The only place to watch the race for the title live
Re-live the year's first Major at Augusta
From man on the fringes to a key player, could Raheem Sterling now decide the destination of the title?
Matt Stanger reflects on a night that saw the title slip further out of Manchester City's grasp.
Daniel Storey has praise for Olivier Giroud after a soldiering performance against West Ham.
Hamilton or Rosberg? Will Merc maintain their perfect run? Can Ferrari prove Bahrain was a one-off?
Listen to Neil Reynolds and Jeff Reinebold's latest podcast as they discuss the state of the NFC West.
French Open winner Rafael Nadal will feel unbeatable going into this year's Wimbledon, says Barry Cowan.Back to story
I think there are two main issues here. 1. The clay-court season is much longer than the grass court one and I think that most of the 14 wins for Nadal are on clay whereas Federer has always favoured grass. I think he won a Junior at Wimbledon, unless I am mistaken. 2. As has been pointed out, Nadal had tendinitis.The physical effort that he puts in is huge. The fact that he suffered serious injury shows the effort required to beat Federer. Without a doubt, Federer is the technically superior player, but Nadal is more physical and fitter. That was how he beat Federer at Wimbledon. The fact that apart from one Wimbledon, Nadal has won all of his 7 Slams on Clay whereas Federer has one all four Slamsnat some stage or another says it all too. Federer would have 3 or 4 Roland Garros titles by now only for one player. While that one player happens to be Nadal, that is not the point. Finally, it is not that Federer is past his best, but that the rest have caught up is the problem. He, alone, has raised the bar for men's tennis and Nadal can win 15 Roland Garros titles and he still wont be as technically sound a player as Federer.
Posted 15:33 17th June 2010
brian hamill, not for the first time have you miss understood what point i or anyone els for that matter was making, not once did i or anyone els say nadal is a greater player than federer, as in overall achivements in the game of tennis, then of course federer thumps nadal in that respect, but head to head, nadal is the better player, he has a 14-7 winning record, has beaten fed on all the surfaces in majors, a feat in wich fed does not boast against nadal, and to say feds achivements will never be surpassed in our lifetime are a joke, nadal already has 7 slams to his name, and he is only 24, he will catch fed.
Posted 17:02 15th June 2010
brian hamill, how can you say federer is past his peak? nadal has had the beating of federer since 2005, and has beaten him 14 times to feds 7, and this is over the last 5 years, federe has not beaten nadal at the fence yet, and the facts spek for themselfs, how can you say federe is the better player witha loosing record? and how can you say nadal has reached absolute peak at just 24????? im sorry mate, but your wrong.
Posted 09:01 14th June 2010
Unlike the other guys who have posted here, I think Federer is well clear of Nadal with regard to who is the greater player. Nadal is unquestionably the better clay-court player, but to say he is the greater player overall on that basis is like saying Gustavo Kuerten is a greater player than Pete Sampras because Kuerten won multiple French Opens and Sampras won none. The widespread perception of who is the better player is also skewed a little, because Federer has been past his prime for a couple of years now, whereas Nadal has reached the absolute peak of his powers. The only way to measure greatness is by achievements, and the Roger Federer of the mid-2000s proved to be the greatest player ever by racking up a list of accomplishments which put Nadal firmly in the shade. Federer was the most consistent and complete player the sport has ever seen, and his majors record will remain unsurpassed in our lifetime.
Posted 15:50 11th June 2010
Nadal just edges federer as well as other players,would have been difficult for anyother player to come back like he did considering the problems of 09,let's not forget that he still managed to make it to the semi final of the us open but for the raw power of del potro he would have been in the final where I think he would have beaten federer(because federe doesn't have answer for him)I think he will win at sw19 this year because right now he's on a roll and I don't see fed regaining the number one ranking again.
Posted 07:38 10th June 2010
i think when it comes down to the bits and pieces, nadal just edges federer for me, federer had never faced anyone in slams before like nadal, who has a passion for every single shot he plays, never mind passion for the game, until nadal come along, guys were sometimes all too easily rolling over to the brilliance of fed, i mean he raised the bar, no one had seen shots like fed was able to pull of before, the angles were rediculus, but if you watch a replay of fed v nadal games, you will see that for the majority of there games, and thats a winning record of 14-7 to nadal by the way, nadal gets in to feds head, he disheartens fed like no other player mannaged to do before hand, not to mention he bullies the poor guy off the court, and i think because of this, fed will always struggle against nadal, so in a way fed is getting a taste of his own medicine, mentally telling other guys you dont stand a chance against me. nadal has now beaten fed on all the surfaces in slams (hard, clay and grass) lets not forget fed hasnt beaten nadal at the french yet (though he has beaten him on clay, just not in a major), but nadal has beaten fed at wimbledon, nadal is always mentally telling federer all the time with the shots he hits, im better than you, and federer just seems to crumble under disbeleif that he does not have the tools to undo nadal consistantly like he could other guys, but i now think its great at the emergance of soderling at grand slam level, knocking out nadal and fed in consecutive years, especially on clay, because it offers other guys hope.
Posted 08:15 9th June 2010
Hi Barry, you mentioned in your article that Nadal won his first grand slam at the tender age of 19 and he'd been winning top level events for years before that. Do you think that because of the depth in the mens game we might not see another player so young winning big tournaments? Is the transition from being a great junior to great senior becoming increasingly difficult?
Posted 11:33 8th June 2010