PDA

View Full Version : Will Nadal win Wimbledon?


sureshs
07-01-2006, 12:57 PM
I think he will.

er00si
07-01-2006, 01:00 PM
if the odds is 1:20, I can win $100 back.

Bobcat07
07-01-2006, 01:05 PM
Not this year...I don't think he will make it past the quarterfinals.

LowProfile
07-01-2006, 01:06 PM
Nah. Not when Federer is here. Even if he manages (by some extraordinary stroke of luck) to get past Hewitt, no way can he beat Federer on the grass.

Ztalin
07-01-2006, 01:07 PM
I think he will.

Who has he beat on grass that's worth mentioning?

malakas
07-01-2006, 01:08 PM
Ehm...agassi??

Ripper
07-01-2006, 01:09 PM
Rafa beating Fed on grass would mean the birth of a new era in tennis; that's all I can say!

Ztalin
07-01-2006, 01:10 PM
Ehm...agassi??

You mean the same 36 year old, out of form Agassi, that looked nothing more than mediocre with his incredibly low first serve percentage, all the while he's battling back injuries?

Riiiiiiight buddy.

What makes Agassi worth mentioning? All I can remember is his straight sets loss to Henman, and a couple tough matches against two nobodies.

MikeMcKenzie
07-01-2006, 01:12 PM
I honestly would not be suprised if Nadal wins it. His groundstrokes are huge on the grass right now. The court almost looks like its playing like an indoor hardcourt. The court is fast but the ball bounces up it seems. His serve looked huge today.

tlm
07-01-2006, 01:14 PM
i would love to see it,but he isnt strong enough yet on grass to win.

snoflewis
07-01-2006, 01:18 PM
i think fed will win the French before Nadal wins Wimby

The_Dark_Knight
07-01-2006, 01:18 PM
Are you people on crazy pills?

ATXtennisaddict
07-01-2006, 01:23 PM
You mean the same 36 year old, out of form Agassi, that looked nothing more than mediocre with his incredibly low first serve percentage, all the while he's battling back injuries?

Riiiiiiight buddy.

What makes Agassi worth mentioning? All I can remember is his straight sets loss to Henman, and a couple tough matches against two nobodies.

Nadal fans look past all that. It's agassi! He's ageless and should beat everyone!

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
07-01-2006, 01:37 PM
Forget Agassi being ageless, I was really impressed by Nadal today, he played the best grass court match of his life. That being said, he won't reach farther than the quarterfinals.

The Pusher Terminator
07-01-2006, 01:43 PM
i would love to see it,but he isnt strong enough yet on grass to win.

My sentiments exactly...however...NADAL WILL WIN THE US OPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

urban
07-01-2006, 01:55 PM
Maybe not this year. Hewitt could stop him, but it would be a huge relieve for Fed. Nadal has built up a pretty strong serve, you could see that in the semifinal and final at RG. That was the single stroke, Borg developed for his Wimbie triumphs.If he improves his return game on grass, he would have a serious chance. Given the bad status of grass court tennis, he is a contender right now.

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 01:55 PM
Forget Agassi being ageless, I was really impressed by Nadal today, he played the best grass court match of his life. That being said, he won't reach farther than the quarterfinals.

I agree. He did. And if he plays like that, he may get past the quarters. But he will have to keep up that level of serving. He was serving faster and harder than he ever has. I've watched the match twice, with two sets of commentors (Connors/Cash and then (J. McEnroe/Carillo), and that's the thing that totally surprised them -- especially against a guy who has a pretty darn good return of serve. ;-)

sureshs
07-01-2006, 01:56 PM
Nadal served a huge number of aces today. Said he had never served better in his career.

Read the latest issue of Tennis magazine. They point out that Fed and Nadal basically have the same game - they are power baseliners. The difference is only in the details, though that is enough to generate a whole lot of discussion.

There is no true grass player anymore.

Raistlin
07-01-2006, 02:30 PM
Um...no.:rolleyes:

ACE of Hearts
07-01-2006, 02:36 PM
Hewitt will have something to say about that.I dont care about queens, i thought Hewitt had alot of chances and couldnt convert.

netman
07-01-2006, 02:38 PM
You know, 5 years ago everyone was in a panic. New equipment and better conditioning was turning the fast court Slams into a serving contest. The purity of tennis was at stake. Wham, bam, thank you was game of tha day. Wimbledon was boring, according to the "experts".

So now the pendulum has swung too far the other way. For goodness sake, baseliners are dominating Wimbledon. The grass is so long and the balls so heavy, Murray can beat Roddick from the baseline. Even Max the Beast was staying back.

So why not Rafa winning Wimbledon? Heck, they've bascially turned it into a grass court version of the French Open.

-k-

ACE of Hearts
07-01-2006, 02:43 PM
Dont think so.Roddick's serve is not longer invinsible.People are reading it, left and right.I think Nadal wont make it pass Hewitt.He might get to the semis but not the final.

ACE of Hearts
07-01-2006, 02:46 PM
One thing, i am really interested in seeing a clash between Fed and Nadal on grass.I wanna see how Roger would respond.I am really rooting for Nadal to make the final now.Hopefully both guys make the final.

