Wimbledon

[Saintandy666]

it will be close and Tsonga is also a very good player..but to be the best you have to be a winner.

 

If murray does not get to the final now he will once again, be a glorious loser

 

I wouldn't say loser, but incapable of winning the biggest tournaments. He has won a lot in his time and been to slam finals before.

[Thedelldays]

I wouldn't say loser, but incapable of winning the biggest tournaments. He has won a lot in his time and been to slam finals before.

glorious loser

great tennis players are judged on their slam titles.

just like golfers.

same as international teams are judged on their World Cup/Euro/Coppa American titles

etc etc

[alpine_saint]

Er how do work out that someone consistently in the top 4 in the world is not world class

 

He's never shown the ability to go from bridesmaid to being bride, which suggests a psychological weakness that will ever leave a question mark against how good he was.

[Jez]

Ivan Lendl won eight majors after losing his first four finals. Murray has so far lost three. so for so many people to write him off and say he will never win one is a bit premature, as there is plenty of time for him to come good.

[Saintandy666]

Ivan Lendl won eight majors after losing his first four finals. Murray has so far lost three. so for so many people to write him off and say he will never win one is a bit premature, as there is plenty of time for him to come good.

 

Time is running out now. He is at the age now where for 2 or 3 years he will play his best tennis. But once you hit 30, it gets very hard.

[trousers]

Federer a set down and a tie break in the second

[hypochondriac]

That is very true. But his achievements to date of 3 grand slam finals and however many semi finals(I've lost count) is a very good achievement. He is an amazing player. And he is laughing all the way to the bank either way.

 

A grand slam win is a very good achievement. Failing to win a tournament is not very good IMO. It's better than Britain has done historically but that isn't saying much.

[trousers]

Federer 2 sets down

[hypochondriac]

I wouldn't say loser, but incapable of winning the biggest tournaments. He has won a lot in his time and been to slam finals before.

 

How is he not a loser? By definition, if he fails to win a grand slam then he is a loser.

[Saintandy666]

How is he not a loser? By definition, if he fails to win a grand slam then he is a loser.

 

That's absolutely ridiculous. He has to win 5 matches to get to the grand slam semi, and 6 when he gets to the final which he has 3 times. He has won 22 titles in his career, and 8 prestigious masters titles. He is 10th on the all time earners list as well with over $20,000,000 prize money. You can not classify a tennis player of Murray's calibre as a 'loser'.

[hypochondriac]

That's absolutely ridiculous. He has to win 5 matches to get to the grand slam semi, and 6 when he gets to the final which he has 3 times. He has won 22 titles in his career, and 8 prestigious masters titles. He is 10th on the all time earners list as well with over $20,000,000 prize money. You can not classify a tennis player of Murray's calibre as a 'loser'.

 

It seems you have failed to understand what I wrote.

[Saintandy666]

It seems you have failed to understand what I wrote.

 

Not at all, you said he is a loser if he doesn't win a grand slam. But he isn't, because he has won a lot. It's like saying every team in the premiership are losers except Man City.

[hypochondriac]

Not at all, you said he is a loser if he doesn't win a grand slam. But he isn't, because he has won a lot. It's like saying every team in the premiership are losers except Man City.

 

You already agreed that grand slams are what matter and what he will be remembered for. It's like if a football team has an immaculate qualifying record. I personally don't care about anything in tennis except the four slams since being able to perform in them and win is what counts. By definition, everyone in the Premier League last season was a loser in that competition except Man City because they failed to win it. It's not a matter of opinion it is a fact.

[Saintandy666]

You already agreed that grand slams are what matter and what he will be remembered for. It's like if a football team has an immaculate qualifying record. I personally don't care about anything in tennis except the four slams since being able to perform in them and win is what counts. By definition, everyone in the Premier League last season was a loser in that competition except Man City because they failed to win it. It's not a matter of opinion it is a fact.

 

Loser is a harsh term is what I am arguing.

 

Meanwhile, Federer in BIG trouble here. What is happening this year?!

[hypochondriac]

Loser is a harsh term is what I am arguing.

 

Meanwhile, Federer in BIG trouble here. What is happening this year?!

 

No it isn't, it is factual. There can only be one winner so everyone else is a loser. Do you think Roger cares about anything other than winning the slams? Do you think he gives a stuff about challenger tournaments or anything else really? Of course he doesn't because Federer is a winner. You may consider it harsh but I bet it is how the top three think. Oh and Federer takes it to a fifth. Unlike Murray he is not a loser...

[trousers]

Federer wins tie break to pull it back to 2 sets all

[Saintandy666]

No it isn't, it is factual. There can only be one winner so everyone else is a loser. Do you think Roger cares about anything other than winning the slams? Do you think he gives a stuff about challenger tournaments or anything else really? Of course he doesn't because Federer is a winner. You may consider it harsh but I bet it is how the top three think. Oh and Federer takes it to a fifth. Unlike Murray he is not a loser...

 

None of the top players play in challengers.

 

And you have a point. Slams are what define greats. Murray is not a great, he is just an amazing tennis player.

[hypochondriac]

None of the top players play in challengers.

