Tennis Thread 2014

Aside from Grand Slam titles, Federer has won 6 year end championships and Nadal has won 0.

Nadal has won the Olympics and many Davis Cups with his country which Fed hasn't. Nadal's lack of indoor title, primarily at the WTF's is the only thing he's never won in tennis. Needs a more even spread of Slam titles, 9 out of 14 on clay is too much. Needs more hard court titles, doesn't matter about Wimbledon, he's won 2 there whereas Fed only won 1 French title. More hard court titles for Nadal would cancel that out.
 
Last edited:
Nadal is the better player, there's no doubt about that. The only question is if he can overtake Fed's record of 17. He probably has another French open in him but I am not sure if his knees will last for anything more than that.
 
Federer is better. Nadal's GS count is inflated due to the slow courts these days. Federer has the game for all generations.
 
This is the first time in any Slam since US Open 2009 that neither Nadal or Murray feature in the final. These top 4 guys have just been insanely consistent/dominant.

In other crazy stats news, Federer has basically never missed a Slam since getting properly on the tour as a youngster. By playing at this year's US Open he will have featured in 60 consecutive slams since 2000.
 
Apart from the generation where he became the all time record grandslam holder?

Apart from the one where Nadal beat peak Federer in Slam finals on every surface. And that Federer hasn't beaten Nadal in any Slam since 2007. Aye, bar that one.
 
It's written in plain English and pretty easy to understand.

Yeah, it's vague and hypothetical bollocks. You cannot be a player for all generations when you've been shown up by a player in your own. Who knows, Borg might have wiped the floor with him.
 
Apart from the one where Nadal beat peak Federer in Slam finals on every surface. And that Federer hasn't beaten Nadal in any Slam since 2007. Aye, bar that one.
That just means Nadal is better against Federer. The better player wins more, isn't reliant on really slow courts that much and doesn't play super defensive tennis all the time. IMO of course.
 
Yeah, it's vague and hypothetical bollocks. You cannot be a player for all generations when you've been shown up by a player in your own. Who knows, Borg might have wiped the floor with him.
17 Granslams and being hailed by most as the greatest ever isn't being shown up FFS. What a silly thing to say.
 
That just means Nadal is better against Federer. The better player wins more, isn't reliant on really slow courts that much and doesn't play super defensive tennis all the time. IMO of course.

Well Nadal is better against every player out there, better H2H against everyone he's ever played a decent number of times apart from Davydenko I think. Federer won most of his first lot in the Andy Roddick era, we have to take that into consideration. Nadal won basically all of his in the strongest era in history, that's worth more for me. God knows what "defensive tennis" means as well. It's about structuring a point and waiting for the moment to pounce, that's why Nadal, Djokovic and Murray has basically won everything for the past few years as they are the best at it. You can be a brainless ball basher like Gulbis or someone but it'll never win you a Slam, you need a lot more than that.
 
17 Granslams and being hailed by most as the greatest ever isn't being shown up FFS. What a silly thing to say.

Shown up by a player. A player who has a better h2h record on all surfaces but grass. A player who has beaten Federer in the finals of 3 different grand slams including Wimbledon.

You could turn around your strawman argument and say Federer relies on faster courts and 3 of the 4 grand slams are suited a lot more to this game than Nadal's.
 
@Snowjoe: I love you and want your babies. No homo, though.

If everybody could stop the vicarious cock comparison, I'd be so happy, be it with Messi - Ronaldo or Federer - Nadal.
 
I really don't like Eugene Bouchard.
 
Shown up by a player. A player who has a better h2h record on all surfaces but grass. A player who has beaten Federer in the finals of 3 different grand slams including Wimbledon.

You could turn around your strawman argument and say Federer relies on faster courts and 3 of the 4 grand slams are suited a lot more to this game than Nadal's.
Yeah, one player. I don't compare careers and players on head to heads.

You could turn it around and see it that way. That's your perogative. I personally think the courts are way too slow these days. Even the grass is not exactly quick anymore. I'd like to see it quickened to encourage attacking tennis. To each his own I guess.

Moving on, Kvitova is going to win this easily.
 
Well Nadal is better against every player out there, better H2H against everyone he's ever played a decent number of times apart from Davydenko I think. Federer won most of his first lot in the Andy Roddick era, we have to take that into consideration. Nadal won basically all of his in the strongest era in history, that's worth more for me. God knows what "defensive tennis" means as well. It's about structuring a point and waiting for the moment to pounce, that's why Nadal, Djokovic and Murray has basically won everything for the past few years as they are the best at it. You can be a brainless ball basher like Gulbis or someone but it'll never win you a Slam, you need a lot more than that.
Like in football or any other sport, it's pretty darn obvious.
 
Bouchard needs to up her game and quickly if this is even going to be a contest. I'd rather Kvitova won, personally, but I'd at least like a good match, which this is not shaping up to be. What is it about Wimbledon women's finals delivering absolute duds (where one player simply thrashes the other) seemingly half of the time? 2010 and 2013 were like this, too. Is it because they only play best of three? So if one player starts off well, and the other badly, that's pretty much it?
 
Bouchard needs to up her game and quickly if this is even going to be a contest. I'd rather Kvitova won, personally, but I'd at least like a good match, which this is not shaping up to be. What is it about Wimbledon women's finals delivering absolute duds (where one player simply thrashes the other) seemingly half of the time? 2010 and 2013 were like this, too. Is it because they only play best of three? So if one player starts off well, and the other badly, that's pretty much it?

The final should really be the best of 5. The winner of the first set has so much of a advantage that it kills the whole match.
 
She just can't serve. It's such a huge part of the sport that decides matches.
 
I just can't see Novak winning it tomorrow. he's been "underperforming" on grand slams for a while now and it seems that he just can't reach his 2011 form for some reason. Federer is rested, in better form and this is probably one of the last opportunities for him to win his favorite tournament again. I don't think he'll miss it.
 
This is over, if you can't serve you can't win these titles in the women's game. Bouchard just can't move and knows she's beaten already.
 
Bouchard can't serve for shit. It's amazing that someone can get to a grand slam final with such a weakness.
 
Playing a left handed player is very, very different to a right handed. Bouchard just hasn't adapted. Kvitova is playing tennis from another universe here, she'd beat anyone.
 
Bouchard can't serve for shit. It's amazing that someone can get to a grand slam final with such a weakness.

She can serve well normally, she's just bottled it here in same way Lisicki did last year, and she's got one of the best serves in the world. At least she's still banging.
 
Seriously, these lot get paid the same as the men. It's an utter farce.
 
See ya later Bouchard. How do they get paid the same as men.
 
Seriously, these lot get paid the same as the men. It's an utter farce.

That's a bit harsh but I do think we are getting to the stage where women's tennis being the best of 3 sets is looking out dated. Having a big serve in a best of 3 is such an advantage that it's almost guaranteed to kill the match. Although today Kevitona looked unplayable at times.

Also we've seen it in the men's game where a player can be be unplayable for to two straight but then find it's nearly impossible to carry that sort of constantly into the third set. Image the amount of great matches we'd of missed if the men's game was a best of 3 set's. So really we could be missing out on great tennis in the women's simply because it's a best of 3.
 
Last edited: