What Would It Take for Nadal to Surpass Federer in the GOAT Debate?

We have been having some good discussions again on my last post and one thing that came up again is the possibility of Nadal surpassing Roger in the GOAT debate. We have been discussing what it would take for Nadal to pass Roger in the GOAT debate among other things. Of course a lot of this is subjective, not to mention that there is no such thing as a GOAT. But that doesn’t mean we can’t speculate or debate. There are certain facts that can’t be denied. One of these facts is that grand slam titles is the most important measure of greatness. However, it is certainly not the only. That would imply all tennis outside of the slams are completely irrelevant in terms of determining a player’s greatness, whether it be the World Tour Finals, rankings, Davis Cup, Masters Series, Olympics, or whatever the case may be. I think it would wrong to determine greatness like that.

Now, we know Roger has won the most slam titles in history. If grand slam titles were the only determinant of greatness that would mean he is the GOAT. End of story. But what about Laver’s two calender slams? What if Laver was allowed to compete in slams after he turned pro in 1962? This is why there is no GOAT and why slam titles are not the only determinant of greatness. There are also the career grand slam which is important for the reason that it shows a player’s mastery of all surfaces. We know Nadal has won the career slam, and for that he deserves a lot of credit. But what about the fact that nine out of his fourteen slam titles came on clay? Lets look at the slam split for Nadal:

Clay – 64 .3%

Fast hard – 14.3%

Grass – 14.3%

Slow hard – 7.1 %

Now lets look at Roger’s slam split:

Grass – 41.2 %

Fast hard – 29.4%

Slow hard – 23.5%

Clay – 5.9%

Or you can split it in numbers:

Nadal: 9-2-2-1

Roger: 7-5-4-1

Regardless of the slam count, whose resume would you rather have? You can say there are only three basic surfaces in tennis: hard court, grass, and clay. In that case Nadal would have at least two slam titles on each surface, which you could argue is more balanced than Roger who only has one slam title on clay. But even then Roger has dominated two surfaces, while Nadal only dominated one. On the flip side you can also count indoors as a surface. It is only played on hard courts these days which means you could lump it in with hard court, but in the past indoor surfaces included carpet for instance(which incidentally would have been even less forgiving to Nadal’s defensive base line game than indoor hard courts). So you could call indoors a separate surface and add the World Tour Finals(the ones that were played indoors) as the most important indoor event to our list. In this case the percentage split would look like follows for Nadal:

Clay – 64.3%

Hard court – 21.4%

Grass – 14.3%

Indoors – 0%

For Roger:

Hard court – 42.9%

Grass – 33.3%

Indoors – 19.1%

Clay – 4.8%

Or the number split:

Nadal: 9-3-2-0

Federer: 9-7-4-1

There are many different ways you can split it up, but whichever way you split it up you come to the conclusion that Roger has the more balanced resume apart from the fact that he has more slam titles too. I don’t want anyone to think that I am making this post to prove that Roger is greater than Nadal in case Nadal passes his slam count. That is not what I am saying. If Nadal passes Roger’s slam count he may or may not be the GOAT. No one is going to agree anyway. What I am trying to get at in this post is that slams should not be the only measure of greatness, even though it may be the most important. And I am clearly objective enough to make a post like this, even though I consider myself a Fedfan. Everyone knows that I am his worst critic too and that I don’t have a problem crediting other players. Moreover I am not just a Fedfan. I am also a fan of other players like Djokovic and of tennis as a whole.

And although I am a Fedfan I can appreciate the fact that Nadal is for instance mentally stronger than Roger. In fact I have been considering the possibility that Nadal will surpass Roger as the GOAT because of that fact alone. But in order to do so he would have to at least equal Federer’s slam count. And I am not saying that can’t happen, but for now Roger has by far the most balanced and complete resume and therefor is without a doubt greater than Nadal. And it doesn’t matter that Agassi and Mcenroe said otherwise. If people are gonna use that as proof that Nadal is the GOAT then I can use a score of other greats who said the same thing about Roger, including Sampras, Laver, Becker, and many more. We are just going by the cold facts of the numbers here. And the numbers also say that Federer has spent a record 302 weeks as the world #1, while Nadal have not even spent half that amount at #1 at 141 weeks.

Probably the most important criteria for determining the greatest ever are number of slam titles, calender slam, non-calender slam, career slam, weeks spent at #1, and World Tour Finals titles. I think most experts would agree that those are all very important criteria in the GOAT debate. There are many others of course like Davis Cup, Olympics, and Masters titles, but those are more like second tier considerations. And if you look at the five most important criteria I mentioned then Roger has more slam titles, more weeks spent at #1, and more World Tour Finals titles. They both have one career slam and no calender or non-calender slam. So from everything that I’ve mentioned so far it should be clear that Roger not only has the highest number of all the most important criteria, but he also has by far the most balanced resume. And the latter has to count for something.

One thing I did not mention is the head-to-head between the two players, and I think I have criticized Roger enough for that. But one head-to-head record does not maketh a GOAT. Only when they are tied on slam titles should that come into play. Everyone that regularly reads this blog knows that I am not some Fed fanboy who kisses his ass 24/7 and thinks he can do no wrong. I have criticized him a lot for his head-to-head against Nadal, but that does not mean he is not greater than Nadal. For Nadal to be greater he would need to equal Roger in slam titles, win some World Tour Finals titles, and spend more weeks at #1. At the very least he needs to equal Roger in slam titles. Only then becomes the head-to-head relevant, and at this point the debate becomes very complicated. But is the head-to-head more important than weeks at #1, World Tour Finals titles, and a balanced slam resume?

That’s why I say Nadal would have to at least spend some more weeks at #1 and win some World Tour Finals titles, because at this point Roger is way ahead in those. But Nadal would also need a more balanced slam resume. He needs to win at least a few more slams on something other than clay. For me Federer has until this point been the modern GOAT. And not because I’m a fanbody who kisses ass 24/7 that thinks he is perfection in the flesh. To the contrary I think he has definite flaws. But for me the GOAT does not imply perfection. It only implies limited imperfection. There will never be a perfect tennis player, but so far Roger has come the closest I think. I always thought Nadal was the clay GOAT. He even surprised me by how well he adapted to other surfaces. But I never bought his GOATness and he still has a long way to go to convince be otherwise.

The modern GOAT spot is at this point reserved for Federer. He has the completeness as a player and in resume for it. I don’t think any objective person would refute that. But yes the debate is not over as far as Fedal goes. But as far as numbers and objectivity goes the window for Nadal to catch up is starting to close. He needs to make a move, and probably this year. He is not getting any younger and his body is not getting any stronger. So I guess the point of this post other than the fact that I just enjoy writing about these things, is that for Nadal to surpass Roger in the GOAT debate catching him in slam titles will not be enough. A head-to-head record is not more important than the World Tour Finals, weeks spent at number one, and a more balanced surface resume. Roger is the GOAT on two surfaces, hard court and grass. He has the most slam titles on hard court and the shares the record with Sampras on grass.

But he has an overall more impressive record on grass than Sampras with two more Wimbledon finals and four more grass court titles. Then you can either add indoors as an extra surface in which case Roger is probably the indoor GOAT too with the most World Tour Finals and several other indoor titles. Or you can count his World Tour Finals titles(other than 2005 which was played on carpet) as hard court titles which cements him as the hard court GOAT. So Roger is the GOAT of 2-3 surfaces while Nadal is only the GOAT of one surface. Again, dominating different surfaces is more important than one head-to-head record. I can understand why a big deal would be made of the head-to-head if Nadal equals Roger in slam count, because then there is a case for Nadal being a better player. But then weeks at #1, World Tour Final titles, and a balanced surface resume should also be taken into account.

And if Nadal does equal Roger in slam count then he may have improved in those areas. It seems unlikely though.

