Shanghai QF: Roger Federer Embarrasses Robin Soderling 6-1, 6-1, Sets Up Djokovic Semi

Wow, what a beat down! Soderling made a lot of unforced errors in this match, but this was another fantastic performance from the GOAT. He missed a break point in the first game of the match, but I refused to believe we will see the old Roger today. He then took every break opportunity from then on, ending with 6/7 break points conversions. I actually made a tweet early on saying that it is very easy for Roger to beat Soderling when he plays normal tennis. Roger just has too many ways too hurt the one dimensional Soderling. If this doesn’t prove to you that Roger has the tools to still beat these power hitters then nothing will. But it all comes down to confidence. Roger didn’t even bring his A+ game today. He just played with enough confidence to employ the right game plan, which proved to be the undoing of Soderling.

When he moves Soderling around and vary the spins it becomes very hard for him. People will say Soderling just played terribly, but this has a lot to do with the way Roger played. Soderling was never allowed to settle from the back of the court which caused many unforced errors. Obviously at the French Open Soderling was in the zone, while Roger was not feeling very confident. That match is now well and truly forgotten after this win. Djokovic also won 6-2, 6-3 against Garcia-Lopez today, which means we now have the semi I wanted. I think Djokovic should be scared. I don’t care how well he’s playing. When Roger is playing as well as he is now Djokovic is in trouble. The US Open loss is also still fresh in Roger’s mind. We know Roger is not the type of guy who has revenge in his mind, but if there is one guy I know he does not like then it is Djokovic.

Source

He will certainly have some extra motivation to win this match after what transpired in New York. In the other side of the draw Murray had an easy win over Tsonga as well, while Monaco upset Melzer in three sets. It looks like we could have another Montreal scenario here if Murray makes the final, which would give Roger the chance to turn that result around as well. The point swing between Roger and Rafa now stands at 870. If he beats Djokovic it will be 1110 and he will pass Djokovic in the rankings again(apologies for yesterday when I said he must win the event to pass Djokovic). This could all work out very nicely for Roger if he wins this event, but there is some way to go still. Djokovic and Murray won’t be pushovers. But judging from what I have seen from Roger so far this week I would have to make him the favorite to walk away with the silverware.

In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if he does so without dropping a set. I’m excited, because these last few events of the year could prove to be a very productive time for Roger. If he could win this event he would be riding a wave of confidence and would have a chance to rack up some more titles. But I am getting ahead of myself again. All focus now goes to the semi-final match against Djokovic which is like a final. The head-to-head now stands at 10-6. I think if Roger keeps up his attacking play and confidence he can’t lose this one. What makes Djokovic tough for Roger is his impressive defensive play. He gets a good stretch from the back of the court and keeps a lot of balls in play. But this is only a problem for Roger if he is not fully confident. If he plays like he has been he will overpower Djokovic and finish off weak replies at the net.

Presser:

Highlights:

OOP: http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Roger+Federer+2010+Shanghai+Rolex+Masters+bVindFBDEgjl.jpg

Roger Federer


Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , .

39 Comments

  1. The key to Roger’s demolition of Soderling today was the length of his shots. He hardy gave any short balls to Sod to pounce on it. Not only was he uncomfortable with the sliced spin, but also with the depth of Roger’s shots. I really liked the point (in the second set I guess) where Roger had three slices in a row and then the booming down the line backhand. I hope Roger will be as ruthless against Djokovic as he was against Sod today.

    COME ON ROGER!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Good point Jiten. The depth of shot was very important.

    [Reply]

  2. Hi Ruan,
    Well ,first of all let me say that I have become a big fan of you by reading your posts.I think , you are very frank and you speak your mind.
    As for the Roger win over Sod, well I am very happy for Roger, I hope he wins Shanghai (although,I suspect that djoko will beat him in semi) and gains some points and gets to No.2.
    I have read some of your previous posts and I would like to give you my opinion on some of them.
    1) At least, I am happy that you atleast agree with me that Rafa is a bad match up for Roger (and for the rest of the tour players!!!) but still I am surprised that you bring the same argument in defence of Roger’s lopsided 7-14 H2H against Rafa which is -“Most matches were on clay, and Rafa was not good enough to meet him on hardcourts”.You also use excuses like Mono ( and god knows what else) to explain that 5-2 GS final deficit (which is the biggest proof in statistical terms of Rafa’s edge over roger”the clay argument not withstanding”).Even many hardcore Roger fans swallow this bitter pill and are appreciative of this fact .I can’t help but feel that you are in denial of a few things.
    2) Also, I find it amusing that you are pinning your hopes on Juan martin del potro to somehow stop Rafa from overtaking Roger. It speaks volumes about your belief in your GOAT candidate Roger.How come you think that Roger can be called GOAT if u don’t believe in his GOAT capabilities?

    3)Also I think that you are stuck in the same old belief that Roger is the greatest and most beautiful artist in history and Rafa is a machine. Well, if you are equating tennis into art, then I think you should also concede the fact that no two artists are alike.While you are entitled to prefer one artist over another, but that does not mean that the artist that you don’t like is not an artist at all!!.If you equate roger to micheangelo, then rafa is a salvador dali.I’ve never liked the art references – especially as attention to aesthetics so often gets in the way of winning. But if it must be art, then it occurs to me that we should, at least, recognise that tennis offers us more than just one (classically-skewed) vision of it.
    Just as it would be wrong to discuss all art in terms of Renaissance Classicism, or indeed all Modern Art in terms of Cubism, it’s a little naive (not to mention Fascist) to suggest that Federer’s tennis (pretty as it is) presents us with the only acceptable vision of aestheticism within the sport.
    No one in their right mind disputes that the roof of the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa are both one of the greatest works of art we have, but would anyone presume to suggest that Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory” is not art? Or is somehow less worthy of the label?

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks Dishank. I appreciate you speaking your mind as well. Only when people are frank towards me its gives me a chance to evaluate my own views. But i think its obvious that the h2h is skewed because of the amount of time they met on clay. Im not about to concede that. If you look at the h2h on hard its is all square, while on grass Roger is ahead. Also, im not gonna concede that Roger was not influenced by mono in 2008. I suggest you read up on mono. It can linger for a very long time when it is a severe case, which is how it was with Roger. Clearly it influenced his play in the FO and Wimby finals. It was an overall bad year cos of mono. I may have pinned my hopes too much on Del Potro youre right. But i have changed my mind. Del Potro is too fragile physically to depend on and besides, i think Roger can still do his thing after what ive seen from him this week. Sometimes i doubt Roger too much, which is a mistake. As for the whole artistic thing, we have talked about that quite a bit. I guess it comes down to preference then. But like we have said before, if you compare Nadal to music or movies(which is forms of art), then he would be the kind of music or movies that the younger generation would like. Nothing wrong with that, but personally i dont find any substance in that kind of music or film. It is impressive for a short period, but then fades away fast. When i think of Roger it is more the kind of music or film that you hear or see once and it takes a while to grow on you. But once it does it proves much more valuable. Thats just my take.

    [Reply]

    dishank Reply:

    I have to admit that the 14-7 h2h is skewed by the fact that most of the meetings took place on clay. I also think that had they met as much on hardcourts as on clay Federer would have won a better percentage of the hardcourt meetings ( Although I doubt that fedex would have been as dominant on HC as Nadal proved to be on clay). So H2H would have looked a little better for fedex than it does now.As for grass, I have always said that it is a myth that federer is better.At best, both Rafa and Roger are equal on grass.

    But, the problem with this argument is that using this argument, we are entering into the realm of ” what if ”
    The “what if ” in the above argument is that u r imagining a hypothetical situation that unfortunately didn’t happen -” what if nadal and federer had met as much on hardcourt as onclay” . The PROBLEM with argument is that same kind of arguments can very easily be used to strengthn borg’s and laver’s case for GOATHOOD as I used in my above argument.lets leave aside nadal out right now ( since he is still very young and 16>9) ,just for the sake of simplifying the argument of GOAT of the open era.Now , we r left with borg, laver and federer ( pete- no frenchie, although much more competitive era).Since u r applying the “what if nadal and federer had met as much in HC as in clay” argument to justify preserving fedex’s candidacy for GOATHOOD (CLAIMING THAT h2h would have been better for federer then), I should be also allowed to apply the same hypothetical argument in case of borg and laver as follows :

    “what if ” Borg hadnt quit competing in GS at the age OF 24 ( where Nadal is right now) just because he lost in 2 GS finals (due to mental burn out)”what if he had competed in those 7AO on grass which he missed”

    you can also argue the same thing for Laver (those 5 yrs in which he wasnt allowed to compete, how many GS would he have really acquired, much. 16)

    So, how then can u say that federer is better than borg or laver, because by calling Fedex GOAT( and hypotheticallyfying 14-7) , u r essentially saying that he is better than borg or laver, but if u apply the same hypothetical model to borg or laver, do u really think fedex’ 16 would have been greater than borg’s or laver’s eventual hypothetical GS counts.

