“And while the incident did some serious damage to Novak’s persona and psyche in the short term, I really believe he’ll walk away from it as a better player and person in the long run.”

I agree with the second part.
No rational minded person would disagree that Roddick’s final comment about him being “quick to call the trainer” coupled with his exaggeration was an attempt to draw scrutiny of Djokovic’s character and integrity.
What happened after that was very simple, he came out, whipped Roddick without taking a single medical timeout, and made some comments which expressed his anger over Roddick’s comments and the crowd’s behavior. He was honest, forthright, and in the right.

“Nadal, who’ll finish the year No. 1, ”

Likely, but is this a mathematical certainty already?

“Likely, but is this a mathematical certainty already?”

No, but it’s close. Federer has a lot of points to defend, including 650 at the Masters cup.

If Nadal plays fewer tournaments (he is defending points from only 3 through the end of the year) then maybe there is a slight possibity.

If Nadal plays all three and does not play much much worse than last year (hard to imagine he will not play at least as well, overal) then making up over 1000 points will be extremely unlikely for Federer.

“After a crucial Davis Cup tie with the U.S. this weekend the Spaniard should really think about easing up on his playing demands, especially with a possible Davis Cup final looming in December.”

I suppose it’s a foregone conclusion that Spain will win The DC tie against the US. in that case, the US team should just give Spain a walkover and avoid the unnecessary travelling and unfriendly crowd they’ll have to endure if they were to play in this tie.

Regarding Randall’s absurd(stupid) comment that Federer had “…a joke of a draw…” is again a demonstration of an opinion without any foundation.

Federer played Stepanek in the 2nd round and Andreev in the 3rd and Muller in the quarterfinals. Muller defeated Davydenko and then lost to Federer. None of these players are “jokes”. That is why we have the word “upset” because the above mentioned players and hundreds more can upset the ranked players; and there is always an upset in every tournament. Furthermore, Federer’s draw was no less demanding than Nadals or for that matter any of the ranked players.

My suggestion to Mr. Randall is that he think before he spews out his stupid remarks.

Giuseppe Mirelli

Sean,

Don’t be so back handed in giving Federer credit:

1) you said - “granted, they all played more than him this year” - that’s true ONLY for nadal, not for djokovic or murray or any of the other players. Fed has already played 66 matches this year, MORE than djokovic or murray, or anyone else. Plus fed had recently played 5 doubles matches at the Olympics. Point is - only Nadal is probably fitter than Fed, NOBODY else. Even with Nadal, Fed is the only one who has hung tough with him over 5 hours.

2) Given that Fed had mono this year, and the heart breaker he lost at wimbledon, the way he came back at the US - full credit to him. So much for that stupid Wilander saying that Fed lacks balls!

3) Fed was 24-3 in slams this year. Nadal was 24-2. Everyone else was way behind. Again, coming to slams best of 5 performance over the whole year, Fed had a year just marginally below Nadal, separated by a couple of points late at night at wimbledon. Everyone needs to realize that Fed’s year was very close to Nadal’s year.

4) related to the point above - this is being touted as a “spectacular” year by Nadal. Well, it falls short of what Fed did THRICE, in 2004, 06, and 2007 (win 3 slams in one year, and going 27-1 in 2006, 26-1 in 2007 in slams). Yes, Nadal had a GREAT year, better than what Sampras EVER had (given that Nadal also won the Olympics) - but Fed has had 3 years better than all of these.

Will Fed win more? I guess so. I think he will definitely win another wimbledon and US Open, over the next few years. Though his best is past him, he will never win 3 slams in one year again. He will certainly overtake Sampras though.

What about Nadal? His peak year is not going to be when he is 25 or 26. I think he is pretty close to his peak year. It would be very interesting to see what happens in 2009. Nadal obviously will win a couple more French open at least. But I am not convinced he can win a slam on hard courts. With all the other players now coming up, its only going to be harder for him next year. Wimbledon? Maybe he might win another.

Lets see - 2009 will probably be one of the most exciting seasons ever, with SO MANY strong players on the circuit. Something like the mid to end eighties, when there were SO MANY top players playing each other.

federer is betterer!

Tennis really turned a corner this year, and it’s really for the better. The top 10 in the last 4 years really were no where close to Federer, but now we have Murray, Novak and Nadal, all serious competitors. Seriously, people like Ferrer, Davedanko, Roddick and Blake aren’t in the same league. These guys aren’t serious competition for the new top 4.

Even still, Nadal’s win at Wimbledon was sort of a “fluke”. Maybe the court was playing slower, maybe Federer was still injured, but I don’t think he’ll have it in him to repeat. As with every year in recent history, 4 players dominated the Masters Series, and the Grand Slam Finals. And really in the next 2 years, I don’t see anyone but the current top 3 winning any Majors.

Nadal has never reached a hard court major final, and I don’t think he ever will. Tsonga destroyed him, Novak is better on hard courts, Murray is better as well. Nadal won’t be able to defend all those points next year, as players catch up on clay. I don’t think anyone would be surprised if Novak or Federer beat Nadal at the French, or Wimbledon. The only player I see repeating any major next year is Federer at the US open. If Federer is going to overtake Nadal on clay, it’s 2009.

‘elated to the point above - this is being touted as a “spectacular” year by Nadal. Well, it falls short of what Fed did THRICE, in 2004, 06, and 2007 (win 3 slams in one year, and going 27-1 in 2006, 26-1 in 2007 in slams). Yes, Nadal had a GREAT year, better than what Sampras EVER had (given that Nadal also won the Olympics) - but Fed has had 3 years better than all of these’

‘Even still, Nadal’s win at Wimbledon was sort of a “fluke”. Maybe the court was playing slower, maybe Federer was still injured, but I don’t think he’ll have it in him to repeat.’

Rafa has reached wimby final for past 3 years. Each year he has played better and finally managed to beat Roger. Also, he did beat Novak at queens. I will not call this a ‘fluke’. (if you want a fluke, how about Roger’s Hamburg win??? his ONLY clay win over Rafa). I am huge Roger fan, but common guys…give Rafa the credit he fully deserves. Roger may be one of the GOATS, but Rafa is the #1 player for now.

Statistically speaking, the trio of winning the French Open, Wimbledon and Olympic gold is more rare than the trio of Aussie, Wimbledon, US Open.

So I disagree with “Well, it falls short of what Fed did THRICE, in 2004, 06, and 2007″.

I think Federer’s 2006 year is above Nadal’s 2008. 2004 and 2007 are hard to argue. And it’s because of what Oleg said in it being more rare what Nadal accomplished.

Nadal’s win wasn’t a fluke, he deserves full credit for improving his game the way he did. But repeating at Wimbledon will be harder for him, imo. It’s still grass. He’s not the all-time dominator on grass the way he is on clay. Djokovic, Murray, and Federer are more than capable of overwhelming Nadal on grass if their games are on. Even Roddick has a shot. A good one, imo.

Nadal is not more fit than Federer. Not even close. Federer is the most fit player on tour and possibly one of the most fit players to ever play the game. He doesn’t look like a tank but how else would you describe someone who posted such consistent results over a 4 year span. 17 straight finals reached at 1 point, 18 slam semis straight, 23 or 24 wins in finals straight. He’s a beast. Nadal always gets tired at this point in the year. Does Federer? Not at all. Federer says a lot of things that are questionable but one thing I believe is that he’s as fresh as he’s ever been right now.

And in case someone wants to argue that Nadal plays more clay matches which wear him out more then don’t bother. In the last few years, the only tournament Nadal played during the MAIN clay season that Federer didn’t is Barcelona. But in all the masters and at the French, they were facing each other in every single final. Even if Nadal won them all Federer was still there putting out the effort. And this year Federer has played more matches on clay because he had Estoril which balances out Barcelona and he went a few matches further in Rome than Nadal did. So don’t even think about it! Federer’s the most fit by a longshot.

I agree with Oleg because Rafa won the French (on clay - not to mention almost every other title on clay) Wimbledon (on grass - as well as Queens) and Olympic Gold (on hard, as well as Toronto MS).

That means he won major titles on all surfaces; i should add that I for one consider the Olympics a major title, and much like a slam, given the competition, although granted, it was best of three.

There is something remarkable about Federer’s consistency considering he’s been virtually injury-free throughout all of it. He must have exceptional training. But some of this is just the luck of genetics. Also, he’s always done a pretty good job of arranging his schedule. Notice how it was after he added in the exo appearances that he fell ill with mono - maybe he tipped the balance? Anyhow. Just a thought.

I could still see Roddick winning another major but it would have to be at the US Open and he would have to be facing an opponent who isn’t in the top four.

As for Federer’s US Open draw I wouldn’t say that it was a joke. Stepanek, Djokovic, Murray, and apparently Andreev (since he took Fed to 5 sets) all had the ability to upset Federer yet Fed persevered and prevented that from happening.

Vulcan, in the spirit of the upcoming US election, I’m projecting Nadal to finish No. 1. Mathematically he may not have secured that ranking, but barring a catastrophic collapse he’ll do it.

Giuseppe Mirelli, I’m not making that argument, but other folks can and have. Spot the difference.

HighRoller, as for your first comment, where did I say that “granted, they all played more than him this year”? I said they – Nadal, Djokovic – played more than Fed THIS SUMMER. A fact.

Jack Bauer, Nadal’s Wimbledon title a fluke? Really?? How so???

I would say that if Roger ever beat Rafa at the French that that would be more of a Fluke than Rafa winning over Roger at Wimbledon. If you are talking flukes that is!

Regarding seasons, Fed’s are statistically better than Rafa’s thus far, but I would argue Rafa’s run this year from a tennis achievement perspective is more impressive.

Sensationalsafin, hard to argue that Fed’s not among one of the fittest players ever. The guy never physically tires!

That said, Jane, I think he will get hit by injuries in the years to come. That’s not a knock against Roger, but just probabilities. Everyone gets injured sooner or later.

Ugh Mr. Randall I beg to differ. I think Rafa and Raja are clearly the Sampras and Agassi of their generation, and likely will outpace both of them. I cant see the other fellas doing what they’ve done, but I agree that tennis is in good hands.

(Personally I would like to see the Baghdatis win a big one in this era (and to see an American player win one already!), but sadly I dont think Baghdatis wants to, and I dont feel an American player can win a slam these days outside of the doubles and women’s draws. There was an article from SI Price about Stanley Roberts, who used to school Shaq O Neal at LSU, but who turned into nothing. I fear that Baghdatis, much like Rios but with more smiles, has no heart for tennis, so tennis rightfully belongs to other players that DO want it).

Fed’s 2006 year to me still is the best year in tennis, by far:

3 Slams and a final (RG), 1 Masters Cup, 12 titles, 5 losses (4 to Nadal in finals and 1 to Murray in Cincy), 92-5 for the season, 12 or 13 straight finals, more than 8000 points in rankings (Nadal was a little over 4000)….No comparisons!!!

thankfully, nadal nor federer will read all these ghost stories about them not ever winning slams on hardcourts, career never picking up again like it was, etc.
it amazes me how people pour their opinions - yes, mere opinions! - on to these pages and expect everyone to take it as gospel.
if it were gospel, why would these people not be out there whacking some fluffym little yellow balls?
like james blake told larry stefanki, “you’ve never contested a medal before so you have no idea what it feels like”. we all have no idea, only nadal and federer do. so lets enjoy the best rivalry - my opinion - that this game has provided while we still can.

The one other thing I like to compare when you are looking at the Nadal and Federer rivalry is the matchups, and the surface matchups. This is the main reason I feel Federer is the better all around player.

Nadal’s head to head, inarguably has been increased by his ability to outplay Federer on clay. But at the same time, you have to realize that these two are only playing in Finals, nearly all of the time.

The fact that Federer is challenging Nadal in Finals of clay tournaments, while Federer has had very little head to head matches with Nadal on hardcourts or grass, but mainly hardcourts, is what makes me feel like the head to head has the potential to seem inflated.

Basically, if you’re going by favorite surface, and by pure head to head, Nadal has faced Federer on clay the majority of their matches, while there are very few hardcourt finals. The only reason there hasn’t been is because of Nadal’s inability to break through. This to me is a clear indication that Federer’s ability translates more from surface to surface, and to me makes me wonder what the head to head would possibly be if Nadal were able to get out of the semi’s at these hardcourt slams and face Federer.

Also,

SF, F, F, W

vs.

SF, W, W, SF

Let’s not assume that Nadal ran away with this season, historically it is very amazing, and he deserves every amount of credit he deserves, but it’s not incomparable to Federer’s. I think the only thing that brings Federer’s year down is the fact that he lost to Novak early on, and lost so badly in the French final.

I am a Federer fan, but regardless, I have yet to see Nadal translate his game and become a dominate force, how can you be the #1 player and not be able to make it out of the Semi’s of 2/4 of the Slams.

Federer has 8 grand slam wins on hardcourts, while Nadal is at 0 hardcourt slam finals.

kofi ofori Says:

“thankfully, nadal nor federer will read all these ghost stories about them not ever winning slams on hardcourts, career never picking up again like it was, etc.
it amazes me how people pour their opinions - yes, mere opinions! - on to these pages and expect everyone to take it as gospel.
if it were gospel, why would these people not be out there whacking some fluffym little yellow balls?
like james blake told larry stefanki, “you’ve never contested a medal before so you have no idea what it feels like”. we all have no idea, only nadal and federer do. so lets enjoy the best rivalry - my opinion - that this game has provided while we still can.”

100% agree!!!

Also,

To me, Federer was able to play this tournament very well and had a pretty decent draw in all honesty. His first tournament at no.2 in several years, and he’s either facing Roddick who beat him for the first time this year, or Novak, who took him out of the Aussie semi. And on the way, he is facing a player who historically has not been an easy match for him in Stepanek, and was able to put him away rather quickly. Beyond that, he played Andreev, who was on a remarkable run in the Open, and showed his fitness and will to win on the important points. Plus, beating Novak easily, and the dismantling of Murray, who was ‘breaking through’, showed to me that he has the ability to fend off upcoming challengers still.

Mr. Bauer, you don’t really like that Nadal guy, huh? Saying that his Wimbledon win was a “fluke” is more than ridiculous - others here have pointed out why.

Also, what’s up with the hard court stuff:

“Nadal has never reached a hard court major final, and I don’t think he ever will. Tsonga destroyed him, Novak is better on hard courts, Murray is better as well.”

Nadal beat Tsonga twice. both hard courts: 2008 Indian Wells and 2007 US Open (where the score was a semi-destroying 7-6(2), 6-2, 6-1). Nadal has a winning hard court record against Murray. Does all of that go away because Nadal didn’t reach the final of this year’s US Open? Is that why you conclude that Nadal will never reach a hard court major final?

Sean,

You write well, but can you please stop giving excuses:

“guys like Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic fell flat as they neared the finish line of what turned out to be a long and crazy summer.” clearly makes them undeserving of any tournament, let alone a great slam like the US Open.

“guy had a joke of a draw up until the semifinals,”

Do you suggest a different way of doing the draw?
Remember you have to beat the 7 players of your side to win the slam. And that hasn’t changed in a loong time. Yes, the joke in the draw is that Roger had a relatively easier time dispatching his R16 opponent than his semis opponent. And had a relatively easier time dispatching his finals opponent than his Qtr-finals opponent.What about the draw for Rafa? It looked like he reached his semis a little easier than Roger did.

“where he played an exhausted Djokovic and then an overwhelmed Murray, but fact is fact, Fed won the title, he deserves his due.”

This is a bit grudging and backhanded. We need to give credit to anyone whole heartedly. Again, as you said well, if you are exhausted or overwhelmed can you lay claim to a grand slam title?

It’s no different than Rafa wearing down his opponents in his matches. Should we start calling Rafa’s wins as “due to the exhausted opponent?”

I told myself not to respond to certain things, but we need to stop giving excuses for losses. We need to agree that talent, great form and fitness on that day, execution, perhaps some luck and breaks, and yes, some poor play by the opponent or fitness issues are all part of the usual mix where the better player on that day wins the match.

TennisMasta Says:

Sean,

You write well, but can you please stop giving excuses:

“guys like Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic fell flat as they neared the finish line of what turned out to be a long and crazy summer.” clearly makes them undeserving of any tournament

Tennis Masta,
So you honestly think that Nadal and Djokovic are “undeserving of ANY tournament”?…

To people who say that Nadal`s wimbledon win was a fluke,i want to say that are you people dumb?.Nadal was in wimbledon final 3yrs in a row.Last year he stretched federer for 5 sets.This year he won queens final[grass] against djokovic. Again Nadal beat djoko in semis of olympics on hard court.Nadal beat murray in quarters of Rogers cup on hard court.Nadal this year won titles on clay,grass and hard courts.If you say that all these wins are fluke then we can say federer`s record is due to lack of competition.Give respect take respect.

Sean Randall for all his fine words cannot hide his dislike for Roger Federer, who is without doubt the greatest tennis player in history. I have been watching studying and predicting tennis matches for 40 years with far more success than Sean

The level to which Nadal would have to rise to win consistently at a hard-court Slam would be exponentially harder to achieve than where he’s at right now. There are so many players who can hurt him on a hard court: Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Gulbis, as well as Federer, of course.

And the up-and-coming young Turks like Cilic and Querrey have even more firepower. Querrey was outhitting Nadal in their match–his forehand was so massive that he could simply knock Nadal off one side of the court, then smash the return straight down the line on the opposite side. And Cilic, whose groundstrokes were so powerful they even pushed Djokovic back, and who has the nerve and the skill to engage in long baseline rallies, will no doubt be able to do the same.

Give them a year or two to mature, and they’ll be standing in Nadal’s way on hard courts as well as grass.

Federer has weapons to handle players with more raw power than he, as his victories over Andreev, Djokovic, and Murray showed. Nadal plays a baseline power game and will have to develop a lot more to be competitive with those power players on a hard court.

I agree with the poster who said that Nadal is actually near the midpoint of his career, since he started playing at a high level so early in his life. His playing style is very inefficient and hard on his body; he compensates with his incredible concentration and sheer force of will. But it takes a permanent toll. The harder he plays, the more it shortens his career.

I see him winning at least six French Opens (though I suspect Federer will wrest the crown from him in the next couple years), a couple more Wimbledons, and maybe a hard-court Slam or two.

I suspect he’ll have to retire once he’s Federer’s current age, when his body will no longer sustain the incredible demands of his brand of tennis. But he’s the kind of athlete who’s happy to burn out young in exchange for glory.

steve,
You really think Nadal can win “a couple more Wimbledons”?…. wow, you make that one sound a little bit too simple.

Steve, it’s funny to hear all your theories towards Nadal. However, its not that surprise though, since everyone who is not in favor with him has regularly discussed about the same thing since forever.

But, I really don’t care anything you’ve said because Nadal is the type of player that have a preference to prove rather than talking nonsense like what you’re doing now.

“There are so many players who can hurt him on a hard court: Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Gulbis, as well as Federer, of course.”

Are you kidding? He trashed Tsonga, Blake, Djokovic, Berdych, Gulbis and Querrey (which some of them have repeatedly beaten him on hard court) in his last meeting against them. So, which fact has used to support your motion? Seriously, I’m very confused right now!

“Give them a year or two to mature, and they’ll be standing in Nadal’s way on hard courts as well as grass.”

How about Nadal? Why can’t he develop like other players? Come on, most of the people like you have mentioned that Nadal might not be able to continue playing tennis since he was 18 and will end his career when he is 21! Tell me, where is he now?

But I accept your comment due to the fact that you’ve put the word “I suspect…” in it means that you just only make an assumption through your personal observation, which will bring you nowhere actually! Anyway, just continue your good effort! Hopefully, you’ll prove something someday!

NachoF: I didn’t say it would be easy. But Nadal has been a finalist at Wimbledon three straight years in a row, losing only to Federer twice and winning once. He is, at the moment, the best grass-court player, no doubt. And I say this as a rabid Federer partisan who was sad for days over his Wimbledon loss (though now, I agree that the important thing about that match was not who won or lost, but that showcased some spectacular play and it raised tennis itself to a higher level).

Next year will probably be Nadal’s peak year and see his momentum on clay and grass continue. After that will be the decline, when he will no longer dominate at Roland Garros and it will be harder for him to win on grass, let alone hard courts.

I would say that he will almost certainly win one more Wimbledon. Two more Wimbledons might be a taller order, but he is hungry enough to do it. Like I said, he’ll burn out quicker the higher he reaches. But he has the will to do it. I don’t think longevity is his top priority–winning more Grand Slams is.

Steve says:

“He (Nadal) is, at the moment, the best grass-court player, no doubt.”

Again, are you kidding!!! Nadal might’ve won Wimbledon this year but it doesnt mean that he is the best grass court player at the moment. Federer is!

Ezorra: we are all talking through our you-know-whats, are we not? So I would appreciate it if you would let me say my piece.

Nadal on hard courts is vulnerable. It cost him exponentially more to play successive rounds in the US Open. Recall–Fish had never even broken Nadal’s serve in any of the times they met before, let alone taken a set off him. True, Fish was playing better than he’d ever been, but still.

And Murray’s victory over Nadal. Would you have predicted that from his straight-sets loss to Nadal at Wimbledon? I guess going by your logic of who was the latest to win in their head-to-head, Nadal should have whomped Murray in straight sets. But that logic didn’t hold.

I’m not saying Nadal will necessarily lose on a hard court. I’m saying it’s a toss-up. Surely you can’t say he’s the favorite vs. Djokovic, who ended his 32-match win streak, or vs. Murray, who totally outplayed him. Or Federer, who beat him last year in the Masters’ Cup. Or Tsonga, who destroyed him in Australia and who had knee problems when he faced Nadal at Indian Wells.

“How about Nadal? Why can’t he develop like other players?”

He could. But he’d have to get a lot more efficient. His serve has improved greatly, but he hasn’t necessarily had to be so adept at volleying, since his heavy groundstrokes force his opponents to play so far behind the baseline. Players like Cilic and Querrey won’t have that problem, since they can outhit him without breaking a sweat.

And you are assuming he’ll stay healthy for the next few years. Which is no certain thing, given that he’s already suffered injuries that have hampered him.

I don’t know why you’re so hostile. I said he’d have at least five or six more productive years, and that he might (at the very best) win up to eleven Grand Slams, which is two more than Agassi. So why are you so pissed?

Reading all the above posts, in toto, on this thread makes one wonder, why does the current # 1 player in the world, does attract so much bad press regarding his style of play and his supposed longevity. Reading some of posts makes one feel that he is at the fag end of his learning curve and additionally, is tottering on his last legs at the ripe old of age of 22 and will bid adios to tennis any moment.

Steve says: “we are all talking through our you-know-whats, are we not? So I would appreciate it if you would let me say my piece.” Absolutely. And that’s the answer to Kofi Ofori, who seems to think you must be on the tour before you can discuss it. Well, that’s the end of most journalism, then. And - in this vein - don’t bother reading film/ theatre/book etc reviews unless the reviewer is an actor/novelist etc.

Blogs are good, because people who had no previous opportunity to get things off their chest here can do so to their hearts’ content.

“it amazes me how people pour their opinions - yes, mere opinions! - on to these pages and expect everyone to take it as gospel”. Well, of course we can all get a bit carried away from time to time. And we’re all experts, aren’t we, when we rave at the television screen because our player has done - in our exalted opinion - a duff shot. Even if we can barely hold a tennis racket. But deep down, we all know the score. And - sometimes - worthwhile things are said. Experts are not necessarily candid or honest, and can certainly be exposed occasionally. And it’s nice to know what other people think, too, and sometimes that can make you think and even revise an opinion. Finally, you’ve been to a show. At the end, people drift out without saying much. You go to another show. Everyone’s discussing animatedly, reluctant to leave. Who d’you think got most out of the show they saw? Well, tennis is a show.

i cant agree more! these guys are real talented and we shouldnt dare dilute their talent by the negative writings of people like Sean, though a great writer!

The fact is Fed demolished his oponents for his 5th, period! Everyone gets tired and exhausted, others like the Djoker will quit, whislt others like Murray will go on till the end.

NachoF,

Ofcourse, not! They are both great champions and will win a ton of tournaments, no doubt about it.

As I was writing this late night, what I meant was players that “fell flat as they neared the finish line of what turned out to be a long and crazy summer” in a tournament cannot expect to win that tournament as there are so many good players out there. If you are not well you will be beaten as Roger’s year thus far showed us. You cannot use it as an excuse because you have to compete on the scheduled day no matter how you are.

Agree with Richard Waddington who Says:
“Sean Randall for all his fine words cannot hide his dislike for Roger Federer”

So I will try not to take any of Sean’s comments on Roger too seriously going forward. As Von suggested it is a waste of time defending when there is nothing to defend.

Andrew Miller, the Agassi/Sampras/Courier generation I would call top heavy. This new one is very deep, very talented and I think will overall be better.

Tennismasta/oops/NachoF/Richard Waddington/others, to repeat, I am not taking a shot at Fed when I say “you could argue the guy had a joke of a draw up until the semifinals”. That’s just an argument I have heard and read but I don’t buy it.

Regarding Nadal and his hardcourt skills, did we already forget the guy won the Olympics, Canada and reached the SF at the US Open and the Australian Open?? I see no reason why he cannot win a hardcourt major or another Wimbledon.

Oleg Says:
“Statistically speaking, the trio of winning the French Open, Wimbledon and Olympic gold is more rare than the trio of Aussie, Wimbledon, US Open.
So I disagree with “Well, it falls short of what Fed did THRICE, in 2004, 06, and 2007″.

I dont think so.. why is it rare??? except for Federer who else has one the trio of Aus, Wimby and US Open?? .. its not rare because we have see Fed doing it thrice. Plus being finalist at French. Going 27-1 at Grandslams twice in a row.
And also .. why are you guys forgeting Master’s Cup??? He has won this.. everytime he has won 3 GS in a year… Lets see if Nadal can win the masters cup this year.

Fed’s 04, 06 and 07 years are much better than Nadal’s year as of now… Fed’s 05 year is more comparable.. even though Fed was 81-4 that whole year

It will be very interesting to see how Nadal and Fed do in the indoor season. Nadal seems to fizzle at the end of the summer and winter seasons every year - will this one be different?

Nadal’s year has been extraordinary for sure, but the Olympics don’t count as a slam, and at the end of the day Rafa has 2 while Fed had 3 in 3 different years - no contest.

Djokovic was absolutely in his right to attack Roddick for attempting to put scrutiny on his timeouts, and Roddick was in his right for the same. Djokovic’s problem is his focus - who cares what other say - go and do your job!
Ironically in blowing Roddick away and playing like a man posessed for 3 of 4 sets, he has given the best argument against his own exaggerations of injuries and incessant time-outs.

And not to pour water on the flavor(s) of the month, but what’s all this about Ernst Gulbis? As far as I can tell, this kid Gulbis does not have the mind of a champion. He had Djokovic in his sights in Paris and he blew it. He should have destroyed Roddick and gave it way. I just don’t see what everyone is so excited about…anyone can hit like a ton of bricks for a set and a half, but you’ve got to close the deal, and this kid was no where near doing that. He’s got to concentrate.

For that matter Del Potro didn’t win any tight matches against established players - all his wins were either mindless bashfests or wars of attrition against players as inexperienced as he is. When he wins something against quality players, then we can annoint him the next best whatever.

Of course, for 3 years I’ve felt the same about Murray and look how handled Nadal…

JMDP beat Gasquet to win Stuggart. Hmmm. Gasquet has beat Fed on clay and pushed Rafa. JMDP beat Roddick on hardcourts at LA I believe, and pushed Murray at the USO, who was a finalist. I’d say he’s proved his chops.

Gulbis still needs to focus and show the determination and grit to win or he’ll be another underachiever, with a helluva game but no consistency. He might be a guy who loves a big show.

Cilic and JMDP, however, have both desire and focus; they are real threats to everyone next year - just wait.

Sean
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Federer has nothing to prove to anybody. Just simply the best

MMT, to add to what Jane said, JDMP had a great, tight win over Gilles Simon who I think is a very quality player. And I liked that he really hung tough with Murray. He also whipped Roddick in L.A. So apart from Rafa, Roger and Novak who would you like to see him beat?

Regarding Gulbis, however, I would agree. When all is said and done he might get to a Slam final or two, but I don’t think he ever wins a Major. He’ll be Top 10, maybe Top 5 but he’s not a No. 1 guy. I don’t see that mental strength, at least not yet (granted he is young!). That said, he’ll be great to have around in the coming years.

MMT

I agree with you here: “Djokovic’s problem is his focus - who cares what other say - go and do your job!”

He does need to let things roll off his back more; he can alway air grievances in post-match pressers - OFF the court - or even better deal with anything bugging him in private.

But on the court he should let his excellent tennis do the talking. I really hope he comes back next year with this resolve as I don’t want to see him become an imploder like Safin (much as it’s sometimes fascinating to watch Marat unravel, I’d rather see him play his best, like at AO 05).

Murray’s a case in point; re-watch his match against Tsonga at the AO where he unraveled, made bad choices, played too defensively, and lord knows, used too many drop shots. Then compare that to his win over Rafa at the USO. It’s like a 180 degree turnaround. He was focused, smart, offensive and defensive, and no meltdowns. I think Djoko can do this kind of turn-around too, and he’s ambitious enough that I expect he’ll know it and learn it.

Guess we’ll know a little more this fall, throughout the indoor season.

Sean Randall,

You are factually incorrect. You said “While Djokovic, Nadal and others were sucking wind (granted, they played more this summer”

Well, depending on where you start the summer - if you count from the french open onwards, Fed played 33 singles matches upto the US finals - djokovic also played 33, while murray played only 28. Nadal played 40. But then fed also played 5 doubles matches very recently at the Olympics.

So you could make some kind of argument that Nadal was tired since he played more - but certainly not djoke or murray. They are just not fit enough to be No 1 right now. If fed is fitter, that doesn’t take away ANYTHING from his wins against them, just like you can’t take it away from Nadal if he wins because he is fitter.

So don’t make factually incorrect statements please.

Also, in 2006, Fed was 92-5 - he played 97 matches (at 24+ years of age)!! That’s the kind of fitness you need. He was in pretty much every final! Nadal is upto 84 matches for this year, so lets see how he fares after a couple more tournaments. nobody else even comes close in fitness to these two.

And these guys are much younger. come on!

Highroller, I guess I should have been more clear. For me, here in the U.S. the “summer” is post Wimbledon through the US Open. It’s basically the North American “summer” hardcourt season (plus the Olympics this year).

MMT - Regarding injury timeouts - I read an interesting stat that in 2008 Rafa has used more than Novak. I found it surprising. I am not sure if it’s true.

OK Sean, lets look at the summer the way you define it.

Nadal played more (21 matches), I agree.

Fed played 14 (7 best of 3, 7 best of 5), plus 5 doubles matches, for whatever they are worth.

Djoke played 20 (6 best of 5, and 14 best of 3) - but he tapped out in the second round at wimbledon, so had a full 10 days of extra rest to start the summer, compared to Fed who had that draining final at wimbledon. So can you really argue that djoke was OK to be so tired?

Murray played 17 matches (10 of which were best of 3). plus he tapped out in the quarters at wimbledon, so had more rest going into the summer season.

really, if you look at the facts in their totality and objectively, only Nadal can claim being tired due to playing a lot. not djoke or murray (may be Del potro can too!).

Its really important to present facts objectively, not to just make a casual distorted statement……

Jane,
but hasnt Nadal played way more matches than Djokovic??…. maybe we should look at timeouts per match

Sean,

I don’t know why, and many guys( I must include you) always have a tilted opinions
when they write something about Federer and Nadal (I personally don’t think they
watch the games indifferently, because indeference makes the game truely enjoyable).
Sean, I guess I will never get a chance to read your post where you don’t have a little
condescending remarks on Federer(Even on his success). I am not sure if that is just for the sake of the blog or you really have such opinion.
The fact is Nadal is very good, he’s finally achieved what he’d longed for a long time. But see, Federer is already in is almost-late 20s and
Nadal’s physical development(in strength or any thing else for that matter) have just culminated.
So, at this point of time, or at least for next one or two years he should be able to be as dominating as federer was from 04-07 IF, and IF he really is what you guys think of (no body knows, everyone is squandering time in guesses).
Unfortunately, several people like me don’t see that coming because if it was to happen
it would have started right from this year (Rafa’s best year so far). He won two slams and
did not even reach the final of the other two. How long is he playing on hardcourts?,
Its not that he has not tried to improve on hardcourts ever since he turned pro.
He tried and has come this far but now the time is very difficult on hardcourts with so many players who are better than him and yet
growing while many new are emerging.
If you saw the match with Novak in Cincy ( I guess it was semi F)
it felt like novak was playing with a a just some another guy at the first round.
That’s just an example(not to generalize) but there is one quite-certainity, it will be very very very hard for
Nadal to grab two hardcourt slams in the same year; almost impossible. And you can’t say he will dominate
Wimby too (Likely he will win next 2-3 RG titles though)
So, a champion, Nadal will certainly be ( he is close), but a great champion, every one is skeptic, a huge pit-of-doubt all around.

So, agree or not Federer has a way of playing that is going to be a whole new school of playing tennis that every new kid wants to attend.
Playing so many games and not being exhausted is a quality of a great champion.

Just wanted to point out the word EXHAUSTED( used almost in every post in this site). A professional player can never get an excuse over
exhaustion for not winning a match because that’s all that player does- playing all year long. Injury is different but exhaustion
thing is ridiculous to say that “he was very exhausted so he lost the match”.If he gets exhausted
he should improve the STAMINA side of his game, right?

The point I really wanted to make is that why don’t you guys, sometime,
just talk about Nadal who is at the peak right now, instead of comparing with a
guy (federer) whose career is already on the second half.
If you wanna compare these two guys wait for next 5 years and
put then put them on each side and make comparisons over their achievements and decide who shined brightly in the pro-tennis arena.

Finally I want to ask all of you guys: Do you really thing, at this point of time (as a true and loyal tennis critic,no inclination)that Nadal will surpass what Federer has achieved when he turns 27? My answer, he won’t because,
he won’ be able to win as many hardcourt slams as federer won and its highly unlikely that he will win like 8 or 9 FO and 4-5 Wimby.

Roger Federer will never become world no. 1 again. Rafael Nadal is going to win all 4 Grand Slams next year.

NachoF,

Sure, that’s relevant. I remembered after I posted that I read that stat here actually (someone by the name of, i think, T-Man posted it). I just brought it up because I thought the word “incessant” was a bit harsh. It’s easy to vilify and glorify - as these blogs continually reveal - but it’s much more difficult to try not to! Not that I am objective, of course, no one is. But there are all sorts of facts to weigh, that’s all, including the physical strengths and weaknesses of individual human beings - not tennis robots. The players are all, alas, fallible. But thankfully so, so enjoyable to follow and watch.

The “stat” that your’e talking about was someone posting a few examples (3 or 4 I think) of where Nadal took injury time outs. This seems to have little or nothing to do with a true statistic which counts every occurrence of a particular event over some period of time. I could compile a list of 10 occassions where someone else took injury timeouts and that would person would be the new injury timeout leader as far as this “stat” is concerned.

after being on this blog for quite some time, there is nothing that brings out all the personalities more than a discussion on men’s tennis, particularly with the top players.

my boyfriend laughs at me for being on a tennis blog, but he certainly loves the sport as much as i do.

lots of good debate on this article. this years US Open was one of the most exciting only because on the men’s and women’s side, it really was unpredictable. roger was sloppy coming in, nadal was riding a wave of wins, the #1 women’s seed was a merry go round.

what impresses me about tennis players is that they are out there, week after week and the pressure to win is huge, and what it must feel like to realize that you are never going to be top 10 or even top 30, but still come out and try all the time.

without all that passion, we’ve never have 128 people at the start of a slam.

so, thanks to all the tennis players who make the sport what it is.

others like the Djoker will quit, whislt others like Murray will go on till the end.

TO OOPS…. oh puh-leeze.
Tennis mama Judy Murray said no one who went deep in Olympics could get to USO finals. Guess what? Her son stratigically tanked in the first round of Olympics. So I would rethink that statement about Murray going on until the end. LOL

I’m gonna bring back some of the discussion from the other article because this is the latest article and I don’t like posting on older ones because everyone now posts here.

Anyhoo,

We were talking about how it’s impossible to call just one match the greatest of all time. But many people seem to favor the Safin-Federer match, as do I. But I was just looking at some H2H and I saw the score and stats for the final in the Paris Masters in 2000 where Safin EDGED Philippoussis in a 5 set thriller. Safin managed to break the Scud only once and the Scud returned that favor a measily 2 times. So we had 3 breaks of serve in 5 sets. Safin won the match 10-8 in the fifth set tiebreaker. Each one had 22 aces. I didn’t see the match but I’m guessing that this must have been a f*cking incredible match. Based on the stats it wasn’t an up and down match, just a few points here and there that shifted the tide. So the two must have been playing high quality throughout the entire thing matching each other stroke for stroke, and ace for ace in this case. If anyone has seen the match please tell me how it was. And if anyone knows where to see it, again, please share.

Great post as usual Sean. Everybody can agree or disagree; at least it always provides good stuff for hot discussions

For me a couple of things are interesting regarding this Fed-Nadal discussion going on.

How long will Nadal last; I mean he will be close to age 23 next season and at the very top for over 3 years already. Although still a “young gun” he always finds it difficult to keep it up for an entire season. It will probably get worse then better with each year!

Why is Fed so fit, even with all his matches and current age? Biggest difference is Fed is more of a natural player, with a fluent classic technique. While Nadal puts loads of effort in just striking the ball (the heavy spin). Let alone his -catch every ball - drive the opponent - mad defense game. Just look at the average time difference between a straight set win GS match of Nadal vs one of Fed. Probably around half an hour!

Anyway; Nadal will finish as the season nr 1 and he deserved so too. He won more GS, more tournaments and penetrated deeper in most other tournaments. I disagree with your view of his year matching one of the Fed years in 04, 06 or 07. Plain statistics

Cheers,
Pietje

Nadal is the best player in the world, idk why this is so hard to accept. I don’t want him to be. As you all know I’m a huge Federer fan but facts are facts.

Federer’s style of play doesn’t automatically make him more fit. His style of play takes less of a toll on his body than Nadal’s but that doesn’t mean he’s more fit. Federer said he used to feel aches and pains after playing long matches. He doesn’t anymore. That’s fitness. It’s not like Fed’s game wasn’t classical back then either.

“thanks to all the tennis players who make the sport what it is.” (Andrea). But their motivation is not charitable, it is entirely self-seeking. Not to mention the fact that for them, it is a privilege to be out there. Better than playing in some steppe land in the back of beyond, watched by a couple of horses.

And it is because the players are totally absorbed in their own ambitions that the whole thing works. On the whole, the more self-centred the players are, the better the show for us, the spectators. I love Monfils, and yet his amateur dramatics - which are deliberate and often spectacular - have nowhere near the drama of two grim talented bastards hacking mercilessly away at each other.

Curious, isn’t it? The more self-centred the players are, the better the show for us, the spectators. Of course, it’s not black and white. There’s plenty of room for gallantry, humour

sodding computer. Know what I mean?

grendel,

“Curious, isn’t it? The more self-centred the players are, the better the show for us, the spectators.”

This is much like with acting; the more the actor is absorbed into the part, the more were drawn into the illusion, spending disbelief and whatnot.

I agree - watching two of the most absorbed players is the most absorbing.

For starters, I liken blogging on these threads to travelling on public transportation, especially, the New York City Subway System. The subway system is comprised of people from a myriad and/or a conglomeration of different classes of life who come together with the sole purpose in mind of achieving a goal, and that is to get to a certain destination. Similarly, we are people from different classes of life who congregate on these threads with the objective of blogging. Blogging helps us to achieve our goals of airing our opinions and/or venting on issues which we perceive to be just and/or unjust from our diverse cosigns of vantage. This was aptly expressed by Andrea who stated: there is nothing that brings out all the personalities more than a discussion on men’s tennis, particularly with the top players.” If I might add, the TRUE personalities, somewhat similar to a random telephone survey as opposed to a face-to-face interview. My spouse and children are still in a state of disbelief that I engage in blogging — I’m someone who is afraid of conducting any type business on the internet and pay my bills the old-fashioned way, writing a check and mailing the contents.

“grendel Says:
Steve says: “we are all talking through our you-know-whats, are we not? So I would appreciate it if you would let me say my piece.” Absolutely. And that’s the answer to Kofi Ofori, who seems to think you must be on the tour before you can discuss it.”

I have to agree with both Steve and grendel. I mentioned previously on a few threads ago, that our blogging provides us with a psychological conduit whereby we are privileged to speak up on our perceived injustices relating to our favourite players — a rather cost-free psychiatric session. Grendel has expressed a similar thought by saying it’s a means to get things off our chest. However, we are all guilty of becoming carried away, and at times, this can prove to be disastrous. We, at times, tend to speak with such authority, (and I’m guilty of this, which makes me laugh at myself) that could be viewed as hilarious or impertinent/presumptuous. I recall reading a post from someone which initially sparked some of my anger, but then the ludicrousness of the statement made me roar with laughter. The poster stated that no one deserves to give an opinion if they hate a player or are not a tennis fan of the player (this is not verbatim). My anger centered around the word ‘deserves”. Since when do we have to be ‘deserving’ in order to writing a comment, and why shouldn’t we have the right to comment if we don’t like a player. This is ludicrous, ridiculous and hilarious.

There’s been so much written of the “young guns”, Cilic, DelPotro and Gulbis, which to me are overrated opinions of these players. They’ve got long way to go to earn the reputation of ‘great’ players. I agree with MMT on Gulbis: “As far as I can tell, this kid Gulbis does not have the mind of a champion.” whenever I see JDMP, i think of Juan Monaco, who was sooo hot, and we don’t hear of him now. Cilic, to me likes to give his all to get a big scalp, similar to Tipsy, then fizzle out in the next round.

Sean Randall, inasmuch as I dislike disputing any of your comments, due to our past interaction (I don’t know if you have a personal bias against me or Roddick — I think it’s me) anyway, I have to disagree with your statement that Del Potro ‘