zep1706 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 He served and volleyed for the first 5 years of his career and beat Sampras doing so. We know that if Federer was good enough to serve & volley and beat Sampras at wimbledon, he was good enough to win in the 90s. As i said, even a 40 year old Sampras today would lose wimbledon to one of Federer/Murray/Djokovic or Berdych. Not Nadal. It isnt just my opinion, it is opinion of almost every single tennis great that Federer is one of the best serve & volleyers. You don't like it, you can feck off with your Nadal fanboyism. I already said that Nadal is the greatest claycourter ever- which automatically puts him into one of the greatest of alltime. Just that Federer is *the* greatest of alltime. I thought your mommy taught you manners what happened to that. :haha: Anyways I personally don't belief in the GOAT concept but many do and Federer is rightly considered as GOAT right now. But if Nadal crosses him in GS tally then, that would change. You can cry as much as you want, that's the fact. If he doesn't cross it then in most people's mind Federer will remain as the GOAT. Personally I find it as a flawed concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Again lack of basic logic. Nadal was serving well above 60% in 2010 when he was serving at that speed. He now goes over 70% and usually close to 75%. You initially said he doesn't have a fast serve and I debunked it with proof. The fact is' date=' if he needs it he can go big. In the 1990s. he would have. He has the capability.[/quote'] He doesnt have a fast serve, i proved it with my link. Federer is consistently faster. You said that Nadal does it so he can get more in, he plays safe, blahblah. All excuses. Well i too can get 80% first serves in if i served at 150kph all day long. Federer's first serve speed is the bare minimum to be considered a strong server in the 90s. Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Stich all had equal or better average serving speeds than Federer. So Nadal would've been creamed. In the 90s, he'd have done ghanta. Because he does not have the capability to be a big server consistently in the 90s without being seriously below 50% first serves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 He doesnt have a fast serve, i proved it with my link. Federer is consistently faster. You said that Nadal does it so he can get more in, he plays safe, blahblah. All excuses. Well i too can get 80% first serves in if i served at 150kph all day long. Federer's first serve speed is the bare minimum to be considered a strong server in the 90s. Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Stich all had equal or better average serving speeds than Federer. So Nadal would've been creamed. In the 90s, he'd have done ghanta. Because he does not have the capability to be a big server consistently in the 90s without being seriously below 50% first serves. I don't give a flying **** about your personal opinion. Already cleared that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I thought your mommy taught you manners what happened to that. :haha: Anyways I personally don't belief in the GOAT concept but many do and Federer is rightly considered as GOAT right now. But if Nadal crosses him in GS tally then, that would change. You can cry as much as you want, that's the fact. If he cannot cross it then in most people's mind Federer will remain as the GOAT. # of slams do not make one a GOAT or not GOAT. Federer would remain the GOAT because he has the most complete game ever seen in tennis history. Agassi is not a better player than Nole because Agassi has more slams. Even if Nole doesnt win a single slam again, he will be a far better player than agassi. But then again, i dont expect people who are too ignorant to understand the game and instead rely only on stats to understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I don't give a flying **** about your personal opinion. Already cleared that up. And likewise. As i proved, Nadal would've most likely been ghanta outside of FO in the 90s because his serve is not up to scratch for the faster surfaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 But then again, i dont expect people who are too ignorant to understand the game and instead rely only on stats to understand that. I understand the game much more than you do. You are a Federer fanboy with zero objectivity, I have proved you wrong on three counts. 1. Wimbledon speed change year (2001). 2. US open speed change year (2003). 3. Nadal's capability to serve fast. You were laughing when I said he was serving over 130 mph in 2010. I proved that wrong and guess what he won the title that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 And likewise. As i proved' date=' Nadal would've most likely been ghanta outside of FO in the 90s because his serve is not up to scratch for the faster surfaces.[/quote'] First learn the meaning of the word proof. Personal opinions are not considered as proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I understand the game much more than you do. you keep saying that and maybe one day you will believe it too, stats-only man. :haha::haha: You are a Federer fanboy with zero objectivity, I have proved you wrong on three counts. 1. Wimbledon speed change year (2001). False, your article proved me correct, since the players in the same article said that the courts became slower and slower in precisely the same timeframe i was talking about 3. Nadal's capability to serve fast. You were laughing when I said he was serving over 130 mph in 2010. I proved that wrong and guess what he won the title that year. Sorry, i proved you wrong on that count too. Nadal in virtually every match that there is stats, serves 15-20kph slower on average than Federer. You claimed that Federer and Nadal's serves are the same speed, Federer just places it better. I proved you wrong on that for you to make excuses like 'nadal deliberately serves slower to get more first serves in' blahblah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 OK man be happy. I am done with you. I'd rather argue with someone who knows what he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 First learn the meaning of the word proof. Personal opinions are not considered as proof. Given that i provided a much more comprehensive website on first serve speeds and proved that Nadal consistently is 15-20kph slower than Federer, i think i get the concept of proof better than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 OK man be happy. I am done with you. I'd rather argue with someone who knows what he's talking about. :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha: Neither of us is going to convince the other. Let the readers decide who's correct and leave it at that. Anyways what's your prediction for the rest of tournament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Neither of us is going to convince the other. Let the readers decide who's correct and leave it at that. Anyways what's your prediction for the rest of tournament? Murray def. Federer Wavrinka def. Berdych Nadal def Murray Nadal def Wavrinka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Murray def. Federer Wavrinka def. Berdych Nadal def Murray Nadal def Wavrinka. There is one more match. I think Dimitrov is going to give a good fight. He has always played well against Nadal. Has lost close matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Exactly' date=' and I do expect him to do this. He for some reason, has really looked focused. Though I don't want to doubt that Nadal is a beast too. [b']I hope Feder win since I am his big fan but may the best player win. That's why I have so much respect for you. Everyone has their favorites but at the end of the it's just a game. I have never been a Federer fan but I was happy to see him win Wimbledon in 2012. No one gave him a chance and he won it by beating Novak and Murray back to back with a bad back. I still feel that Federer has one more slam left in him. He just needs a favorable draw and possibly avoid Nadal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 That's why I have so much respect for you. Everyone has their favorites but at the end of the it's just a game. I have never been a Federer fan but I was happy to see him win Wimbledon in 2012. No one gave him a chance and he won it by beating Novak and Murray back to back with a bad back. I still feel that Federer has one more slam left in him. He just needs a favorable draw and possibly avoid Nadal. I am curious- you are entitled to your opinion ofcourse, but why are you not a Federer fan ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I am curious- you are entitled to your opinion ofcourse' date=' but why are you not a Federer fan ?[/quote'] I liked Federer when he first came out and he was an incredible tennis player then but tennis was becoming very predictable and boring. No one seemed to have the guts to challenge his might and I started to root for his opponents. Then you see Nadal, a teenager just a year older than me giving it back to him with interest, instant favorite! I saw the heart of a champion in 2005 Roland Garros. Later I started to like his game as well. The way he constructs a point, his speed and footwork and the mentality to keep improving is second to none. I don't hate or dislike Federer, I highly respect his game and his achievements in tennis, just never been his fan, I don't root for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I liked Federer when he first came out and he was an incredible tennis player then but tennis was becoming very predictable and boring. No one seemed to have the guts to challenge his might and I started to root for his opponents. Then you see Nadal' date=' a teenager just a year older than me giving it back to him with interest, instant favorite! I saw the heart of a champion in 2005 Roland Garros. Later I started to like his game as well. The way he constructs a point, his speed and footwork and the mentality to keep improving is second to none. I don't hate or dislike Federer, I highly respect his game and his achievements in tennis, just never been his fan, I don't root for him.