Federer's totally going to have a receding hairline in a few years. Then we can all laugh at him!
Tennis Thread 2014
- Thread starter Scarecrow
- Start date
'I can't believe I made it to 5' 
Fair play Federer.
Fair play Federer.
I don't recall saying it was.
I agree, the 2008 final was one of the greatest sporting events I've ever watched.
That'll be the hard part. Because of his injuries, I'm not sure if he has three more years in him although he'll get a couple of French Opens and maybe another hard court title or two.
Huh? Raoul called this "one of the greatest finals ever". I'm making the point that it's nowhere close. Even ignoring classics from a few decades back like Bjorg vs McEnroe and Sampras vs Agassi, we've had two far superior finals between Fed and Rafa only seven years ago.
It was a good final, and it was a great five-setter. But so was Fed vs Roddick and no one calls that the greatest ever.
Without doubt. Don't think that will ever be beaten.
I wanted Fed to win, think beyond the main guys going out he's unlikely to get another slam here but it was still a great showing from him given the fitness levels required. I just wish he'd been a bit more aggressive earlier in the match, think it might have saved him having to play out so many games and he might have been able to nick another set earlier. Still I like Djokovic as well and he showed good mental strength to get back on track.
Novak humble as ever.
Well, perhaps I misunderstood then, but to me when you claim it was one of the greatest finals ever, you're putting it on a pedastal with -- and thus saying it's at least in the same league as -- the actual greatest finals ever.
Good interviews from both of them.
Doubtful. For one, Djokovic is more likely to win slams going forward than Nadal is. Rafa is the sort of player who peaked at a younger age, mainly due to his athleticism, which seems to not be where it was 5 years ago. Djokovic, is more of a player who can stay at the top for another couple of years, including win the French Open.
Also, one needs to factor in that other players will probably emerge to win slams.
I always felt the 2009 Australian Open was better than the Wimbledon match. Some of the craziest rallies I've ever seen.
Yeah they're both pretty classy. Actually, I think all of the top tennis players are generally very decent in that regard.
One of the greatest finals is not saying it was better than the greatest finals - just that its up there with the rest of the great ones. (FFS)
Federer's chance of getting the all time record for Wimbledon titles is gone IMO.
Naturally he hasn't the speed at which his touch play can really cause havoc like his younger years. Last couple of years especially he is very vulnerable.
Naturally he hasn't the speed at which his touch play can really cause havoc like his younger years. Last couple of years especially he is very vulnerable.
Yeh, and I'm totally disagreeing with that and saying it's nowhere close to the greatest ever finals. It was very good, but not near the greatest. That's my point.
You said it was "one of the greatest finals ever". I interpret that as meaning that it can stand alongside the previous greatest finals, and not look out of place in their company. Because if it does look out of place, then it's not "one of the greatest finals ever". I simply think you were a little too hyperbolic there. This was a very good match, but not one that will be mentioned in twenty years, like the 2007 and 2008 finals.
True, but Nadal's still competing and isn't going away yet. He might not do it, but it's not like he's on 10 and has to win nearly all of them every year. It's firmly possible he could win another 3/4 in his career.
I'm sure he will win another slam - just don't think he will win enough to catch Federer. He may, but I don't think its likely.
Djok is a likeable fellow - much like Feds he's matured out of his more dickish formative years.
Yeah
He should get a 6 month rest and then come next year to win it. Still think that he can get another Wimbledon although it will be very difficult.No matter how many slams Nadal wins, to me, Roger will still be the GOAT. It's not the titles, it's the way he plays/ed.
Damn it. Can't believe I'm so gutted.
Damn it. Can't believe I'm so gutted.
Agreed. I might be wrong but I highly doubt Nadal will be playing like that at Fed's age. Federer's longevity and fitness is just remarkable, he's never missed a Slam.
Aside from injury, Rafa's physicality hasn't declined and Djokovic's game is every bit as physically demanding. Every time Nadal goes out to a one-hit wonder at wimbledon everybody says this tired nonsense about him being a spent force.