 

The ball in in your court.

Posted in Uncategorized.

34 Comments

  1. For me a GOAT is one who is consistent and versatile

    Fed has done both so for me he is GOAT.
    but has Rafa done both? its debatable given his injuries and performances in WTF and recent wimby results, you always feel like Rafa still has things to prove, but i agree i wont be surprised he does those things before he calls it a day

    Another way to look at it GOAT is how many blemishes can you find in a ‘probable’ GOAT player
    As far as i’am concerned i can see 2 things for Fed
    a) H2H with Rafa b) GS performances over Joker and Rafa post 2008 (arguably the best players post 2008) while for Rafa and joker u can mention quite a few

    I also know a few friends who belive there is not such thing as GOAT, there is only “one of the GOAT”

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Exactly Suhas. Roger is consistent across all surfaces because he is so adaptable and versatile. That is the most important thing and where Nadal comes up short. Also Roger is much more complete than Nadal which is another very important thing for the GOAT to have.

    [Reply]

  2. Hey Ru-an,

    Props to you for asking the hard questions, and great content too as always.

    Wrt clay, did you know that Roger is the first player to reach the semis at RG five consecutive times (2005 – 2009)?

    Nadal tied him as the only other player to do that, last year at RG ’14.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks Joe yes Roger is a great clay courter.

    [Reply]

    Kshamank Reply:

    The same way, Rafa has made 5 consecutive Wimby finals (2006-08, DNP in 2009 and 2010-11). Surely, he is a great grass court player then?

    [Reply]

  3. Very little to add Ru-an, you nailed it. Only thing is also consistency has to count as well: staying injury-free is a skill and not only that but consecutive semis, quarters, etc has to count for something. For me, the joint first most impressive achievements of Roger are not his GS titles or WTF titles, but his 10 consecutive GS finals and 237 consecutive weeks at number one. Those records may stand for a long time.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Cheers Charlie. Absolutely right. Nadal dominated clay but Roger dominated the tour for 4 straight years. Both domination and consistency should count, and in both those cases he is far ahead of Nadal. Nadal was never really a dominant force because of the way he plays. Even Djokovic is more dominant than him. Nadal is the clay GOAT. That is it.

    [Reply]

  4. Hey Ru-an, this is a great great and honest post. Better than the last one. I loved it.
    For me it is very simple. The Goat is about consistency, not slam numbers. Believe it or not, there will come a time when Roger’s 17 slams will be broken (hope not by Rafa and do hope by Roger himself !!!), but his consistency numbers will stay forever.
    Roger and Rafa really are the “jing jang” of tennis. Lets face it. If Roger won Wimby, then he did have Rafa against him in the final. And if Rafa won RG, then he also had Roger against him in the final. They pushed each other to great lenght. As much as I love Roger and love to see him win, I think if he won every slam for about 5 or 6 years, I would say “oke Roger, love you, but if you don’t mind I will watch from the final on because you will get there anyway”. Same goes for Rafa. If he would have won all the slams for a couple of years, I (and mostly the tennisworld) would be bored.
    That is why I hope these 2 don’t do a “Borg/JMac”. Where JMac said that he kind of lost interest in competing when Borg left.

    And I think I am the only one in the tennisworld who doesn’t seem to mind the H2H between Roger and Rafa. I don’t like it… but to me it is not a bif deal.
    2 reasons:
    1) it would be a major big deal if Roger were the only one. Then it would be embarrasing. But Rafa’s H2H against single backhand players is overwhelming. Roger is unfortunately just one of them.
    2) I have only witnessed Roger’s era. When Roger and Novak were hiring coaches… that was the time when I learned of the 25-10 H2H between Edberg and Becker. You see.. in like 2 decades who will care??