TXKiteboarder
07-01-2006, 02:46 PM
who said that? he is a No. 2 seed and deserves the respect. if you dont, you will lose against him.

i personally want to see a nadal vs. federer final. if fed cant beat him on grass, fed should might as well hand him all his grand slam trophies.

ACE of Hearts
07-01-2006, 02:48 PM
Hey kite, i agreed with u.I wanna see how Roger will respond.This is his number 1 surface ahead of the hardcourts.I wanna see if he will have that fire in which i thought he lacked at the french open final!!

netman
07-01-2006, 03:10 PM
If Nadal gets to the final, then Wimbledon should no longer be a Grand Slam. It will have become a grass court verison of clay and an impostor.

-k-

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 03:12 PM
If Nadal won Wimbledon this year, with his current game, I would not watch or follow any of mens tennis until atleast 2011. Mens tennis would be at an all-time low and not worth giving a second glance until there is enough time passed there is some semblance of chance of it being barely adequate again.
I would only follow womens tennis which has never hit the ultimate low place mens tennis obviously would have reached.

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 03:14 PM
If Nadal won Wimbledon this year, with his current game, I would not watch or follow any of mens tennis until atleast 2011. Mens tennis would be at an all-time low and not worth giving a second glance until there is enough time passed there is some semblance of chance of it being barely adequate again.
I would only follow womens tennis which has never hit the ultimate low place mens tennis obviously would have reached.

One can only hope then . . .

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 03:22 PM
One can only hope then . . .

I am not sure how to interpret that, sorry.

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 03:27 PM
I am not sure how to interpret that, sorry.

I know what I meant, but I think leaving it ambiguous is best . . .

bdawg
07-01-2006, 03:34 PM
I dont' hate Nadal . I don't care for his tactics or strokes. I would also find it stupid that someone can stand three feet behind the baseline and win Wimbledon.

netman
07-01-2006, 03:35 PM
I know what I meant, but I think leaving it ambiguous is best . . .

Don't be a wimp. Either have the guts to state your point clearly or stop posting and wasting our time.

-k-

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 03:39 PM
Don't be a wimp. Either have the guts to state your point clearly or stop posting and wasting our time.

-k-

How am I wasting your time? Am I forcing you to read or respond to a post that wasn't directed to you?

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 03:40 PM
Come on VamosRafa, tell me what you really meant, you arent scared of little me now are you. :)

shawn1122
07-01-2006, 03:40 PM
...I would also find it stupid that someone can stand three feet behind the baseline and win Wimbledon.

That statement alone revealed to me how f'ed up this ***** is.

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 03:42 PM
Come on VamosRafa, tell me what you really meant, you arent scared of little me now are you. :)

Quite the contrary. I think you are foolish, if you would give up watching a sport you obviously love because one player does something you don't like.

And if your love of the sport is that superficial, well, don't let the door hit you on the way out. . .

PS to bdawg: If you watched today's match, you would know that Rafa wasn't 3 feet behind the baseline.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 03:44 PM
Quite the contrary. I think you are foolish, if you would give up watching a sport you obviously love because one player does something you don't like.

And if your love of the sport is that superficial, well, don't let the door hit you on the way out. . .

I would not give up the sport, I would still follow womens tennis. When other sports I enjoy have reached such a low level of competitive quality that it reached what seemed like an all-time level of patheticness I took a break from following it as well, and returned to find it reach an adequate level a few years down the road.

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 03:47 PM
I would not give up the sport, I would still follow womens tennis. When other sports I enjoy have reached such a low level of competitive quality that it reached what seemed like an all-time level of patheticness I took a break from following it as well, and returned to find it reach an adequate level a few years down the road.

What you are saying then, is that you are okay with men's tennis as long as the competive quality favors Federer. He can knock the bejesus out of everyone, and you would still follow along.

But if someone like Nadal comes along, and challenges him, you have a problem???

Or to state it differently, would you still follow the Tour if Nadal wasn't there, and Federer was winning everything he entered?

Because IMO, without Nadal, the ATP would have a supremely low level of competive quality. He's the only one giving it any competitiveness. Without him, Roger likely wouldn't have lost any matches this year.

So I find your position contradictory.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 03:53 PM
What you are saying then, is that you are okay with men's tennis as long as the competive quality favors Federer. He can knock the bejesus out of everyone, and you would still follow along.

But if someone like Nadal comes along, and challenges him, you have a problem???

Or to state it differently, would you still follow the Tour if Nadal wasn't there, and Federer was winning everything he entered?

Because IMO, without Nadal, the ATP would have a supremely low level of competive quality. He's the only one giving it any competitiveness.

So I find your position contradictory.

What I am saying is Nadal with his current game winning Wimbledon would represent an all-time low, embarassing low in terms of quality in mens tennis. It would reveal how incredably weak Federer and all the other current players must have been as well, I would feel duped for having ever believed any of them were any quality at all. The quality of the current mens field would be revealed to be a total embarassment, and not worth giving a second glance for atleast 5 years. Nothing contradictory about that.

I hugely doubt that would happen so it is a moot point, it is only a hypothetical, just like saying Tanasugarn winning 3 slams in a 2 years span is a hypothetical. If Tanasugarn won 3 grand slams in 2 years I would probably take 5 years off from womens tennis as well.

bdawg
07-01-2006, 03:56 PM
Hi

watch this video and tell me he doesn't stand three feet behind the baseline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv7Mkc8tGP4&search=nadal

i like Nadal's personality. I think he's a super guy but I hate his game. I think it's improper technique but I do think the game needs nicer characters like him unlike giant asphalts like Ljubicic

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 03:59 PM
What I am saying is Nadal with his current game winning Wimbledon would represent an all-time low, embarassing low in terms of quality in mens tennis. It would reveal how incredably weak Federer and all the other current players must have been as well, I would feel duped for having ever believed any of them were any quality at all. The quality of the current mens field would be revealed to be a total embarassment, and not worth giving a second glance for atleast 5 years. Nothing contradictory about that.

Okay, I take your point. If Rafa were to win, that would mean that Federer's run lately has been just because of the low quality of his opponents. It has nothing to do with how good he is. I'm sure Federer and others would disagree with you, but I think you are missing something about Nadal -- and that he has something special. Not his forehand, his backhand, his serve, or anything else -- it's his sheer will to compete and to win at all costs.

There are so many players on Tour now that if they had that, they would be challenging Fed day in and day out. And probably do a better job than Rafa does at it. It's a shame that your prejudices get in the way of seeing just how unique this young man is.

I'm sure the WTA will love to have you, if it comes to that. :D

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 04:00 PM
Hi

watch this video and tell me he doesn't stand three feet behind the baseline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv7Mkc8tGP4&search=nadal

i like Nadal's personality. I think he's a super guy but I hate his game. I think it's improper technique but I do think the game needs nicer characters like him unlike giant asphalts like Ljubicic

Download the video of today's match from Wimbledon Live, and you'll see a graphic comparing where Nadal stood to return serve against Fed at RG, and where he stood today. He's on the baseline today. Maybe that was his Agassi strategy.

Steve Dykstra
07-01-2006, 04:01 PM
What I am saying is Nadal with his current game winning Wimbledon would represent an all-time low, embarassing low in terms of quality in mens tennis. It would reveal how incredably weak Federer and all the other current players must have been as well, I would feel duped for having ever believed any of them were any quality at all. The quality of the current mens field would be revealed to be a total embarassment, and not worth giving a second glance for atleast 5 years. Nothing contradictory about that.

Why would it mean that everyone besides Nadal is really bad? Couldn't it just as easily be interpreted as Nadal is really good?

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 04:03 PM
Okay, I take your point. If Rafa were to win, that would mean that Federer's run lately has been just because of the low quality of his opponents. It has nothing to do with how good he is. I'm sure Federer and others would disagree with you, but I think you are missing something about Nadal -- and that he has something special. Not his forehand, his backhand, his serve, or anything else -- it's his sheer will to compete and to win at all costs.

There are so many players on Tour now that if they had that, they would be challenging Fed day in and day out. And probably do a better job than Rafa does at it. It's a shame that your prejudices get in the way of seeing just how unique this young man is.

I'm sure the WTA will love to have you, if it comes to that. :D

Sorry it takes more then a sheer will to win and compete to win Wimbledon. Atleast it would if the mens field was not of the type of embarassing quality that would allow for that alone to be enough.

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 04:04 PM
Why would it mean that everyone besides Nadal is really bad? Couldn't it just as easily be interpreted as Nadal is really good?

Bingo!

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 04:06 PM
Sorry it takes more then a sheer will to win and compete to win Wimbledon. Atleast it would if the mens field was not of the type of embarassing quality that would allow for that alone to be enough.

Okay, so you've pretty much admitted the Fed isn't any good coz he has no competition. Because other than Hewitt, who isn't likely to beat Fed at Wimbledon, who else remaining in the draw has a chance?

No one there (except for Rafa) has beaten him in what, how many years?

So, if you think Rafa is the issue, think again? I don't think Rafa will get to the final, but looking at the draw you can pretty much scratch Roger's name on the trophy right now.

So enjoy yourself with the WTA! :D

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 04:06 PM
Why would it mean that everyone besides Nadal is really bad? Couldn't it just as easily be interpreted as Nadal is really good?

Not in a million years. Nadal's current game on grass to win Wimbledon, would represent the weakest state of mens tennis in history, and would reveal a shockingly low state in the mens game that I had not envisioned was possable, a truly historic low.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 04:08 PM
Okay, so you've pretty much admitted the Fed isn't any good coz he has no competition. Because other than Hewitt, who isn't likely to beat Fed at Wimbledon, who else remaining in the draw has a chance?

