*Official* Tennis Thread

[Jono]

DESTRUCTION!

6-1, 6-3, 6-0.

Every year the commentators say the same thing, Roger has to change his game if he wants to win. I've heard that for the third year in a row, but I don't think it'll happen.

Oh and Clapo, I promised you I'd post some Rafa bicep, so here it is...

On to Wimbledon Rafa!

 

[Jono]

you cannot discount the fact that nadal has become even better a player especially on clay, i think it is more a case of nadal playing that much better than feds not playing well enough...

Its obviously both, but have you seen Roger's record this year? He's lost many matches. He lost in straight sets to Stepanek on clay for Christ's sake.

Roger's chance was in 2004 in the third round, and he lost to Kuerten in straight sets. Other than that its always been Nadal, and one of these days he's not going to be seeded 1, and will have a tougher draw.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Jarkko Nieminen got more games than Federer.

 

[Jono]

Just actually checked, Roger's record in 2008 on all surfaces is 31-9.

I dare say that from 04-07 at this time in June, Roger had never lost 9 matches. He's probably not even lost 9 from Jan-June in all those years put together actually

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Well that was demoralising.

Still a remarkable feat from Federer making the Final three years in a row. I hope he bounces back at Wimbledon, but he's clearly past his prime and he'll have to reinvent his game to win hard court Grand Slams.

 

[Jono]

Well that was demoralising.

Still a remarkable feat from Federer making the Final three years in a row. I hope he bounces back at Wimbledon, but he's clearly past his prime and he'll have to reinvent his game to win hard court Grand Slams.

Not necessarily re-invent (although he does have to re-invent on clay vs. Nadal, he'll never take 3 sets off Nadal if he's stubborn enough to try his one-hand backhand winners off Rafa's top spin), but just tweak every now and then. He's still going to be very difficult to beat, both at Wimbledon and at hard court tournaments (cf Masters Cup 2007 where he lost to Gonzalez in round robin, then came back to romp it), but the biggest missing factor is his aura of invincibility.

As well as Nadal and Djokovic, he's lost to Roddick, Murray, Mardy Fish and Radek Stepanek.

If I'm a Davydenko or Thomas Berdych etc. coming up against Federer in the quarters, I know its a possibility that I can win. In the past, everyone bar Nadal or Safin (way back when) knew they had lost before they even took off their tracksuit.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Just actually checked, Roger's record in 2008 on all surfaces is 31-9.

I dare say that from 04-07 at this time in June, Roger had never lost 9 matches. He's probably not even lost 9 from Jan-June in all those years put together actually

The pack definitely seems to have caught up with Fed, but in his defence he did contract glandular fever just before the Australian, which must've had some affect on his energy levels. He'd have maybe been better served to have missed the Australian Open and taken some time away to properly recover.

Then again, it could be a terminal decline; he's 27 now (I think) which is definitely early middle age in tennis terms.

 

[Anil]

Its obviously both, but have you seen Roger's record this year? He's lost many matches. He lost in straight sets to Stepanek on clay for Christ's sake.

i know...but he had been playing well in this tournament and he is still the clear no: 2 on clay, not djokovic...and he did put in a serious effort in the first few games but when your opponent is that much better on the surface and doesn't know the meaning of the word "quit", it is tough and as much as he tried to stay cool over the first two sets, the situation just became more and more hopeless...never thought this could happen but nadal is now a better player on grass courts than feds is on clay and has a serious chance at wimbledon along with djokovic....

 

[Jono]

Hmm, how can you say for sure that at this moment in time (i.e. forgetting pre-2008 clay tennis) that Federer is a clear no.2 on clay?

Djokovic won the Rome Masters, lost to Nadal at Hamburg in the semis, lost to Nadal at the French in the semis, and lost to Roger at Monte Carlo in the semis, but only after retiring. Yes he was losing when he retired (Novak retires a little too much for my liking, but oh well), but considering these results, I can't really see how you can say Roger is a clear no. 2 on clay.

They both push Nadal as much as the other, winning the odd set and taking him to the odd tie-break, and Novak almost took over Nadal's #2 rank earlier this year too had he beaten Nadal in the Hamburg semis.

What will be awesome is if Roger is seeded 2 in the French next year, and faces Roger in the semis. Because whilst I think Roger is slightly better when at his best on clay, its neither here nor there, and Novak was the one that was able to capitalise when Nadal finally lost a match on clay to Ferrer in Rome. Roger was busy losing to Stepanek

 

[Anil]

Hmm, how can you say for sure that at this moment in time (i.e. forgetting pre-2008 clay tennis) that Federer is a clear no.2 on clay?

Djokovic won the Rome Masters, lost to Nadal at Hamburg in the semis, lost to Nadal at the French in the semis, and lost to Roger at Monte Carlo in the semis, but only after retiring. Yes he was losing when he retired (Novak retires a little too much for my liking, but oh well), but considering these results, I can't really see how you can say Roger is a clear no. 2 on clay.

maybe it will change in the next year or two and both players are superb all-courters, but right now, i think federer is better than djokovic on clay....especially considering his health issues and early season hard-court form(or lack of it), he has played very well this season on clay...he did reach four clay finals and won one, losing the other three to nadal...

 

[Jono]

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.

 

[Mister Wright]

The pack definitely seems to have caught up with Fed, but in his defence he did contract glandular fever just before the Australian, which must've had some affect on his energy levels. He'd have maybe been better served to have missed the Australian Open and taken some time away to properly recover.

Then again, it could be a terminal decline; he's 27 now (I think) which is definitely early middle age in tennis terms.

John Newcombe was saying before Pat Rafter retired that around 28 is the best age for a tennis player. Not sure if it was true, or just a ploy to keep on the circuit.

 

[Sanz]

What a performance by Nadal. I watched the only game of French open and it was nice to see him demolish Roger.

Roger has to understand that his regular backhand isn't going to work on Clay. I am just so surprised to see him still that shot at French Open.

 

[Burgey]

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.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

The idea that Federer has to concoct some special game plan to beat Nadal sounds good in theory, but Nadal never dropped a set. Even if Federer had executed his game plan, I doubt Nadal would've lost. Federer would have won the title (if not three in a row) had he not run smack into Nadal & that's playing his normal clay game. Nadal's even better than Borg. If Borg were in Federer's shoes, Nadal would be beating him. That's how good his athleticism is. Going forward, all Federer can hope for is that Nadal stumbles at some point and doesn't rattle off eight in a row. On present form, you can pencil him in for the title next year. Obviously Federer was hurting; it was the worst Grand Slam defeat of his career. An absolute low point. But he's made a ton of people feel that way. And he's human after all. I hope he doesn't do anything crazy like retire.

 

[Anil]

i don't think even federer can suddenly concoct a potent two-handed backhand after playing all his career with a single-hander...and with his regular game, he has been the 2nd best clay-courter of his generation and would have won a couple of french opens by now if not for a gent called nadal...the guy would make anyone look rather amateurish on clay...

 

[Sanz]

Second best player really means nothing in an era of very Average clay court players with the exception of Nadal, it is not really a big deal to make the finals of French Open in this era. In 2004 Federer lost to Guga .

Secondly I just dont understand how can people make such outlandish remarks that Nadal is better than Borg is just beyond me. No sir, you have no way of telling that Nadal would have beaten Borg.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Nadal's dominance on clay has nothing to do with the quality of his opponents. It's entirely down to his physical attributes.

 

[Simon]

Really cant believe the way Nadal destroyed Roger in the final. We all knew Nadal was most likely going to win but that was insane.

 

[Sanz]

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.