That's the TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH!

agf25agf! i concur! two legends in the same era! there's no other way of putting it!

memi--- expect some envious, selfish, arrogant characters to disagree cos they think the "great ONE" is the one and only LEGEND of this generation! MARK my word!

Oh dear...another legend himself, pointing out the obvious again. This is the generation of two legends without a doubt. I can't imagine anyone denying Rafa is gonna remain one of those names you never forget. XD Man, I love when the oldies say things everyone is already thinking. I hope Rafa comes back strong, so the era doesn't start and end with Fed. I love Fed...but it is more interesting that way.

They make it worth living next to Flushing Meadows.

I totally agree, how nicely put from no other than another legend,'2 legends playing in the same era'. I hope Rafa comes back stronger, may the rivalry live on, these two are the cornerstone of tennis, nobody matches their intensity and desire on a tennis court, and Rafa has so much charisma, there is no one like him or Roger and they will always be remembered I hope as the greatest rivals of all time!

I think the article is good ...fair and just to both of them . They both have legendary accomplishments . Lets hope that we get more matches between them this coming hardcourt season ....it'll be the first if we get more than one match ....( i think )

C'MON !!

This is what we have spent yards and yards of typescript trying to say, but it's so much better to come from a neutral camp. Not that I expect Fedfans to accept it, Sampras will be sent to the naughty corner again, and they will go back with an out of context quote of what he said at Wimbledon, when he said that Federer is the GOAT in his books, buttttttttttttttttt, some people say Laver, and Nadal has beaten a few times. Fedfans like to forget the BUT.

I will accept that there are two legends currently in tennis, Rafa and Roger, and no objective person can deny that.

Despite the fact that sometimes he seems to be a soar person but I think Sampras was fair this time though I don?t think that Rafa made it to the "legends" degree yet he is only 23, to name him as a legend already is not fair to him he still has a lot to do first of them is to stay as number 1 for a whole year to begin with . he is a wonderful champion whom had the biggest challenge from his own body so lets see how he will handle that challenge who knows what will come out of that for sure Montreal will be interesting Rafa after absence Roger after being father and breaking every record a human tennis player was able to achieve Murray as Grand slams hoppers but never a winner and Djokovic as always a one slam wonder!
Rafa was so sincere in his website he is saying " he enjoys the pain as he always does" and "the most important is to play tennis and enjoy it not regain number one" read his interview you don?t see it coming from a worrier like Nadal not the message you want to send to Murray or Djokovic before a master where he is a defending champion so lets wait to see to what degree he is being humble!
So 23 and legend ! already!

- I don't I believe that Roger is in any particular threat as Nadal could be of Roger in that he all of a sudden strikes back after six months of no victory and took three in a row..He did appear to have lost weight but the past three victories showed him no short of another many more although is fair to suggest that Fed was having some difficult times with the future and family endeavoures..
Rafa certainly did find a difficult match with Robin, but I viewed the match again and showed that mayhap the moment just wasn't there for him and Robbi took no chances but grab at whatever means it took to win. Rafa should be out to play as soon, with the nice seven or so weeks holiday. There's time always for changes later, but to see him amongst young players doing what he does best would be worth quite profitable for his kind of ability..I can not wait to see him back once more ..

I don't believe Rafa Nadal is a Legend just yet. I great Player/Warrior "YES"! A threat to Roger? (No way). In the future Rafa may win a few from Roger, but to categorize him as a "threat" is overkill/drama at best. Roger has demonstated tenacity I would have thought not possible in the last few months. In my opinion, he has demonstrated "more" character than ever before, and now he is ready to play for "fun" like never before. Watch for Roger... He will be there. C'MON! :)

I'll only contribute to this thread by saying that Johan Lindahl has nothing better to come up with than repeatedly listing Sampra's comments.....

A biggest threat for what ? Federer has crossed the finish line already .. he may go on to lose all matches from here , but it doesnt matter , Rafa has missed the bus. Federer has gone to another era, another time as one among the many greats in tennis.

The rest of pack , including Rafa can battle among themselves , all the grand slams is for their taking.

Interesting in the Observer regarding Hawk-Eye. Not really anything to do with this thread, but I had to post it somewhere.


Man versus machine

Even Roger can't beat Hawk-Eye

* Tom Lamont
* The Observer, Sunday 26 July 2009

Roger Federer using Hawk-Eye

Roger Federer looks on as Hawk-Eye makes a call during the men's singles final match against Andy Roddick at Wimbledon 2009. Photograph: Paul Gilham/Getty Images

A marathon five-setter hardly seems to dampen his polo shirt, but there is one thing that ruffles Roger Federer: Hawk-Eye, the electronic line judge system introduced to Grand Slam tennis three years ago this month at the 2006 US Open. He hates it, and is the only player on the tour to regularly protest against its use in public. Yet figures released to OSM by the ATP show that since its inception, Feds has made more challenges than any other player on the men's tour, referring to the computer over 100 times more than his great rival Rafael Nadal.

If Hawk-Eye is his enemy, why use it so much? "First and foremost, Federer plays all of his games on show courts that are fitted with the technology, and doesn't play much on clay where it isn't used," says Jason Goodall, the BBC's Hawk-Eye analyst, explaining why the Swiss's numbers are so high. "But I've spoken to commentators, players and ex-players, and Federer is very hard to work out in regard to his challenges. He'll make them when the ball is three or four inches in; it can be embarrassing. I think in his heart of hearts, he believes the Hawk-Eye system is poor - and uses it, begrudgingly, because he thinks it's fallible. In other words, even if the line call is right it might gift him the point by mistake." More accurate with his line-judging, according to the stats, is Novak Djokovic, the only player with more than half of his challenges right.


Calling the shots: top Hawk-Eye moments

The Good

Djokovic v Amer Delic, Aus Open 2009

Djokovic made perfect use of Hawk-Eye in a fourth set tie-break. Spotting that Delic's shot had landed millimetres beyond the baseline, the Serb opted to challenge rather than play on, saving a vital point and soon afterwards winning the match to go through to the fourth round.

The Bad

Safin v Federer, Wimbledon 2008

Federer, the umpire and 15,000 fans sniggered when Safin challenged a serve in last year's semis: the ball was almost 40cm in. "I've asked all of the guys that work the line calls for Hawk-Eye throughout the season," says Goodall, "and we all agree this was The Worst Challenge Of All Time."

The Ugly

Murray v Ivan Ljubicic, Indian Wells 2009

A Murray lob landed between the tramlines and was called out - then bounced back on to the singles line after play was dead. When the Scot challenged, a (human) Hawk-Eye operator analysed the second bounce and the computer called it in. Ljubicic lost.

i dont think you had to bother posting it it is redicuolous carrie
"because he thinks it's fallible. In other words, even if the line call is right it might gift him the point by mistake"

who on earth would think that Roger needs cherity points ? did the writer though he won the 15 through MISTAKES? give me a break ! seriously! you gotta be kidding me!

Boris becker won 6 Slams and is a legend, McEnroe won 7 and is a legend, of coz Nadal is one of the greats.

Question is now whether he can make his GS tally to double digits.

i dont think that McEnroe and Becker are in the same catogry with Federer, his catagory includes Sampras and Agassi and Borg and Laver .
some are GREAT and some are LEGENDS: different crateria

Wait, wasn't this story already posted a few weeks ago? So are we going to have to read Sampras talking about Nadal and Federer every other week for the rest of the year? Sheesh!

(Shireling, we're of one mind on this issue. Maybe I just go to the old thread and paste all my comments from there to here, too.)

Well, SenorPlaid, we here McEnroe commentary all the time, the thing is with past retired great players is that they can make statements like these because their opinion carry a lot of weight.

Yeah, I admit, this is turning into overkill....

-Arvis

Hi torres....... Arvis....... Malt........RB.......Nilofer......Jibi...... n all fed fanzzzzz......... missed u all...... :P

Hey to all Rafanzzzz....

so wtz goin dez dayzzz............ n e wayzz...... just saw this article..... thot to share..... itz amazing.......... really amuzed me !!!!! Like Rogerz game...

Awwwww....... love the twinizzz........ Congo Roger ........ n Mirka...... m late !!!!!! :-">

N e one read this....... itz funny n touchy......... lol

He had no idea how he got there, but Roger Federer was facing his toughest opponent yet. He knew he had a chance though because the tennis court was a neatly trimmed plush grass of the likes of which he had never seen before.

At first he thought it was Bjorn Borg on the other side. A long-haired man with a neatly trimmed beard was on the other side warming up. Roger could see that the man was playing with physically visible signs of tendinitis in both hands and both feet.

Roger looked over at the chair umpire and relished the irony in recognizing him to be John McEnroe. McEnroe summoned both players to the front of his chair.

"Alright, I want a fair fight, Jesus, no funny stuff; just plain good ol' tennis understood?", he said. "That means no coaching from any outsiders like your mother or your father or ...you! I mean, umm...keep the trinity out of this. Whatever, just keep it clean."

Roger served first and won the first game. Jesus then served and held. They went back and forth throughout the first set until it was tied 6-6. They then proceeded to the tiebreak.

On a crucial point, Jesus appeared to hit a ball well outside but all of a sudden the court line expanded and the ball landed in. It would have given the Lord a 6-5 lead.

John McEnroe stopped the play. "Jesus Christ!!"

Jesus replied with an innocent glance. "Yes?"

McEnroe was taken aback. "Uh yeah, come over here." Jesus approached the chair. "What did I tell you about keeping it clean?"

Jesus protested "I know not what thou means, sire".

McEnroe was not impressed. "For Chr***'s Sake, I mean...you kept the shot clean but you cannot adjust the lines. Now I have to award the point to Roger."

Jesus replied, "If thou sayest so."

McEnroe was not finished. "YES I SAYEST SO! NOW STEP BACK AND KEEP IT CLEAN AND KNOCK OFF THE BIBLICAL TALK, PAL.

It was 6-6 all and Roger served an ace down the middle. Federer then returned Jesus serve who then tripped over his white flowing robe and thus dropped the set.

Roger then took the second set 6-1 mostly due to the fact that Jesus was slowing down with his sandals. His feet were beginning to ache.

For the third set, Jesus took of his robe and played in his white loin cloth. It did the trick for he won the set 6-4. Roger complained to McEnroe.

"Hey it's not fair that I have to look at his thin body covered in slash marks, bruises and a hole in the side. It really ruins my concentration."

McEnroe called Jesus over. "Nice tactics, Jesus. However, I am going to have to insist that you put on the appropriate clothing. Hey, take that crown of thorns off too while you are at it. You can put it back on if you win the match."

Jesus stared at McEnroe for a bit, then shook off his crown and put his robe back on. He was going to deal with Nike very harshly if he won this match.

Roger broke Jesus in the fourth set but Jesus broke back the next game. They remained on serve up to a second tie break at 6-6.

The tie break went on serve up to 14-14. Jesus looking at Roger and seeing his sheer determination said, "How is your belief, son?" He then thundered a serve down the "T" which Roger returned with a beautiful backhand down the line.

Roger looked over at the messiah.

"My belief is pretty good. I beat Santa three days ago and I beat the Tooth Fairy yesterday in the semis and I am about to beat you now." With that, he threw the ball up in the air and served a hard ace to far outside leaving Jesus wondering where the ball went.

Jesus immediately rewound the play to make sure the ball was on the line.

McEnroe stood up on his chair and yelled, "JES** CHRI**, THAT BALL WAS IN!!!! GAME, SET, MATCH, ROGER FEDERER!! 7-6, 6-1, 4-6, 16-14."

Jesus fell to his knees and the ground began to shake. Just then, Mirka was shaking Roger awake.

"Roger wake up. You have to play Rafa today for the Madrid finals. What is that silly smile on your face?", she asked.

Roger's smile widened. "If Rafa thinks he can walk on water, I will still beat him."

And the rest as they say, is history.

hE Is BaCkY hOmE ..........tHe No.1 (m lovin it)

@Artikle....... Sampy boy needz rest ....... kommon mann....... i no u r hurt !!!! :P

Go Roger Go............

nirv02 you got it buddy!

"the biggest threat for what ? Federer has crossed the finish line already .. "

Indeed. :)

tennislover, it is worth noting that Roger does make some ridiculous challenges, when the call is clearly correct. I don't think it is to win cheap points, it could be gamesmanship to take the momentum out of the game, who knows, they must ask him sometime. Sometimes the ball is a foot long, or several inches in the court and he still challenges. For someone who hates hawk-eye, it is intriguing as to why he does it.

Those who think Federer has crossed the finish line only have to listen to Sampras who thought his 14 GS titles would never be surpassed.

"Well, SenorPlaid, we here McEnroe commentary all the time, the thing is with past retired great players is that they can make statements like these because their opinion carry a lot of weight."

Torres, I get that, but this is almost the exact same story, word for word, that TT reported two weeks ago and which led to a flurry of posts between Fed/Rafa tards. I call shenanigans on Web sites that merely regurgitate the exact same story every so often just to stir up posts and page views.

That's all.

tennislover, i don't understand your assessment of how rafa is not in the "legend" category yet! i would love to hear what you think would qualify him. i believe being 23 years old with his accomplishments qualifies him even more. if one were to compare rafa with other legends and their accomplishments at age 23, nadal would surpass them by a longshot. if you considered his 81 match winning streak on clay alone, which, in my opinion will never be equalled or surpassed that alone puts in the legendary status; not to mention, masters series accomplishments and his wins in australian and wimbledon, five monte carlos, five barcelonia, four romes, etc. all of this combined is without question legendary achievements, which is rare at his age! what's missing?

sky, so roger is ready to play "for fun" now! why now, when he's on a roll! are you preparing your excuse just in case he starts to lose again?

tennislover, btw, add olympic gold and davis cup titles to rafa's resume. what else is there?

Si Senor! My sentiments exactly!

memi, I just mean Roger looks and says himself he is more "relaxed". Therefore playing tennis should be "more" of a fun thing... With Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and being #1 again (a bonus) there "is" no excuse. The FED will WIN! After all, his genius is far from over... I don't expect him to win everything though! LOL, he is "after all" only human... I believe anyone playing Roger will have to be at his best, or better to come out the winner. I would say that Roger is the real threat if there is such a thing as a threat for anyone, but this is a bad choice of words from Sampras in my opinion. I'm expecting some "fun" tennis up ahead! C'MON Roger! C'MON! :)

memi--- that's what I'm trying to say.... "they" are PREPARING to set the STAGE for an EXCUSE...just in case their IDOL loses! The "explanations" are there....just read between the lines!

agf25agf, i know! they are so predictable! notice how they ignore or conveniently take roger's head-to-head against rafa out of the equation; they say it doesn't matter! yet, they can quickly point out that federer is a genius and the greatest ever. "greatest ever" comes with expectations and i think it's fair to expect roger to produce favorable results against rafa, overall. i don't think it something that should be dismissed, epecially if you're going to label roger a genius or greatest ever. head-to-head statistics, like or not, are part of his evaluation! the same applies to rafa or any other player! my thinking is probably in the minority, but in my book, that kind of status does not come without great expectations!

Agree. Who can ever have won so many times over Roger,and in Grand Slams. However, with Roger's accomplishments, he is the greater legend, and Nadal the much smaller one.

It's not an excuse, when you already achieved the prime target, why does it matter if after that you start to lose?

Did Sampras win everything at the late stage of his career? Nope. He even lost in GS finals to young Hewitt and Safin. So what? DOes that mean Hewitt and Safin is better than Sampras.

WHen you talk about greatness, you look mainly at Slams and year-end No.1. This reflects true consistency. if Nadal is better than Fed, why did he never get into USO finals and only won Wimby 1<6, and Aus 1<3. If you are talking about H2H, then Murray is greater then Fed, Simon too. WOW... isn't it more convenient for Rafans to ignore GS count, Weeks at No.1 count, TMC Cups.

torres, we are not discussing nadal being better than federer. anyone with a bird brain doesn't expect rafa to have the same amount of achievements as roger when roger was already on tour, winning, before rafa got established. i'm looking at the last three or four years when the playing field became equal. we are discussing expectations & reasons behind roger's "greatest ever" label. try not to turn everything into your same stale ideology!!

Why all the arguments about Fed and Nadal again? Sampas mentioned two legends and I do not know what is his definition of 'legend' . Who can define 'legend', do we have different definitions of 'legend'?

Even when Sampras classify Nadal as a legend, that does not mean that he is greater than or better than Fed, so Fed fans please do not get agitated. Fed may have 15 slams but who knows when somebody may appear and have more than 15 slams, so 'Fed crossing the finishing line' now may just be temporary, who knows where the finishing line is in the first place.

luckystar, great point! all i'm saying and have always said is that the history books are not closed yet. just as roger broke pete's record, it;s also possible for someone to break roger's record! is that so hard to grasp? anyway, can't there be more than one legend at the same time or is roger the only legend in tennis history? some people behave like there is only room for one legend! if a player has earned achievements that classifies him as a legend, no matter who he is, or how young, he is worthy! you can't disregard a player's achievements just because he did in a shorter time span and at a younger age than someone else!

Federer-Nadal is a legendary rivalry. For Nadal to win 5 of 7 GS finals meeting against many considers the GOAT makes him a legend. Federer is a very good clay court player, and possibly could have been one of the greats on the surface. But the fact that Nadal is still streaks ahead the red stuff makes his achievements all the more remarkable. Add to that the epic 5 setters at Wimbledon and AO. He has beaten a giant more times than he has lost. Federer is one of the greatest and a legend but it comes with an asterisk.

memi, this post is not about Fed being the GOAT, so why are you blaming me for not sticking to the topic you are talking about?

Nadal is a legend but still has a lot more to achieve to be in the same class as Fed. As far as I am concerned, Fed is at the top of the Mount of Slams.

Whether someone may better it, at least everyone can agree that Fed is the first to reach 15. His records would at least last for another 2 years IF AND ONLY IF Nadal wins all Slams from now on which is near to impossible.

21 Slams Semi Finals in a row will last at least 5 years. Being in 7 consecutive Wimby finals will at least last for 6 years. I can continue on if I want but jealous Rafans will get angry so I'll give only 3 examples.

So much records for Fed, the biggest recordbreaker of all-time!!!!

torres, if you say so, fine by me! use your energy on those who are searching for the truth! i know the truth already!

In saying that Federer has won the most GS, that has to be qualified by saying only since professionals were allowed to participate in them as only amateurs were allowed to do so in the past. Under the old rules, none of the top players would be playing any of the GS tours because they would all have turned pro, as that was the only way they could earn money as tennis players. So there can never be a GOAT, ever. Anyway, not only GS titles matter, what about Masters, Olympics and the smaller tournaments.

Even if my favourite player won 30 GS, I would still not think he was the GOAT, because players in yesteryear did not have the same opportunity to play any of the GS once they turned pro, and it was very difficult and impossible to jet around the world to participate in them when they were amateurs, epecially as their prize money was something that a £10 voucher to spend in a sports shop, they couldn't have afforded it. They were banned from sponsorship, and there was a famous case of a tennis player who was supposed to have violated his amateur status by allowing a picture of him with a chocolate bar protruding from his pocket to be published. Also, just imagine having to travel by boat from place to place.

Whoever came up with this GOAT title should stand up and admit to being misguided, and not thinking it through. It is not an official APT title and there must be a very good reason for that.

GS titles are the best indicator since it is the biggest tournaments in tennis. Best of 5 matches and strength of field. That is why the greats and most people refer to it to measure a player greatness.

H2H is not a good indicator becoz if you want to use it, than the greats must play each other which is impossible. We will never know if Nadal can beat Sampras at his peak because seeing Tsonga owning Nadal in AO2008 with volleys showed what tennis is missing now.

As much as technology is seen as a disadvantage in yesteryear. It is also an advantage. Imagine Rod Laver being interviewed everytime he finishes a match and with all the technology now, the pressure is huge. And also with advanced training methods and exposure, every tennis player is well-trained and well-coached thus the playing field is harder to dominate which is why it is amazing how Fed was able to do it without a coach.

torres, do you live your personal life in the "what if" zone, the way you live your tennis fan life? i'm just curious! no wonder you seek happiness through roger federer! apparently, everything you say is based on what if? i.e. "what if" the wind hadn't been blowing, "what if" it hadn't been as dark, "what if" there hadn't been a rain delay, " what if" he had played sampras, "what if" the technology hadn't advanced, "what if" roger had played rafa on another surface, "what if" roger hadn't been sick, "what if" he had played nadal like tsonga played him, "what if" they had played three sets instead of five. "what if' rafa didn't have speed, "what if" rafa's style was different and on and on and on. brother you are scary, bizarre and in a league of your own!

memi , there's no What ifs with Fed's 15 Grand Slams, 239-weeks as No.1 and 4 TMC.

You do the same exact thing, 'what if' Rafa was not injured in RG2009, 'what if' Rafa is 28 now, he'll have 20 Slams, 'what if' Rafa wasn't tired,'what if' wasn't tired in Hamburg,

Nope. You are the scary kettle who is trying to call a pot black.

torres, as much as you would like for me to share the stage with you, i'm afraid i don't qualify for the "what if " category. you have earned the right to that category all by yourself!

Nope memi, like I said, Roger is anything but 'what ifs'. There's nothing to speculate about his achievements, but you are the one always challenging it with, what if Rog had better competition, bla bla bla, Roger won it easy, What if Rafa is in WImby bla bla bla...

Only jealous people does this.

The thing with Fed dominating the field for 4 years makes it hard to ignore the fact that he has a big negative H2H record against his closest rival. It may not be such an issue if the gap is closer. Its like a small scratch/dent on a shiny luxury car. Nice car that does everything with all the bells and whistles, but with an obvious 'fault' that people will find it hard to walk past without looking and commenting.

so Nadal is just a scratch? I dont think so.

A Lamborghini Gallardo with a scratch is better then a Honda Civic with no scratch.

nicely put cable.

memi, i always reading your posts, though i don't comment on them because you always word them nicely enough. pity the targetted receipients though, if only they could grasp a fraction of your points.

cable, I agree with the general point you are making, but I think Nadal is more than just a scratch. 13:7 qualifies for a big dent.

A masteral candidate with a scratch in the head is better than a high school dropout in making a fool of himself.:-)

Still, I would rather own a Lamborghini with a big dent than a Mercedes with punctured tyres.

Carrie: I just read ur reply "sorry I have a life outside tennis forums like career and stuff" which most of fed fans accused of not having, Roger said it many times: he sometimes needs for some time to breath so he calls for challenge specially after a big effort .i mean if there one thing that is not questionable is his love for the game and his sportsmanship: that kills me sometimes: like in the Wimbledon match against Haas how many times he corrected the line people about Haas second serve when it was called out? He doesn?t bounce the ball thousand of times before he hit it and he doesn?t retire through a match (remember Shangahi ) , you have all the right to chose the player whom you support Nadal or another but sometimes you guys refer to his toilet breaks or his call for challenge, as desperate as it may sounds it makes me feel good there is nothing left to say about the guy he done it all you have nothing left .
Do you know why I support him even more? the guy smashed a racket two months ago cry 6 months ago, bounced back to beat Nadal on clay then win 2 GS back to back. Last year at this time I though he was done now he has all the world under his feet . We all respected Nadal achievements of last year so respect Federer 's
I don?t believe in perfection, it is against logic and Nadal may have a better H2H but Roger accomplished what he did in the time of Nadal's he wasn?t in Hawaii as far as I know!
Sampras should take a nap for sometime now I liked the guy but seriously dude go read a book or something, we were blessed by watching history made you should appreciate too like it or not this is the era of Federer, as you had your
peace carrie peace!

homos, likewise! i always read yours too! although, i understand that most people have prematurely declared roger to be greater than any other player ever and they get angry with anyone who presents another possibility. they don't want to hear anything else because it just might make sense and as a result, they may have to accept that roger is not as great as they have made him out to be, i already know that he's not! i have watched roger play for a long time, against a lot of players who crumble, and i tell you this, rafael nadal is something special. he has exposed roger's game. if you notice, that are some people who go to great lengths to make sure roger is able to get where he's going without having to confront nadal; don't fool yourself, even the players know it and they try their best to beat nadal because that also helps roger. i will always remember the comments that roger made earlier this year, i think it was after nadal won the australian. he was asked whether he thought nadal could win the slam; roger replied, "it's possible, but me and these other guys will make sure, it doesn't happen." that told me a lot, especially the faith roger has in his peers to help him keep nadal down. nonetheless, i'm strong believer that whatever is meant for rafa, he will eventually achieve it; it's already preordained! they may try to stop him, but in the long run, it won't work! you can't keep a good man down!. rafa knows exactly what he's doing to not fight for #1 again! with good health and opportunity nadal's destiny will be great despite set-backs! i'm a believer!

I have watched Rafa played a lot and crumble against players like Del Potro, Tsonga, Youzhny, Soderling, Blake who in those matches seemed greater than Nadal.

LOL memi, again with the conspiracy theories? Now you are suggesting there's a group of players ganging up against Rafa? Puhhh-leeezzzz. Did you not forget that when Fed was owning Murray+Djoker+Nadal were also targeting beating Fed all the time.

Newsflash, memi, when you are no.1, everyone wants to beat you, OK. That is why it is not easy to do like what Fed did which is maintaining No.1 for such a long time.

torres, unlike you, i don't make comments unless i have a reasonable explanation to support my claim. here's one example just for you, not that it will make a difference because i think you're too far gone! anyway, check this out! roger wins the 2009 espy sports award for best male tennis player, which i found out is based on a player's performance from the preceding calendar year, which we all know is year 2008. we also know that rafa's performance/achievements were better for that year; therefore, it is fair to conclude that the award actually belongs to rafa nadal. however, the winners are selected through online fans balloting, which you know and i know and everybody knows is not a legitimate way to select a true winner because fans are going to vote for their favorite player. my point is, this is just one of the ways that roger federer gets plenty of help staying on top! it does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that he rightfully earns it every time. the same holds true for roger winning sportsmanship award five or six years in row. we all know he has most of the players in his back pocket, so it's not surprising that he should win every year! i know you and some others would like to think that roger is just a genius and winning all this stuff, and is so much better than anyone you're ever known, but i'm sorry, what you're thinking is simply not true! you may refer to it as conspiracy theory or whatever suits your fancy, the truth is, things are not always what they seem! any more questions?

My question, memi is: there MUST be a reason why SO MANY people likes him, players and fans alike and why he would win all those awards. (5 consecutive Edberg awards really tells a lot). I guess it is kinda surreal in a story book kind of way that Federer is MOST POPULAR and MOST SUCCESSFUL. He has his past and present success and demeanor to back up his popularity.

If it's an award which is based on votes by fans and Fed wins it, it just shows that Fed is not boring like what you said and that more people love Fed's exciting tennis.

I agree that 2008 is Nadal's year. But in the past 12 months, Fed is the better player because as you should know now, he holds the USO,FO, and WImby titles, so it is true that Fed is the best in the past 12 months which is also why he's no.1.

Anyway, I don't know what you mean by 'getting help'. But everyone gets help getting to the top. Rafa gets help from his uncle. And I don't believe players like Haas, Delpo would 'help' Fed by leading 2 sets and then purposely lost.

Just because Fed wins a lot does not mean every player that he beat is 'helping' him. How bout Nadal then? Does it mean everyone 'helped' him in 2008?

Unless you have sufficient evidence on this, you can't claim it as a fact.

....and I think it says a TON about his likability when a lost opponent would wish for him to WIN in the end....(Monfils, Del Potro etc....)

happyspectator, i see your point, but you just made my point! that's exactly what i'm pointing out! roger has won many achievements/awards based on popularity, not because he was the best player in terms of performance or the best sportsman every time he has won. do you believe that no other player on tour has deserved to win the sportsmanship award during these five or six years? of course, there are other players who should have won! rafa nadal is one of best sportsman on the tour, but i never expect him to win because his peers will never vote for him over roger federer. i have some reasons as to why, but that's for a later time! again, sportmanship award was based on popularity and likeability! therefore, when someone brag about roger winning so many awards and achievements, they make it sound as if they believe he's winning all this stuff on skill/performance, which is not always the case. it has already long been established that roger will win on popularity every time. if the #1 ranking was voted on by fans, roger will be at that position forever! but, there is a big difference between winning on popularity and winning on performance! that's all i'm saying! that's why i love to see rafa and roger compete against each other because the chance to win is equal; it's not about popularity on the court!

memi, clearly, you do not know what is sportsmanship and you also like pointing fingers at people but don't see Nadal's fault,

'Sportsmanship is conformance to the rules, spirit, and etiquette of sport'

I don't think over-celebrating with all the Vamos-es, delaying the time between points with unnecessary routines is the most sportsmanlike behaviour.

memi, then you need ask WHY WON'T the others vote for Nadal if he is the winningest competitor. If 2008 is Nadal's most outstanding year hence the biggest winner in terms of performance and accomplishments, then WHY WASN'T he their choice. Good point from torres, the sportsmanship award is won in the court of public opinion (or popularity as subjective as it maybe) while the other, the GS wins, is won in the tennis court (other's opnion of you won't matter a hoot because you NEED to play and win to get the result). Please don't confuse one for the other. And again, that's how remarkable Federer is being as the likeable winner.

and just for a little trivia: Sampras and Agassi never won the ATP Edberg Award either....

and please lets not forget on court coaching by Mr.Toni Nadal that was mentioned by alot of players so dont expect players to aprreciate it ( along with the bouncing , bottles routin, short routines) dont expect thier votes!

Is it sportsmanlike to challenge calls that are clearly correct, just to get your breath back? Anyway, all the players are just jealous of Rafa, because he came and did what none of them could do, beat Roger over and over again.

Is it sportsmanlike to refuse to shake your opponent's and the umpire's hands when you lose, and also to cry at the presentation ceremony because you lost?

It is easy to stroll around being good when you are winning, but it's when you begin to lose that you show your true colours.

just as well, its clearly UN-sportsmanlike to delay service, knowing that there is rule for such but doing overtime, bouncing the ball or picking somewhere you're not supposed to do in public (the delay of game issue is more about Nadal or Djokovic actually but for others, its 'drama' ......wow, 4hrs + for a 3 set game (Madrid).......ridiculously wow!)

incidences of not shaking the opponent's or the umpire's hand, in the case of Federer is an exception rather than a norm so please be fair now.... don't generalize....(if that were a norm, he wouldn't be the recipient of the Sportsmanship Award, selected BY FELLOW PLAYERS themselves for FIVE years in a row now, would he?)

"It is easy to stroll around being good when you are winning, but it's when you begin to lose that you show your true colours." - this could be said about everyone, me and you included........

why,all of a sudden,has Pete started to realize that there's a player called Nadal? Throughout all these years,he's been ignoring him and hasn't been recognizing his achievements.I haven't seen a single praise from Pete towards Rafa,so why now? I wonder if it has something to do with Roger's breaking his records...

Yup agreed, SON12,

Sampras actually thinks he can beat Nadal easily on grass when he said, 'spin is nothing on grass' back then.

But Sampras know Fed looks up at him even now and his words will be taken notice by Fed.

(the delay of game issue is more about Nadal or Djokovic actually but for others, its 'drama' ......wow, 4hrs + for a 3 set game (Madrid).......ridiculously wow!)

happyspectator , 8/3/09 6:45 PM

FOUR HOURS OF SHEER SPECTACLE!!!!!!!!!

'spin is nothing on grass" quite idiotic fro pete in many ways.The amount of spin rafa generates is UNEARTHLY and its nt only the spin..its the pace and spin combo...his forehand workd sso brutally on grass in comparison to hard courts! he is able to draw opponents outside the tramlines wid ease.And the way he flattensn out his backhands is scary ! nt only bakhand bt also forehand....mr pet its nt the 1900 rpm spin genrated by ur rival agassi...its like 5000 rpm!!

I dunno... But spin is less effective on grass than clay.. but to say its nothing is not very nice...

happyspectator, you are missing the point! the point is roger has won many awards that he did not have to compete for in terms of performance! they were won on populariy. i can win a popularity award if i'm well-liked! anybody can! let's say hypothetically that nadal doesn't deserve the sportmanship award, as you forestated doesn't common sense tells you if he doesn't deserve it, still, there are others players who deserve to win. the point is, where is the legitimacy in all this! if winners are not selected by a committee from different professional areas, so that other players who might not be as popular but meet the requirements for the award will have a chance, what good is it to set criteria based on achievements? don't you think it's strange for all of these players to make up the atp tour, but yet, none of them are sportsmen enough to win an award. that is why i am a strong advocate of having to compete to win because then there is a 50-50 chance for other players to win! btw, i think if the espy awards or any sport awards are going to be based on achievements then a committee should make the selection. if awards are going to based on popularity then fans should make the selection. why based an award on achievements if you know fans are going to vote for their favorite players? why not, just base it on popularity? it's shameful, to say an award is based on achievements, then the person who earned the achievements didn't get the award! no matter how you look at it, you can't justify that!

carrie, you made an excellent point and you know i agree! why would players vote for nadal when they are so envious of him, especially because he exposed their idol and he doesn't allow roger to run all over him on the court like they do! they accept defeat at the hands of roger and they feel that nadal should do the same. if everybody accepted defeat, they won't feel so bad; then, they can say can't nobody beat roger! believe or not, jealousy does exist, even on the tour! it's uncalled for, but it's real!

@ carrie
"FOUR HOURS OF SHEER SPECTACLE!!!!!!!!!" - to each their own, i guess. it has a 'drama' in its own way(?)...if only a LARGE of those 4 hours constitute rallies and exchanges, but somehow i doubt it......

@memi:
"as you forestated doesn't common sense tells you if he doesn't deserve it, still, there are others players who deserve to win." - that's just it.....one of the others is Federer! Just because YOU can accept that choice doesn't mean its a wrong choice....your disagreement just shows that you are in the minority of an opinion, which is TOTALLY subjective. and taken from Wikipedia:
"From their inception until 2004, the awards were chosen variously through voting by fans; sportswriters, broadcasters, sports executives, and sportspersons, collectively experts; or ESPN personalities. Award winners have been selected thereafter exclusively through online fan balloting conducted from amongst candidates selected by the ESPY Select Nominating Committee." - there IS a commitee who selects the nominees....

*edit: "Just because YOU don't accept that particualr candidate doesn't mean its a wrong choice...."

happyspectator, being in the minority is a great compliment to because it goes to show that i'm my own person and i don't rely on the majority to tell me what to think and what to say! apparently, you are a just a follower! why change the topic from award winners to nominees; i don't recall discussing nominees! we were discussing award winners and just in case you don't know there is a diffierence between a nominee and a winner! i know all about the selection process. i'm not interested in how nominees are selected! i'm talking about winners! winners are selected via online fan voting! according to espy sport policy, winners are chosen based on previous year's achievements/performance. don't blame me, if the rules are not followed, i didn't make the rules! in my opinion, most fans don't know anything about what players have achieved the previous year so how can they vote fairly on something they don't know anything about. how many fans do you know keep up what a player's achievements, most of them make decisions by what they read or hear someone say! it doesn't matter to me who win, if selection is based on the documented criteria stated in the handbook, rather than on popularity or how likable somebody is! you need to accept the fact that tennis is a roger federer promotion and maybe you can keep repeating that he is rightly earning all this stuff until you believe it, but as for me, i know better and i could care less who agrees with me!

