This would give Federer a chance to complete a real grand slam. Think about it. Let's say he wins now in AO, and Nadal doesn't get fit before before French, then let's say Federer wins that too (I know there are alot of good clay players so it's not sure that Federer will win, but perhaps he feels extra motivated knowing he won't have to beat Nadal), and then if Nadal misses French Open he will prob miss Wimbledon too and if Federer wins AO and FO he will definitely win Wimbledon cause he's just god there... then there's only 1 left... even if he doesn't complete a perfect grand slam, he can still reclaim nr 1 (if nadal keeps being injured) and beat Pete Sampras record of being #1 for the longest time ever.

(Personally I want to see Nadal back, because he's such a great athlete)

But think about it, Federer will never get a better opportunity to finish a 'real' Grand Slam (unless rafa gets back in top fitness before french)

This post was edited by eschutaz on Jan 26 2011 11:18am

HAHAHA Nice theory He will only have to win about 5000 Matches and he has it! SO CLOSE !

I'm going to have dinner now, otherwise I wouldve made a better reply

This post was edited by SeaBas on Jan 26 2011 11:23am

federers best chance of winning a year slam thing have been and gone, hes not the player he use to be, and considering hes prob still the most feared player in tennis... thats saying something. djok will beat murray, djok has been white hot.

and why so many haters in tennis i dont get it, its not a team sport... u admire all of them for there talent and even if u like some1 more then another still no need to hate....

if it was a team sport then hating is ok, but not in a solo sport.

This post was edited by TerryWrist on Jan 26 2011 11:26am

How does Murray being on a hot streak invalidate my post?

And Federer being 1000 times the player Nadal is? I agree Federer is currently the greatest of all-time, and will probably remain that way because of the questionable longevity that Nadal's playing style has, among other reasons(such as Federer having a better "style" of tennis), but I think you downplaying how great of a player Nadal actually invalidates YOUR post.



I wouldn't say I'm a hater of individual players. But having one player win all the time gets to be a bit boring. People just started assuming it was a foregone conclusion that either Nadal or Fed would win this tournament, because any other player would probably have to beat both of them in succession to win it(which has only been done once by DelPo). I don't mind seeing great players play, I think it's awesome, but I like to see exciting and different matches.

This post was edited by BlackKnightsOfFistingPower on Jan 26 2011 11:34am

agreed, nadal is alredy the greatest clay courter of all time, hes alredy 1 of the top 10 (prob) players of all time and hes 24, to even deny nadal of his greatest is stupid and invalidates more then your posts.

noobsauces shouldent have opinions cause they cloud the truth.

This post was edited by TerryWrist on Jan 26 2011 11:44am

of 128 played 99% would mean that only 1 or 2 of them rolled into the quarters as you seem to claim is so difficult to do...

1) Nadal did
2) Murray did
3) Djokovic did
4 Wawrinka did
5) Berdych did
6) Soderling was rolling until the Czech dude beat him
7) Fed rolled all but simon who is clearly a better player than what his current ranking is meaning a harder opponent than 99% of people would face that early
8) Ferrer dropped two sets but still dominated the matches

So I'd venture to say that 99% of people DID roll into the QF with ease, not the other way around.

but thats what makes them greats, if every tourn was won by a different player every year then you would neva have had the privlidge to say uve seen the great, players ike federer are the kind of players that come along every 100 years, sure at times ur like shit i wish some1 else would win, but when they play there last game and retire you look back at all there achievments and are sad to see them go, cause they have done so much for the game, so instead of waiting til its to late to appreicate players i have decided that i will appreicate players while there still winning, it is a rare case when u can respect a player reguarded as 1 of the greats if not the greatest b4 hes retired, it often isnt known how good something is until its gone.

shutup, ur just nit picking now.

Maybe 99% was an exaggeration, but if you look at the total pool of tennis players and the level that Nadal plays at(simply because of his athleticism), you have to give the guy credit. Not to mention he's won 9 slams, and probably(as others have mentioned) will probably end up as one of the top 5 players of all time(even if his career is cut short).

Also I still don't get how Murray being on a hot streak invalidates my post.

speaking truth =/= nit picking



because you're saying the guy deserves praise for doing what 7 of 8 players did

nobody has gone through a stretch of more intimidating tennis than what federer did between 2004 and 2008. He has been to at least the QF in every grand slam for the past like 7 years. Nadal craps out because he gets hurt. You act like winning 4 matches in a grand slam is an accomplishment, fed has done it every year since I was in high school.

Nadal will not go down as one of the greats unless he gets himself healthy.