I read that Agassi said that Nadal is better than Federer(looking at their careers).
Old guys often miss the spotlight and say ridiculous stuff to make some headline. Agassi is great but saying ridiculous stuff to earn a headline simply shows his age.
Federer has been in the tennis world # 1 position twice as long. Out of the top 4 who won over 90% of the titles for about the last 5 years Federer broke the 3 others(injuries: back, knees, etc…)
The 3 others will retire younger than Fed some of it being due to technology the racquets of today are like steroids they add speed but at some cost.
The only reason Nadal lost less is because he was not facing Fed in many finals.
Nadal is great.
Roger is the Greatest !
Before I can comment, I’d like to know what each of their squats are like?
[quote]tsantos wrote:
Before I can comment, I’d like to know what each of their squats are like? [/quote]
You do not even need numbers. My grandmother can squat more than Federer. He looks like he has never even seen weights.
- Nadal is better.
Nadal isn’t even better than Sampras let alone Federer.
I don’t know who any of these people are.
[quote]csulli wrote:
I don’t know who any of these people are.[/quote]
It’s because they’re white. I think.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Nadal isn’t even better than Sampras let alone Federer.[/quote]
Most experts would put Nadal #2 behind Fed and ahead of Pete. Pete of course has a ridiculous # of titles but going by who would win in a matchup with both players at their prime, the vote goes to Nadal. The guy is for sure more rounded than Pete and he hits with an absurd amount of spin on very powerful shots.
It’s too bad there’s not a real good crew of top women players right now. I really prefer to watch women’s tennis.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]tsantos wrote:
Before I can comment, I’d like to know what each of their squats are like? [/quote]
You do not even need numbers. My grandmother can squat more than Federer. He looks like he has never even seen weights.
- Nadal is better.[/quote]
It seems as though Federer has done alright for himself with or without weights.
[quote]augustburnsred wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]tsantos wrote:
Before I can comment, I’d like to know what each of their squats are like? [/quote]
You do not even need numbers. My grandmother can squat more than Federer. He looks like he has never even seen weights.
- Nadal is better.[/quote]
It seems as though Federer has done alright for himself with or without weights.
[/quote]
So has Stephen Hawking that was not what I was answering nor is it why I think Nadal is better.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Nadal isn’t even better than Sampras let alone Federer.[/quote]
Most experts would put Nadal #2 behind Fed and ahead of Pete. Pete of course has a ridiculous # of titles but going by who would win in a matchup with both players at their prime, the vote goes to Nadal. The guy is for sure more rounded than Pete and he hits with an absurd amount of spin on very powerful shots.
It’s too bad there’s not a real good crew of top women players right now. I really prefer to watch women’s tennis.[/quote]
I have not followed tennis in a while but, how can Federer be considered better when he usually loses to Nadal? Even when he was at the top his number one rival was Nadal. Nadal has had to face much more competition then and now to stay at the top.
People mention his overall win record, well, Nadal is younger and has quite some time to catch up I highly doubt Federer is going to making a run for any more titles.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Nadal isn’t even better than Sampras let alone Federer.[/quote]
Most experts would put Nadal #2 behind Fed and ahead of Pete. Pete of course has a ridiculous # of titles but going by who would win in a matchup with both players at their prime, the vote goes to Nadal. The guy is for sure more rounded than Pete and he hits with an absurd amount of spin on very powerful shots.
It’s too bad there’s not a real good crew of top women players right now. I really prefer to watch women’s tennis.[/quote]
I totally agree.
I enjoy looking at women playing tennis. Some years back after some stiffer racquets became popular the men was just a single shot or 2 and really boring to look at. I think the problem is the women association is not functionning properly. If like men they made some 12 top tournaments mandatory they could sell it to TV and we would benefit like the men did years ago with the now 1000 serie. Now in Canada even with cable we rarely see women tennis except for the big 4 and i am less interested when i do not know either player due to their lack of exposition.
Federer has the better career. He dominated for the longest time, but I think part of that had to do with there weren’t any other guys on his level for part of that time. Then Nadal came along and stole some of his spotlight. Nadal was the king of the clay courts. It’s too bad Fererer, Nadal, and Djokovic weren’t in their prime all at the same time.
Nadal is 23-10 vs Federer in every match they played. He is also 6-2 against him in Grand Slam finals. Going by those numbers Nadal is better in a head to head matchup. But then again, Nadal is five years younger than Federer.
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Federer has the better career. He dominated for the longest time, but I think part of that had to do with there weren’t any other guys on his level for part of that time. Then Nadal came along and stole some of his spotlight. Nadal was the king of the clay courts. It’s too bad Fererer, Nadal, and Djokovic weren’t in their prime all at the same time.
Nadal is 23-10 vs Federer in every match they played. He is also 6-2 against him in Grand Slam finals. Going by those numbers Nadal is better in a head to head matchup. But then again, Nadal is five years younger than Federer.[/quote]
Do you mean that for about 5 years out of millions of tennis players(males) from over 100 countries over 50 of them with very good coaches, only a few were attracted by the millions he earned yearly and or the fame?
I wonder why i never heard nor read about his “Lucky” nickname.
Well i guess he is the # 1 luckiest athlete and doubly lucky since a not knowned category paid him the top $$.
The superbowl losers are considered #2 wich was the Nadal ranking so the winners(#1) must feel bad since # 2 is so great.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]tsantos wrote:
Before I can comment, I’d like to know what each of their squats are like? [/quote]
You do not even need numbers. My grandmother can squat more than Federer. He looks like he has never even seen weights.
- Nadal is better.[/quote]
I dunno, Fed’s got some pretty good calves on him…
[quote]BHappy wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Federer has the better career. He dominated for the longest time, but I think part of that had to do with there weren’t any other guys on his level for part of that time. Then Nadal came along and stole some of his spotlight. Nadal was the king of the clay courts. It’s too bad Fererer, Nadal, and Djokovic weren’t in their prime all at the same time.
Nadal is 23-10 vs Federer in every match they played. He is also 6-2 against him in Grand Slam finals. Going by those numbers Nadal is better in a head to head matchup. But then again, Nadal is five years younger than Federer.[/quote]
Do you mean that for about 5 years out of millions of tennis players(males) from over 100 countries over 50 of them with very good coaches, only a few were attracted by the millions he earned yearly and or the fame?
I wonder why i never heard nor read about his “Lucky” nickname.
Well i guess he is the # 1 luckiest athlete and doubly lucky since a not knowned category paid him the top $$.
The superbowl losers are considered #2 wich was the Nadal ranking so the winners(#1) must feel bad since # 2 is so great. [/quote]
Sorry you lost me. What does this have to do with being lucky?
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]BHappy wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Federer has the better career. He dominated for the longest time, but I think part of that had to do with there weren’t any other guys on his level for part of that time. Then Nadal came along and stole some of his spotlight. Nadal was the king of the clay courts. It’s too bad Fererer, Nadal, and Djokovic weren’t in their prime all at the same time.
Nadal is 23-10 vs Federer in every match they played. He is also 6-2 against him in Grand Slam finals. Going by those numbers Nadal is better in a head to head matchup. But then again, Nadal is five years younger than Federer.[/quote]
Do you mean that for about 5 years out of millions of tennis players(males) from over 100 countries over 50 of them with very good coaches, only a few were attracted by the millions he earned yearly and or the fame?
I wonder why i never heard nor read about his “Lucky” nickname.
Well i guess he is the # 1 luckiest athlete and doubly lucky since a not knowned category paid him the top $$.
The superbowl losers are considered #2 wich was the Nadal ranking so the winners(#1) must feel bad since # 2 is so great. [/quote]
Sorry you lost me. What does this have to do with being lucky?[/quote]
Well you wrote " there weren’t any other guys on his level for part of that time "
It implies that he was Lucky because some perfect timing allowed him to brake so many records. Being a poker world winner might have to do with luck but he kept doing it so most will not call that luck. Just like a very good boxer might win over a great 1 on an event. Not for many years.
[quote]BHappy wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]BHappy wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Federer has the better career. He dominated for the longest time, but I think part of that had to do with there weren’t any other guys on his level for part of that time. Then Nadal came along and stole some of his spotlight. Nadal was the king of the clay courts. It’s too bad Fererer, Nadal, and Djokovic weren’t in their prime all at the same time.
Nadal is 23-10 vs Federer in every match they played. He is also 6-2 against him in Grand Slam finals. Going by those numbers Nadal is better in a head to head matchup. But then again, Nadal is five years younger than Federer.[/quote]
Do you mean that for about 5 years out of millions of tennis players(males) from over 100 countries over 50 of them with very good coaches, only a few were attracted by the millions he earned yearly and or the fame?
I wonder why i never heard nor read about his “Lucky” nickname.
Well i guess he is the # 1 luckiest athlete and doubly lucky since a not knowned category paid him the top $$.
The superbowl losers are considered #2 wich was the Nadal ranking so the winners(#1) must feel bad since # 2 is so great. [/quote]
Sorry you lost me. What does this have to do with being lucky?[/quote]
Well you wrote " there weren’t any other guys on his level for part of that time "
It implies that he was Lucky because some perfect timing allowed him to brake so many records. Being a poker world winner might have to do with luck but he kept doing it so most will not call that luck. Just like a very good boxer might win over a great 1 on an event. Not for many years.[/quote]
I stand by my statement. If Federer and Nadal were coming into their prime at the same time Federer probably wouldn’t have had that streak where he just dominated.
One of the best matches I remember is Federer against Nadal in the Wimbledon final in 2008.
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]BHappy wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]BHappy wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Federer has the better career. He dominated for the longest time, but I think part of that had to do with there weren’t any other guys on his level for part of that time. Then Nadal came along and stole some of his spotlight. Nadal was the king of the clay courts. It’s too bad Fererer, Nadal, and Djokovic weren’t in their prime all at the same time.
Nadal is 23-10 vs Federer in every match they played. He is also 6-2 against him in Grand Slam finals. Going by those numbers Nadal is better in a head to head matchup. But then again, Nadal is five years younger than Federer.[/quote]
Do you mean that for about 5 years out of millions of tennis players(males) from over 100 countries over 50 of them with very good coaches, only a few were attracted by the millions he earned yearly and or the fame?
I wonder why i never heard nor read about his “Lucky” nickname.
Well i guess he is the # 1 luckiest athlete and doubly lucky since a not knowned category paid him the top $$.
The superbowl losers are considered #2 wich was the Nadal ranking so the winners(#1) must feel bad since # 2 is so great. [/quote]
Sorry you lost me. What does this have to do with being lucky?[/quote]
Well you wrote " there weren’t any other guys on his level for part of that time "
It implies that he was Lucky because some perfect timing allowed him to brake so many records. Being a poker world winner might have to do with luck but he kept doing it so most will not call that luck. Just like a very good boxer might win over a great 1 on an event. Not for many years.[/quote]
I stand by my statement. If Federer and Nadal were coming into their prime at the same time Federer probably wouldn’t have had that streak where he just dominated.
One of the best matches I remember is Federer against Nadal in the Wimbledon final in 2008.[/quote]
If they are in there primes at the same time, I think Federer doesn’t have near the streak, but Nadal doesn’t end up with nearly as good of a record against Federer either. Nadal is the greatest player to ever put a shoe on clay. Federer and Sampras would have been brutal against one another on grass. History should really remember Federer as the greatest of all time though. Longevity and shear wins. You can say lack of competition, but was it really that those players weren’t as good as the current crop or was it that Federer was no longer in his prime enough to make the rest of the field out-classed??