PDA

View Full Version : RRH to beat Federer, Monte Carlo


MasterTS
04-23-2008, 12:18 AM
Call it ridiculous but Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo is no joke!

He juts cooked Simon up like a roasted frog.

He's going to do damage to the fading federer.

Leublu tennis
04-23-2008, 12:26 AM
Ridiculous, thats what I call it.

stormholloway
04-23-2008, 12:30 AM
This one is going to bite you.

Fedace
04-23-2008, 12:38 AM
Call it ridiculous but Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo is no joke!

He juts cooked Simon up like a roasted frog.

He's going to do damage to the fading federer.

Is Simon a new dish they are serving in Monte Carlo ??:)

crawl4
04-23-2008, 12:40 AM
no way

fed FO

vndesu
04-23-2008, 12:43 AM
are you on crack?

IvanAndreevich
04-23-2008, 12:50 AM
are you on crack?

Stronger :) He's on Nadal.

Thor
04-23-2008, 05:02 AM
edited.........until moved to proper section
Thor

Vision84
04-23-2008, 05:10 AM
The anti-fed troll is back!

chiapants226
04-23-2008, 05:33 AM
Call it ridiculous but Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo is no joke!

He juts cooked Simon up like a roasted frog.

He's going to do damage to the fading federer.

lol, how very very very close you were in your prediction. how very close indeed. :p

scineram
04-23-2008, 05:35 AM
Good call. Almost.

Sentinel
04-23-2008, 05:36 AM
haha, i came in to check when this thread was created.

He's going to do damage to the fading federer.

that much is q true.

my_forehand
04-23-2008, 06:03 AM
Dang, 1-5 in the third...

bluescreen
04-23-2008, 07:34 AM
fed must've read this thread and got ****ed off and decided to win.

llbarracks
04-23-2008, 07:49 AM
fed must've read this thread and got ****ed off and decided to win.

haha, i think you're right.

daddy
04-23-2008, 08:42 AM
Well the OP was kind of close. I dont want to reveal any results but he had a point somewhat.

MasterTS
04-23-2008, 08:44 AM
are you on crack?



No, I just understand pro tennis far beyond your worship for a fader federer.

officerdibble
04-23-2008, 09:14 AM
Great call, thread poster!

I read the post prior to the match and had no basis to comment - I didn't see the qualifier play.

I hope that all of the people who jumped on you out of their blind faith for Federer feel suitably humbled: I think Federer is a fantastic player, the greatest of all time, but that doesn't make him infallible.

He seems to be playing horribly by his own exceptional standards at the moment; I hope he shakes it off, but I fear that now the aura is dropping it will only increase the likelihood of him losing.

Interesting times!

PROTENNIS63
04-23-2008, 09:16 AM
Call it ridiculous but Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo is no joke!

He juts cooked Simon up like a roasted frog.

He's going to do damage to the fading federer.

looks someone was dead wrong.

Buchhalter
04-23-2008, 09:20 AM
No where in the org post do I see the words beat, or defeat. Perhaps there was damage done to Roger. For example, physical or mental fatigue. Glad of the result, but the poster may not have been "dead wrong".

daddy
04-23-2008, 09:26 AM
Not dead wrong by any means. Breaker in 3rd set is great achievment for RRH and he did do what the OP suggested - did damage and took it as far as it could go. Burned at the end but he is not that unhappy with the result and fight he put up. I know loss is a loss but the OP kind of predicted tough match.

Vision84
04-23-2008, 09:27 AM
No where in the org post do I see the words beat, or defeat. Perhaps there was damage done to Roger. For example, physical or mental fatigue. Glad of the result, but the poster may not have been "dead wrong".

Yeah but it is to vague and from what I hear federer didn't play well for a top 10 and almost lost the match rather than the other guy almost winning it.

zagor
04-23-2008, 09:36 AM
Not dead wrong by any means. Breaker in 3rd set is great achievment for RRH and he did do what the OP suggested - did damage and took it as far as it could go. Burned at the end but he is not that unhappy with the result and fight he put up. I know loss is a loss but the OP kind of predicted tough match.

In title he said that Hidalgo would "beat" Federer,so he was wrong.Not dead wrong though as he was extremely close to being right.

daddy
04-23-2008, 09:50 AM
In title he said that Hidalgo would "beat" Federer,so he was wrong.Not dead wrong though as he was extremely close to being right.

Fed is still not near his best so it seems. How will he handle upcoming and arguably much tougher oponents in your opinion ? He may lose early if he does not improve either vs Monfils ( less likely ) or Nalband ?

edberg505
04-23-2008, 09:54 AM
Eh, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Anyways, close but no cigar. And almost only count in hand grenades and horseshoes.

zagor
04-23-2008, 10:00 AM
Fed is still not near his best so it seems. How will he handle upcoming and arguably much tougher oponents in your opinion ? He may lose early if he does not improve either vs Monfils ( less likely ) or Nalband ?

I don't think he'll go out to Monfils(although even that is possible with Roger's current form) but if he meets Nalbandian in quarters he will definitely lose if he doesn't raise his game drastically.I was expecting tough times for Federer on clay when I saw the way he was struggling on hardcourts.The problem against Hidalgo today was that Federer couldn't fight the right way to play,he was either too agressive(going for the lines even when he had an open court and overly going to the net even when the approach wasn't good) or he was too passive.He just can't seem to decide on a right game plan.

daddy
04-23-2008, 10:03 AM
Eh, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Anyways, close but no cigar. And almost only count in hand grenades and horseshoes.

Broken clock is more acurate than the working ones. See, twice a day broken clock is dead right, while the working ones are close to being right all the time but always slightly late or early.

edberg505
04-23-2008, 10:06 AM
Broken clock is more acurate than the working ones. See, twice a day broken clock is dead right, while the working ones are close to being right all the time but always slightly late or early.

Unless it's an atomic clock;)

daddy
04-23-2008, 10:24 AM
Unless it's an atomic clock;)

I cant argue this one .. ;) Do you have a spare one , Ill provide the address!

futuretoptenner
04-23-2008, 10:29 AM
I can tell you one thing. If Federer makes it past Monfils and plays anywhere near what he played today. Nalbandian will hand it to him.

Nadal_Freak
04-23-2008, 10:32 AM
I can tell you one thing. If Federer makes it past Monfils and plays anywhere near what he played today. Nalbandian will hand it to him.
Agreed. Nalbandian looked good today as well. Best match since the Indoor Season for him.

edberg505
04-23-2008, 10:36 AM
I cant argue this one .. ;) Do you have a spare one , Ill provide the address!

No, but I could probably get my hands on the cesium that you need to make one:D

Nadal_Freak
04-23-2008, 10:47 AM
He almost called it if only Hidalgo didn't choke. Oh well.

Stchamps
04-23-2008, 11:04 AM
Broken clock is more acurate than the working ones. See, twice a day broken clock is dead right, while the working ones are close to being right all the time but always slightly late or early.

They both measure time which is imaginary so they're measuring nothing!

edberg505
04-23-2008, 11:20 AM
They both measure time which is imaginary so they're measuring nothing!

I'll be sure to tell that to my boss the next time I'm late for work. Dude, time is imaginary!!

KFactor27
04-23-2008, 11:54 AM
Good prediction, but in tennis you either win or lose.

stormholloway
04-23-2008, 12:05 PM
No shame in the OP's prediction. Nice call. He obviously blew a major lead.

CEvertFan
04-23-2008, 12:07 PM
Close, but no cigar.

counter_puncher
04-23-2008, 01:46 PM
hey lol he was almost correct.

coloskier
04-23-2008, 01:50 PM
Agreed. Nalbandian looked good today as well. Best match since the Indoor Season for him.

Nalbandian still has to prove that he can play consistently for more than one match at a time, and hopefully his coach will keep him away from the donuts for the next week.

LeftyServe
04-23-2008, 02:31 PM
Agreed. Nalbandian looked good today as well. Best match since the Indoor Season for him.

Nalbandian is 13 -1 on clay this year

Fedace
04-23-2008, 02:32 PM
What is wrong with Hidalgo ?? He should retire.

Nadal_Monfils
04-23-2008, 02:49 PM
Wow, great prediction. Even though Hidalgo didn't win to predict that he would even come close is pretty good. If only Hidalgo could have served out the set. Monfils for the win!

daddy
04-23-2008, 05:22 PM
They both measure time which is imaginary so they're measuring nothing!

Only imaginary thing is your brain if you were serious with the statement my friend. :)

Hot Sauce
04-23-2008, 06:01 PM
Wow, great prediction. Even though Hidalgo didn't win to predict that he would even come close is pretty good. If only Hidalgo could have served out the set. Monfils for the win!

Almost doesn't count. The OP is wrong.

Sentinel
04-23-2008, 08:50 PM
Broken clock is more acurate than the working ones. See, twice a day broken clock is dead right, while the working ones are close to being right all the time but always slightly late or early.
LOL, ... sounds like an old chinese proverb if you word it correctly ... although I am not sure what it proves other than giving us (me) a good laugh. Good one, daddy :-D

stormholloway
04-23-2008, 08:55 PM
I think being wrong in this case does count. Hidalgo was two points from the match. It was a very good prediction. Hidalgo, ranked 130-something, is two points from beating Federer in a masters series tournament? It was a very unlikely scenario to say the least.

BreakPoint
04-23-2008, 09:00 PM
Ridiculous, thats what I call it.
Not so ridiculous, huh? Up 5-1 in the 3rd set and two points away from the match?

This one is going to bite you.
Not quite. Not even close to getting bitten.

Sentinel
04-23-2008, 11:20 PM
What is wrong with Hidalgo ?? He should retire.
HAHA, upset of the year. Lost to some run-down, whiner who is what ... world number 1 ? what a shame !

I just saw a replay of the match, unfortunately several games were snipped esp the early ones where Fed lost. So I cant say, but to me it seems he was just hitting around a bit carelessly.

After 2-5, 30-30, I think he decided to put a few more balls back and not fool around. Just doing that much had RRH losing points. That's my take, although I do admit I did not see complete match, and there were some points in the first/2nd game where RRH played really well. Nice touch at net, etc.

RRH's serve was really weak, only one ace, and hardly put pressure on RF even when it was in.

Arrows
04-23-2008, 11:34 PM
It was almost cause for a nervous breakdown, with what was happening in the 3rd set. I kept being reminded of Henin's meltdown in the Wimbledon semi last year.



Arrows
"No, it is a lark."

stormholloway
04-24-2008, 12:17 AM
Not quite. Not even close to getting bitten.

Wow. Right on time. In case you didn't notice, I've already given him his proper dues. I don't need you to pop in here well after the fact to call me on it.

As you can see, he was still wrong.

It's not like you came here to say anything that wasn't already said.