Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   I did Nadal see that coming   (usatoday.com ) divider line 19
    More: Cool, Rafael Nadal, Roger Clemens, Australian Open, Tomas Berdych, Rod Laver Arena, Novak Djokovic, blisters, grand slam titles  
•       •       •

1086 clicks; posted to Sports » on 24 Jan 2014 at 10:03 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



19 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-01-24 10:18:37 AM  
23-10 head-to-head now for Nadal with 9-2 at the Slams (last loss was in 2007). He has owned Federer since he was a teenager. It must suck for Roger. Five years ago people were talking about him as the best of all time, but now everything he accomplished is going to be surpassed by Nadal before Federer even retires.
 
2014-01-24 10:38:17 AM  

SigmaAlgebra: 23-10 head-to-head now for Nadal with 9-2 at the Slams (last loss was in 2007). He has owned Federer since he was a teenager. It must suck for Roger. Five years ago people were talking about him as the best of all time, but now everything he accomplished is going to be surpassed by Nadal before Federer even retires.


I was thinking this exact thing. I don't follow tennis very closely, but watched the first game of this last night before falling asleep and caught some of the stats.

I remember when the knock on Nadal was that he could only win on clay, but that was (now) a loooooong time ago.
 
2014-01-24 10:39:44 AM  
And neither did Federer.
 
2014-01-24 10:39:49 AM  
And, you have to wonder if Nadal would have won half the shiat he has if not pulled (and more recently pushed) by Federer.
 
2014-01-24 10:40:26 AM  
// Obligatory stinky-finger Nadal joke
 
2014-01-24 11:05:31 AM  
It's always great when you can see a young upstart member of the Aristocracy succeed.
 
2014-01-24 11:16:29 AM  
I'd like to see Nadal coming, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
 
2014-01-24 11:52:00 AM  

SigmaAlgebra: 23-10 head-to-head now for Nadal with 9-2 at the Slams (last loss was in 2007). He has owned Federer since he was a teenager. It must suck for Roger. Five years ago people were talking about him as the best of all time, but now everything he accomplished is going to be surpassed by Nadal before Federer even retires.


I don't think what Nadal may or may not do is going to change that talk. No player has been as stylistically versatile or as consistently great across various surfaces as Roger Federer. Best doesn't mean invincible.

Nadal is going to have a stellar resume, but so much of it is based on being the greatest clay-court player ever. He's an all-timer, no doubt, but he's not the all-around player Federer is, and never has been. Because of that, he's not going to match a lot of what Federer accomplished. He may end up with more Grand Slam titles, but you're not going to see him make 18 of 19 consecutive Slam finals.

Plus, he's already had knee trouble. He's got to worry about that coming back and if it might shorten his career. And he gets to deal with Novak Djokovic, who is coming up on him the same way Nadal came up on Federer.

The Smails Kid: And, you have to wonder if Nadal would have won half the shiat he has if not pulled (and more recently pushed) by Federer.


I don't think there's any question Nadal had to do a lot of work to be able to match Federer outside of the clay-court season. But I also wonder how much Federer's decline (and he's in one, whether he admits it or not) has allowed Nadal to rise elsewhere.
 
2014-01-24 11:57:42 AM  
Nadal is picking back up, but he still plays on knees made of spaghetti, and a lot of his stats are buoyed by his success on clay.  He's got some distance to go before he proves that he is as consistently successful across all surfaces and venues as Federer was.
 
2014-01-24 12:07:23 PM  

Truman Burbank: SigmaAlgebra: 23-10 head-to-head now for Nadal with 9-2 at the Slams (last loss was in 2007). He has owned Federer since he was a teenager. It must suck for Roger. Five years ago people were talking about him as the best of all time, but now everything he accomplished is going to be surpassed by Nadal before Federer even retires.

I don't think what Nadal may or may not do is going to change that talk. No player has been as stylistically versatile or as consistently great across various surfaces as Roger Federer. Best doesn't mean invincible.

Nadal is going to have a stellar resume, but so much of it is based on being the greatest clay-court player ever. He's an all-timer, no doubt, but he's not the all-around player Federer is, and never has been. Because of that, he's not going to match a lot of what Federer accomplished. He may end up with more Grand Slam titles, but you're not going to see him make 18 of 19 consecutive Slam finals.


Assuming he wins this Australian Open, that's going to give him two slams each at Australia, Wimbeldon, and the US Open. While it's not to Federer level, that's still consistent dominance on surfaces outside of clay. Considering the head to head record against Federer and the fact that injuries did rob him of some of his prime, it's pretty much an open and shut case that he had the better career if he finishes with more majors than Roger.
 
2014-01-24 12:12:59 PM  
i haven't been watching the australian open, but i'm more impressed by wawrinka beating djokovich than nadal beating federer.
 
2014-01-24 12:28:54 PM  
Nadal will have at least 2 wins at every Slam after Sunday, and each time he has won, he will have had to beat at least one of Federer, Djokovic, or Murray to get there. I find that far more impressive than racking up Slams over the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and 35 year old Agassi like Federer was doing before Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray arrived to challenge him.
 
2014-01-24 01:35:45 PM  

coolio mack: Assuming he wins this Australian Open, that's going to give him two slams each at Australia, Wimbeldon, and the US Open. While it's not to Federer level, that's still consistent dominance on surfaces outside of clay. Considering the head to head record against Federer and the fact that injuries did rob him of some of his prime, it's pretty much an open and shut case that he had the better career if he finishes with more majors than Roger.


That's not dominant at all. Very good, yes, but not dominant. He's only made the finals at the Australian and the US Open three times each - which makes sense, since's a clay-court guy playing hard courts in those tournaments. He can't adapt his game as well as Federer can/could. But since he is so dominant on clay, he's going to end up passing the Slams record just because no one can beat him at Roland Garros. I don't think that necessarily makes him the greatest player ever. You said yourself his career outside clay is not at Federer's level.

If it were open-and-shut, people wouldn't discuss it. Nadal is going to be harder to judge as an all-around player because his dominance on clay skews so much of his record. Federer is going to be harder to judge because Nadal is in his head, and that clouds just how all-around dominant he has been.

SigmaAlgebra: Nadal will have at least 2 wins at every Slam after Sunday, and each time he has won, he will have had to beat at least one of Federer, Djokovic, or Murray to get there. I find that far more impressive than racking up Slams over the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and 35 year old Agassi like Federer was doing before Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray arrived to challenge him.


Not true. Nadal won the 2010 French without facing any of them. :P

That also discounts the fact that for the first couple of years Djokovic and Murray were coming on, Federer was still beating them and winning tournaments. The only man who's beaten Federer in a major final, other than Nadal, is Juan Martin Del Potro in that crazy US Open final. That they're winning now is a sign that 1) they are in their primes and 2) Federer is out of his. The only one who doesn't admit that is Federer.
 
2014-01-24 04:58:37 PM  

Truman Burbank: SigmaAlgebra: 23-10 head-to-head now for Nadal with 9-2 at the Slams (last loss was in 2007). He has owned Federer since he was a teenager. It must suck for Roger. Five years ago people were talking about him as the best of all time, but now everything he accomplished is going to be surpassed by Nadal before Federer even retires.

I don't think what Nadal may or may not do is going to change that talk. No player has been as stylistically versatile or as consistently great across various surfaces as Roger Federer. Best doesn't mean invincible.

Nadal is going to have a stellar resume, but so much of it is based on being the greatest clay-court player ever. He's an all-timer, no doubt, but he's not the all-around player Federer is, and never has been. Because of that, he's not going to match a lot of what Federer accomplished. He may end up with more Grand Slam titles, but you're not going to see him make 18 of 19 consecutive Slam finals.

Plus, he's already had knee trouble. He's got to worry about that coming back and if it might shorten his career. And he gets to deal with Novak Djokovic, who is coming up on him the same way Nadal came up on Federer.

The Smails Kid: And, you have to wonder if Nadal would have won half the shiat he has if not pulled (and more recently pushed) by Federer.

I don't think there's any question Nadal had to do a lot of work to be able to match Federer outside of the clay-court season. But I also wonder how much Federer's decline (and he's in one, whether he admits it or not) has allowed Nadal to rise elsewhere.


Nadal is also probably juiced to the gills.
 
2014-01-24 05:22:28 PM  

SigmaAlgebra: 23-10 head-to-head now for Nadal with 9-2 at the Slams (last loss was in 2007). He has owned Federer since he was a teenager. It must suck for Roger. Five years ago people were talking about him as the best of all time, but now everything he accomplished is going to be surpassed by Nadal before Federer even retires.


Nadal still has a few non-clay championships to win.
 
2014-01-24 05:23:49 PM  

coolio mack: it's pretty much an open and shut case that he had the better career if he finishes with more majors than Roger.


When Nadal finishes with more majors AND more time spent at #1 in the world, then it will be pretty much open and shut.  Until then, the debate will go on.
 
2014-01-24 05:25:55 PM  
Oh, and I'll say it: Nadal is Lance Armstrong 2.0.
 
2014-01-24 05:34:52 PM  
So hold on. The criticism against Nadal is that he hasn't won enough championships? Am I hearing this correctly?

PS DAT ASS

i27.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-24 09:21:37 PM  

Di Atribe: So hold on. The criticism against Nadal is that he hasn't won enough championships? Am I hearing this correctly?


More that he hasn't won enough on non-clay surfaces. Even if he wins the Australian this weekend, he will still have won more times at Roland Garros (8) than in the other majors combined (6).

He's an exceptional player - one of the all-time greats. But the greatest all-around player ever? I don't think you can say that when his clay-court dominance overwhelms not only his competitors, but even the rest of his own career.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report