PDA

View Full Version : If Nadal wins the US open will Federer retire the way Borg did?


The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 03:27 AM
History really has been repeating itself. Borg retired after Mcenroe beat him at Wimbledon and then also won the US open. If Nadal should win the US open then Fed,.... at the age of 24 will be in almost the exact same position Borg was in at the age of 26. The question however is what do you think Fed would do? Will he retire?


As Brad Gilbert said today, its much more than Nadal being better on clay. He said that Nadal would beat Federer on hardcourts too. Not only based on their previous meetings, but because Nadal doesn't allow Federer to play his game, which is usually what Federer does to his opponents. Federer can hit all his junk and variety of shots, and Nadal will pound each of them back with pace and spin.

Will he retire?

Fedexeon
06-12-2006, 03:35 AM
No, he will continue to train harder than ever.
Anyway, i'm not him, i wont know what he thinks.
Mostly, i would say he wont.

Rhino
06-12-2006, 03:44 AM
Hang on aren't Blake, Moya, Berdych, and Clement playing at the US Open this year? :)

mfa81
06-12-2006, 03:45 AM
No, Federer will continue at tour, there are no reason to retire...

oscar_2424
06-12-2006, 04:12 AM
No, Federer will continue at tour, there are no reason to retire...
I agree with you

Count Grishnackh
06-12-2006, 04:32 AM
No, he will continue to work harder.
Anyway, i'm not him, i wont know what he thinks.
Mostly, i would say he wont.

Work harder? You talking about Fed here? He sure didn't work hard yesterday.

Count Grishnackh
06-12-2006, 04:51 AM
History really has been repeating itself. Borg retired after Mcenroe beat him at Wimbledon and then also won the US open. If Nadal should win the US open then Fed,.... at the age of 24 will be in almost the exact same position Borg was in at the age of 26. The question however is what do you think Fed would do? Will he retire?



Will he retire?

I think if he lost to Nadal at this year's US Open final and next year's Australian Open final he would most likely either retire or start to lose to other players from being so distraught, his game would suffer because he knows he can't beat him. Then comes the retirement ala Hingis. "Oh my ankle is bothering me. I swear!"

diegaa
06-12-2006, 05:23 AM
now why he would do such a thing? did roddick or hewitt retired when they were crushed by fed?
No way.

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 05:35 AM
now why he would do such a thing? did roddick or hewitt retired when they were crushed by fed?
No way.

I think Roddick and hewitt have shown way more fire than Fed ever has. Rogers personality seems more on par with Borg's personality.

johnkidd
06-12-2006, 05:59 AM
I'm not slamming Nadal and I'm not a huge Fed fan, but to say Fed should retire is a joke. I know Pusher is out there trying to rile people up the way he did on the Borg thread. My suggestion to PT is he watch and maybe play a bit more tennis and less time hacking on a computer making uniformed posts.

I saw Nadal play Berdych in Cin'ti last summer when he lost and Nadal's game has holes in it that clay hides. His first and second serve is weak on hardcourts. In fact he doubled twice in the third set tie-break. Berdych was also getting treatment for cramps and Nadal still couldn't put him away. I believe though as he gets more experience he'll learn to go for a bigger first serve to get some easy points. He's also got to learn to flatten his strokes out more. His topspin was bouncing up right into Berdych's wheelhouse. I also believe this is the same reason that Blake has sucess against him on hardcourt because he gets a high ball to tee off on. When Roddick beat him a couple years back at the Open it was the same thing.
I think the reason Nadal plays Fed tough on hardcourts is that Roger tends to hit his winners by setting up openings, and one two punch, as opposed to a Blakeor Berdych forehand where they'll pound the heck out of the ball. With Nadals retriving ability he negates Federer's "openings" to hit winners.

breakfast_of_champions
06-12-2006, 07:22 AM
no, federer is a different mentality than bjorn. probably a stronger mentality. i remember bjorn getting behind against connors, early in his career, and just packing it in many times. it seemed to resurface aganst jmac later in his career. never seen that from fed, ever. bjorn also played a much more physically demanding game.

skip1969
06-12-2006, 07:41 AM
I'm not slamming Nadal and I'm not a huge Fed fan, but to say Fed should retire is a joke. I know Pusher is out there trying to rile people up the way he did on the Borg thread. My suggestion to PT is he watch and maybe play a bit more tennis and less time hacking on a computer making uniformed posts.
you're my new best friend.

sometimes, i read s**t on here and i wonder . . . "what planet are these people living on?"

ring . . . . ring . . .

"um . . . you should get that. it's reality calling."

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 07:56 AM
I'm not slamming Nadal and I'm not a huge Fed fan, but to say Fed should retire is a joke. .

You guys are so funny. When did I ever say Fed SHOULD retire? You guys are in such "defense mode" and so utterly blown away that you have now become delusional.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
06-12-2006, 08:53 AM
nope, he will win slams for the next five years then he won't retire but will let the young guns take over.

Ivanišević
06-12-2006, 10:56 AM
You guys are so funny. When did I ever say Fed SHOULD retire? You guys are in such "defense mode" and so utterly blown away that you have now become delusional.
well, you did write "history really has been reapiting itself"...

BabolatFan
06-12-2006, 11:49 AM
History really has been repeating itself. Borg retired after Mcenroe beat him at Wimbledon and then also won the US open. If Nadal should win the US open then Fed,.... at the age of 24 will be in almost the exact same position Borg was in at the age of 26. The question however is what do you think Fed would do? Will he retire?



Will he retire?

Is that what you'd like happened?

simi
06-12-2006, 12:11 PM
contents of this post voluntarily deleted in an effort to minimize trolling

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 12:17 PM
Why the heck are you asking us? Roger doesn't seek our advice and most likely, he doesn't read this forum either. There is no way for us know if and when he decides to retire. WE DON"T KNOW! We can't answer your question with any amount of authority. Stop acting like such a troll and mature a bit. You're hatred of Federer is getting old.

I think its your defensivenes and love for Fed that is pathetic. I asked a simple honest question and you guys freak out. Whats so offensive about my question? Its an intresting analogy...why not discuss it like gentlemen?

dh003i
06-12-2006, 12:18 PM
Pusher,

How about you retire from these boards? Talk about a sore, snobbish, arrogant "victor". Here we have a ******bag hoping one of the greatest players of all time will retire.

Nadal can't even get past the relatively early around at non-French grand slams. But even if he does, Federer will beat him in the slam finals. Federer is just too good on the faster surfaces.

People saying Borg was mentally weak? BS. Borg won that famous match against McEnroe where McEnroe beat him in an 34-point 4th set tie-breaker; Borg then won the match. Borg was mentally stronger than McEnroe -- period. Better player, greater player. End of discussion.

How about you face reality: Federer's game is built to last a very very long time. Nadal's isn't. He relies on speed, which will wane as he gets older; and on grinding, which will make him more prone to injuries. He's already had an inordinate amount of injuries, even for a tennis player. Nadal will probably retire before Federer does (or if he doesn't, will fall out of the top 10 before Fed does).

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 12:27 PM
Pusher,

How about you retire from these boards? Talk about a sore, snobbish, arrogant "victor". Here we have a ******bag hoping one of the greatest players of all time will retire.

Nadal can't even get past the relatively early around at non-French grand slams. But even if he does, Federer will beat him in the slam finals. Federer is just too good on the faster surfaces.

People saying Borg was mentally weak? BS. Borg won that famous match against McEnroe where McEnroe beat him in an 34-point 4th set tie-breaker; Borg then won the match. Borg was mentally stronger than McEnroe -- period. Better player, greater player. End of discussion.

How about you face reality: Federer's game is built to last a very very long time. Nadal's isn't. He relies on speed, which will wane as he gets older; and on grinding, which will make him more prone to injuries. He's already had an inordinate amount of injuries, even for a tennis player. Nadal will probably retire before Federer does (or if he doesn't, will fall out of the top 10 before Fed does).

OMG! What have I done to deserve such outbursts? You guys really need to chill out. I am sorry that my predictions were correct; however I have simply asked a very rational question. Why can't we just behave like gentlemen?

I like Fed. I do not want him to retire. However, I really do see an analogy between Fed & Borg. If Nadal should win the US Open then I think Nadal may crack psycologically.

I do not think Nadal has even a remote chance at Wimbledon....but if he somehow did win that I really think Fed would absolutely hang it up. But since I believe that to be impossible I only brought up the US open. Now please stop mourning your loss and behave.

dh003i
06-12-2006, 12:54 PM
Pusher,

Sorry, but your attempt to downplay your question like it's some honest question is bullcrap. In previous posts, you made some nasty comments about how Fed was going to retire because of Nadal. The tone is hardly "innocent".

Analogies between Borg and Federer? No, sorry. The only analogy is their icy demeanor on court. Their games are very different. Borg's game is more like Nadal's game -- very physically demanding.

I mean, what the heck, if anything, Federer's game is getting better. He's better this year than he was before on clay.

PS: An *** who has been attempting to dominate all conversations he enters, and maniacly screaming that anyone who tries to analyze why Federer lost is "making excuses", has no business telling anyone to "behave".

FiveO
06-12-2006, 02:14 PM
IMO the premise is flawed. It assumes and places entirely too much emphasis on one cause, a h2h match-up, as THE basis for retirement. Mc may have hastened Borg's retirement but there were other and aguably more direct dynamics involved.

(quoted from HickokSports.com): Borg was an unusual champion in that he never followed the entire world-wide tour. He insisted on taking a four-month vacation, which embroiled him in a dispute with the men's tennis council in 1982. Borg was told he would have to enter the qualifying round for every major event that year because he refused to commit himself to playing the required number of tournaments. As a result, he took the year off and then announced his retirement in 1983, when he was only twenty-seven.

Imagine being if not the best, a consistent member of the top 3 for nearly 8 straight years and given an ultimatum to play year round or be forced to qualify for tourneys won the year prior. Ever wonder why two of JMc's repeated mantra's are 1) his disappointment regarding Borg's retirement and 2) his constant harping on the relentlessness of a year round schedule?

Also keep in mind that as young as Borg was when he retired, he had won at least one major for 8 straight years. How many champions have a longer uninterrupted run of majors?

I believe Fed's game, as well balanced as it is, does not match up well vs. Nadal on dirt and that it is enough for Rafa to have gotten into Fed's head on clay. It's obvious that Fed is different vs. Rafa, part physical and by now at least somewhat psychologically. On its face Nadal's game may match up well at the Aussie too. Moya, Ferrero and other dedicated dirt ballers have had some success there, no matter how fleeting, but it remains for Nadal to prove it Down Under. Fed is more vulnerable to many more of the other 126 players in the Wimbledon draw than Rafa. On the other hand Nadal is vulnerable to many more in the field than Fed is on both grass and the hardcourts at the USO. Other hard court titles are nice, but 7 rounds on the hardcourt majors of NY or Melbourne with the other best hardcourters in the draw has and will continue to present more problems for Nadal than they will for Fed.

I don't think we can pencil in Rafa as a sure thing for the Flushing final.

Fed has never been considered the #1 clay-courter but he has proven himself the #2 in the biggest events including the one major played on dirt. Off clay Nadal is simply not the #2 on anything. Maybe that could change. But even if it should Raf's run on hardcourts would likely be as long as a Fed's run on clay should Roger ever grab a title at RG.

So no. Not only because it is unlikely the h2h is THE cause for an athlete's retirement whether it was Borg, McEnroe, Becker or Sampras. Fed has been winning majors for "only" four years despite his number of titles. As the number 2 on his worst surface, Fed has a very realistic chance of winning at RG in the next few years and more so than what many view as his direct predecessor and major title record holder, Sampras, ever had. Lastly it is unlikely that Fed's demise at the USO will come at Nadal's hands.

dh003i
06-12-2006, 02:28 PM
FiveO,

Good analysis. Nadal's strengths seem perfectly aligned with the few of Roger's weaknesses. It is a match-up issue. The problems with trying to determine anything by h2h are illustrated by the Blake-Federer-Nadal triangle, whereby we cannot say which player is better based on head-to-head rankings, because we have inconsistencies.

In a rational ranking system, #1 > #2, and #2 > #3. Therefore, #1 > #3. However, going by h2h, we get ranking contradictions:

1. Blake > Nadal
2. Nadal > Federer
3. Federer > Blake

therefore:

From 1 and 2: Blake > Federer. But 3 states Federer > Blake.

From 1 and 3: Federer > Nadal, but 2 states Federer < Nadal. Etc.

Only a moron would think that "the best player in the world" should be determined by h2h. You can't even set up a coherent system that way!

Certainly, Roger will not retire as long as he can continue winning Grand Slams. I suspect that'll be longer than Nadal can continue winning Grand Slams.

jackson vile
06-12-2006, 02:46 PM
He would be shamed right out of tennis, but do you really think that will ever happen:confused: Nadal continues to amaze everyone but that woudl be one serious feat that would put him as the most amazing tennis player ever

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 06:03 PM
PS: An *** who has been attempting to dominate all conversations he enters, and maniacly screaming that anyone who tries to analyze why Federer lost is "making excuses", has no business telling anyone to "behave".

This was my post...I think its time you looked in the mirror.

I have been nothing but calm cool and collected. On the other hand you are frothing at the mouth. I simply and calmly put forward very rational predictions and issues and you get hysterical.

malakas
06-12-2006, 06:07 PM
Federer only lost to Nadal because he had a fight with Mirka the previous night and he was very angry and not concetrated in the game!!!!That's why Mirka didn't go to the stadium..:mad:
That's all..There's no point into further analysis and discussion!!:cool:


:mrgreen:

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 06:09 PM
Five O,

Bravo. A ver fine analysis indeed! Thank you! I do agree that Borg retired in part due to being forced to qualify. That was completely idiotic! How could the greatest player in the world be forced to qualify!!!!???? INSANE!; however.....thats only part of the reason:

Borg himself has said that after being #1 for so long anything less is unbearable. I truly believe that the qualifying crap, burn out, and the domination by Mcenroe hastened Borgs early retirement at the age of 26.

But I just thought of a better analogy: HINGIS!!!!! Both are from Switzerland as well!! I neve believe her about her "injury"...she retired because of the Williams sisters.

mileslong
06-12-2006, 07:21 PM
My suggestion to PT is he watch and maybe play a bit more tennis and less time hacking on a computer making uniformed posts.

best post ever...

FEDEXP
06-12-2006, 07:39 PM
Just ignore the Pusher Man....

127mph
06-13-2006, 08:24 AM
History really has been repeating itself. Borg retired after Mcenroe beat him at Wimbledon and then also won the US open. If Nadal should win the US open then Fed,.... at the age of 24 will be in almost the exact same position Borg was in at the age of 26. The question however is what do you think Fed would do? Will he retire?



Will he retire?

to say that rafa will win the us open is a joke, people keep saying he has mastered hardcourts, but this is only half true. the only legit hardcourt victory was when he won dubai. his montreal win was a joke and as well his china open victory.

skip1969
06-13-2006, 11:59 AM
PS: An *** who has been attempting to dominate all conversations he enters, and maniacly screaming that anyone who tries to analyze why Federer lost is "making excuses", has no business telling anyone to "behave".
um . . . i think that's what is commonly known as "the height of irony". classic.

plus, in referernce to the original thread, "If Nadal wins the US open will Federer retire the way Borg did?" . . . if this is your idea of a "very rational prediction" . . . then i shudder to think what your coo-coo predictions sound like.

Andres
06-13-2006, 12:02 PM
his montreal win was a joke and as well his china open victory.
Ehmm... Why?

The Pusher Terminator
06-13-2006, 01:57 PM
to say that rafa will win the us open is a joke, people keep saying he has mastered hardcourts, but this is only half true. the only legit hardcourt victory was when he won dubai. his montreal win was a joke and as well his china open victory.

I said IF he wins the US OPEN. sheesh! You guys are real becoming unraveled. ...I hope you get over your loss soon.

127mph
06-13-2006, 05:00 PM
Ehmm... Why?

why? in montreal who lost in first round? o hewitt and roddick. o and who didnt play? federer and safin. now, who was the only guy who could challange nadal at the tournament? o a 35 year old named andre agassi in the finals. and the china open basically no one played in that tournament except clay courters. get my jist?

Kid Carlos
06-13-2006, 05:32 PM
Nadal will not be able to walk when he is 30, all players with his game style breakdown. I love how if Federer had won the French then the convo of Federer having no competition would have come about. Why not predict that Nadal will not even get to the final of either Wimby or the U.S. bc he will be drained and lose to lower ranked players like Blake anyways. Just like last year he will play summer clay tournaments and Toronto and Cincy and have nothing left.

santolg321
06-13-2006, 05:37 PM
I think that is not a reason to retire, I think that he would train way even harder and he would find a way to beat nadal.

Count Grishnackh
06-13-2006, 06:19 PM
OMG! What have I done to deserve such outbursts? You guys really need to chill out. I am sorry that my predictions were correct; however I have simply asked a very rational question. Why can't we just behave like gentlemen?

I like Fed. I do not want him to retire. However, I really do see an analogy between Fed & Borg. If Nadal should win the US Open then I think Nadal may crack psycologically.

I do not think Nadal has even a remote chance at Wimbledon....but if he somehow did win that I really think Fed would absolutely hang it up. But since I believe that to be impossible I only brought up the US open. Now please stop mourning your loss and behave.

Hey, don't sweat it. The Fed fans are still stinging from the final and you throw a little salt on their wounds. They're gonna yell. If Fed were beating Nadal they would laugh off your posts. But that isn't the case and your posts are touching a nerve, a serious nerve. But honestly, I'm enjoying it. Keep it up. =)

127mph
06-13-2006, 06:32 PM
how dare you

Morpheus
06-13-2006, 06:45 PM
History really has been repeating itself. Borg retired after Mcenroe beat him at Wimbledon and then also won the US open. If Nadal should win the US open then Fed,.... at the age of 24 will be in almost the exact same position Borg was in at the age of 26. The question however is what do you think Fed would do? Will he retire?
Will he retire?

They are in a much different positions. Borg was more dominant and had much tougher competition.

The Pusher Terminator
06-13-2006, 07:01 PM
They are in a much different positions. Borg was more dominant and had much tougher competition.


funny

verker-er
06-14-2006, 01:36 AM
There's a lot of disinformation over Nadal's wins on Hardcourt. Here are the stats.

At Montreal he beat the following

- Moya (who supposedly owns him on hardcourts)
- Grosjean (always tough on fast courts)
- Matthieu (in case people think that its inevitable PHM beats him on a fast court)
- Agassi (you can say he was 35 but then that also takes away from what fed did at the US Open)

At Madrid

- Robredo
- Stepanek
- Ginepri (coming of US Open Semis)
- Ljubicic (I feel like world number 2)

In sum I think one think which can't be underestimated is his mental strentgh no matter what surface. For someone who is supposedly not a good server he takes an awful lot of sets 7-5 or 7-6.

As for where he'll improve, I think he'll eventually sort out hitting his groundies flatter and attacking more (although low bouncing grass may be tough). He'll probably work on his volley's as well. As has been pointed out he has great hands.

I think his biggest weakness is the return of serve. A lot of that has to do with great hand eye co-ordination which you either have or don't. Agassi, Hewitt and Federer all have incredible reflexes whereas someone like Roddick clearly doesn't. I'm not sure about Nadal yet.

superman1
06-14-2006, 01:44 AM
Oh yeah, Nadal only beat a 35 year old at Montreal. Yeah, a 35 year old that just won a tournament, easily beating guys like Gaudio and Chela and the Muller the Roddick killer, and got to the finals of the US Open, giving Federer more trouble than he ever wanted.

brolycjw
06-14-2006, 02:02 AM
Why not change the topic title to "If Nadal wins the US open, will pigs fly?"

Gilgamesh
06-14-2006, 05:42 AM
WTF would Fed retire?

Borg didn't retire because McEnroe forced him to although it is believed he is one of the primary reasons. But the guy had a troubled personal life and he didn't want to compete in any competitions other than GS which made the tour officials scorn.

Last I checked Fed had none of those issues.

The Pusher Terminator
06-14-2006, 05:47 AM
WTF would Fed retire?

Borg didn't retire because McEnroe forced him to although it is believed he is one of the primary reasons. But the guy had a troubled personal life and he didn't want to compete in any competitions other than GS which made the tour officials scorn.

Last I checked Fed had none of those issues.