"btw, i think if the espy awards or any sport awards are going to be based on achievements then a committee should make the selection. if awards are going to based on popularity then fans should make the selection." - I was answering your earlier post regarding the selection process of candidates........and likewise, that is your personal opinion why you favor that particular player. Saying someone is blind follower is an argument that could be made about yourself as well.

"but as for me, i know better and i could care less who agrees with me!" - 'Nuff said! ^^

absolutely, happyspectator, you can make that assumption about me, i have no problem with it. it doesn't change my views one iota!

nope, no assumptions on my part. Have a great day ahead!

"From their inception until 2004, the awards were chosen variously through voting by fans; sportswriters, broadcasters, sports executives, and sportspersons, collectively experts; or ESPN personalities. Award winners have been selected thereafter exclusively through online fan balloting"
happyspectator 8/3/09 11:36 PM

According to the info you posted happy, it supports memi's theory because once they went to online balloting, is when fed started winning it, even though he had been playing since 1998 and never won it until online balloting started.

memi, even if the voting is done by the a board of higher professionals, Fed will win it. Some people here might hate him. But not everyone thinks Fed is as bad as you guys makes him to be. I am sure if you meet him in person, he's the nicest guy on tour. And nice guys usually finish last.

But with Fed, not only is he such a good person, but he finishes 1st too.

In the case of Nadal, maybe he doesn;t say anything offensive, but sometimes not saying anything is not the best way, no? Like if someone sits right next to ya and not say anything but just keep saying politically correct thing. That makes the person boring, no?

f4t, for what i understood, memi was saying there should be a committee in selecting the nominees for things to be fair and i posted just to respond that there is a committee who does the selection (who incidentally selects Federer as a nominee), that's all......not to prove or disprove any theory......

.....and just to sample how high the other players' opinion of RF, here's tidbit and quote from J Blake, albeit some years ago:

Despite his recent play or, more likely, because he represents the Great American Hope, Tennis Magazine picked Blake to win the U.S. Open.
?Someone there hasn?t been paying attention if they are picking against Roger [Federer],? Blake said. ?If you poll the top 200 guys in the world, about 199 are going to say Roger. The only one who won?t is Roger because he?s too nice about it.?

If you disagree about it, it's totally within your right to do so, just as it is the right of others to appreciate it........live and let live. Peace!

happyspectator, do you understand that how well-liked roger is is not in the least my concern! you don't seriously expect me to consider blake's comments when all he does is "thank his buddy roger for giving him a good beating". blake is such a roger federer puppet until he doesn't even know how to accept a compliment paid to him without handing the compliment over to roger. one thing is for sure, roger has these players programmed! why do suppose he is so intimidated by nadal? simple, he can't use that strategy on nadal that he uses on the others. i can say one thing about roger, he knows he has most of these players under his feet! the fact remains, roger has not earned all of the awards that he has received, if we go by the rules! i don't have the power to make you acknowledge it, quite frankly, i don't care whether you acknowledge it or not! i'll be able to live with your opinion!

likewise, memi, likewise ^^ to each their own opinion. peace!

"But with Fed, not only is he such a good person, but he finishes 1st too.

In the case of Nadal, maybe he doesn;t say anything offensive, but sometimes not saying anything is not the best way, no? Like if someone sits right next to ya and not say anything but just keep saying politically correct thing. That makes the person boring, no?"

this Roger-Rafa comparison is getting ridiculous.Now we're gonna compare their personalities too? ok,Rafa is boring and Roger is the funniest and the most perfect person in the entire world.In fact,Roger is so perfect that he is God.What do you want us to say? They are just tennis players for God's sake...

SON12, didn't mean it that way... Was just talking about why Fed has a bigger fanbase than Rafa.

memi is trying to say that Fed uses 'politics' to win matches. Well, memi, in case you didn't know, Rafa is in good terms with Roger and absolutely respect Roger. When they play, it's just a game, so it does not affect their relationship.

Blake likes Roger because,

In 2004, when Blake broke his neck during a practice session at a tournament in Rome, the American ended up alone in a hospital, cared for by people speaking a language he didn't understand. The one note of support from a fellow player he received came from Federer

You can't fault the guy for being nice.

Of course,Roger is a nice person,who says he's a devil or whatever? He's a nice person,one of the greatest in history (nobody is THE greatest for me) but not everybody has to be a fan of him.It is (and should be) perfectly normal that I or somebody else prefer any other player over Roger.So,can we please stop with this Roger propaganda?

Roger will never be able to play Nadal or figure out his play if Nadal is 100% fit.......
But its true that he tries and thats what makes their matches so good......

Well said, jaskarans!!!

'never' is a pretty strong word though.... just like Nadal will 'never' lose in the FO as some would claim....we all know how that turned out this year....

happyspec, that's because he wasn't 100% fit.

torres, i don't wear the kind of eyeglasses that you wear! yes! politics have helped keep roger at the top! do you need me to explain anything else?

carrie, that will always be 'disputable' AFTER a loss and not before. Let's just hope he allows himself to be 100% every time he competes. The 'never' and the 'if' are all speculation. Only when Nadal and Federer plays against each other in the 1st round of a tournament will both of them surely be at 100%.

For that matter, HOW do you quantify '100%'? Is that a feeling? IF it is then that is subjective. And then again, there ARE days that you still lose, even when you 'feel' you are 100%.

jaskarans, if it was 13-0, then you can say Roger 'never' figured Nadal out. Unfortunately Fed has figured Nadal out in all surfaces. So it's not really a problem.
It's more like an icing on the cake if he has a better H2H.

memi, again, you do not have sunstantial proof on this. If you have, plz do. And while you are at it, submit a report to ATP on ROger using 'politics'.

carrie, all of the times Nadal have beaten Fed, it could also be said that Fed wasn't 100%. 100% Fed can beat Nadal in str8 sets as evident in Hamburg,Madrid, TMC2006, TMC2006. No sweat.

torres, why don't you submit a report for me, so that the atp can tell you that it's normal for people to perceive situations/circumstances differently! maybe they will also tell that you don't have to have proof when you make an observation or voice an opinion. they might be able to get through to you; something no one here has been able to do!

memi, so you have no proof... Nuff said...

dont wana butt in here..but ..TORRES...ROGER HASNR FIGURED RAFA ON ALL SURFACES WHEN IT COMES TO SLAMS!! otehr than grass he has dun anythng! thats the pnt!

happyspec,
I am referring to Rafa saying he had been in pain for months before the clay season started, that he played with pain in MC, Rome, Miami and I. Wells, but it came to a point when he had to stop. He says he was haveing treatment during RG. He also says that it was at that time that his parent's problems came to a head, even though it had been going on for months. but he stressed that the time out was to do with his knees, not his parents problems.

I don't want to post the whole interview here that he did this week because it's very long, but you can see it on his website.

memi,
the politics is one of the reasons why I've never supported Roger. He seems to always have all the cards stacked in his favour, AO 2009 for one example, and I just don't think he is that good to have won all the titles he has. I would love to know why it is that 'everyone' wants Roger to be top dog, at any cost.

By everyone I mean organisers.

I am expecting Fedfans to come down on me like a ton of bricks!

carrie,

And then again, there ARE days that you still lose, even when you 'feel' you are 100%. Just because you are '100%' doesn't assure of a win or ANY win for that matter. You give give yourself a better chance but NEVER a sure thing.

vamos, that's one of the biggest head scratching proclamation ever.......

carrie you are not the only person who feels that way. even on other forums, fans have asked for a long time why he's been lucky with draws and things are often is his favour. not to say he's a bad player but luck has definitely been on his side - more than others that is. and argument about his strength of competition has been done to death. AO 2009 set up was pathetic and orgs should be ashamed of themselves. it's so disrespectful to the opponent, whoever it happened to be.

Nope carrie and homos, again, you guys and memi just can't accept that Fed was just too good. And if someone wins too much, it's too unbelievable that you'd think he has is lucky. Well, if you saw Wimby2009 for example, Fed got the harder draw than what Murray and Djoker had, but no prizes for who in the end won that tournament.

And if thinking the opponents who beat Rafa in AO and USO and of coz FO2009, you'd have to think that Nadal just didn't win against opponent he should have beaten which is why he seemed unlucky. For example Ferrer, Gonzalez, Soderling... Those players are players Rafa should be able to beat.

But I guess he's just not as good as Fed to be in 21 semis in a row. Don't blame luck when your guy don't deliver.

Take it with CALM... LOL

I am expecting Rafans to rain me with knives and bullets after this post.

No matter what you say torres, I shall hold one to my views. Roger is not that good, and that's my honest opinion!

Whateva carrie, I think Rafa is not that good too. It is just my opinion.

torres, try and be original instead of repeating everything anyone says and turning it round to read Rafa instead of Roger, it just makes your argument look weak, because it gives the impression that it is just a tit for tat, and not really what you think.

carrie, i've known it all along! how does a player get the of kind of special treatment that roger gets consistently, without the help of others. no way! you reminded me of the australian open semifinal, roger match was played a day earlier, while rafa was played a day later. i thought they would have been played on the same day. rafa's match against verdasco lasted 5+ houirs, and he ended up having 42 hours of rest before the final, while roger had 70 hours of rest. but as i always say, you can't keep a good man down; rafa won anyway with all the odds stacked against him! when you do good, good will always follow you! these are the kinds of things that a lot of people look the other way and pretend they don't exist or they have a legitimate excuse as to why it happened that way. i don't honor wins when things are made easier for a player to win! i understand that occasionally something may fall in a player's favor, but it's not possible for it happen almost everytime! carrie, i applaud you for holding firm to your views. we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship!

btw torres, rafa is not the one who won wimbledon and the australian without facing roger federer. federer is the one who won the french and wimbledon without facing nadal. so, how do we know roger would have beaten nadal this year, but let's talk about what we do know. we do know that rafa can beat roger on any surface, but we don't know if roger can beat nadal in a final at roland garros! am i on the right track? feel free to delete anything that you don't like!

If my memory serves me right, at Wimbledon 2007, Rafa's match was rained off, instead of putting Rafa's unfinished match on first at the next opportunity, Mr Federer's played his next round which then put him two rounds ahead of Rafa, but then it rained again, and it actually took Rafa 5 days to complete that particular round, whilst Roger almost had six days off in between whilst all the matches that had been rained off were completed in bits and pieces.

The other thing is, Roger only ever plays on Centre Court, and he is almost always the first match on the schedule, except where they have night schedules as in Australia or USA. I have known No1s and defending champions being put on outside courts at Wimbledon, ask the Williams sisters, and even John McEnroe as defending champion was put on Court 2 which was known as the champions graveyard, where he lost to Tim Gullikson, a much lower ranked player.

It should be a level playing field for everyone.

'No matter what you say torres, I shall hold one to my views. Roger is not that good, and that's my honest opinion!' -This is the weakest argument here, Sorry. Just show you have nothing left. I was just playing with ya by repeating your sentence.

Yawn... Conspiracy theorists are on a roll... Yawn

Well, being on Centre Court is what you get for being no.1 and have the most exciting tennis among the field. Nuff said.

memi, Rafa is only good on clay when Fed was dominating which is why he never met Fed. Fed got to 15 anyway without having to beat Nadal. Just show that Nadal is not as good as fed to be reaching all the finals and semi-finals. nuff said. ^^

torres, shame on me, after all this time of following tennis, i didn't know that rafa's 13 wins over roger were on clay ONLY and i certainly didn't know rafa's 5--2 HTH vs. roger in slam finals were only on clay! i apologize! my mistake! how am i going to look myself in the mirror!

memi, Fed's dominance was 2003-2007, during that period, Nadal never beat Fed in Slams other than clay. Rite now that Fed has lost a lil bit of power and youth, you are bragging about wins against a declining opponent? Yawwwnnn...

memi,
it's futile trying to have any meaningful discussion with torres, because he ignores any valid points you make and just repeats his mantra that Fed is the best, just like Rain Man.

what's wrong with saying something that is true?