Which one do you think should be ranked number one. Federer has lost only 4 games and those games were against Nadal. Do you think that Nadal shuld be number 1?
2006-07-02 03:42:17 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Tennis
Nadal is awesome. He is just an amazing player overall. They are both very good but personally, I think that Nadal is a better player.
2006-07-02 03:51:03 · answer #1 · answered by T4Toyin 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Federer is number one.. for now. Maybe Nadal will be number 1 one day.. we'll see.
As for now, Federer has won many Grand Slams. I think that his first was at Wimbledon in 2003. In 2003, Nadal was ranked 198 and went up to 49. If you see his ranking history in 2004, you'll see that he went up and went down.
Until July 25th, when he became player Number 2 in the world in 2005. Federer, on the other hand, became number 1 since February 2nd. And where was Nadal..? Oh well he was only number 41. Nadal just started to be the player since winning Roland-Garros last year. That's when we knew for sure that he'll go very far in tennis. and it's true.
People say that he is good 'only' on clay. Well those people are wrong. Didn't he win the Rogers Cup in Montreal? Was that on clay? I don't think so. And the Dubai Championship? Hard court. China Open as well. Nadal is capable of winning on hard court. We all know that Nadal is less good on grass. Here we are in Wimbledon. Nadal playing his first quarter-finals ever on grass. Alot of things can happen in a year. In a year, Nadal's tennis became better. Now, his tennis is unbelievable but.. he still has to work on a few things. So.. to all you people who think Nadal is only able to play on clay.. well I hope you realize that he proved you all wrong.
and I believe that he can reach to the finals in Wimbledon and win it agaisnt Federer! If he doesnt, it means that he has to work on his play. After all, Federer is the number one.
Anyways, Nadal can be number one. Also, he has lost 4 games this year and won 5 titles. Same as Federer. Anywho, Federer is number one for a reason. Because his tennis is amazing.
yahh, id love to see Nadal number 1 <3 <3 <3
2006-07-03 22:33:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Federer has proven more over a longer period of time. Yes, Nadal has a great record against him, but most of those wins have come on clay, and even on the red stuff, they've been close.
No question, Nadal has acheived a lot at his young age, but it is too early to seriously compare him to Federer.
Much as Federer has some work to do before he can be considered the best of all time, Nadal has got to do more (especially away from clay) before he is in Federer's league.
2006-07-02 15:30:40 · answer #3 · answered by rammsteinfan-1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question, I would still put Federer at #1 he's only lost 4 matches all year, yes they were to Nadal, but he's unbeaten against everyone else. Nadal can't make that claim. Also Federer is the current/defending champion at three of the majors (Australian, Wimbledon and US Open). Nadal is the current French champion, but he's no one-trick pony (clay), one of his wins over Federer this year was on hard-courts, plus Nadal won the Canadian Open last year, he is a clay court extrodinaire, but he can win on other surfaces. Nadal looks fantastic against Agassi yesterday, if he keeps this play up, who knows.. he could get to the Final next Sunday.
Federer might not be the all time best player right now, but he's building a very impressive resume. 7 grand slams, halfway to Pete Sampras' men's record of 14 slams.
2006-07-02 14:01:14 · answer #4 · answered by B-Money 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federer should be #1. Nadal is the number one player on clay, but Federer is second best on that surface. Federer is the best on hard and grass, but Nadal probably doesn't even make the top ten on those surfaces. Nadal's head to head is better because Federer has the abiltiy to make the finals on clay so they mostly meet there where Nadal is better. On other surfaces, Nadal doesn't have the ability to make the finals so they don't meet there where Federer would win. I would have to say that Federer is defiantly the better all round player.
2006-07-02 14:38:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
be careful with your statements concerning Nadal is only a clay court player. that guy can play on every surface what he recently proved, as he won in the 2nd round in Wimbledon against Kendrick, btw 2 sets down. i wouldn't be surprised to see again a final Federer - Nadal, even in Wimbledon.
if it comes to that situation and Nadal should win again, then it's just a matter of time until Federer has to hand over his crown as #1 to Nadal.
p.s. and don't forget, in the tennis scene it's a hard life to defend a number 1 rank for so long. only Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl were longer the #1.
2006-07-02 11:25:22 · answer #6 · answered by robert_h 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off...I'll agree that Federer isn't the best player ever. He has the potential to be, but it's premature at this point to say that he is or isn't.
Anyway, it's easy to look at head-to-head stats and draw conclusions. The problem is that those conclusions aren't always right. Federer and Nadal have met four times, and Feds has lost those four. But what about all the tournaments that Nadal lost in early rounds so he didn't even play Federer? You have to look at everything when comparing two players.
2006-07-02 14:03:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First and foremost, Roger Federer is NOT the best player ever. Anyone who says that has clearly forgotten about players like Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Laver, and Nastace, who I believe are the five most talented players ever. Anyway, Federer is a more polished, refined player. He is smart and a master of the mental aspect of tennis. Nadal, on the other hand, is a warrior. He has a win or die trying attitude, and he never stops. He is so quick that almost any shots you hit at him, he will run it down and return it. Since going pro, he has drastically improved every part of his game. He should be #1, but not because he beat Federer 4 times. He should be #1 because he is a better player and a tougher opponent to defeat.
2006-07-02 13:13:55 · answer #8 · answered by Kenny 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
just because Nadal has beaten Federer 4 times doesn't mean anything. Federer has won many slams. Just because he hasn't won the French Open yet doesn't mean a thing. Has Nadal won any of the others besides the french?
Nadal has alot of work to do.
2006-07-02 13:22:28 · answer #9 · answered by ♥Brown Eyed Girl ♥ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federer is number 1. He can play on more surfaces than Nadal. Nadal dominates clay, and Federer dominates everything else.
2006-07-02 13:08:22 · answer #10 · answered by Bert S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO. Nadal can beat federer on clay, pretty easily, usally in 3 or 4 sets. that is the ONLY surface though that he can beat him on. federer is probally one of the 5 best tennis players of all time because of his great versaitility. nadal is good, but really only #1 material on clay
2006-07-02 15:21:32 · answer #11 · answered by thedecline341 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