-
carreno-busta is a match winning machine. lets see if he can give dynamitrov a run for his money.
I take it you will be pulling for Busta given that he's Spanish? haha. First meeting but I do expect Dimitrov to advance. -
-
pistol pete had that killer instinct emma.
he also had ice water running through his veins. he was a born killer. -
-
Here's how the H2H looks between Nadal and Federer:
33 meetings:
Clay: 13-2
Hard: 9-6 Nadal
Grass: 2-1 Federer
So Nadal leads a whopping 23-10 vs Federer and he's clearly dominating Federer on two surfaces and on clay, by a very big margin. Nadal is sitting with 13 Slams already so he's already one of the greatest players of all time. No question asked.
Now if Federer was so good on clay then surely he should have been able to beat Nadal back in those days when Nadal was still a baby and Federer was in his absolute best? The reality and fact is, he didn't. Not even one time at RG and he had plenty chances. How many do you need?
So based on what are we overlooking the H2H here? Because it's on clay? And since when clay is a surface outside the Slams and the ATP tour? Clearly Nadal is a great player of all time and has the upper hand of another champion named Federer, and so this is a prime example how Federer would have fared against other Champions. Perhaps not identically but there's your big loophole in your argument. You can not possibly sweep the floor with your biased opinion and say that Federer would have dominated that player here, here and here, when we clearly see he wasn't even able to handle a baby Rafa in his peak days --- forget anything after.
And of course, just like the great flood or the great depression, there's this great excuse by Fedtards, Nadal is a lefty and that's a problem for Federer. Doink? On what planet does that fly and based on what ground? If Federer is 'all that' then he should have been able to figure Nadal out a long time ago and Nadal is not changing his game against Federer every week. It's the same old game he plays against him. And how do you even conclude that Federer wouldn't have any problems against other Champions? Not similar but some other problems? Surely you have no reason to believe he wouldn't have? Because the fact that we have in hand suggests otherwise so stay quiet.
So no matter how you slice it or dice it, the fact remains - a champion like Nadal owns another champion like Federer in the same era. You don't need to go back to another era; you don't need to change the surface and you certainly don't need to adjust your arguments because it's not going to fly. The prime example is right here, right before your very biased eyes. Accept it like a good fan and move on.
Yes, Federer dominated from 2004-2007 but he had no great consistent player to oppose him other than a baby Nadal but when Nadal peaked, Federer became a no show. One can't eve imagine how things would have panned out had Nadal peaked at the same time as Federer.
So even though Nadal has 13 Slams - 4 less than Federer - Nadal is by all accounts the greater player of the two. He doesn't even need to win 5 more Slams to officially surpass Federer. The slam equality is just a camouflage to make Federer look better. We all know what the truth is. And had Federer peaked in Pete's time and from that era, he wasn't going to win 17 Slams, rest assured. Either way he got lucky.
So even though Federer dominated from 2004 to 2007 and was clearly the best player of that time, he wasn't the best player of his era. That goes to Nadal. And Federer is certainly not the GOAT even though there's no such thing to begin with.
You can sit there and only argue whether he was the best player of his era and take Nadal into complete consideration and that's all you can argue -- though you aren't going to get away with it no matter how much you want it. -
-
pistol pete had that killer instinct emma.
he also had ice water running through his veins. he was a born killer.
Yes, he would have killed Federer over and over and over again. It's Nadal where things would have been far more interesting. Nadal has obviously clay and he isn't too bad on grass either. Though fast courts would have been a problem but then again, Sampras probably would have suffered a bit on slow courts as well. Though Sampras always maintained that he didn't like it too fast but back then, things weren't going to change any time soon.
Anyway, the big battle between the two would have been the mental fight of course. Sampras does have more weapons though but Nadal wasn't going to give things easily either. The hardest part of Sampras' game was to get past his main weapon - his serves. And then he had the game to nicely follow it up with, so that would have been the main factor. I do think Murray would match him the best if I am to be honest.
I am not saying that Federer would have given things on a silver plate either and the first few meetings would have been tight as well, but Sampras had this tendency to figure things out eventually and before you know it, he would have had firm authority over you. Nadal is a bit like him in that regards.
A lot of the deluded Federer fans have no clue about Sampras and his mindset. Forget about how supremely aggressive he was. Not a hit or miss game but a very well designed killer all court game. He had too many options to do anything he wanted. You never ever want to underestimate a player like Sampras. He's not your ballerina. He's a born killer and yet very modest. He's like that cheetah, that cat, that doesn't make noise when it makes its move and kills you quietly. And sometimes, you don't even know that you are dead.
People forget or have no clue how many legends Sampras had to fight and until 1995 to come on top and stay on top until 1999. Even then tennis saw emerges like Guga, Federer, Roddick, Saifn, Hewitt etc. He had to deal with the previous generation that was known as the golden era of tennis and his current generation and the next generation. And who is to say he wasn't going to win 2/3 more if he hadn't retired at age 32. His back injury held him back in 1999 when he was in peak form. Didn't play AO twice. Didn't pay much attention on clay either since he was ever so in love with grass and Wimbledon. And the firce competition throughout his career didn't help much either.
I, in fact, rate his 6 years at No. 1 higher than his 14 Slams. It's the hardest thing to do in men's tennis. -
-
Hi Clay and Emma. I think Andy wont choose coach yet. Could well be after Roland Garros. There is a school of thought to say wait until after Wimbledon because new coach will have a lot of pressure heading into wimbledon otherwise. I would love Pete or even Andre. I would predict Stefanki just because not sure the really big names have the time right now.
-
-
Hola Anikh. To be honest I am actually not sure how I feel about Pete being Andy's coach. There's one thing I dislike about Brits is that, they criticize everything too much. Even at the slightest thing, they sit down and talk about it all day. In the US or in NA in general, things are more laid back and people honestly don't care as much. They are in fact far more supportive. So I am not sure how ideal that would be.
Larry Stefanki is someone I really think Andy will hire if he doesn't pull yet another big surprise from his bag. And yes, I don't think it will happen before RG. -
-
Yes Emma that is true although Lendl never really copped any criticism over here so will all depend on how successful Andy is. I think all his fans are on the same wavelength generally. He needs balance between someone he respects and will improve him but also someone he gets on well with him.
-
-
que pasa Anikh.
look what I just created for you.
-
-
pistol pete had that killer instinct emma.
he also had ice water running through his veins. he was a born killer.
Yes, he would have killed Federer over and over and over again. It's Nadal where things would have been far more interesting. Nadal has obviously clay and he isn't too bad on grass either. Though fast courts would have been a problem but then again, Sampras probably would have suffered a bit on slow courts as well. Though Sampras always maintained that he didn't like it too fast but back then, things weren't going to change any time soon.
Anyway, the big battle between the two would have been the mental fight of course. Sampras does have more weapons though but Nadal wasn't going to give things easily either. The hardest part of Sampras' game was to get past his main weapon - his serves. And then he had the game to nicely follow it up with, so that would have been the main factor. I do think Murray would match him the best if I am to be honest.
I am not saying that Federer would have given things on a silver plate either and the first few meetings would have been tight as well, but Sampras had this tendency to figure things out eventually and before you know it, he would have had firm authority over you. Nadal is a bit like him in that regards.
A lot of the deluded Federer fans have no clue about Sampras and his mindset. Forget about how supremely aggressive he was. Not a hit or miss game but a very well designed killer all court game. He had too many options to do anything he wanted. You never ever want to underestimate a player like Sampras. He's not your ballerina. He's a born killer and yet very modest. He's like that cheetah, that cat, that doesn't make noise when it makes its move and kills you quietly. And sometimes, you don't even know that you are dead.
People forget or have no clue how many legends Sampras had to fight and until 1995 to come on top and stay on top until 1999. Even then tennis saw emerges like Guga, Federer, Roddick, Saifn, Hewitt etc. He had to deal with the previous generation that was known as the golden era of tennis and his current generation and the next generation. And who is to say he wasn't going to win 2/3 more if he hadn't retired at age 32. His back injury held him back in 1999 when he was in peak form. Didn't play AO twice. Didn't pay much attention on clay either since he was ever so in love with grass and Wimbledon. And the firce competition throughout his career didn't help much either.
I, in fact, rate his 6 years at No. 1 higher than his 14 Slams. It's the hardest thing to do in men's tennis.
the crazy think about nadal is that he could have been so much better than he already was or had become.
he never got around to developing a more of an assault oriented game. for example can you imagine if he had been able to volley like Edberg or Sampras.
nadal was one of the greatest athletes of all times. surely he could have learned to volley at an early age but who the hell knows what happened. he just wanted to mow people down from the baseline. given his heavy topspin game, that style of play took its toll on him too. so he spent a lot of time being injured.
the game would have been easier for nadal if he had learned a killer slice and a deadly net game at an early age. that would have also given him more options. -
-
I just came across this article about andy:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis/andy-murray-can-retain-wimbledon-3494786?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co -
-
congrats emma, anikh, and company.
you folks hit 20,000 views at Emma's Café.
cool milestone. I knew you were going to do it.
I also know that one day you will hit 1 million views here.
-
-
Wow Clay fantastic sig thanks! I am very impressed. Not sure my name has ever been so much in lights
-
-
que pasa anikh, emma, and company.
just waking up here. fixing some coffee at the moment.
it looks like another warm day here. yesterday it hit 88 degrees. -
-
as emma has articulated, dolgopolov has fognini's number. he removes the Italian from the facilities.
here are all the live scores:
http://www.tennisexplorer.com/live/#inscore_ifheight_xdc_6685 -
-
Congrats everyone on the landmark number of views. Clay and Emma you deserve all the success with the time you put in the forum. Andy will play Almagro tomorrow. Going to be one heck of a challenge considering little clay preparation.
-
