated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/sports/tennis/20nadal.html
