*Official* Tennis Thread

[SirBloody Idiot]

Federer spraying Djokovic's parents during their semi-final at Monte Carlo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpd23dTcT6c

Anyone seen this? This was the first time I saw it. Pretty funny lol.

Djokovic is impossible to like purely because of his father.

 

[Johnners]

Djokovic > Tennis.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Borg wasn't a fly either. His own French Open dominance in an era ,so full of All Time Greats, had as much to do with his his physical strength as his game.

Borg was an infinitely better player over all and almost as good in physical strength, fitness etc.

Of course Borg was the better player overall. The question is whether he could beat Nadal on clay.

As for his era, take a look at his opponents:

1974 -- Manuel Orantes (1 Grand Slam, 1 runner-up)
1975 & 1978 -- Guillermo Vilas (4 Grand Slams, 4 runner-ups)
1979 -- Víctor Pecci (only Grand Slam final appearance)
1980 -- Vitas Gerulaitis (1 Grand Slam, 2 runner-ups)
1981 -- Ivan Lendl (8 Grand Slams, 11 runner-ups)

Lendl didn't win a Grand Slam until after Borg retired, so the only real rival Borg had on clay was Guillermo Vilas, who only won the French Open in '77 when Borg didn't play. A lot of top players like Conners skipped the French during this era. It wasn't until the Lendl/Wilander/Edberg era that players starting trying to win every Grand Slam.

 

[Jono]

Loving all the talk about what Roge has to do.

What does Nadal have to do to be other than a one-trick clay pony? Guy's a freak on that surface, but what does he have to do to win slams on other surfaces? I suspect he'll do it coz I think he's good enough, but it would be an odd record if he wins, say 6 or 8 slams, and they're all the French Opens.

One-trick clay pony? Wow, very mis-informed post.

Happen to watch Wimbledon last year?

Seen Nadal's record vs. Federer on hard court surfaces?

 

[Simon]

Nadal will win Wimbledon this year. Big call yes, but it's a feeling I've got.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I reckon he will do it too. He was paying $7 before the French (3rd favourite), and has now dropped to $5.

Wish I got on earlier.

 

[Johnners]

Novak will kick his arse all the way back to Rolan Garros at Wimbledon. Rafa's got no chance.

 

[Simon]

Novak will kick his arse all the way back to Rolan Garros at Wimbledon. Rafa's got no chance.

No chance? big call.

 

[Jono]

He's just saying that because he doesn't like Rafa.

Nadal has just as much chance as winning Wimbledon as Novak has. They'll both me on the same side of the draw and will have to beat each other, barring upsets, in the semis to win the tournament.

Either of them winning will be huge. I think if Novak wins he'll go a long way to getting that #2 spot off Nadal. If Nadal wins, #1 spot is in sight.

 

[Mister Wright]

Still think Federer is a Gallioth when it comes to Wimbledon. Much like Sampras, whenever he was in one of his very rare poor patches he always pumped it out at Wimbledon (only time he was ever threatened, late in the tournament, was when The Poo almost beat him, but got injured). Think Federer will do the same, much like an underdog Queensland side.

 

[Sanz]

Of course Borg was the better player overall. The question is whether he could beat Nadal on clay.

Yes and you have no way of telling that. Nadal doesn't even have as many french open titles as Borg. He still is 2 titles shy of Borg's no.

As for his era, take a look at his opponents:

1974 -- Manuel Orantes (1 Grand Slam, 1 runner-up)
1975 & 1978 -- Guillermo Vilas (4 Grand Slams, 4 runner-ups)
1979 -- Víctor Pecci (only Grand Slam final appearance)
1980 -- Vitas Gerulaitis (1 Grand Slam, 2 runner-ups)
1981 -- Ivan Lendl (8 Grand Slams, 11 runner-ups)

Lendl didn't win a Grand Slam until after Borg retired, so the only real rival Borg had on clay was Guillermo Vilas, who only won the French Open in '77 when Borg didn't play. A lot of top players like Conners skipped the French during this era. It wasn't until the Lendl/Wilander/Edberg era that players starting trying to win every Grand Slam.

