This entry is now closed for comments.
@151"The Federer question. How can you be the best of all time when you aren't even the best in your time?"His "time" was 2004 to 2009. During which Fed won 14 slams (the same as Nadal has won in his entire career), and reached another 6 finals. No one else has ever got close to that kind of dominance.
#292 Nadal is a great guy ,Murray s the best UK player for 80 years .He's ours and he is now mature until others ,so please grow up#292 and keep reading the Sun etc.You really are the most silly boy.get mumsy to tuck you with your ovaltines !!
Nadal is a great guy and a true champ. I relish seeing him thrashing Murray again soon, as Murray appears to be the everlasting obnoxious stroppy teen
@279. No "Fed is not the best all-surface player. End" ... At the very least, it's debatable ...N has beaten him at Wimbledon 2/3 and Australian 3/3! while N has benefited from Fed's aging, he has always had Fed and Djok to cope with (+AM who has beaten him at the US). Whereas Fed had no-one in the early years. What N has to do, is win more Slams other than RG. Now he's fit: let's see!
@286 - no ignore is the wrong word - lack of memory cells is the correct diagnosis. Everything else you say I agree with... and on that bombshell!! "Back to back" ha ha - and still relevant to this day
Since N and Djokovic have started to play, RF has only won 5 out of his 17 GS, and 8 out of his 21 master 1000 tournaments. In the meantime, Djoker has won 19 master 1000 and 6 GS, and Nadal 14 and a whopping 27. Not to mention the entity of the rivals in the 12 GS finals previous to Nadal era ( Baghdatis, Philipousis, Safin, etc......). nadal has played 15 out of his 20 finals vs best F and D.
Some of the comments on here are just awful, you should be ashamed of yourselves.If you think you could play better then lets see you out there for 3 hours on the trot. Regardless of who you like why not celebrate a fantastic sporting achievement rather than moaning about who should have won.
Who will get caught by the testers first?Warwinka orNadal?
@279 SimonFederer 04-07 could at least compete on clay. In 2008 he lost the RG final 6-3 6-1 6-0. Then lost Wimbledon by being "taken apart" in the final. The next year he was lucky to win anything as Nadal was injured at both Wimbledon and the French. But you seem to be ignoring this. Btw Nadal almost ended his career winning Wimbledon and the French back to back - get it? Back to back. Ha!
This comment was removed because it broke the house rules. Explain
Been having this same old debate for 8 years or more now. I have to concede that Nadal may end up winning more Slam's than Fed but he's a freak, an athlete not an artist. He grunts like a pig and the constant delay's in between points and dodgy tactics during games mark him out as a false role model and a champion without genuine class.IF you prefer Nadal, you prefer brutality over beauty. Sad.
I'm really pleased Fed has the career slam,but he cannot beat Nadal at the French... Nadal has taken him apart on Hard + Grass which are Feds surfaces (hence the tears at Wimbledon) Whichever of them ends up with the most slams - given the overlap in their careers along with Djoko's- means they deserve to be considered "best" as an aside: how did Sampras not win more with less competition?
love the French Open as a tournament and spectacle- but while this game was enjoyable with a great atmosphere, I'm always shocked at how badly the early rounds are supported. eg. Can't believe there were several empty seats for Monfils-Murray! and some of the top players are regularly playing to literally third full crowds. What's that all about??
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments