Nadal Fererer is under way....

[snoop]

Nadal is finishing off Federer.

 

[crunch99]

to me getting Nadal at -220 was damn cheap for this kind of match.....ck

No kidding. I saw -200 at Bodog and almost fell out of my chair. I thought it'd be -300 considering it was -215 at Pinny. And Bodog never has favorites priced so low.</p>

NADAL$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CarolinaKid]

Congrats to the Nadal backers and another win in the French!!!!

 

[crunch99]

Nadal's Snarl >>>>>>>>>>>>>> People's Eyebrow

 

[Wrigley]

If he wants to be like his friend Tiger woods he needs to win the French

<TABLE class="infobox vcard" style="FONT-SIZE: 90%; WIDTH: 23em"><TBODY><TR><TD>Career record:</TD><TD colSpan=2>507-129</TD></TR><TR><TD>Career titles:</TD><TD colSpan=2>48</TD></TR><TR><TD>Highest ranking:</TD><TD colSpan=2>No. 1 (February 2, 2004)</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BACKGROUND: #ffffff" align=middle colSpan=3>Grand Slam Titles</TD></TR><TR><TD>Australian Open</TD><TD colSpan=2>(2004, 2006, 2007)</TD></TR><TR><TD>French Open</TD><TD colSpan=2>none</TD></TR><TR><TD>Wimbledon</TD><TD colSpan=2>(2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)</TD></TR><TR><TD>U.S. Open</TD><TD colSpan=2>(2004, 2005, 2006)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Media needs to quit asking who dominates their sport more Woods or Fed

 

[slapshot]

Nadal :toast: :toast: :toast:

 

[valdosta]

Media needs to quit asking who dominates their sport more Woods or Fed

Why is that? There's no shame in losing to Nadal on clay. The guy is the best ever on that surface IMO. Federer has been to something like 10 Grand Slam finals in a row. That's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Wrigley]

Why is that? There's no shame in losing to Nadal on clay. The guy is the best ever on that surface IMO. Federer has been to something like 10 Grand Slam finals in a row. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Fed needs to win them all, Tiger has won battling the long distance and fast greens at the masters, has beat the US open Rough and won overseas battling the windy conditions of links golf.

Fed needs to win on the clay to be mention in the same sentence as Tiger not just grass and hardcourt.

No NONE on Tigers grand slam card not even a one, two or more in all of Tigers slam events.
<TABLE style="CLEAR: right; BORDER-RIGHT: #aaaaaa 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #aaaaaa 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 87%; BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; MARGIN: 0.5em 0px 1em 1em; BORDER-LEFT: #aaaaaa 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #aaaaaa 1px solid; POSITION: relative; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width=290 align=right border=1><TBODY><TR><TH bgColor=#ace1af colSpan=2>Tiger Woods Major Championship results
Wins: 12</TH></TR><TR><TD>Masters</TD><TD>Won 1997, 2001, 2002, 2005</TD></TR><TR><TD>U.S. Open</TD><TD>Won 2000, 2002</TD></TR><TR><TD>British Open</TD><TD>Won 2000, 2005, 2006</TD></TR><TR><TD>PGA Championship</TD><TD>Won 1999, 2000, 2006</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Hope1]

Media needs to quit asking who dominates their sport more Woods or Fed

'dominates'? poor chose of words.

Which player has a higher tournament winning percentage? NOT CLOSE

because Fed hasn't won the French, he doesn't belong in the 'same sentance' as Woods? :monsters-

 

[valdosta]

Different sports I think it's silly to compare them. The truth is Federer is very dominate. The fact that he can't win the French against the best ever on clay don't mean that much to me. I don't really like Federer but being in 10 Grand Slam finals in a row is ridiculous and will likely never happen again.

 

[HinesWard86]

Media needs to quit asking who dominates their sport more Woods or Fed

We can revisit this question when the Ryder Cup rolls around and Woods lays his 6th consecutive egg (by his standards). Don't think he's ever had a winning record during a Ryder Cup event.