• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tennis thread

That's your opinion. Federer was owned in his peak by nadal who was a better all court player (Fed only won French open when Nadal wasn't there) he would smash Feds record of fit.

By any objective measure a better player IMO
 
Last edited:
Fed has what? 7 Wimbledon titles? Similar to Nadals dominance on clay. But Nadal BEAT Federer on grass. Which Federer never did to Nadal. And the only title Federer won at the French Open was when Nafal wasn't present.

This plus their H2H means he's the beat ever.
 
Last edited:
Fed has what? 7 Wimbledon titles? Similar to masala dominance on clay. But Nadal BEAT Federer on grass. Which Federer never did to Nadal. And the only title Federer won at the French Open was when Nafal wasn't present.

This plus their H2H means he's the beat ever.

Nadal beats everybody at Roland Garros. The only time he lost was when he wasn't 100% fit. He's only won one other slam more than once, whereas Federer has been dominant in 3 of the 4 slams.

I do think Nadal is in Federer's head to some extent. But the head to head doesn't mean he's better IMO. Djokovic has a superior head to head than Nadal in grand slam finals for example, and he wiped the floor with Nadal in one of those finals!

And there's no guarantee he would have surpassed Federer if he had stayed fit all his career. I mean Andy Murray was in fine form at the US open this year and there's so little between the top 4 players that most of their matches are decided by a few points here and there. I think a lot of people assumed he would surpass Federer, but then Djokovic upped his game to a level that nobody saw coming.
 
Of course there are no absolutes. That what makes debating this interesting. The point remains Murray is a brilliant player in the strongest era ever. Someone to be very proud of.
 
Of course there are no absolutes. That what makes debating this interesting. The point remains Murray is a brilliant player in the strongest era ever. Someone to be very proud of.

Absolutely. I think he changed SOME people's minds when he won the US open and people warmed to him after his display at Wimbledon and the way he handled himself in the interview after. I think eventually he may win more people over when he wins Wimbledon, which I think he will either next year or the year after.
 
Fed has what? 7 Wimbledon titles? Similar to Nadals dominance on clay. But Nadal BEAT Federer on grass. Which Federer never did to Nadal. And the only title Federer won at the French Open was when Nafal wasn't present.
This plus their H2H means he's the beat ever.

Correction, Nadal was present but got beaten in the semi final by Soderling, who Roger then beat comfortably in the final. I accept though that had Nadal got past Soderling he would probably have beaten Roger in the final given his dominance on clay. One other point, yes Roger only has one French open title and 7 Wimbledons, but he has also won the US Open 5 times and the Australian open 4 times, so to say most of his titles have come on grass is simply wrong, given that over 50% have come on other surfaces. Added to which he has won the world tour finals 6 times to prove that he is also great on hard courts.

Perhaps Rafa would have won more titles and would be close to surpassing Roger's record had he avoided injuries but we will never know. In my view, Roger and Rafa are far above the rest. Djokovic may come into the equation in years to come but he has only had 18 months of dominance, where Roger had about 6 years and Rafa had about 4 years. If Novak can maintain his current form and continue winning 2/3 slams a year like Roger did for so long, then he can be considered in the same bracket.

Murray is a great player, the fourth best in the world (I know he's 3rd in the rankings, but that's only because Rafa has been out injured for so long, there can be no doubt that Rafa is the better player) and miles ahead of the fifth best. I believe he will probably win at least 3/4 more slams during the rest of his career. That said, I still believe he is some way off the top three and is unlikely to ever rack up the kind of numbers that they have in their careers to date.
 
I would say hard courts is his strongest surface, especially closed courts

Nadal has plenty of time to overtake him (injuries permitting) but at the moment he's not quite there yet, imv. As with most Spaniards - he dominates on clay - yawn. :)
 
Last edited:
Correction, Nadal was present but got beaten in the semi final by Soderling, who Roger then beat comfortably in the final. I accept though that had Nadal got past Soderling he would probably have beaten Roger in the final given his dominance on clay. One other point, yes Roger only has one French open title and 7 Wimbledons, but he has also won the US Open 5 times and the Australian open 4 times, so to say most of his titles have come on grass is simply wrong, given that over 50% have come on other surfaces. Added to which he has won the world tour finals 6 times to prove that he is also great on hard courts.

Perhaps Rafa would have won more titles and would be close to surpassing Roger's record had he avoided injuries but we will never know. In my view, Roger and Rafa are far above the rest. Djokovic may come into the equation in years to come but he has only had 18 months of dominance, where Roger had about 6 years and Rafa had about 4 years. If Novak can maintain his current form and continue winning 2/3 slams a year like Roger did for so long, then he can be considered in the same bracket.

Murray is a great player, the fourth best in the world (I know he's 3rd in the rankings, but that's only because Rafa has been out injured for so long, there can be no doubt that Rafa is the better player) and miles ahead of the fifth best. I believe he will probably win at least 3/4 more slams during the rest of his career. That said, I still believe he is some way off the top three and is unlikely to ever rack up the kind of numbers that they have in their careers to date.

If he finishes his career with 4/5 slams he'll be one of the greatest ever who showed he could beat the other 3 at their peaks. We're talking about the top echelon of the game here.

We don't know how lucky we re to have such a player in this country.

Look at France !! They are are more into tennis than us as a country (Faroese courts and active players) yet can only dream of a player of Murrays calibre! I jut get frustrated as the reason he is hate is based on a lie! And I cannot accept an arena full of British and cheering Federer like they did. Unpatriotic ****s
 
And I cannot accept an arena full of British and cheering Federer like they did. Unpatriotic ****s

It's because he's Scottish and also seems to be a bit of a drab! Harsh but true.

As for the Nadal v Fed debate, must agree with Nadal being the better player. I have massive respect for Fed but Nadal's record v him is just so damning. His Grand Slam record would be right up there with Roger's too if his injuries hadn't forced him to retire/pull out of so many Slam tournaments. Bit of a shame with his latest injury, the Djokovic rivalry was shaping up just nicely at the start of the year, that Aussie Open final was pretty epic.
 
Last edited:
Fantastic achievement for a small nation like the Czech Republic. Shows what can be done.

But we were lucky, because Federer, Nadal and Djokovic didn't played against us.

[video=youtube;pfZaXyLAaMo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfZaXyLAaMo&feature=plcp[/video]
 
Back