After watching however narrowly Rafa escaped a third set battle today and watching the way Canas was retrieving Nadals shots and going head to head with rafa on the rallies. My Conclusion is the Swiss would recieve a good old fashioned backside whooping from the Argentine, no (lol). For sure.

Unlike Nadal, Canas is quite experienced and therefore is a pony with various tricks. The only reason Nadal escaped a third set was because of Canas's long match the day before. The scoreline does not do him any favours but he certainly played better the Roger last week.

All jokes aside, watching Canas today, I thought it was a Rafa impersonator. Hell the guy moves as good as Rafa he only got tired.

your argument is garbage, but in tight matches one break a set can be all you need.

A very good post indeed chairman.

I was unsure as to whether Canas's form on the hard courts would transfer onto clay, but his run to the final of Barcelona seems to indicate that he's equally proficient on either surface. In 2005, he got to the QF of the French and gave Puerta an epic battle before finally succumbing in 5. Puerta went on to give Nadal his toughest match of that tournament.

Canas is essentially a slightly downgraded version of Nadal, who adopts a very similar game plan to the Spaniard on clay. It is this, in conjunction with his exceptional mental strength (again a la Nadal), which leads me to believe that should he be drawn against Federer on clay, he would emerge triumphant.

Hmmm, certainly one to watch. Canas was somewhat gifted a place in the final.

Canas is, as you say Wise, a down-graded version of Nadal, which in turn, suggests that Federer should be able to - and I think will - beat him.

That said, the mental side of this (which may be hard for Federer to overcome) could see a Canas win, should they be drawn together.

I wouldn't like to call who would win, but I hope it happens and Federer gets a win, to just put an end to all the speculation.

Well, either way - Canas is certainly making an impact on this season. I just don't think he has the physical edge to gift him any titles during CC.

I saw the match yesterday and I did not see Canas being more close to Rafa than FED was in MC final.

I mean the game plan of Willy is different from the FED one: Willy given his game is simply accepting the long rallies and he does not search to push (all the time) Rafa in a defensive position...

From my perspective, nevertheless, Willy is doing the same "errors" (might be it is simply the only way to keep some hope against "monster" Rafa :yikes: ) than Roger's one year ago, i.e. he believes to be close to Rafa on clay when at the contrary he is far away from him (e.g. post match interview: "Today, there was not much difference between me and Rafa, just a few points.[Right Willy yes sure...Like FED..When both of you will recognize that Rafa is more than few points away :yikes: ? Ok, I guess it is a question of keeping some believes :) ]...I had two break points in the first game of the match and if I had taken one of them, then maybe it would have been different [Willy come on Two break points roflmao ...Is nothing on clay]"

GUYS THIS IS NOT TRUE: Rafa is more far away from both of you...

The distance is similar to the one that exists between other players and FED on grass...It is a question of having a game that it is suited for a given surface: Rafa has a A++++ game for clay B) like FED has on grass: Full stop :P

He is doing always the same things (Yes it is one dimension if you want FED no problem on that-even if Rafa has improve his serve and he is definitely playing better with his BH IMO) but (as FED started to recognize at the end of the clay season last year) he is doing his game SO WELL with so few ERRORS that he is simply unplayable at the moment: The distance once again is big... (Two break points in the first game of the first set Willy come on Rafa was still sleeping roflmao ...)

I mean it is not so complicate: In the ATP tour we are facing to a situation in which basically you have two "monsters" (i.e. all time great champions) out there: Rafa on clay Fed on the other surfaces...

Few can pretend to win one of the two in form in their most favourite surface or even win a tournament by beating the two (No one, in the last two seasons, manage to do that, i.e. win a tourney after beating Rafa and FED).

Said that Canas can beat FED on clay? For me it is difficult to call...And anyway: It is not the match of yesterday., i.e. Canas against monster Rafa, that will tell us something about the outcome of this.

very informative post, TV. I agree with you that Nadal vs. Canas on clay really can't give us any real information indicative of a Canas win over Fed.

That's why I do hope the two of them meet in Rome...

Thanks Sara...

Details on post match interview to Canas

here

Main sentence:

"I had two break points in the first game of the match and if I had taken one of them, then maybe it would have been different."

Willy please :bs: :bs:

Rafa is more than that pay him a just credit: This guy is a monster on clay :bow: :bow:

BTW: I appreciate more and more Rafa because he is doing less and less Vamos and self pumping during the match :ok: ...

A great Champion is a no noise champion: Pete and Roger show this point perfectly... :ok:

roflmao

Totally agree, it's all well and good with the might have been, Willy. Point is, you lost!!

Watching Nadal at the moment is spectacular, he's unbelievable. He does seem to be doing less of the fist pumping shouts...however, I'd be much more pleased if he could spend less time fiddling with his shoes during points!!! ;)

Sara to be honest I always found quite funny Rafa's preparation of a serve and how he is following his "rituals"..No I really like that part..

At the contrary, as I said, his pumping up get my nerves more than once in the past (Berdy's match last year in Madrid was a top of this useless stuff)...

Anyway...His clay Tennis is just marvelous at the moment: yesterday he was just playing cat with a mouse in particular in the second set (as with FED in MC final BTW):

The only chance they have both (FED and Canas -and might be some others like David Ferrer, who was, IMO, even more near than Canas to take a set in the semi-) is due to their ability of capture the first set...

Without that, once the Rafa man captured the first set, Rafa starts to relax and then..no way to catch him anymore IMO (like FED on grass BTW).

Copy and paste job, no?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A22194957

Copy and paste job, no?

Yes, I noticed that too :D

You know, "Rafa's Rituals" are very funny...from a spectator point of view...like obsessions or superstitions. Shoelace fiddled with? Check. Socks pulled up? Check. Adjusted bandana? Check.

I'd probably go mad if I was playing against him, though!!

Am really glad Nadal is getting the recognition he deserves after being "written off" post Wimbledon. He's mind boggling to watch on his surface.

Well, if we can make these kinds of conclusions, then it is quite obvious that Sam Querrey is the man to challenge Nadal on clay. Querrey beat Luis Horna, who earlier beat Canas on clay, and Canas was apparently almost good enough to beat Nadal. So, watch out Nadal, if you see young Sam in your draw . . . :rolleyes:

You are funny.... roflmao

Bum scratched? Check.

Federer dismissed? Check.

lol touch a nerve Wise? Would appear so...

:D :D Very good! You gotta find that funny whoever you support.

Nope..The correct is: Federer in final against me on clay: Check?

And try to stay with him even outside Check?

These are the what is checking Rafa because he wants to become no#1. And on that side he is very focus , i.e. I take my hat off to Rafa given the efforts he is producing to try to become the No#1 of the ranking despite the presence of one of the ultimate Genius in Tennis , i.e. Maestro Federer B) .

Ciao Ciao Wise...

BTW: After '96..The king(s) of clay they had few possibilities of meeting the King of grass in a final on clay (well even before '96 roflmao the music was not so different)..

What was the name of the King of grass at that time??...

I forgot Pete something.... roflmao roflmao

Ciao Ciao Wise..Winds up people how much you want: Reality is simply stronger than you, as Rafa pointed out clearly:

''What can I say about 10 Grand Slams against two?'' Nadal said. ``It would be stupid for me to say anything bad about him.'' :rolleyes:

roflmao

Didn't Fed get irate about Rafa's rather obsessive rituals at one point?

If he did, then he needs to change that mindset. Having a chip on his shoulder about Rafa's rituals will not help him overcome any psychological issues he might have.

I didn't know this? I knew about Ljubicic griping about the time taken between points, but didn't know Rog had suggested illegal coaching?

Nadal had suggested that the umpires had been hassling him ever since Federer accused him of receiving illegal tutoring from his coach and uncle, Toni, during the final of Rome in May, and also after Ivan Ljubicic said pointedly after their semi-final at Roland Garros that the amount of time that the Majorcan took between points was "ridiculous". "It's not nice for me. Umpires need to develop some personality," Nadal said

Rog had a very very public temper tantrum about illegal coaching in either monte carlo or Rome last year - shouting out during a match "is that ok tony?" or something like that. When asked about it in the interview afterwards (some journalists thought he was aiming it at his coach) he said he felt that Toni had been coaching Nadal. Nadal's camp were pretty unimpressed! I'll have to see if i can find a link for the story!

I must be having a total blank - don't remember at all! Didn't realise the Federer temper could still explode like that - I remember it used to, he used to be quite volatile, but surprised it still ignites!

As said, letting any of this frustration get to him won't help further his "Beat Rafa on Clay" cause...

Yeah I do remember that from last year, Im pretty sure it was in Rome.

Well - if there are rules in place for time taken between points, then Nadal should abide by them, and, more importantly umpires should enforce them if necessary.

Many players have complained about it. Fed and Lubo but also Agassi, Soderlig, Berdych and many others.

Having said that Nadal has really sped up between rallies this year and I believe this is de to the many complaints he got. Havig said that, I am sure that when the pressure will reach its climax, he will again slow things down and make sure to break the rythm of the receiver and server.

Watching the Fed Nadal FO 2005 on Youtube, you can see Nadal's gamesmanship so obviously, that you have the crowd reacting badly at him on a break point.

This is the main reason why I have never been a fan of Rafa. I like the challenge he represents and like the persona he brings into the game, but I am convinced that without his on court tactics, he would have lost quite a few more matches.

Don't think that's got quite the same ring to it, do you TV? I prefer my version.

And don't you remember what our marriage counsellor told you about these long rants? ;)

I've kindly highlighted why that point is irrelevant; you even confirm it yourself. The fact that there were lots of kings of clay during the Era of Lions is why Sampras didn't often arrive at playing them in the final. Nadal is the only high standard clay courter in this era.

Nope, I'm fairly confident that the reality of 5-0 supports my original comment quite nicely.

Excellent humility from Nadal, especially when you consider Federer's petty accusations after the Rome final. Makes his refusal to criticise the Swiss in the post-match interviews even more admirable, given his clear disapproval at Federer's behaviour during the match:

http://www.vindy.com/content/sports/nation...02348967828.php

A class act.

Nadal is a very humble player, one of the reasons I root for him. However, much as I find his mild obsessions amusing, I'd probably want to wallop him on the head with my raquet if in the middle of an important match.

Wise - it's flabbergasting that your Weak Era proclamations are crossing the country. Most amusing.

roflmao roflmao ...Here some elements that can help you...Pete was never meeting the kings of clays because he was never there when needed (and this even by taking into account the famous '96 season).

Let's consider then all the Kings of clay would you and see the meetings between them and Pete at RG (what matters most right) :yikes: :

* Ferrero (in Pete's clay era roflmao ): Never played Pete AT ALL...


* Kuerten: Never played on clay against Pete ( roflmao )


* Muster: Played once in RG 1991: Pete victory but then...


* Corretja: Never played against Pete at RG ( roflmao )


* Moya: Never played against Pete at RG ( roflmao )


* Berasategui Never played Pete AT ALL ( roflmao ).


* It remains Bruguera who played twice against Pete at RG 1993 & 1996...

This last case is very interesting: Brugera played twice Pete at RG and in '93 was Sergi who was able to win when in '96 was Pete...

Once again: FED is already better than Pete on clay and this despite all your effort to prove the contrary..

But I stop here: It is just useless.. :rolleyes:

That's pretty definitive research from TV!

:)

Actually, this weak era argument is talked a lot by the people who don't know much about tennis. If you discuss with people who don't follow the game, Borg, McEnroe and Connors are still the stars of Tennis. becker Agassi and Sampras joining them close behind.

It is most likely to be the same for all sports. Pele, Maradona (still the best ever in my view), Platini, Beckenbauer, in football, Fanjio, Prost and Senna in F1 etc....are bigger names for me than anynew comers. It does not mean that the new players are not as good as the old guard or even better. It is simply me that is a bit ignorant of those sports and only rely on the wow effect of what the others say.

Believing that Sampras, Agassi and Becker were playing better tennis than today's crop is just a proof of ignorance. The only thing that can be said is that they were relatively better than their opponents of the times. nothing more nothing less.

Definitive yes, but also completely useless given that he himself had set the parameters for the debate as following:

i.e. nothing to do with the RG-specific statistics that TV churned out. I refer you both again to Sampras's results on clay against the clay kings of the Era of Lions:

Agassi: 2 victories and 3 defeats
Corretja: 2 victories and 0 defeats
Courier: 1 victory and 2 defeats
Kafelnikov: 2 victories and 2 defeats
Muster: 1 victory and 0 defeats
Bruguera: 1 victory and 2 defeats
Berasategui and Kuerten : 0 and 0.

These irrefutably prove that on his day, Sampras was a match for the best clay courters out there, whereas Federer is 0-5 vs Nadal. What makes one final appearance, over one SF, a better achievement than a respectable record against the clay court specialists of the era?

At the end of the day, when Federer retires without winning the French, it will simply be stated that it was an omission on both his and Sampras's CVs. The fact that Federer had such a poor record against the only great clay courter of his era won't count against him, nor will his lack of a Rome title.

Thanks Sara no prob..I just hate partial and biased arguments and Wise is just a manipulator...

And let me add the following:

I remember quite well the '96 long Pete's adventure on RG clay.

I was definitely hoping to see him in the final and this just mainly because he was doing something similar to my favourite player 7 years before, i.e. Stefan Edberg who was able to reach the final playing a pure attaching (serve and volley) technique during all the tourney. So, it was quite painful to see him failing against Kafelnikov in the semi after his victories against Courier & Bruguera..
IMO I still thinking Pete arrived just too tired at the semi because the quarter against Currier was a 5 sets match and he did not fully recover..

;) Tenez fully agree with you as often :ok:

That statement in itself is a sign of ignorance Tenez, and I know you're not, so why say it? The quality of tennis that a player can play is not the decisive factor in how good a player is, because this can be influenced by science: the evolution of tennis rackets and even balls, the improvement of nutritional information and products, better knowledge of muscle fibres and therefore the best way to train them. Even the clothes and footwear that a player wears can have a marked improvement on the standard of his tennis.

Contrarily, mental strength and tactical nouse aren't so much things that can be improved by external factors: you either have them or you don't. The current crop clearly don't, which is where the debate ends for me. Don't want to get drawn into another one of these today - ciao all.

The problem is the usual one. Wise you are just unable to have a honest discussion about FED career and this because you hate this guy so you are using all sort of absurd arguments to deny his performances.

And concerning Pete my stats was those that matters, i.e. how Pete was able to do against the top players on clay at RG!!!

Just tired to repeat the same..Do not worry..

Referring to the thread title, do you mean "trash" as in put Federer in a rubbish bin? Or is it a typo and you meant to actually say "thrash"?

Mind, in F1, Schumacher is the GOAT. Not my favourite person in the world at one stage, but he was just magnificent. F1 this year feels so weird without him in each race, as even if he was miles back on the track, you could never count him out. he was that good. In his last race he had a puncture and was 30 seconds behind the last man (who was a minute back from the leader) when he finally got out the pits again. He ended fourth after going off at an incredible pace, and had he had five laps more he would surely have won.

roflmao

As regards football, my husband also believes Maradona to be the greatest! Much bigger fan than of Pele.

I think largely it's personal taste - as a huge fan of the volley, I always rate Edberg v.highly etc etc

Maradona has the huge distinction of pretty much taking his team to the World Cup Finals single-handed twice. Pele played in teams full of legends - having said that I have no view on their respective merits.

I'd like to think that the Weak Era debate has been pretty much played out on this and the Beeb board :rolleyes:

The reality is that any assessment of Fed's or Nadal's place in Tennis History is premature given that their careers are not over yet. All we can say is that Fed is likely to be thought of as one of the all-time greats of the Open Era, certainly one of the fast-surface all-time greats, and Nadal will always be remembered as one of the clay-court stars.

A very balanced view point