    If Rafa wants to be Goat…good for him… how about playing first a FULL SEASON?? Isn’t that the first requirement of beeing the Goat??
    Because unlike you all, I do believe Rafa will fall. He is not 17 anymore. His body is not of a 28/29 years old, but much muchhhhh older. And he gets to experience what Roger experienced in 2013: “What if the lockerroom effect is gone”. Stan showed it first, numerous others have shown it afterwords and now even my Berdy has shown it: Rafa is beatable. You just got to fight and believe.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    No, playing a full season is not a requirement of the GOAT Katyani. Then you may as well say Nadal is great because he can win more titles from playing less, so his strike rate is higher. It’s all about what you win. That’s it. And no one said Nadal will not fall. Everyone will fall, including Roger! If you meant this year then I think most people here believe he will fall this year. As for myself I am keeping an open mind, given how many times he has proved me wrong in the past. So no one should come here and complain if Nadal wins two more slams this year and eventually catches up with or surpasses Roger. In my opinion it is a mistake to underestimate Nadal, but that is just me.

    [Reply]

    Katyani Reply:

    Hey Ru-an, great comment. With “full season” I mean that he should not choose and pick his tours. I mean, yes, every player from the top 500 or more has the right to pick and choose tours. But if you know what I mean, Rafa has become the Goat of picking/choosing/playing certain tours :-) Example: “nothing is wrong, Rafa is fighting with tooth and nail, suddenly Rosol wins and BAM. Boom, a so called injury and the dude it out for 7 months” :-)

    I really don’t think Rafa will win 2 slams this year or RG, but honestly… if he somehow wins his 10th RG…. I will hate it sooo much, but I will take my hat off for him. That will be mighty impressive, even “with”.
    He won’t have a big chance to win Wimby, and I think in 2013 he only won USO because he was unplayable that year. This year he is not even near that. So lets see and hope that Roger can win instead :-)

    [Reply]

    Ben Chia Reply:

    @katyani, I love your unwavering support for fed and vice versa for Nadull. Although I dislike Nadull, I actually think Nadull’s dominance over clay and the many single BH players cements fed’s position as the GOAT. Fed needed Nadull to bring him down to earth (@ru-an, yes, I’m complimenting Rafa…, and I’m not having a fever). Can u imagine how history will say if fed won all those GS finals against Nadull? “Weak era…” They will say and water down all of fed’s records. Lastly, I may be the only other hard believer that 2015 is going to be Rafa’s slam less year. Love your “locker room” effect comment. Yes, There will be blood in the water, the sharks will come!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Haha that’s good that you can compliment Nadal BC. Can you imagine how arrogant Fed would have been was it not for Nadal?

    [Reply]

    Katyani Reply:

    Hey Ben. You know…. Ru-an is not the only one who likes your comments. Me too !! In such a short time you have become one of the “oldies” here and that is a compliment :-)

    And… I don’t know if I read it the right way, but… do you think I am a Rafa fan too?? Because that is NOT NOT NOT so !!! Hope I made that clear. Even the Big Man Upstairs (you know God) can’t make that happen :-)
    I don’t like Rafa, but I don’t think (like some Fedfans) that he is the devil or evil or a demon. And unlike most of Roger’s fans, I honestly believe that Rafa is a very humble guy, like Roger. But he is not THAT humble. He is just a bit of a shy guy. Humble, but not as humble as his team wants us all to believe.
    And I have always said, I don’t like him, but I take my hat off for all the things he does with his foundation. Very classy and pure and honest from his heart.
    And unlike many many many people…. I don’t think that the Great Uncle Toni is the puppetmaster who is holding his strings and makes him dance. Yes…. when he was younger that was the case, but THIS ADULT Rafa knows EXACTLY what he wants. He is still “controled” by his uncle, but ALL the decisions are made by Rafa himself. Just like Roger, he is a sharp, smart and cunning businessman !!! Not a kid beeing controled by his dear uncle.