    My point is that even if u nullify the 14-7 H2H by using too many clay meetings as an excuse, then excuses can also be made for borg and laver, in which case it is unacceptable to say that Fedex is the GOAT right now

    [Reply]

    Glen Reply:

    Nobody is trying to nullify the h2h as meaningless as grounds for establishing Fed as GOAT. Fid is the GOAT with h2h not withstanding. It is a meaningless stat, until such time as Nadal can equal Federer’s slam total….at which point only then can it enter the discussion as part of the tie-break stats. On it’s own it is nothing, for if Nadal is as good as Fed….then he will easily win as many slams…end of.

    [Reply]

    Ozzie Reply:

    What if Nadal wins all four slams next year, would you still think Federer is the GOAT?

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    If Nadal wins all 4 slams next year he will be very close to being the GOAT. I mean thats 7 slams in a row and the calender slam. But again, im sure hed want to pass Roger in slam wins anyway. No one was gonna give Roger a break if he equaled Sampras in slams, even though it was clear he was the more complete player. He had to actually win the French as well. And then of course winning 3 more slams after that didnt hurt.

    [Reply]

    dishank Reply:

    I think, winning 4 slams next year will be extremely difficult for both Nadal or Federer or anyone else in this competitive era, but if Nadal goes on to achieve the calendar slam next year, in my book ,he will be the undisputed GOAT,the total no. of GS titles nothwithstanding,because winning a calendar slam and 7 GS in a row is an unprecedented feat

    [Reply]

    Glen Reply:

    “in my book”

    Excellent. It’s nice to have opinions, eh? :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    That would be an unprecedented feat for sure. But its almost pointless to talk about that now since we might as well see another reverse in fortunes for Roger and Rafa next year. Me may be already witnessing the start of it. If Roger wins Shanghai beating Djokovic and Murray he will become supremely confident and will go after Nadal next. For all we know Roger can dominate again next year. Its just too early to tell.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I think the grass h2h would have been 3-0 had it not been for Rogers illness in 2008. but you are right, there is no point in going into what ifs. That also means you cant say its a myth Fed and Nadal is equal on grass, because the fact is that Fed leads the h2h and he has won 4 more Wimbys than Nadal. So in fact you are contradicting yourself. Me on the other hand have no problem admitting Nadal has a mental edge over Federer. I have always said that and ive been hard on Federer about it. But that doesnt mean he cant be the GOAT. It is just a very bad match up with Nadal in terms of tennis and their respective mental make ups. That is all. When i say GOAT im talking of the modern era. Laver played too long ago to be compared. No doubt Roger is better than Borg though. Even Nadal is almost better than Borg already.

    [Reply]

    dishank Reply:

    I think Ruan that in grass Pete could be called the greatest,followed by federer.But,I am more of the opinion that Roger,Pete and Rafa are more or less at the same level on grass.Having said that, I know that he has only won 2 titles there and has some distance to cover, but I am sure that he will win atleast 3 more titles there.If you doubt that, then just recall the wimb 07 final, it was 5 sets and could have gone either way.Roger was in his prime at that time and Rafa was just 20 and building his game for different surfaces.Still, wimb 07 was very close.This gives you an idea of nadal’s capability on grass.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Again, Federers career is not done. I think its unfair to call Sampras the best on grass just yet. If Roger equals him there will be no separating the two. As for Rafa yes he is very good on grass as well. Still, i would have loved to see how Nadal fared on grass before the surface changed so much. When Roger plays against Pete and beat him in 2002, the grass was still super fast and the bouncer was low and unpredictable. They serve and volleyed on both serves. Call me old school but i would have loved for things to have stayed that way. Who knows what Sampras would have done on the slower grass. The only guy who showed he can dominate on both fast and slow grass is Roger, and he beat both Sampras and Nadal to prove it.

    [Reply]

    dishank Reply:

    I don’t think that Fed is done. I still believe that that he can win 2 or 3 more GS(Assuming that Nadal doesn’t reach the finals).And his best chance is in hardcourts AO and US open, I don’t think, he can win against rafa on grass now.
    As per the arguments for fast and slow grasses,well these arguments looked a bit understandable as excuses as to why rafa is so good in wimby, but after the US Open win in the ultra fast hardcourts, I think it is ridiculous to use these arguments.Rafa would have been as good in fast grass as in slow grass even if he played from the baseline against a serve and volley player like pete..The reason is that unlike on hardcourts Rafa has got an extremely good footing on grass and Rafa’s biggest strength is movement,not his lasso whip forehand

    [Reply]

    dishank Reply:

    Also,both Borg and nadal are same kind of players.they both relied on speed and athletism.Infact, Nadal is a bigger version of Borg.And Borg was extremely good on grass (even though grass was fast)even thogh he played from the baseline.Infact Nadal has got a much better netgame and he volleys as good as anyone in men’s circuit. So, there is no reason to think that Nadal would not do well on fast grass

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Point taken. I guess the future will tell. I think Roger can stop Rafa from winning more Wimbys.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    If Roger wins only one more Wimby which is very possible, Nadal will need 5 more to catch him and he will have one less year to do so. I dont think Nadal is catching him.

    [Reply]

    dishank Reply:

    Easy there, Ruan
    I think you r looking too far ahead in the crystalball.Roger can win wimbledon in future, but only in the absence of rafa in final.
    But, I still think ,Roger has some chance against rafa on AO and US open, simply because he will always be more vulnerable on hardcourts on his offday than on grass. But, I don’t see roger beating Rafa on grass in wimbledon post 2010. If he is to win wimbledon ,he must pray that he doesn’t meet Rafa

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well i guess we will find out. Saying he cant beat Rafa there is also looking into the crystal ball.

    [Reply]

    Glen Reply:

    Heck, even Nadal has admitted repeatedly that the h2h between himself and Roger is skewed because of the clay matches.

    Also, who can deny that in his peak Roger was the last man standing of the two…over and over again in the off clay slams. Nadal failed so often to be there on the final day…and so for the op. to say this has no bearing…just lol! This is why h2h can never be more than a factoid for the fanbois….tennis is against the whole field. It’s the trophys that count.

    [Reply]

    steve Reply:

    The key to Nadal’s game is power and speed.

    What he does is to play a clay-court game everywhere. The difference between him and all previous clay-courters is strength and speed.

    Topspin shots naturally dip lower as they fly through the air–this is why they are such low-risk shots, they automatically land in the court. But because topspin shots fall short they are easily attacked. So this is why clay-court players historically did not thrive on other surfaces.

    What Nadal does to circumvent this shortcoming is to blast the ball with so much power that it goes fully through the court and hits much deeper, instead of falling short–and yet has so much topspin that it’s still a safe, low-risk shot. This is not possible without a) modern racket technology and b) ungodly amounts of strength, unprecedented in the game. And it is what allows him to win anywhere.

    Again and again you see him pulled way wide out of court, or way behind the court, into very defensive positions, when he doesn’t have time to prepare for the shot.

    Yet from such defensive positions, he can not only get the ball back in play, but counterpunch with immense power and spin, even off of shots that would be clean winners against anyone else.

    This requires speed, to chase down the ball, and again, requires amazing strength to power the ball through the court.

    You can call this art, if you wish. But it doesn’t require very much in the way of point construction, or tactical acumen, or court sense, or variation of shot, or artistry. Just a lot of strength and stamina, and machinelike consistency.

    It’s true he has learned to step in and whack a short ball, but this is only when he has a lot of time on it. It’s not what he naturally does.

    To use a favorite metaphor, Nadal’s tennis like a Transformers movie. You watch because of the big explosions, giant robots, and sexy girls. It’s big, it’s loud, it stimulates the senses.

    But if a Transformers fan were to start talking about the artistic virtues of the movie, its cinematography, screenwriting, acting, etc. it would sound odd.

    And if he were to start comparing it to, say, The Godfather or Vertigo, and insisting that its artistic merits were underrated relative to those movies, that would be even odder.

    There’s nothing wrong with saying you like Transformers, but why go to the effort to make of it something it’s not?

    So in that vein, there’s nothing wrong with saying you like a player who can hustle and scramble for every ball and hammer screaming winners even when he’s placed in defensive positions.

    But why is it so important that others call it “art?

    [Reply]

    TopSpin Reply:

    This is a reply to Dishank. I really hope you believe all that stuff about art and the Sistine chapel considering you just cut/pasted large parts of your comment verbatim from a recent blog post I made on the subject. (http://tennisisserved.blogspot.com/2010/09/great-tennisbut-is-it-art-darling.html)

    I don’t mind you professing the same opinions but would expect a link back to the post you cut/paste from – else it just looks like you’re passing it off as your own opinion.

    Please don’t do this again.

    [Reply]

    dishank Reply:

    I admit,I cut/pasted a portion of your post in this reply and I am ready to apologize for that.I do profess the same opinions that u mentioned in your post.But I Tried to make a link back to your post but couldn’t do so because of my genuine ignorance of how to convert that URL address into text.I sincerely apologize if u feel that my cutting/pasting of these 2 paras offend u in any way “I’ve never liked the art references – especially as attention to aesthetics so often gets in the way of winning. But if it must be art, then it occurs to me that we should, at least, recognise that tennis offers us more than just one (classically-skewed) vision of it.
    Just as it would be wrong to discuss all art in terms of Renaissance Classicism, or indeed all Modern Art in terms of Cubism, it’s a little naive (not to mention Fascist) to suggest that Federer’s tennis (pretty as it is) presents us with the only acceptable vision of aestheticism within the sport.
    No one in their right mind disputes that the roof of the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa are both one of the greatest works of art we have, but would anyone presume to suggest that Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory” is not art? Or is somehow less worthy of the label? “

    [Reply]

  3. Can´t believe your post have been done so quickly, it wasn´t done because you were still afraid of the “power hitters”, when Roger plays well…
    Sod. was completely lost, but Roger didn´t give him one chance to play.So nice that Roger with the toughest draw is already into S.F.and still has the tough draw.
    Now Djoker will be more of a challenge but Roger can take care of him.

    [Reply]

  4. Great match from what I heard, though I sadly couldn’t watch it. When Federer mixes it up there’s no stopping him. I really hope he can win this title.

    As an aside, I don’t think he dislikes Djokovic–he just doesn’t like losing to him.

    [Reply]

  5. It is quite interesting that all of a sudden, Federers supporters are interested in masters series and not slams. While I will congratulate federer on a great match, I will state that most of the other players are really tired after a long season. Federer had a four weeks lay off and also he hasn’t made to alot of finals therefore, he is has less wear and tear overall this season. When Nadal breaks the masters record it was so insignificant but now that federer needs points to try and catch up to Nadal, the masters series are of importance. Ruan, as humans we all have preferences in life but for a persons to so self absorbed and biased it is really mind boggling. I would hate for you to have two children and have a favorite. God would have to have mercy on the less fortunate. Ruan, I see why you are Federer worshipper, because both of you thinks the same way, it’s all you winning and when you can’t win you cry and find excuses. Life is aboout ups and downs, wins and losses, you have ot accept both. Please have regard for Federer’s competitors because without them he would be nothing, he can’t play the game by himself. I used to be a Federer fan but I have to stop because I realized that federer can’t handle competiton, once someone stand up to him he crumbles and thats not how a champion behaves. Until federer can beat Nadal consistently, then he can say that he is greatest. One thing you keep on saying is that Federer is the GOAT but you probably failed to understand that Nadal now has a chance to rewrite history. We have seen what federer has accomplished but we can also see what is on the horizon for Nadal. Lets wait until Nadal turns 29 and then we will see the true GOAT. Until then just let the better man wins.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Hmmm. Im interested in Roger doing well in the MS events because to dominate again he has to so well in the smaller events as well, and it will set him up for the slams. And i dont think Roger has to dominate Nadal to be the greatest ever. He just needs to win more slams. That is all. Slams have always been more important than h2h. And believe me Roger loves competition. He didnt state for no reason that he feels its about time to beat Nadal again. And i for one believes he can still do it. I also think he can win more slams and make it even harder for Nadal to catch him. I never said Nadal cant rewrite history. Dunno why you say that. I just think Roger is so competitive that he is not going to make it easy for him. If he wins just 2 more slams it will already be very hard for Nadal.

    [Reply]

    Jiten Reply:

    Nadal will have to retire way before he turns 29. He bloomed too early.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    This is true. I think when hes 26 he’ll be done winning slams.

    [Reply]

    Ozzie Reply:

    There you go again, hoping that Nadal doesn’t play for another four years. Since you think Federer is the GOAT why not hope for a healthy Nadal to challenge federer for the next five to six years. A true champion stands to test of time but from what i am gathering you guys can only feel comfortably is Nadal is not around. That’s really sad. You can’t think the worst of your opponent. If you are constantly hoping for divine intervention on Nadal to be unhealthy or retire young, then it simply means that federer is grossly overrated, as Nadal as exposed him to be.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I dont think thats what we’re saying. Nadal is an early bloomer and it simply wouldnt make sense for him to win much in his late twenties. What we are saying is that Roger deserves to play longer because he has a more economic game style and smarter schedule. It just makes sense that Nadal will burn out sooner or later, given his constant grinding and packed schedule, and the fact that he bloomed early.

    [Reply]

  6. Good analysis Ru-an, Rog is playing beautiful tennis again I hope it will continue til tomorrow when he faces Djokovic.

    On the other hand, NADAL in his prime is losing to low-ranked players I think he can’t handle the pressure of being #1.

    In what I’ve witnessed as a tennis fan, NADAL is nowhere near FEDERER in terms of achievements and can never be the GOAT because he is NOT AS CONSISTENT AS FEDERER. All he has is H2h not good enough to be called the greatest, FEDERER IS THE ONE.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks Reginald :-)

    [Reply]

  7. Some match from the Maestro today, eh? He really seems focused like I haven’t seen him for a long time. Maybe it is time to leave Mirka and the kids at home during the bigger tournies? Who know….anyway, I absolutely loved what I saw today. Good depth….amazing bh and bhdtl….forehand looking potent again….no lapses. Wow! :-)

    [Reply]

  8. Ozzie,

    What are you talking about. Federer needs points and is not playing a master’s level. And so…what about Nadal playing Thailand and Japan and Djokovic…do you think that they are “pointless” tournaments. As for real competition…what are you talking about. How do you explain Nadal getting beat by Soderling at the French and then Federer destroying Soderling. The reality is that Fed lost at the French, Wimby and the US to the finalist each time. Not bad. This talk is rather sad. Nadal is fantastic, but must have been tired again Melzer. The difference and we will see is that Fed, tired is better than Nadal tired. Don’t forget…Fed had two kids and a family ! Not an easy task to deal with this. Hopefully Fed will take out the Djoker as he should have last time despite 70 unforced errors !

    [Reply]

  9. Love your Blog Ruan. The thing that stands out to me is that although the h2h favors Rafa, we need to look at all the times Rafa didn’t make it to the finals to compete against him. He didn’t play good enough to make it to many gs finals in the Aus., and US Open. Not only my take, but Roger has pointed that out himself. I like Nadal, but like you said, he has to hit the same number of grand slams or more to be considered GOAT. Fed has that distiction at this time, much like Pete did, until he was passed, and with a French to boot. Gary

    [Reply]

  10. To Ruan’s argument that Nadal should have as many or more GS titles as Federer to be called a GOAT I think that this is not the only criteria. Hypothetically, what if Nadal takes four of the GS in 2011? I suppose that this will tend to favour Nadal for a better player than Federer. Believe me, I am a staunch supporter of Federer but if somebody beats him I will have to accept him as a better player. Ruan may recall my musings on Karpov and Kasparov. I never liked and shall never like Kasparov, but I admit that he is a better player than my favorite player Karpov.It is a different thing whether any player can be called GOAT because players are from different eras. Nadal has stopped Federer from being called GOAT because of stopping him from having at least two calender slams in 2006 and 2007 and having more than 20 GS titles by now. The fact is fact. There are many records of Federer that cannot be matched by anyone else but in the same vein there are many records of other players that cannot be matched. The 6 consecutive year end number one of Pete Sampras, 81 consecutive clay court matches of Nadal are some of them.Of course, if Federer can still complete a calender slam( which is very less likely) I would not hesitate to call him the GOAT whatever the other factors.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    If Nadal wins the calender slam next year it would go a long way towards making him the GOAT.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

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