PDA

View Full Version : Nadal to drop a Set at FO?


Halba
05-19-2010, 01:47 AM
hmm interesting question. he has dropped only 2 in 15 matches.

it all comes down to surface speed

if FO speed is like 2009, he will definitely drop a set, may even lose.

if FO speed is like any other year he contested ,he won't drop a set as its just a dream surface and no one can get by him.

Sangria
05-19-2010, 01:59 AM
I suspect he will lose a couple.. ? Is FO'10 going to be slower than last year? Sorry I'm not really informed of these types of things.

illuminati
05-19-2010, 02:02 AM
apparently they were using smaller and lighter balls that fly through the air last year.

rjg007
05-19-2010, 02:02 AM
I dont think that the French Open surface will change too much in speed. He lost last year due to his knees and Soderling playing a really good match. Any of the top 15 players last year could have beaten Nadal at that stage of the French last year.
This year I think he will drop 2 sets. But it will only be 1 in the semi and 1 in the final.

Halba
05-19-2010, 02:03 AM
apparently they were using smaller and lighter balls that fly through the air last year.

coz the french are anti nadal? if they use them again fed can come into zone. it was a hard court last year

Hitman
05-19-2010, 02:08 AM
Depends on the surface, as previously stated.

If it is slow, then I don't see him losing more than two sets.

If it is fast, and playing like a hard court, where the agressive ball strikers can hit through the court, he will lose a few more.

Still see him walking out with his fifth title there at this point, however I don't think we'll see a performance like 2008 either.

vortex1
05-19-2010, 02:26 AM
He won't lose a single set.

Pidgeon
05-19-2010, 02:55 AM
ofc he will lose a couple of sets ...
but never 3 in 1 match :)

Speranza
05-19-2010, 03:31 AM
coz the french are anti nadal? if they use them again fed can come into zone. it was a hard court last year

Watson: Really? If it was a hard court, why was Murray not in contention in the final? Sorry, I disagree.

He won't lose a single set.

Holmes: Quite right. He'll lose a few at least.

angiebaby
05-19-2010, 03:32 AM
I don't think it'll be as much of a breeze for Rafa as people are suggesting. I think he'll have more than a couple of tough matches and can definitely see him losing a set here and there.

I hope I'm wrong though! :)

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 03:36 AM
I don't think it'll be as much of a breeze for Rafa as people are suggesting. I think he'll have more than a couple of tough matches and can definitely see him losing a set here and there.

I hope I'm wrong though! :)

Yay for another boring clay tournament. It's only like the 20th in the last 4 years.

angiebaby
05-19-2010, 03:38 AM
Yay for another boring clay tournament. It's only like the 20th in the last 4 years.


Feel free to skip it. :neutral: When I'm bored with something I usually find other things to do. I'm sure you do too, no?

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 03:45 AM
Feel free to skip it. :neutral: When I'm bored with something I usually find other things to do. I'm sure you do too, no?

Indeed I do. I started playing tennis in the clay season and usually May/June is the time where I play the most, by far.

I'm still ****ed that I haven't been able to watch many decent matches/tournaments (where you didn't knew who'll win) on my favorite surface for the last 3-4 years.

But as a Nadal fan it must be great to watch a 6-1 6-0 Masters Series final...

namelessone
05-19-2010, 03:50 AM
Feel free to skip it. :neutral: When I'm bored with something I usually find other things to do. I'm sure you do too, no?

The people who hate something seemed to be really drawn to that something.

When Nadal plays spaniards the forum is awash with people *****ing about spanish lapdogs.

Ditto for when Fed loses a set,not to mention if he loses a match.

The people that say they don't like Nadal's game are posting comments in the match thread when Nadal is playing(many times trolling).

Oh,and about clay domination getting boring: Have none of you people been around watching tennis during the 2004-2007 stretch? Nadal dominates one third of the season,Federer dominated the rest of the year for 3-4 years running. If Federer was in a tourney in 2004-2007 stretch there was a 80-85% chance that he would win it. Wasn't that boring? The guy lost 5 matches in 2006 out of 97 played if I remember correctly. But I guess 2006 wasn't boring,right?

I use one simple rule for anything in life: if it something bores me,anything,I try to get as far away from it as possible. Golf bores me to tears but you won't see me flipping through the channels trying to find it.

Sangria
05-19-2010, 04:08 AM
The people who hate something seemed to be really drawn to that something.

When Nadal plays spaniards the forum is awash with people *****ing about spanish lapdogs.

Ditto for when Fed loses a set,not to mention if he loses a match.

The people that say they don't like Nadal's game are posting comments in the match thread when Nadal is playing(many times trolling).

Oh,and about clay domination getting boring: Have none of you people been around watching tennis during the 2004-2007 stretch? Nadal dominates one third of the season,Federer dominated the rest of the year for 3-4 years running. If Federer was in a tourney in 2004-2007 stretch there was a 80-85% chance that he would win it. Wasn't that boring? The guy lost 5 matches in 2006 out of 97 played if I remember correctly. But I guess 2006 wasn't boring,right?

I use one simple rule of anything in life: if it something bores me,anything,I try to get as far away from it as possible. Golf bores me to tears but you won't see me flipping through the channels trying to find it.

Agree, agree, and agree. Its just that Rafa is so easy to tease among some people, its like trying to grab a scrumptious cookie from a jar high up on that cupboard. They will keep trying until they are satisfied, and then seek more in a never ending cycle :-? Its funny sometimes, because its usually so predictable I just laugh it off.

aceX
05-19-2010, 04:08 AM
I use one simple rule of anything in life: if it something bores me,anything,I try to get as far away from it as possible

*runs away from namelessone*

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 04:25 AM
The people who hate something seemed to be really drawn to that something.

When Nadal plays spaniards the forum is awash with people *****ing about spanish lapdogs.

Ditto for when Fed loses a set,not to mention if he loses a match.

The people that say they don't like Nadal's game are posting comments in the match thread when Nadal is playing(many times trolling).

Oh,and about clay domination getting boring: Have none of you people been around watching tennis during the 2004-2007 stretch? Nadal dominates one third of the season,Federer dominated the rest of the year for 3-4 years running. If Federer was in a tourney in 2004-2007 stretch there was a 80-85% chance that he would win it. Wasn't that boring? The guy lost 5 matches in 2006 out of 97 played if I remember correctly. But I guess 2006 wasn't boring,right?

I use one simple rule of anything in life: if it something bores me,anything,I try to get as far away from it as possible. Golf bores me to tears but you won't see me flipping through the channels trying to find it.

It was boring in 2006, but how does that make Nadal's clay domination any more interesting?

Federer in 2007 was far from Nadal's clay domination, back to back losses to Canas in IW/Miami and Nalbandian in Paris/Madrid, losses to Djokovic in Montreal and to Nadal in Monte Carlo and Volandri in Rome.

All I want competitive clay court tennis, and that hasn't been the case for almost 5 years, which is great for Nadal-fan(girl)s but sucks for the rest.

For me it's basically 2 wasted months of the seasons, which wouldn't be bad if it wasn't the only time they play on my favorite surface.

Sangria
05-19-2010, 04:36 AM
It was boring in 2006, but how does that make Nadal's clay domination any more interesting?

Federer in 2007 was far from Nadal's clay domination, back to back losses to Canas in IW/Miami and Nalbandian in Paris/Madrid, losses to Djokovic in Montreal and to Nadal in Monte Carlo and Volandri in Rome.

I want competitive clay court tennis, and that hasn't been the case for almost 5 years, which is great for Nadal-fan(girl)s but sucks for the rest.

For me it's basically 2 wasted months of the seasons, which wouldn't be bad if it wasn't the only time they play on my favorite surface.

Aah, so this is the reason why people hate Nadal? Nah just kidding.. Sorry I'm tired, better go to sleep now.. :cool:

namelessone
05-19-2010, 04:37 AM
It was boring in 2006, but how does that make Nadal's clay domination any more interesting?

Federer in 2007 was far from Nadal's clay domination, back to back losses to Canas in IW/Miami and Nalbandian in Paris/Madrid, losses to Djokovic in Montreal and to Nadal in Monte Carlo and Volandri in Rome.

All I want competitive clay court tennis, and that hasn't been the case for almost 5 years, which is great for Nadal-fan(girl)s but sucks for the rest.

For me it's basically 2 wasted months of the seasons, which wouldn't be bad if it wasn't the only time they play on my favorite surface.

With Nadal it is two months of "non-competitive tennis",with Fed it was the rest,about 8 months in 2006. The dominance which you talk about,Nadal has had in the last 4-5 years two months a year,while in the 04-07 period Fed won most tournaments he entered. How was that competitive? You complain about Nadal's 6-1,6-0 drubbing of Dasco but Fed gave us a GS final where he served up a double bagel. Isn't that worse?

Nadal is a clay beast and it is unfortunate for people who want the competition to be tighter but you must understand that what Fed was doing in the 2004-2007 was far far worse. And anyway,Rafa can only dominate because the clay season is balanced,3 MS + 1 GS,whereas HC has way way too many tourneys,you can't expect Fed to win'em all though he nearly did in 2006. BTW,maybe we should skip grass season. I mean,what's the point,Fed won WB 6 times in the last 7 years,didn't he? And there are only 4 grasscourters out there Fed,Nadal,Roddick,Murray with a nod to Hewitt. What's there to look forward to,right?

Let's get back to HC where it is competitive.:rolleyes:

Leonidas
05-19-2010, 04:38 AM
hmm interesting question. he has dropped only 2 in 15 matches.

it all comes down to surface speed

if FO speed is like 2009, he will definitely drop a set, may even lose.

if FO speed is like any other year he contested ,he won't drop a set as its just a dream surface and no one can get by him.

thatīs true. I donīt know why, but last year seemed to play much faster. Given out that a a lot of years it was sunny, and worse weather makes the courts play slower, they only thing i can come up with to explain the FO playing faster are the balls. Does anyone know if they actually used lighter balls? those frenchies are nadal haters, no doubt.

Rippy
05-19-2010, 04:41 AM
thatīs true. I donīt know why, but last year seemed to play much faster. Given out that a a lot of years it was sunny, and worse weather makes the courts play slower, they only thing i can come up with to explain the FO playing faster are the balls. Does anyone know if they actually used lighter balls? those frenchies are nadal haters, no doubt.

It could have been the weather last year. Also, it's possible they used different balls. Wimbledon switched to heavier ones a few years ago I believe.

illuminati
05-19-2010, 04:47 AM
from what i have read somewhere the french authorities used lighter balls that flies through the air quicker and also removed a few layers of clay from the courts to speed it up in 2009.

i wonder if nadal is aware of this and what he thinks about it.

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 04:51 AM
With Nadal it is two months of "non-competitive tennis",with Fed it was the rest,about 8 months in 2006. The dominance which you talk about,Nadal has had in the last 4-5 years two months a year,while in the 04-07 period Fed won most tournaments he entered. How was that competitive? You complain about Nadal's 6-1,6-0 drubbing of Dasco but Fed gave us a GS final where he served up a double bagel. Isn't that worse?

Nadal is a clay beast and it is unfortunate for people who want the competition to be tighter but you must understand that what Fed was doing in the 2004-2007 was far far worse. And anyway,Rafa can only dominate because the clay season is balanced,3 MS + 1 GS,whereas HC has way way too many tourneys,you can't expect Fed to win'em all though he nearly did in 2006. BTW,maybe we should skip grass season. I mean,what's the point,Fed won WB 6 times in the last 7 years,didn't he? And there are only 4 grasscourters out there Fed,Nadal,Roddick,Murray with a nod to Hewitt. What's there to look forward to,right?

Let's get back to HC where it is competitive.:rolleyes:
2006 is long gone. Since then almost all hardcourt masters were competitive.

When was the last time the outcome of a clay masters/slam was widely open? Probably RG 2009, and before that Hamburg 2006 when both Nadal and Federer pulled out.

Don't you see the difference?

Federer's play against Hewitt in the 04 US Open was extremly onsided, but the first set is regarded as one of the 10 best of the open era. Also it was an isolated case, almost all US Open finals since then have been better then the RG equivalent.

On hardcourt the depth is as great as it has ever been.Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, Davydenko, Söderling. I could go on an on.

On clay we only have Nadal, Federer who can't beat Nadal, and Djokovic who has no stamina, and since this year Verdasco who doesn't really believe in his chances against Nadal.

The likes of Ferrer have basically no chance to win a clay title, all they can do is give Nadal/Federer a tough match and maybe take out Djokovic just to lose against one of the top2. That's boring, and it has been for years.

There's nothing wrong in wanting your boy see win (easy), but please don't pretend that there's a lot of suspense.

namelessone
05-19-2010, 05:13 AM
Don't you see the difference?

Federer's play against Hewitt in the 04 US Open was extremly onsided, but the first set is regarded as one of the 10 best of the open era. Also it was an isolated case, almost all US Open finals since then have been better then the RG equivalent.

On hardcourt the depth is as great as it has ever been.Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, Davydenko, Söderling. I could go on an on.

On clay we only have Nadal, Federer who can't beat Nadal, and Djokovic who has no stamina, and since this year Verdasco who doesn't really believe in his chances against Nadal.

The likes of Ferrer have basically no chance to win a clay title, all they can do is give Nadal/Federer a tough match and maybe take out Djokovic just to lose against one of the top2. That's boring, and it has been for years.



2004 RG final: Gaudio-Coria. Memorable in 5 sets.
2004 USO final: Federer-Hewitt,double bagel. The first set which you talk about was 6-0,real competitive. But I guess it is not boring when the high level is Fed's,right?

2005 RG final: A kid from Mallorca wins his first GS after losing first set. Also memorable.
2005 USO final: Fed beats Agassi in 4 sets. Good quality final considering this was old man Agassi(6-3,2-6,7-6,6-1).

2006 RG final: Nadal beats Fed in 4 sets after fed breadsticks him in the first set. Also pretty good final and tighter than it looked(1-6,6-1,7-6,6-4).
2006 USO final: Fed has a standard 4 set win over Roddick. Good final.

2007 RG final: Nadal wins in four sets(6-3,4-6,6-3,6-4) against Fed at it was tighter than in 2006.
2007 USO final: Fed wins in straigth over novak though novak had quite a few chances himself. A very good quality final.

2008 RG: Nadal murders a non existent Fed. Fed wins 4 games. Mediocre final.
2008 USO: Fed murders a very nervous Murray. Murray wins 9 games. Mediocre final.

2009 RG: Fed murders soderling,who seemed glad just to be out there.
2009 USO: Classic final and Fed's first defeat since his first title here. A nice five setter.

While many think RG may had weaker quality finals this was not the case IMO. It wasn't a foregone conclusion that Nadal would win against Fed three times,he wasn't even a high favourite over puerta(who had defeated canas and davydenko). He even got breadsticked once and lost sets in two of those three finals. Hell in 08' many experts were saying that his was the year for Fed to win RG. Until 09' Rafa had lost three sets in RG finals(2005-2008). Until 09' Fed had lost just two sets in USO finals. So how were USO finals of higher quality or tighter? Agassi and Roddick were to Fed in USO what Fed was to Rafa in RG,they pushed him but did not beat him.Though he lost in straights Novak pushed him harder than those two. Hewitt was beat in 04' as bad as Fed in 08' in RG. If USO finals have a edge in the 04-09' period it's a slight one at best. BTW I took the 04-09' interval since it is when the two guys of the sport started to dominate those respective slams(though Rafa missed clay season 04')

Like I said before,let's kill the grass season. I mean,we all know Fed will probably win,what's the point? Just hand him the trophy.

Gemini
05-19-2010, 05:17 AM
He'll drop more than a set. He'll drop several and the most siginificants sets will result in a loss just like last year.

zagor
05-19-2010, 05:20 AM
With Nadal it is two months of "non-competitive tennis",with Fed it was the rest,about 8 months in 2006. The dominance which you talk about,Nadal has had in the last 4-5 years two months a year,while in the 04-07 period Fed won most tournaments he entered.

That's only true for 2005 and 2006 years,not for 2004 and definitely not for 2007.

You complain about Nadal's 6-1,6-0 drubbing of Dasco but Fed gave us a GS final where he served up a double bagel. Isn't that worse?

And Hewitt still won more games than Fed did last time he met Nadal at FO in their "epic" rivalry.

maybe we should skip grass season. I mean,what's the point,Fed won WB 6 times in the last 7 years,didn't he? And there are only 4 grasscourters out there Fed,Nadal,Roddick,Murray with a nod to Hewitt. What's there to look forward to,right?

Hm,last 3 Wimbledon finals were all dramatic and exciting 5 setters which could have easily gone either way while last 2 FO finals were very meh,especially 2008 where the runner up barely got games.

With Wimbledon even if the main favourite Fed meets Roddick in the final(a guy he's 19-2 against)we might still be in for a very close match(as last year final proved)can't say I feel the same way if the main FO favourite Nadal reaches the final RG,more likely we're in for another straight set spanking.

Let's get back to HC where it is competitive.:rolleyes:

Indeed,the field on HC has a lot more depth in this era than either grass on clay,in my opinion atleast.

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 05:22 AM
2004 RG final was a horrible choke after an almost sure straight set win for Coria. At the US Open that year the first set wasn't just high quality. The defense and offense by Federer was some of the best you'll ever see, but sure it wasn't a great match. (still a millions time better and more entertaining than FO 08, just compare the commentary)

The 2005 US Open was also clearly better than RG that year, interestingly it still was one of the better finals in Paris in recent years.

2006 RG final wasn't very good either, in the first set Nadal played bad and in the second Federer. In the following sets neither player very well. US Open wasn't very good either, but definatly not worse.

In 2007 the final was a foregone conlusion, no one besides Federer and Nadal had a chance. In the match itself Federer gave himself millions of chances to break and gave them all away, even worse than Djokovic did in the first set of the US Open the same year.

2008 was just total **** in Paris. Nadal didn't lose a set and Federer reached the final with horrible tennis.
US Open final was at least semi-competitive and with a much higher quality of play, very nice agressive tennis by Federer. Also there was much speculation who'd reach and win the final as Federer was struggling badly.

2009 it was once more better at the US Open, no wonder as the depth on hardcout is much better, there's always a high caliber player in form.

zagor
05-19-2010, 05:25 AM
Like I said before,let's kill the grass season. I mean,we all know Fed will probably win,what's the point? Just hand him the trophy.

But we don't,that's the point.If Fed plays Nadal,heck even Roddick in the Wimbledon final it's not that sure he'd win,especially if he plays Nadal(Nadal would probably even be the slight favourite in that match if it happened this year).

If Nadal plays the FO final versus anyone it's almost a foregone conclusion.

namelessone
05-19-2010, 05:26 AM
.

Indeed,the field on HC has a lot more depth in this era than either grass on clay,in my opinion atleast.

Most guys that do well on HC today have weapons for clay and grass. But since Nadal owns clay and Fed owns grass most guys prefer to stay away from those surfaces and try on HC where there are way more chances to succeed since Fedal can't win all of them. Look at the titles that the nr.3,4,5,6 and so on have won in the last couple of years and you will see that they are mostly 250,500 events or some leftover HC masters.

There is no bigger challenge today in tennis,other than doing a CYGS,than beating a healthy Nadal on clay or Federer on grass.

namelessone
05-19-2010, 05:28 AM
2009 it was once more better at the US Open, no wonder as the depth on hardcout is much better, there's always a high caliber player in form.

So how is it that the field with the slimmest competition as it were,grass,has given us the best GS finals in the last couple of years?

namelessone
05-19-2010, 05:30 AM
But we don't,that's the point.If Fed plays Nadal,heck even Roddick in the Wimbledon final it's not that sure he'd win,especially if he plays Nadal(Nadal would probably even be the slight favourite in that match if it happened this year).

If Nadal plays the FO final versus anyone it's almost a foregone conclusion.

So you really think a outsider wouldn't fancy his chances in a GS final? What does he have to lose?

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 05:32 AM
So how is it that the field with the slimmest competition as it were,grass,has given us the best GS finals in the last couple of years?

Federer and Nadal are the two best players.

It's a lot harder to take Nadal out on grass, so that's why those finals could happen three times in a row. The bounce isn't as high as on clay, so Federer doesn't hit as many errors and can play better for longer stretches compared to clay.

ksbh
05-19-2010, 05:36 AM
Spot on! Agreed! :)

But we don't,that's the point.If Fed plays Nadal,heck even Roddick in the Wimbledon final it's not that sure he'd win,especially if he plays Nadal(Nadal would probably even be the slight favourite in that match if it happened this year).

If Nadal plays the FO final versus anyone it's almost a foregone conclusion.

Hitman
05-19-2010, 05:49 AM
Nadal at the FO - Irresistible force and also the immovable object

Irresistible force - That high cross court forehand top spin shot is coming nearly every time, you know it, but you can do nothing about it.

Immovable object - You cannot move the ball past a human wall.

Conclusion - Rafa dominates and destroys the competition with little resistance at the FO! :)


Rafa is a heavyweight playing with a bunch of lightweights! hehe.

kishnabe
05-19-2010, 06:42 AM
Nadal drops 3 sets to Roger Federer!

Cyan
05-19-2010, 07:04 AM
It's a HC slam now. Draw your own conclusions.

Nadalfan89
05-19-2010, 07:06 AM
So Nadal dominating on ONE surface is boring, but Federer dominating on two surfaces is alright?

The Nadal hate around here is getting to be hilarious.

davey25
05-19-2010, 07:08 AM
So Nadal dominating on ONE surface is boring, but Federer dominating on two surfaces is alright?

The Nadal hate around here is getting to be hilarious.

Federer was never quite as dominant on any surface as Nadal on clay though. He lost matches, he had quite a few tough matches in the slams. And you hardly ever felt Federer was a mortal lock to win, there were always others you felt had a chance. On clay for years you have felt Nadal is the only one with any chance.

drakulie
05-19-2010, 07:08 AM
from what i have read somewhere the french authorities used lighter balls that flies through the air quicker and also removed a few layers of clay from the courts to speed it up in 2009.

i wonder if nadal is aware of this and what he thinks about it.

Yes, he is aware of it. He will be recruiting his ******* Army to show up at night to the FO and refill the courts with clay.

borg number one
05-19-2010, 07:09 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if he lost say 2-3 sets during the tourney, 1-2 in early rounds and perhaps 1 in the final. I do think he'll take the title in very convincing fashion though, leaving little doubt that he is the best clay courter around.

Hitman
05-19-2010, 07:09 AM
It's a HC slam now. Draw your own conclusions.

He's still winning it, and probably losing no more than two sets in the process. He can slide, can generate high bounces. Yep. There is only one winner. The man with the bionic left bicep! :)

SirGounder
05-19-2010, 07:12 AM
apparently they were using smaller and lighter balls that fly through the air last year.

Like ping pong balls?

Cyan
05-19-2010, 07:12 AM
Federer was never quite as dominant on any surface as Nadal on clay though. He lost matches, he had quite a few tough matches in the slams. And you hardly ever felt Federer was a mortal lock to win, there were always others you felt had a chance. On clay for years you have felt Nadal is the only one with any chance.

Fed won 9 slams on HC. 6 slams on grass. Rafa won 4 slams on clay. So Fed has been more dominating at the HC and grass slams...

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 07:14 AM
So Nadal dominating on ONE surface is boring, but Federer dominating on two surfaces is alright?

The Nadal hate around here is getting to be hilarious.

Both was boring, but Federer didn't really dominate after 2006.

Federer in Masters Series 2007:

Indian Wells: lost early to Canas
Miami: lost early to Canas
Monte Carlo: lost to Nadal
Rome: lost to Volandri
Hamburg: Won
Montreal: lost to Djokovic
Cincinatti: Won
Paris: lost to Nalbandian
Madrid: lost to Nalbandian

How is that domination? In 2008 he didn't win a single masters, and just two in 2009.

Nadal won pretty much every clay masters since 2005, and that sucks for fans of clay court tennis that want to have some tension before the tournament.

You know there are fans of clay court tennis who aren't fans of Nadal.

Cyan
05-19-2010, 07:21 AM
Both was boring, but Federer didn't really dominate after 2006.

Federer in Masters Series 2007:

Indian Wells: lost early to Canas
Miami: lost early to Canas
Monte Carlo: lost to Nadal
Rome: lost to Volandri
Hamburg: Won
Montreal: lost to Djokovic
Cincinatti: Won
Paris: lost to Nalbandian
Madrid: lost to Nalbandian

How is that domination? In 2008 he didn't win a single masters, and just two in 2009.

Nadal won pretty much every clay masters since 2005, and that sucks for fans of clay court tennis that want to have some tension before the tournament.

You know there are fans of clay court tennis who aren't fans of Nadal.

Federer has won 16 slams. That sucks for fans of Grand Slam tennis who want to see different faces winning slams.:rolleyes: And not just the same guy piling up the slams in ridiculous numbers for the past 7 years. Not every tennis fan is a fan of Federer.

swordtennis
05-19-2010, 07:26 AM
Nadal will not drop a set @ the french this year and will win it. He will lose some sets winning Wimbledon tho. When he wins USO it will be a bit harder.
It will be the Spanish Armada this year @ the French. It will be somewhat breezy 4 Nadal this year.

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 07:26 AM
Federer has won 16 slams. That sucks for fans of Grand Slam tennis who want to see different faces winning slams.:rolleyes: And not just the same guys piling up the slams in ridiculous numbers for the past 7 years.

For fans of hardcourt tennis there's still many tournaments that are highely competitive, not to mention that 3 non-Federer players have won hardcourt slams in the last 2.5 years (Djokovic, Nadal, Del Potro) alone, and before that Safin in 2005 and Roddick/Ferrero in 2003.

What has there been for fans of competitive clay court tennis? Right nothing, and it has been that way for 4-5 years.

Hitman
05-19-2010, 07:30 AM
For fans of hardcourt tennis there's still many tournaments that are highely competitive, not to mention that 3 non-Federer players have won hardcourt slams in the last 2.5 years (Djokovic, Nadal, Del Potro) alone, and before that Safin in 2005 and Roddick/Ferrero in 2003.

What has there been for fans of competitive clay court tennis? Right nothing, and it has been that way for 4-5 years.

I think valid points all round.

Non-Federer fans might be fed up of Roger taking the lion share of non clay slams.

But Non-Nadal fans might also be fed up of Rafael taking the FO nearly every year.

Cyan
05-19-2010, 07:31 AM
For fans of hardcourt tennis there's still many tournaments that are highely competitive, not to mention that 3 non-Federer players have won hardcourt slams in the last 2.5 years (Djokovic, Nadal, Del Potro) alone, and before that Safin in 2005 and Roddick/Ferrero in 2003.

What has there been for fans of competitive clay court tennis? Right nothing, and it has been that way for 4-5 years.

Fed won RG last year.

Hitman
05-19-2010, 07:32 AM
Fed won RG last year.


Rafa won Aus and Del Potro won US last year aswell.

So Roger wasn't cleaning up Hard court slams last year. And he won only the US the year before, with Novak claiming Aus.

Having said that, Rafa will take this year's FO. No doubt.

Cyan
05-19-2010, 07:33 AM
I think valid points all round.

Non-Federer fans might be fed up of Roger taking the lion share of non clay slams.

But Non-Nadal fans might also be fed up of Rafael taking the FO nearly every year.

Fed won 3 of the past 4 slams including the clay slam. This domination is boring.

drakulie
05-19-2010, 07:36 AM
Ferrero will win the FO this year, beating soderling in 4 sets.

swordtennis
05-19-2010, 07:37 AM
Ferrero will win the FO this year, beating soderling in 4 sets.

I like your style, G! That would b epic!

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 07:38 AM
Fed won RG last year.

I thought that one didn't count?

swordtennis
05-19-2010, 07:40 AM
I thought that one didn't count?

LOL! Good one! I thought so 2. It is a fluke result. So I am considering last year null and void. Nadal is a shoe in 4 the title. Last year was a fluke and erased from the minds and hearts of Tennis fans as well as the history books.

Sentinel
05-19-2010, 08:44 AM
Nadal drops 3 sets to Roger Federer!
All three !!! Can't wait to see that :-D

Sentinel
05-19-2010, 08:47 AM
from what i have read somewhere the french authorities used lighter balls that flies through the air quicker and also removed a few layers of clay from the courts to speed it up in 2009.

i wonder if nadal is aware of this and what he thinks about it.
Really! Then Roger's win really doesn't count. It's a wretched conspiracy against Rafa.

swordtennis
05-19-2010, 08:53 AM
Federers back blew out late 2007 and reblown out b4 davis cup in early 2008. His back is not as limber and his serve has never been consistent since.That is when Nadal started 2 dominate him on all surfaces. Coincidence? I dont think so. Nadal's injuries mentioned all the time. Just thought I would begin mentioning the big injury that damaged a big part of federers game. Yet he still plays on and does well 4 himself. Lets play the injury card, "fans". I am in....:)

ksbh
05-19-2010, 09:00 AM
Reading posts from both camps, it appears that the top 2 players in the world are either mental weaklings or physical weaklings at any point in time. No wonder, the 'weak era' folks have so much ammunition!

P_Agony
05-19-2010, 09:22 AM
The people who hate something seemed to be really drawn to that something.

When Nadal plays spaniards the forum is awash with people *****ing about spanish lapdogs.

Ditto for when Fed loses a set,not to mention if he loses a match.

The people that say they don't like Nadal's game are posting comments in the match thread when Nadal is playing(many times trolling).

Oh,and about clay domination getting boring: Have none of you people been around watching tennis during the 2004-2007 stretch? Nadal dominates one third of the season,Federer dominated the rest of the year for 3-4 years running. If Federer was in a tourney in 2004-2007 stretch there was a 80-85% chance that he would win it. Wasn't that boring? The guy lost 5 matches in 2006 out of 97 played if I remember correctly. But I guess 2006 wasn't boring,right?

I use one simple rule for anything in life: if it something bores me,anything,I try to get as far away from it as possible. Golf bores me to tears but you won't see me flipping through the channels trying to find it.

While I did enjoy watching Fed win so many matches and titles, a part of me wanted some new names in the mix as well, to make it interesting. Sadly, it wasn't the case back then, and it isn't the case now on clay, so I guess it comes down to personal liking. Obviously Nadal fans will enjoy his clay demolitions and other fans will get bored.

P_Agony
05-19-2010, 09:24 AM
If Fed somehow finds a way to win the FO this year (something I really, really doubt), then he can start thinking about this calendar slam, as Wimbly and USO are his strongest slams.

Hitman
05-19-2010, 09:27 AM
Fed won 3 of the past 4 slams including the clay slam. This domination is boring.

Didn't Rafa attain the EXACT same results 12 months prior as well?

FO, then W, then AO.

Is that not boring as well? :?

drakulie
05-19-2010, 09:51 AM
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u15/Avoid_Boring_People.jpg

jackson vile
05-19-2010, 10:25 AM
hmm interesting question. he has dropped only 2 in 15 matches.

it all comes down to surface speed

if FO speed is like 2009, he will definitely drop a set, may even lose.

if FO speed is like any other year he contested ,he won't drop a set as its just a dream surface and no one can get by him.

That is a very good point. The FO is not the same, it is faster with a faster less spinny ball.

Nadal is not a shoe in nore the favorite.

Nadalfan89
05-19-2010, 10:38 AM
That is a very good point. The FO is not the same, it is faster with a faster less spinny ball.

Nadal is not a shoe in nore the favorite.

Odds makers beg to differ.

Hitman
05-19-2010, 10:48 AM
Odds makers beg to differ.

I agree.

In simple terms. If you could win a million $ but had to predict the winner of the FO, who would you pick? ;-)

zagor
05-19-2010, 11:15 AM
Federer was never quite as dominant on any surface as Nadal on clay though. He lost matches, he had quite a few tough matches in the slams. And you hardly ever felt Federer was a mortal lock to win, there were always others you felt had a chance. On clay for years you have felt Nadal is the only one with any chance.

That may be true although Namelessone does make a good point as well,when you look at Fed's 2005 and 2006 years he barely lost matches which I imagine it wasn't that much fun for people who aren't Fed fans and the fact remains Nadal so far didn't have quite a year like that so I get where's he's coming from.

But I also don't think that domination is always boring.I mean I'm no Nadal fan but I was in awe of his display of tennis in 2008 FO,that was the highest level of tennis I've ever seen from anyone on clay(or maybe even any surface).

The angles,the precision,the way he switched from defense to offense like it was nothing,everything his opponent threw at him he dished back with interest,he was like a natural disaster on court lol.It was amazing to see,as I tennis fan I'm glad I witnessed such epic level of tennis,chances are I'll never see anyone reach that level on clay my whole life.

Mustard
05-19-2010, 11:24 AM
That may be true although Namelessone does make a good point as well,when you look at Fed's 2005 and 2006 years he barely lost matches which I imagine it wasn't that much fun for people who aren't Fed fans and the fact remains Nadal so far didn't have quite a year like that so I get where's he's coming from.

What's amazing about 2005 and 2006 is that Nadal was well in the mix himself, despite Federer's dominance.

Federer's win-loss record in 2005: 81-4
Nadal's win-loss record in 2005: 79-10

Both won 11 titles that year, and both managed 4 masters titles. Although Federer had 2 slams to Nadal's 1 slam.

Federer's win-loss record in 2006: 92-5
Nadal's win-loss record in 2006: 59-12

A bigger gap here, but Nadal still managed to beat Federer 4 times, win the French Open again, and win 2 masters titles, despite only winning 5 tournaments in the year. Nadal also had a clay-court winning streak at the end of 2006 that stood at 62 matches. Federer again won 4 masters titles in the year, but improved to 12 titles for the year and 3 slams for the year.

MichaelNadal
05-19-2010, 11:42 AM
That may be true although Namelessone does make a good point as well,when you look at Fed's 2005 and 2006 years he barely lost matches which I imagine it wasn't that much fun for people who aren't Fed fans and the fact remains Nadal so far didn't have quite a year like that so I get where's he's coming from.

But I also don't think that domination is always boring.I mean I'm no Nadal fan but I was in awe of his display of tennis in 2008 FO,that was the highest level of tennis I've ever seen from anyone on clay(or maybe even any surface).

The angles,the precision,the way he switched from defense to offense like it was nothing,everything his opponent threw at him he dished back with interest,he was like a natural disaster on court lol.It was amazing to see,as I tennis fan I'm glad I witnessed such epic level of tennis,chances are I'll never see anyone reach that level on clay my whole life.

I miss that! Plus he was wearing that awesome, badass outfit! Best tournament he has ever played no doubt. That being said I think he will lose a couple sets this year if he wins the tournament.

Leonidas
05-19-2010, 11:42 AM
Really! Then Roger's win really doesn't count. It's a wretched conspiracy against Rafa.

Itīs not a conspiracy my friend, but some of the players did say last year that it was quicker. how curious that they speeded the courts up after Nadal had won there 4 times in a row! Plus, they celebrated how he lost to soderling. Call it a conspiracy or whatever, but thty did it on purpose, no doubt. Anyway, the can make the courts slower or quicker up to the point they want to, but no french player is gonna win the title. Good that the haters have a drought of titles in their home tournament. that serves them right for being such haters.

illuminati
05-19-2010, 11:49 AM
What's amazing about 2005 and 2006 is that Nadal was well in the mix himself, despite Federer's dominance.

Federer's win-loss record in 2005: 81-4
Nadal's win-loss record in 2005: 79-10

Both won 11 titles that year, and both managed 4 masters titles. Although Federer had 2 slams to Nadal's 1 slam.

Federer's win-loss record in 2006: 92-5
Nadal's win-loss record in 2006: 59-12

A bigger gap here, but Nadal still managed to beat Federer 4 times, win the French Open again, and win 2 masters titles, despite only winning 5 tournaments in the year. Nadal also had a clay-court winning streak at the end of 2006 that stood at 62 matches. Federer again won 4 masters titles in the year, but improved to 12 titles for the year and 3 slams for the year.


2006 for federer was his best year.
that was when federer was jesusfed.

not even rafa could get close to the numbers of 2006 federer.
in any other era, rafa would be considered a very very dominant player.
but federer's dominance is even greater.

illuminati
05-19-2010, 11:55 AM
Itīs not a conspiracy my friend, but some of the players did say last year that it was quicker. how curious that they speeded the courts up after Nadal had won there 4 times in a row! Plus, they celebrated how he lost to soderling. Call it a conspiracy or whatever, but thty did it on purpose, no doubt. Anyway, the can make the courts slower or quicker up to the point they want to, but no french player is gonna win the title. Good that the haters have a drought of titles in their home tournament. that serves them right for being such haters.

lol i agree.
my hatred of france and french people grew even more last year.
i hate everything about that country.
its definitely a conspiracy against nadal to make him lose.

i think its time to move the clay court slam to barcelona and call it the ''clay major'' instead of a specific country's open like french open.
call wimbledon ''grass major''.
move aussie open to china and call it the asia-pacific major and call the US open the north american major or hard major.

Speranza
05-19-2010, 11:58 AM
I agree.

In simple terms. If you could win a million $ but had to predict the winner of the FO, who would you pick? ;-)

Holmes: I know Sir Nadal is the favorite, but you know what.... I've got a hunch he isn't going to win it. If I could bet on him NOT winning it, $1,000,000... I'd bet on him not taking it this year. And yes, you can quote me on that :) After all, it's not my $1,000,000 is it, hypothetically?

Sentinel
05-19-2010, 08:00 PM
Itīs not a conspiracy my friend, but some of the players did say last year that it was quicker. how curious that they speeded the courts up after Nadal had won there 4 times in a row! Plus, they celebrated how he lost to soderling. Call it a conspiracy or whatever, but thty did it on purpose, no doubt. Anyway, the can make the courts slower or quicker up to the point they want to, but no french player is gonna win the title. Good that the haters have a drought of titles in their home tournament. that serves them right for being such haters.

That's not all. Folks on this board cried about the fact that there was light rain on the morning of the final -- giving Federer an advantage over Soderling -- since that slowed the court.

So basically, i conclude that Roger really never won the FO last year.:)

vortex1
05-19-2010, 10:38 PM
Federer's 2009 RG trophy should have an asterix next to it. Beating his pigeon (who said things like "it would be sad if I beat Federer") in finals will always mean the trophy is tainted.

tennisdad65
05-19-2010, 10:43 PM
Nadal will win 20 sets and lose 3 :) ..

18-0 till the finals, and 2-3 in the finals to Fed.

Breaker
05-19-2010, 10:48 PM
Almagro will win the FO this year, beating almagro in 4 sets.

Fix'd for accuracy.

Hitman
05-20-2010, 12:08 AM
Federer's 2009 RG trophy should have an asterix next to it. Beating his pigeon (who said things like "it would be sad if I beat Federer") in finals will always mean the trophy is tainted.

But Roger is Rafa's pigeon at RG. Losing 4 times to him there. In fact is there any player that has lost more times to Rafa at RG than Roger?

So Rafa beat his RG pigeon for all his titles. Should we put an asterix on his wins as well, since he owns Roger and its always a foregone conclusion? :confused:

sdont
05-20-2010, 12:38 AM
lol i agree.
my hatred of france and french people grew even more last year.
i hate everything about that country.
its definitely a conspiracy against nadal to make him lose.

i think its time to move the clay court slam to barcelona and call it the ''clay major'' instead of a specific country's open like french open.
call wimbledon ''grass major''.
move aussie open to china and call it the asia-pacific major and call the US open the north american major or hard major.

The sun is baking the courts in Paris right now. After two weeks of cold and bad weather, the sun magically reappeared as soon as the qualifications started at RG. I haven't seen a cloud in two days.

It's obvious now, the FFT controls the weather over Paris and the plot is to make Nadal lose once again.

Sentinel
05-20-2010, 01:06 AM
The sun is baking the courts in Paris right now. After two weeks of cold and bad weather, the sun magically reappeared as soon as the qualifications started at RG. I haven't seen a cloud in two days.

It's obvious now, the FFT controls the weather over Paris and the plot is to make Nadal lose once again.
Hey, don't rub it in too much. Those kids are quite dangerous and obsessive !

Halba
05-22-2010, 03:12 AM
draw is out. there is only 1 player than can take a set off nadal, and thats fed, but unlikely if he plays bad. the other guys won't even take a set.