Roger versus Rafa

[bennymacca]

Nadal is a gun. Best ever?

very interesting question


did federer only win so often because he didn't have the class of opponent to match him?

when people talk about sampras vs federer, a lot of people say federer. but sampras had to beat agassi, edberg, courier, becker, rafter etc

im my opinion, they are a lot better than the players that federer has had to beat (roddick, safin, hewitt et al)

no way you can call him the best player ever

steve, i wouldn't talk too soon. nadal is the first player since rod laver to win the french open and wimbeldon in the same year. and he had to beat probably the second best player of all time to do it. in all of nadal's grand slam victories (6 of them), he has beaten federer 5 of those times.


so he should definitely be considered up there with the greats, and in time i wouldn't be surprised if he rival's the grand slam records of sampras and federer. he is only 22, and he already has 6 grand slams

[Todd Rivers]

nadal is the first player since rod laver to win the french open and wimbeldon in the same year. and he had to beat probably the second best player of all time to do it. in all of nadal's grand slam victories (6 of them), he has beaten federer 5 of those times.


so he should definitely be considered up there with the greats, and in time i wouldn't be surprised if he rival's the grand slam records of sampras and federer. he is only 22, and he already has 6 grand slams

Good point

[bennymacca]

i think the only question about nadal is how long he can keep doing what he is doing now.

he plays an extremely high energy game which relies on his fitness and court speed to get that extra ball back. can he keep this sort of game up for an extended period of time?

well based on the last 2 matches, where he nearly played for 10 hours, you would have to suggest that he can.

but he plays a similar game to what our little aussie champion lleyton hewitt plays (although hits a heavier ball off the ground), and you can see from lleyton's career that it is hard to keep that sort of game going without injuries catching up with you.

i hope that he goes keep it going though.

[Chelsea4thewin]

how good would sampras be today, not very good imo

everyone has a big serve and can return the big serves from a Roddick etc and the power players hit with the new rackets is amazing

comparing different era's is something that cant be done in tennis, even Pat Cash was serving over 200clicks in the senior tournament so who would know how far he could go in tennis today

Nadal cannot be the greatest ever tennis player until he proves a consistent winner over a long period of time, who knows whats around the next corner, Tomic could be the one who takes it to Nadal, lets hope so

[muzzington]

how good would sampras be today, not very good imo

You'd beat him easily.

[bennymacca]

steve, do you realise that sampras retired in 2002? its not as if he was playing back in the days of wood raquets etc. the technology has still improved somewhat over the last few years, but not a great deal.

everyone has a big serve and can return the big serves from a Roddick etc and the power players hit with the new rackets is amazing

they didn't call him pistol pete for nothing steve. im not really sure what your point is here - he was regularly serving in the 210km/h range, which still ranks him as a fast server, even in todays tennis.

comparing different era's is something that cant be done in tennis, even Pat Cash was serving over 200clicks in the senior tournament so who would know how far he could go in tennis today

you CAN compare the players - why not?

Nadal cannot be the greatest ever tennis player until he proves a consistent winner over a long period of time, who knows whats around the next corner, Tomic could be the one who takes it to Nadal, lets hope so

he has won 6 grand slams now steve, only 14 players have won more than him. that puts him in the same sort of company as boris becker and stefan edberg. he has also consistently beaten a player that has won 14 grand slams. he is definitely no flash in the pan.

whether he keeps up for a long period of time remains to be seen, but i think that would be more to do with fitness rather than form.

[Todd Rivers]

Tomic could be the one who takes it to Nadal, lets hope so

Andre can beat Nadal at Poker, and probably in a fight, but beat him at tennis???

[krunchie]

He cant be called the best ever but he has every chance to be given the time.

He has 6 grand slams at the age of 22

federer only had 2 grandslams by the same age.

lets see what happens

[Des]

Yeh I didnt mean right now.... but could he become best ever.

[maccatak11]

I think Nadal can ALREADY be considered in the best of all time.

He has 6 grand slams at the age of 22.

By comparison, agassi won 8, courier only 4 and edberg 6.

Nadal has already won grand slams on the three different surfaces (grass, clay and hardcourt/plexicushion/rebound ace), something that courier, edberg, sampras and federer have failed to do.

He currently holds 3 of the 4 grand slams titles, something that few other players have ever done. Rod laver is the only player in the open era to win all 4 grand slams in a year, but rafa could be the next one to challenge this.