*Official* Tennis Thread

[Sanz]

the same has been said of federer and in my opinion it is not really a valid argument.....

Why Not ? You think Federer would have won as many GS Singles titles in the era of Sampras etc ?

 

[Sanz]

because of the difference in courts(speed, make), better strength and fitness regimens, vastly different equipment(racquets, balls etc), there is no definitive way to compare across eras especially the greatest few...hence the comparison of individual achievements...

Big fan of Steffi Graf, but it must be said that she clearly benefitted from Monica Seles absence from tennis after the stabbing, Not to mention Seles never recovered from her injury. Before her injury she owned Graf. One can check the Reocrd of Seles/Graf matches between 1990 French Open and last match at Hamburg Open when Seles was stabbed.

Having watched both Serena and Graf play, IMO there isn't much doubt that Serena is just a better player and by quite a distance.

 

[Matt79]

Why Not ? You think Federer would have won as many GS Singles titles in the era of Sampras etc ?

Would Sampras have won as many titles in the era of Federer and Nadal? Guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, even an old Agassi, are a pretty solid undercard in this era.

Soderling earnt his spot in the final - not least by taking out Nadal on his pet surface and therefore opening that side of the draw right up.

 

[Uppercut]

Martina and Evett's dominance over such a long period actually argues slightly against their case. Was the competition depth actually there? Serena has competed against Hingis, and most of all Venus, as well as many tough fully professional challengerd in that time such as Davenport and Henin, and when fit she's brained them all.

Personally I think Henin at her peak was better than Serena. In terms of great all-time players that's not relevant, because you have to judge them on achievements. But for a period of a few years Henin had the best, most complete game of any tennis player I've seen.

 

[irfan]

Reckon Roger will be caught off guard and be pushed to 5 sets tonight. Roddick's playing some very good tennis and has made big improvements in his arsenal outside his traditional weapons - big serve and booming forehand. I'm not convinced that Roddick has made the mental adjustments that afflicts him when playing Federer in Grand Slams and that could be the difference as Federer should win more of the big points.

Will be awesome if Feds can win the Wimbledon, US and Oz next year as this is the best chance he's ever gonna get of achieving the Grand Slam.

 

[irfan]

Personally I think Henin at her peak was better than Serena. In terms of great all-time players that's not relevant, because you have to judge them on achievements. But for a period of a few years Henin had the best, most complete game of any tennis player I've seen.

Easily had the best backhand in the game.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Roddick's problem tonight is that Federer returns his serve so well. He's in serious trouble if Roger returns well, as he very rarely breaks him so he needs to go to tiebreaks to have a real shot (with his amazing tiebreak record of 26 wins 4 losses this year).

He can't do it IMO but I hope he does.

 

[Uppercut]

Roddick's problem tonight is that Federer returns his serve so well. He's in serious trouble if Roger returns well, as he very rarely breaks him so he needs to go to tiebreaks to have a real shot (with his amazing tiebreak record of 26 wins 4 losses this year).

He can't do it IMO but I hope he does.

As i pointed out before, Roddick hit less aces and less unreturned serves than Murray in the semis and still won in four sets. His game isn't as reliant on the big serve as it once was.

I still can't see him winning though. Federer just plays him too well.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

As i pointed out before, Roddick hit less aces and less unreturned serves than Murray in the semis and still won in four sets. His game isn't as reliant on the big serve as it once was.

I still can't see him winning though. Federer just plays him too well.

Yeah but to beat Federer he needs his serve. Federer has a second serve ten-thousand times better than Murray's so Roddick can't rely on stepping in and hitting clean winners off it for cheap points like he was doing in the third and fourth sets. He needs cheap points off his serve and he needs to hope Federer's backhand is a little off because even if he vollies as well as he did against Murray, Federer will pass him clean on both sides if he's hitting them decently.

 

[pasag]

Roddick serving very well, though looks pretty nervous.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Roddick serving very well, though looks pretty nervous.

You think so? Looks the most confident I've ever seen him in a match against Federer. Calm, hitting the ball well (more winners and less unforced errors than Fed) and serving extremely well. Not seeing the nerves, Federer is just serving very well and Roddick isn't a great return of serve at the best of times.

He should definitely serve & volley more, Federer just bunts his serve back into play every time. He'd get some cheap points.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

****, here we go. Same old story with Roddick against Federer.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

**** tennis is hard to watch when you actually care who wins.

 

[vogue]

Think Roddick played well to save those break points against him..and this looking interesting point in the match....

..and very much so.... Roddick taking the first set...well done him!

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

****. YES.

Haven't jumped around my loungeroom like that since Benjani's goal at Old Trafford last season.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Flukish yankish fluke....if just one of those balls in the eleventh game had landed half an inch shorter...

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Flukish yankish fluke....if just one of those balls in the eleventh game had landed half an inch shorter...

"If tennis had different rules then...."

 

[Sanz]

Would Sampras have won as many titles in the era of Federer and Nadal? Guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, even an old Agassi, are a pretty solid undercard in this era.

TBF Sampras owned Agassi pretty much all his career in Grandslams. Pete may not have won 14 in Roger's era but that would be only because of Roger.

Soderling earnt his spot in the final - not least by taking out Nadal on his pet surface and therefore opening that side of the draw right up.

Not taking anything away from Soderling, just pointint that the Final was not a quality match.

 

[grecian]

TBF Sampras owned Agassi pretty much all his career in Grandslams. Pete may not have won 14 in Roger's era but that would be only because of Roger.



Not taking anything away from Soderling, just pointint that the Final was not a quality match.

Meh everyone gets easy grand-slam finals every now and again, Cedric Pioline anyone???

 

[pasag]

Huge upset on the cards here?