PDA

View Full Version : Interview with Borg -- thinks Fed can win French


dh003i
06-03-2006, 05:56 PM
Borg still feels young inside (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19342545-2722,00.html):

Borg remains the last player to have captured Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year. He did it three years running, from 1978-1980. Does he think this exploit is still achievable?

"Yes, I think so, absolutely," he says. "As a matter of fact, I think that Federer could do it already this year. I watch a lot of tennis on TV, and I watched the last Monte Carlo final between Federer and (Rafael) Nadal. When these two play each other, it's great to watch because of their very different playing styles. A little like Agassi and Sampras back during the days of their rivalry. Or even McEnroe and myself.

"Nadal won this time again, but Federer was not far behind. He threatened him till the end. And I really would not be surprised to see him win Roland Garros. Nadal will be the favourite but, if Federer wins Paris, he will go to Wimbledon as the huge favourite, and could then well become the first one since me, to win those two events the same year."

Borg conceded he admires both Federer and Nadal immensely. Although Nadal, with his heavy topspin and mental and physical toughness, plays a game similar to his, Borg doesn't sentimentally favour him over Federer.

"I really like them both," he said. "Yes, Nadal is incredibly strong, both physically and mentally. And he moves so well. Both play tennis at its very best, and I really enjoy watching it, as I did in Dubai. In the first set, Federer played a near perfect tennis. It was great.

"But overall, I can't say I have a favourite, I just appreciate the level of tennis both of them are capable of reaching."

Borg believes Federer and Nadal present a compelling argument against the theory that tennis has become boring.

"I don't think for one second that tennis is boring today," he said. "Sure, when you watch a match where both guys hit serves at 250km/h, then okay, it could be boring. But overall, when you watch all these young guys coming up, most of the times, they play a very pleasant game to watch. Especially on clay. I love watching it."

Anyone who thinks Federer has "no chance" of winning the French want to say anything? Here's the best clay-courter ever, saying he has a chance. Oh, and Laver -- who achieved 2 Grand Slams -- likes Federer's chance to win the Grand Slam.

Of course, I'm sure those who hate Federer will spew their usual non-sense; which will make them look really stupid, because of the caliber of those who like Federer on clay.

mileslong
06-03-2006, 06:00 PM
nadalgirl, youre act is so tired cant you just go away?

nadalgirl26
06-03-2006, 06:02 PM
The truth hurts for Federer fanatic losers like you. You must have cried and been so upset when Roger played his best match ever and Nadal played not his best that day, and Roger still could not win the match since he was too weak to win the match even playing his best, and Nadal not playing his best.
Now you are trying to soothe your pain by quoting a drug using, cocaine addicting has been who is now a loser trying to sell trophies to prove your point, how pathetic.

crazylevity
06-03-2006, 09:54 PM
Even if Borg were cocaine snorting, a drug addict, an alcoholic, a womanizer, and everything else that were terrible, he would still gain more respect from anyone who knows anything about tennis.

Now YOU on the other hand...

Borg has won eleven slams. Based on your outlandish predictions I highly doubt if you know the difference between grass and clay!

superman1
06-03-2006, 10:56 PM
Very nice comments from Borg. Much better than what Vilas had to say.

And I recommend just ignoring nadalgirl as she's about as insane as they come.

ErwinFromParis
06-04-2006, 12:26 AM
Who gives a damn what he says. Roger played his best match ever on clay last month and it was still too weak to beat Nadal. He has no chance, anybody who says he does is an idiot. Borg used alot of drugs since quitting tennis, he even sold his Wimbledon trophies or tried too. He is now braindead from all his drug use, all his pot and heroin and that shows in dumbness like saying Roger can win the French. As if, how stupid, i am going to make fun of all you dummies when Nadal wins the French in 8 days.


This is the most stupid post I 've ever readen. Kudos!

federerhoogenbandfan
06-04-2006, 05:49 AM
Borg is strongly mistaken here. Federer has no chance to win the French this year, however he has a great chance to reach the semis or finals which would be a great result for him. No chance to win however. He will win Wimbledon again though, that is what I am looking forward too.

dh003i
06-04-2006, 07:54 AM
Even if Borg had Alzheimer's and were snorting cocaine, he'd still know more about winning the French and Wimbledon than anyone on this board. Of course, the ad hominem attack against was disgusting. It just shows you that some people here don't know anything about tennis, and aren't real tennis fans.

HollerOne5,

I post to counter morons who say Federer has "no chance to win the French Open," or who say, "he will never win the French Open." My post is ********? Sorry, anything Borg says about tennis is not ********.

I didn't say Federer will win the French. I said he has a chance to win the French, although Nadal is the % favorite.

federerhoogan,

Well, that's interesting conjecture. Of course, it is complete bull. Nadal has no chance of winning Wimbledon this year (he's even as much as said so himself). And even that isn't really a "no chance". And Nadal isn't the 2nd or 3rd, or even 10th best player on grass.

Federer is the 2nd best player on clay. He's playing at a very high level and has gotten to the final of every clay-court event he's entered. He certainly has the game to do so, and has clearly narrowed the gap between himself and Nadal (sorry, babble about how Federer played his "A+" game at Rome and Nadal played his "B"-game is speculative BS).

If we're just going to be taking someone's word for it, I think we take the word of the guy who's won the French Open more times than anyone else, and the last guy to win French and Wimbledon in the same year. He knows more about tennis than anyone here ever will.

Gilgamesh
06-04-2006, 09:10 AM
The truth hurts for Federer fanatic losers like you. You must have cried and been so upset when Roger played his best match ever and Nadal played not his best that day, and Roger still could not win the match since he was too weak to win the match even playing his best, and Nadal not playing his best.
Now you are trying to soothe your pain by quoting a drug using, cocaine addicting has been who is now a loser trying to sell trophies to prove your point, how pathetic.

Wow you defend Nadal like he is your bf or something. haha

Fanboys and fangirls certainly do add to the entertainment value of these boards.

Janne
06-06-2006, 05:45 AM
Nadalgirl, you seriously need to stop stalking Nadal and just enjoy watching him play. I mean you do know that it's absolutely okay for people to have their own opinions about who is the better player? Just because someone doesnt share the same opinion with you doesnt mean they are stupid.

You even said in another post that Nadal was only playing with 20% of his potential in one of his matches. Now how ridiculous is that? He ALWAYS plays his best, they ALL DO.

Also saying that Federer has no chance of winning against Nadal just because you think Rafa is cute is kind of silly, seeing as how Federer is one of the best players in the world.

I really hope that your posts are just jokes to annoy Federer fans and isnt your true self because if it is - It's pathetic (No offense, this is purely my opinion).

PS: Im a Nadal fan too, but I still want Federer to win the FO (I want him to achieve a "true" grand slam)

PPS: Sorry if my english confuses you as it's not my native language :P

fastdunn
06-06-2006, 10:13 AM
Borg is strongly mistaken here. Federer has no chance to win the French this year, however he has a great chance to reach the semis or finals which would be a great result for him. No chance to win however. He will win Wimbledon again though, that is what I am looking forward too.

Only unfortune thing for Federer is to have to compete with Nadal
on clay. If somehow Nadal is not 100% or loses before final,
Federer has very good chance this year.

I think Federer has been not that lucky at FO. I'll be really surprised
if Federer does not win FO in his career. Federer game is good for
grass but I'm more surprised with the fact that Federer's record
is approaching Borg's or Sampras' level at Wimbledon...

highsierra
06-06-2006, 10:33 AM
Watching the Ancic match this morning and I have to say Fed has a really good chance to win RG this year. His has developed a very patient game and moves well on clay. The shot that surprised me the most is his moonball like forehand topspin to bnoth corners, very precise placement. Physically he doesn't look would have problem with 5+ hours grinding either. If Nalbandian plays like he did today against Devdanko, he's not gonna beat Fed.

I still would like to see Nadal win but he's not on top of his game at RG. His shots are not deep enough in general (maybe thinner string can actually help, Rafa?) The gong-ho spirit seems to have subsidied. The win-it-all expectations and the streak may have finally caught up with him a bit as he often has this concerned look on his face which I don't remember seeing.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-06-2006, 10:57 AM
Only unfortune thing for Federer is to have to compete with Nadal
on clay. If somehow Nadal is not 100% or loses before final,
Federer has very good chance this year.

I think Federer has been not that lucky at FO. I'll be really surprised
if Federer does not win FO in his career. Federer game is good for
grass but I'm more surprised with the fact that Federer's record
is approaching Borg's or Sampras' level at Wimbledon...

Well I actually find todays clay court field very weak compared to other fields. If Federer is not good enough to win a French Open in a field with only 1 extremely good clay courter(Nadal)he certainly would not have been in a field with many more very good clay courters then the current one. Nadal is probably better then anybody in the last 15 years on clay, but that does not still change, but still the overall field on clay was stronger around 98-2001 with all of Moya, Kuerten, Corretja, Costa, Agassi(he was a contender on clay then), Ferrero, Rios, so strong. In fact most all eras on clay have a deeper field of clay courters then the current one.

You even said that you believe in the Roma final a subpar Nadal beat a very in-form Federer, if that is really that case that also speaks to how far below Federer is on clay to other surfaces, since that scenario would never play out anywhere else.

The way you have referred to Federer's game I get the impression you think he is almost as good on clay as grass, and I see him about 60% as good on clay as grass, and 70% as good on clay as hard courts, at most.

Tchocky
06-06-2006, 10:59 AM
Bud Collins is picking Fed over Rafa as well. I'm rooting for Roger. I never thought anyone could win the French & Wimby back to back but Federer is the only one with a chance.

austro
06-06-2006, 11:18 AM
Relax, people!

Surecatch
06-06-2006, 11:22 AM
He has no chance, anybody who says he does is an idiot.

Yeah, anyone who says the most dominant and skilled player in the world has..."no chance?" is an idiot.

Check. Gotcha.

:roll:

I love watching Nadal and an argument can be made that he is the best clay courter in the game right now but there are two players who most in the know consider head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to clay. The other is Fed. The Rome final proved that if Nadal is still ahead of Fed on clay...t'aint by much. Furthermore, Fed is simply better than everyone on anything else, which means he has the mentality of a champion....you don't ever want to count him out.

D-Bomb
06-06-2006, 11:25 AM
when I was watching Federer's match with Ancic today, I noticed that Federer kept hitting really really close to the lines. It worked for him today, but if he were to play Rafa in the final, it seems like going so close to the lines would really work against Federer, since he's gonna be more likely to be a couple inches off, so in the scenario that Fed does get to the final, it would be rather risky to play with so little margin for error. It's really hard to say who's gonna win this year, though, since Rafa has really been tested in his last couple matches.

Surecatch
06-06-2006, 11:25 AM
The truth hurts for Federer fanatic losers like you. You must have cried and been so upset when Roger played his best match ever and Nadal played not his best that day, and Roger still could not win the match since he was too weak to win the match even playing his best.


Was he "weak" or was he playing his "best"....can't have it both ways girlie26. Methinks Raf should send a thank you note to Fed for just missing a couple forehand winners on match point or we aren't talking about any clay court winning streak and Vilas is still a happy man.

MR. 81
06-06-2006, 12:10 PM
Even my 12 year old sister said Federer could win the French this year. Hearing Borg say it won't make us think he has more or less chances, will it? It's stupid. Everyone has his opinion, but opinions won't decide the outcome of the match. Simple as that.

The Pusher Terminator
06-06-2006, 12:18 PM
Borg is probably the most diplomatic player to have ever played the game. Borg is "Mr. Nice" and only has kind words to say about almost anyone (except connors). Anyway everyone has an opinion. Its like A-holes...everyone has one.

dh003i
06-06-2006, 12:44 PM
Pusher,

Yep, everyone has an opinion. It's just that in the world of tennis, the opinions of Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras count 10-million times more than your opinion does.

The Pusher Terminator
06-06-2006, 12:46 PM
LOL...the fact is that very few all courters have evr won the French. That is a fact not an opinion.






really? Why dont you name all the millions of all courters that won the French. I would love to hear your screwy facts! The only allcourters I can think of is Nastase and Laver. Noah was a serve and volleyer......anyone else in the entire history of the French open? Go ahead bigshot make my day!

dh003i
06-06-2006, 01:08 PM
Pusher,

Considering I never wrote that many all-courters have won the French, I don't see how I'm supposed to respond to that.

I've argued that Federer is playing great tennis, that he can play the baseline game, that he can basically choose whichever strategy is best, and that Laver thinks he can win the FO.

Down_the_line
06-06-2006, 01:14 PM
I can't wait until Federer wins the French in a couple days. Then we can see what nadalgirl has to say.

Shabazza
06-06-2006, 02:27 PM
really? Why dont you name all the millions of all courters that won the French. I would love to hear your screwy facts! The only allcourters I can think of is Nastase and Laver. Noah was a serve and volleyer......anyone else in the entire history of the French open? Go ahead bigshot make my day!
You should at least read the quote you post, before you're going to ***** about it! Otherwise it makes you look really stupid! :rolleyes:

The Pusher Terminator
06-06-2006, 02:39 PM
Pusher,

Considering I never wrote that many all-courters have won the French, I don't see how I'm supposed to respond to that.

I've argued that Federer is playing great tennis, that he can play the baseline game, that he can basically choose whichever strategy is best, and that Laver thinks he can win the FO.

oops. ...got me on that. Nevermind. Misread your post. I am glad we at least agree on the fact that very few all courters have ever won the French.

crazylevity
06-06-2006, 04:40 PM
Well all-courters who have won the French are few and far between...but the likes of Laver and Federer aren't exactly common either! :)

lucky leprechaun
06-06-2006, 06:42 PM
Even my 12 year old sister said Federer could win the French this year. Hearing Borg say it won't make us think he has more or less chances, will it? It's stupid. Everyone has his opinion, but opinions won't decide the outcome of the match. Simple as that.

That's what I think. Laver, vilas, borg that's all great but you need to take off the training wheels and have your own opinion. I'd like to see all the fed "zero chancers" put money where their mouth is and put up a hundred large ones on fed not winning the french. I bet 90 percent of them would bail right there. I want Fed to win, but I'm sure as anything wouldn't bet against nadal, and by the same token, anti-feds shouldn't bet against federer.

prostaff18
06-06-2006, 06:51 PM
So if you get a match point in a match you have no chance of winning? Fed had match point on Nadal, you cant say that he cant win when he had match points! He was one point away from winning. That sounds like he has a chance to me.

superman1
06-06-2006, 09:28 PM
Fedhoogenban-whatever is such a sorely mistaken "fan" of Federer. I can't believe anyone would say he has no chance of winning the French after he came inches from beating Nadal in Rome. You show a complete misunderstanding of tennis. His results in the French Open so far have been much better than Nadal's. Everyone is saying how vulnerable Nadal has been looking so far, and meanwhile Federer just plows through the field in straight sets. He's in form, and it doesn't matter what the surface is or who he's playing; if Federer is in the zone against you, you'd better have the strength of God Almighty to even have a chance of winning.

fastdunn
06-07-2006, 12:09 AM
I agree that clay court field of last 2 years has gotten weak.
Moya, Ferrero and Kuerten on a down hill. Newer generation, Gaudio
and Coria on rain check. Nadal arrived at right time.

But that does not mean Federer is not good on clay.
As I recall, in 2002, Federer won tournaments on 3 surfaces except grass.
He is a Swiss. He's got neutral game.
In fact, he did better on clay intially.
He won his 1st Master's series at Hamburg on clay in 2002.
Up to 2002 his best results on grand slam was at FO(QF, 4TH).

Federer himself said people have wrong impression of his game
on clay and he does not understand why people
are saying his game does not fit at FO.
From 2003, Wimbledon suddenly became very important for him.
That's all. Now he can afford to concentrate on clay.
I agree with Federer on his opinion on this own game. :)



Well I actually find todays clay court field very weak compared to other fields. If Federer is not good enough to win a French Open in a field with only 1 extremely good clay courter(Nadal)he certainly would not have been in a field with many more very good clay courters then the current one. Nadal is probably better then anybody in the last 15 years on clay, but that does not still change, but still the overall field on clay was stronger around 98-2001 with all of Moya, Kuerten, Corretja, Costa, Agassi(he was a contender on clay then), Ferrero, Rios, so strong. In fact most all eras on clay have a deeper field of clay courters then the current one.

You even said that you believe in the Roma final a subpar Nadal beat a very in-form Federer, if that is really that case that also speaks to how far below Federer is on clay to other surfaces, since that scenario would never play out anywhere else.

The way you have referred to Federer's game I get the impression you think he is almost as good on clay as grass, and I see him about 60% as good on clay as grass, and 70% as good on clay as hard courts, at most.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-07-2006, 01:55 AM
Well given that on grass nobody can touch him, and he is a lock to win his 4th Wimbledon this year, and on clay he cant buy a win over Nadal, and has yet to make a French Open final, it is hardly surprising people recognize him to be much better on grass then clay.

Given that you are the person who said he would have no chance vs a past-his-prime
Becker(95), 2-time Slam Champion and 4-time Slam finalist Rafter, and one shot wonder Ivanisevic, in a Wimbledon final; and then went on to even say that he could not be competitive with Nadal from the baseline on grass, and isnt that comfortable at net, so Nadal would have a good chance to beat him on grass, you have an enormously reduced view to what his abilities on grass really are. You also have a very inflated view to what his comfort on clay is.

Early in his career he was so mentaly fragile the surface he had the best result on was dicated by which time of the year he did not choke in mostly.

The Pusher Terminator
06-07-2006, 02:28 AM
That's what I think. Laver, vilas, borg that's all great but you need to take off the training wheels and have your own opinion. I'd like to see all the fed "zero chancers" put money where their mouth is and put up a hundred large ones on fed not winning the french. I bet 90 percent of them would bail right there. I want Fed to win, but I'm sure as anything wouldn't bet against nadal, and by the same token, anti-feds shouldn't bet against federer.


I'll take that bet...any suggestions how to put up the money? Maybe we can forward it to a third party that would release the winnings? I'm not sure if TW would get involved in something like that...but if you can think of a third party that we both trust then I will gladly put up the money...the question is will you?