This sounds silly but its so true. Nadal is a freak on clay.

But Federer's record in every other major speaks for itself. Greatest Tennis player ever=Federer when he retires.

I think this match with Nadal is enough for me to say that he won't win Wimbledon this year.

Agassi supposedly said that Federer is the best player hes seen on clay and that the main reason he cant beat Nadal is due to the unorthodox spin and angles he generates from being left handed.

I disagree that you can simply dismiss Nadal that easily purely because he plays left handed, but its an interesting comment coming from someone whos one of the best ever himself.

If Fed doesn't win RG, I think all tennis fans will feel pretty bad for him.

no boris becker?

and federer aint done yet
i think he has a few years to go and will at least tie sampras for Grand slam titles..

Is he still the best player right now though?

Last year it looked like Nadal has a great chance of beating him in the Wimbledon final, and he is 0/2 in grand slams this year. And its not like he barely lost in the grand slams, he lost in straights in each one.

The first GS this year, he was ill good excise for only getting to the semi's.

If he doesn't win wimby this year, then we'll know that he isn't the best every because then that'll be 0/3 GS, I still think he'll win 2 GS this year and remain N1 for the 5th year straight.

Lost in the Semis to the 3rd ranked player when he had a bad case of Mono. Lost to maybe the greatest ever player on clay in the finals. I do like how Federer going 0/2 in Grand Slam events makes everyone think he's lost it

Federer is a beast and he's probably the greatest. 10 Grand Slam finals in a row from 2005-2007 and 12 Grand Slam titles at age 27 is ****ing insane.

Nadal just beat Novak in 2 sets, pretty good.

Nadal played pretty poor though out I thought until the last 2 games when he upped his game.

Fed will beat him at wimbly.

Well, he's clearly not on the same tear that he had been, and even before his "pedestrian" start to this year I thought Nadal and Djokovic were starting to catch up to him. I expect he's still got a couple more majors in him, but a year or two ago I wondered if he'd get to 20. Now I think 14-15 is looking a lot more likely.

Federer just won a grass tournament without losing his serve all tourney.

I have a sneaking suspiscion after watching Rafa beat Djoko and Roddick at Queens that he will win Wimbledon this year.

As for Federer being in decline, i wouldnt be so sure. He had an off week in the Aussie open, he was never gonna win RG with Rafa there, and he is now 59 matches unbeaten on grass.....it wouldnt be a shock if he won the next 3 majors.

Easy, Federer is by far the best on grass - Ok so Novak or Rafa didn't play in the tournament he was in but he still kicked arse.

.

The highest ranked player he played in that tournament was Baghdatis at #23 in the world. The round before Baghdatis, I recall reading that he was struggling in beating some no-name, 7-5 6-3 looking at the tournament results. I think Fed shouldn't have much of a problem getting to the semis and probably the finals at Wimbledon, but Djokovic and Nadal are a lot better than this crew.

Disagree strongly. Nadal played well and excellently when it mattered.
But what's more important is that he won his first grass tournament the week after winning Roland Garros. This is pretty much unprecedented.
Federer has the game to beat Nadal on grass but Nadal is in his head and that's crucial. He barely beat him last year. This year Federer has struggled while Nadal is even stronger ...

seed of doubt blah, blah. nadal's game is too defensive to consistently beat federer on anything other than clay

What do you think a reasonable line would be? I would definitely bet Nadal getting 2:1, for example, and probably at 3:2.

man, im not much of a tennis sharp but nadal seems anything but defensive when i watch.

yeah, when he's full of confidence [like now] he plays a more aggressive game which is when he's at his best imo. if you watch the wimbledon final from last year you see how many points rafa's dictating against federer, far more than anyone would have thought coming into the match. also, the fact that he won in queens, which is a bit quicker than wimbledon [i believe] and thus a worse surface for him should give you a pretty good idea of where his game is at right now. i think a rafa/fed match is pretty close to 50/50 at the moment. it's going to be a very exciting tournament to watch, that's for sure.

i didn't mean to say he never plays aggressively, but his defense is his key strength. he is so good largely b/c of his ability to chase down balls and put them back in play.

Best odds: To take down Wimbledon.
Fed 4/5
Novak 4/1
Nadal 11/2 (vcpoker odds) - I'd take that.

He only has to beat Federer once to win Wimbledon. Nadal was hugely impressive at Queen's. He beat Karlovic, a 6'10" guy with a huge serve who always does very well at that tournament, 4-time champion Roddick and Djokovic.The final was a great match, they were playing with the intensity of a grand-slam final. Nadal adapts really well to the grass; he goes for more on his serve and his movement is excellent. He's not as slick or graceful as Fed around the court but he can still chase down anything.

What's even more impressive about his win at Queen's is that the courts there are faster and lower bouncing than the ones at Wimbledon. They're old-school grass courts that are perfect for big servers like Roddick and really tough for clay court specialists. Wimbledon slowed down and hardened their courts because everyone was getting fed up of boring matches with innumerable aces. They suit Nadal a lot more and are a big part of the reason he's been able to get to two finals.

i'm not saying nadal is not good on grass-- he got to the wimbledon final so he is obv good on grass. the nature of his game is too defensive to consistently beat federer (assuming they are both playing well) on a non clay court; as you said he can chase down practically anything even on grass and that works well against heavy hitters b/c he can neutralize their big serves to an extent and exploit the areas of their games that have gaping holes. these courts suit nadal more than faster grass courts, but i wouldn't say they suit him more than they do a big server or someone like federer. on a slower grass court, or even a faster one for that matter, nadal can beat roddick/other big servers b/c he's going to get to enough of their big serves and monstrous forehands to get some breaks and then it's game set match. he can get to some of federer's serves and shots too, but there is no gaping hole for him to exploit which can leave him waiting for federer to make a mistake at times, even though he has been more aggressive recently. i'm not trying to make it sound like i think federer is going to wipe the floor w/nadal. the way nadal wants to play him, or anyone else, is to extend the points and take advantage of his speed/athleticism, and he's very good at that so he can test anyone's ability to hit winners. that being said, i feel that most of the time federer's skill as a shot maker will trump nadal's ability to chase down shots on a non clay court.


also, that agassi quote is interesting.

edit: himself, i agree that he's at his best on grass when he's being aggressive and that's b/c the grass court caters to an aggressive style of player.

rooks, i don't get your point in saying he only needs to beat federer once. federer only needs to beat him once on clay, doesn't mean he is a favorite to do so

How does someone like you start a thread about tennis? It's 10000% clear from this OP of yours that you really don't know anthing about tennis nor do you play tennis, lol. Joke of a thread imo

There are not very many good men's tennis players, that is why Nadal wins tournaments on surfaces other than clay. Djokavic, nadal, federer---> outside this group there is a VERY large gap in talent. People DO realize that ANDY RODDICK, who SUCKS AT TENNIS is 6th? And that richard gasquet is 9th? Both of these players are far far far below the top 3. So its not so much that the courts suit nadal's game-- its that everybody else is just nowhere near as good as him and fed and djokavic.