 

And you have a point. Slams are what define greats. Murray is not a great, he is just an amazing tennis player.

 

FFS you knew what I meant. Don't be a tool. Anyway my definition of amazing and yours differ greatly.

[Saintandy666]

FFS you knew what I meant. Don't be a tool.

 

You mean like you half the time

[hypochondriac]

You mean like you half the time

 

Rarely am I annoyingly pedantic like MLG. In other news Federer wins. Get in.

[Saintandy666]

I wonder whether Nadal's loss has changed it up a bit, mentality wise. Because Federer and Djokovic both had scares today. Could have been bad for Federer if his opponent had not become injured.

[Saintandy666]

Rarely am I annoyingly pedantic like MLG. In other news Federer wins. Get in.

 

Excellent win. Would have been a shame without him. Tournaments like this need players like him and Nadal getting far.

[Thedelldays]

Federer is the greatest EVER IMO

[hypochondriac]

Federer is the greatest EVER IMO

 

For me too as well. Certainly the best to watch and the person you watch with open-mouthed awe at some of his shots (like the through the legs ones he does.)

[trousers]

I wonder whether Nadal's loss has changed it up a bit, mentality wise. Because Federer and Djokovic both had scares today. Could have been bad for Federer if his opponent had not become injured.

 

He seemed more knackered than 'injured' to me

[Saintandy666]

For me too as well. Certainly the best to watch and the person you watch with open-mouthed awe at some of his shots (like the through the legs ones he does.)

 

Federer is a beautiful player to watch, but I think I'd argue Nadal is better. Both have done the Carreer slam, but Federer did his French open in a year that was a dogey year for Nadal at Roland Garros(injuries if I recall correctly, as he was absent from Wimbledon that year). Until Federer beats Nadal at the French Open Final as Nadal did to Federer on Grass at Wimbledon, it's tough. I do think either could claim best ever for different reasons though. It's just incredible to have them both around now.

[hypochondriac]

He seemed more knackered than 'injured' to me

 

Yep. There was no way Federer was going to lose that final set once he won the fourth. The other guy's belief had gone.

[hypochondriac]

Federer is a beautiful player to watch, but I think I'd argue Nadal is better. Both have done the Carreer slam, but Federer did his French open in a year that was a dogey year for Nadal at Roland Garros(injuries if I recall correctly, as he was absent from Wimbledon that year). Until Federer beats Nadal at the French Open Final as Nadal did to Federer on Grass at Wimbledon, it's tough. I do think either could claim best ever for different reasons though. It's just incredible to have them both around now.

 

Nah I can't agree with that. Nadal's game is sooo superior to anyone elses on clay that it isn't a fair comparison. Nadal's game is also mainly based on raw power which is impressive but not so great as the inventiveness from Roger. Put it this way, with both at the top of their game, I would rather watch Federer every single time. Plus he hasn't lost in a slam to a player outside of the top 30 since 2004 (they just mentioned that). It's an incredible record. Anyway I really hope Roger wins this year.

[Saintandy666]

Nah I can't agree with that. Nadal's game is sooo superior to anyone elses on clay that it isn't a fair comparison. Nadal's game is also mainly based on raw power which is impressive but not so great as the inventiveness from Roger. Put it this way, with both at the top of their game, I would rather watch Federer every single time. Plus he hasn't lost in a slam to a player outside of the top 30 since 2004 (they just mentioned that). It's an incredible record. Anyway I really hope Roger wins this year.

 

Federer is a more beautiful player, I'll give you that. He makes it look so effortless. But I think the fact he can't beat Nadal on clay, whereas Nadal could beat Federer on grass is a big difference. Nadal also has the lead 6-2 if I recall correctly when I looked at the stats the other day in slam finals.

[hypochondriac]

Federer is a more beautiful player, I'll give you that. He makes it look so effortless. But I think the fact he can't beat Nadal on clay, whereas Nadal could beat Federer on grass is a big difference. Nadal also has the lead 6-2 if I recall correctly when I looked at the stats the other day in slam finals.

 

Nadal is the ultimate clay court player. I don't think Federer is amazingly superior on grass like Nadal is on clay but at his best he was more of an all-rounder. Yes he does but many of them were on clay and often the reason they didn't play in slams was because Nadal had lost in an earlier round and Federer subsequently won.

[Saintandy666]

Nadal is the ultimate clay court player. I don't think Federer is amazingly superior on grass like Nadal is on clay but at his best he was more of an all-rounder. Yes he does but many of them were on clay and often the reason they didn't play in slams was because Nadal had lost in an earlier round and Federer subsequently won.

 

Nadal is more than just a clay court player. He's won Wimbledon twice, and the US Open and the Australian Open once a piece. Federer is dominant at the other 3 slams at his peak, but lacks at Clay which he could only win when Nadal was not able to make it to the final due to an off year because of injury. I do think it is a gap in his CV. It's a tough call. Nadal still has another 4-5 years of slam winning to go whereas Federer's career will begin to wind down soon.

[SO16_Saint]

I don't like Nadal purely because of his smug f*cking face, his need to have his water bottles in the exact same place, facing the exact direction and also due to the fact that he takes 30 seconds on.each serve

[hypochondriac]

I don't like Nadal purely because of his smug f*cking face, his need to have his water bottles in the exact same place, facing the exact direction and also due to the fact that he takes 30 seconds on.each serve

 

My mate does that when we play squash. He isn't even any good. Really f*cks me off...

[hypochondriac]

Nadal is more than just a clay court player. He's won Wimbledon twice, and the US Open and the Australian Open once a piece. Federer is dominant at the other 3 slams at his peak, but lacks at Clay which he could only win when Nadal was not able to make it to the final due to an off year because of injury. I do think it is a gap in his CV. It's a tough call. Nadal still has another 4-5 years of slam winning to go whereas Federer's career will begin to wind down soon.

 

Where did I say Nadal was just a clay court player? I said he is clearly the best clay court player whilst Federer was MORE of an all-rounder at his peak (more being the critical word there.)

[Saintandy666]

Where did I say Nadal was just a clay court player? I said he is clearly the best clay court player whilst Federer was MORE of an all-rounder at his peak (more being the critical word there.)

 

 

I misunderstood you. But I would argue that Nadal has shown himself to be an all-rounder at his peak by completing the career slam!

[Saintandy666]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)#Men.27s_singles_2

 

Only 3 men have done the career slam in the open era. Nadal was youngest and he still has a bit of time to go. I think the best time to have this debate may be in 5 years time once both Nadal and Federer are done.

[hypochondriac]

I misunderstood you. But I would argue that Nadal has shown himself to be an all-rounder at his peak by completing the career slam!

 

I never said Nadal was not an all-rounder. FFS...

[Saintandy666]

I never said Nadal was not an all-rounder. FFS...

 

So they are both all-rounders then?

[hypochondriac]

So they are both all-rounders then?

 

I started writing a reply but couldn't be bothered as I am boring myself. I think my point was obvious. Nadal has certain skills which mean he is excellent on all surfaces but the best on clay. Federer's skills mean that at his peak he was the best on more than just one surface.

[Saintandy666]

I started writing a reply but couldn't be bothered as I am boring myself. I think my point was obvious. Nadal has certain skills which mean he is excellent on all surfaces but the best on clay. Federer's skills mean that at his peak he was the best on more than just one surface.

 

Nadal has clearly been better then Federer on grass for a few years though.

[hypochondriac]

Nadal has clearly been better then Federer on grass for a few years though.

 

I swear you wilfully ignore my posts and read what you want to read.

[Saintandy666]

I swear you wilfully ignore my posts and read what you want to read.

 

Nadal at his peak was best at all 4 slams. Federer was best on just 3. Though Federer in fairness has 'owned 3 slams'... whereas Nadal has only really owned 1. Needs to win Wimbledon again a couple of more times to own it.

[Thedelldays]

Nadal at his peak was best at all 4 slams. Federer was best on just 3. Though Federer in fairness has 'owned 3 slams'... whereas Nadal has only really owned 1. Needs to win Wimbledon again a couple of more times to own it.

christ almighty, federer at his peak was the best ever....nearly all the experts say it, the past greats say it. he has more slams then nadal, more records than nadal spent the longest at No.1 etc etc

 

Nadal is an amazing player but history will tell us (at the mo) that federer was the greatest ever

[Saintandy666]

christ almighty, federer at his peak was the best ever....nearly all the experts say it, the past greats say it. he has more slams then nadal, more records than nadal spent the longest at No.1 etc etc

 

Nadal is an amazing player but history will tell us (at the mo) that federer was the greatest ever

 

At the moment perhaps, but time will tell whether that is the case come 5 years time. It's certainly up in the air and could go either way dependent on what Nadal does next.

[Thedelldays]

At the moment perhaps, but time will tell whether that is the case come 5 years time. It's certainly up in the air and could go either way dependent on what Nadal does next.

Djokovic will put a spanner in his works

[Saintandy666]

Djokovic will put a spanner in his works

 

Maybe, everything is so unpredictable at the moment. I just don't know what will happen. It would have been incredible if Djokovic had held all 4 slams at once.

[hypochondriac]

christ almighty, federer at his peak was the best ever....nearly all the experts say it, the past greats say it. he has more slams then nadal, more records than nadal spent the longest at No.1 etc etc

 

Nadal is an amazing player but history will tell us (at the mo) that federer was the greatest ever

 

Which is of course my entire point. Nadal was the best on all four at a time but at that point Federer was past his best. I'm not sure it is that difficult to understand...

[Saintandy666]

Which is of course my entire point. Nadal was the best on all four at a time but at that point Federer was past his best. I'm not sure it is that difficult to understand...

 

Well, that isn't true at all. Federer was not past his best when Nadal won Wimbledon in 2008!

[Thedelldays]

Well, that isn't true at all. Federer was not past his best when Nadal won Wimbledon in 2008!

 

Christ. And you like to this you are an intelligent chap

[Turkish]

Federer is the greatest EVER IMO

 

If he and Murray both played 10 years ago Federer would still be better.