PDA

View Full Version : Nadal wins Wimby? or Federer wins French?


Tchocky
06-12-2007, 12:03 PM
Which will happen first? I don't think either of these guys can beat each other on the other guy's best surface. I hate to say it but Federer will never win the French Open just as long as he has to play Nadal in the Final. Roger is 0-6 against Nadal in best of 5 set matches on clay. Zero and six! Last year Nadal shocked everybody by making it to the finals at Wimbledon even though he was the favorite in all his matches leading to the final. Did he have an easy draw...yes. But he still won 6 best of 5 set matches on grass to get to the final. Only one other guy did that and he walked away with the title. You have to give Nadal credit for getting to the final. Last year, I gave Nadal very little chance of beating Federer on grass. If Nadal & Federer meet again in the Final at the All England Club, I think Nadal will have a good chance of pulling off the upset.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 07:15 PM
OK I'll bite:

-Nadal will never win Wimbledon.

-Nadal will never reach another Wimbledon final, but if he ever did, or ever played Federer at Wimbledon again Federer would crush him. The 2006 Wimbledon final is one of the worst matches I ever saw Federer play, and I think it was due to the shock factor of Nadal being in a Wimbledon final and not being mentally prepared for the pressures of that "no win" situation almost. If Nadal playing the grass court tennis of his life cant even come close to beating Federer playing like "that" he never will.

-Federer will win the French Open somehow. Either he upsets Nadal one year, or Nadal gets upset. One way or another he will win it.

-Nadal will also never win the U.S Open.

-Nadal could win an Australian Open at some point.

That is pretty much it.

tennishead93
06-12-2007, 07:26 PM
nice reasoning fedfanatic

Alex132
06-12-2007, 07:47 PM
OK I'll bite:

-Nadal will never win Wimbledon.

-Nadal will never reach another Wimbledon final, but if he ever did, or ever played Federer at Wimbledon again Federer would crush him. The 2006 Wimbledon final is one of the worst matches I ever saw Federer play, and I think it was due to the shock factor of Nadal being in a Wimbledon final and not being mentally prepared for the pressures of that "no win" situation almost. If Nadal playing the grass court tennis of his life cant even come close to beating Federer playing like "that" he never will.

-Federer will win the French Open somehow. Either he upsets Nadal one year, or Nadal gets upset. One way or another he will win it.

-Nadal will also never win the U.S Open.

-Nadal could win an Australian Open at some point.

That is pretty much it.

darn, looks pretty bad for Nadal except French Open :P

WhiteSox05CA
06-12-2007, 07:57 PM
I don't think Nadal will win Wimbledon or the US Open- or Australia for that matter. He'll win tournaments on hard courts definately- nothing more than the PLO, and he'll continue to dominate on clay. Last year he had a very easy route to the final at Wimby. Also, the competition is much tougher at the other three slams because more of the players can be at there best.

psamp14
06-12-2007, 08:05 PM
my opinion is that federer will win the french open for sure (2008/2009 only) if he's not facing nadal in the final..after 2009 i think age factors in and federer probably will not reach the final

nadal will never win wimbledon or the us open...although the australian open is switching away from rebound ace to a hardcourt similar to the us open but slower, i think nadal will win a couple of titles there in the future, if he maintains his current level of play, or maintains a level close to what he's at right now

TennisandMusic
06-12-2007, 08:22 PM
Apparently FedererFanatic's complete and utter hatred for Nadal knows no bounds. :p

stormholloway
06-12-2007, 08:27 PM
You people are out of your mind. Nadal reached the Wimbledon final at a younger age than Federer.

If Nadal can win Indian Wells, why not the US Open? If Agassi can win on every surface, so can Nadal.

I hear a bunch of claims but no support for the arguments, which are ridiculous.

helloworld
06-12-2007, 08:40 PM
This poll just shows how many dillusional fans are there ready to go against Nadal. The kid is so young and he already reached Wimbledon final on his freakin third attempt ! If you think Nadal can't win Wimbledon, US open, or Australian open, then you're obviously dillusional.

tennis_hand
06-12-2007, 09:59 PM
You people are out of your mind. Nadal reached the Wimbledon final at a younger age than Federer.

If Nadal can win Indian Wells, why not the US Open? If Agassi can win on every surface, so can Nadal.

I hear a bunch of claims but no support for the arguments, which are ridiculous.

It seems that you don't know much about Wimlby last year, and you don't know the difference in courts between IW and USO, and the different style of games Agassi played from that Nadal plays.

of course, unless Nadal changes along the way, but not in the current style.

grizzly4life
06-12-2007, 10:02 PM
what were those choices? was that brainstorming on alcohol?.... which will happen first? nadal will never win wimbledon. does that make sense?

welcome2petrkordaland
06-12-2007, 11:02 PM
yeah, a whole lotta stupidity and shortsightedness in this thread. And the poll is butt dumb.

caulcano
06-12-2007, 11:58 PM
This poll just shows how many dillusional fans are there ready to go against Nadal. The kid is so young and he already reached Wimbledon final on his freakin third attempt ! If you think Nadal can't win Wimbledon, US open, or Australian open, then you're obviously dillusional.

Yes, there are dillusional fans on the boards. However, even though he is young, I don't think he is young in tennis years (3 GS wins & a GS final appearance).

I do think he'll win a few of the remaining GS, which one(s) I dont know, nothing really stands out imo.

Rhino
06-13-2007, 12:09 AM
There is a lot of fuss being made about Nadals Wimbledon final. Good on him he did well, but HE WILL NEVER MAKE THE FINAL AGAIN, because the chances of having a draw as easy as that again are too slim.
His route to the quarters in 2006:
Alex Bogdanovic (who had not won a single match all year, ATP 135),
Robert Kendrick (who had won 1 match all year before Wimbledon, ATP 237),
Andre Agassi (who was 36 with a bad back, even Henman beat him at Queens),
Irakli Labadze (who had won 1 match all year before Wimbledon, ATP 166)

Does that make you a 'proven factor' on grass?.
Sounds like a challenger tournament to me. Or futures.

Zaragoza
06-13-2007, 03:09 AM
There is a lot of fuss being made about Nadals Wimbledon final. Good on him he did well, but HE WILL NEVER MAKE THE FINAL AGAIN, because the chances of having a draw as easy as that again are too slim.
His route to the quarters in 2006:
Alex Bogdanovic (who had not won a single match all year, ATP 135),
Robert Kendrick (who had won 1 match all year before Wimbledon, ATP 237),
Andre Agassi (who was 36 with a bad back, even Henman beat him at Queens),
Irakli Labadze (who had won 1 match all year before Wimbledon, ATP 166)

Does that make you a 'proven factor' on grass?.
Sounds like a challenger tournament to me. Or futures.

He will make the final again because he is 21 and has many Wimbledons to play yet. How curious, you bring up the first 4 rounds (including Agassi and a big server like Kendrick who Brad Gilbert predicted to upset Nadal) and ignore the QF and SF wins in straight sets over Baghdatis and Nieminen.
Federer´s route to the quarters in the FO this year:
Russell
Ascione
Starace
Youzhny
Tell me their best results ever in the FO please.
Nadal won 5 of 6 matches in straight sets. Baghdatis beat Grosjean, Murray and Hewitt but lost to Nadal in straights (curious huh?) Nadal was the only one to take a set off Federer and he was close to win a 2nd. Another coincidence with the French Open this year since Federer was the only one to take a set off Nadal.

latinking
06-13-2007, 05:34 AM
He will make the final again because he is 21 and has many Wimbledons to play yet. How curious, you bring up the first 4 rounds (including Agassi and a big server like Kendrick who Brad Gilbert predicted to upset Nadal) and ignore the QF and SF wins in straight sets over Baghdatis and Nieminen.
Federerīs route to the quarters in the FO this year:
Russell
Ascione
Starace
Youzhny
Tell me their best results ever in the FO please.
Nadal won 5 of 6 matches in straight sets. Baghdatis beat Grosjean, Murray and Hewitt but lost to Nadal in straights (curious huh?) Nadal was the only one to take a set off Federer and he was close to win a 2nd. Another coincidence with the French Open this year since Federer was the only one to take a set off Nadal.



All this is true, all good points.

latinking
06-13-2007, 05:42 AM
Nadal, is still one of the best players in the word on any surface. To say he will never win other slams or make the final of other slams is nieve. If this year has shown us anything is that, when Fed lost to Canas twice, and Voladri, anything can happen, thats why they play.

Rhino
06-13-2007, 08:33 AM
He will make the final again because he is 21 and has many Wimbledons to play yet. How curious, you bring up the first 4 rounds (including Agassi and a big server like Kendrick who Brad Gilbert predicted to upset Nadal) and ignore the QF and SF wins in straight sets over Baghdatis and Nieminen.
Federerīs route to the quarters in the FO this year:
Russell
Ascione
Starace
Youzhny


Dude that lineup is hot compared to what Nadal faced in his first 4 rounds at Wimby '06. If you total up all the ATP matches won in 2006 prior to Wimbledon by Bogdanovic, Kendrick, Agassi, and Labadze it comes to a grand total of 5.
If you do the same - add up how many ATP matches Russell, Ascione, Starace, and Youzhny won in 2007 prior to Roland Garros (which is earlier) it comes to 47 match wins including multiple finals (Youzhny and Starace), so I don't see how you can say they are the same class?????

Trust me - that lineup Nadal faced at Wimbledon is challenger grade, and if you want to talk about Baghdatis, he'd NEVER won a match on grass before Wimbledon '06, despite playing Halle that year and Wimbledon/Queens the year before.

stormholloway
06-13-2007, 10:21 AM
It seems that you don't know much about Wimlby last year, and you don't know the difference in courts between IW and USO, and the different style of games Agassi played from that Nadal plays.

of course, unless Nadal changes along the way, but not in the current style.

Why?

What a bogus argument. You say I don't know this or that, then you say he can't do it.

Why? It's called supporting your argument. If you finished school you might understand this.

Nadal went to the Wimbledon final at age 20. He doesn't have a problem with surfaces. He went to the Wimbledon final at a younger age than Agassi, and perhaps Sampras if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps I don't know the difference in surfaces between Indian Wells and the US Open. I can tell you there's not that big a difference.

Sure, Wimbledon grass is slower. Big deal. It's still grass. You probably would have said Bjorn Borg would never have won Wimbledon.

You're wrong.

federerfanatic
06-13-2007, 01:04 PM
Doing something younger does not automatically translate to better, or indicate anything. First of all Nadal is an early bloomer, much more so then Sampras or Agassi. Chang won a French Open much younger age then Nadal or Kuerten so he must be much better then them on clay by that logic. Becker won Wimbledon much younger then Sampras so he must be far superior at Wimbledon too by that logic.

TheTruth
06-13-2007, 06:16 PM
Go Nadal! Three weeks of practice on the grass and you end up in the final. You're coming into the net. You've got soft hands. And everyone knows you're fearless. Go to SW19 and kick some butt, and even if you don't take the trophy home, let 'em know you were there! Vamos, Raging Bull!

stormholloway
06-13-2007, 11:02 PM
Doing something younger does not automatically translate to better, or indicate anything. First of all Nadal is an early bloomer, much more so then Sampras or Agassi. Chang won a French Open much younger age then Nadal or Kuerten so he must be much better then them on clay by that logic. Becker won Wimbledon much younger then Sampras so he must be far superior at Wimbledon too by that logic.

Doesn't indicate anything? That's just not true.

Chang was never near as dominant as Rafa. Rafa is number two in the world by leaps and bounds and has a winning record over the number one player.

I never said Nadal was far superior to anyone because he accomplished things at a younger age. That wasn't even the argument. Stay in the game bud. The argument is whether or not he can win Wimbledon. He certainly gave Federer his most challenging final at Wimbledon thus far. Perhaps you should elaborate more on reasons he can't, instead of going off on tangents and non-sequitirs.

You're clearly bias as well. Any Federer fanatic wouldn't want to give Rafa props so they bash him. You've done nothing to support your argument that Rafa can't win Wimbledon. Give me some proof.

tennis_hand
06-14-2007, 12:33 AM
^^^^

I think Roddick challenged Fed the most in 04. nadal's challenge last year is nothing compared to Roddick's in 04.

caulcano
06-14-2007, 01:04 AM
Doesn't indicate anything? That's just not true.

Chang was never near as dominant as Rafa. Rafa is number two in the world by leaps and bounds and has a winning record over the number one player.

I never said Nadal was far superior to anyone because he accomplished things at a younger age. That wasn't even the argument. Stay in the game bud. The argument is whether or not he can win Wimbledon. He certainly gave Federer his most challenging final at Wimbledon thus far. Perhaps you should elaborate more on reasons he can't, instead of going off on tangents and non-sequitirs.

You're clearly bias as well. Any Federer fanatic wouldn't want to give Rafa props so they bash him. You've done nothing to support your argument that Rafa can't win Wimbledon. Give me some proof.

What he's saying is just because Nadal reached a Wimbledon final at a young-ish age, it doesn't mean he's the next best thing. Nadal is clearly #2 but is he #2 on non clay-courts? I don't know because I don't have the time to find out.

I personally think he can under the right circumstances (Agassi's Wimbledon victory is an example), but maybe the right circumstances was last year and Nadal may never reach the Wimbledon final again. Whos knows but I wouldn't bet against him.

stormholloway
06-14-2007, 12:54 PM
If Hewitt can win Wimbledon, Nadal can do it. Nadal's Wimbledon final was no fluke. Gilbert picked Nadal to win Wimbledon last year, and he ended up reaching the final. For the most part, his losses in slams other than the French are due to confidence more than inability to play different surfaces.

I think Nadal is playing better overall than Federer right now. I expect him to make the final once again.

fleabitten
06-14-2007, 01:51 PM
It is silly to have a line item for both:
roger not winning the French
roger not winning the Career Slam

duh.. same thing

lambielspins
06-14-2007, 02:56 PM
Doesn't indicate anything? That's just not true.

Chang was never near as dominant as Rafa. Rafa is number two in the world by leaps and bounds and has a winning record over the number one player.

I never said Nadal was far superior to anyone because he accomplished things at a younger age. That wasn't even the argument. Stay in the game bud. The argument is whether or not he can win Wimbledon. He certainly gave Federer his most challenging final at Wimbledon thus far. Perhaps you should elaborate more on reasons he can't, instead of going off on tangents and non-sequitirs.

You're clearly bias as well. Any Federer fanatic wouldn't want to give Rafa props so they bash him. You've done nothing to support your argument that Rafa can't win Wimbledon. Give me some proof.

You keep telling everyone they are wrong but you are the one who has said jack all to back up your arguments, and are making a fool of yourself. Perhaps give some more valid reasoning then simple "if Agassi or Hewitt did this then Nadal will" or "he did it younger so that means he will do it better" baloney. As for tangent, you are the only one I see going off on one.

stormholloway
06-14-2007, 05:08 PM
I already did. Can you read?

A) He's already reached a Wimbledon final.
B) He's a dominant player, being a strong number two in the world and having a winning record over number one.
C) He's had big results on fast surfaces.
D) He's still developing as a player.

What else do you want?

I brought up Agassi and Hewitt because my opponent's argument was that Nadal would have to change his style to win Wimbledon. Baseliners have won Wimbledon. I also brought up Borg. Borg played with similar topspin to Nadal (considering the racquets) and won 5 times in a row.

Nadal? Well, he made the final, and took a set off the 3 time champion at 20 years old with little or no experience on grass. What exactly is so incompatible about his style? I've given plenty of reasons why Nadal can win Wimbledon. I've not heard one reason why he can't, so perhaps it's you and others who have the burden of proof.