PDA

View Full Version : The Olympics are changing the dynamic this year in Men's tennis.


bullfan
05-22-2012, 07:23 PM
I think the upcoming Olympics have changed how players are approaching the year in tennis. While Grand SLams are so important, Gold Medals are something most players normally can only try for 2 or 3 times.

Roger has won it all. He's won every slam, he's won more slams, but he hasn't won an Individual Gold Medal and this is his last shot. He's announced how much he wants that for quite a while. I think that's why Roger has altered his schedule this year and didn't seem to care about playing hard against Novak in Rome, only to play Rafa in the final.

Djokovic openly wept when he lost to Rafa in 2008, he is so popular in Serbia and probably has a ton of pressure to bring home the gold after his awesome last year. It was his part in the Davis Cup win that was the start of his awesome run last year. He was tearful after his Davis Cup surrender to DelPo. Novak didn't seem to put a huge amount of effort into Rome, and may have been able to win if he'd have put forth more effort. To me, in Rome, he looked like a man that was conserving energy as well as not risk injury.

Nadal, well he's won the Gold, and I wonder if he's going to hope that he can work the slams since he's not as pressured to win the Gold.

Murray, god knows he would love to win, but he's seems to have had a fairly bad year since losing to Djokovic in AO. He may be injured.

I do wonder if some dark horses could be Raonic and Isner given their serving, and if that can get them further than they would have been otherwise.

Bud
05-22-2012, 07:25 PM
The final is best 3 of 5 sets

nadal_GOAT_king
05-22-2012, 07:30 PM
It still is the pinnacle of sporting excellence.

As Nadal said "You cannot put a price on Olympic gold". Nadal aims to be the first to defend the men's singles gold

bullfan
05-22-2012, 07:31 PM
The final is best 3 of 5 sets

My bad, I'll edit, thanks...

Bud
05-22-2012, 07:39 PM
Hopefully federer and djokovic are in the same half :)

Have they ever met on grass?

MichaelNadal
05-22-2012, 07:43 PM
Hopefully federer and djokovic are in the same half :)

Have they ever met on grass?

Man, I would watch that match with popcorn in tow. Hot and salty :)

bullfan
05-22-2012, 07:45 PM
Hopefully federer and djokovic are in the same half :)

Have they ever met on grass?

Yes, I'd like to see that combo, but they could meet in the final. I think both of them are more hungry than Nadal for the gold since they don't have one.

veroniquem
05-22-2012, 07:47 PM
Hopefully federer and djokovic are in the same half :)

Have they ever met on grass?



Nope. They've met 20 times on hard and 5 times on clay. Until now the rivalry has been mostly on hard. I would expect Fed to prevail on grass but who knows? Fed is not what he used to be on that surface...

TopFH
05-22-2012, 07:50 PM
Nope. They've met 20 times on hard and 5 times on clay. Until now the rivalry has been mostly on hard. I would expect Fed to prevail on grass but who knows? Fed is not what he used to be on that surface...

Djokovic is not a beast on grass either. Still, if we have slow, high-bouncing grass, anything could happen.

FlashFlare11
05-22-2012, 07:54 PM
Djokovic is not a beast on grass either. Still, if we have slow, high-bouncing grass, anything could happen.

Would they change the composition of the grass for the Olympics?

bullfan
05-22-2012, 07:58 PM
Nope. They've met 20 times on hard and 5 times on clay. Until now the rivalry has been mostly on hard. I would expect Fed to prevail on grass but who knows? Fed is not what he used to be on that surface...

I guess it depends on when they'd meet. I got the way the tournament screwed up and it sounds like it's best of 3 sets for all matches except for the finals, unless they've changed the format.

Jack Romeo
05-22-2012, 09:46 PM
i'd love to see federer, djokovic and nadal on the medal stand in singles.