Relieved Djoko won that. 4 Slams would have been too much for Rafa to catch up! Anyway, wonderful match of tennis from both these guys. Brilliant final! Still can't believe Djokovic had that meltdown in the 4th though.
Fed has won French Open. Also, if I am not mistaken Federer has a much better record on reaching semis than Nadal.
I really think that even Nadal gets 18, still Federer wil be regarded as the best ever. On other things (like leading on ATP, both on general and consecutively) or reaching semis, quarters etc, Federer is better than everyone else. And finally, he has a much better distribution than Nadal. Nadal will go down as the best clay court tennis player but Fed will go down as the overall greatest. He's like an upgrade of Samprass.
I was desperate for him to do it so that junkie Nadal couldn't catch him.
He won the French Open because an injured Nadal lost in crazy fashion to Robin feckin' Soderling. The stars aligned for Federer that year, otherwise Rafa would have done 10 in a row in Paris by now.
Head-to-head tallies
- Grand Slam matches: Nadal, 10–1
- Australian Open: Nadal, 3–0
- French Open: Nadal, 5–0
- Wimbledon: Federer, 2–1
- US Open: Have not met
- Grand Slam finals: Nadal, 6–2
Its crazy to think they've never met in the US Open ^^
I disagree. His speed and athleticism are definitely not where they were from 17-24. He's developed a more holistic game to avoid injury and preserve his career, at the expense of a bit of athleticism. Happens to all players.
Becker at 28 was not the same Becker at 17. Same with Connors, McEnroe, Cash etc etc.
Equal prize money. Just let that sink in.
If they both end up on the same number of Slams, Nadal has every right to be GOAT himself. He has an embarrassingly good record against the current "GOAT" and has beaten Federer at Wimbledon whereas Fed doesn't come close to beating Rafa on the clay. Infact Fed has a losing record vs Nadal even in Hard court Slams. Also Nadal came into an era where Fed was at his peak and then he had to deal with Djoko and Murray as well. Federer had a fairly relaxed few years with Roddick being his chief "rival". So I see no reason why Fed should be GOAT over Nadal if they end up on the same Slams.
Don't confuse H2H with ability. Nadal's game is pretty much engineered to counter Federer. No surprise he's got the better off him. Slower courts haven't helped Federer either.
On the other hand, just as an example: Nadal has yet to win a single year end championship when the best 8 go head to head. Federer has 6.
On the other hand, just as an example: Nadal has yet to win a single year end championship when the best 8 go head to head. Federer has 6.
What do you reckon's happened to Nadal on grass btw? I'm a big Nadal fan, but his record at Wimbledon recently hasn't been good. Just a coincidence? Or is there more to it?
There's always a lot of bias in these conversatrions and the grass court winners somehow get labelled as more complete than the clay court winners even though everybody knows that clay is purest surface to play tennis on. Oops, sorry lawn tennis and tradition.
That aside, the competition also has to be taken into consideration. Nadal's won all of his titles against, namely, Federer and now the likes of Djokovic and Murray. I recall years when Federer was winning Wimbledon, the US etc against players nowhere near that standard. Steering away from bias myself, i will acknowledge that Federer has been a fantastic champion, particularly at Wimbledon, just as Nadal has been and particularly at the French.
Murray has yet to prove that he's better than Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin, Roddick et al in their prime. Were it not for Federer, who played unimaginably good back then, all of those would be considered all time greats with multiple slams. Ferrer's been around back then as well and never made a real impression at all.
It's a bit like Stockton and Malone vs. Jordan and the Bulls. Of course they never won it, but were it not for that monster...
It's a bit like Stockton and Malone vs. Jordan and the Bulls. Of course they never won it, but were it not for that monster...
The key term being IF. He hasn't gotten there and may never do so.
Not sure if serious.
I'd rather have Rafa's career than Federer's to be fair. Much better story IMO.