[/quote'] I see and i understand. Federer at his peak, like Sampras, made me almost wish his opposition were a bit more of a challenge. Not that they wern't good but Federer was so sublime that he made everyone look so ordinary. i used to play tennis before and when i lived in the middle east a long time ago, i had the opportuinty to rub shoulders with the likes of Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Edberg, Becker, etc- a consequence of being in a small town venue that attracted big names. I like Federer because simply speaking, he is mindboggling. Not only is he McEnroe-ish with his freakish angle & touch play, he is almost as good as Sampras at serving ( I say almost because nobody will be as good as Sampras and his second serve), his forehand is by far the most dominant forehand I've *ever* seen and his backhand is by far the best singlehanded backhand i've *ever seen too*. Sure, Nole, Rafa, Murray and Agassi had more consistent backhands with a bit more power when 'driving through the ball' but Federer's flat backhand is better in power than 90% of doublehanded backhands on the tour! His backhand-to-backhand rallies with double handed backhand players are not a case of 'Federer hanging in there', he puts them on the defensive with his power & angle to his flat backhand! Everyone else- Sampras, Becker, Edberg- everyone's policy was 'hang in there, try to engineer the ball to the forehand'. And he is so adept at serve & volley- except for maybe Raonic, i don't think there is any other guy who serves and volleys in tennis anymore and Federer demolished Agassi with his serve & volley. To top it all off, his footwork is so sublime, it seems like he glides on the court. Whereas Nadal's legs are a blur of action, rampaging like a runaway locomotive from one place to another, Federer seems like he is floating! You see, when Federer was at his peak, he simply redefined what was possible in tennis. He showed me that McEnroe was not 'one of a kind leftie freak' with his angles, he showed me that every single forehand before him was ordinary, that a single handed backhand is not just a 'reach & angle advantage compromising on power' and he did this all while displaying the most amazing sense of balance & footwork I've ever seen. Almost 'Sachin-esque' in how compact & efficient he is with his footwork. And to top it all off, he has the Sachin-like quality of being so humble. Nadal on the other hand, i appreciate for what a physical monster he is. His game takes so much effort but whats amazing is that Nadal, even after 4 hours and 5 sets and looking like he spent 2x the energy as his opponent,looks like he can play another set without much bother. That and his heart- he is so bloody single-minded, he is almost Kallis-like in his singleminded focus to grind & grind some more. But the purist in me simply does not consider Nadal to be in Federer's class: Federer has every shot in the book and invents so many on the spot, whereas Nadal has his 'standard shots' that he executes with ruthless efficiency. he isn't in the same class of generating angles or having such a god-amazing forehand and his backhand does not stand out for anything except his consistency (best double-handed backhand I ever saw in tennis belongs to Nole for overall power, consistency & angle and for sheer brutality of it,its Safin's backhand). His serve simply does not engineer the same sense of awe that Federer's does. The thing about nadal that is truely awe-inspiring is that he never ever quits on a point and always wants more. In that way, he is like Ali- he doesnt just like winning, he likes to hammer through and keep bashing as many balls as he can to win. No shortcuts. Add to the fact that he is a leftie and rules of tennis is ever so slightly favourable to the lefties, along with the '95% righties for competition' further slants it a bit in the lefties favour and its easy to understand why I am not a fan of Nadal, though i respect his game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Nadal does not have a serve anywhere close to whats necessary to've succeeded in the 90s. This is not about tailormaking your game for the era, there is a good reason why some players succeed at hard courts, some at grass only and some at clay only. Not because they chose it but because their games are suited for it. Nadal also does not have a forehand big enough to slap average service returns for straightaway winners. And he is a very mediocre volleyer. Without those three attributes, you dont win very often on the faster courts. Those of us who are old enough remember Michael Chang. Nadal is the modern Michael Chang but not even Chang (who was the most agile player in tennis history Ive seen ) was good enough to win by counterpunching in the era of fast courts. Nadal Modern Michael Chang. lol..:giggle: Another piece of wisdom- 1. Nadal doesn't have big forehand. I don't know where do you watch your tennis. Forehand is one of it's strength and is considered among the best for his time. Just because his forehand doesn't go as flat as other big hitters like Tsonga or DelPo doesn't mean his Forehand is not potent. 2. Nadal is very mediocre volleyer - Once again laughable comment. I seriously doubt if you watch Tennis or just post random things on forum hoping them to be true by chance. Nadal doesn't play volley much but when he plays it is almost perfect. It is one of the most underrated aspect of his game. He has extremely good control on his volley. I never see him bungling an easy volley point. Read this comment from McEnroe few years back. McEnroe: Nadal is better volleyer than Federer https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.sport.tennis/MgT8cs77Xis I may agree with your comment on Serve thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 In between Nadal has fallen behind Dimitron immediately at the start of the game. . Trailing 0-3 in first set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now