Actually Borg himself had said he did quit partly because of the competition. He said that after being #1 for so long....#2 was not something that he could settle for. The personal issues and being burnt out are of course also true. But what about Hingis? Why do you think she retired? Was it the injury or was it the Williams sisters?

Gilgamesh
06-14-2006, 05:57 AM
Actually Borg himself had said he did quit partly because of the competition. He said that after being #1 for so long....#2 was not something that he could settle for. The personal issues and being burnt out are of course also true. But what about Hingis? Why do you think she retired? Was it the injury or was it the Williams sisters?

Yes partly but primarily I don't think so. Borg had personal demons had the tennis officials were against him because he wanted to skip the tour and only play in the GS. But your post suggests that McEnroe was the primary reason Borg quit. Hey I am the BIG McEnroe fan but I would never suggest that.

As for Hingis...we can only speculate. I think her injury was the primary reason. She just couldn't play at the same level anymore and when you can't compete like you use to for a player who has been on top it's hard to swallow. But I would never suggest that the Williams sisters made her quit. That is an ignorant assumption. Partly the reason sure. Solely the reason...if that was true Hingis should quit because she isn't a competitor.

I would be disgusted if you were suggesting the same thing about Borg...

The Pusher Terminator
06-14-2006, 06:38 AM
Yes partly but primarily I don't think so. Borg had personal demons had the tennis officials were against him because he wanted to skip the tour and only play in the GS. But your post suggests that McEnroe was the primary reason Borg quit. Hey I am the BIG McEnroe fan but I would never suggest that.

As for Hingis...we can only speculate. I think her injury was the primary reason. She just couldn't play at the same level anymore and when you can't compete like you use to for a player who has been on top it's hard to swallow. But I would never suggest that the Williams sisters made her quit. That is an ignorant assumption. Partly the reason sure. Solely the reason...if that was true Hingis should quit because she isn't a competitor.

I would be disgusted if you were suggesting the same thing about Borg...

As far as Borg..there is no primary or secondary reasons....they all add up.

As far as Hingis...then you also believe many sports commentators also are ignorant. In fact I believe that almost everyone on the tour and most experts believe that the real reason Hingis quit was beacuse of the Sisters. Everyone is polite about it....but everyone really know the real reason she quit. Her lawsuit went nowhere and she is miraculously back on the tour with no complaints. Come on!

dh003i
06-14-2006, 09:08 AM
This was my post...I think its time you looked in the mirror.

Firstly, just because you start a thread doesn't mean that anyone who talks about any tangents should be babbled at for "making excuses" for Federer.

Secondly, I was referring to your conduct elsewhere. In numerous threads where people have offered explanations for why Federer lost to Nadal at FO, or why he has a difficult time with Nadal, you respond by saying that they're just making excuses, and we should just say Nadal is a great clay-court player, and that's it, with nothing else.

Anyone mentioning any of Nadal's flaws -- and getting knocked out early in all the other grand slams is a flaw -- is told that they're just "yes, but-ing" and you act like they're downplaying Nadal's greatness on clay.

The Pusher Terminator
06-14-2006, 11:29 AM
Firstly, just because you start a thread doesn't mean that anyone who talks about any tangents should be babbled at for "making excuses" for Federer.

Secondly, I was referring to your conduct elsewhere. In numerous threads where people have offered explanations for why Federer lost to Nadal at FO, or why he has a difficult time with Nadal, you respond by saying that they're just making excuses, and we should just say Nadal is a great clay-court player, and that's it, with nothing else.

Anyone mentioning any of Nadal's flaws -- and getting knocked out early in all the other grand slams is a flaw -- is told that they're just "yes, but-ing" and you act like they're downplaying Nadal's greatness on clay.

Fed got his butt kicked...get over it and stop crying like a little girl. I'm embarrased for you.

bcaz
06-14-2006, 10:55 PM
Hmm ... people are dissing Federer the way they vilified Sampras while he was dominating the sport, only to worship him when he finally went away ... I guess if Roger doesn't win every match against every comer, single elimination format, up to 128 draw, best in the world, come out on top every week, regardless of every bounce, every call, every ache and pain, if he doesn't win every single match, nay, dominate in 2-3 sets, give up no breaks, he is dog****. You guys who buy into this **** have no concept of excellence. BTW, Nadal is pretty good, too.

Phooey.