PDA

View Full Version : Does anybody think any player beside Fed has a decent chance of winning Wimbledon?


newnuse
06-27-2006, 05:17 PM
Is it just me or is it pretty much money in the bank Fed will win Wimbledon again with relative ease. I really don't see anybody giving him a good fight.

I feel it's horrible for the sport when a guy can be so dominant in a tournament. For me personally, it makes a tournament pretty boring to watch. I felt the same way about the FO, though to a lesser extent.

Even when Sampras was dominating Wimbledon, I always thought he could be knocked off going against a big S&V'er. Unfortunately, S&V'ing is a dying art form.

I just don't see Fed losing. My interest in watching pro tennis these days has really dropped.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-27-2006, 05:21 PM
During Sampras's prime he seemed like almost a lock every year at Wimbledon too. No difference really.

Clay is boring too since Nadal is a lock to win every event on clay, atleast back then only one surface did a player seem like a total lock, now it is two.

newnuse
06-27-2006, 05:30 PM
I disagree about Sampras. On a personal level, I always thought a big serving, net player could play well and beat Sampras. Think Goran, Krijicek sp? etc.... a chance, though Sampras was the heavy favorite.

Anyways, the state of the ATP tour is horrible when you have 2 guys who just seem invincible in 2 out of the 4 slams

federerhoogenbandfan
06-27-2006, 05:32 PM
I disagree about Sampras. On a personal level, I always thought a big serving, net player could play well and beat Sampras. Think Goran, Krijicek sp? etc.... a chance, though Sampras was the heavy favorite.

Anyways, the state of the ATP tour is horrible when you have 2 guys who just seem invincible in 2 out of the 4 slams

Well I always felt Sampras was close to a lock every year at Wimbledon from 94-2000, the same way Federer feels now, but that is a personal feeling thing I guess. I agree it sucks that 2 of the 4 slams have a certain winner it seems.

I actually told a friend on another forum I would not be stunned to see Federer and Nadal win every single one of the 18 slams from now to the end of 2010.

newnuse
06-27-2006, 05:39 PM
Well I always felt Sampras was close to a lock every year at Wimbledon from 94-2000, the same way Federer feels now, but that is a personal feeling thing I guess. I agree it sucks that 2 of the 4 slams have a certain winner it seems.

I actually told a friend on another forum I would not be stunned to see Federer and Nadal win every single one of the 18 slams from now to the end of 2010.

Normally I would say you must be kidding, but I wouldn't be very shocked if that happened.

The funny thing is people try to make a big deal about the Fed/Nadal "rivalry". I just don't see it. In Nadal, I see a guy just dominate everybody on clay. He does beats Fed everytime on clay so that's not much of a rivalry. On the other surfaces, he doesn't advance far enough to meet Fed. That's the stuff of a great rivalry?? I don't think so.

oscar_2424
06-27-2006, 05:40 PM
Nalbandian if he stays healthy?

federerhoogenbandfan
06-27-2006, 05:41 PM
Normally I would say you must be kidding, but I wouldn't be very shocked if that happened.

The funny thing is people try to make a big deal about the Fed/Nadal "rivalry". I just don't see it. In Nadal, I see a guy just dominate everybody on clay. He does beats Fed everytime on clay so that's not much of a rivalry. On the other surfaces, he doesn't advance far enough to meet Fed. That's the stuff of a great rivalry?? I don't think so.

That is what I was saying as well. Federer fails to ever beat Nadal on the surfaces they do play on, mostly clay or very high bouncing hard courts which suit Nadal better, but still Federer fails to ever win; and then on Federer's prefered surfaces Nadal is too weak to even get far enough to play him. Either way it makes it a crummy rivalry, if Federer starts to beat Nadal on slower surfaces, and Nadal starts to get to finals of faster surfaces and challenge Federer on those, then you have a good rivalry. Right now it is just a bad rivalry, highlighting a bad phase in the mens game, and even as a Federer fan I find it convulted in many ways.

Lord knows with the lack of true contenders outside those two, a more real rivalry between the two based on those factors is needed to revive any interest in the mens game.

Tennis_Monk
06-27-2006, 05:44 PM
Federer has a Laser lock on the wimbledon title....true. But is it automatic?...no chance. I do feel there are couple of players who can cause him trouble..especially the ones with Bludgeoning Serve and deadly back hand , Good S & V capabiity....i see a few players who has it to take it to Master Federer...players like Marat "Crazy" Safin, David Nalbandian have done it before.
James Blake and Andy Roddick if they have a great day can also trouble Federer.

newnuse
06-27-2006, 05:52 PM
Federer has a Laser lock on the wimbledon title....true. But is it automatic?...no chance. I do feel there are couple of players who can cause him trouble..especially the ones with Bludgeoning Serve and deadly back hand , Good S & V capabiity....i see a few players who has it to take it to Master Federer...players like Marat "Crazy" Safin, David Nalbandian have done it before.
James Blake and Andy Roddick if they have a great day can also trouble Federer.

I like your pick of Safin. He does have so much talent, but it seems like he brings it once every 2 years. Since he won the AO last year, he won't be due for another GS this year.

Blake has not done enough on grass to give me much hope. I had good hope for Roddick as being a worthy challenger to Fed on grass, but his play has really slipped lately. I don't see him as being much of a factor these days.

Hopefully Nalbandian can crank his game up a notch or 2. I just don't see anybody with the style to challenge Federer.

Matthew
06-27-2006, 06:00 PM
Nobody seems to being mentioning Mario Ancic.

I would say that after Federer and Roddick, the man to watch out for is Ancic. He hasn't been given the 7 seed for nothing. He has an easy route to Federer in the quarters and if he takes down Federer I like his chances of going ahead and winning it all.

So what are his chances against Roger? Not good, just like everyone elses. Wimbledon these days only has 2 kinds of players - Roger Federer, and a bunch of darkhorses. But I'll say I like Ancic's chances over Roddick, and certainly Hewitt. Blake has a good chance also of going toe to toe with Federer, but its not likely he'll get a chance to.

BabolatFan
06-27-2006, 06:15 PM
Is it just me or is it pretty much money in the bank Fed will win Wimbledon again with relative ease. I really don't see anybody giving him a good fight.

I feel it's horrible for the sport when a guy can be so dominant in a tournament. For me personally, it makes a tournament pretty boring to watch. I felt the same way about the FO, though to a lesser extent.

Even when Sampras was dominating Wimbledon, I always thought he could be knocked off going against a big S&V'er. Unfortunately, S&V'ing is a dying art form.

I just don't see Fed losing. My interest in watching pro tennis these days has really dropped.

Yep I hear you although I never get bored watching Federer's matches. As far as the Wimby, nothing is set in stone yet coz if Nalbandian keeps playing like he did today Federer's nerves will be tested again. On the bottom of the draw, I want Roddick to blast through. Let's see if he's got his confident forehand back.

malakas
06-28-2006, 04:35 AM
If Safin is mentally stable,then he could have a real chance.

Condoleezza
06-28-2006, 10:53 AM
Is it just me or is it pretty much money in the bank Fed will win Wimbledon again with relative ease. I really don't see anybody giving him a good fight.

I feel it's horrible for the sport when a guy can be so dominant in a tournament. For me personally, it makes a tournament pretty boring to watch. I felt the same way about the FO, though to a lesser extent.

Even when Sampras was dominating Wimbledon, I always thought he could be knocked off going against a big S&V'er. Unfortunately, S&V'ing is a dying art form.

I just don't see Fed losing. My interest in watching pro tennis these days has really dropped.

Fed will win. That's for sure.
And it is in no way boring. We can watch history in the making.

Condi

BreakPoint
06-28-2006, 10:55 AM
The way Federer has been playing, I think he'll win again.

But then again, he also played great at the French until the final.

dh003i
06-28-2006, 11:02 AM
BreakPoint,

In the French final, Federer was the 2nd best player on clay, Nadal the best. He was playing against the best player.

On grass, Federer has no equal, no-one even close.

skip1969
06-28-2006, 11:21 AM
all this talk about how "boring" tennis is . . . is boring me.

there's a reason why the number #1 player is #1. and the favorite is the favorite. but at the end of the day, the players have got to play. and they don't hand out slam trophies before the tournaments start. or after the second round. no matter what the odds.

LeftyServe
06-28-2006, 11:32 AM
Nalbandian. Nalbandian. Nalbandian.

ED_4.6HSE
06-28-2006, 01:59 PM
Nobody seems to being mentioning Mario Ancic.

I would say that after Federer and Roddick, the man to watch out for is Ancic. He hasn't been given the 7 seed for nothing. He has an easy route to Federer in the quarters and if he takes down Federer I like his chances of going ahead and winning it all.

So what are his chances against Roger? Not good, just like everyone elses. Wimbledon these days only has 2 kinds of players - Roger Federer, and a bunch of darkhorses. But I'll say I like Ancic's chances over Roddick, and certainly Hewitt. Blake has a good chance also of going toe to toe with Federer, but its not likely he'll get a chance to.

I agree. i wouldnt want to bet against fed but if i had to it would be ancic. He's the only player i can think of in the draw that has such an all round ability on grass other than fed. I dont think he'd beat him but he's the only person i think has the weapons to. nalbandian, roddick, blake, hewitt- on grass i dont think so

textbook strokes
06-28-2006, 02:13 PM
Any young dark horse?. I heard Tursunov played pretty well today. On the other hand, if Fed keeps showing the excellent game he showed today, you can't say is boring. Predictable maybe... but never boring.

th41291
06-28-2006, 02:36 PM
Predictable, is when you see bagels everywhere. His game and decisions continue to amaze me. :)

The Pusher Terminator
06-28-2006, 02:56 PM
no one has a chance. Fed will win again....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

White Satin
06-28-2006, 03:56 PM
Federer, boring?????????????????????
Never.

newnuse
06-28-2006, 04:19 PM
Listen guys, nobody ever said Federer was boring. I said watching Wimbledon is boring now because Fed is a lock to win it all.

It's like taping a big Lakers game only to have some dude tell you the score before you actually sit down to watch it. You can still watch it, but the suspense is pretty much gone.

I don't feel the suspense watching him plow through opponents. It's as exciting as watching the top seeds on the women's side playing their 1/2 round matches.

Matthew
06-28-2006, 05:25 PM
Any young dark horse?. I heard Tursunov played pretty well today. On the other hand, if Fed keeps showing the excellent game he showed today, you can't say is boring. Predictable maybe... but never boring.

I picked Tursunov to get to the semifinals when the draw came out.

Shaolin
06-28-2006, 07:19 PM
I feel it's horrible for the sport when a guy can be so dominant in a tournament.

Yeah, Michael Jordan was terrible for basketball, and golf went way downhill with Tiger...

BreakPoint
06-28-2006, 07:48 PM
Sit back and enjoy it folks. We may never see another talent the likes of Federer again in our lifetimes.

FEDEXP
06-28-2006, 08:19 PM
It just seems to me to complain about how "horrible" it is when a couple of players are dominant is to not have a fundamental grasp about what "sport" is. You know, it's not astrology....

Bogie
06-28-2006, 08:20 PM
fed is likely to win it, but if anyone has a chance, its safin and nalbandian

superman1
06-28-2006, 08:38 PM
I'd say Nalbandian has the second best chance, followed by Hewitt. For Hewitt to have a chance, Nalbandian would have to beat Fed in the semis.

But realistically, no one has a chance and all they can hope for is to maximize their prize money.

HyperHorse
06-28-2006, 09:40 PM
It just seems to me to complain about how "horrible" it is when a couple of players are dominant is to not have a fundamental grasp about what "sport" is. You know, it's not astrology....

since u mentioned Astrology, Sampras & Federer are both Leos...
anyway, who can challenge Roger?
not many ppl, id like to see Safin make a decent run here..
dont think Safin has ever played Fed on grass....
so, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, and maybe Blake...
Not so sure about Nalbandian's chances... see how that stomach holds up...

newnuse
06-28-2006, 10:17 PM
Okay so you blokes would rather see a triple bagel blowout instead of a 5 setter????

BreakPoint
06-28-2006, 10:24 PM
Okay so you blokes would rather see a triple bagel blowout instead of a 5 setter????

As long as Federer is on one side of the net, I really don't care what the end scoreline is. It's the artistry that I enjoy watching.

Of course, a close 5-setter is better, but you can't have everything. And I think Federer would rather win in 3 easy sets, and I don't think either of us are in a position to tell him what to do.

D-man
06-28-2006, 11:27 PM
To answer the original question, no.

Polaris
06-28-2006, 11:35 PM
dont think Safin has ever played Fed on grass....

Actually he has. He lost a tough three-setter in the final at Halle in 2005.

jukka1970
06-29-2006, 01:03 AM
Before the tournament started, and seeing the draws that Federer had. I thought that Hewitt and possibly Roddick would have a slight chance, and slight being a 5% for Hewitt and 2-3% for Roddick out of 100%. But after seeing Federer in his first two matches, especially against Gasquet, I would say no way. He came out roaring and never looked back. It's only round 2, and Federer has had 2 tough opponents to deal with. Gasquet and extremely dangerous floater, especially given how you never know if he's going to be on his game. And then Henman a person who's made the semi's three times and grew up with the grass courts and was a seeded player til this year. And not only did he deal with them, but he blew them both off the court.

I mean, I just don't see anyone beating him this year with how well Federer is playing. And as far as Roddicks chance, I think that's gone down to zero as far as beating Federer. he's playing way to conservative and not taking the initative on points from what I've seen so far.

Jukka

The Pusher Terminator
06-29-2006, 04:29 AM
Yeah, Michael Jordan was terrible for basketball, and golf went way downhill with Tiger...

Very different. First of all Jordan had very close battles . He was known for sinking the winning basket with two seconds left on the clock. In fact thats how he ended his career.

Golf is boring....I don't watch it so I cannot comment about tiger.

Fed has the personality of a tree and he has completely destroyed the competition. Furthermore the points are way to short. Do you really find this exciting? Were you asleep when these boards lit up during the French? They will light up once again at the US Open. In the meantime ...sweet dreams.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz/

Finally..Fed is no Jordan. Nadal has dominated Fed on every surface except silly grass.

nalbandian_fan
06-29-2006, 12:31 PM
I agree. i wouldnt want to bet against fed but if i had to it would be ancic. He's the only player i can think of in the draw that has such an all round ability on grass other than fed. I dont think he'd beat him but he's the only person i think has the weapons to. nalbandian, roddick, blake, hewitt- on grass i dont think so

i agree too, out of all the guys in this tournament, if anybody is going to be able to pull off an upset over federer, its mario ancic. He has a nice all-court playing style that could easily give federer some trouble if he executes properly.

Viper
06-29-2006, 12:36 PM
If Roddick continues what he did today, I can imagine him winning the title

Moose Malloy
06-29-2006, 01:14 PM
newnuse,
I'm with you. I like Federer but this tournament has absolutely no suspense as to the outcome. Its kinda like when Graf was winning everything in the late 80s(and that domination wasn't exactly considered a great time for the sport) I can't recall a male player that was ever this far ahead of the field, even Sampras(Goran was always a feared player, Sampras even said so. He was never a lock in their matches at W, they usually came down to a few points)

I much prefer watching Federer at the US Open or Australian. Yes he is a huge favorite there as well, but has a lot more competitive matches there. Players actually seem to think they have a chance there.

I posted in another thread how different tennis fans are from fans of other sports. Enjoying watching a straight set affair is rather strange to me, I've never met an NBA/NFL/MLB fan who enjoys watching blowouts/sweeps/ etc. And all those leagues make it clear that they don't enjoy it either because fans don't like it, ratings suffer etc. Even in boxing, most want to see a competitive battle.

And the MJ comparison (which seems to come up quite a bit on these boards) is way off. Jordan & the bulls played so many 6-7 game series in the playoffs. with buzzer beaters etc. watching jordan go 6 games & hit a buzzer beater to win the '98 nba finals is not the equivalent of watching federer triple bagel hewitt in a w final.

If the Bulls won all their NBA finals in 4 game sweeps, with 15-20 point margins in every game, MJ would not have become MJ. And the ratings would not have exploded the way they did.

Federer at W is the equivalent of 20 point blowouts. Yet some tennis fans don't seem to mind. I've attended 20 point blowouts, fans don't leave the arena happy or excited. I've attended a perfect display of tennis at the '91 US Open final(Courier-Edberg) & a 5 set final in '99(Agassi-Martin)
Guess which the fans enjoyed more? Guess which the commentators enjoyed more? guess which the networks prefer to get?

No wonder many fans of other sports think we're all nuts for liking tennis. Try explaining why you prefer a straight set match to a 5 setter to an NBA/NFL fan. Because of the "artistry?"(and don't get me started on the fact that so many tennis fans use that word. it really makes the sport, sound well, you know)

The reason sports are popular in the first place is the competition, the fact that the results aren't predetermined. Federer is -9000 to beat Mahut. That means Mahut is a 60-1 underdog. Mike Tyson never faced an opponent in his career that was that that far beneath him(I think 40-1 was his high) And these odds are common with Federer matches. I can only imagine what the odds are if he plays Roddick/Hewitt/whoever in the final. They might be on par with Graf-Zvereva at '88 FO(the double bagel final)

newnuse
06-29-2006, 05:08 PM
Great post Moose,

Exactly how I feel. I don't understand why people like watching a blowout.

Your analogy of the Graf domination was right on. It was lousy watching her destroy the others. Seles came along and a terrific rivalry was born. Those epic battles between Seles/Graf were great for tennis.

looseswing
06-29-2006, 06:06 PM
Just out of curiosity will Bagdhatis be able to pose a threat if he plays as well as he did in the first set of the AO. Has he been posting good results consitently?

The tennis guy
06-29-2006, 06:20 PM
Fed has the personality of a tree and he has completely destroyed the competition. Furthermore the points are way to short. Do you really find this exciting? Were you asleep when these boards lit up during the French? They will light up once again at the US Open. In the meantime ...sweet dreams.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz/

Finally..Fed is no Jordan. Nadal has dominated Fed on every surface except silly grass.

You made a silly argument. On one hand you say Federer destroyed the competition which makes it boring, on the other hand, Nadal has dominated Fed on every surface other than grass. How can that be?

Maybe you are too young or too dumb to remember what grass court was like a few years ago. The points are quite long now.

By the way, Nadal hasn't played Federer on every surface yet.

The tennis guy
06-29-2006, 06:30 PM
Great post Moose,

Exactly how I feel. I don't understand why people like watching a blowout.

Your analogy of the Graf domination was right on. It was lousy watching her destroy the others. Seles came along and a terrific rivalry was born. Those epic battles between Seles/Graf were great for tennis.

Are you guys saying all you watch Wimbledon is who wins? Do you watch the winner only?

Graf vs Sabatini, Sanchez, Novotna were quite good. If all you care about tennis is who wins, then it is not a good time to watch Wimbledon these days. If you care how the tournament evolves day by day, it is quite interesting.

I like the slow grass, but I think they should use regular balls, give serve and volleyers better chance while still preserve the longer baseline rallies.

Double G
06-29-2006, 07:11 PM
Yes, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR Roger TO BE KNOCKED OF Tennis's greatest stage by him breaking both his legs and and getting stuck in traffic.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
06-29-2006, 07:48 PM
A-Rod has a decent chance to win Wimby this year. ( he will)

Matthew
06-29-2006, 10:15 PM
No one dominates a sport and doesn't have some critics. Thats just life.

newnuse
06-30-2006, 01:07 AM
Are you guys saying all you watch Wimbledon is who wins? Do you watch the winner only?

Graf vs Sabatini, Sanchez, Novotna were quite good. If all you care about tennis is who wins, then it is not a good time to watch Wimbledon these days. If you care how the tournament evolves day by day, it is quite interesting.

I like the slow grass, but I think they should use regular balls, give serve and volleyers better chance while still preserve the longer baseline rallies.

NO NO NO, we are saying we want competive tournaments. We don't want 1 guy going through the field and smoking everybody.

Wouldn't anybody rather watch a match like Mac vs Borg at Wimbledon... the classic 5 setter vs some triple bagel blowout courtesy of Federer.....

federerhoogenbandfan
06-30-2006, 11:05 AM
newnuse,
I'm with you. I like Federer but this tournament has absolutely no suspense as to the outcome. Its kinda like when Graf was winning everything in the late 80s(and that domination wasn't exactly considered a great time for the sport) I can't recall a male player that was ever this far ahead of the field, even Sampras(Goran was always a feared player, Sampras even said so. He was never a lock in their matches at W, they usually came down to a few points)

I much prefer watching Federer at the US Open or Australian. Yes he is a huge favorite there as well, but has a lot more competitive matches there. Players actually seem to think they have a chance there.

I posted in another thread how different tennis fans are from fans of other sports. Enjoying watching a straight set affair is rather strange to me, I've never met an NBA/NFL/MLB fan who enjoys watching blowouts/sweeps/ etc. And all those leagues make it clear that they don't enjoy it either because fans don't like it, ratings suffer etc. Even in boxing, most want to see a competitive battle.

And the MJ comparison (which seems to come up quite a bit on these boards) is way off. Jordan & the bulls played so many 6-7 game series in the playoffs. with buzzer beaters etc. watching jordan go 6 games & hit a buzzer beater to win the '98 nba finals is not the equivalent of watching federer triple bagel hewitt in a w final.

If the Bulls won all their NBA finals in 4 game sweeps, with 15-20 point margins in every game, MJ would not have become MJ. And the ratings would not have exploded the way they did.

Federer at W is the equivalent of 20 point blowouts. Yet some tennis fans don't seem to mind. I've attended 20 point blowouts, fans don't leave the arena happy or excited. I've attended a perfect display of tennis at the '91 US Open final(Courier-Edberg) & a 5 set final in '99(Agassi-Martin)
Guess which the fans enjoyed more? Guess which the commentators enjoyed more? guess which the networks prefer to get?

No wonder many fans of other sports think we're all nuts for liking tennis. Try explaining why you prefer a straight set match to a 5 setter to an NBA/NFL fan. Because of the "artistry?"(and don't get me started on the fact that so many tennis fans use that word. it really makes the sport, sound well, you know)

The reason sports are popular in the first place is the competition, the fact that the results aren't predetermined. Federer is -9000 to beat Mahut. That means Mahut is a 60-1 underdog. Mike Tyson never faced an opponent in his career that was that that far beneath him(I think 40-1 was his high) And these odds are common with Federer matches. I can only imagine what the odds are if he plays Roddick/Hewitt/whoever in the final. They might be on par with Graf-Zvereva at '88 FO(the double bagel final)

What are you talking about, you have already been trumpeting how great a grass court player Nadal is, how silly it is for us to overlook him, and how he is a serious threat to Roger if they play. :rolleyes:

The Pusher Terminator
07-01-2006, 11:42 AM
If Roddick continues what he did today, I can imagine him winning the title

wrong...No one stands a chance.

The Pusher Terminator
07-01-2006, 11:54 AM
You made a silly argument. On one hand you say Federer destroyed the competition which makes it boring, on the other hand, Nadal has dominated Fed on every surface other than grass. How can that be?

Maybe you are too young or too dumb to remember what grass court was like a few years ago. The points are quite long now.

By the way, Nadal hasn't played Federer on every surface yet.

I think that it actually might be you who is "dumb". Why do these statements have to be mutually exclusive? Fed is boring at WIMBLEDON!!!! READ CAREFULLY!!

As to the length of the points....they are LONGER than in the past, but they are NOT long points...your candle really is not burning brightly.

Andres
07-01-2006, 12:02 PM
Very different. First of all Jordan had very close battles . He was known for sinking the winning basket with two seconds left on the clock. In fact thats how he ended his career.
Actually, to be fair, Jordan returned for other two seasons, and never made it to the Playoffs with the Wizards. A little stain on the fantastic shot he made against the Jazz in 1998 to end his career :)

The Pusher Terminator
07-01-2006, 01:26 PM
Actually, to be fair, Jordan returned for other two seasons, and never made it to the Playoffs with the Wizards. A little stain on the fantastic shot he made against the Jazz in 1998 to end his career :)

Thats true. I like to pretend that never happened. Please let me live out my fantasy...lol

TXKiteboarder
07-01-2006, 01:27 PM
i think the way hewitt is playing right now, he will make it to the final. I just dont want the final to be like last year, when FedEx showed up as a "puppetmaster."

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
07-01-2006, 01:32 PM
Initially I thought maybe A-Rod could play the match of his life and win Wimby. But now that hes out, theres no doubt Fed Express is gonna cruise to his 4th straight title.

The Pusher Terminator
07-05-2006, 12:19 PM
i think the way hewitt is playing right now, he will make it to the final. I just dont want the final to be like last year, when FedEx showed up as a "puppetmaster."

If Nadal makes it to the final its over for Fed. The problem Nadal has is BAG!!!!

dh003i
07-05-2006, 05:08 PM
Pusher,

Ha! Typical stupid Nadal fans. Again, take Nadal's absolute best match at Wimbledon so far -- hell, take his best set, or even best game (and extrapolate the latter). That wouldn't be able to beat the absolute worst Federer has played at Wimbledon.

Dream on, fanboy.

The Pusher Terminator
07-06-2006, 12:34 AM
Pusher,

Ha! Typical stupid Nadal fans. Again, take Nadal's absolute best match at Wimbledon so far -- hell, take his best set, or even best game (and extrapolate the latter). That wouldn't be able to beat the absolute worst Federer has played at Wimbledon.

Dream on, fanboy.

Yeah....just like when you picked Fed to win the French. You were also wrong 5 other times. Its time you woke up and smelled the coffee. This is getting really pathetic already.

"It's debatable right now if Federer is actually even the best player in the world — he's not even the best player on the court when he stares across the net at the clay-court conquistador who has had his number so often it's the tennis equivalent of speed dial."....Tennis Week Magazine.