Quote:
Originally Posted by ut_jazz
You are right that Roddick should have won the 2nd set tiebreak to go up 2 sets to none. Tiebreakers are usually his strong point but give credit to Federer for fighting back....But I disagree with your second statement, Nadal's grind it out game is more prone to injury that's why I doubt he'll be as dominant for as long as Roger has been and continues to be.
|
I don't expect Nadal to have as long of a career. But then he doesn't have to. Nadal has proven to be the superior player, Nadal started winning slams at a younger age and he's developed at a quicker pace than Federer.
And even if Nadal doesn't get to 20, he's already proven that he's the better player than Roger by dominating the head to head matchups. While Roger has never had a solid win against anyone that would be considered great,