The Official Tennis Thread

[Milltown Row2]

It's just one slam, it's no more difficult than the rest. Nadal is the best at that court, there's nothing else to take from that.

You keep claiming he's discriminated against as it's one surface for a slam. As is Wimbledon, which for me (personally) is the best.

You do get that it's a personal choice and your stats (please only use slam stats) show he's equal to Federer but has 13 on clay some on hard court and some on grass, he's brilliant. How he's got over injuries is impeccable and at 34 will be around for some more, as no one can beat him on clay, hes a great advantage to win more than the rest..

[gallsman]

Wimbledon is the big one isn't it? Roland Garros is simply not nearly as important except in Spain. Nadal is the greatest Spaniard so.

What absolute drivel. You're on a roll at the minute.

[Angelo]

It's just one slam, it's no more difficult than the rest. Nadal is the best at that court, there's nothing else to take from that.

You keep claiming he's discriminated against as it's one surface for a slam. As is Wimbledon, which for me (personally) is the best.

You do get that it's a personal choice and your stats (please only use slam stats) show he's equal to Federer but has 13 on clay some on hard court and some on grass, he's brilliant. How he's got over injuries is impeccable and at 34 will be around for some more, as no one can beat him on clay, hes a great advantage to win more than the rest..

Grass and hard play a lot more similar to each other than either do to clay.

Clay is the most unique of the lot, a big serve is nowhere near the weapon it is on grass or hard that's why the one dimensional giraffes don't go well on clay. Your Andersons, Isners, Phillippousis, Ivanisevics, Cillics, Kraijceks, Raonics etc all struggle on clay because everything for those guys hinges off a serve and just bludgeoning the ball. That is why clay is so different, it requires a complete game, it warrants something more than a big serve, it's drop shots and lobs and a craft to winning points.

Grass and hard courts are primarily serve and volley. If you don't have a huge serve on grass and clay, you are at so much of a disadvantage.

So of course a rounded player will find it tougher on the tennis calendar than a big serving giraffe as 3/4 of the slams favour players that a have a huge serve whereas 1/4 of the slams would favour big players who don't have a big serve. Djokovic and Federer would have 5/6 RG titles each without Nadal there, they are all rounders like Nadal but Nadal is the greatest all rounder of them all which is why he dominates RG. You look at the finalists in Wimbledon and RG outside of the big 3 in recent years - Anderson, Raonic, Cillic etc - what have they in common. Guys who pretty much just have a big serve. They're the type of guys who'd be winning grass and hard court slams outside of the big three. If it was clay you'd have the likes of Wawrinka, Thiem, Ferrer etc winning the clay court slams as it requires a complete game.

Federer's dominance faded hugely when Nadal and Djokovic arrived on the scene. He made hay when he was in a very weak era, 12 out of 18 slams from 03-07 then Nadal arrived and Djokovic shortly after and they just raised a bar to a level Federer struggled with.

[Angelo]

Wimbledon is the big one isn't it? Roland Garros is simply not nearly as important except in Spain. Nadal is the greatest Spaniard

Wimbledon is the big one for anglophiles like yourself I'd say. It's the one for the big serving giraffes like Kevin Anderson, Richard Kraijcek, John Isner, Goran Ivanisevic, Mark Philllopoussis, Sampras etc where you just hammer aces all day long.

Roland Garros generally is the one for the mercurial European players with the craft and talent.

Federer though is not like a lot of the players you just named. He can do it all. He is exceptional.

Federer can do it all, he is exceptional but he is not as exceptional as either Nadal or Djokovic.

The surface that requires you to do it all best is clay, it's not something that is one dimensional and stems off a big serve.

[Milltown Row2]

It's just one slam, it's no more difficult than the rest. Nadal is the best at that court, there's nothing else to take from that.

You keep claiming he's discriminated against as it's one surface for a slam. As is Wimbledon, which for me (personally) is the best.

You do get that it's a personal choice and your stats (please only use slam stats) show he's equal to Federer but has 13 on clay some on hard court and some on grass, he's brilliant. How he's got over injuries is impeccable and at 34 will be around for some more, as no one can beat him on clay, hes a great advantage to win more than the rest..

