Cheryl,

I am so happy to see this blog from you! I did read the Steve Tignore piece and thought it was quite good. However, you gave a different perspective that I find absolutely fascinating. Yes, we all know that Rafa's movement is critical to his success. It's like breathing for him. He showed us all why in the RG final. I made a comment somewhere that Sod must have felt like he was playing three people. Every time he hit what he thought was a sure winner, he looked up and saw that ball coming right back at him!

You gave me a different way of looking at that final. I happen to agree with you that Rafa's intelligence on court has always been extremely underrated. It's one of the qualities that I admire enormously. It also reminded me of one of my all- time favorite compliments from Fed about Rafa. He said it after that marathon 2008 Wimbledon final in his post-match press conference. Fed said that Rafa had him thinking out there. Then he said that the great ones always make you think! I loved that so much! You cannot get higher praise from another highly intelligent champion.

I think that is one of many things I love when I watch Fed and Rafa on court. You can see their minds clicking away as they test each other's mettle in a match. It's almost like a chess game, only on a tennis court. It's truly a pleasure to watch. This is the kind of tennis that I don't want to see become extinct. I don't love the big guys with their huge, booming serves and the one-two punch of serve and gigantic forehand. That is not the kind of tennis that I have loved in decades of watching and enjoying this sport. I want to see players use their smarts, strategy, wits, maneuvering themselves into winning points.

I find myself still thinking about that final with Raf and Sod. I agree with you that the 2008 RG final was Rafa's best pure tennis. I feel in some ways that I can appreciate and respect this effort more. Sod has always been a formidable matchup for Rafa. In the final, Rafa seemed to take what Sod gave him and turn it to his advantage. I recorded the match and have watched it two times. Now that I can see it without all the emotion, I can really see the thought process, effort and strategy that Rafa brought into this match.

You are so right that Rafa did hold back just enough. I was wondering at times why he was doing this. Then as he ended up winning those rallies, I began to understand what he was doing and why. Little by little, the more I see it, the more pleased I am to see Rafa going to a different place with his tennis. It tells me that Rafa has matured and also learned from his defeat last year. Rafa has come back with a vengeance, but he is older, wiser and even smarter.

I always seem to tell you every time I read a new blog that it is my favorite. It gets repetitive. So this time I will just tell you that, not only did I love reading it, but you gave me much to ponder! :)

Excellent piece Cheryl. I think you nailed it. I had always thought that the F.O final would be a huge test for Nadal as an athlete and competitor. I'm happy that he passed in flying colors and showed everyone what a truly great player he is.

Before the final, as a discerning fan, I was less than satisfied with Rafa's form in the F.O. Yet, he reserved his best for the final. Nadal took his game up about three notches from what we had seen in the rest of the tournament, as he stared down the biggest threat to his title. I thought Soderling tried, but the ball kept coming back, sometimes with interest. There's a different level to winning slams (and as Soderling, Murray know) guys like Fed and Rafa have MORE to their game at this level and to beat them it takes something exceptional.

It is not for nothing that Uncle Toni said that this was the best match that he had EVER seen Nadal play. The conditions for the 1st half of the match were relatively cooler and Rafa's topspin was not kicking up as much (off the ground) as it does when it is dry and hotter. So Rafa flattened out his shots and kept the ball in play by giving Soderling different looks in terms of pace, elevation and depth. He saw that Soderling was loath to come to the net, and so he employed loopy service returns that landed right at the Swede's feet which took time away from Soderling to wind up his groundies. I thought that was a great strategy.

As the match progressed the conditions become hotter and in the later half of the match, Rafa became more aggressive. His topspin started kicking off the ground viciously and he proceeded to push Soderling back and sideways, and ultimately established a stranglehold on that match.

In general, I do feel that Nadal is playing MORE intelligently this year. Look at his court positioning - he is way more intent on coming closer to the baseline in a neutral point than he was EVER before. He's making an effort to shorten points, and while that may be messy in the short term (given that he racks up the UFEs), it can only help his longevity in tennis when he finally succeeds in revamping his game.

At the same time, I love how Nadal goes to full retrieving mode ONLY when he has to in big matches (like in the F.O final). It's a good strategy he's adapted to play a quicker game in earlier rounds so he can preserve himself and then if needed grind it out in the big matches.

Nadal's comeback has come full circle. It's fitting that he's done so by erasing the source of pain which started a year ago at the same place. .Of course, Nadal might not be at the 2008 level in terms of the precision of his shotmaking, but he's still working on different skills that are serving him well. It's too early to think his best shots have abandoned him, as they are coming back with his confidence, which I think we are seeing.

Most importantly, with a historic sweep of the clay season, mentally, Rafa is a winner again, and THAT'S the key for him. He's got that trigger of belief back. Whether it'll stay with him through this season in Wimbledon and UsOpen, only time will tell. But if it does, and actually grows, then we can say that Rafa Nadal is once again back to his very best..

i remember a comment rafa made to reporters last year after losing "you need a defeat to give value to your victories". to me that said a lot about his character.

i believe luckystar was wondering before the final why rafa sometimes played at 80% and wondered if he had to because you can't play at 100% throughout at this level (i think it was luckystar).

i have the same opinion about FO08 and FO10 finals. very interesting.

that said, i hope for more epic 5 setters involving rafa.

Cheryl, I love reading your analysis of matches because you say it exactly as I see it but put it far better than I ever could. I think the last time I saw Rafa play close to such class was at the Wimbledon QF against A.Murray in 2008, it was clinical. Sod was taken unawares, he was riding on the fact that he beat Rafa twice last year and that he could certainly do it again, and that he had just beaten Federer, but Rafa had a different strategy, and Federer is no Rafa.

This will give Rafa the confidence he was seeking going into Wimbledon and with so few points to defend the American swing shouldn't have any pressure, providing he stays healthy.

I think Soderling was getting a little cocky, thinking he owned Rafa, but he came on to play last year's Rafa, injured and emotionally fragile, he was not prepared to the new Rafa who had worked on changing his game, and who was better at returning his serves.

great blog cheryl.

i still feel that speaking of perfection, 2008 FO was the best.
but speaking of perfect execution of strategy, yes, 2010 FO was indeed the best example..
rafa had a strategy, and that was to frustrate soderling by returning everything that sodacan hit at him..
i think it is unfair to soderling that he had so many unforced errors against his name..
half of them were forced errors, errors forced by nadal's amazing legs, and his mind..

Well said Cheryl, great write up.

I think this year's FO final was the most intelligent match I've ever seen Rafa play. I think he's finally evolving into that complete player some have accused him of NOT being and on Sunday we saw not only can he outplay most players on court, he can out-think them too. Rafa knew he could not outpower Soderling and attempting to do so would be disastrous, for his game AND his body. So he throught around the problem and outside the box and executed his strategy perfectly. Soderling simply had no answer and as Cheryl said, ran out of options. It was amazing to watch.

Wuldn't it be great if there were a TV replay that instead of showing us (for instance) player movement on the court, we could hear their thoughts being played back.
"This serve is going to fly through the court so perfectly you will never see it coming, sucka!" or "If I hit it there, then he hits it back on that side of the court ... then I can surprise him with my amazing BH return ..." or "I cannot believe that ball is coming back? What!".
Great blog Cheryl.
Très bien!

BTW why can't we leave comments at tennistalk magazine? I wouldn't mind commenting on that Tursonov post. ;)

shortly said, he bored Söderling to death..

but he played the right game against Söderling and executed it perfectly, impressive!

shortly said, he bored Söderling to death..

but he played the right game against Söderling and executed it perfectly, impressive!

shortly said, he bored Söderling to death..

but he played the right game against Söderling and executed it perfectly, impressive!

bjawad, rafa taught a great lesson to you aswell so i hope u learnt it... and the attempt to sumhow demean his victory by calling it 'bored soderling to death' u have again shown ur hatred for rafa... whatever u say , he is an artist on clay...they way soderling plays is a pathetic way to play on a clay court, i dnt care he has made it to two finals.

oups what happened? sorry about that..

vamos, why would I have a "hatred for rafa"? I said it was impressive, and yes his is the best on clay..

I just prefer other tennis styles, and would enjoy if a non-claycourt-style beats the best of the surface..

did you mean to write a different word that 'bored' then, bjawad?

Insightful and delightful article, Cheryl, as always.

It seemed to me that Nadal played at just high enough a level in each match before Sunday to secure set after set, to spend less energy and especially not to show to the later contestant what level he had in him this time around. Even in the final, with many amazing exchanges it did not look like Nadal was going to his best level all the time - only when he needed to. Had Soderling been able to push Nadal more he would have responded with more of the top level game he had available.

In short, the only player who could have beaten Nadal in the 2008 RG final would be another Nadal or perhaps a Borg. Same again this year. Had there been a player with this level of claycourt game and mind around we would have had a spectacular and balanced match, probably a 5 setter, like the Wimbledon 2008 final or the AO 2009 semi-final. There just is no-one like that around (even as good as Federer is on clay).

Is this the first time anyone has won a GS match without being broken?

Nadline.im sure Fed has done it plenty of times in his "hay" day!!!!!

Cheryl Murray.......excellent post.......just excellent!!!!...........and so was Rafa's game on Sunday!

@nadline..ermm...there have been so many grand slam wins so its possible that we dotn have any other player winnig the final without being broken... e.g vilas won the french open 6-0 6-2 6-1 i think so he didnt get broken in that match ...

regarding federer, not sure, but his dominant final was against hewitt in 2004 US open, won 6-0 7-6 6-0 , but even there hewitt broke once in the 2nd set.... Aus open 07 was the most dominant trnament for federer but gonzo broke his serve in the 1st set.. other dominant ones ...but heyyy did soderling break fed's serve last year?? i dont think so !!

Federer was not broken by Soderling in the final last year. You're right, vamosrafa.

Hi everyone! Thanks cheryl for this blog, a nice one indeed.

imjimmy - good analysis!

homos - yes I was the one who asked the question why Rafa was only playing at 80%. In fact I had the answer myself. I remembered having some discussions here with some of you and also with imjimmy about Rafa's form before the semifinal. imjimmy was worried that if Rafa continued with his form then, he would be 'killed' by Sod in the final, if both of them got there. I mentioned then that Rafa will put in his best effort in the final, and it is important not to peak too soon. Also, it is important not to let your opponent know your true level.

As some here mentioned, Sod was taken aback by the way Rafa was playing in the final. Had Rafa shown what he was capable of during his earlier matches, I believe Sod and his team would have come more prepared and thought of ways to counter Rafa's approach to the match.

Yes, in that 2008 FO final, Rafa had shown us the master class of his pure tennis skills on a clay court. At this FO final, he shown us what a master strategist he was. There was no need to play like Fed or Berdych, who were countering Sod's attacking with their own attacking. We see that they both failed, despite going the distance to four or five sets. Rafa did it in straight sets, in slightly more than two hours. Rafa played the right strategy of frustrating Sod's attacking with his superb defensive skills and cornering and forcing Sod into making errors; at the same time Rafa could cease any opportunity that came along and hit an offensive winner. Very intelligent play by Rafa, and he definitely did not spend as much energy on the court than Sod did. His good serving also helped his course. Remember those 8 out of 8 break points saved? Rafa is fast turning into a 'break point saved specialist'!

For those that find the match to be boring because of Rafa's 'defensive' play, do remember they play to win, and winning in the most effective and efficient way is most desirable. Winning in straight sets is definitely more desirable than say going the distance to win in five sets. Rafa had done just that.

Congrats Rafa for winning the FO and regaining the no.1 ranking, now go and get those non clay titles as well! Vamos!

@ smr- There was a technical glitch of some kind. All fixed now. :)

Interestingly, the Berdych/Soderling wasn't defensive (AT ALL), and I found that match dreadfully dull.

Hear, hear. The match between the two attacking big hitters never really ignited.

I fail to understand why 'playing defensively' is so often used as pejorative term by commentators and fans alike. The most dramatic and exciting matches - which keep us on the edge of our seats - are invariably when one or other (sometimes both) contestants are playing superb defensive tennis. The collective gasp of wonderment and applause which greets an amazing point saved far, far outweighs the applause for an outright winner.

it is the combination of defence and offence that make tennsi so exciting. matches between big hitters and boring to watch , always dull....

There are many older people, like myself, who drifted away from tennis during the era of boom, boom tennis and later found Federer's relentless demolition of lesser players somewhat boring. When Rafa burst onto the scene tennis once again became riveting to watch regardless of who you supported. His contribution to the success of tennis as a spectator sport is immesurable. And before Fedfans jump on me, we all acknowledge that much of this is due to the fascination of their great rivalry which has to be unrivalled. We are now in the fifth year of watching the World No.1 and No.2 fighting for supremacy.

Clayking: I'm hoping you can back my statement up with stats. Has there ever been such a long-standing duel in the Open era?

the most interesting tennis is when a wily counterpuncher plays a big hitter.(like delpo vs murray for example)

@ed, this is the longest easily...mcenroe lendl come to mind but nadal-federer broke the record as being the longest ever 1-2 duo (i dont remember the exact date), plus murray and djo replaced rafa as no.2 but talking abt year end no.1 and no.2 it is always nadal-federer...

and i got the confirmation too, Federer and Nadal are the only pair of men to have ever finished five consecutive calendar years as the top two ranked players on the ATP Tour.

Thank you so much for this article, Cheryl.
I've tried to articulate this elsewhere to others -- who go on and on about how they found the match so dull, and I've had to conclude they just weren't seeing what some of the rest of us saw, and that you laid out here -- but you've done it here in your article much more eloquently and succinctly.

I've described tennis more than once, when the best players show us their best game, as "chess with muscles". Long live the best. :-D

Thank you Cheryl, and vamos Rafa!!

Cheryl, I love your post. Once again I agree that Rafa's mind for the game is not as appreciated as it should be. And I mean as you do, beyond his legendary mental toughness, his intelligence and ability to adapt to conditions and to the opponent's game. He said before the match that he had a plan to win (which he refused to disclose), and boy did he!
So congrats to him and lets enjoy now watching what he can do on grass.

ed,
well do you mean in terms of matches played, span of rivalry or the time of rivalry during when they were no.1 and no.2??
well, i have made a list of major rivalries on the basis of these three criteria..
1) Borg and Connors.
their rivalry lasted 15 years on a whole (1977-1991) and in their prime it lasted about 7 years(1977-1983). They played 23 times. As for how long their rivalry lasted while they were no.1 & no.2, i would say roughly two years(1982 & 1983)..
2)Borg and Mcenroe
their rivalry lasted about 5 years(1977-1981). In their prime it lasted for 2 years, and co-incidentally, these 2 years were the ones, when these men occupied the top 2 spots(1980, 1981). They played 14 times.
3)McEnroe and Connors
their rivalry lasted for 15 years (1977-1991). in their prime, it lasted about 7 years(1977-1983). This rivalry lasted for about 2 years when the guys were at top 2 positions (1982, 1983). they played 34 matches.
4)Lendl and McEnroe
this rivalry lasted for 13 years (1980-1992). In their prime, it lasted about 4 years.(1983-1986). It lasted for 3 years when these men occupied the top 2 spots.(1983-1986, in broken parts).They have played the largest number of matches among major rivals. they played 36 matches.
5)Agassi and Sampras
This rivalry lasted 14 years(1989-2002). In their prime, these guys were rivals for about 6 years(1994-2000, except for 1997 when Agassi had a huge slump). When they were occupying top 2 spots, their rivalry lasted about 2 years.(1995, 1998/99 in broken parts). they played 34 matches.
6) Federer and Nadal
Well, this rivalry is into its 7th year(2004-2010 and counting). Even speaking of prime, it is into ther 6th year. As for how long they were rivals while occupying the top 2 spots, there is no doubt these men are the best in open era. There rivalry at top of the rankings is into the 6th year (from 2005 onwards). And ya, they have played 21 matches.

so, in terms of matches played, lendl jmac were the biggest rivals. they played 36 matches.
In terms of span of rivalry, well, mcenroe connors were the biggest rivals. it lasted 15 years (1977-1991)
As for the longest rivals while occupying the top 2 spots, no guesses for who it is!! :)

P.S. oh by the way, when I speak of primes, i do not mean actual prime. For example sampras's actual prime was 93-98. But i have considered 99-00 in his prime as well, because he did win slams during these years as well. Or more precisely he was the favourite entering a slam.

oh vamos has replied to it..
i gave this long explanaion because i could not get ed's question if he referred to the rivalry while the men were at no.1 and no.2 or overall..

oops..
correction in brog and connors
their rivalry lasted 9 years(1973-1981). In their prime, it lasted about 7 years(1975-1981). they played 23 times. As for how long their rivalry lasted while they were no.1 & no.2, i would say roughly three years (1976,1978,1979. in 1977 vilas was no.1)
so that was the mistake..
sorry for that!!

Thanks Clayking as usual for all your hardwork and for the recap on those historical rivalries. I was living in the UK during those years and we could only get Wimbledon on TV so the full extent of the big rivalries passed me by. Apologies for not making myself clear that I was querying whether Federer and Nadal were the longest running No.1 and No.2 to be battling it out. For the record, Ed is my nickname but I am female.

clayking,
thank you for all the detailed stats. small question on the first one: did the Borg Connors rivalry really last all those 15 years? Didn't Bord retire effectively at 24 (25)? Are you including matches later in life?

thanks for the details tho :) , nadal and federer are also bidding to break lendl-mcenroe record of playing 20 finals , roger-rafa have played 17 finals so far and counting.

oh ed,
it slipped my mind you were female.
someone did refer you as she, but seeing the name, i forgot..
my apologies..

chloro,
i corrected it..
in my 3rd post!! :P

Great post Cheryl. It seems that there's always this preoccupation with dichotomies. If your brawny, you can't be bright. Who made up that dumb rule? Thanks for putting what I've always thought about Rafa's game so eloquently.

When Rafa was going through his rough period it was obvious to me that he wasn't thinking straight. Poor strategy and shot choices told me he had stuff on his mind other than physical injury. I was like either his girlfriend is pregnant or his parents are getting divorced. His brain had clearly shut off. When we found out about his personal troubles I wasn't too surprised. Clearly the ability to focus and strategise have always been a huge part of his success.

On another note, @Clayking, thanks for all the great history stats.

Wish list for the upcoming clay season
1] Grabbing the Madrid title from Roger by beating him in the final
2] Serving a few bagels to Soderling at the FO
3] Serving out some crushing defeats to Davydenko,JMDP,Djokovic,Murray
4] Lifting the FO without dropping a set :)
5] A Spaniard winning Barcelona by beating the daylights out of Sod

vmk1 , 4/20/10 8:19 PM

Well except for point 3 and Sod bagels everything has come true. Vamos Rafa!

point 3 not happening is not your mistake vmk1..
those guys chickened out!!
who is to blame?? :P

Yeah Clayking you are right. But am so glad everything else fell into place. Now its everything to gain, very little to lose for the season ahead.

ed: just read your post regarding big hitters and I completely agree. I stopped watching when Sampras was dominating Wimbledon et al. I wish Rafa had been around to play Sampras, now that would've been interesting!
Players like Karlovic, Soderling, Isner etc just leave me cold

@deuce
to continue on with your point,i think that if federer had been around in sampras' time,Pete wouldnt have dominated as Federer seems to enjoy taking out big servers.(he even beat pete in 01 i think) And nadal vs sampras would have been interesting,but i think Sampras would have edged him out on faster surfaces,and we already know what the result would be on clay.

deuce: there really should be a separate tour for the 190cm plus brigade so they only meet each other to slug out a win - or at least have to play under a point handicap system! Having said that I am always amazed at the way Sela deals with people who look twice his height but have never seen him play one of the 200cm guys.

Tj,
well, if fed would have been in sampras's time, and they were playing on the wimbledon courts of 1990s, sampras would have won..
maybe not 7, but 5 wimbledons for sure..
the grass then was too fast and sampras's serve and volley would have been superior..
even on hards the guy was nearly unbreakable..
so, on the grass of 90s, he would have defeated roger..

yes, on any other surface in 90s, fed would have prevailed..
now if sampras had played in fed's time, well fed would have dominated..
fed becomes better as the speed of court decreases..

@clayking
yes. on fast grass of 90s,sampras wins. but on the grass today,i would pick federer. on hard courts and clay,federer wins.

Even though Sampras is my all time fav, i cannot turn blind eye to the obvious truth..
I agree with what you say.
Today, Fed will be the clear winner on clay, and on hards and grass, he will slug it out and end up as the winner..

Clayking: What criteria do you use to decide your favourites? You must be glued to ESPN watching the old classic matches since you weren't even into your teens when Sampras retired!

I'm not sure that on the fast USO surface, Fed would sure beat Sampras. They had not met at the USO, so we just couldn't assume that Fed would beat Sampras. Maybe at the AO, where the surface is slower, Fed would have an edge over Sampras. I thought Sampras game works well on faster surface?

well fed fans often quote mcenroe saying 'fed is the best ever'...fine but do they know johny mac has hailed pete as 'best ever on faster surfaces' several times?
luckystar is right, sampras would have been teh SLIGHT favorite on faster surfaces like US open and wimbledon ...federer would have beaten him but pete might have held the SLIGHEST of edges


and rafa vs pete..lol...very intriguing....actually i wonder how is pete gona handle nadal's forehand with his bakhnad? fed has a much better bakhand but still finds it so tough even on grass so pete's bakhand would have been EATEN UP by rafa's nasty forehand blows.

ed,
well, my criteria??
nothing specific..
any player who makes me feel, yes, this guy gonna be amazing in future, i happen to like him..(for eg. gulbis 3 year ago or de bakker now ec. )
nothing else..
as about sampras, well, when i first watched sampras play, i was few days short of my 5th b'day.
So, at the time, there was no intuition like this guy is gonna be great (obviously, he was already great)..
I just happened to like him..
Actually the first tennis match i saw live on TV was between sampras and chang..
and sampras won the match, so you can say i liked sampras more..
its only later I came to know how great he was!!
You can say around that time, he was not just my fav..
he was one of my 3 sporting heroes!!
as for the gen before sampras, of course i decide whom I like from ESPN classics or simply highlights of old classics on net..
In that way I liked guys like Edberg, Courier, Lendl etc.

Vamos,
rafa vs pete..
at AO, rafa in 5..
at FO, rafa in 3
at Wimby of now, sampras in 5..
at wimby of 90s, sampras in 3..
at USO, sampras in 4...

I think too much emphasis has been placed on that 2001 Wimbledon win that Fed had over Sampras. Sampras was almost nearing his retirement then. Fed did lose his next match to Tim Henman and so it was hard to gauge that should they not slow down the Wimbledon court from 2002 onwards, how would Fed fare on the faster Wimbledon court.

Also when Sampras lost to Safin in that 2000 USO Final, he was 29 y.o. then. We can't compare Sampras at 29 against a Fed at 29 now, as they aged differently; just like we can't compare Rafa at 19 vs Fed at 19. If I'm not wrong, I think Sampras won four USO, one at age 19. I don't know who he had beaten in those four finals, but I know Fed had beaten Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Nole and Murray. Nole and Murray were first time finalist then. Maybe someone can help about who Sampras had beaten in those four USO finals?

luckystar,
about sampras's 5 USO wins, the answer is something I do not need to even refer to any material..
He has won thrice against Agassi, while once against pioline and one against chang..

clayking, I would say Rafa/Pete at Wim now may be a 50/50 in 5 sets. At the USO Pete over Rafa in 3 more likely than in 4! However do remember Rafa is still improving and we really do not know how much more Rafa can still improve on both grass and hard. Fingers cross for that one, he may end up able to edge out Pete on the slow grass, though I think Pete will have an edge over Rafa on fast hard courts.

Also I see some parallel there about young, 20 years old Safin beating Sampras at the USO, and a young, 20 years old Delpo beating Fed at the USO last year; though Fed definitely performed better against Delpo than Sampras against Safin.

Thanks clayking. Oh so Sampras has 5 USO and not 4. Looks like Sampras and Fed are very good on fast hard courts. I think its difficult to say who is better, but I still go with Sampras for his beating of Agassi during Agassi's peak. Can I say Agassi at his peak is better than Hewitt or Roddick at their peak? Questionable though.

there is nothing questionable about the fact that agassi is a league ahead of hewitt and roddick..
and there is no doubt that fed's opponents during his prime were one rung below agassi (with the exception of a certain mallorcan matador in the last year of fed's prime, i.e. 2006-07)..
but that is not fed's fault..
he was the best among the players that were there in his time..
and this is coming from an ardent sampras fan..
I think even on fast US courts, fed will win against Sampras in 5 tight sets..
fed just happens to be a better version of pete, and that is the sad truth (sad for me atleast)..
of course it is a different matter on the wimby courts of 90s..

As for delpo and safin, well safin was leagues ahead of delpo in terms of talent..
delpo just outhit fed, and fed lost a match that he should have won..

clayking - agree about Safin and Delpo, though we know what happened to Safin now but Delpo's future is still unknown. He may or may not end up better than Safin, results wise, though hard to compare their talent levels objectively.

Agree that it is not Fed's fault about his opponents. One question - will he be able to beat Agassi at his prime at the USO as regularly as Sampras did? I'm still not convinced about Fed beating Sampras at the USO, though I think Fed has more varieties in his game than Sampras does. Do you agree on that (ie the varieties), clayking?

One more interesting question - how would Rafa match up with Agassi during Agassi's prime?

Agassi..
when he has to be compared to fed/nadal, I would like to know which Agassi you are comparing them against??
because agassi had sort of two primes..
one before 97, when he won 3 slams and was physically at his peak but was mentally not the strongest guy around..
then the one from 1999 when he had a more complete game, and was mentally very able, the type who could outfox his opponents more and was rewarded with 5 slams..
agassi is a special case and it is tough to make a matchup..
but generally, I think fed would win a lot against agassi..
and nadal will win at most places except fast US courts, and maybe wimby..

ed: I actually thought, put all those extremely tall guys in one part of the draw, let them slug it out and then the victor to emerge at the quarters, exhausted, to be picked off by Rafa or Andy!
vamosrafa: ah, a supreme counter puncher against a supreme serve and volleyer, mouthwatering! Perhaps it'll emerge in a virtual world.

Tee Hee. That would be a neat solution Deuce.

OK clayking, no argument there about Agassi against Fed/Rafa. Thanks.

@clayking
Safin had an all court game,and he beat Federer with it. He was a power player, but he approached the net to the Federer backhand I don't know how many times in that match. He did over power him, but Safin also defended extremely well in that match, used the slice backhand well.Safin matched Federer shot for shot, he used the whole court in a way that Del Potro and definately Soderling could never dream of doing. Also, I must say that as good as Del Potro and Soderling are, they are not nearly as physically gifted as Safin was. Not even close. Safin was a great athlete, huge hitting, with soft hands and variety. Del Potro is merely a big ball stiker. SOderling is huge server, and clean hitter, but he can't move and defend well. Safin could do everything. About Sampras: I personally believe he had the perfect game to straight set nadal on any surface other than clay. Period. Nadals return of serve aint his best shot-he merely gets the ball back into the court and goes for the kill later on in the point. Even agassi,who is a far better returner than nadal(agassi is the best returner of all time imo) struggled to break him. Sampras would OWN nadal at Wimbledon and USO(yes even on the slow one today,as volleys are tough to retrieve on grass) French is obviously nadal,and at AO nadal has a small chance. Sampras would beat Federer on fast grass,but on hard,clay and the slower grass,Federer would win mostly. As for Agassi,he would own Nadal on hard courts,and get owned by nadal on clay and grass. Look at Nadals record over Nikolay Davydenko on hard courts,a player who is a lite version of Agassi. Agassi would lose to Federer on clay and grass,and would score the odd win over Federer on hard. As for Federer beating Sampras,yes he wasnt in his prime,but Federer wasnt exactly in his prime either.

tj600 - I think your views are quite extreme about Sampras/Fed/Rafa/Agassi.

If Rafa struggles to return serves of Sampras, then what about Fed? Fed may also struggle returning Sampras' serves too, as Fed is not known to be the best returner of serves, even though he may return with better play on the ball then Rafa's just putting the ball back. On slower grass, maybe Fed/Rafa/Agassi have better chances of returning Sampras' serves? What about Murray? Murray seem to be an even better returner of servces than both Fed/Rafa.

I still like clayking's take on Fed/Rafa/Sampras/Agassi. I don't think Fed beats Sampras on all surfaces except fast grass; I think its 50/50 or maybe slight edge to Sampras on fast hard. I don't think Sampras beats Rafa on all surfaces except clay. I think on slow grass and slow hard courts, chances are 50/50 for Rafa; on fast hard and grass, its all Sampras. Agassi too may return better on slow grass than fast grass against Sampras.

Davy's hard court H2H against Rafa was 2-1 before Rafa's injury last year. After his injury, he lost to Davy three times - at Shanghai 09, at WTF 09 and in the final of Doha 10. That final in Doha was close and Rafa was leading Davy, up one set at 6-0 but run out of steam and lost the match. Rafa lost to many other top hard court players during that period after his injury in 2009 - Nole/Delpo/Soderling/Davy/Cilic. Its not surprising that his H2H against all these players suffers.

Fed/Sampras 2001 match. Fed not in his prime, hence he lost to Henman in his next match. There is no way to know whether Fed can perform as well on fast grass as he won Wim since 2003 when the grass court was being slowed down. All these who is better than who are just our own projections, we may never know the right answer.

luckystar, 6/12/10 6:34 PM 'we may never know the right answer.' I am not about to get into this discussion which is altogether too hypothetical for me. But the one thing which does not seem to have been taken into account, and by definition can't be, is the intangible factor of how the dynamics between the players would pan out if any of the former greats were to play the greats of today. We were talking recently about the great rivalries: often it has been these that shaped and defined certain players. i.e. we all know that Rafa plays at a different level when he is face to face with Federer.

Hi Cheryl,

Did you see today's matches at Hale? See you in SW19-2010.

Yes you're right ed251137 about the dynamics.

Anyway, I think we all have our own opinions, so thanks tj, ed and clayking for your contributions to this discussion. Those four that we mentioned-Fed/Rafa/Sampras/Agassi - are special in their own ways and each of them has his own legion of fans.

I'm a Rafa fan so I hope going forward, he'll continue to improve in all areas of his game and one day, may end up there together with the legends.

What is interesting, for the most part, fans fall into two camps: those who admire and idolise Federer/Sampras (clinical perfection), or Rafa/Agassi (charasmatic chutzpah).

ed, I prefer charismatic chutzpah more than clinical perfection, though I think Fed has charisma too. Rafa may not have clinical perfection but on clay, he is more than clinical perfection to me! He is so beautiful on clay. If you watch a slow motion replay on his footwork on clay, you'll realize how beautiful it is - both the sliding and the flexibility of his footwork and movement.

Cheryl murray

Roger was sickness. Roger was sickness 2008 2009 (mono)
sure, if it is not a sickness. anyway, Nadal win.
But, When Roger is healthy. It doesn't become such a score.

And, this year. Roger's sickness. disease of lungs. After the sickness. He always becomes in a slump.


injury and sickness. All players experience. Always, There is never healthy player.

http://www.nadalnews.com/2010/06/14/rafalint-june-14th/

NADAL'S GOING JAPAN THIS YEAR!!!