That proves nothing, because all it shows is who Borg played in the Finals. The era he played in had stars like Nastase, Connors, Villas, Ashe, Mcenroe and young talents like Wilander, Lendl and then Clay court specialists like Orantes, Kodes, Solomon and Panatta.

That some players didn't win a Granslam Title or as many titles can be attiributed to Borg's dominance as well.

 

[Anil]

One-trick clay pony? Wow, very mis-informed post.

Happen to watch Wimbledon last year?

Seen Nadal's record vs. Federer on hard court surfaces?

yeah he is a definite threat on any surface, not to the extent he is on clay but he nearly beat federer in wimbledon, the only player to take feds to 5 there during his 5-year unbeaten run, and he reached the australian semis as well this year...i don't think a clay-court specialist can do all that...

 

[Sanz]

One-trick clay pony? Wow, very mis-informed post.

Happen to watch Wimbledon last year?

Seen Nadal's record vs. Federer on hard court surfaces?

May be slightly mis-informed but its hard to not have that kind of Impression. In Tennis, more than any other sport, a player's success is defined by his success in Grand Slam Tournaments. Rafael Nadal has no other Slam to show for.

Even outside of Grandslams, Nadal doesn't have a single Grass Court Title so far and only one Hard Court Title in last 2 years.

I myself am a big fan of Nadal's game and think he is awesone but its hard to take him seriously outside of Clay Surface unless he starts winning those titles consistently.

 

[Anil]

Yes and you have no way of telling that. Nadal doesn't even have as many french open titles as Borg. He still is 2 titles shy of Borg's no.



That proves nothing, because all it shows is who Borg played in the Finals. The era he played in had stars like Nastase, Connors, Villas, Ashe, Mcenroe and young talents like Wilander, Lendl and then Clay court specialists like Orantes, Kodes, Solomon and Panatta.

That some players didn't win a Granslam Title or as many titles can be attiributed to Borg's dominance as well.

you forgot amritraj...

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Yes and you have no way of telling that. Nadal doesn't even have as many french open titles as Borg. He still is 2 titles shy of Borg's no.

Nobody knows how to beat Nadal right now. Borg said he'd play patiently. Nadal said he'd play aggressively. The fact is there's never been a clay court player like Nadal.

That proves nothing, because all it shows is who Borg played in the Finals. The era he played in had stars like Nastase, Connors, Villas, Ashe, Mcenroe and young talents like Wilander, Lendl and then Clay court specialists like Orantes, Kodes, Solomon and Panatta.

Ilie Năstase never made it past the quarters in the Borg era.

Conners was banned from the 1974 French Open & didn't play there again until 1979. He made the semis in '79 and '80, losing to Victor Pecci Sr. and Vitas Gerulaitis.

Ashe never got past the fourth round in the few years he was seeded.

McEnroe was absent in '78 and '79. His best result in the Borg era was the quarters where he lost to Lendl.

Wilander made his famous debut at the French Open in '82, the year that Borg played one tournament.

Borg's rivals on clay were Panatta, Vilas, Kodes, Solomon, Gerulaitis and Orantes. Panatta is the only player who ever beat Borg at the French Open, in the fourth round in 1973 and the quarter finals in 1976.

That some players didn't win a Granslam Title or as many titles can be attiributed to Borg's dominance as well.

Um, that's exactly what Nadal is doing now. The guy has a 154-14 record on clay. He's not only dominating the French, but the other prestigious clay court tournaments (Rome, Monte Carlo, Hamburg) to an extent Borg never did. Clay court specialists can't get a look in.

 

[Jono]

May be slightly mis-informed but its hard to not have that kind of Impression. In Tennis, more than any other sport, a player's success is defined by his success in Grand Slam Tournaments. Rafael Nadal has no other Slam to show for.

Even outside of Grandslams, Nadal doesn't have a single Grass Court Title so far and only one Hard Court Title in last 2 years.

I myself am a big fan of Nadal's game and think he is awesone but its hard to take him seriously outside of Clay Surface unless he starts winning those titles consistently.

A one-trick pony is someone like Almagro, or David Ferrer at times. Going back a little, a Gastan Gaudio.

