am i the only one who hopes

[Kowalski]

He's played no one.

[worm]

That's not his fault though.

[Kowalski]

So?

I've played no one good. Does that mean I can claim to be great?

[worm]

Have to beg to differ. Federer has only been able to beat whats infront of him,which he has with outstanding consistency.100% grand slam final record,aside from the French Open. Watching him play very much under-par against Hewitt the other the day(Who himself is a pretty good player-I remember when he won his Wimbledon title,everyone proclaimed him as the man to dominate from now on),and he was still devastating. Crushed him with ease in a way only a truly class player can.

Edited July 2, 2008 by worm

[worm]

You can claim to be number one in the world if you have consistently beaten all your peers.

Edited July 2, 2008 by worm

[King Blue]

Hewitt was rubbish. And so what if you are only able to beat what is put in front of you? He played in the dark era of tennis when the game was filled with serve and volleyers. There was no one to beat.

I've been watching and playing since I was extremely young. Federer has not impressed me much. Neither has tennis of the last eight years or so. From around 05 there has been a new style emerge which was not only needed, but is extremely pleasing to watch. I honestly think that the majority of those that dislike Nadals style just watch Wimbledon every year and have become accustomed to one specific style of tennis.

Federer is the king of an era. But that era is the worst I've ever experienced.

[Kowalski]

Should be a great final this year.The acid test as well.No excuses for Nadal,he's entering his peak,which comes a lot younger this days as we move towards a more pace and strength dominated take on the sport. If he can win,then Federer will quit I reckon.It's unbeaten record on grass which keeps him going,and when thats gone,he'll go with it. Hopefully not though,I enjoy watching him play immensely.

[worm]

Shots over pace.

[big joe]

All that shows is that you are the best of an era. So you then compare eras. Federers is an extremely poor one.

[worm]

Just about every past great has proclaimed Federer one of the best 3 players of all time and, in terms of pure talent, the greatest player of all time.

Edited July 2, 2008 by worm

[King Blue]

Are you quite sane?! Have you seen what Nadal can do? The only difference being, and that which you deem trying or straining, is that Nadal can fashion a rally, which is the saviour of grass court tennis.

I just don't relate to your comparison. I don't see what you see in Federer and Nadal. Maybe you like the style of old school grass court tennis. I don't. I prefer clay everytime. Roland Garros is far better than Wimbledon - to play on too.

[worm]

Nadal's shot making ability isn't on the same level as Federer.

Edited July 2, 2008 by worm

[King Blue]

Only on grass.

There have been two forms of tennis for a long time that are very distinguished. Grass based (serve and volley in recent years) and clay based (base-line in recent years). No one has ever crossed over and dominated both forms of tennis*. So they can't really say that can they.

Edited July 2, 2008 by King Blue

[big joe]

Only on grass.

There have been two forms of tennis for a long time that are very distinguished. Grass based (serve and volley in recent years) and clay based (base-line in recent years). No one has ever crossed over and dominated both forms of tennis*. So they can't really say that can they.

And, three past greats out of how many past greats? Three is a very small number. Then you have the fact that they want to glorify the contemporary game as the majority of them are in television. Where did you hear these opinions? On television perhaps?

* Though Nadal is doing now and in doing so going against the age long belief that it would be the grass court player overcoming the clay court game.

[TheGayTent]

Jeremy Bates is the greatest tennis player of all time.

[King Blue]

I very strongly disagree.

Grass court fans often focus on winning shots and not constructive shots. They aren't atuned to rallies and have little patience for the craft and guile of the clay game. Grass facilitates winning shots. Hence the difficulty for the clay court player. Something Nadal has overcome by applying an ability to articlate impossible angles from any position on the court. He's revolutionary, there is no doubt.

[worm]

Actually,you've made an excellent point which might explain why I hold Federer in such high regard.He counters the tiring serve and volley game with his own style,by picking out shots that highlights the limitations of the other players,which includes serve and volley,but also absorbs other styles of play. Maybe its because he was the antithesis to a version of tennis that I respect him so much.

Edited July 2, 2008 by worm

[King Blue]

I would suggest that this is the case.

I also think that the media surrounding Wimbledon favours the grass court game and players for obvious reasons. Pitching the clay courter as the bad guy. When two grass courters have ended in the final (pre-Nadal era and post-Lendl) there has been a battle over championship, usually dominated by one man. However, when a clay court champion meets a grass court champion there is a real keeness made by the media to champion the grass court player as this battle between the styles re-emerges. This is not so when it's grass against grass and it's usually boring as hell being won by the grass champion. It has looked for a long time that the styls were too disperate with only the champion of grass ever being able to challenge on clay. But with Nadal we have come across the grass champion versus clay champion on grass again and they have kept each other from stealing the other's title, as yet.

I truly believe that Nadal is going to be the first (unofficial, sadly) cross discipline tennis champion. And he came from nowhere.

[worm]

No, nearly EVERY past great i have heard, not 3 greats.

[worm]

Borg? Never did it on concrete,but neither has Nadal(Yet.) 6 French Opens,5 Wimbledons.

[King Blue]

Oh, that's opening it up to a much more interesting debate, the likes that efests may crash from.

Maybe. But that's advocating lowering the standard to increase competition. At the moment we have three at the very top and a few emerging behind due to a most needed change in style. I think we are about to embark (or are already embarking) on a marked rise in standard across both disciplines of tennis. Clay court just had to adjust. It has at an alarming pace.

[worm]

Borg is before my time unfortunately.From what I've read,he was a true genius

[Kowalski]

i just dont like him and i cant put my finger on why!

[ben_cosmia]

Well you got your wish

Nadal is a pain in the arse.

[worm]

Nadal is a pain in the arse.