The man is into fashion and pursues things outside tennis, I love that shit.
Exactly how I feel. Nadal may be the best athlete on the history of tennis, but Federer had a superior technique. Also, Fed was the master of all courts, Nadal was more specialized on court. Still fantastic players and both will go in history as the best ever players.Nadal's a cool guy, very humble and as your say he is a beast on court.
I just don't like his bullish style - give me technique, touch and Federer's grace over power and athleticism anyday,
Wow. The quality is absurd. Going back to the debate we were having earlier, Kvitova is going the get the same prize money as one of these guys.
Wow. The quality is absurd. Going back to the debate we were having earlier, Kvitova is going the get the same prize money as one of these guys.
Wow. The quality is absurd. Going back to the debate we were having earlier, Kvitova is going the get the same prize money as one of these guys.
Exactly how I feel. Nadal may be the best athlete on the history of tennis, but Federer had a superior technique. Also, Fed was the master of all courts, Nadal was more specialized on court. Still fantastic players and both will go in history as the best ever players.
That is really ridiculous.Wow. The quality is absurd. Going back to the debate we were having earlier, Kvitova is going the get the same prize money as one of these guys.
He can be into his fashion as much as he likes, I'd just prefer it to have a bit more humility!
9 out of 14 (64%) compared to 7 out of 17 (41%) is a big difference IMO.I'm not sure if 9 wins on clay is any worse than 7 wins on grass. Not to mention that Nadal was the first to beat Federer on every surface before the other way round (which I'm still not sure has ever happened; I don't think Federer has ever been Rafa on clay).
I'm not sure if 9 wins on clay is any worse than 7 wins on grass. Not to mention that Nadal was the first to beat Federer on every surface before the other way round (which I'm still not sure has ever happened; I don't think Federer has ever been Rafa on clay).
I don't know why they don't just make women play 5 sets. Surely in this era there's no doubt that female athletes are physically capable of playing for longer and tbf to the women's tennis, how many 'classics' can you really get over 3 sets? Pretty much all the great men's games have been 5 setters.
Exactly how I feel. Nadal may be the best athlete on the history of tennis, but Federer had a superior technique. Also, Fed was the master of all courts, Nadal was more specialized on court. Still fantastic players and both will go in history as the best ever players.
I don't know why they don't just make women play 5 sets. Surely in this era there's no doubt that female athletes are physically capable of playing for longer and tbf to the women's tennis, how many 'classics' can you really get over 3 sets? Pretty much all the great men's games have been 5 setters.
Ya, I actually agree with that. It's quite refreshing to see in modern sports with such global superstars.All of the big four come across as humble IMO.
I'm not sure if 9 wins on clay is any worse than 7 wins on grass. Not to mention that Nadal was the first to beat Federer on every surface before the other way round (which I'm still not sure has ever happened; I don't think Federer has ever been Rafa on clay).