Nadal isn't by any means a champion all-courter yet, but he's still very competitive on all surfaces, and one thing people are forgetting, whilst Mardy Fish, Canas (last year) and Djokovic may have been beating Federer on hard court surfaces recently, Nadal was doing it in 2004-06. When Federer was at his peak.

That being said, I do agree Nadal needs to win a non-clay Grand Slam soon to be really respected. Hopefully he does it at Wimbldedon. At the Australian Open he's had a habit of falling to pieces against the eventual finalist (Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga).

 

[Sanz]

Nobody knows how to beat Nadal right now. Borg said he'd play patiently. Nadal said he'd play aggressively. The fact is there's never been a clay court player like Nadal.

No, it is not a fact. It is your opinion. Just because one plays aggresively doesn't mean he/she is going to win.

Ilie Năstase never made it past the quarters in the Borg era.

What ?? Nastase was the Champion in 1973, the year before Borg became the French Champion for the first time. And that a player like Nastase never made it beyond QF since 1973 is a testimony to the quality of Clay Court Players in that era. Nastase was always beaten by the likes of Solomen, Panetta, Orantes

Conners was banned from the 1974 French Open & didn't play there again until 1979. He made the semis in '79 and '80, losing to Victor Pecci Sr. and Vitas Gerulaitis.

Ashe never got past the fourth round in the few years he was seeded.

McEnroe was absent in '78 and '79. His best result in the Borg era was the quarters where he lost to Lendl.

What is the point ? Are you trying suggest that all of Borg's wins were possible because of the above ? Borg played all of them at different times and won the Open with or without all of them. So your pick and choose doesn't really matter.

Wilander made his famous debut at the French Open in '82, the year that Borg played one tournament.

I admit my mistake, for some reason I though Wilander and Lendl started their careers together.

Borg's rivals on clay were Panatta, Vilas, Kodes, Solomon, Gerulaitis and Orantes. Panatta is the only player who ever beat Borg at the French Open, in the fourth round in 1973 and the quarter finals in 1976.

That's how good Borg was, despite competition from some of the best Clay Court Players ever, he managed to win 6 titles in a relatively very short career. He had 30 Clay Court Titles in an era where Villas alone had 45

Um, that's exactly what Nadal is doing now. The guy has a 154-14 record on clay. He's not only dominating the French, but the other prestigious clay court tournaments (Rome, Monte Carlo, Hamburg) to an extent Borg never did. Clay court specialists can't get a look in.

First of all Borg won 3 MonteCarlo competition between 1976-1980. Which I will call as domination in an era of so many world class Clay Court players. Secondly Nadal has not dominated Hamburg as you are saying. Lastly I have never questioned Nadal's dominance in this era but just your theory that he is best ever and would have beaten Borg.

 

[Burgey]

One-trick clay pony? Wow, very mis-informed post.

Happen to watch Wimbledon last year?

Seen Nadal's record vs. Federer on hard court surfaces?

Of course, but the point is, if Nadal happens not to win a major on another surface (not saying that will happen, I'm hypothesizing), then in say 15-20 years, people will look back on him as a clay courter, albeit a great one.

Fair play to Nadal for his comments post-match as well re. the reasons for his not being OTT with his celebrations. He and Federer clearly have a lot of mutual respect for each other.

Edit: re. Wimbledon, I think Nadal can take Novak there. Dunno why, just think it's so - his confidence must just be enormous ATM.

 

[Simon]

He's just saying that because he doesn't like Rafa.

Nadal has just as much chance as winning Wimbledon as Novak has. They'll both me on the same side of the draw and will have to beat each other, barring upsets, in the semis to win the tournament.

Either of them winning will be huge. I think if Novak wins he'll go a long way to getting that #2 spot off Nadal. If Nadal wins, #1 spot is in sight.

Wont neccisarily be on the same side, Federer will be #1 seed at the top of the draw, Rafa #2 at the bottom then Novak being #3 is a 50/50 chance either being at the bottom of the top half or the top of the bottom half.

 

[Jono]

Oh yeah you're right! Because Djokovic was on Federer's side of the draw at the Aus Open, yet was on Nadal's side at the French.

Interesting.