Bobby Jr
05-22-2012, 10:11 PM
If Federer never wins Olympic gold I don't know how he can ever really be considered ahead of Laver or Sampras since they both have one in their trophy cabinet..

No... wait.... :lol:

Bud
05-22-2012, 11:53 PM
If Federer never wins Olympic gold I don't know how he can ever really be considered ahead of Laver or Sampras since they both have one in their trophy cabinet..

No... wait.... :lol:

Tennis wasn't part of the Olympics during Laver's time and I imagine Sampras wishes he had a gold singles medal in his trophy cabinet ;)

ramos77
05-23-2012, 12:58 AM
when did the Olympics tennis become important?

I couldn't care less who wins it, nor do I remember past winners

Bobby Jr
05-23-2012, 02:24 AM
Tennis wasn't part of the Olympics during Laver's time and I imagine Sampras wishes he had a gold singles medal in his trophy cabinet ;)
Tough luck for them then :p . If we start including every excuse under the sun for non-achievement (slowing of courts, blue courts, fluffy balls, professional banned from tournaments, tournament didn't exist yet etc) we could end up with Marcelos Rios being regarded as the GOAT. :lol:

When it comes down to the wire they don't have one. I'm just applying some ******* logic in the same spirit it gets used daily here. :p

tank_job
05-23-2012, 03:22 AM
when did the Olympics tennis become important?

I couldn't care less who wins it, nor do I remember past winners

This.

What are olympics again? I thought they made cameras or something.

Magnus
05-23-2012, 03:23 AM
Nope. They've met 20 times on hard and 5 times on clay. Until now the rivalry has been mostly on hard. I would expect Fed to prevail on grass but who knows? Fed is not what he used to be on that surface...

It will, as it always has, depend on Fed's racquet more than his opponent. No matter who Fed is facing, the match is always on his racquet.

tank_job
05-23-2012, 03:29 AM
It will, as it always has, depend on Fed's racquet more than his opponent. No matter who Fed is facing, the match is always on his racquet.

Typical fan-boy reaction.

Even on slow clay against Nadal, I guess the match is on Fed's racket. :???:

Bud
05-23-2012, 10:00 PM
Typical fan-boy reaction.

Even on slow clay against Nadal, I guess the match is on Fed's racket. :???:

Like Djokovic stating he had Nadal on the ropes in their 2007 (or was it 08 ) FO match when he lost in straight sets :)

connico
05-23-2012, 10:26 PM
Tennis wasn't part of the Olympics during Laver's time and I imagine Sampras wishes he had a gold singles medal in his trophy cabinet ;)

and a french open?

nadal_slam_king
05-23-2012, 10:44 PM
I think the upcoming Olympics have changed how players are approaching the year in tennis. While Grand SLams are so important, Gold Medals are something most players normally can only try for 2 or 3 times.

Roger has won it all. He's won every slam, he's won more slams, but he hasn't won an Individual Gold Medal and this is his last shot. He's announced how much he wants that for quite a while. I think that's why Roger has altered his schedule this year and didn't seem to care about playing hard against Novak in Rome, only to play Rafa in the final.

Djokovic openly wept when he lost to Rafa in 2008, he is so popular in Serbia and probably has a ton of pressure to bring home the gold after his awesome last year. It was his part in the Davis Cup win that was the start of his awesome run last year. He was tearful after his Davis Cup surrender to DelPo. Novak didn't seem to put a huge amount of effort into Rome, and may have been able to win if he'd have put forth more effort. To me, in Rome, he looked like a man that was conserving energy as well as not risk injury.

Nadal, well he's won the Gold, and I wonder if he's going to hope that he can work the slams since he's not as pressured to win the Gold.

Murray, god knows he would love to win, but he's seems to have had a fairly bad year since losing to Djokovic in AO. He may be injured.

I do wonder if some dark horses could be Raonic and Isner given their serving, and if that can get them further than they would have been otherwise.

Nadal has the biggest motivation of all - becoming the only man to win 2 singles gold medals.

Whereas if Federer or Djokovic win the singles gold, they'll be just one of many players to have accomplished it.

So more history will be made if Nadal wins it.

ramos77
05-24-2012, 12:49 AM
Not really, no one cares IMO.

Tennis_Hands
05-24-2012, 01:55 AM
Nadal has the biggest motivation of all - becoming the only man to win 2 singles gold medals.

Whereas if Federer or Djokovic win the singles gold, they'll be just one of many players to have accomplished it.

So more history will be made if Nadal wins it.

I like, how in two consecutive sentences you boost the importance of the OG, and then denigrade it. You are a star.

But it actually is normal, for a guy, who said, that the OG is important, because Nadal has it, and if it wasn't the case it would not have been important.

I would have had that in my signature as well, but the quote is too long, so tough luck for me.

Ah, and do not forget to continue your line of thought about Nadal, who is the only player to win three OG on HC, Grass and clay!

:lol:

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 02:04 AM
I like, how in two consecutive sentences you boost the importance of the OG, and then denigrade it. You are a star.

But it actually is normal, for a guy, who said, that the OG is important, because Nadal has it, and if it wasn't the case it would not have been important.

I would have had that in my signature as well, but the quote is too long, so tough luck for me.

Ah, and do not forget to continue your line of thought about Nadal, who is the only player to win three OG on HC, Grass and clay!

:lol:
You can't read. I said "Whereas if Federer or Djokovic win the singles gold, they'll be just one of many players to have accomplished it." That doesn't mean its unimportant, it means its not an all-time record. Whereas winning it twice is an all-time record. What is better for tennis, that another player wins the gold, or that a player sets an all-time record?

Tennis_Hands
05-24-2012, 02:19 AM
You can't read. I said "Whereas if Federer or Djokovic win the singles gold, they'll be just one of many players to have accomplished it." That doesn't mean its unimportant, it means its not an all-time record. Whereas winning it twice is an all-time record. What is better for tennis, that another player wins the gold, or that a player sets an all-time record?

By writing what you have written you actually said, that it is not a biggie, that Nadal has it, since so many have it, which is completely the opposite of what you and others have boasted about on TW.

Oh, again, you have said, that it is important, because Nadal has it, and it would not have been important, if he didn't. Isn't that so?

As for the rest. Records are nice.

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 02:45 AM
By writing what you have written you actually said, that it is not a biggie, that Nadal has it, since so many have it, which is completely the opposite of what you and others have boasted about on TW.

Oh, again, you have said, that it is important, because Nadal has it, and it would not have been important, if he didn't. Isn't that so?

As for the rest. Records are nice.

Wrong. YOU said it's not a biggie. I said "they'll be just one of many players to have accomplished it", and that was exactly the case when Nadal won it in 2008. I knew many others had one it before. Same as if someone wins Wimbledon, or Roland Garros. They aren't standing out in history anymore than the other winners of it. But if you win it more times you are achieving a more rare feat. Just give up, you tried to put words in my mouth and lost.

Tennis_Hands
05-24-2012, 02:55 AM
Wrong. YOU said it's not a biggie. I said "they'll be just one of many players to have accomplished it", and that was exactly the case when Nadal won it in 2008. I knew many others had one it before. Same as if someone wins Wimbledon, or Roland Garros. They aren't standing out in history anymore than the other winners of it. But if you win it more times you are achieving a more rare feat. Just give up, you tried to put words in my mouth and lost.

OK. Let me write it, as if a 5 years old boy was reading it:

"Many players have it" = it is not that difficult to achieve.

You do not say for Wimbledon title, "many players have it" (although, arguably, a lot more have a Wimbledon title than OG), because it is quite a feat in itself.

Besides, importance is a mixture of inner value and rarity, not only the latter.

But, do not get mad. We get it. If Nadal has it, it must be valuable.

:roll:

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 03:08 AM
OK. Let me write it, as if a 5 years old boy was reading it:

"Many players have it" = it is not that difficult to achieve.

You do not say for Wimbledon title, "many players have it" (although, arguably, a lot more have a Wimbledon title than OG), because it is quite a feat in itself.

Besides, importance is a mixture of inner value and rarity, not only the latter.

But, do not get mad. We get it. If Nadal has it, it must be valuable.

:roll:

When Hewitt won Wimbledon I said the same, "Many players have won it", and I knew Nadal was in the same boat too. Many may have even called it a fluke if Nadal didn't win it again in 2010. It applies to ANYTHING. Win it once, and you've added it to your collection, but you haven't stood out in history above the other winners of it. YOU said it was no biggie to win. I said 'many others have accomplished it.'

So again I ask, what is the most impressive feat, Nadal winning 2 singles golds, or Federer winning one singles gold? It's all relative, not "big" or "small". But one is an all-time record, and the other is not. Records are fun to see occur, and I want to see it.

You are writing like a 5-year-old boy who lost and can't admit it. You can't re-write what I said and tell me I'm wrong.

Rhino
05-24-2012, 03:11 AM
I'd like to see Federer win it but I don't think it's that big a deal. In my mind it's still not really up there with all those tennis-specific achievements that he has.

Let's put it this way; when any young tennis player has dreams and fantasies about winning big events, they all dream of Wimbledon, the US Open, Roland Garros, or the Australian open, depending on where they grew up. Nobody dreamed of winning a tennis Olympic medal as a child.

MurrayMyInspiration
05-24-2012, 03:15 AM
OK. Let me write it, as if a 5 years old boy was reading it:

"Many players have it" = it is not that difficult to achieve.

You do not say for Wimbledon title, "many players have it" (although, arguably, a lot more have a Wimbledon title than OG), because it is quite a feat in itself.

Besides, importance is a mixture of inner value and rarity, not only the latter.

But, do not get mad. We get it. If Nadal has it, it must be valuable.

:roll:

Shhhhh!! your posts are a waste of time.

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 03:15 AM
I'd like to see Federer win it but I don't think it's that big a deal. In my mind it's still not really up there with all those tennis-specific achievements that he has.

Let's put it this way; when any young tennis player has dreams and fantasies about winning big events, they all dream of Wimbledon, the US Open, Roland Garros, or the Australian open, depending on where they grew up. Nobody dreamed of winning a tennis Olympic medal as a child.

I agree. But many dream of going to the Olympics (not necessarily winning a gold, but just going to it to compete). And in truth some may place it above the slams, as Agassi did. But I agree most players dream of slams above Olympics. That will probably change a bit in future, but I still think majority will always prefer slams.

MurrayMyInspiration
05-24-2012, 03:15 AM
When Hewitt won Wimbledon I said the same, "Many players have won it", and I knew Nadal was in the same boat too. Many may have even called it a fluke if Nadal didn't win it again in 2010. It applies to ANYTHING. Win it once, and you've added it to your collection, but you haven't stood out in history above the other winners of it. YOU said it was no biggie to win. I said 'many others have accomplished it.'

So again I ask, what is the most impressive feat, Nadal winning 2 singles golds, or Federer winning one singles gold? It's all relative, not "big" or "small". But one is an all-time record, and the other is not. Records are fun to see occur, and I want to see it.

You are writing like a 5-year-old boy who lost and can't admit it. You can't re-write what I said and tell me I'm wrong.

LOL you guys are so smart:)

Rhino
05-24-2012, 03:16 AM
Also, any player who wins a slam takes on a whole different status as a player. They will forever after be remembered.

However, that did not happen for Nicolás Massú, Marc Rosset, or Miloslav Mečíř - all who won Olympic singles Gold medals. Reason: Because nobody gives a S**t.

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 03:22 AM
Also, any player who wins a slam takes on a whole different status as a player. They will forever after be remembered.

However, that did not happen for Nicolás Massú, Marc Rosset, or Miloslav Mečíř - all who won Olympic singles Gold medals. Reason: Because nobody gives a S**t.

A bit like when Thomas Johansson won the Australian Open. Didn't seem to change his status.

Rhino
05-24-2012, 03:27 AM
A bit like when Thomas Johansson won the Australian Open. Didn't seem to change his status.

I think it did. He's always going to be the guy who won the AO.

I mean, imagine if he hadn't won it. He'd be less memorable than Donald Young.

Tennis_Hands
05-24-2012, 03:44 AM
When Hewitt won Wimbledon I said the same, "Many players have won it", and I knew Nadal was in the same boat too. Many may have even called it a fluke if Nadal didn't win it again in 2010It applies to ANYTHING.

What? :confused:

Have you got any proof what you have said when Hewitt won it?
And why do you think, that what you think is relevant to the normal tennis fans in the first place? The fact, that you put Wimbledon and OG in the same boat of your logic speaks volumes for your perception of the values of the tennis tournaments.

I LOL'd at the idea, that you think, that someone would just add a winner at Wimbledon to the list of "whatever achievemens". What someone would have called it is absolutely irrelevant.


Win it once, and you've added it to your collection, but you haven't stood out in history above the other winners of it. YOU said it was no biggie to win. I said 'many others have accomplished it.

I explained that point already. importance = inner value + rarity. Learn to read


So again I ask, what is the most impressive feat, Nadal winning 2 singles golds, or Federer winning one singles gold? It's all relative, not "big" or "small". But one is an all-time record, and the other is not. Records are fun to see occur, and I want to see it.

Do you know, who has the all time record for ATP 500 tournaments? I thought not. So, there. The difference between Majors and OG is roughly the same as between OG and 500 tournaments. Big or small does matter.

Of course, that to 2OG is more than 1 OG. But two OG are not all that much in terms of value as a tennis tournaments (that could change, though)


You are writing like a 5-year-old boy who lost and can't admit it. You can't re-write what I said and tell me I'm wrong.

I can repeat what you said. Precisely:

OG is important, because Nadal have it. If Nadal didn't have it, it would have not been important.

So, there go your values.

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 04:06 AM
What? :confused:

Have you got any proof what you have said when Hewitt won it?
And why do you think, that what you think is relevant to the normal tennis fans in the first place? The fact, that you put Wimbledon and OG in the same boat of your logic speaks volumes for your perception of the values of the tennis tournaments.

I LOL'd at the idea, that you think, that someone would just add a winner at Wimbledon to the list of "whatever achievemens". What someone would have called it is absolutely irrelevant.

OG is important, because Nadal have it. If Nadal didn't have it, it would have not been important.

So, there go your values.

Why do you make things up? What is the point?

Tennis_Hands
05-24-2012, 04:14 AM
Why do you make things up? What is the point?

Oh, now you refuse to admit that you have said the words in the bolded part in my post. Do you want me to find the quote?

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 04:15 AM
Oh, now you refuse to admit that you have said the words in the bolded part in my post. Do you want me to find the quote?

Yes please, I'm waiting. And show the entire post, so we can have some context. I was talking about Federer's need to have the gold. If Nadal hadn't won it, then Federer would not feel like he HAD to win it. Such is their rivalry, and the threat that Nadal is to Federer's legacy, it is imperative Federer wins what Nadal has won (baring the unreachable number of Roland Garros titles of course). Federer must tick every box. And the Olympic gold would not have been a box if not for Nadal. Prior to Nadal winning it, Agassi won it but not a lot of big names. Since Nadal won it, and Djokovic cried over it, the image of tennis gold has changed, for the better.

Tennis_Hands
05-24-2012, 04:19 AM
Yes please, I'm waiting. And show the entire post, so we can have some context.

No probs.

Your post.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6513815&postcount=14141

Semi-final records? You are seriously reaching. Semi and QF records don't even come close to the 81 straight single-surface wins and winning 3 slams on 3 completely different surfaces in a Calendar Year. And winning 2 events 7 times each. See, Nadal's records are WINNING records, not losing records (losing in the semis and quarters etc.). And consecutive weeks at number one is nice, but Sampras has more weeks at number one, and inevitably the weeks a player spends at number one is THE RECORD. We don't see top 10 lists of 'consecutive weeks at number one'. I never said Federer didn't have records. It's just that Nadal has the more valuable records. The records unthinkable for others to accomplish.

I never said the Gold Medal was more valuable than 6 WTFs. I said the Gold Medal is valuable now because Nadal has it. If Nadal didn't have it, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Another example of Nadal lowering Federer's legacy. And of course Federer can win 3 slams in a year, multiple times. He's great on his fast surfaces. But that doesn't make a versatile player. A far more convincing display of versatility is to win on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar year (not to mention actually beating Nadal at Roland Garros, as Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon and twice at the Australian Open). That is the valuable record, and the record only Nadal had the talent to accomplish.

Oh, and the point isn't that Nadal has 20 Masters Shields, but the fact he's in his prime and has 20 (heading for something absurd like 30+), while Federer is fading and has 19. Nadal is 25-years-old, almost 26. It is crazy what Nadal is doing, given that he has many years left (sorry, tendinitis didn't end him). I guess they didn't ask you kindly enough....

And statement related to the OG medal, no less.

I rest my case. And you can go home now.

:roll:

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 04:22 AM
No probs.

Your post.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6513815&postcount=14141



And statement related to the OG medal, no less.

I rest my case. And you can go home now.

:roll:

So now you understand why its so important to Federer. Good, thanks for reading.

bullfan
05-24-2012, 06:00 AM
Yes please, I'm waiting. And show the entire post, so we can have some context. I was talking about Federer's need to have the gold. If Nadal hadn't won it, then Federer would not feel like he HAD to win it. Such is their rivalry, and the threat that Nadal is to Federer's legacy, it is imperative Federer wins what Nadal has won (baring the unreachable number of Roland Garros titles of course). Federer must tick every box. And the Olympic gold would not have been a box if not for Nadal. Prior to Nadal winning it, Agassi won it but not a lot of big names. Since Nadal won it, and Djokovic cried over it, the image of tennis gold has changed, for the better.

I don't think that Fed's desire to win the gold has anything to do with Nadal. Fed wanted to win it in 2008, and James Blake derailed that.

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 06:04 AM
I don't think that Fed's desire to win the gold has anything to do with Nadal. Fed wanted to win it in 2008, and James Blake derailed that.

It is an extraordinary coincidence that Blake beat Federer at THAT event. I mean, that was the only Blake win out of 11 meetings :shock:

Maybe Federer just isn't very motivated when there is no money on offer. Or maybe its all about Blake's love for the Olympics.

But there is no question Nadal winning gold has changed Federer's priorities. Federer wasn't talking up the gold medal as a big deal in 2008. This year he's mentioned it repeatedly. Something changed after Nadal won it.

Gorecki
05-24-2012, 06:16 AM
So now you understand why its so important to Federer. Good, thanks for reading.

It is an extraordinary coincidence that Blake beat Federer at THAT event. I mean, that was the only Blake win out of 11 meetings :shock:

Maybe Federer just isn't very motivated when there is no money on offer. Or maybe its all about Blake's love for the Olympics.

dude. you contradict yourself in less that 3 posts?

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 06:19 AM
dude. you contradict yourself in less that 3 posts?

I wish I could take your posts seriously. But you never post serious, so....

Gorecki
05-24-2012, 06:21 AM
I wish I could take your posts seriously. But you never post serious, so....

so, lets see, you contradict yourself within 3 posts and yet i'm the jester here?


funny funny guy....

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 06:26 AM
so, lets see, you contradict yourself within 3 posts and yet i'm the jester here?


funny funny guy....

I didn't contradict, I'm listing reasons why Federer isn't good at the Olympics. Either
a) He only plays for money
b) Blake was just really inspired that day

That doesn't change the fact that I think Federer cares a lot more now that Nadal has a gold and he doesn't.

See, I can't take your posts seriously. You just waste time making me explain things twice. And you just post to cause conflict, never to actually further the tennis discussion.

Gorecki
05-24-2012, 06:30 AM
I didn't contradict, I'm listing reasons why Federer isn't good at the Olympics. Either
a) He only plays for money
b) Blake was just really inspired that day

That doesn't change the fact that I think Federer cares a lot more now that Nadal has a gold and he doesn't.

See, I can't take your posts seriously. You just waste time making me explain things twice. And you just post to cause conflict, never to actually further the tennis discussion.

funny funny guy...

Biscuitmcgriddleson
05-24-2012, 06:47 AM
I didn't contradict, I'm listing reasons why Federer isn't good at the Olympics. Either
a) He only plays for money
b) Blake was just really inspired that day

That doesn't change the fact that I think Federer cares a lot more now that Nadal has a gold and he doesn't.

See, I can't take your posts seriously. You just waste time making me explain things twice. And you just post to cause conflict, never to actually further the tennis discussion.

***... meet the palms of your face.

Emet74
05-24-2012, 07:34 AM
It is an extraordinary coincidence that Blake beat Federer at THAT event. I mean, that was the only Blake win out of 11 meetings :shock:

Maybe Federer just isn't very motivated when there is no money on offer. Or maybe its all about Blake's love for the Olympics.

But there is no question Nadal winning gold has changed Federer's priorities. Federer wasn't talking up the gold medal as a big deal in 2008. This year he's mentioned it repeatedly. Something changed after Nadal won it.

No.

Fed has always been very enthusiastic about the Olympics. When he lost to Berdych in 2004 he reportedly looked devasted in the locker room and you can see that from his presser too - "I feel terrible" or sth like that. he brought up that loss the other week before playing Berdych.

In 2008 he lost to Blake because he was in a slump at that time; he'd lost first and second round in the two tournaments prior to the OG. Obviously he made it up w/ the Fedwrinka run in doubles and his excitement about that is well documented.

This year's OG are super special to him because they are at Wimbledon. I remember when London was awarded the games, Fed's mom gave an interview about how he immediately called her totally hyper about it and she was like "how old are you going to be in 2012?", lol. So he joked he could win gold there and then retire. Fed's been carrying on about the London OG for many years now.

nadal_slam_king
05-24-2012, 08:00 AM
No.

Fed has always been very enthusiastic about the Olympics. When he lost to Berdych in 2004 he reportedly looked devasted in the locker room and you can see that from his presser too - "I feel terrible" or sth like that. he brought up that loss the other week before playing Berdych.

In 2008 he lost to Blake because he was in a slump at that time; he'd lost first and second round in the two tournaments prior to the OG. Obviously he made it up w/ the Fedwrinka run in doubles and his excitement about that is well documented.

This year's OG are super special to him because they are at Wimbledon. I remember when London was awarded the games, Fed's mom gave an interview about how he immediately called her totally hyper about it and she was like "how old are you going to be in 2012?", lol. So he joked he could win gold there and then retire. Fed's been carrying on about the London OG for many years now.

Now this is my kind of poster. Real (and fresh) evidence, good to see.

Emet74
05-24-2012, 08:11 AM
Now this is my kind of poster. Real (and fresh) evidence, good to see.

Thanks - might as well put my Fed-expertise to some good :)

Gorecki
05-24-2012, 12:09 PM
Thanks - might as well put my Fed-expertise to some good :)

you think it's a compliment? being complimented by *** is an insult in some cultures... :)