Fedal : talk of injuries, longevity and contrasting styles .......

Very well-constructed piece by Simon Briggs of The Telegraph. Suitable reading (mostly ...!) for fans of either Nadal or Federer - maybe even of both .....??    

Some quality input by Craig O'Shannessy who provides regular analysis for ATP website.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rogerfederer/11044445/Roger-Federer-the-great-survivor-ready-to-fill-void-left-by-Rafael-Nadal-at-US-Open.html

Quite a good article but it really says nothing that anyone watching the two players could not deduce for themselves. Federer's natural grace (or smoothness as the article puts it) has been key to his success and longevity. I can't think of another current player who seems to move with such fluidity.

Simon Briggs has re-hashed a lot of cliches about Federer and Nadal.

What's the difference?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af-nLzGh3eM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDg0kxn-xZg

They both look very smooth to me and to do that for a living you would have to be strong and fit. You would have to be pretty lucky not to be sidelined with injury every now and then. As far as injuries go I guess Federer is by far the luckier of the two. I have always thought Federer and Nadal have more in common than they differ  

Trying to befriend a few Fed fans?

Trying to put Nadal on same level as Fed, will not make him as good as Fed.

Sure, he can always be better then Djoko.

hawkeye wrote:Simon Briggs has re-hashed a lot of cliches about Federer and Nadal.

.........................................................................................................

Hmm .... re-hashing old stuff ...... ?? Wow ....that really is a poor show. i believe there's a facility on the Telegraph site for reader feedback, so you could tell him what you think.

Just as well we don't get any repetitive articles from 606 posters, or links to writers from The Times such as Neil Harman, who tended to write - or should that be recycle ?? - a fair bit about Andy Murray.

Speaking of Mr Harman..........I haven't seen much from him lately. Anyone know anything of his whereabouts ....???

Don't agree Jahu, there are a number of things that Nadal is better at than Fed on a tennis court and vice-versa. It's too easy to just say Federer is better when both their achievements are stellar compared to others.

It's mainly easy to say the player you like is better. I'd say it's fairly easy to say i think fed is the better player but not so easy for people to accept that doesn't mean he's my favourite player or that i don't dislike rafa.

lyd, yes compared to others, when compare eachother, its the Maestro vs the weight lifter.

Matter of taste of course. Some like it soft, some like BDSM.

Also after Fed, Murray and Nadal are the ones i like most, ignoring for the moment new guys Dimi, Dolgo, Delpo etc.

So I have no hate for Nadal, and thought many Fed fans hate Nadal for kicking Feds ass and lose sleep over will Nadal bypass Feds GS #, I dont care for those things.

...some like soft BDSM   

I like both Federer and Nadal   but IMO Nadal is the better player. I also think their legacies will be stronger because they both competed in the same era. How lucky are we to be able to watch them compete not just against other players but against each other   +

Federer does make the game look very easy, his strokes are all whiplash and fluidity. However, I tend to agree that Nadal is the better 'player', i.e. uses his head and courtcraft much better because he simply has to. Like I said though, Nadal has better strokes in some areas, e.g. no-one in my opinion has a FH as varied, dominating or devastating as Nadal, for me its in the top 2 stroke's of the Open Era...that and Sampras' serve. Yeah I'm biased...bite me lol

Lydian you make it sound like you think rafa is the better player because he's not as good   

Federer made Nadal great. Why, because by turning up and losing to him in slams, Nadal's legacy is enhanced compared to if he's beaten someone else at Wimbledon 08, Oz 09, and others.

Djokovic also made Nadal great. Because, losing to someone who's a bad matchup 6 or 7 or 8 times in a row...and then turning it around and winning the US Open again even and back to number 1. This is also special.

I'm not sure if it's true the other way around. Federer would have >20 slams without Rafa while Djokovic would probably have won 2 of each slam by now and been the only player in history to achieve this.

EDIT: Oops, slight overstatement, as at least one player Rod Laver already achieved this, however I mean in an open field when all the best players were competing, not including when slams were second tier events.

Mostly average article, but enjoyed this bit

"Remember those iconic Gillette ads of the late 2000s? Today, as Tiger Woods rests his dicky back, and Thierry Henry warms a pundit’s sofa, Federer is still churning out the wins. He has 49 already this season, the highest figure on the tour, many of them against opponents who were learning to read when he won his first Wimbledon."

lydian wrote:Federer does make the game look very easy, his strokes are all whiplash and fluidity. However, I tend to agree that Nadal is the better 'player', i.e. uses his head and courtcraft much better because he simply has to. Like I said though, Nadal has better strokes in some areas, e.g. no-one in my opinion has a FH as varied, dominating or devastating as Nadal, for me its in the top 2 stroke's of the Open Era...that and Sampras' serve. Yeah I'm biased...bite me lol

I certainly don't agree with you one bit Lyd and yes its completely biased, if you wanna talk about variety in Forehand Fed wins hands down, if you wanna talk about Power in Forehand Del Po wins hands down, Nadal neither win any of the category in forehand, the one category he wins and wins very well is slowing down the game break the opponents momentum and outlast and outclass them.

While I like Nadal more for a great human being he is , I hate his style, however I practice the same style while playing table tennis and I pretty successful deploying it, I deployed this style coz I am not a natural attacker and hence chose the one that suits me.

1]Is Nadal a great addon to the game? undoubtedly yes, tour would not be the same without him.
2]Is Nadal the greatest player of all time? certainly not, we still have a debate whether he is better than Pete Sampras or not let alone to compare him with Fed's achievements.

3]Can Nadal be the greatest? certainly yes, and I sincerely believe he beats Fed's GS tally or equals to take the claim, if he doesn't only die hard Nadal fans have to brag he is better blah blah etc,.., neutral fans certainly won't buy it.

4]Can they both be put on Same league? definitely yes, they both on the same league and certainly better than most others, I would add Sampras, Nadal, Fed ,Laver and Borg on the same league.