Seriously, the only logical answer you can give is that Nadal has a H 2 H wining record against Federer.
It means he is greater than Pete, than Bjorn, than every other player.
Well, I'll make a clear distinction between a champion and a player. Although a champion is necessarily a player in our case, there are differences.
A champion is defined by his wins. Therefore, the greatest champion is the one who has many victories, many records and many titles. Federer has many many records, he has the titles and he has been the most dominant ATHLETE, mark this word, athlete, over 4 years. This is tremendously huge. But, it doesn't make him the best player, it makes him the greatest champion. And, no one can argue on that because a champion is defined by his wins and Roger has the numbers.
He is the greatest champion of all time.
What makes hi ma great player is how effortlessly he swings, how fluent are his motions, how graceful he is. Because he has gracefulness, fluidity, a very light footwork, the most efficient swing ever played, it makes him a great player. No player has ever came any near to be half as beautiful as Roger Federer on the court.
If you know anything in bio mechanics, you understand this beauty Rogers shares with great dancers is also what makes a movement efficient.
Because he plays the best shots and has the best form, the most efficient overall playing, it makes him, at least, the most efficient player to have ever played.
But, if it was only this... His game is so complete it seems like he has no weakness. Agassi describes:
%26quot;He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision. %26quot;
And about his shots:
There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't be considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watch him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him at the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody.
So, explains me after all these records, all these wins and how great he plays his shot, how after this, Nadal is better for this only reason he lead head to head. is it that all other players are worthless? Because many RafaFans tends to think so. Seriously Nadal is a very good player, very fun to watch, but he's not Roger Federer.How the hell can they come to this conclusion?
The H2H record has the context of the majority of their matches having been played on clay. Outside of that surface Federer holds a slim 5-4 advantage. I think Nadal will go down as the greatest clay court player ever but he simply will not come close to matching the overall career achievements of Mr. Federer.
I'd pick Steffi Graf over Navratilova on the women's side.How the hell can they come to this conclusion?
The one who wrote that article is a dumbass. Who cares if Rafa has a better h-2-h vs Roger? Does Rafa have 15 slams, or better said 16? No. Roger has 15, that means he's the greatest ever and the REAL GOAT no matter what most rafa fans think. Top 3 rafa fans that r morons, ricky_gravit, rafa is hot and xno1rafafan.How the hell can they come to this conclusion?
what a long question,seriously they're wishful thinking,but who knows he just might prove to be the greatest player of all times when he is finishedHow the hell can they come to this conclusion?
Nadal is arguably the best CLAY court player but nowhere near the best. Not even close!
Men's best is arguably Roger Federer
Women's is Navratilova
Best ever- lol i still say Navratilova. Seriously how is she not? please tell me
*edit-Steffi is great, but cant compare to 59 slams....59. im sorry but thats just amazing. She has more slams than Sampras and Federer x2!How the hell can they come to this conclusion?
Laver is the best ever, the GOAT. If Fed dominates Nadal, after his return, perhaps Fed overtakes Laver. Rafa is the beneficiary of the preposterous change in tennis technology. If both he and Fed went back to Laver's time Fed would hold his own, Rafa would be a soccer player.How the hell can they come to this conclusion?
zzzz......zzzz....what? oh... yeah im suppose to answer..right
baloney... how could nadal's grand slam victories be better than fed's all time best 15????
nadal has the edge head to head but records wise, no need to elaborate...
okay i got to go back to sleep now, your long question is a very effective sleeping pill...
No comments:
Post a Comment