PDA

View Full Version : Federer's chances of winning RG dead again


sureshs
04-28-2008, 05:44 AM
He showed that he cannot maintain a lead on clay long enough to win against Nadal and will squander it with unforced errors on his forehand. His backhand is always quite weak.

I predict another frustrating run on clay for Federer, and another year gone by with no RG title.

ATXtennisaddict
04-28-2008, 05:52 AM
Most wouldn't doubt it.

dh003i
04-28-2008, 06:04 AM
Typical trash from those who hate Fed.

ATXtennisaddict
04-28-2008, 06:05 AM
I'm a Federer fan but I am also realistic. Roger is the underdog.

dh003i
04-28-2008, 06:07 AM
sureshs analysis ignores the changes Federer has made to his game, his new coach, etc. Yea, he's the underdog, but so was Noah against Wilander.

sureshs
04-28-2008, 06:19 AM
sureshs analysis ignores the changes Federer has made to his game, his new coach, etc. Yea, he's the underdog, but so was Noah against Wilander.

But with all his changes, he still could not win. His second serve point percentage was 29% and he made a ton of unforced errors. Like a monkey on a greased pole, he climbs up, only to slip down again.

cknobman
04-28-2008, 06:28 AM
After watching monte carlo its obvious Fed has the game to beat Nadal but not the head.

There is something upstairs that he cant overcome to pull off the win. Every single time when Fed broke Nadal in the match its like a switched turned on in his head that caused him to lower the level of his game.

Nadal did very little to beat Fed in Monte Carlo. True he fought hard like he always does but there was nothing about his game that showed he was the better player. For 90% of the match Nadal was playing from behind trying to catch up. Feds game was great until he got in the lead and then you could almost see it in his eyes. See that the mental switch in his head turned on, the disbelief, the doubt, the presssure, whatever you want to call it. It caused Fed to let up and gave Nadal the chance to come back.

Thats one of the best things about Nadal though. His game is always at the same level regardless of situation or score. Fed on the other hand, its all in his head.

Morrissey
04-28-2008, 06:38 AM
Nadal probably didn't play his best tennis in MC and still didn't lose a set in the process. Also with a brutal draw. The reason why Fed can't sustain the level is because the serve is taken out of the equation. No holds are easy and Fed is used to holding easy on hard and grass. So it takes pressure off having to grind on every hold game. On clay you are forced to grind and duke it out with Nadal and that's his strength. No one can do it better and on clay you are forced to do it. You can't play a "Blake-style" or Youzhny type game on clay and get away with it against Nadal. It's hard enough to blast him off a hardcourt now imagine on a high bouncing, slow clay court. Near impossible. That's why Roddick sucks on clay, his serve is taken away from him and without the serve he doesn't get the short replies, cheap points and aces. Fed has to rely on hitting nothing but winners from beginning to end because his serve won't give him cheap points or aces like on hard or grass. Not even HE could do that.

TheModernEra
04-28-2008, 06:40 AM
Don't stir a hornet's nest.....I think Federer had the game to take Nadal yesterday and let him off the hook...and will probably do so each and every meeting until the only match that really counts, RG final.....Call me crazy....but we will see...

Is Federer the number 2 clay court player in the world? If so, then his demise has been greatly over exaggerated.....

dh003i
04-28-2008, 06:43 AM
But with all his changes, he still could not win. His second serve point percentage was 29% and he made a ton of unforced errors. Like a monkey on a greased pole, he climbs up, only to slip down again.

Which had more to do with his execution. Even on clay, Federer generally has a good serve.

Morrissey
04-28-2008, 06:43 AM
Don't stir a hornet's nest.....I think Federer had the game to take Nadal yesterday and let him off the hook...and will probably do so each and every meeting until the only match that really counts, RG final.....Call me crazy....but we will see...

Is Federer the number 2 clay court player in the world? If so, then his demise has been greatly over exaggerated.....

Ok,ok, every year the same story. It's fine. But don't get your hopes up. Just remember that it's a best of 5 match and Nadal is even harder to beat than in a best of 3. But it's fine to dream and predict.

latinking
04-28-2008, 06:43 AM
He does have has a chance to win, even if its a slim one. It will just be very very difficult. I have said it before,IMO Nadal is the GOAT on clay.

TennezSport
04-28-2008, 06:48 AM
After watching monte carlo its obvious Fed has the game to beat Nadal but not the head. There is something upstairs that he cant overcome to pull off the win. Every single time when Fed broke Nadal in the match its like a switched turned on in his head that caused him to lower the level of his game.

This has been the issue for these two players since Rafa came into his own on clay. Rafa doesn't have the game to match Fed but he has the mental determination and heart to stay out there long enough to have his opponents self distruct.

I am not saying that Rafa does not have a great game, if he didn't he would not be were he is today. However, if you look at the winners/errors stats for Rafa, his game is based on getting his opponent to make errors. He is supremely confident in his ability to do that, so Fed or any opponent on clay is under tremendous pressure to maintain a very high level of aggressive play just to stay even; more to win.

If Fed can maintain the same level of confidence and reduce the UEs, it could be an interesting FO, but that's a BIG IF; only time will tell.

TennezSport :cool:

coloskier
04-28-2008, 07:11 AM
Who's to say that either one makes it to the RG finals. With all the clay court tournaments being packed into a short time, there is the possibility of injuries to any player.

VGP
04-28-2008, 07:17 AM
Roger would have to have a lot of things go his way to earn the title at RG......

One would be to not have to face Nadal.

That Hawkeye is good stuff. The amount of data that can be easily gained is terrific. One thing that Nadal did was to hit like 80/20 to Federer's backhand/forehand off the ground. That with the lefty spin is obviously enough to break into points and break down Federer's game.

Nothing new, I know......it was just a good graphic

dh003i
04-28-2008, 07:19 AM
I doubt either player will so poorly manage their schedule that they become injured.

Although I suspect Federer may play more clay-court events this year than Nadal; he can take it more, without getting exhausted or injured, because of his style of play.

tennisdad65
04-28-2008, 07:20 AM
Who's to say that either one makes it to the RG finals. With all the clay court tournaments being packed into a short time, there is the possibility of injuries to any player.

This is especially true for nadal since he is so injury prone. One of these years he will get injured and Fed will waltz to the French title :)

Morrissey
04-28-2008, 07:24 AM
This is especially true for nadal since he is so injury prone. One of these years he will get injured and Fed will waltz to the French title :)

Waltz? Fed's waltzing his way to 30 being 27 this summer. Time is almost up.

random guy
04-28-2008, 07:26 AM
Ok, but what if by some outstanding performace Nalbandian, Djokovic or some other guy (not sure if there's anyone else with a chance) beat Nadal before the finals? I'm quite sure that Federer got a chance if Nadal doesn't show up.

Vision84
04-28-2008, 07:34 AM
http://www.trojaner-board.de/attachments/143d1098020479-wem-gehort-dieses-board-do_not_feed_trolls.jpg

zagor
04-28-2008, 07:37 AM
His chances of winning the FO were never good with Nadal around but to say he has no chances at all is wrong.

flyer
04-28-2008, 07:42 AM
^^^^hahaha, this was for the picture before the last post

ninman
04-28-2008, 07:44 AM
^^^^hahaha, this was for the picture before the last post

http://forum.alsacreations.com/upload/2043-fail-camera.jpg

jsuwan
04-28-2008, 08:36 AM
he has a chance to win FO this year. The ball is round. you never know!!! He clay court game is getting closer and closer to NAdal... Let's go Roger!!!!!

ksbh
04-28-2008, 08:44 AM
Yeah right! Been hearing this since 2006.

Maybe it'll keep getting closer & closer until it is time for Federer to retire.

he has a chance to win FO this year. The ball is round. you never know!!! He clay court game is getting closer and closer to NAdal... Let's go Roger!!!!!

Dilettante
04-28-2008, 08:48 AM
After watching monte carlo its obvious Fed has the game to beat Nadal but not the head.

It's easy to say that when you're watching on TV.

Federer has he head to anything, as he has proved for years winning a ridiculous amount of matches and titles. He's the only guy who has beaten Nadal on clay (ON CLAY!!) since 2005. The only one.

Of course Federer has the head. But just imagine how hard is when the guy is winning 4-0 and Nadal keeps fighting: we're talking about one of the best defenses ever from one of the best claycourters ever and this happened on clay. Not even Federer can play every single point at the same level for ever, and when he happens to slow gears a little bit, Nadal's still there, waiting.

I'm always amazed of who you people say things such "Fed has the game but not the head". Just look at the slams he's won. Many other players with supposed "more" head couldn't get a single set from Nadal on dirt.

sureshs
04-28-2008, 09:29 AM
I think Nadal has not shown his best yet and still won all his matches in straights, while Fed had narrow escapes and 3-setters. Nadal just won't let him escape like the others. He plays very solidly when he is down, while Fed gets impatient when he is up. Like Sampras, Fed relies on his big serve, and when its effectiveness is down on clay, his weaknesses on the FH and BH are magnified.

If he cannot win against a mediocre Nadal when he had a break in the first set and up 4-0 in the second, do you think he has a chance against him in RG when Nadal will peak? Best hope for him is that Nadal is upset by Davy or Djoker before the finals.

Morrissey
04-28-2008, 09:35 AM
I think Nadal has not shown his best yet and still won all his matches in straights, while Fed had narrow escapes and 3-setters. Nadal just won't let him escape like the others. He plays very solidly when he is down, while Fed gets impatient when he is up. Like Sampras, Fed relies on his big serve, and when its effectiveness is down on clay, his weaknesses on the FH and BH are magnified.

If he cannot win against a mediocre Nadal when he had a break in the first set and up 4-0 in the second, do you think he has a chance against him in RG when Nadal will peak? Best hope for him is that Nadal is upset by Davy or Djoker before the finals.

I agree with that. Makes sense to me. But the forum has been hijacked by bitter fans. I guess someone else said it better, why be angry when there's many positives to take out of the week? Just think, if Fed had lost to Hidalgo no one would even be in the position to hate on Nadal for beating Fed again. At least he made the final. Before MC started I would not have said that, not many others either. Especially the way he's played this year and the way he struggled in Estoril with a "challenger-like" field (outside Davydenko). He picked up his game for the time since January.

cknobman
04-28-2008, 09:36 AM
It's easy to say that when you're watching on TV.

Federer has he head to anything, as he has proved for years winning a ridiculous amount of matches and titles. He's the only guy who has beaten Nadal on clay (ON CLAY!!) since 2005. The only one.

Of course Federer has the head. But just imagine how hard is when the guy is winning 4-0 and Nadal keeps fighting: we're talking about one of the best defenses ever from one of the best claycourters ever and this happened on clay. Not even Federer can play every single point at the same level for ever, and when he happens to slow gears a little bit, Nadal's still there, waiting.

I'm always amazed of who you people say things such "Fed has the game but not the head". Just look at the slams he's won. Many other players with supposed "more" head couldn't get a single set from Nadal on dirt.

No one ever said Fed was weak mentally. I said he didnt have the head to beat Nadal, and to be more specific on clay. True he won Hamburg last year but that was the first year for Nadal to play it and it has been home for Roger for years. Yesterday was not the first example of how Roger has folded under the pressure agaisnt Nadal on clay.

Morrissey
04-28-2008, 09:38 AM
I wouldn't say "dead" because none of the others seem to have a better chance than him. So he's got a chance. If he makes the final he's got A chance. Very little, but still a chance.

zagor
04-28-2008, 09:44 AM
It's easy to say that when you're watching on TV.

Federer has he head to anything, as he has proved for years winning a ridiculous amount of matches and titles. He's the only guy who has beaten Nadal on clay (ON CLAY!!) since 2005. The only one.

Of course Federer has the head. But just imagine how hard is when the guy is winning 4-0 and Nadal keeps fighting: we're talking about one of the best defenses ever from one of the best claycourters ever and this happened on clay. Not even Federer can play every single point at the same level for ever, and when he happens to slow gears a little bit, Nadal's still there, waiting.

I'm always amazed of who you people say things such "Fed has the game but not the head". Just look at the slams he's won. Many other players with supposed "more" head couldn't get a single set from Nadal on dirt.

I agree with everything you said.I personally can's stand when people say Federer is mentally weak because he loses to Nadal on clay(who just happens to be one of the best ever on that surface),that's a load of BS.Federer showed he has heart and balls plenty of times.

Morrissey
04-28-2008, 09:47 AM
It's easy to say that when you're watching on TV.

Federer has he head to anything, as he has proved for years winning a ridiculous amount of matches and titles. He's the only guy who has beaten Nadal on clay (ON CLAY!!) since 2005. The only one.

Of course Federer has the head. But just imagine how hard is when the guy is winning 4-0 and Nadal keeps fighting: we're talking about one of the best defenses ever from one of the best claycourters ever and this happened on clay. Not even Federer can play every single point at the same level for ever, and when he happens to slow gears a little bit, Nadal's still there, waiting.

I'm always amazed of who you people say things such "Fed has the game but not the head". Just look at the slams he's won. Many other players with supposed "more" head couldn't get a single set from Nadal on dirt.

I guess when people say he doesn't have the head for it it's excuses from Fedtrolls and also from Fed bashers. I think he obviously has the head since he HAS won 12 slams and was the only one to beat Nadal on clay in his last 99 matches.

zagor
04-28-2008, 09:59 AM
I agree with that. Makes sense to me. But the forum has been hijacked by bitter fans. I guess someone else said it better, why be angry when there's many positives to take out of the week? Just think, if Fed had lost to Hidalgo no one would even be in the position to hate on Nadal for beating Fed again. At least he made the final. Before MC started I would not have said that, not many others either. Especially the way he's played this year and the way he struggled in Estoril with a "challenger-like" field (outside Davydenko). He picked up his game for the time since January.

I was the one who said there were many positives to take from Monte Carlo for Roger and his fans,I was adressing ninman when I said that.I frankly don't understand all that bitternes that comes from some of my fellow Fedfans.Yes he lost to Nadal on clay,so what? Roger was losing to Nadal on clay even in 2006 when he was having the best year of his career(that year he lost only to Nadal and Murray),there is certainly no shame in losing to Nadal on that surface.I mean he almost lost to Hidalgo of all people and after that miracilous comeback he proceeded to beat Nalbandian(who was in very good form after thrashing Robredo) and then even "the new king" Djokovic.This was by far the best tennis Roger has played all year and I think every Federer fan should be glad for that.I'm very happy with the way Roger started clay season this year by defending his points Monte Carlo and winning Estoril.

stormholloway
04-28-2008, 10:49 AM
He's still #2 on clay last time I checked. If he can't win it, nobody else can.

TNT16
04-28-2008, 11:55 AM
Yes he lost to Nadal on clay,so what? Roger was losing to Nadal on clay even in 2006 when he was having the best year of his career(that year he lost only to Nadal and Murray),there is certainly no shame in losing to Nadal on that surface.I mean he almost lost to Hidalgo of all people and after that miracilous comeback he proceeded to beat Nalbandian(who was in very good form after thrashing Robredo) and then even "the new king" Djokovic.This was by far the best tennis Roger has played all year and I think every Federer fan should be glad for that.I'm very happy with the way Roger started clay season this year by defending his points Monte Carlo and winning Estoril.

Precisely right - MC was very positive for Fed . . . AND for the game as a whole (by reviving the rivalry which many had pronounced dead).

Fed also showed shades of Hamburg form during the second set. If both make the RG final clearly Nadal will be more likely to win -- but Fed showed that he *does* have the stuff to beat Nadal. Of course this would require several things - 1. Fed serving well, 2. Fed not falling into Nadal's favorite shot patterns, 3. Fed not choking given the occasion.

So the point about Fed's head is fair enough - clearly involved with points 2 and 3 above.

I do think Higueras will help a ton with 2.

danb
04-28-2008, 12:12 PM
He showed that he cannot maintain a lead on clay long enough to win against Nadal and will squander it with unforced errors on his forehand. His backhand is always quite weak.

I predict another frustrating run on clay for Federer, and another year gone by with no RG title.

You might be right. I wish we see some closer matches - on all surfaces. That would be nice. Boy - even when Rafa didn't play his best he fought hard enough to win. I like this guy.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-28-2008, 12:12 PM
http://www.trojaner-board.de/attachments/143d1098020479-wem-gehort-dieses-board-do_not_feed_trolls.jpg

But the troll looks so hungry. :cry::cry:

edmondsm
04-28-2008, 12:18 PM
I tend to agree with the OP. I see very little evidence that the outcome of this clay season will be any different then last 3 years.

TheNatural
04-28-2008, 12:29 PM
Fed has a chance but he needs a bigger racket and a new secretary to organize that stockpile of Data that he has been collecting from all the clay losses to Nadal since 2004, lmao.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-28-2008, 12:30 PM
Fed has a chance but he needs a bigger racket and a new secretary to organize that stockpile of Data that he has been collecting from all the clay losses to Nadal since 2004, lmao.

That guy in your avatar, how did he do at the French Open? :twisted:

TheNatural
04-28-2008, 12:39 PM
better than the current crop of yanks. ;):)

That guy in your avatar, how did he do at the French Open? :twisted:

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-28-2008, 12:43 PM
better than the current crop of yanks. ;):)

Touché sir, now that would shut me up for awhile. :D

edberg505
04-28-2008, 12:44 PM
Well, I think Davydenko said it best when he talked about playing Nadal in the semis of MC.

“The ball is heavier (than in Miami), so slow. And the court is clay; it’s also slow. I tried to play my best. But if I hit balls, for Nadal it’s normal. He just runs and makes topspin back and gets running again.”

Besides, so what if Federer doesn't win the French. He is still arguably the greatest tennis player to ever lace up a pair of tennis shoes. Not being able to win the French in a time when arguably the greatest clay court player ever is playing the game in no way diminishes his mindblowing achievements. So if he is able to equal Sampras or surpass his in slam totals then in my mind he is the greatest player ever.

edberg505
04-28-2008, 12:47 PM
Fed has a chance but he needs a bigger racket and a new secretary to organize that stockpile of Data that he has been collecting from all the clay losses to Nadal since 2004, lmao.

Federer never played Nadal on clay in 2004. It was Guga who cleaned his clock at the FO in 2004.

veroniquem
04-28-2008, 12:54 PM
As I said before, Fed is still the biggest threat to Nadal on clay, particularly in best of 3 set matches. In best of 5 (Roland-Garros), I'd say his chances against Rafa are extremely slim. Fed is an excellent clay player, he beats pretty much everybody else but Rafa ( actually in later years if he loses velocity a tiny bit on hard I wouldn't be surprised if clay became his best surface). It's not Roger's fault if Rafa is phenomenal on clay (and I mean that literally, like one of a kind). Excellent is just not enough against a prodigy (Mozart of clay!)

TheNatural
04-28-2008, 12:57 PM
Mabe you should apply to be Fed's secretary. :)

Federer never played Nadal on clay in 2004. It was Guga who cleaned his clock at the FO in 2004.

fastdunn
04-28-2008, 01:13 PM
Federer is a great clay court player. If not Rafa, he would have won a few FO by now.

That doesn't mean he does not have a good chance to win FO. Nadal will have off-day or off-weeks. Just look at Federer with mono at AO this year.

There is no gaurantee that that kind of things will never happen to Nadal.

edberg505
04-28-2008, 01:19 PM
Mabe you should apply to be Fed's secretary. :)

You are welcome for the correction.

yellowoctopus
04-28-2008, 01:54 PM
I think whatever the strategy Federer used worked to a certain degree; it just wasn't enough to maintain the lead. An boxing analogy would be that Federer developed jabbing technique that works, he just needs a knock out technique to complete the one-two combination.

A baseball analogy...well, not going to bore you guys.

If they meet again before RG, look for Federer to try yet another strategy; he will most likely not use the same one at Monte Carlo. Eventually he will try to pull all of the ones (strategy) that worked out for RG.

Nadal is not your typical opponent for Federer, he has come to respect Nadal in a very healthy way--apparently he doesn't feel the same way with Djokovic.

miniRafa386
04-28-2008, 04:43 PM
lets put it this way: feds chance at winning roland garros are slimmer than nadal winning wimbledon. by quite a bit

raiden031
04-28-2008, 06:57 PM
I hate to say it but I think the only chance Fed has at RG is if Nadal gets taken out early either from an injury or some player has an amazing day.

flyer
04-28-2008, 07:36 PM
Federer has to hope Nadal has a really bad day, is injured, or loses to someone else...if Nadal plays the way he can/should/has Federer will not win

Purostaff
04-28-2008, 08:40 PM
If Fed doesn't tank, he should be fine...

quest01
04-28-2008, 09:16 PM
Federer's game on clay seems the same as the last few years. I don't think his performance on clay this year is any better then last year, just from watching him play Nadal in Monte Carlo his game seems to be about the same. So from his results in Monte Carlo, I don't see him beating Nadal anytime soon in RG unless he drastically changes his game which is doubtful.

Nadal_Freak
04-28-2008, 09:23 PM
Federer's game on clay seems the same as the last few years. I don't think his performance on clay this year is any better then last year, just from watching him play Nadal in Monte Carlo his game seems to be about the same. So from his results in Monte Carlo, I don't see him beating Nadal anytime soon in RG unless he drastically changes his game which is doubtful.
Also the conditions were much cooler than in RG. You would think Federer would play much better in these conditions. I guess that is not the full answer to beating Nadal.

msc886
04-28-2008, 11:55 PM
My money's on Nadal for this one. i don't think Federer can beat Nadal on clay yet. When Federer has a lead, Nadal can just keep grinding and Federer will just keep making unforced errors. I don't think federer can outgrind Nadal or penetrate Nadal's defence long enough to win a best of 5 set match.

goforgold99
04-29-2008, 04:29 AM
He showed that he cannot maintain a lead on clay long enough to win against Nadal and will squander it with unforced errors on his forehand. His backhand is always quite weak.

I predict another frustrating run on clay for Federer, and another year gone by with no RG title.

Federer is the SECOND BEST Clay-Court player. so his claycourt season was NEVER furstrating, reaching finals almost every event.

BESIDES: Roger CAN hold a lead on clay. Yes! He can even COME BACK from A SET DOWN!

Just watch the Hamburg final from last year, mate ;)

Klatu Verata Necktie
04-29-2008, 04:42 AM
I tend to agree with the OP. I see very little evidence that the outcome of this clay season will be any different then last 3 years.

Most players who reach the French Open final 2 consecutive times would be considered clay court specialists.

nikdom
04-29-2008, 05:31 AM
lets put it this way: feds chance at winning roland garros are slimmer than nadal winning wimbledon. by quite a bit

That's quite a simplification. Here's how I see it - there are a lot more players that can take out Nadal enroute to the Wimby finals than there are players that can take out Roger enroute to the FO finals. You only have to look at the match with Soderling that Nadal won last year at Wimby to see that if an in-form Blake or Roddick can take him out. Surely if Nadal meets Djokovic enroute to the finals, I will take Djokovic over Nadal. Djoko has improved in the fitness and confidence department quite a bit since Wimbledon 2007.

The chances that you speak of are simply when you compare Rog and Rafa playing each other in the Wimby finals vs the FO finals. In that case, yes, Rafa's chances of an upset at Wimbledon look better than Roger's at the FO.

jackson vile
04-29-2008, 07:01 AM
Watch, it will rain. That is the only way Roger will win with a healthy Nadal on the other side of the court

sureshs
04-29-2008, 07:02 AM
Federer is the SECOND BEST Clay-Court player. so his claycourt season was NEVER furstrating, reaching finals almost every event.

BESIDES: Roger CAN hold a lead on clay. Yes! He can even COME BACK from A SET DOWN!

Just watch the Hamburg final from last year, mate ;)

Correct, but Fed himself said Nadal was tired coming off a 81 match streak.

crosscourt
04-29-2008, 07:12 AM
Fed played a lot better clay court tennis at Monte Carlo this year than he has either of the last two years. If he continues to get better in the next few weeks he will really lift his chances for RG. He has been the second best player on clay the last few years. It is unlikely that he will be good enough to be favourite going into RG, but a fresh approach and fresh belief could do him a power of good.

cc

vlad101
04-29-2008, 08:08 AM
Fed just needs to fine tune his attacking game on clay. There were moments in MC he looked like he was doing the right thing...coming to the net, being more aggresive with the backhand, and then lose momentum for whatever reason.

The balls in your court.
04-29-2008, 09:00 AM
Federer is the SECOND BEST Clay-Court player. so his claycourt season was NEVER furstrating, reaching finals almost every event.

BESIDES: Roger CAN hold a lead on clay. Yes! He can even COME BACK from A SET DOWN!

Just watch the Hamburg final from last year, mate ;)

And Nadal is the SECOND BEST grass court player. But whats that got to do with the price of tea in China?

The Hamburg final was insignificant as it was merely a best of three sets. It means absolutely nothing! In fact Rogers record in best of five sets on any surface is only average. On clay against Nadal....its terrible.

ksbh
04-29-2008, 09:07 AM
Nadal will still beat him.

You put a 'fresh' Nadal on the Hamburg court against Federer and you will see a repeat of MC/Roland Garros.

Watch, it will rain. That is the only way Roger will win with a healthy Nadal on the other side of the court

The balls in your court.
04-29-2008, 10:21 AM
Nadal will still beat him.

You put a 'fresh' Nadal on the Hamburg court against Federer and you will see a repeat of MC/Roland Garros.

Best of five...Roger has no chance. I forget which RG it was but Roger actually came out and beat Nadal like 6-1or something in the first set. By the fifth set however Roger could barely feel his arm....and the winner at the end of the day was Rafa. The point is that RG is best of five while hamburg is only best of three.

Morrissey
04-29-2008, 10:26 AM
Fed played a lot better clay court tennis at Monte Carlo this year than he has either of the last two years. If he continues to get better in the next few weeks he will really lift his chances for RG. He has been the second best player on clay the last few years. It is unlikely that he will be good enough to be favourite going into RG, but a fresh approach and fresh belief could do him a power of good.

cc

So you think he played better clay court tennis than in 2006? When he made the MC final and lost in 4 sets, then Rome final and lost in 5 sets, 5 hours all to Nadal? Then perhaps the closest of the 3 matches he faced Nadal at RG? I think he was closest to beating Nadal in 2006 on clay. I won't even really count Hamburg 2007 'cos Nadal was playing 4 straight events in a row and playing on every Sunday too, he was gassed in that match and it showed. But 2006 Fed was playing at perhaps his highest level ever on clay and still couldn't win.

Morrissey
04-29-2008, 10:27 AM
Best of five...Roger has no chance. I forget which RG it was but Roger actually came out and beat Nadal like 6-1or something in the first set. By the fifth set however Roger could barely feel his arm....and the winner at the end of the day was Rafa. The point is that RG is best of five while hamburg is only best of three.

I think you're referring to the 2006 RG final in which Fed won the first set 6-1, but none of their RG matchups went 5 sets.

Nadal_Freak
04-29-2008, 10:31 AM
I think you're referring to the 2006 RG final in which Fed won the first set 6-1, but none of their RG matchups went 5 sets.
That goes to show you how much better Rafa is than Federer on clay. None have gone the distance at Roland Garros. Nadal wins about 75% of the sets in their matchups. I don't see why Fed fans are so hopeful that Fed will pull it off.

Morrissey
04-29-2008, 10:35 AM
That goes to show you how much better Rafa is than Federer on clay. None have gone the distance at Roland Garros. Nadal wins about 75% of the sets in their matchups. I don't see why Fed fans are so hopeful that Fed will pull it off.

The key word is "hopeful", but I think a part of it is denial as well. But unless he loses in the early stages of RG, they'll keep their "hopes" up.

edberg505
04-29-2008, 10:39 AM
That goes to show you how much better Rafa is than Federer on clay. None have gone the distance at Roland Garros. Nadal wins about 75% of the sets in their matchups. I don't see why Fed fans are so hopeful that Fed will pull it off.

Quite honestly I could care less if he a.) never beats Nadal again on clay or b.) wins the french. As long as he breaks Pete's record and sends all of the die hard Sampras fans into a tail spin I'll be pretty darn pleased. I'd also like to be able to say I saw the greatest tennis player of all time play live and in person. Not to mention that would make the autographed Masters Cup program that I got from him pretty darn valuable.

Vision84
04-29-2008, 10:45 AM
The key word is "hopeful", but I think a part of it is denial as well. But unless he loses in the early stages of RG, they'll keep their "hopes" up.

Fed has gotten close on many of their clay meetings and couldn't convert his chances. He is also the only player to beat Nadal in over 100 of Nadal's last clay court matches if I remember right. Would be interested to know the exact figure. He even bageled Nadal on clay on route to his one victory over him. Yes Nadal is the better clay court player but Federer has a good chance of beating Nadal everytime they play on the surface.

Nadal fanboys who idolize him to being totally invincible on clay without giving Federer any chance of beating him are the most annoying fanboys.

Before you can make the comeback of me being a Federer fanboy I am not one at all.

Morrissey
04-29-2008, 10:46 AM
Quite honestly I could care less if he a.) never beats Nadal again on clay or b.) wins the french. As long as he breaks Pete's record and sends all of the die hard Sampras fans into a tail spin I'll be pretty darn pleased. I'd also like to be able to say I saw the greatest tennis player of all time play live and in person. Not to mention that would make the autographed Masters Cup program that I got from him pretty darn valuable.

I agree with that. I also think that deep down Sampras will be having a hard time dealing with anyone breaking his record and sooo soon too. I know he likes Fed and gets along with him but Pete took a ridiculous amount of pride in holding those slams. Anyone would. But at least Emrson held the record for a considerable amount of time. So he was at least prepared for his record being broken. At least he saw it in his lifetime. Pete's seeing it 6-7 years after retirement.

zagor
04-29-2008, 10:49 AM
Quite honestly I could care less if he a.) never beats Nadal again on clay or b.) wins the french. As long as he breaks Pete's record and sends all of the die hard Sampras fans into a tail spin I'll be pretty darn pleased. I'd also like to be able to say I saw the greatest tennis player of all time play live and in person. Not to mention that would make the autographed Masters Cup program that I got from him pretty darn valuable.

Completely agree.Also he has two FO finals(he may get even more)against Pete's one FO semi so If he breaks his record it's a clear cut situation,atleast to me.

Otherside
04-29-2008, 10:51 AM
That goes to show you how much better Rafa is than Federer on clay. None have gone the distance at Roland Garros. Nadal wins about 75% of the sets in their matchups. I don't see why Fed fans are so hopeful that Fed will pull it off.

Which planet are u guys from MOrissey and Nadalfreak? How can a sane person claim that Nadal is so much better than Fed on clay?
The matches are always close as hell and if Fed would have won rome -06 and some more close matches earlier I'm sure things would look different when they meet at the dirt. Right now Nadal has such a mental edge that it's hard for Fed to win.

NAdal is the GOAT on clay in my mind and I think it''s amazing how good Fed plays against him. Shoit for shot I feel Fed is just as good but Nadal is like a machine built for clay.

If they would play 20 practice sets i'm sure Fed would be just as good as Nadal and probably beat him but when the sets get close and his pulse start to go up, It's not easy to put a string of amazing points together against such a great mover as Nadal is.

I'm just greatful that we get to see these matches between them and I can live with the fact that Nadal wins. Thers's no doubt that Fed could win a 5 set match against Nadal. If he wakes up on the right side on the Finalsunday u guys know u should be worried!

TNT16
04-29-2008, 10:56 AM
You put a 'fresh' Nadal on the Hamburg court against Federer and you will see a repeat of MC/Roland Garros.

I never understood that argument. So Nadal was burnt out in Hamburg but then fresh enough to win RG after Hamburg? How does that work?

Morrissey
04-29-2008, 10:58 AM
Which planet are u guys from MOrissey and Nadalfreak? How can a sane person claim that Nadal is so much better than Fed on clay?
The matches are always close as hell and if Fed would have won rome -06 and some more close matches earlier I'm sure things would look different when they meet at the dirt. Right now Nadal has such a mental edge that it's hard for Fed to win.

NAdal is the GOAT on clay in my mind and I think it''s amazing how good Fed plays against him. Shoit for shot I feel Fed is just as good but Nadal is like a machine built for clay.

If they would play 20 practice sets i'm sure Fed would be just as good as Nadal and probably beat him but when the sets get close and his pulse start to go up, It's not easy to put a string of amazing points together against such a great mover as Nadal is.

I'm just greatful that we get to see these matches between them and I can live with the fact that Nadal wins. Thers's no doubt that Fed could win a 5 set match against Nadal. If he wakes up on the right side on the Finalsunday u guys know u should be worried!

The planet in which Nadal is 7-1 vs Fed on clay and never taken to 5 sets at RG. That planet. What planet are you transmitting from?

Morrissey
04-29-2008, 10:59 AM
I never understood that argument. So Nadal was burnt out in Hamburg but then fresh enough to win RG after Hamburg? How does that work?

10 days rest after Hamburg, that's how it works.

edmondsm
04-29-2008, 11:05 AM
Federer is a better hardcourt player then Nadal, yet Nadal has clipped him a couple times. I think the same holds true for Fed/Nadal on clay (more or less). Federer has the ability to beat Nadal at any clay venue, the stars just need to align for him.

edberg505
04-29-2008, 11:11 AM
I agree with that. I also think that deep down Sampras will be having a hard time dealing with anyone breaking his record and sooo soon too. I know he likes Fed and gets along with him but Pete took a ridiculous amount of pride in holding those slams. Anyone would. But at least Emrson held the record for a considerable amount of time. So he was at least prepared for his record being broken. At least he saw it in his lifetime. Pete's seeing it 6-7 years after retirement.

I wonder if Pete would have a hard time dealing with it? He seems to be fine with it whenever he gives interviews n such. I mean there really is no shame in having his record broken by Federer. I think he may be more upset that he couldn't compete with Federer for some of them. Wish I had gotten a chance to see Pete play in person and get his autograph. I saw Nadal play in person but I had no chance at getting his autograph with all the little teenie bopper girls and little kids surrounding him.

zagor
04-29-2008, 11:12 AM
That goes to show you how much better Rafa is than Federer on clay. None have gone the distance at Roland Garros. Nadal wins about 75% of the sets in their matchups. I don't see why Fed fans are so hopeful that Fed will pull it off.

There is nothing wrong in hoping that youre favourite player wins.I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Nadal is clearly a better claycourter than Federer and is heavily favoured to win his 4th FO in a row but that won't stop me from hoping Fed can somehow pull it off this year(however small of a chance he might have).I also realize it would be a great success for Federer if he even reaches the FO final again and that it would take an inspired performance from him(also for Nadal to be a little off or tired that day)in order to win the FO.

crosscourt
04-29-2008, 11:16 AM
So you think he played better clay court tennis than in 2006? When he made the MC final and lost in 4 sets, then Rome final and lost in 5 sets, 5 hours all to Nadal? Then perhaps the closest of the 3 matches he faced Nadal at RG? I think he was closest to beating Nadal in 2006 on clay. I won't even really count Hamburg 2007 'cos Nadal was playing 4 straight events in a row and playing on every Sunday too, he was gassed in that match and it showed. But 2006 Fed was playing at perhaps his highest level ever on clay and still couldn't win.

Apologies, what I meant to say was that I think he played better clay court tennis at Monte Carlo this year than he did at Monte Carlo in 2006 and 2007. I think that Fed played better at Rome than in Monte Carlo in 2006. There was obviously something wrong with his relationship with his coach last year and he went out of Rome early. It is partly that 2006 improvement from Monte Carlo to Rome that makes me think that he can get better and lift his chances at RG. While you correctly observe that at Monte Carlo he took a set off Nadal in 2006, he didn't do it playing what I would call clay court tennis. Overall his defeat to Nadal in 2006 at Monte carlo was comprehensive. He played his normal game and lifted it to a level at which for one set he could beat Nadal. As you point out, in Rome he got within an ace of beating Nadal using the same approach. But while Fed has taken a set or maybe two off Nadal at RG -- and played scintillating tennis to do so -- he has never looked even close to beating Nadal at RG. Agassi showed that you can win RG playing hard court tennis, but he didn't have to beat Nadal. Fed has started to work on a sound clay court strategy for RG and if he gets better at it he has a good chance at RG. Nadal of course is a better player than in 2006, so Fed has to improve to even keep in touching distance.

Morrissey
04-29-2008, 11:17 AM
I wonder if Pete would have a hard time dealing with it? He seems to be fine with it whenever he gives interviews n such. I mean there really is no shame in having his record broken by Federer. I think he may be more upset that he couldn't compete with Federer for some of them. Wish I had gotten a chance to see Pete play in person and get his autograph. I saw Nadal play in person but I had no chance at getting his autograph with all the little teenie bopper girls and little kids surrounding him.

Those little kids are the ones who will carry the game of tennis in the future. Maybe even play pro tennis. Not us old people.

Morrissey
04-29-2008, 11:23 AM
Apologies, what I meant to say was that I think he played better clay court tennis at Monte Carlo this year than he did at Monte Carlo in 2006 and 2007. I think that Fed played better at Rome than in Monte Carlo in 2006. There was obviously something wrong with his relationship with his coach last year and he went out of Rome early. It is partly that 2006 improvement from Monte Carlo to Rome that makes me think that he can get better and lift his chances at RG. While you correctly observe that at Monte Carlo he took a set off Nadal in 2006, he didn't do it playing what I would call clay court tennis. Overall his defeat to Nadal in 2006 at Monte carlo was comprehensive. He played his normal game and lifted it to a level at which for one set he could beat Nadal. As you point out, in Rome he got within an ace of beating Nadal using the same approach. But while Fed has taken a set or maybe two off Nadal at RG -- and played scintillating tennis to do so -- he has never looked even close to beating Nadal at RG. Agassi showed that you can win RG playing hard court tennis, but he didn't have to beat Nadal. Fed has started to work on a sound clay court strategy for RG and if he gets better at it he has a good chance at RG. Nadal of course is a better player than in 2006, so Fed has to improve to even keep in touching distance.


Well written post. But I think Fed played much better in the 2006 MC final than the 2008 MC final. For one, he took a set and was very close to making it 5 sets in that match. Fed wasn't getting broken like a piece of bad china in that match. Nadal needed to bring his best tennis that day and did. I have that match on tape and Fed was playing superb that day. He was also on fire from winning the Aussie, Indian Wells and Miami all that year. This year he is not on the same level as the 2006 final. But I need to see how he does at Rome and Hamburg to give you a better assessment on how he should do at RG this year. Maybe he loses early in Rome again and doesn't defend Hamburg and our opinions change.

ksbh
04-29-2008, 11:49 AM
V84= Vision84
NF= Nadal Fan

V84: Federer is the greatest. He can beat Nadal, even on clay. See, he bagelled him in Hamburg!

NF: You a Federer fanboy?

V84: Federer fanboy? I am not one at all! You Nadal fanboys are all the same!

NF: Oh sorry, there's so many of them deluded crazy ones here, it's difficult to tell the good ones from the rest! By the way, what's that figure up on the altar in your bedroom?

V84: Oh that! It's a little rexin figurine of Roger Federer that I bought at a Roger Federer Man bag store. Federer handed it to me personally. I was so excited I couldn't sleep that night! Anyways, Nadal is too 1-dimensional!

NF: All these Federer articles and you aren't a fanboy?

V84: You Nadal fanboys are all the same! Didn't I just say I ain't one? By the way, did you see my Roger Federer t-shirt that I have pinned up on my bedroom wall?

NF: No, I didn't catch that.

V84: Alright now get out of here and before you go, repeat after me ... I ain't a Federer fanboy!

:):)

Fed has gotten close on many of their clay meetings and couldn't convert his chances. He is also the only player to beat Nadal in over 100 of Nadal's last clay court matches if I remember right. Would be interested to know the exact figure. He even bageled Nadal on clay on route to his one victory over him. Yes Nadal is the better clay court player but Federer has a good chance of beating Nadal everytime they play on the surface.

Nadal fanboys who idolize him to being totally invincible on clay without giving Federer any chance of beating him are the most annoying fanboys.

Before you can make the comeback of me being a Federer fanboy I am not one at all.

ksbh
04-29-2008, 12:35 PM
I believe Morrissey has already answered but yes, there was over a week between those two tournaments. Enough for any player to get his stamina back.

I never understood that argument. So Nadal was burnt out in Hamburg but then fresh enough to win RG after Hamburg? How does that work?

Nadal_Freak
04-29-2008, 12:42 PM
Federer is a better hardcourt player then Nadal, yet Nadal has clipped him a couple times. I think the same holds true for Fed/Nadal on clay (more or less). Federer has the ability to beat Nadal at any clay venue, the stars just need to align for him.
It is more likely that the better clay court player to win on clay than it is for the better hardcourt to win on hardcourts. Reason is the points are longer and more extended giving the better player more time to find their best stuff. Clay relies less on luck and hot streaks and more on consistency.

pound cat
04-29-2008, 01:34 PM
Really interesting...and not at all typical or positive Federer comments after his match with Hildalgo...Monte Carlo

"I was disappointed with the way I played" "I really struggled"

BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/7363397.stm

drakulie
04-29-2008, 02:05 PM
As long as he is the clear number 2 player in the world on clay, and continues to play in finals>>>>> he has a very good chance to win.

Hot Sauce
04-29-2008, 04:51 PM
This sums up MC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc&feature=related

The balls in your court.
04-29-2008, 04:51 PM
As long as he is the clear number 2 player in the world on clay, and continues to play in finals>>>>> he has a very good chance to win.

The problem is that I dont think that Federer is the CLEAR #2 clay court player in the world. Rather Federer is now ARGUABLY the #2 clay court player in the world.

Morrissey
04-29-2008, 05:16 PM
This sums up MC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc&feature=related

Nadal is who we all thought he is, the King of Clay and the possibly the greatest ever on it. I do believe Dennis Green got fired that same season and the Cardinals stayed in their annual occupancy of the basement of their division.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-29-2008, 05:27 PM
The problem is that I dont think that Federer is the CLEAR #2 clay court player in the world. Rather Federer is now ARGUABLY the #2 clay court player in the world.

Arguably #2 to whom? :confused:

Tennisguy777
04-29-2008, 06:22 PM
This is all assuming that they will meet in the Final at RG. I don't think FED will make it to the Final of RG, I have a premonition he'll be knocked out before the semis.

MariaS
04-29-2008, 06:31 PM
When Nadal smiles he lights up the stadium. He played awesome.

cknobman
04-30-2008, 05:52 AM
Arguably #2 to whom? :confused:

oops nm.......

cknobman
04-30-2008, 05:56 AM
It is more likely that the better clay court player to win on clay than it is for the better hardcourt to win on hardcourts. Reason is the points are longer and more extended giving the better player more time to find their best stuff. Clay relies less on luck and hot streaks and more on consistency.

A completely naive statement and an obvious jab to try and throw in your "Nadal is a better player than Fed" crap.

Clay neutralizes an attacking game because it is slow which allows quick players to retrieve balls that on any other service they couldnt run down. So yes consistency may win over becaue a "retriever" can just "get the ball back" but luck and hot streaks have little to do with someone winning on hardcourts.

Nadal_Freak
04-30-2008, 07:26 AM
A completely naive statement and an obvious jab to try and throw in your "Nadal is a better player than Fed" crap.

Clay neutralizes an attacking game because it is slow which allows quick players to retrieve balls that on any other service they couldnt run down. So yes consistency may win over becaue a "retriever" can just "get the ball back" but luck and hot streaks have little to do with someone winning on hardcourts.
No I didn't throw in a "Nadal is a better player than Fed" but tournament results this year say otherwise. ;) Nadal has so much topspin that very little can go off on his game on clay. You're right about it being hard to ball bash your way to victory on clay. Hard courts do allow for a player to catch fire (Youzhny, Blake, Nalbandian, Djokovic, and etc.) and pull off a victory while clay will force you to sustain a high level for a long period of time. In other words, the hard courts make 1 or 2 points be the difference since you won't likely get a ton of break opportunities each set. Clay definitely allows for less upsets.

zagor
04-30-2008, 07:45 AM
No I didn't throw in a "Nadal is a better player than Fed" but tournament results this year say otherwise. ;) Nadal has so much topspin that very little can go off on his game on clay. You're right about it being hard to ball bash your way to victory on clay. Hard courts do allow for a player to catch fire (Youzhny, Blake, Nalbandian, Djokovic, and etc.) and pull off a victory while clay will force you to sustain a high level for a long period of time. In other words, the hard courts make 1 or 2 points be the difference since you won't likely get a ton of break opportunities each set. Clay definitely allows for less upsets.

Yes,I agree with you.On clay often the better claycourter will prevail because points are much longer and serve is much less of a factor while on hardcourts and generally fast surfaces some player like Roddick,Karlovic,Isner,Blake etc. can just be on fire with his serve or groundstrokes that day and win against overall better and more complete players.For example Roddick beating Federer,Djokovic and Nadal on hardcourts this year,Isner's run at Washington last year were he beat some pretty good players(like Haas for example),Fish getting hot and beating Hewitt,Nalbandian and Federer in Indian Wells,Anderson beating Djokovic in Miami etc. Also claycourters in general use more spin and have more margin for error unlike go for broke flat hitters like Blake and Berdych.

sureshs
04-30-2008, 08:58 AM
Chew on this: if it had not been for Federer, Nadal would have been a two-time Wimbledon champion. Invert it for Fed and RG.

They should strike a deal wherein they should agree to let each other win. Problem is, Nadal has to go first for this year. What happens if Fed reneges on his promise come Wimbledon?

Stchamps
04-30-2008, 09:00 AM
I'd give Fed 33.33 (repeating, of course) % chance of survival, I mean winning.

Morrissey
04-30-2008, 09:02 AM
No I didn't throw in a "Nadal is a better player than Fed" but tournament results this year say otherwise. ;) Nadal has so much topspin that very little can go off on his game on clay. You're right about it being hard to ball bash your way to victory on clay. Hard courts do allow for a player to catch fire (Youzhny, Blake, Nalbandian, Djokovic, and etc.) and pull off a victory while clay will force you to sustain a high level for a long period of time. In other words, the hard courts make 1 or 2 points be the difference since you won't likely get a ton of break opportunities each set. Clay definitely allows for less upsets.

That's an interesting statement and actually well thought out. It would be very difficult for Nadal to have "bad days" on clay since A.) he has a high margin for error (but very aggressive at the same time) and B.) the surface takes away hot streaks (ala Youzhny, Tsonga, Blake) and the cream will most of the time rise to the top. Which explains why Nadal played Fed last year in the finals of MC, Hamburg and Roland Garros.

illkhiboy
04-30-2008, 10:28 AM
No I didn't throw in a "Nadal is a better player than Fed" but tournament results this year say otherwise. ;) Nadal has so much topspin that very little can go off on his game on clay. You're right about it being hard to ball bash your way to victory on clay. Hard courts do allow for a player to catch fire (Youzhny, Blake, Nalbandian, Djokovic, and etc.) and pull off a victory while clay will force you to sustain a high level for a long period of time. In other words, the hard courts make 1 or 2 points be the difference since you won't likely get a ton of break opportunities each set. Clay definitely allows for less upsets.

How do you define upset?

French Open until the last two years perhaps has been the most unpredictable Slam. The US Open, meanwhile, has been the most consistent when it comes to top players staying late in the draw. So many players have had incredible stretches over there. Lendl had 8 consecutive years in the final. Sampras lost before the quarters only since 1990. Agassi and Hewitt also had 6-7 year stretches where they didnt lose before the quarters. Roddick's been very consistent too. I recall a post by Moose Malloy where he said the same thing based on empirical data.

Nadal_Freak
04-30-2008, 11:52 AM
How do you define upset?

French Open until the last two years perhaps has been the most unpredictable Slam. The US Open, meanwhile, has been the most consistent when it comes to top players staying late in the draw. So many players have had incredible stretches over there. Lendl had 8 consecutive years in the final. Sampras lost before the quarters only since 1990. Agassi and Hewitt also had 6-7 year stretches where they didnt lose before the quarters. Roddick's been very consistent too. I recall a post by Moose Malloy where he said the same thing based on empirical data.
Roddick lost to an on fire Joachim Johannson the year he was supposed to do well, Fed lost to Nalbandian at the US Open, Roddick lost to Gasquet on grass, Fed lost to an on fire Safin at the Aussie Open, and etc. All these players were clear favorites to win but couldn't. Now most of the top players in the past were weakest on clay and therefore it looked like Clay was so unpredictable to them. Get a top notch clay court specialist and it is almost impossible for them losing. Borg and Nadal are the only ones though. Maybe clay courters don't have as long as a career as normal players but when they were supposed to win, they usually did.

illkhiboy
05-02-2008, 03:12 AM
Roddick lost to an on fire Joachim Johannson the year he was supposed to do well, Fed lost to Nalbandian at the US Open, Roddick lost to Gasquet on grass, Fed lost to an on fire Safin at the Aussie Open, and etc. All these players were clear favorites to win but couldn't. Now most of the top players in the past were weakest on clay and therefore it looked like Clay was so unpredictable to them. Get a top notch clay court specialist and it is almost impossible for them losing. Borg and Nadal are the only ones though. Maybe clay courters don't have as long as a career as normal players but when they were supposed to win, they usually did.

Listen, how about this? The French Open has repeatedly produced four different semi-finalists/quarter-finalists compared to the previous year. That's not been the case with other Slams.

The part in bold: How about Muster in 1996? Or Moya in 1999? There are plenty of other examples too. The French has for years been very unpredictable. Claycourt specialists have routinely been upset as well. For example, Blake beating Almagro a couple years back. After Almagro's tough battle against Federer at Rome, that was unlikely.

jackson vile
05-03-2008, 02:50 PM
Nadal will still beat him.

You put a 'fresh' Nadal on the Hamburg court against Federer and you will see a repeat of MC/Roland Garros.

Just look at last year, Nadal should have had the Clay Slam. He would have been the only ever to hold it and the only won that ever would.

As long as there is no rain he will be fine

Roger is very very lucky with rain effecting his opponents, just look at the record. Heck if not for rain last year Nadal could have won his first Wim.

Nadal_Freak
05-03-2008, 02:54 PM
Listen, how about this? The French Open has repeatedly produced four different semi-finalists/quarter-finalists compared to the previous year. That's not been the case with other Slams.

The part in bold: How about Muster in 1996? Or Moya in 1999? There are plenty of other examples too. The French has for years been very unpredictable. Claycourt specialists have routinely been upset as well. For example, Blake beating Almagro a couple years back. After Almagro's tough battle against Federer at Rome, that was unlikely.
Muster was good but not great. He was beatable. There was no clear cut favorites for the French Open back than. Now it is Nadal and Federer. They get plenty of time to find their rhythm and reign superiority over the rest of the field. Clay allows for the best player to win. Sometimes the best player isn't always so clear cut though and those are even matches.

illkhiboy
05-03-2008, 04:22 PM
Muster was good but not great. He was beatable. There was no clear cut favorites for the French Open back than. Now it is Nadal and Federer. They get plenty of time to find their rhythm and reign superiority over the rest of the field. Clay allows for the best player to win. Sometimes the best player isn't always so clear cut though and those are even matches.

Muster was good but not great? Were you even following tennis back then? It was a SHOCK that Stich beat Muster. Muster had two streaks of 40-odd matches won on clay in 95-96. He was viewed pretty much the same as Nadal back in '06. Nadal of course achieved a lot more (Nadal_Freaks orgasms) in the next two years.
Clay allows for the best player to win? Huh? What does that mean? Kafelnikov was the best player in 1996 and Andrez Gomez the best in 1991? How about all the finalists? Verkerk, Puerta, Medvedev? They were the best players around then? Clay just has it's own requirements compared to other surfaces. It's not about the 'best' or 'worst.' Agassi kept losing in the QF's of Roland Garros. It doesn't mean his level was top eight. He just didn't move as well on the surface as did Coria or Ferrero.

Nadal_Freak
05-03-2008, 04:27 PM
Muster was good but not great? Were you even following tennis back then? It was a SHOCK that Stich beat Muster. Muster had two streaks of 40-odd matches won on clay in 95-96. He was viewed pretty much the same as Nadal back in '06. Nadal of course achieved a lot more (Nadal_Freaks orgasms) in the next two years.
Clay allows for the best player to win? Huh? What does that mean? Kafelnikov was the best player in 1996 and Andrez Gomez the best in 1991? How about all the finalists? Verkerk, Puerta, Medvedev? They were the best players around then? Clay just has it's own requirements compared to other surfaces. It's not about the 'best' or 'worst.' Agassi kept losing in the QF's of Roland Garros. It doesn't mean his level was top eight. He just didn't move as well on the surface as did Coria or Ferrero.
Muster had 1 year like Nadal's and of course he won RG that year over Chang. His level dropped every year after that. Stich not only beat him but got to the Finals that year. The conditions were faster than normal as I remember from all the heat and dryness. So I guess in faster conditions, it allows more upsets.

Cup8489
05-03-2008, 04:31 PM
I think Nadal has not shown his best yet and still won all his matches in straights, while Fed had narrow escapes and 3-setters. Nadal just won't let him escape like the others. He plays very solidly when he is down, while Fed gets impatient when he is up. Like Sampras, Fed relies on his big serve, and when its effectiveness is down on clay, his weaknesses on the FH and BH are magnified.

If he cannot win against a mediocre Nadal when he had a break in the first set and up 4-0 in the second, do you think he has a chance against him in RG when Nadal will peak? Best hope for him is that Nadal is upset by Davy or Djoker before the finals.

it's interesting you saying that fed relies on his serve, but he doesnt rely on it that much. he's more than capable of breaking serve as well

and by your statistics, based on the performance at MC for both players, if fed was up to snuff, he wouldve swept nadal.

your argument why fed won't win it doesnt make sense to me. it also seems you start these threads up way too much

we get the idea, you just like saying federer wont pull something off. good for you, now leave it be. no real reason to make a thread again. by the way, nadal wasnt playing ''mediocre'' so stop trying to make federer look worse by saying such. nadal was playing average.

Morrissey
05-03-2008, 06:58 PM
Muster was good but not great? Were you even following tennis back then? It was a SHOCK that Stich beat Muster. Muster had two streaks of 40-odd matches won on clay in 95-96. He was viewed pretty much the same as Nadal back in '06. Nadal of course achieved a lot more (Nadal_Freaks orgasms) in the next two years.
Clay allows for the best player to win? Huh? What does that mean? Kafelnikov was the best player in 1996 and Andrez Gomez the best in 1991? How about all the finalists? Verkerk, Puerta, Medvedev? They were the best players around then? Clay just has it's own requirements compared to other surfaces. It's not about the 'best' or 'worst.' Agassi kept losing in the QF's of Roland Garros. It doesn't mean his level was top eight. He just didn't move as well on the surface as did Coria or Ferrero.

How many FO´s does Muster have? He was good, not great. Guga was great., Bruguera was great. Nadal and Borg are Legends.

Tshooter
05-03-2008, 07:19 PM
He's the second best player in the world on clay. So, of course, he has a shot. Nadal has to beat 6 other players as well. Nadal is obviously a strong favorite but I would put money on Federer for the correct odds. Just like I put money on the Giants. Good odds. Upsets happen all the time.

Tshooter
05-03-2008, 07:26 PM
"Fed lost to Nalbandian at the US Open,...All these players were clear favorites to win but couldn't."

PS, gotta set the record straight on that line.

Federer was not the clear favorite the year he lost to DN (2003). In fact, going into the match I'd say DN was the clear favorite over Fed given both his then record against Fed and the fact that Fed had still never done diddly at the USO.

Fed didn't take the top position in the game until around Dec 2003 when he crushed everyone at the Masters. Then there was no looking back. We'll ignoring a 17 year old Nadal taking him out in straight sets that Spring in Miami (bad omen for Fed...)

Mansewerz
05-03-2008, 09:19 PM
I believe Fed still has a chance at winning RG. Only time will tell though.

flyer
05-03-2008, 09:36 PM
^^^He would need help from Nadal

Vision84
05-03-2008, 10:44 PM
V84= Vision84
NF= Nadal Fan

V84: Federer is the greatest. He can beat Nadal, even on clay. See, he bagelled him in Hamburg!

NF: You a Federer fanboy?

V84: Federer fanboy? I am not one at all! You Nadal fanboys are all the same!

NF: Oh sorry, there's so many of them deluded crazy ones here, it's difficult to tell the good ones from the rest! By the way, what's that figure up on the altar in your bedroom?

V84: Oh that! It's a little rexin figurine of Roger Federer that I bought at a Roger Federer Man bag store. Federer handed it to me personally. I was so excited I couldn't sleep that night! Anyways, Nadal is too 1-dimensional!

NF: All these Federer articles and you aren't a fanboy?

V84: You Nadal fanboys are all the same! Didn't I just say I ain't one? By the way, did you see my Roger Federer t-shirt that I have pinned up on my bedroom wall?

NF: No, I didn't catch that.

V84: Alright now get out of here and before you go, repeat after me ... I ain't a Federer fanboy!

:):)

Haha quite entertaining to read. Maybe I am a bit biased against Nadal cause I don't like him. I just don't like seeing all the Nadal fanboys making him seem immortal on clay and making it sound like he owns Federer on the surface without Federer having any chance. Federer had his chances in the last match they played and was 2 breaks up in the second set. I would prefer it if someone like Ferrer or Djokovic beat both Federer and Nadal but I just see Federer as having a much better chance than anyone else of achieving it. I still acknowledge that Nadal has a greater chance of beating Fed when they play on clay. I'm trying to be realistic. :)

I also put NF on the ignore list a while ago cause I got tired of all his Nadal fanboyism so a conversation between us is unlikely. And judging by the quoting fom others I think I made the right decision. :)

Nadal_Freak
05-04-2008, 09:13 AM
Haha quite entertaining to read. Maybe I am a bit biased against Nadal cause I don't like him. I just don't like seeing all the Nadal fanboys making him seem immortal on clay and making it sound like he owns Federer on the surface without Federer having any chance. Federer had his chances in the last match they played and was 2 breaks up in the second set. I would prefer it if someone like Ferrer or Djokovic beat both Federer and Nadal but I just see Federer as having a much better chance than anyone else of achieving it. I still acknowledge that Nadal has a greater chance of beating Fed when they play on clay. I'm trying to be realistic. :)

Yes since that hasn't happened before. Nadal likes to comeback from deficits. And yes 7-1 is all you need to know about the matchup between Nadal and Federer on clay. Congrats for Ferrer for surpassing Fed on clay this year.

sureshs
05-04-2008, 10:25 AM
and by your statistics, based on the performance at MC for both players, if fed was up to snuff, he wouldve swept nadal.



But he didn't. That is the point. Tennis is about who wins. Fed always comes close to winning against Nadal, but doesn't win. He also doesn't have the straight-sets wins against lower players which Nadal has. If you go by their performance in matches till they reach a clay court final, and forget about Fed being #1, you would certainly favor Nadal. Nadal does a clean sweep in the lower rounds, while Fed scrapes thru. If past performance is an indication of the future, as we are always reminded about in job evaluations or mutual funds, clear favorite is Nadal.

Nadal_Freak
05-04-2008, 10:28 AM
But he didn't. That is the point. Tennis is about who wins. Fed always comes close to winning against Nadal, but doesn't win.
Comes close as winning 1 set or being up a break in a set and lose in straights? I would hardly call that always coming close. I guess Fed fans can believe what they want to. Reality is a different story.

Morrissey
05-04-2008, 10:36 AM
Comes close as winning 1 set or being up a break in a set and lose in straights? I would hardly call that always coming close. I guess Fed fans can believe what they want to. Reality is a different story.

Fed must have entered the MC final in a similar manner that Blake enters his matches with Fed. ¨Keep it close and pray for the best. Play out of your mind, no pressure, because you´re gonna need a miracle.¨ From what I´ve seen in MC and Barcelona, Nadal is still playing excellent clay tennis and hasn´t lost anything from previous years. I smell a 4th coming soon.

crosscourt
05-04-2008, 12:21 PM
Fed must have entered the MC final in a similar manner that Blake enters his matches with Fed. ¨Keep it close and pray for the best. Play out of your mind, no pressure, because you´re gonna need a miracle.¨ From what I´ve seen in MC and Barcelona, Nadal is still playing excellent clay tennis and hasn´t lost anything from previous years. I smell a 4th coming soon.

Keep it close and hope for an upset, I agree with. But it woudn't be a miracle for Fed to win. If Nadal plays at his best he will win. If he doesn't, and if Fed can keep his first serve percentage up, and not try to play out of his mind, but rather put pressure on Nadal -- especially keep him well behind the baseline -- Fed has a real chance.

cc

Pro Staff Pete
05-04-2008, 01:25 PM
Federer was present during the Barcelona final today. Impressed he was he said: 'There's so much margin in Rafa's game and he doesn't make many errors either. It's gonna be hard to prevent him from winning his fourth titels in Rome and Paris.'

dh003i
05-04-2008, 02:45 PM
Comes close as winning 1 set or being up a break in a set and lose in straights? I would hardly call that always coming close. I guess Fed fans can believe what they want to. Reality is a different story.

Yet Fed's the only one to repeatedly take sets off Nadal at the FO, and has prevented him from winning it without losing a set; and also is the only one to have beaten him on clay.

But, I wouldn't expect Nadal_Freak to acknowledge that, yea, Fed's a really good clay-courter too; no no, Djokovic's a better clay-courter. lol.

cknobman
05-05-2008, 06:09 AM
Comes close as winning 1 set or being up a break in a set and lose in straights? I would hardly call that always coming close. I guess Fed fans can believe what they want to. Reality is a different story.


Just like the reality of Nadal and why hes #2. During the clay season he looks like superman and he dosnt look bad on the short grass season(because they slowed it down so much) but all other tiimes of the year hes just a regular player whos puts up #3 results at best.

Nadal_Freak
05-05-2008, 08:02 AM
Just like the reality of Nadal and why hes #2. During the clay season he looks like superman and he dosnt look bad on the short grass season(because they slowed it down so much) but all other tiimes of the year hes just a regular player whos puts up #3 results at best.
At best as he averages being number 3 just like Fed averages being number 3 on clay. (Ferrer has taken the 2 spot) Fed's chances on clay are done and this is what this topic about. Not about the rest of the year.

Jimmyk459
05-05-2008, 08:05 AM
wow... these threads get *****y... poor, guys.... poor....

Jimmyk459
05-05-2008, 08:06 AM
i hate how they censor things...

dh003i
05-05-2008, 01:09 PM
At best as he averages being number 3 just like Fed averages being number 3 on clay. (Ferrer has taken the 2 spot) Fed's chances on clay are done and this is what this topic about. Not about the rest of the year.

LOL @ Ferrer being the #2 on clay, you're full of it. Just clear anti-Federer bias. Fed played better against Nadal at MC than Ferrer did this week; Fed also has done much better than Ferrer or anyone else on clay, except Nadal, over the last several years. Your "judgement" on matters of tennis fact and prediction can be seen as approximately a compass that points the wrong way. See my sig.

veroniquem
05-05-2008, 01:38 PM
Well #3 results are not "regular". Most of the guys on the tour can't get that kind of results and would kill just for a chance to become top five.

Nadal_Freak
05-05-2008, 02:37 PM
LOL @ Ferrer being the #2 on clay, you're full of it. Just clear anti-Federer bias. Fed played better against Nadal at MC than Ferrer did this week; Fed also has done much better than Ferrer or anyone else on clay, except Nadal, over the last several years. Your "judgement" on matters of tennis fact and prediction can be seen as approximately a compass that points the wrong way. See my sig.
Fed lost in straight sets as I remember. Ferrer actually got a set on Nadal. Ferrer hasn't lost to anyone other than Nadal on clay this year. Yeah Ferrer might not match up too well against Federer but I say he has been just as dominant on clay to Federer if not more. I wouldn't say Federer is better than Nalbandian even though Nalbandian always owns him. It's just a matchup issue for Ferrer.

dh003i
05-05-2008, 03:37 PM
Fed lost in straight sets as I remember. Ferrer actually got a set on Nadal. Ferrer hasn't lost to anyone other than Nadal on clay this year. Yeah Ferrer might not match up too well against Federer but I say he has been just as dominant on clay to Federer if not more. I wouldn't say Federer is better than Nalbandian even though Nalbandian always owns him. It's just a matchup issue for Ferrer.

Well, the last several years, Ferrer has not done as well on clay as Fed. He hasn't done as well as Fed this year either (MC final is more important than Barcelona). He isn't the guy who beat Nadal on clay, Fed is.

As for your comment on Federer and Nalbandian, I have no idea what you're talking about. Nalbandian plays Fed tough, but to be sure, Federer is the better of the two, and is more of a problem for Nalbandian than vica-versa. Outside of Nadal on clay, there may be players that are tough for Fed, but there is no player who is a bad match-up for him in terms of him losing more times than not over the long haul. He's just better than everyone else on every surface, except Nadal on clay.

caulcano
05-06-2008, 04:00 AM
At best as he averages being number 3 just like Fed averages being number 3 on clay. (Ferrer has taken the 2 spot) Fed's chances on clay are done and this is what this topic about. Not about the rest of the year.

Yeah, just in your head.

ksbh
05-06-2008, 05:10 AM
Good points all, can't argue much against that. By the way, I"m glad you took my post lightly because I only made it in jest :)

Haha quite entertaining to read. Maybe I am a bit biased against Nadal cause I don't like him. I just don't like seeing all the Nadal fanboys making him seem immortal on clay and making it sound like he owns Federer on the surface without Federer having any chance. Federer had his chances in the last match they played and was 2 breaks up in the second set. I would prefer it if someone like Ferrer or Djokovic beat both Federer and Nadal but I just see Federer as having a much better chance than anyone else of achieving it. I still acknowledge that Nadal has a greater chance of beating Fed when they play on clay. I'm trying to be realistic. :)

I also put NF on the ignore list a while ago cause I got tired of all his Nadal fanboyism so a conversation between us is unlikely. And judging by the quoting fom others I think I made the right decision. :)

cknobman
05-06-2008, 06:30 AM
Fed lost in straight sets as I remember. Ferrer actually got a set on Nadal. Ferrer hasn't lost to anyone other than Nadal on clay this year. Yeah Ferrer might not match up too well against Federer but I say he has been just as dominant on clay to Federer if not more. I wouldn't say Federer is better than Nalbandian even though Nalbandian always owns him. It's just a matchup issue for Ferrer.

How can you expect people to respect your thoughts and opinions if you wont look at anything objectively. Ferrer #2 on clay? Please take a look at the last 3 season including this one so far and the FACT is Fed is #2 on clay. You wouldnt say Federer is better than Nalbandian? True Nalby has had some good matches but you honestly think hes better than Fed? If that was so he would be #1 in the world. If your talking about clay, Fed has already beaten Nalby this year.

Dont let your blind love of Nadal and hate for Fed cloud sound reasoning and hard facts. I get it and I agree... .Nadal is better than Fed on clay. It dosnt mean Fed isnt #2 OR Fed cant beat Nadal. Fed is the only player with an actual chance of beating Nadal and if you disagree just look at the match results from the last 2.5 years.

goforgold99
05-06-2008, 07:19 AM
Federer WILL WIN FO 2008 !!!

Remember my words, pals! :cool:

:cool:

caulcano
05-06-2008, 07:46 AM
How can you expect people to respect your thoughts and opinions if you wont look at anything objectively. Ferrer #2 on clay? Please take a look at the last 3 season including this one so far and the FACT is Fed is #2 on clay. You wouldnt say Federer is better than Nalbandian? True Nalby has had some good matches but you honestly think hes better than Fed? If that was so he would be #1 in the world. If your talking about clay, Fed has already beaten Nalby this year.

Dont let your blind love of Nadal and hate for Fed cloud sound reasoning and hard facts. I get it and I agree... .Nadal is better than Fed on clay. It dosnt mean Fed isnt #2 OR Fed cant beat Nadal. Fed is the only player with an actual chance of beating Nadal and if you disagree just look at the match results from the last 2.5 years.

That particular poster is talking about this year's results on clay. Ferrer has taken a set (or 2?) off of Nadal 'this year' on clay but Federer hasn't. However, just because Ferrer has doesn't mean he's better on clay than Federer.

The poster is a troll & has nothing better to do than twists things to belittle Federer at every opportunity.

Cup8489
05-06-2008, 08:05 AM
Fed lost in straight sets as I remember. Ferrer actually got a set on Nadal. Ferrer hasn't lost to anyone other than Nadal on clay this year. Yeah Ferrer might not match up too well against Federer but I say he has been just as dominant on clay to Federer if not more. I wouldn't say Federer is better than Nalbandian even though Nalbandian always owns him. It's just a matchup issue for Ferrer.

look at it this way: federer got 10 games off of nadal at MC, in two sets. Ferrer got 9 games off Nadal in 3 sets. so who cares if he won a set? he still got his *** kicked. nadal had a lapse in that second set, because most people dont try to blast him off the court, because most people realize they wont do it fast enough before nadal adapts.

Nalbandian just recently lost to Federer, too, so your statement that Nalbandian always owns him is just overzealous chitchat.

I think you should learn to look at the bigger picture. If you noticed, I was praising your Idol for smashing ferrer. i like all the players in the top 10, but you're far too biased against everyone except Nadal, and your posts reflect this.

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 08:57 AM
look at it this way: federer got 10 games off of nadal at MC, in two sets. Ferrer got 9 games off Nadal in 3 sets. so who cares if he won a set? he still got his *** kicked. nadal had a lapse in that second set, because most people dont try to blast him off the court, because most people realize they wont do it fast enough before nadal adapts.

Nalbandian just recently lost to Federer, too, so your statement that Nalbandian always owns him is just overzealous chitchat.

I think you should learn to look at the bigger picture. If you noticed, I was praising your Idol for smashing ferrer. i like all the players in the top 10, but you're far too biased against everyone except Nadal, and your posts reflect this.
You're not giving Ferrer the proper respect he deserves. He is playing some remarkable tennis on clay this year. Nadal had to be really on his game to beat Ferrer. Nadal can relax against most player but Ferrer is a different animal. If the conditions were wet, it would make it even tougher for Nadal. Based on Ferrer being able to do so well in Nadal-like conditions (high bouncing) shows how much he upped his game this year. If the conditions are slow enough, I think Ferrer can beat Fed. Rome is like a hard court though with its speed. Proven by the amount of first serve points won and aces compared to Monte Carlo and Barcelona.

scineram
05-06-2008, 12:22 PM
They are like 3-0 on clay with Ferrer winning one set. Roger bageled him in Monte Carlo last year. Dream on!

drakulie
05-06-2008, 12:31 PM
At best as he averages being number 3 just like Fed averages being number 3 on clay. (Ferrer has taken the 2 spot) Fed's chances on clay are done and this is what this topic about. Not about the rest of the year.

LMAO! Untile ferrer starts actually winning titles on clay (like Fed did last year), and consistently makes it to the finals of the French Open (like fed has done the last two years), then your post shows how little you know. Nothing more.

Fed is clearly the number 2 player on clay. No one on tour comes close.

quest01
05-06-2008, 06:09 PM
^^ I agree, I think the only player who gets in Federer's way on clay is Nadal and nobody else is even close.

Babb
05-06-2008, 06:12 PM
People always think that if you go against Federer then you are a Fed-hater and a troll. But I seriously doubt he'll win RG, and I'm not a troll or a Fed-hater. I am a realist :D

drakulie
05-06-2008, 06:22 PM
^^Who you trying to kid??? :)

Babb
05-06-2008, 06:25 PM
Haha :)

But really, I have nothing against Fed. His performance has just been a little sub-par lately, and even when he was playing his best tennis (2005-2007, IMO), he couldn't beat Nadal on clay (more than a few times).

drakulie
05-06-2008, 06:35 PM
^^I totally agree. his performance this year when measured up against his past few years, is well below sub par. And yes, Nadal is simply a beast on clay. No one comes close.

Babb
05-06-2008, 06:37 PM
Well let me ask you this, Drakulie: do you think that this is Fed's decline that we're witnessing or that he's just in a temporary slump?

drakulie
05-06-2008, 06:54 PM
from what I have been seeing, I think he is in a slump. Earlier in the year, his movement was not as good as it has been in the past, which resulted in poor shots performance. However, this "slump", could very well be what begins his decline.

veroniquem
05-06-2008, 07:06 PM
I agree with the slump to start the year but so far on clay I think Fed has been playing better than last year.

cknobman
05-07-2008, 05:16 AM
Well I for one was impressed with Fed's performance against Canas yesterday.

He spanked him. There were some great points from both players and some really sick shots from fed (along with a few lucky ones too).

To Nadal_Freak: Fed and Ferrer will meet in the draw if they both advance and we will get to see first hand whos better than who. Im willing to go out on a limb here and say youll eat crow!

edberg505
05-07-2008, 07:50 AM
Well I for one was impressed with Fed's performance against Canas yesterday.

He spanked him. There were some great points from both players and some really sick shots from fed (along with a few lucky ones too).

To Nadal_Freak: Fed and Ferrer will meet in the draw if they both advance and we will get to see first hand whos better than who. Im willing to go out on a limb here and say youll eat crow!

So much for that Ferrer is the second best claycourter theory. Ferrer has never beaten Federer on any type of court and there is nothing to suggest the outcome will be different should they play again in the near future.

cknobman
05-07-2008, 09:48 AM
So much for that Ferrer is the second best claycourter theory. Ferrer has never beaten Federer on any type of court and there is nothing to suggest the outcome will be different should they play again in the near future.

LOL.

I might as well add the question:

Is Nadal's claycourt dominance over?????? LMAO

scineram
05-07-2008, 10:27 AM
If you saw the match you are not that surprised.

shavenstringer
05-07-2008, 10:44 AM
He showed that he cannot maintain a lead on clay long enough to win against Nadal and will squander it with unforced errors on his forehand. His backhand is always quite weak.

I predict another frustrating run on clay for Federer, and another year gone by with no RG title.

Your controversial thread topics are boringly predictable.

GRANITECHIEF
05-07-2008, 11:39 AM
Looks like he Fed won't have the chance to spank Ferrer, as Stepanek had something to say about that. He said something about a breadstick.

Rhino
06-05-2009, 02:27 AM
I hate to say it but I think the only chance Fed has at RG is if Nadal gets taken out early either from an injury or some player has an amazing day.

raiden031, looks like you got it spot on.

Halba
06-05-2009, 02:28 AM
raiden031, looks like you got it spot on.

yep nadal taken out early combined with a mugg draw where he only has to face a couple of reasonable threats and people he has a superb record against.

also djokovic another threat taken out early...

stormholloway
06-05-2009, 02:39 AM
Maybe Nadal should have played better.

samster
06-07-2009, 09:52 AM
He showed that he cannot maintain a lead on clay long enough to win against Nadal and will squander it with unforced errors on his forehand. His backhand is always quite weak.

I predict another frustrating run on clay for Federer, and another year gone by with no RG title.

wrong. .

samster
06-07-2009, 04:17 PM
He showed that he cannot maintain a lead on clay long enough to win against Nadal and will squander it with unforced errors on his forehand. His backhand is always quite weak.

I predict another frustrating run on clay for Federer, and another year gone by with no RG title.

Where is sureshs? I am waiting for him to eat his words.

World Beater
06-07-2009, 04:27 PM
Resurrected

vtmike
06-07-2009, 04:36 PM
Ok, but what if by some outstanding performace Nalbandian, Djokovic or some other guy (not sure if there's anyone else with a chance) beat Nadal before the finals? I'm quite sure that Federer got a chance if Nadal doesn't show up.

Wow you got it spot on!!

vtmike
06-07-2009, 04:46 PM
The key word is "hopeful", but I think a part of it is denial as well. But unless he loses in the early stages of RG, they'll keep their "hopes" up.

Wow and you thought Fed would go out in the early rounds... :D I actually don't blame you... ;)

Roland Garros Round 4: Robin Soderling def Rafael Nadal (6-2 6-7 6-4 7-6)

Yeah right! Been hearing this since 2006.

Maybe it'll keep getting closer & closer until it is time for Federer to retire.

Guess what? Its not so close anymore... :D

vtmike
06-07-2009, 04:49 PM
Fed has a chance but he needs a bigger racket and a new secretary to organize that stockpile of Data that he has been collecting from all the clay losses, lmao.

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/2882/owned9wz.jpg

I hope all the tennisplaya's like this picture? :lol: