The French open - Roland Garros 2011

[daryl1985]

Nadal has Federer mentally beat. He should have beaten Nadal yesterday but Nadal always seems to step up on the big points. Federer is my fave player but Nadal is a real champion. A warrior on the court and a real gent off it.

[Raghav_12]

Its laughable to say that Federer is not the best of his generation. Nadal has absolutely dominated one particular surface while Federer, even when he's not been at his best, has reached the finals and won on all surfaces in the last 2-3 years and this is the time which has been considered as Rafa's peak. Since the beginning of 2007 there have been 18 grand slams and Federer (who, according to you, made the most of the depleted strength in the pre Nadal days) has reached the Final of 13 and won 7 - I guess thats not a bad record for a man who "made most of the depleted strength". And twice during this period he has reached the Finals of all grand slams in a year (in 2007 and 2009). Nadal, on the other hand, despite being at his best, has not reached the final of all 4 slams in a year ever. So, you can see - the time when Rafa has been at his absolute peak, i.e. since 2007, he has won 8 grand slams and Federer, who many people said was finished or was past it or that his best days were over etc etc, has won 7 slams during this period. One man at his best wins 8 slams and another man while not in the best form, still wins 7 - who's the better one? Federer is without a doubt the best player ever in the history of tennis. Period.

Why 2007, I say let's start with 2008. I think Nadal really arrived in 2008. Can you please re-do the numbers and see Nadal phenomena on Federer's numbers :winky:. Nadal has 17-8 against Federer. Absolutely dominated him on clay court (12-2) and on other courts things are just about even. Another flaw in your argument is, you have taken period from 2007 and at the same time you state that for the duration under discussion Federer hasn't been in best of the forms. So Federer's best form waned immediately after arrival of Nadal?? Federer has much more beautiful game than Nadal, but Nadal is real champ. Federer ruled the world earlier because there was no Nadal and would have continued doing so if Nadal had not come, as he did for the brief period again in 2009 when Nadal was out b'coz of injury.

[Sachin=GOD]

Why 2007' date= I say let's start with 2008. I think Nadal really arrived in 2008. Can you please re-do the numbers and see Nadal phenomena on Federer's numbers :winky:.this post Yeah, Nadal has won more matches against Federer but what about the Australian Open and the US Open results of the last 5-6 years that I showed you for Nadal? He might have dominated against Federer but overall his performance in TWO grand slams out of 4 hasn't been so good that he could be called better than Federer. I've not said that Federer hasn't been in the best of forms - it was Vamos_Rafa in this post who said that Fedex hasn't been able to replicate his old form which he showed in the pre-Nadal days - I just carried on from there and showed that even if he was not in form he won almost as many slams as Nadal and reached 4 more finals than Nadal in that period. Yeah, real champ who has reached the Finals of Australian Open and US Open just ONCE in the last 5 years. Federer, despite not being as good on clay as he's on other surfaces, has still performed admiringly well in Rolland Garros over the last 5-6 years. There is no doubt that Nadal is the King of Clay but he's got to show that level of play and that level of consistency in all slams and all surfaces before he can even be considered for comparison with Federer.

it was you who said that Federer made most of the depleted strength between 2003-07 in

[Sooda]

Yes. If you compare only Grand slam results then yes. But apart from the slams if you consider masters series, then there also Rafa has an edge over Federer. Infact the very first match that these 2 guys played, it was in 2004 toronto masters if I am not mistaken, Federer was beaten there. And it is there for oneself to see the way Federer has struggled to keep up with his winning ways past Nadal really made his mark. And let me put it this way, the amount of time Federer took to transform from someone who could win his first slam to winning or even doing well on the Rollan Garos has been pretty high. I think 2003 it was when he won his first wimbledon while till 2005 a semi-final exit to Rafa and then 2006 finals was his best performance. Rafa won his first slam in 2005 and by 2006 Wimbledon he was playing the finals which he lost in sets. Then, in 2007 he lost in 5 sets to Fedex and in 2008 he won it. He again won it in 2010, but this time his opponent was not Federer. So, Federer's Rollad Garoos victory does not include a single victory against Rafa while Rafa beat Roger to win his wimbledon title. And when you talk of 16 slams, Roger turned pro in 1998 while Rafa in 2001. So Roger does have a 3 year headstart.

That, is because of how slow grass courts have become over the last decade, clay remains the same slow speed. Thats why guys who you'd never have thought possible to reach latter stages to Wim 10 years ago, do so now. It is safe to say Nadal would not have come close to winning Wim in the early noughties. (That (and incredible modern day racket tech) is also why it is hard to make a comparison across eras). When Fed started off Grass was quick... Even from the 90's when the depth in mens tennis was arguably superior to what it is now, Wimbledon was super fast dominated by huge serve and volleyers, the French dominated by clay court specialists. And never the twain met. Muster and Rios were world no 1's without ever registering past week 2 of Wim (an educated guess that)...the most Samp got to was a French QF in 94 I think, the year he won all the other Slams...it was harder back then to replicate success across formats. In short thats why Sampras was the GOAT kthxbai. Of course slower courts have made for more rallies and more exciting tennis, even if it has killed off the serve and volleyer

[vamos_rafa]

That, is because of how slow grass courts have become over the last decade, clay remains the same slow speed. Thats why guys who you'd never have thought possible to reach latter stages to Wim 10 years ago, do so now. It is safe to say Nadal would not have come close to winning Wim in the early noughties. (That (and incredible modern day racket tech) is also why it is hard to make a comparison across eras). When Fed started off Grass was quick... Even from the 90's when the depth in mens tennis was arguably superior to what it is now, Wimbledon was super fast dominated by huge serve and volleyers, the French dominated by clay court specialists. And never the twain met. Muster and Rios were world no 1's without ever registering past week 2 of Wim (an educated guess that)...the most Samp got to was a French QF in 94 I think, the year he won all the other Slams...it was harder back then to replicate success across formats. In short thats why Sampras was the GOAT kthxbai. Of course slower courts have made for more rallies and more exciting tennis, even if it has killed off the serve and volleyer

Agreed about the slowing down of the courts. But that has become a general phenomenon isn't it? I remember in 2005, Hewitt complaining about the slowing down of the Aussie open Courts and even James Blake came up with this arguement regarding U.S Open courts. So, this is a uniform phenomenon for all the players. And since you touched about 90's, back then there was a clear separation between the clay courters like Kuerten and Grass court or Hard court players like Sampras or Aggasi(Even though he did win Rollan Garros once). The latter would resort more to the serve and volley technique while the clay courters resorted to the baseline game. Now, I think that separation does not exist any more because of the change of methodology and also due to the slowing down of the courts. I would like to put forward one arbitrary question though, if the slowing down of the Grass court is one of the reason for Rafa being able to actually win it twice whilst in the 90's he would not have been able to win it, then why cant Federer replicate the same in Rolland Garros? I agree that he has been able to make it to the finals but still Rafa was able to beat him atleast once on grass then why not Federer? Its not that Federer himself looks to serve and volley a lot on grass and also on clay, which according to many experts would lead him many good results. But there surely has to be a reason right, that Rafa has played 3 Wimbledon finals against Federer,lost 1 in 4 sets, 1 in 5 sets and won 1 in 5 sets while Federer is yet to play a 5-setter against Rafa in Rolland Garros?

[Raghav_12]

That, is because of how slow grass courts have become over the last decade, clay remains the same slow speed. Thats why guys who you'd never have thought possible to reach latter stages to Wim 10 years ago, do so now. It is safe to say Nadal would not have come close to winning Wim in the early noughties. (That (and incredible modern day racket tech) is also why it is hard to make a comparison across eras). When Fed started off Grass was quick... Even from the 90's when the depth in mens tennis was arguably superior to what it is now, Wimbledon was super fast dominated by huge serve and volleyers, the French dominated by clay court specialists. And never the twain met. Muster and Rios were world no 1's without ever registering past week 2 of Wim (an educated guess that)...the most Samp got to was a French QF in 94 I think, the year he won all the other Slams...it was harder back then to replicate success across formats. In short thats why Sampras was the GOAT kthxbai. Of course slower courts have made for more rallies and more exciting tennis, even if it has killed off the serve and volleyer

I don't think you can bring argument of eras being different when you compare Federer and Nadal. It just that Federer started some 3-4 years ahead of Nadal and era's don't change that quickly. I agree with your points of courts getting slower over a period of time, but that noway strengthens claims of Federer being superior to Nadal. I wonder if we had three wimbledon finals between Roddick and Federer in 90's instead of mid to late noughties, what would have been results of these. Faster courts would definitely have suited more to Roddick's game. As of now, there would be enough people who won't agree that Nadal is greater than Federer. But Nadal just needs 2-3 more grand slams to silence these people.

[Sooda]

I would like to put forward one arbitrary question though, if the slowing down of the Grass court is one of the reason for Rafa being able to actually win it twice whilst in the 90's he would not have been able to win it, then why cant Federer replicate the same in Rolland Garros? I agree that he has been able to make it to the finals but still Rafa was able to beat him atleast once on grass then why not Federer? Its not that Federer himself looks to serve and volley a lot on grass and also on clay, which according to many experts would lead him many good results. But there surely has to be a reason right, that Rafa has played 3 Wimbledon finals against Federer,lost 1 in 4 sets, 1 in 5 sets and won 1 in 5 sets while Federer is yet to play a 5-setter against Rafa in Rolland Garros?

Because Rafa is so much the better player on clay. That much goes without saying. And the slow grass means he can replicate that on grass too. There is of course hard courts too and Rafa has found it harder to adapt to those than grass. Whilst Fed was winning US and Aus opens about 5 or so years ago Rafa was losing to guys like Tsonga, Ferrer and Gonzalez. This is where S=G has a point insofar as consistency is concerned You could raise the same point you said earlier (about how Fed took relatively long to succeed on clay) to Rafa and Hard courts. After all he won his first french in 05 then the Aus open in 09. But I do not think thats a huge deal tbh. The fact that both men have won all 4 slams make them special.

I don't think you can bring argument of eras being different when you compare Federer and Nadal. It just that Federer started some 3-4 years ahead of Nadal and era's don't change that quickly. I agree with your points of courts getting slower over a period of time, but that noway strengthens claims of Federer being superior to Nadal. I wonder if we had three wimbledon finals between Roddick and Federer in 90's instead of mid to late noughties, what would have been results of these. Faster courts would definitely have suited more to Roddick's game. As of now, there would be enough people who won't agree that Nadal is greater than Federer. But Nadal just needs 2-3 more grand slams to silence these people.

The pt about grass was to highlight why and how Rafa has managed to be such a success on it, I did not mean to say they were from different era because they are not of course. I would think Fed has enough weapons to have succeeded on grass even in the 90's. I agree with you last point though, by the end of his career Rafa should done more than enough to be regarded as the best ever.

[coffee_rules]

Why are the grass courts slowing down, all over the world?