Federer-Nadal rivalry reaches new hei...

Federer-Nadal rivalry reaches new heights

There are 74 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 10, 2009, titled Federer-Nadal rivalry reaches new heights. In it, Newsday reports that:

Frankly, talk of whether his first French Open title establishes Roger Federer as the Greatest Of All Time is not nearly as interesting as the new life it breathes into the Federer-Rafael Nadal rivalry, the kind of spectating stimulus that raises tennis to the highest level of sports theatre.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Arnie F

Farmingdale, NY

#1 Jun 10, 2009
This is the kind of thoughtful, insightful, and sophisticated writing Newsday used to have on a regular basis. Kudos. But can you bring back Jacobson, Gergen, Nack and Calabria?
Steffi

Stratford, CT

#2 Jun 10, 2009
Your comments are at best delusional. Roger won the French Open because he did not face Nadal. Rafa at age 23 if he secures his US Open win also achieves a lifetime slam of all 4 majors at a much younger age. I hope Nadal is well enough to compete at Wimbledon as those on the "Roger has returned to greatness" wagon can stand behind the likes of Nadal and Andy Murray and potentionally even Novak Djokovic and of course the wild card American Andy Murray.
Steffi

Stratford, CT

#3 Jun 10, 2009
Sorry, meant to say the American Andy Roddick
Navratilova

Winterthur, Switzerland

#4 Jun 10, 2009
Delusional you are Steffi. Obvious you are a Rafa fan and you dislike Federer. And that being the case you wont take into account Federer had Mononucleosis and then a back injury. If only you know the magnitude of all that. If you dont, then please don't give too much importance to Rafa's knee injury either. Behind Roddick and Djkovic?, you are truly delusional. They are good and so is Fed, only a person with deep hate would speak the way you did. Maybe according to you Sampras, Laver, McEnroe who all have seen Fed's game and applauded - they are all delusional?. If Federer had exerted as much as Rafa and played a physical game he PERHAPS could have demolished Rafa?, but that would have been self destructive, he wont have lasted so long. Yes, Rafa wont last long by the rules of physics, a wise man does not destroy his joints by crossing physical limits, his family is destroying him by overstepping boundaries. A prudent and caring person would advise Rafa not to exert so much and last longer, than watching him destroying himself physically like you do. If you get this bigger picture, then you will appreciate why Federer is good - he does things they way a prudent person would. I do know young blood gets too hot too fast and is hasty and destructive too often. Learn some prudence and objectivity.
Navratilova

Winterthur, Switzerland

#5 Jun 10, 2009
Delusional you are Steffi. Obvious you are a fanatic Rafa fan and you dislike Federer. And that being the case you wont take into account Federer had Mononucleosis and then a back injury. If only you know the magnitude of all that. If you dont, then please don't give too much importance to Rafa's knee injury either. Behind Roddick and Djkovic?, you are truly delusional. They are good and so is Fed, only a person with deep hate would speak the way you did. Maybe according to you Sampras, Laver, McEnroe who all have seen Fed's game and applauded - they are all delusional?. If Federer had exerted as much as Rafa and played a physical game he PERHAPS could have demolished Rafa?, but that would have been self destructive, he wont have lasted so long. Yes, Rafa wont last long by the rules of physics, a wise man does not destroy his joints by crossing physical limits, his family is destroying him by overstepping boundaries. A prudent and caring person would advise Rafa not to exert so much and last longer, than watching him destroying himself physically like you do. If you get this bigger picture, then you will appreciate why Federer is good - he does things they way a prudent person would. I do know young blood gets too hot too fast and is hasty and destructive too often. Learn some prudence and objectivity.
Bama Wham

East Setauket, NY

#6 Jun 10, 2009
What rivalry? Nadal owns Federer in the double digits.

The only reason Federer "won" the French was because Nadal suffered a fluke loss to some fluky player who will never be seen or heard from again. We all know that if he had faced Nadal in the final Federer would have suffered yet another humiliating defeat, probably something like 6-1 6-0 6-0.

Federer got lucky again, that's the story of his career, his luck, not his so called greatness. You can't be called great if you can't beat the best (Nadal).
Chris Ford

United States

#7 Jun 10, 2009
I am a lifelong tennis player. I have played for almost 30 years and followed the rise of men's tennis back from the near doom of the "serve and put-away" game of 15 years ago. I have watched the old tapes of Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl...and only slightly lesser lights of the game. Then even older tapes of Laver, Stolle, etc. And watched the sharp deterioration of the woman's game in the last 10 years and the rise of their Screamers.

So I say I don't care about GOAT. I just want great players staying healthy and playing great matches. I am a fan of BOTH Rafa and Roger. I mostly root for Fed, but have rooted now and then for Rafa, particularly when he broke out of clay and was showing he was an all-court threat. I want both of them to challenge one another and to confront, master, but eventually yield to new rising talent --as they must.
For now, Federer is just mezmerizing to me - a game that is a thing of marvels, beauty, genius...and which can still be defeated by the speed power backhand and mental 110% commitment of Nadal. Eventually, a del Potro or Murray or Cilic will supplant them. But as the Sudanese warrior in the movie Gladiator prayed..."But not yet...not yet!"

And both Rafa and Roger are intelligent, nice persons. Two good guys..My teen kids do take sides. One pro-Fed, the other goes to Nadal's blog every day or so to see what her hero says. And a 3rd who could care less about tennis but who agrees that his sport, basketball, could use a lot more people with the character of the 2 champions...
Sports Fanz

Torrington, CT

#8 Jun 10, 2009
I love it when Nadal knocks Federer's arrogant ass down and makes him cry like the whiny little b!tch that he is, lol.
Sandust

United States

#9 Jun 10, 2009
Take it easy people-Nadal has a long ways to go in order to accomplish what Federer has..At the speed he is rocking and rolling he'll be done before he reaches his 26th birthday.. like if it matters I am not a Nada fan, matter of fact I can't stand the way he acts or plays...
Sandust

United States

#10 Jun 10, 2009
Sports Fanz wrote:
I love it when Nadal knocks Federer's arrogant ass down and makes him cry like the whiny little b!tch that he is, lol.
You can't stand class and perfection I suppose and that makes you ill?
Sandust

United States

#11 Jun 10, 2009
Bama Wham wrote:
What rivalry? Nadal owns Federer in the double digits.
The only reason Federer "won" the French was because Nadal suffered a fluke loss to some fluky player who will never be seen or heard from again. We all know that if he had faced Nadal in the final Federer would have suffered yet another humiliating defeat, probably something like 6-1 6-0 6-0.
Federer got lucky again, that's the story of his career, his luck, not his so called greatness. You can't be called great if you can't beat the best (Nadal).
Roger was waiting and ready for Nadal in the FO, NAdal chickened out cause he knew that Roger would be taking care of his hide just like he did in MADRID --- ROFLMAO
Sandust

United States

#12 Jun 10, 2009
Nadal owns Federer in double digits? Now i like to know what you're putting into your beer, milk or soda pop... come back here after you studied the stats. I hope you can read
Sandust

United States

#13 Jun 10, 2009
Navratilova wrote:
Delusional you are Steffi. Obvious you are a fanatic Rafa fan and you dislike Federer. And that being the case you wont take into account Federer had Mononucleosis and then a back injury. If only you know the magnitude of all that. If you dont, then please don't give too much importance to Rafa's knee injury either. Behind Roddick and Djkovic?, you are truly delusional. They are good and so is Fed, only a person with deep hate would speak the way you did. Maybe according to you Sampras, Laver, McEnroe who all have seen Fed's game and applauded - they are all delusional?. If Federer had exerted as much as Rafa and played a physical game he PERHAPS could have demolished Rafa?, but that would have been self destructive, he wont have lasted so long. Yes, Rafa wont last long by the rules of physics, a wise man does not destroy his joints by crossing physical limits, his family is destroying him by overstepping boundaries. A prudent and caring person would advise Rafa not to exert so much and last longer, than watching him destroying himself physically like you do. If you get this bigger picture, then you will appreciate why Federer is good - he does things they way a prudent person would. I do know young blood gets too hot too fast and is hasty and destructive too often. Learn some prudence and objectivity.
I totally agree with your post. Had Federer not suffered from the ill effects of Mono. Nadal's placement would look entirely different. Rafa does not strike me as very intelligent but rather as a player who knew that the time was now to get what he could while the situation with Roger beeing down and vulnerable was obvious. Yeah, uncle and his family are not very bright either if they don't concidder that this fast and constant physical demand had to take a serious toll on Rafael Nadal.. I feel really sorry for the guy come to think about it all. I think Nadal should get away from his uncle coach but that may not be easy.
Soham

UAE

#14 Jun 10, 2009
Nadal is physically done. He has been so overworked and his peak is over. It is very difficult to last as long as the
Fed has done, stay motivated and focussed! Rafa did good as long as he was around but that is it. He was complaining about the speed of the Madrid clay after after his loss!!! And now he is complaining about his knees! Of course they are wobbly now that Roger is fully back!!
Ankit

Australia

#15 Jun 10, 2009
For all those saying that it was a meaningless victory because Nadal was not there. Consider this. Federer has reached the past 20 slam semi finals - he has never had a day like Nadal - losing in early rounds to someone like Soderling. That is part of his genius, class and grit, and is one of the most understated and overlooked part of his profile.

His playing style allows him to play so consistently and injury free for such a long time, and before some of you jump the gun and say Nadal will be the best, as Federer said about himself - "wait until the end of my career to judge me"
braxton

Philippines

#16 Jun 11, 2009
hope to see soderling in nadal's part of the draw at wimbledon and see what happens. nadal's looping topspins are easy picking for soderling. if he can decode nadal on grass, history could repeat itself
braxton

Philippines

#18 Jun 11, 2009
tennis is about domination and winning more majors before being overtaken by injury or old age (say past 30). nadal has to be physical to beat federer, but his victories come with a prize-knee injury. in the end federer, despite his earlier setbacks, will win more because he will stay in the sport longer.
Paul

London, UK

#19 Jun 11, 2009
Why can't Nadal fans just accept that Federer thoroughly deserved to win the French, in the same way that Federer fans (of which I am one) must accept that Nadal thoroughly deserved to win the Australian? It is hardly Federer's fault that Nadal lost to Soderling. As for Federer, you don't win 14 grand slams just by being 'lucky'; nor do you reach 20 consecutive grand slam semis, something which no player in history has come close to doing. Please try to retain some sense of objectivity in this debate.
pnt

Long Beach, NY

#20 Jun 11, 2009
Nicely done.
TennisMasta

Chicago, IL

#21 Jun 11, 2009
"What Federer's French title did, more than anything, was refocus spectator attention by reinforcing the value of being -- and having -- a great rival, just as Ali had Frazier, Bird had Magic, Evert had Navratilova."

Why is it a different standard for Tiger Woods. No one laments that he never had a rival for some 9 years now. The only one who supplanted him very briefly at #1 all these years was a 40+ year old Vijay Singh. But even he was never a consistent #2 to Woods, and never dogged Woods at majors beating him in the final rounds. In fact, Tiger never had anyone consistently at #2 all these years. But everyone is just happy to see him pile up trophies and majors with wide margin victories.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Roger Federer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tiger Woods admits he has to find different way... (Feb '17) Feb '17 AdmitsPhartzz 2
News The Latest: Djokovic wins bizarre 1st set in US... (Sep '16) Sep '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Dan Evans beats Alexandr Dolgopolov to set up R... (Jun '16) Jun '16 Yes sir 1
News Marcus Willis 'relaxed' about Wimbledon tie wit... (Jun '16) Jun '16 Tennis Fan 1
News Novak Djokovic 'honoured' to be considered amon... (Sep '15) Sep '15 Fart news 2
News Lauderdale's Whitney Kraft to be National Tenni... (Jun '07) Aug '15 Fart news 21
News Djokovic marches to Wimbledon final (Jul '15) Jul '15 Fart news 4
More from around the web