Grass and hard play a lot more similar to each other than either do to clay.

Clay is the most unique of the lot, a big serve is nowhere near the weapon it is on grass or hard that's why the one dimensional giraffes don't go well on clay. Your Andersons, Isners, Phillippousis, Ivanisevics, Cillics, Kraijceks, Raonics etc all struggle on clay because everything for those guys hinges off a serve and just bludgeoning the ball. That is why clay is so different, it requires a complete game, it warrants something more than a big serve, it's drop shots and lobs and a craft to winning points.

Grass and hard courts are primarily serve and volley. If you don't have a huge serve on grass and clay, you are at so much of a disadvantage.

So of course a rounded player will find it tougher on the tennis calendar than a big serving giraffe as 3/4 of the slams favour players that a have a huge serve whereas 1/4 of the slams would favour big players who don't have a big serve. Djokovic and Federer would have 5/6 RG titles each without Nadal there, they are all rounders like Nadal but Nadal is the greatest all rounder of them all which is why he dominates RG. You look at the finalists in Wimbledon and RG outside of the big 3 in recent years - Anderson, Raonic, Cillic etc - what have they in common. Guys who pretty much just have a big serve. They're the type of guys who'd be winning grass and hard court slams outside of the big three. If it was clay you'd have the likes of Wawrinka, Thiem, Ferrer etc winning the clay court slams as it requires a complete game.

Federer's dominance faded hugely when Nadal and Djokovic arrived on the scene. He made hay when he was in a very weak era, 12 out of 18 slams from 03-07 then Nadal arrived and Djokovic shortly after and they just raised a bar to a level Federer struggled with.

Is this your opinion or fact? Federer and Novak are also all rounders having wind all slams. In your opinion Federer only won them because people were poor, whereas Nadal won clay because people were great!!

Fed is 39, not likely to win another slam Nadal has plenty time to be the best overall winner of slams (13 of which came off one court) today, he was as usual in Paris, amazing. Enjoy his brilliance and stop looking for bigging him up, he knows his failings and more importantly knows his strengths, like Dublin playing out of Croke

[Angelo]

It's just one slam, it's no more difficult than the rest. Nadal is the best at that court, there's nothing else to take from that.

You keep claiming he's discriminated against as it's one surface for a slam. As is Wimbledon, which for me (personally) is the best.

You do get that it's a personal choice and your stats (please only use slam stats) show he's equal to Federer but has 13 on clay some on hard court and some on grass, he's brilliant. How he's got over injuries is impeccable and at 34 will be around for some more, as no one can beat him on clay, hes a great advantage to win more than the rest..

Grass and hard play a lot more similar to each other than either do to clay.

Clay is the most unique of the lot, a big serve is nowhere near the weapon it is on grass or hard that's why the one dimensional giraffes don't go well on clay. Your Andersons, Isners, Phillippousis, Ivanisevics, Cillics, Kraijceks, Raonics etc all struggle on clay because everything for those guys hinges off a serve and just bludgeoning the ball. That is why clay is so different, it requires a complete game, it warrants something more than a big serve, it's drop shots and lobs and a craft to winning points.

Grass and hard courts are primarily serve and volley. If you don't have a huge serve on grass and clay, you are at so much of a disadvantage.

So of course a rounded player will find it tougher on the tennis calendar than a big serving giraffe as 3/4 of the slams favour players that a have a huge serve whereas 1/4 of the slams would favour big players who don't have a big serve. Djokovic and Federer would have 5/6 RG titles each without Nadal there, they are all rounders like Nadal but Nadal is the greatest all rounder of them all which is why he dominates RG. You look at the finalists in Wimbledon and RG outside of the big 3 in recent years - Anderson, Raonic, Cillic etc - what have they in common. Guys who pretty much just have a big serve. They're the type of guys who'd be winning grass and hard court slams outside of the big three. If it was clay you'd have the likes of Wawrinka, Thiem, Ferrer etc winning the clay court slams as it requires a complete game.

