I think Nadal has been the most gracious in victory. His reaction at the 2008 FO or at the 2009 AO were the classiest of a winning champion against his main rival

Nam1@1.17, your smiley's are duly noted:-)
but your point is not correct. he sobs even when he wins, i bet you have seen some of it too.

Also he never cried (in public) during any of his FO losses or during 08 wimby or 05/08 AO.
And i don't think you meant he sobbed in all of his 164 losses during his career cuz i don't remember anything other than AO 09

"Also he never cried (in public) during any of his FO losses or during 08 wimby or 05/08 AO.And i don't think you meant he sobbed in all of his 164 losses during his career cuz i don't remember anything other than AO 09"

I know, I know, I was just funning!! Roger is very gracious in victiry and defeat, I was just pushing buttons!!

Probably get banned for it...

Nam1, its nothing to do with your smiley comment,
i just wanted to bring out the facts as i keep hearing this often.
I for one don't care if someone is gracious or not in their victories and defeats. every1 has their own way of celebrating/consoling and i like to see emotions on the court.

oh Steve, everytime you write things like these about Rafa, never fails to make me cry
thank you so much :-)

Nam1, I don't think Nadal's way of denying his opponent the win by retiring midmatch is that graceful either...

;)

Steve, brilliant as usual, so glad you like Nadal.
Jamesss @03:02pm Remember at Rotterdam 2009, Nadal Murray Final; Nadal played 3rd Set virtually on 1 leg. He could have retired much earlier.

Jamesss:

I suggest that you consult the appropriate ATP rulebook.

When Rafa retires "midmatch," he DOES NOT deny his opponent a win.

The opponent is credited with the win, as is reflected in official ATP records.

Now, if you believe that "deny" is synonymous with "credited with," you may want to refer to a dictionary or, in your case, a dicktionary.

Getting a bit testy, are we?

:)

Great piece, Steve. Getting seriously jazzed for the French. So much energy for Rafa in the air right now! Just read this piece on SI which was also a lovely take on Rafa, the clay-court season and his rivalry with Fed.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/bruce_jenkins/04/20/nadal/index.html

When, where, and how will we call BS on the women's game, which is a disgrace? Most particularly, I think the women's game has been far more ruined (in the long-term) than it has been helped by the Williams sisters. They both exemplify selfishness and the antithesis of "the tour". The WTA is rotten product.

Steve has posted another thread that basically continues the discussion from this thread

The SI article was lovely, if somewhat obvious for anyone who watches tennis regularly.

Rafa is a master of clay when he is confident. He plays such high percentage (he seems to hit 10 ft above the net, yet with such power) and can run from anywhere to anywhere, sometimes you wonder how someone can win even a single point against him.

I am a Fed fan and know that Fed's work would be cut out for him. Yesterday i was watching an old Rome final which Fed lost 7-5 in 5th set tiebreaker which reminded me that Fed's no slouch either. But Rafa is as close to unbeatable on French clay as one can be.

Hoping for an exciting final this year. Hope Fed has a better scoreline than Verdasco :-).

so so SO late to this discussion... (still recovering from 2 days ago perhaps)

but the bottom line on lendl vs mcenroe is that lendl is far and away the superior player w/ the superior career and record, and any tennis purist will tell you just that

mcenroe may have been more popular in america and at times a more intriguing figure to watch b/c of the volatility of his temper and his style of play (he weilded his dunlop like a wizard using a wand), but it was lendl who, in retrospect, was the more intriguing figure due to entirely different circumstances, bringing a new level of fitness and a bludgeoning ground game that would lay the template to modern tennis and, ultimately, pushed the entire sport forward

@Freddy: the idea that Borg was so fast based upon an idea of his besting the Swedish sprinters is.......funny. I don't recall the Swedish sprinters ever winning an olympic medal, so I'm not sure that says much. Moreover, pulse rate (otherwise known as heart rate or, more technically, VO2 max) relates more to endurance and not speed. I just say again, watch the video. It's obvious. I don't care how many of you older guys try to say it, I cannot except that he was as fast as the fastest players today because, again, the balls were just not moving as fast. Again, there's a reason it looks like they're playing in slow motion in the 70's. Cause they were.

@manuelsantanafan
I guess I'm just not that bright. Listen dude. The game has changed/evolved. You don't come close to specifically responding to all of the points I make about he evolution of the game. Moreover, I didn't just say that height, size equals quality. However, there's a reason we've never seen a repeat of a Laver sized person being number one over the past 20 years? Not even close. It's clear that, today, to be the best player, you need to be no less than about 6'1" to be at the top of the game. But, Mr. Santanafan, you hold your breath waiting for another player at 5'8" who will achieve even a single GS (w/the exception of the French) in the future. It's sadly not likely to occur.

@YetAnotherLurker
As for Laver beating taller players, you've skipped over other aspects of my post. For example, I said it indicates the limited nature of the talent pool that Laver, at his stature, was able to dominate his era. Sorry, he could not do so today. Not close. He couldn't do it today because size, strength, speed (or court coverage) are bigger factors in today's game than they were in the game during Laver's time. That was the heart of the serve/volley tennis era. You served, rushed the net, and the point was over. That game would lose today. Therefore, Laver would have to rely upon other skills where his stature would act as a limitation. Perhaps I should make a slightly more nuanced point that, if today's players had to play with yesteryears' rackets, that Laver might have a chance to compete (no way dominate, he's just too small/weak comparatively). However, there's equally no question, that if Laver is forced to play with modern equipment, he gets waxed. Not just loses, he doesn't win a game and maybe even loses to Serena.

@YetAnotherLurker
are you kidding. In the 20s and 30s you had the reigning title holder at a GS waiting to play the other person who made it through the draw. Are you seriously comparing the skill sets of the players from the 20s and 30s(Tilden, the four musketeers, Budge etc.) with the skills of players today. The evolution of the athlete in that time is enormous. The impact of money on the game, is enormous. Just look at the speeds in the 100M or the marathon to see how training has impacted sport in that time. Again, if you simply took the number one player from, say 1930, and gave him a new racket and strings (making sure he knows/understands how those things impact how he'll have to play), he gets KILLED by Roger Federer. Not only has the game evolved. More importantly the entire science and training that is sport today means our modern athlete is just light years better than those from that time. Add to that the globalization of the talent pool and you've got a much tougher road for a player to become the best today than you did in the 20s. In the 20s/30s remember, it was an amateur sport. No longer today (Wimbledon this year will award $1.54M to the winner). And that money matters. It matters hugely to the level of competition and the quality of athlete (many of whom, Like Nadal, could have been great athletes in other sports). That's just part of the reason the modern tennis star kills the tennis stars from not only the 20s/30s but from Laver's day as well. Sorry to attack some of you folks' heroes, it's just the nature of sport. Athletes get bigger, stronger faster. It doesn't necessarily result in a more aesthetically pleasing game. However, the best amongst the modern tennis players would simply kill the best amongst their ancient ancestors.