what a game... Rafa vs Dominic...US Open...almost 5 hrs adaru..

[uttermost]

16 minutes ago, chittimallu2 said:

lol what are you trying to prove? I see nothing in your explanation. 

My point is this. You said he lacks technique and thrives only on power, I havent met a tennis fan that said Nadal's game is beautiful to watch and he has won fewer titles than Federer. He is probably a one trick pony (power) and one arena emperor (clay). 

So to sum it up

1) lacks technique

2) doesnt play the sport beautifully

3) not the one with highest number of titles

4) one court bully

Like I said I dont watch enough tennis and not a big fan of sport overall. My Q is how are you calling him the greatest? Just because he beat federer a handful times? 

I'm not trying to prove anything. lol. you posted that Federer has a better record, but he really doesn't, except on grass.

yeah Nadal is everything you listed, but he has still made Federer look unimpressive.

His one trick is not power - but the top spin he generates off his forehand drive, without hurting his wrists. To that trick, he has added other useful tools, like a super safe backhand, electrifying speed on the court which means his lack of footwork isn't an issue. He has carefully built his game, and improved every aspect of his game to acceptable levels, which seems enough to win grandslams after grandslams, because apart from Djoke, and to an extent Murray (who still loses to him inspite of working him up), nobody has unlocked the key to beating Nadal, even if his game is disturbingly simple.

Without Djoke, Nadal would've equalled Federer by now.in grand slam count, and won a few more hard court titles.

anyway, I already said that I call certain sportsmen the greatest randomly without much thought into it. if you are insistent, I don't consider anyone the greatest. I just watch it to enjoy the game, which I don't get when I watch Nadal matches. especially his matches with Fed and Djoke, and Nadal matches in general.

but he's winning a lot, so he must be doing something right. may be.

[uttermost]

8 minutes ago, Satakarni_bali said:

but no ATP finals, which are next to GS only played by top 8 players.

Nadal nearly invincible on clay but if U consider him to be greatest Djoker might well be in the contention for a greatest as he conquered all in the Tennis excluding Olympics(though I am Fed fan).

simply these 3 are greatest for their respective fans.

Federer has to add few more to his GS tally to be clear favorite.

 

ATP finals.. lol. They are a joke.

I misspoke about the 'greatest'. As a man of the masses, I refuse to annoint anyone as the greatest, especially when I shamelessly shill for a loser like Richard Gasquet even now.

I was simply acknowledging Nadal's achievements, inspite of my lack of interest in his game, and went overboard. s0rry.

[chittimallu2]

4 minutes ago, uttermost said:

I'm not trying to prove anything. lol. you posted that Federer has a better record, but he really doesn't, except on grass.

 yeah Nadal is everything you listed, but he has still made Federer look unimpressive.

His one trick is not power - but the top spin he generates off his forehand drive, without hurting his wrists. To that trick, he has added other useful tools, like a super safe backhand, electrifying speed on the court which means his lack of footwork isn't an issue. He has carefully built his game, and improved every aspect of his game to acceptable levels, which seems enough to win grandslams after grandslams, because apart from Djoke, and to an extent Murray (who still loses to him inspite of working him up), nobody has unlocked the key to beating Nadal, even if his game is disturbingly simple.

Without Djoke, Nadal would've equalled Federer by now.in grand slam count, and won a few more hard court titles.

anyway, I already said that I call certain sportsmen the greatest randomly without much thought into it. if you are insistent, I don't consider anyone the greatest. I just watch it to enjoy the game, which I don't get when I watch Nadal matches. especially his matches with Fed and Djoke, and Nadal matches in general.

but he's winning a lot, so he must be doing something right. may be.

Ok, like I said I dont have enough in my tank to talk about tennis. I dont follow the sport, I was just curious to see why you called him greatest despite calling him a technique less player

[uttermost]

9 minutes ago, Satakarni_bali said:

also consider there are no masters on Grass for federer to win on his favorite surface.

Grass is not Federer's fav surface. Hard court is. His game is built for hard courts.

He lost to fcuking Nadal on a grass court. and that too in 2008, when Nadal wasn't even hitting his peak.

[uttermost]

1 minute ago, chittimallu2 said:

Ok, like I said I dont have enough in my tank to talk about tennis. I dont follow the sport, I was just curious to see why you called him greatest despite calling him a technique less player

I misspoke. I like Nadal as a person. He seems cool. But don't like the way he plays tennis.

[uttermost]

I love Richard Gasquet. If you don't know who that is.. your life is awesome. don't try to know.

in fact, he starts off with such a promising game, and has regressed every year he was on ATP.

and right now, it looks like he's visiting the courts like he's on a picnic. hehe..

but his backhand is designed by gods themselves. And he loves it so much, that he masturbates to it every day, and rest of his game stinks of that cum.

[uttermost]

15 minutes ago, Satakarni_bali said:

also consider there are no masters on Grass for federer to win on his favorite surface.

Grass of today, is just slightly faster clay, with lower bounce (sometimes).

none of the modern players will survive grass courts until the late 90s.

I think John Isner, or Marin Cilic or Raonic can win a couple wimbledons. may be they already did, and I didn't keep count.

[uttermost]

Federer likes to pretend that Grass is his fav surface.. because for some reason all 'greats' are supposed to be awesome on Grass. lol.

Federer is just a traditionalist cuck.

 

[Satakarni_bali]

4 minutes ago, uttermost said:

Federer likes to pretend that Grass is his fav surface.. because for some reason all 'greats' are supposed to be awesome on Grass. lol.

Federer is just a traditionalist cuck.

 

He is great on grass, he has 8 wimbledons and 9 halle on grass... No one is close to him in this era

[Satakarni_bali]

23 minutes ago, uttermost said:

I love Richard Gasquet. If you don't know who that is.. your life is awesome. don't try to know.

in fact, he starts off with such a promising game, and has regressed every year he was on ATP.

and right now, it looks like he's visiting the courts like he's on a picnic. hehe..

but his backhand is designed by gods themselves. And he loves it so much, that he masturbates to it every day, and rest of his game stinks of that cum.

Yeah his backhand is great, but thiem's backhand was superb yesterday

[tennisluvr]

On 9/5/2018 at 4:22 PM, Satakarni_bali said:

Yeah his backhand is great, but thiem's backhand was superb yesterday

Thiem's backhand has more "power" aka he hits it with more whip than Gasquet. Gasquet isn't supposed to win slams or games, he just doesn't have the serve, forehand or the athleticism required to win multiple games. Which is why he's a connoisseur's delight but won't amount to winning much. 

[Satakarni_bali]

2 minutes ago, tennisluvr said:

Thiem's backhand has more "power" aka he hits it with more whip than Gasquet. Gasquet isn't supposed to win slams or games, he just doesn't have the serve, forehand or the athleticism required to win multiple games. Which is why he's a connoisseur's delight but won't amount to winning much. 

Yeah

[tennisluvr]

On 9/5/2018 at 2:39 PM, chittimallu2 said:

How? he is a technique less strong athlete ani nuvve antivi already... his trophy case isnt as bigger as federer and take away his french titles, he wont be anywhere close to many other players who won lots of trophies...

Apart from his power and athleticism what does he have that makes him "the greatest"?

@chittimallu2

You do realize that "clay" is one of the most common surfaces that tennis is played on? Or weren't you aware of that fact? If Nadal's victories should be counted by taking away his "clay" titles as you suggest, Federer's prowess should also be decided based on how many non "grass" titles he has won. 

Grass being a surface which doesn't have a single Master's 1000 on that surface and it's best played for a month and half, compared to hard and clay surfaces which make up all those 1000 Master's series and 3/4 grand slams. LOL at your logic. 

[tennisluvr]

On 9/5/2018 at 3:13 PM, chittimallu2 said:

All matches: Nadal, 23–15

• Clay courts: Nadal, 13–2
• Grass courts: Federer, 2–1
• Hard courts: Federer, 11–9

Federer leads if you discount clay?

 

LOL at those statistics, their hard court records were actually in favor of Nadal till 2017 when Federer had a resurgence and defeated Nadal 5(or was it 6) times on hard courts. If not for that, till the beginning of Australian Open in 2017 their record stood at 23-9 in favor of Nadal and even on hard courts, Nadal was ahead of Federer. 

As for their meetings on grass, 2 were in Wimbledon finals and were supposedly at a time when Nadal was just considered a clay court specialist. One of them went 5 sets and the other one was when Nadal actually beat Federer on his own purported best surface in 2008. 

[tennisluvr]

On 9/5/2018 at 4:16 PM, Satakarni_bali said:

He is great on grass, he has 8 wimbledons and 9 halle on grass... No one is close to him in this era

No one gives a  about Halle, and Wimbledon is severely overrated anyway.