*Official* Tennis Thread

[ohtani's jacket]

Nadal has pulled out of Queens right?

What are his chances of making Wimbledon and how far will he go if his knees really are in bad shape? Can he win another GS this year?

Can Federer regain the No.1 ranking?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

What are his chances of making Wimbledon and how far will he go if his knees really are in bad shape?

His knees have been shot since '05. He'll do all right.

Can he win another GS this year?

I'll say no. Too many good players to run into, even if he has the wood on Fed.

Can Federer regain the No.1 ranking?

If Federer wins Halle there's about 1,900 points separating them. So he probably has to win one more slam plus a couple Masters tournaments to have any chance of overtaking Nadal this year.

 

[Mister Wright]

But, if Federer wins Wimbledon and Nadal doesn't play or gets knocked out early because of injury won't Nadal lose a lot of points?

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

But, if Federer wins Wimbledon and Nadal doesn't play or gets knocked out early because of injury won't Nadal lose a lot of points?

He loses the whole 2000 I'm guessing. I vaguely remember that an injury means you don't have to count a GS or MS event if you didn't compete in it, which would probably mean his 45 points from Doha would count (and presumably anything else he can muster in not MS events this year).

 

[biased indian]

think nadal might skip Wimbledon ..rather than getting beaten in the first or second round

 

[Matt79]

Thrilled that Federer won the French - always hoped Sampras would manage it and have bled for him the last few years when (unlike Pete) he looked like he'd be good enough to be almost anyone on clay, but was simply outmatched by the greatest clay-courter of all time.

Question however - does this really remove the blot on Federer's claim of being the greatest of all time? He won the trophy, but did so in Nadal's absence. To have really obliterated the one question mark over his CV, he'd have to beat a fit Nadal at the French, non? To have won it is still a great achievement, and does go a long part of the way to cementing his place as the greatest, but there's still the counter-argument that can be made that he couldn't beat Nadal at the French.

 

[Sanz]

yeah.. juz an absolute pity that we have guys like Nadal and Fed who would be winning all slams in any era if they had not had each other to play against.

While they would be great players in any era, I seriously doubt they would have won as many Grand Slam Titles in any other era.

 

[Sanz]

Go Roger! He is greater than Sampras now and can challenge for the greatest tennis player of all time position. What a great champion.

Roger is great and having the French does help his case, but I am no so sure If he is better than Pete on other surfaces.

 

[Jono]

think nadal might skip Wimbledon ..rather than getting beaten in the first or second round

Nadal will not get beaten in the first or second round of Wimbledon, even if he plays.

He took a set off Murray on one leg, I'm sure he'll go deep into Wimbledon.

 

[pasag]

Thrilled that Federer won the French - always hoped Sampras would manage it and have bled for him the last few years when (unlike Pete) he looked like he'd be good enough to be almost anyone on clay, but was simply outmatched by the greatest clay-courter of all time.

Question however - does this really remove the blot on Federer's claim of being the greatest of all time? He won the trophy, but did so in Nadal's absence. To have really obliterated the one question mark over his CV, he'd have to beat a fit Nadal at the French, non? To have won it is still a great achievement, and does go a long part of the way to cementing his place as the greatest, but there's still the counter-argument that can be made that he couldn't beat Nadal at the French.

Without question for mine, the guy's made the final now what four years in a row? That alone shows how good he is. It's not like he's been going out first round every year.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Reckon beating Nadal at a RG Final would be the Everest of his career though, no?

 

[Sanz]

YouTube - Roger Federer Netjets ad

It was up as soon as he won. Funny and simple. I loved the ad.

 

[Matt79]

Oh for sure, and his resume as a clay courter was already far more complete than Sampras or even Agassi even prior to this weekend. But in his claim on being the greatest (and tbf to him, HE'S not the one personally making the claim that he is) there's still the issue that there's a player who has had his number EVERY time they've played at RG.

That said, all the greats would have some form of question mark over their accomplishment. Roger is the greatest for me, but I'd have loved it for him if he could have got his French title by finally beating Nadal in the final (but I don't think he could if Rafa was fit).

 

[Magrat Garlick]

That said, all the greats would have some form of question mark over their accomplishment.

except Laver.

 

[Pratters]

Roger is great and having the French does help his case, but I am no so sure If he is better than Pete on other surfaces.

He matches Sampras on other surfaces while is ahead on Clay. That makes him better. It is close though as Sampras was great on the other surfaces. And I say Federer>Sampras being a bigger Sampras fan (even though I am a Federer fan as well).

 

[Pratters]

except Laver.

Yeah. Laver is the greatest based purely on accomplishments.

 

[Matt79]

except Laver.

Even Laver has the question mark, compared to people like Federer, Sampras, Nadal and Agassi, of playing in a non-professional era when the pool of players was much much shallower. Same argument that is levelled against people like Barnes, Grace, Trumper, and Lohmann in cricket.

That said, that knock is probably more than made up for by Rod missing several of the best years of his career when he played as a pro. and was not able to compete in grand slams...

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Question however - does this really remove the blot on Federer's claim of being the greatest of all time? He won the trophy, but did so in Nadal's absence. To have really obliterated the one question mark over his CV, he'd have to beat a fit Nadal at the French, non? To have won it is still a great achievement, and does go a long part of the way to cementing his place as the greatest, but there's still the counter-argument that can be made that he couldn't beat Nadal at the French.

I don't see it that way.

Nadal went out in the fourth round, but Federer still had to fight his way to the title. A Grand Slam title is a Grand Slam title regardless of whether you beat Robin Soderling or Rafael Nadal.

The next time Federer and Nadal meet in a Grand Slam final, they'll be a question mark over Federer regardless of surface, but for now he took his opportunity.

 

[R_D]

For me he's definately the greatest...... i saw quite a bit of Pete Sampras and he was amazing player but Federer certainly does seem like he has more rounded game.
Would love to see him beat Rafa at French but Rafa's just too good on clay court.

 

[Jono]

Murray and Hewitt playing doubles together at Queens. Heh.