I’m a big fan of his, but I share your doubts. He had that one magical Australian, and the match-for-the-ages against Agassi at Andre’s last US Open, but other than that I haven’t seen much to impress.
Hm. I thought it was grass. Of course, I’ve never played on grass.
I wonder why Nadal doesn’t beat Federer on grass given his speed…
She bugs the shit out of me. From her distracting shrieks to calling for the trainer when she’s getting her ass kicked to turning her back on the server and plucking at her racquet to throw off their rhythm to changing her non-broken racquet in the middle of the game when she’s down 40-15… I can’t stand her.
My wife won’t watch Maria when she plays. Come to think of it, she won’t watch her, period.
Can’t understand why. 
Because the ball moves a lot, lot faster than even Nadal can move. Federer will, and does, destroy Nadal on grass so it’s not even close.
As I stated above, I doubt Nadal will win more 3 majors on any non-clay surface.
Another thing to remember here is that, on grass, the ball bounces much less (it skids, really) than on clay (which makes clay a “slower” surface, in addition to the drag of the particulate). Since Nadal has his doctorate in “Clay”, he’s just not in tune with the speed/skid of grass.
-Cem
Has any clay courter, male or female, ever won Wimbleton (Singles, of course)?
Then, come to think of it, what about Doubles?
Clay court play wasn’t always seen as such a specialty - and even now there’s much more clay action than grass. The grass court season is pretty much two tournaments: Wimbledon, and whichever warmup the players choose (Queen’s Club or Halle).
Borg won the French six times and Wimbledon five times. He’s Federer’s hero, so I suspect that makes Federer’s tough times at Roland Garros a little more painful to him. Five men and nine women have won all four majors during their careers, but most of them - everybody except Agassi, Graf, Navratilova Serena Williams, I think - played in the pre-hard court era, when everything was either grass or clay. The U.S. Open was played on grass until 1975, then it was played on clay for a few years. The Australian Open has only been a hard court event for the last 20 years. This is why commentators sometimes note that Agassi is the only player to win each Grand Slam when they were each played on a different surface.
I would say that two two types of player are usually distinct, and don’t enjoy a lot of crossover success (Wimby vs. French, that is).
Notable exceptions…Borg (but he won everything), Agassi. Lendl made it to Wimby finals once or twice. Other than those, I can’t think of many.
Doubles…not sure. The tightness of a doubles team (IMHO) tends to outweigh the surface (Leander/Paes, McEnroe/Fleming, etc.).
-Cem
I was very impressed with Djokovic. I think very soon he will challenge Nadal for #2 and perhaps give Fed some competition for #1. Mark my words. Remember where you heard it first!
Thanks.
Oddly enough, I don’t think Borg ever won the US open.
Wasn’t the Australian a grass tournament?
I think Lendel made 3 Wimbledon finals.
Well.
Nadal *did * lose to Federer on Hamburg on clay. But it was more thn obvious that Nadal was simply too tired in that mach.
Some of you didn’t mention that Nadal made the finals of Wimbledon last year, despite him having a (relativley) easy draw.
Nadal may never win Wimbledon, as his Hardcourt problems magnify themselves even more on grass. However, his determination to improve and his sheer love of the game will see him win a couple of Gradslams outside Roland Garros.
To those who say Federer has no competition outside Nadal on clay and that on another era, like the Sampras-Agassi times, he would have not been succesful: NOT true.
It just so happens that this guy is SO good, that he can beat anybody on any surface with seemingly relative ease on a good day.
The men’s field in tennis is deeper than any. World number 50 can beat a top 10, any many times, WC or players ranked in the top 100 can also do the same.
Federer is just amazing. And Nadal too, of course.