Federer's dominance faded hugely when Nadal and Djokovic arrived on the scene. He made hay when he was in a very weak era, 12 out of 18 slams from 03-07 then Nadal arrived and Djokovic shortly after and they just raised a bar to a level Federer struggled with.

Is this your opinion or fact? Federer and Novak are also all rounders having wind all slams. In your opinion Federer only won them because people were poor, whereas Nadal won clay because people were great!!

Fed is 39, not likely to win another slam Nadal has plenty time to be the best overall winner of slams (13 of which came off one court) today, he was as usual in Paris, amazing. Enjoy his brilliance and stop looking for bigging him up, he knows his failings and more importantly knows his strengths, like Dublin playing out of Croke

Federer's main rivals in his early years - Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, Gonzalez etc - why did they all fall off the grid so young? They were all within a year or two or younger than Federer agewise but were completely washed up by their late to mid 20s. Why do you think that was?

Why were guys like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga, Del Potro et al all usurping them? I'd like to hear your opinion on this.

And once the new generation established themselves why did Federer then begin to lag well behind them?

Federer was in the prime of his career at that stage, particularly when you consider the age profile of other slam winners in the recent era when they won their first - Murray 25, Wawrinka 29, Cilic 26, Thiem 27. At this age these guys were winning their first slams the guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian etc were all falling off the grid and plummeting down the rankings at the same age. What gives do you think?

If Federer had been around with a prime Sampras, he'd have likely won a lot less Wimbledons, US Opens and Aus Opens as would Sampras have. Federer's emergence could not have come at a better time, he rose during the post Sampras era and pre Nadal/Djokovic era and won 12 hard and grass slam titles in that 4-5 year period.

[gawa316]

Greatest person of all-time IMHO 

Best recent post in this thread

[GiveItToTheShooters]

This scene in Billy Madison comes to mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

[Tony Baloney]

Arguably the greatest performance of all time as the greatest of all time secures his legacy beyond doubt as the greatest of all time.

Vamos Rafa!!!!

lol

[Mikhail Prokhorov]

Rafa is the greatest because he's left handed (a massive advantage due to the scoring system) and he has 2 forehands.

Not inconceivable he could win 20 roland garros 

[Angelo]

https://tennishead.net/we-spread-rumours-of-rafael-nadal-doping-because-he-was-too-good-says-french-star/

Gilles Simon believes doping rumours were spread about Rafael Nadal as many were uncomfortable with the idea he could simply be better than Roger Federer.

There were allegations of a connection between Nadal and Eufemiano Fuentes, the doctor who was ultimately jailed for his part in a Spanish cycle doping scandal.

No evidence has ever been produced linking Fuentes to Nadal, though, who has always very successfully denied any rumours to the contrary.

However, Simon believes the rumours only existed to discredit opinions that Nadal could actually be a better tennis players than Federer rather than just a better athlete.

"It is difficult to conceive [for some] that, in terms of game, Rafael Nadal could be better than Roger Federer," Gilles Simon wrote in his new autobiography This Sport That Makes You Crazy

"We even spread rumours of doping on his account.

"Nadal does not fit into the framework. Moreover, I emphasize here that we never talk about the physique of Federer, who has little to envy that of Nadal.

"That he went five sets at 35 like what he did in Australia in 2017, it's extraordinary. But no one noted this point."

The last bit is the most interesting, for years there were a lot of completely unfounded rumours on Nadal and doping, spread by elements within the tennis community and inferred by some big names in tennis - all because he had the temerity to be better than Federer.

Nadal is an amazing athlete, you look at the pace he has when he has to chase down a ball. He was good enough to make it as a pro footballer by all accounts.

But he was mortal, the type of game he played caused him a lot of bother with his knees, caused him to miss 8 slams in his career with injuries, caught him to completely reinvent his game at the age of 30 because his body could longer sustain what he did at his youth. It completely flies in the face of those completely baseless allegations.

Then we have Federer, a guy who always seemingly relied on his superior skillset? Yet after 6 years without a slam, at the age of 35, after coming back from knee surgery a few months before, wins his first slam in his 30s at the age of 35 after outlasting 3 opponents in 5 set games and the same people who tried to defame Nadal didn't find it one bit surprising that Federer was able to accomplish that at his age.

The Fedheads are a strange breed. Milltown has been driven demented and has been stalking me around the forum since Nadal won no 20 over a fortnight back.

Fair play for Simon for coming out and saying it.

[Milltown Row2]

Are you saying Fed is on drugs?

Winning 13 slams in one court not tell you something?

[Angelo]

Are you saying Fed is on drugs?

Winning 13 slams in one court not tell you something?

I don't know but I would say it's far more likely that Federer was doping than Nadal but there was never a murmur about it which is odd given all the unsubstantiated innuendo about Nadal. Federer's 2017 return was very, very suspicious but any speculation was hused. Nadal's physical trajectory went in a normal way - he's not the same physically as he was in his mid 20s, Federer's defied logic, he was running more and spending longer on court in his mid 30s than he had been at any point of his career.

Winning 13 slams on one court tells me Nadal is the GOAT, he has won more slams at RG than he has dropped sets at it which is absolutely remarkable. Imagine we had 2 clay slams instead of 2 hard, what would the slam totals be then? All the records Federer has are dwindling away, Djokovic will soon catch him at weeks at no 1. The tennis season is weighted more to the big servebots than it is to the all rounders so it is testament to Nadal that he has come out on top.

Federer won 12 of his 20 slams in 18 attempts post Sampras and when Nadal and Djokovic were really only emerging teens. When the competition cranked up he was left behind.

[Milltown Row2]

We don't have 2 clay courts for grand slams, so your point is irrelevant...That's like saying if there was another grass Slam Federer would be winning more

Fed, reduced his calendar and allowed him to focus more on the Slams rather than all the tours .

You say is more likely he did dope, have you evidence of this or is it just something you made up? 

Being fitter as you get older isn't a strange one, I was doing triathlon's in my early 40 and marathons in my late 40's, whereas in my 20's I wouldn't be as fit as I was in my later life, people just manage their fitness better.

Nadal has won nearly double his Slams on one court , his spread of slam's is poor, 1 Aussie 2 Grass and seems to like the USA  having won more there that the other Slams bar French Open..

He's very good and I'd say on a par with Federer, plus his head to head with him is far better also

[Angelo]

We don't have 2 clay courts for grand slams, so your point is irrelevant...That's like saying if there was another grass Slam Federer would be winning more

Fed, reduced his calendar and allowed him to focus more on the Slams rather than all the tours .

You say is more likely he did dope, have you evidence of this or is it just something you made up? 

Being fitter as you get older isn't a strange one, I was doing triathlon's in my early 40 and marathons in my late 40's, whereas in my 20's I wouldn't be as fit as I was in my later life, people just manage their fitness better.

Nadal has won nearly double his Slams on one court , his spread of slam's is poor, 1 Aussie 2 Grass and seems to like the USA  having won more there that the other Slams bar French Open..

He's very good and I'd say on a par with Federer, plus his head to head with him is far better also

We have two hard court slams, one grass and one clay. It's relevant that 75% of the tennis season is tilted towards big servers and 25% of it towards all rounders. There really should be a second clay slam in place of one of the hard courts and had we a more even split in the season then Nadal would likely be way ahead.

Nadal's spread of slams are also not poor. Only Djokovic, Federer and Sampras have won more slams on hard and grass courts than Nadal in the modern era.

His renaissance in 2017 was very strange though, 6 years without a slam and then suddenly he starts outlasting younger players in 5 setters at 35 years of age, after knee surgery. As Simon said, given the baseless innuendo put around about Nadal for years, it's strange that no scrutiny was placed on Federer here - instead he was lauded for it.

Federer didn't win a US Open since 08. He did 5IAR US Open titles in a weakish era (04-08), he did similar at Wimbledon (03-07). He was able to pick up a French Open and Wimbledon in 2009 when Rafa who was reigning champ had to succumb to knee injuries. Since then in over a decade he has added just 5 slams, 3 Australian Opens and 2 Wimbledons. Nadal has won the same amount of hard and grass slams in that time.