    You see Ben…. I complimented Rafa a lot and…. the world is still turning :-)

    [Reply]

  5. Ru-An,
    great and interesting post. I agree with you that there is no real “GOAT” but if discussing it, I would additionally take into account that the ATP have slowed down all surfaces, which really favoured Nadals game. Years ago clay courter like Muster were not able to win a single match at Wimbledon. I am pretty sure Nadal wouldn’t have won Wimbledon in the end of the 90s and I also doubt that he would have been as successfull on hard court as he is now. It’s clear that there is no proof for this, but for me it is also a factor in the “GOAT” debate.
    I also think that Grand Slam titles are not everything. Beside all the other important categories you mentioned, for me it is also a matter of status and aura, in which departement Federer has the edge over Nadal even if he wins 20 slams.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Cheers Florian. I have talked about the surface changes before and left it out of the post for the sake of not sounding biased. I think the surfaces did help Nadal. Like I said in my post there are no more indoor carpet left and there are less indoor events in general. This alone has helped Nadal, not to mention the slowing down of ALL surfaces aside from clay. But when looking at the greatness of players no one looks back and say that when Laver won the calender slam that there were only two surfaces on which slams were played namely clay and grass. I think this is wrong too. There are just way too many variables which is why there is no GOAT. But there can be a modern GOAT, and right now that is Roger. And yes status and aura may not be something objective but Roger has the aura of a GOAT and Nadal doesn’t. Nadal has the aura of an opportunist. And I have already said he doesn’t dominate. He is basically a glorified clay courter.

    [Reply]

  6. Hey Florian,

    I think you make a good point – an intangible, like how many clay court slams Roger could have won (well, probably not as vague as that one), although not something most sports journalists are likely to take into account. But I agree that it’s most definitely a factor in the GOAT question. It’s definitely something that has been frustrating to me at times..

    But I hope that sports historians will take note of the slowing of the courts, and its effect on certain GOAT legacies…

    [Reply]

  7. Nice analysis Ru-an, it sums up the GOAT argument quite well.
    Few more important arguments in favor of Roger-
    QF streak at slams-36
    SF streak at slams-23
    F streak at slams-10
    6 consecutive finals at 2 slams-USO and Wimbledon, including 5 consecutive titles.
    All these records are pretty much untouchable. Roger also has numerous other records spread over all the surfaces whereas literally 99% of Nadal’s records are on clay. In case Nadal had been playing during the time when most of the slams were played on grass, he could have hardly won 1% of his tiles. Whereas in case of Roger you can argue that there is a good chance he could have achieved everything he has now, regardless of which era he was playing in.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Good post Nakul. Someone on twitter told me even if Nadal wins 20 slams he wouldn’t surpass Roger and I tend to agree with that. I think Roger is much further ahead of Nadal in the GOAT debate than 3 slam titles suggest. It is unbelievable how far he is ahead of Nadal in so many areas other than slam titles. Take for instance the fact that he has won at least four titles at three different slams, whereas Nadal’s most slam titles at any slam other than clay is two. I think what my post was trying to point out was the overall depth and completeness of Roger’s resume compared to Nadal. Nadal’s resume is actually very superficial and shallow. I can’t believe he is even in the GOAT debate with Roger at this point. It is like saying there is an equal amount of water in two different pits of water because they have the same surface area, even though the one pit is ten times deeper than the other. It is really absurd to put these two on the same level in the GOAT debate at this point, never mind Nadal ahead of Roger. It looks like the drugs did some serous damage to the brains of Mcenroe and Agassi. Nadal has the head-to-head in his favor. That’s it, and it is skewed due to the amount of meetings on clay and a match up issue.

    [Reply]

    Nakul Reply:

    Well 20 is light-years away for Nadal at least at this point. Anyway even if he reaches that number most of the things will still point to Roger being the GOAT. But people who have limited knowledge about tennis might not think this deeply.
    The h2h is the only valid point that Nadal has in his favor as of now. But as you said until Nadal at-least equals the slam record it hardly matters. Another thing to be considered in the GOAT debate is the inclusion of Djokovic in it. If Djokovic had shown consistency much earlier after winning his first slam in 2008, he could have achieved a lot more and may have troubled Nadal a few more times. The fact that he started showing that high level of consistency only since 2011, which was relatively late in his career compared to the likes of Roger and Nadal could have cost him from being a contender for the GOAT debate.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well if Nadal reaches 20 slams then he may have won some more slams on other surfaces than clay, some WTF titles, and spent some more time at #1. But that is unlikely. Even 17 slams seem unlikely at this point. And if he wins 17 slams how many slams will he win outside of RG? How many WTF will he have by then? How many more weeks will he have spent at #1? This is the problem with Nadal. He is too dependent on one surface. You can win one slam 20 times without spending any time at #1 or winning any WTF titles. Would that make you the GOAT?

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    Consecutive years at different majors with showing of SF or better:

    Roger’s low number (5) is Nadal’s high number.

    Roger
    AO – 11, 2004 – 2014
    FO – 5, 2005 – 2009
    W – 7, 2003 – 2009
    US – 8, 2004 – 2011

    Nadal
    AO – 2, 2008 – 2009
    FO – 5, 2010 – 2014
    W – 3, 2006 – 2008
    US – 4, 2008 – 2011

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks for this stat Joe. I’ve been hoping someone would post it. This is a great stat to show consistency and dominance.

    [Reply]

  8. That was a good read and a refreshing take on something we’ve all been reading about for years, but as usual you find something original to say.

    Consistency is very important and I think the weeks at NO.1 really is key. If Nadal was dominating Federer during the period 2006-9, for example (during Fed’s peak) he must have been losing to other people during that time, as otherwise he (Nadal) would have been no.!. So someone ELSE was beating Nadal during those years – whether it be Murray in 2008 or Del Potro in 2009 at the US Open, or Tsonga in 2008 at the Australian, or Gonzalez 2007, whatever. I forget who was beating him in Wimbledon (oh year – Federer :)) .

    I have a feeling when all is said and done, Nadal will equal Fed in slams (2 more French, one more US open, given Djokovic’s relatively poor showings there given that he is supposed to be the best hard court guy on tour). And then the HtoH will play a major role, and it should. To the casual fan, what they will remember is Federer losing slam finals to Nadal – several of them. We have to face up to it. But hey , I dindt know Edberg-Becker was 25-10 or whatever it is, and I remember watching those guys when I was a kid.

    Last night I was on youtube looking at some old Federer-Nadal matches and I realized I had seen highlights of all of Fed’s wins except the one in Hamburg (2007 I think). Fed won that one on clay in 3 sets. He was bigger and faster then, no question. Nonetheless tehre was nothing special about how he won. He just tried to out hit Nadal and Nadal absolutely just played everything back without any intention of hitting a winner.

    It was sort of infuriating to watch Federer try to smash a brick wall with his bare hands. Nadal made few attempts to hit anything aggressive (only when he hits an inside out forehand on a short ball in the forecourt – that’s it – otherwise, just a high topspin shot).

    We joke around that he hits moonballs but I recall Ru-an correctly pointed out they are not ‘moonballs’ at all – they are very difficult shots to deal with and for a single handed backhand, they wear out your shoulder pretty fast.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Cheers Bharata I try to keep it fresh. And yes two more FO’s and a USO is possible for Nadal. That’s why I want Fed to win one more because as long as he stays ahead of Nadal in the slam count the h2h won’t matter. But as soon as Nadal equals him you just know the h2h is gonna become a major argument that is used to declare Nadal GOAT. And like you said the fact that he defeated Fed in slam finals 6-2 won’t look good for Fed. But again Nadal was really expected to win the ones on clay since no one in their right mind would dispute the fact that he is the clay GOAT. The ones that matter are the ones off of clay in Roger’s prime. That brings us to zero, but the Wimby final in 2008 and AO in 2009 did hurt. The AO one especially since Fed was still struggling with the after effects of mono in 2008. All the slam losses that mattered came after Roger was in his prime for me. So Roger was still supremely dominant from 2004-2007 outside of clay. I don’t think the h2h should be that big a deal if they are equaled on slam count at the end of the day, but you know it will for the critics. But who cares about them? If Nadal equals Roger in slam count without adding to his weeks at #1 and WTF titles then it won’t be enough to have a GOAT claim as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure that sounds biased but so be it. Even if Nadal wins another USO then his slam resume would be 1-11-2-3 if he wins two more FO’s too. And that is not exactly very balanced. Or you can look at it as 1-11-2-3-0 if he wins no WTF titles and Roger would be 4-1-7-5-6. I think what has become clear to me by making this post is that slam count is clearly not the only measure of greatness and a very superficial way to determine the GOAT if that is the only criteria you look at. It is like the comparison I made earlier of using the the surface area of a water well to determine how much water is in it without taking the depth into account. And of course the media who likes to hype things up will look at it that way, while the sheep with little tennis knowledge will follow.

    [Reply]

    Charlie Reply:

    Here’s the biggest nail in the coffin for the H2H argument: why should someone be awarded again for winning the same match? What I mean by this is, because Roger has lost several times to Nadal, he has less slams and Nadal has more than he would otherwise. Therefore, the H2H is irrelevant because Rafa has already been credited for his wins against Roger, in the form of additional titles. Despite this, Roger has won more slams than Rafa, therefore:

    Roger >>> Rafa >>>>>> Novak >>>>>> Andy

    [Reply]

  9. Tennis star Roger Federer has decided to withdraw from the Miami Open, his agent told the Miami Herald Friday.

    His agent, Tony Godsick, said it was “100 percent a scheduling issue and physical preservation” for Federer to miss the tournament formerly known as the Sony Ericsson Open on Key Biscayne.

    [Reply]

    Katyani Reply:

    Hey Eric, very good decision by Roger. He has already won Miami. He should focus on Rome and MC, but more importantly on resting his body in between tours. The rest of the top guys are doing that too, so Roger should be “more selfish” by doing it too. No more running to Roger to promote a thing. He should rest his body more. Tennis should be prio nr 1… not “making money and helping tour directors out”

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well it was never a great event for him. May as well skip it again. And I hear he is playing in Istanbul. So looks like he plans on improving his FO result for a change. Also he can use the points after the screw up at the AO.

    [Reply]

  10. Hey sweet people on this blog. If you are celebrating it with your loved one(s)… Happy Valentine’s Day !!!

    [Reply]

    Eric Reply:

    Right back at ya, sweet Katyani. And happy valentines to all!!

    [Reply]

  11. Greetings, Ru-an! Am delighted to learn that Stan the Man defeated Birdpoo to win the Rotterdam title.
    Congrats to Stan!
    Best,
    Dolores

    [Reply]

    Katyani Reply:

    Ai ai ai, vous aussie, sweet Dolores?? :-) You too?? I really am the only one here who likes Berdy??
    Ah…. couldn’t you atleast let him have Rotterdam??
    The guy DID make sure that Rafa wasn’t going to have an opportunity to be the first to win all the slams twice…
    For that alone… he deserved to win R’dam didn’t he?? :-)

    Oh sweet Berdy, how soon people forget :-)

    [Reply]

    Dolores Reply:

    Oh, sweet Katyani, so sorry that your Berdy did not win today! Cannot agree with you on “….deserving to win R’dam….”. Don’t think there are too many Fedfans that admire your Berdy. Must say, Katyani, if you like someone passionately, you do stand up for him/her. Hat’s off to you!
    Kindly,
    Dolores

    [Reply]

    elizabeth Reply:

    Katyani, believe it or not I was hoping that Thomas would win! There is not much difference between Stan and Berdych both can play lights out tennis and then for some reason the lights just go out. I am not the fan of Stan that I used to be, to me sometimes he looks so angry and easily upset not the laid back guy he used to be, I suppose he now just expects so much more of himself. Makes you admire all the more the other players who have won so much.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *