Will Nadal pass Federer?

[Moxie]

Roger never complains, your boy and his uncle on the other hand...

Aside from challenge system he never complains

Ha, you just threw that in! I was going to say he hated the challenge system for the first 2 years or so. And he's been known to complain to the umpires. And he tends never to think he lost because his opponent played better. And he complained about the darkness at Wimbledon in '08 until he got over himself. But mostly other than that....

 

[Carol]

Ha, you just threw that in! I was going to say he hated the challenge system for the first 2 years or so. And he's been known to complain to the umpires. And he tends never to think he lost because his opponent played better. And he complained about the darkness at Wimbledon in '08 until he got over himself. But mostly other than that....

That´s exactly what I went to say

 

[Moxie]

I've always felt it's about more than majors. I still maintain it's a Sampras era construct. You look at players in the Lendl era, they weren't worried about how many majors they won. They skipped them in their primes so it's a bit weird to me that they are being judged on that basis. I still think that more credit should be given to number of titles and number of weeks at number 1 than we currently do. That's not to say majors aren't important but a reweighting is in order in my view if we're ever going to have any sort of credible cross-era comparisons. Makes no sense to judge players by criteria that weren't as fundamental to them

I agree that the Slam thing came out of the Sampras era, then shortly on the heels, the internet era. It's a short-hand, but it's never been the whole story. Surely titles, and the quality of the titles. Weeks at #1, though you know I have an argument for what kept Rafa back, there. In any case, I do think the whole resume, and Roger still has the best one.

It's the main thing for sure. What's your argument for Rafa having a case as greatest? Just out of curiosity. I sincerely hope you don't believe the H2H is worth 3 slams. It isn't even worth one.

See above. I'm only saying it's more than just Majors, as is Federberg. I think you believe that, too. Just wait until Rafa keeps going into his late 30s, Roger long gone, and you'll be all about the fine-points. :whistle:

 

[DarthFed]

Roger can outlast Nadal on tour if he wants. I think you know that too. His game is a tad more easy on the body, no?

 

[DarthFed]

Ha, you just threw that in! I was going to say he hated the challenge system for the first 2 years or so. And he's been known to complain to the umpires. And he tends never to think he lost because his opponent played better. And he complained about the darkness at Wimbledon in '08 until he got over himself. But mostly other than that....

Rafa complains to umps just as much. And I've never seen Roger ask to have an ump banned from his matches. Nads has made more excuses over the years. The loss to Rosol was a death foretold according to him. A glorious death it was B-)

 

[Moxie]

Roger can outlast Nadal on tour if he wants. I think you know that too. His game is a tad more easy on the body, no?

But that truism/notion hasn't become quite so true, has it? There were folks that thought Nadal wouldn't last past 26-28, and he's won 2 Majors at 31. Surely Roger is a surprise at 35-6, after almost 5 years without a Major, but he's got back issues. Does he have the more bio-mechanically economical style? Yes. Is he going to be winning Majors past 36? Even he is reaching the outer-limits, in the currently very physical game. If Rafa stays healthy, which is a big "if," he's only 31. He could clearly have 5 years in him, if the motivation is there.

 

[Carol]

Oh wait, Federer lost against Stakhovsky in Wimbledon..... another glorious death B-)

 

[Moxie]

Rafa complains to umps just as much. And I've never seen Roger ask to have an ump banned from his matches. Nads has made more excuses over the years. The loss to Rosol was a death foretold according to him. A glorious death it was B-)

No, Rafa has complained less to the umps than Roger. That's an easy youtube. You just hang onto the Bernardes thing. Nadal doesn't make a lot of excuses. Don't mistake his fanbase on the internet for himself. When he has to take an injury time out, it's not an excuse. It's an injury lay-off. As to Rosol, he was suffering with the knees, and Rosol played great, but I'll remind you of this: Rafa won the 4th set, had all the momentum, and the chair, playing with the Wimbledon new roof, decided to close it, assuming they would go late and need the lights. It took 45 minutes to close the roof and start play again. Since you are one that catalogues bathroom breaks and otherwise momentum killers, I would think you could appreciate that. The commentators at the time said that it favored Rosol.

 

[Carol]

 

[DarthFed]

But that truism/notion hasn't become quite so true, has it? There were folks that thought Nadal wouldn't last past 26-28, and he's won 2 Majors at 31. Surely Roger is a surprise at 35-6, after almost 5 years without a Major, but he's got back issues. Does he have the more bio-mechanically economical style? Yes. Is he going to be winning Majors past 36? Even he is reaching the outer-limits, in the currently very physical game. If Rafa stays healthy, which is a big "if," he's only 31. He could clearly have 5 years in him, if the motivation is there.

No outer limits, fed is making up for crappy play for most of his 30's. No reason he can't win Wimbledon a couple more times and other tourneys. Fed should last fine up to his early 40's if he wants.

 

[DarthFed]

No, Rafa has complained less to the umps than Roger. That's an easy youtube. You just hang onto the Bernardes thing. Nadal doesn't make a lot of excuses. Don't mistake his fanbase on the internet for himself. When he has to take an injury time out, it's not an excuse. It's an injury lay-off. As to Rosol, he was suffering with the knees, and Rosol played great, but I'll remind you of this: Rafa won the 4th set, had all the momentum, and the chair, playing with the Wimbledon new roof, decided to close it, assuming they would go late and need the lights. It took 45 minutes to close the roof and start play again. Since you are one that catalogues bathroom breaks and otherwise momentum killers, I would think you could appreciate that. The commentators at the time said that it favored Rosol.

Yeah I tend to remember someone taking a bathroom break before his opponent serves for the match. And please tell me of an instance where Roger was so petty and spoiled as to demand an ump enforcing the rules should be banned from his matches. Only the likes of you and Carol would defend him on that. And Rafa complains to the umps plenty after receiving time warnings.

 

[Moxie]

No outer limits, fed is making up for crappy play for most of his 30's. No reason he can't win Wimbledon a couple more times and other tourneys. Fed should last fine up to his early 40's if he wants.

You're welcome to believe that he'll keep this going, and that there are no outer-limits. Who knows? But just to point out, by your accounting, there was a lot of crappiness in his early 30s, so I'm not sure some of that doesn't creep in again. We'll see. Personally, I think he's got 2 years, maximum, to keep winning Majors, and 2 could be a stretch.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah I tend to remember someone taking a bathroom break before his opponent serves for the match. And please tell me of an instance where Roger was so petty and spoiled as to demand an ump enforcing the rules should be banned from his matches. Only the likes of you and Carol would defend him on that. And Rafa complains to the umps plenty after receiving time warnings.

It is interesting and strange how much you catalogue the peccadilloes of Nadal, while seeming to miss completely Roger's. You're a bit obsessed. And no, Rafa rarely complains about getting time violation warnings. More often than not, he just goes about his business, and often wins the point. You haven't been paying attention to that, obviously.

 

[Carol]

Roger got mad when Nishi took a bathroom break and later he did the same playing the fifth set against Nadal, crazy!

 

[DarthFed]

It is interesting and strange how much you catalogue the peccadilloes of Nadal, while seeming to miss completely Roger's. You're a bit obsessed. And no, Rafa rarely complains about getting time violation warnings. More often than not, he just goes about his business, and often wins the point. You haven't been paying attention to that, obviously.

Classic deflecting. It's clear you think the guy walks on water and shits gold. I know Roger's issues with umps and there haven't been that many. The bad one was Wimbledon 2007 with Hawkeye. The clown ump in 2009 USO deserved it. Then there was one with Mo on clay vs Nadal. He carried on too much there I agree. None of that is remotely as bad as banning a well-respected ump for enforcing the rules

 

[Moxie]

Classic deflecting. It's clear you think the guy walks on water and shits gold. I know Roger's issues with umps and there haven't been that many. The bad one was Wimbledon 2007 with Hawkeye. The clown ump in 2009 USO deserved it. Then there was one with Mo on clay vs Nadal. He carried on too much there I agree. None of that is remotely as bad as banning a well-respected ump for enforcing the rules

It's not deflecting, it's discussion. If refuted your point. I didn't avoid it. And Nadal didn't ban Bernardes, who never stopped working. He asked that they take a time-out from each other, which the ITF told us was not uncommon. They took a break and have since worked fine together. You hysterically overstate that by saying that Bernardes was banned. Do pay attention.

Rafa has been frustrated by getting sanctioned so often for slow play, when so many others, Roger included, throw racquets, swear, hit balls out, and at lines people, and otherwise misbehave on court, something that Nadal doesn't do. You can decide which infractions you most abhor, but, imo, the one that Nadal is most coded for is the least offensive.

 

[Front242]

It's not deflecting, it's discussion. If refuted your point. I didn't avoid it. And Nadal didn't ban Bernardes, who never stopped working. He asked that they take a time-out from each other, which the ITF told us was not uncommon. They took a break and have since worked fine together. You hysterically overstate that by saying that Bernardes was banned. Do pay attention.

Rafa has been frustrated by getting sanctioned so often for slow play, when so many others, Roger included, throw racquets, swear, hit balls out, and at lines people, and otherwise misbehave on court, something that Nadal doesn't do. You can decide which infractions you most abhor, but, imo, the one that Nadal is most coded for is the least offensive.

Was Bernades asked by Nadal not to umpire his matches anymore at the time ? The answer is yes and that's what is meant by banned from his matches. No one said he was banned from umpiring ever. But that weasal did get him banned from umpiring his matches which is something no one else has ever done. USO 09 when Roger was complaining to the umpire it was quite justified as Del Potro was taking forever and the last straw was challenging well after the point was over and they were already going to sit down. Pathetic to allow him challenge.

 

[DarthFed]

It's not deflecting, it's discussion. If refuted your point. I didn't avoid it. And Nadal didn't ban Bernardes, who never stopped working. He asked that they take a time-out from each other, which the ITF told us was not uncommon. They took a break and have since worked fine together. You hysterically overstate that by saying that Bernardes was banned. Do pay attention.

Rafa has been frustrated by getting sanctioned so often for slow play, when so many others, Roger included, throw racquets, swear, hit balls out, and at lines people, and otherwise misbehave on court, something that Nadal doesn't do. You can decide which infractions you most abhor, but, imo, the one that Nadal is most coded for is the least offensive.

The ITF said it so it must be true. And I guess your point is that there have been a bunch of whiney divas in the past so it's fine for Rafa to be one. You truly think it's acceptable to ask for a temporary ban of an umpire from his matches because he enforced the rules?

99% of the time when players break racquets and swear loudly they are given code violations. If they called Nadal for a similar % when he went over the time limit he'd be defaulted in the first set. Roger has smashed his racquet like 2 times in 15 years, and rarely swears on court. You act like he's Fabio Fognini out there.

 

[Moxie]

The ITF said it so it must be true. And I guess your point is that there have been a bunch of whiney divas in the past so it's fine for Rafa to be one. You truly think it's acceptable to ask for a temporary ban of an umpire from his matches because he enforced the rules?

99% of the time when players break racquets and swear loudly they are given code violations. If they called Nadal for a similar % when he went over the time limit he'd be defaulted in the first set. Roger has smashed his racquet like 2 times in 15 years, and rarely swears on court. You act like he's Fabio Fognini out there.

You keep using the word "banned" like it was a thing. It wasn't. He asked that they be separated for a time, and it was granted. You are misusing to term to be incendiary. And you're making up the 99% of the time that players get coded for other behaviors. That's also actually new that they're coded more often. I'm not saying that Roger is the worst of them, I'm only including him in those who do break code on racquet abuse and foul language, and it's more than a few times in the last 15 years. What I did ask you was to consider which infractions you consider the most egregious. To me, slow play is at the bottom of the wrung.

 

[Front242]

Slow play should be near the top as it's unfair to the opponent and disrupts the flow of the game. Not only that, it's awful for spectators too.