Comments on: The Quest

By: remain anonymous

remain anonymous — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:25:47 +0000

Sampras was not in his prime in 2001. He went 35-16 in 2001, won zero titles and dropped 10 spots in the rankings (started #3 and finished #13). As far as Nadal not reaching hardcourt slam finals during Fed’s prime (’04-’07), one could say Federer was fortunate that his rival didn’t peak during his prime. It’s always “How Nadal was not good enough to make slam finals” why not “Why couldn’t a peak Federer handle a young Nadal?” Roger is easily one of the greatest ever, but let’s call a spade a spade.

By: Anoop

Anoop — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:24:10 +0000

You probably mean that Federer never defeated Nadal in French Open. For the record, he has won two clay court finals against Nadal, and his hard court record against Nadal is 3-3. The reason why Federer hasn’t won a hard court grand slam final against Nadal is that Nadal was not good enough to reach a hard court final during the Federer’s peak years (2004-07). Please do remember that Federer has reached 20 grand slam semis in-a-row, 10 grand slam finals in-a-row, 15 finals out of the last 16 grand-slams.

By: KING ARTHUR USA

KING ARTHUR USA — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:31:44 +0000

When in retirement I wonder if the demons on Roger’s shoulder as he sits in his chair and reminisces about his slams whether deep down in his sub conscious the Spaniard Nadal will eat into him. He never defeated Nadal on clay, and has yet to win a slam against him on the other surfaces except for Wimbledon. The greatest ever, always an impossible debate but we can talk for years who, when, if and but about the players of their time.