No I didnt, I admitted if Nadal won Wimbledon I would concede Fed and his competitors of the last several yars arent any good whatsoever, and that was a dupe for thinking they were. For the record I dont think anybody but Hewitt has a chance vs Roger at Wimbledon this year, and his chance is 5%. This topic is a hypothetical one remember.

bdawg
07-01-2006, 04:09 PM
Download the video of today's match from Wimbledon Live, and you'll see a graphic comparing where Nadal stood to return serve against Fed at RG, and where he stood today. He's on the baseline today. Maybe that was his Agassi strategy.


where he returned serve is not as relevant as where he rallied from the baseline. He was chipping so many returns today. I also felt many were dropping short and a proficient serve and volleyer can give him a rough time. This is all conjecture of course.

I was amazed on how he played Agassi. It was a good game for him but I would be very dissapointed in someone who stands three feet behind the baseline can go far into wimbledon.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 04:10 PM
where he returned serve is not as relevant as where he rallied from the baseline. He was chipping so many returns today. I also felt many were dropping short and a proficient serve and volleyer can give him a rough time. This is all conjecture of course.

I was amazed on how he played Agassi. It was a good game for him but I would be very dissapointed in someone who stands three feet behind the baseline can go far into wimbledon.

I agree, Conchita Martinez won Wimbledon from the same area but doing it in the mens game would be far worse then doing it in the womens game.

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 04:12 PM
No I didnt, I admitted if Nadal won Wimbledon I would concede Fed and his competitors of the last several yars arent any good whatsoever, and that was a dupe for thinking they were. For the record I dont think anybody but Hewitt has a chance vs Roger at Wimbledon this year, and his chance is 5%. This topic is a hypothetical one remember.

Exactly. It just confirms, though, that you are happy if Fed wins, even if he has no competition. And you'll be ****ed if Rafa wins, which as a Fed fan, I can understand why you would be.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. But remember you did ask me to explain my cryptic comment earlier -- otherwise, I would have left it as it was. ;-)

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 04:16 PM
Exactly. It just confirms, though, that you are happy if Fed wins, even if he has no competition. And you'll be ****ed if Rafa wins, which as a Fed fan, I can understand why you would be.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. But remember you did ask me to explain my cryptic comment earlier -- otherwise, I would have left it as it was. ;-)

I would be disillusioned with the state of mens tennis if somebody with Nadal's current game won Wimbledon, as I am sure most horrified followers of the game would be. It has nothing to do with rather Roger wins or not, it would be the embarassing standard that mens tennis would be revealed to have stooped to, quite frankly I would have been dissapointed in my very poor judgement to have ever thought Roger was ever any semblance of a great player, as he obviously would be the second weakest player in history to win more then 1 slam, behind only Hewitt-the 2nd best player of what obviously would be revealed to have been the worst collection of mens players in history, let alone 7 slams as he has. You are intelligent enough if you were not a huge Nadal fan you would agree with me 100%, but I understand your bias does not allow you to see what your intelligence would otherwise allow you to, which is natural, so I accept that.

Again all hypothetical and something that I believe has no shot of happening anyway though.

siber222000
07-01-2006, 04:21 PM
My sentiments exactly...however...NADAL WILL WIN THE US OPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
....no he won't

Tennis_Goodness
07-01-2006, 04:22 PM
Exactly. It just confirms, though, that you are happy if Fed wins, even if he has no competition. And you'll be ****ed if Rafa wins, which as a Fed fan, I can understand why you would be.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. But remember you did ask me to explain my cryptic comment earlier -- otherwise, I would have left it as it was. ;-)


Federer just makes the competition look weak. He has competetion, he's just so much better then everybody else!

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 04:22 PM
I would be disillusioned with the state of mens tennis if somebody with Nadal's current game won Wimbledon, as I am sure most horrified followers of the game would be. It has nothing to do with rather Roger wins or not, it would be the embarassing standard that mens tennis would be revealed to have stooped to, quite frankly I would have been dissapointed in my very poor judgement to have ever thought Roger was ever any semblance of a great player, as he obviously would be the second weakest player in history to win more then 1 slam, behind only Hewitt-the 2nd best player of what obviously would be revealed to have been the worst collection of mens players in history, let alone 7 slams as he has. You are intelligent enough if you were not a huge Nadal fan you would agree with me 100%, but I understand your bias does not allow you to see what your intelligence would otherwise allow you to, which is natural, so I accept that.

Again all hypothetical and something that I believe has no shot of happening anyway though.

Well, a few years ago Hewitt won over Nalbandan. Who would have figured that? But did that ATP go into the tank with that unexpected final?

But even with your analysis, how does it help if Federer wins here? He will play some player much more infererior than Fed -- as no one else left other than perhaps Hewitt is a worthy opponent. And even he is suspect.

So if Fed wins this event, beating these "great" players, his status remains on target for the greatest ever. But if Nadal somehow comes forth and wins, Roger's history is tainted forever because it proves he has been facing unworthy opponents all these years.

That seems a bit extreme to me (and illogical) -- although given how Rafa played today, he could very well move ahead, given the relatively weak field.

I don't think it will happen, but I do think you make a good point about the fact that if EVEN Rafa can do well on grass, Roger's dominance of the sport is suspect. And it's time for the rest of the ATP to wake up and smell the coffee, and realize that if Rafa can do it, so can they.

But they don't have Rafa's mentality and will to win -- which you downplay -- but that's what got him through that Kendrick match. And it will get him through more matches in his career, I'm sure.

ACE of Hearts
07-01-2006, 04:26 PM
The grass lawns are built for Roger Federer ala Pete Sampras.It will be interesting if someone tries to steal it from him.:mrgreen: He has a dangerous match with Berdych then probably Ancic if he beats Berdych.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 04:28 PM
But even with your analysis, how does it help if Federer win? He will play some player much more infererior than Fed -- as no one else left other than perhaps Hewitt is a worthy opponent. And even he is suspect.

So if Fed wins this event, beating these "great" players, his status remains on target for the greatest ever. But if Nadal somehow comes forth and wins, Roger's history is tainted forever.

That seems a bit extreme to me -- although given how Rafa played today, he could very well move ahead, given the relatively weak field.

I NEVER said Roger was the best player ever. I have always said he has much much more to do to even be considered at that point, I did say he was a great great player, which is very different.

Nadal winning Wimbledon tainting Roger and his peer's history forever should be quite obvious. Just look at his game, if he played Sampras on grass in his prime he would be lucky to win 6 games total right now, and I did see him play a sadly deteriorated Agassi today, and I still say that. So yes it would reflect very poorly on not only Roger, but the entire mens field today.

siber222000
07-01-2006, 04:29 PM
i think fed will win the French before Nadal wins Wimbyyep yep so true

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 04:31 PM
I don't think it will happen, but I do think you make a good point about the fact that if EVEN Rafa can do well on grass, Roger's dominance of the sport is suspect.

See we do agree somewhat, I just have a much harsher way of wording it. :p

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 04:32 PM
I NEVER said Roger was the best player ever. I have always said he has much much more to do to even be considered at that point, I did say he was a great great player, which is very different.

Nadal winning Wimbledon tainting Roger and his peer's history forever should be quite obvious. Just look at his game, if he played Sampras on grass in his prime he would be lucky to win 6 games total right now, and I did see him play a sadly deteriorated Agassi today, and I still say that. So yes it would reflect very poorly on not only Roger, but the entire mens field today.

Fortunately, the 4-week grass season ends in what one week? So we are back to hardcourts, where there should be total equality, right?

And really, given how little these players play on grass, it's hard for anyone to really specialize in it these days. I think today's match was Rafa's 13th ATP grasscourt match. They don't even have a grass court in Mallorca.

But that gets back to my point that some times just gutting it out and willing yourself to win can make a difference. It happens all the time in Davis Cup, and maybe it will happen a bit for Rafa here. Because it's not like he has a lot of grasscourt experience.

But he does have a lot of big match experience, and when you look at the rest of the Wimbly draw, other than Hewitt and Fed, who has that experience? That will help Rafa a bit, even if he gets a bit nervous. You gotta imagine that the other guy is going to be nervous, too. And that's a part of the equation as we move into the second week.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 04:35 PM
Fortunately, the 4-week grass season ends in what one week? So we are back to hardcourts, where there should be total equality, right?

True. :p

fastdunn
07-01-2006, 05:00 PM
If Nadal won Wimbledon this year, with his current game, I would not watch or follow any of mens tennis until atleast 2011. Mens tennis would be at an all-time low and not worth giving a second glance until there is enough time passed there is some semblance of chance of it being barely adequate again.
I would only follow womens tennis which has never hit the ultimate low place mens tennis obviously would have reached.

I actually would recommend you to watch more of tennis.
You must be missing something people like me is seeing
(if Nadal does end up winning it. of course)

The reason why I said Nadal will win Wimbledon within 5 year
is Nadal basically has same stuff that win Federer Wimbledon:
strong baseline game. Federer is already good baseliner/clay courter
who can win Wimbledon.....

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 05:03 PM
I actually would recommend you to watch more of tennis.
You must be missing something people like me is seeing
(if Nadal does end up winning it. of course)

The reason why I said Nadal will win Wimbledon within 5 year
is Nadal basically has same stuff that win Federer Wimbledon:
strong baseline game. Federer is already good baseliner/clay courter
who can win Wimbledon.....

Federer is not a clay courter. That statement makes no sense. He is a mediocre player though if Nadal were to win Wimbledon. I dont think Roger is a mediocre player, which is why I dont think Nadal will win Wimbledon.

fastdunn
07-01-2006, 05:11 PM
Federer is not a clay courter. That statement makes no sense. He is a mediocre player though if Nadal were to win Wimbledon. I dont think Roger is a mediocre player, which is why I dont think Nadal will win Wimbledon.

I knew you would pick that one.
Drop that one from my posting if you want and you know what I mean.

But I always considered him as a clay courter. He has Pioline like
strokes that shows growing up on that stuff.
I don't think I'm far off since he was #2 clay courter this year
only behind the possibly best clay courter in many years...

When I say clay courter, it does not mean he is a caly court
specialist. He is also grass courter and hard courter.
You still don't see ?
Most of current top pros are doing relatively well on all surfaces.
There are much less polarizations.
That's what ATP intended and it's not because Federer
is genius or something.....

127mph
07-01-2006, 05:18 PM
i will take it as an insult if rafa were to make it to the semis of wimbledon as should other tennis professionals. and ill take it personally if anyone is to suggest that rafa will win wimbledon. if such a suggestion is made, riots shall ensue

shawn1122
07-01-2006, 05:25 PM
Yes, riots in England...

fastdunn
07-01-2006, 05:35 PM
Hee hee hee. Wimbledon wanted to have baseliner, non grass court
player as its champion from 2001. First they've got Hewitt.
And then Federer. There is no reason why Nadal can't be the next.

sureshs
07-01-2006, 07:05 PM
I don't follow all this about tennis being at a low level currently because Nadal is doing well in Wimbledon.

The no. 1 player, Federer, beat Sampras the only time they played.

Federer has also dispatched Agassi leading Agassi to say he is the greatest he has ever faced.

Federer dispatched Henman, leading him to say he is the greatest he has ever faced.

The no. 2 player, Nadal, has beaten Agassi twice now.

They have each broken streaks - Nadal broke Vilas's clay streak, and Federer broke Borg's grass streak.

Rod Laver said Federer has the potential to be the best ever. He should know.

I suspect these comments about the low state of men's tennis is coming from those who secretely want to believe that Sampras was better than Federer, and Federer is better than Nadal. The fact is Federer and Nadal are close in talent, and better than almost all players of the past, except Laver (adjusted to different times). Agassi is close because he has won all Slams, which these guys haven't, but he has been beaten by both of them.

We should consider ourselves lucky that we are witnessing possibly the best two players ever and their rivalry.

VamosRafa
07-01-2006, 07:14 PM
We should consider ourselves lucky that we are witnessing possibly the best two players ever and their rivalry.

Now, that's a positive attitude. It's a bit early to reach that conclusion, but what if we are on the threshold of something historical . . . .

Eviscerator
07-01-2006, 07:29 PM
Not to take anything away from him if he does, but it will be an indictment of how the tournament directors slowed down the courts for the almighty dollar. They are practically playing like a hard court, and since 2002 it has been a big break to the baseliners, hence Hewitt's win. If Hewitt vs. Nalbandian wasn't enough proof of their meddling I don't know what is. From the early 1980's until 2002, only one other baseliner won, that being Agassi in 1992.

I must say though that Nadal deserves credit for making it this far, and his efforts to try to improve his game to win on grass are admirable. After all, he is not responsible for how the courts are playing, and he is making the most of his opportunity.

Bassus
07-01-2006, 07:49 PM
I don't follow all this about tennis being at a low level currently because Nadal is doing well in Wimbledon.

The no. 1 player, Federer, beat Sampras the only time they played.

Federer has also dispatched Agassi leading Agassi to say he is the greatest he has ever faced.

Federer dispatched Henman, leading him to say he is the greatest he has ever faced.

The no. 2 player, Nadal, has beaten Agassi twice now.

They have each broken streaks - Nadal broke Vilas's clay streak, and Federer broke Borg's grass streak.

Rod Laver said Federer has the potential to be the best ever. He should know.

I suspect these comments about the low state of men's tennis is coming from those who secretely want to believe that Sampras was better than Federer, and Federer is better than Nadal. The fact is Federer and Nadal are close in talent, and better than almost all players of the past, except Laver (adjusted to different times). Agassi is close because he has won all Slams, which these guys haven't, but he has been beaten by both of them.

We should consider ourselves lucky that we are witnessing possibly the best two players ever and their rivalry.


What rivalry? Its been one-sided domination so far. Yes, its true, that the matches have mostly been tight and close, (and its somewhat of a testament to Federer that he actually threatens Nadal on clay, whereas most players are roadkill) but all that really matters is who wins, and that hasn't been Federer so far.


With regards to a slowed-down Wimbledon, perhaps they could at least not use heavier balls.

Bassus
07-01-2006, 07:55 PM
Not to take anything away from him if he does, but it will be an indictment of how the tournament directors slowed down the courts for the almighty dollar. They are practically playing like a hard court, and since 2002 it has been a big break to the baseliners, hence Hewitt's win. If Hewitt vs. Nalbandian wasn't enough proof of their meddling I don't know what is. From the early 1980's until 2002, only one other baseliner won, that being Agassi in 1992.

I must say though that Nadal deserves credit for making it this far, and his efforts to try to improve his game to win on grass are admirable. After all, he is not responsible for how the courts are playing, and he is making the most of his opportunity.


Yeah, while I think Federer has a much more versatile grass-court game -- i.e. he would have been excellent in the faster, serve&volley days as well, while Nadal would have been toast -- the fact is that those days are gone for now, and you can't fault a guy for changes he had now power over.

HollerOne5
07-01-2006, 08:52 PM
Federer is not a clay courter. That statement makes no sense. He is a mediocre player though if Nadal were to win Wimbledon. I dont think Roger is a mediocre player, which is why I dont think Nadal will win Wimbledon.


Wow, that is the best logic I've ever seen written on the boards. If Nadal wins Wimbledon, any way or any how, this means that Roger Federer, a separate entity, is a mediocre player.

Wow, with that quote, along with all in this thread, federerhoogenbandfan might be a huge idiot no? Obviously you haven't been watching Nadal adjust his game to grass, or realize that all players, including Federer, are winning their matches at Wimbledon from the back court, not from the net. In fact, Nadal has gone to the net more times than Federer I think through 3 rounds. If Agassi, who knows far more about tennis than you ever will, says that Nadal has chances to win and is playing extremely well, then thats probably the truth. AND....it doesn't discredit the rest of the ATP field if Nadal is able to make adjustments on his own accord.

netman
07-02-2006, 05:05 AM
What made winning a Grand Slam such a special accomplishment was the fact you had to win on very different surfaces. As a player, you had to make dramatic adjustments to your strokes, tactics and mental attitude within the course of one season to do it. A true test of a versatile, accomplished tennis player. Hence the reason very few players have done it.

Since it appears we all agree you can now bring one style of play to all 4 Slams and have a chance of winning, that would indicate to me winning a Grand Slam has lost a good bit of its luster. Okay, maybe its now a test of mental and physical strength these days (which was also part of the mix in the past), but they are definitely not a test of versatility, adaptibility and a player's complete command of all aspects of the game of tennis.

Guess we may get a couple more Slam finals with Rafa bludgeoning high, loopy topspin forehands to Federer's BH. Boy that will make for some exciting (YAWN) tennis. :(

-k-

babbette
07-02-2006, 05:08 AM
Nadal To Win All Slams!! :d

netman
07-02-2006, 05:21 AM
Since we all agree the pros know more than we do, here are a couple of intriquing comments from Roddick's post match interview at Wimbledon yesterday. Caps are mine.

Q. The other day you said that you and John talked about trying to err on the side of aggression. What was your mindset coming into today? Same thing?

ANDY RODDICK: The same thing. I mean, I was consistently, like I said, in the points with the best court position. YOU KNOW, IT'S TOUGH 'CAUSE THREE HARD FOREHANDS TO THREE CORNERS IN A ROW USED TO WORK. NOW IT SITS UP AND YOU GET PASSED FROM SIX FEET BEHIND THE BASELINE. You know, I mean, that's what I asked when I came in. I said, is that not the right play, you know, for me? You know, we were both, you know, a little irritated.

Q. When you walk through the door here, do you now get the feeling that the odds are against you rather than perhaps two or three years ago the odds were more in your favor?

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, I mean, the last thing I want to do is make a whole big stink. That's not me. But if you ask me a question, I'm going to give you an honest answer. I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE HAVING TO WORK A LOT HARDER TO WIN POINTS ON A GRASS TENNIS COURT.

So there you have it. Definitely changing the court playing characteristics. Who know, maybe the next move will be to bring back wood racquets at the pro level.

-k-

MR. 81
07-02-2006, 05:51 AM
i will take it as an insult if rafa were to make it to the semis of wimbledon as should other tennis professionals. and ill take it personally if anyone is to suggest that rafa will win wimbledon. if such a suggestion is made, riots shall ensue

Hehe same here with Italy winning the World Cup :mrgreen:

And to federerhoogenband fan I also wanted to quit watching football after Greece won the Euro...but you have to take it as it comes, that doesn't mean other's level was low it's just they PLAYED BETTER than anyone else (who knows why...).

If Rafa wins Wimby it will be because he deserved it, because he was better than everybody else, because he used a better strategy...whatever. There are so many factors involved, not just the surface.

I don't think it will happen, but if it does he will deserve praise.

Ztalin
07-02-2006, 05:53 AM
Hehe same here with Italy winning the World Cup :mrgreen:

And to federerhoogenband fan I also wanted to quit watching football after Greece won the Euro...but you have to take it as it comes, that doesn't mean other's level was low it's just they PLAYED BETTER than anyone else (who knows why...).

If Rafa wins Wimby it will be because he deserved it, because he was better than everybody else, because he used a better strategy...whatever. There are so many factors involved, not just the surface.

I don't think it will happen, but if it does he will deserve praise.

If he beats Federer in the final, then yes, he deserves a ton of praise. But if he gets to the semis on an absolutely ridiculous draw, only to lose to his first real opponent, he doesn't deserve anything.

MR. 81
07-02-2006, 05:56 AM
Since we all agree the pros know more than we do, here are a couple of intriquing comments from Roddick's post match interview at Wimbledon yesterday. Caps are mine.

Q. The other day you said that you and John talked about trying to err on the side of aggression. What was your mindset coming into today? Same thing?

ANDY RODDICK: The same thing. I mean, I was consistently, like I said, in the points with the best court position. YOU KNOW, IT'S TOUGH 'CAUSE THREE HARD FOREHANDS TO THREE CORNERS IN A ROW USED TO WORK. NOW IT SITS UP AND YOU GET PASSED FROM SIX FEET BEHIND THE BASELINE. You know, I mean, that's what I asked when I came in. I said, is that not the right play, you know, for me? You know, we were both, you know, a little irritated.

Q. When you walk through the door here, do you now get the feeling that the odds are against you rather than perhaps two or three years ago the odds were more in your favor?

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, I mean, the last thing I want to do is make a whole big stink. That's not me. But if you ask me a question, I'm going to give you an honest answer. I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE HAVING TO WORK A LOT HARDER TO WIN POINTS ON A GRASS TENNIS COURT.

So there you have it. Definitely changing the court playing characteristics. Who know, maybe the next move will be to bring back wood racquets at the pro level.

-k-

Roddick is a hard working guy, is he? :mrgreen: It's like complaining about having to work in orden to earn money.

I'm beginning to have the feeling that some people here would like to watch 100-aces games with no more than 3-stroke rallies. That's tennis, right? :(

MR. 81
07-02-2006, 06:00 AM
If he beats Federer in the final, then yes, he deserves a ton of praise. But if he gets to the semis on an absolutely ridiculous draw, only to lose to his first real opponent, he doesn't deserve anything.

that's a reasonable post but it seems not all Federer fans share your view. It's like "Federer is the GOAT on grass but if Nadal beats him then he is crap because Nadal sucks so much on grass. In fact all players on tour suck because NAdal is #2". Quite contradictory, isn't it? ;)

tenniscoach
07-02-2006, 06:01 AM
no murray will win wimbledon

Captain America
07-02-2006, 06:15 AM
Not to take anything away from him if he does, but it will be an indictment of how the tournament directors slowed down the courts for the almighty dollar. They are practically playing like a hard court, and since 2002 it has been a big break to the baseliners, hence Hewitt's win. If Hewitt vs. Nalbandian wasn't enough proof of their meddling I don't know what is. From the early 1980's until 2002, only one other baseliner won, that being Agassi in 1992.

Hits the nail on the head.

Don't know if this is a good thing, time will tell. On one hand, it rewards players with more developed games - one dimensional serve/forehand bombers are less advantaged than in the past. On the other, it does feel that some of the 'uniqueness' of W is being lost (and pure S&V players are a casualty as well....)

tlm
07-02-2006, 06:44 AM
I thought agassi was a real opponent,according to your poll nadal was going to lose.Of course then when nadal wins its agassi is old+cripple.Didnt you boys know how old agassi was before the match?

I thought nadal wouldnt make it past the 2nd round,thats right he got an easy draw.No its the surface,they slowed it down just for nadal.It is amazing how many times you nadal haters have to eat your words.

Then after your wrong again with your predictions,you will come back with another load of bull.It never ends, it really shows how much you boys are in denial.

zAllianceBmx
07-02-2006, 08:31 AM
Wow, that is the best logic I've ever seen written on the boards. If Nadal wins Wimbledon, any way or any how, this means that Roger Federer, a separate entity, is a mediocre player.

Wow, with that quote, along with all in this thread, federerhoogenbandfan might be a huge idiot no? Obviously you haven't been watching Nadal adjust his game to grass, or realize that all players, including Federer, are winning their matches at Wimbledon from the back court, not from the net. In fact, Nadal has gone to the net more times than Federer I think through 3 rounds. If Agassi, who knows far more about tennis than you ever will, says that Nadal has chances to win and is playing extremely well, then thats probably the truth. AND....it doesn't discredit the rest of the ATP field if Nadal is able to make adjustments on his own accord.

I agree 100% with you hollerone5. It takes real ignorance, such as federerhoogenbandfan has displayed, to make such logic. Sure federer is the greatest at this point in time. No questions about that. But why cant people accept the fact nadal is catching up, if not already there. So much ignorance.

ACE of Hearts
07-02-2006, 08:34 AM
I agree with Roddick even though i dont like his game.Something is different this year when it comes to the grass at wimbledon.:mad: , we might have another RG in wimbledon.:neutral:

doriancito
07-02-2006, 09:00 AM
he ahs his chances....lets just waite and see. but federer is playing on his favorite surface dont forget that

tangerine
07-02-2006, 09:09 AM
Nadal's having a great run so far but it sure is funny seeing the Federer fanatics shaking in their boots at the mere thought of Nadal making the Wimby final. :lol:

jackofromalsager
07-02-2006, 09:10 AM
i wish people wud stop giving nadal cr*ap about playing on grass becus i bet anyone could beet him ere

ontherise17
07-02-2006, 09:16 AM
If Nadal won Wimbledon this year, with his current game, I would not watch or follow any of mens tennis until atleast 2011. Mens tennis would be at an all-time low and not worth giving a second glance until there is enough time passed there is some semblance of chance of it being barely adequate again.
I would only follow womens tennis which has never hit the ultimate low place mens tennis obviously would have reached.


so tennis would be at a horrible state soley based on whether nadal wins wimby?
sounds to me ur not that big of a fan in the first place then.

why cant people just get over this whole federer grudge and acknowledge that nadal is actually a good tennis player. no matter the surface. you dont have to like him. but at least stop acting like the kid has no talent and doesnt deserve the place where he is now in the tennis world. cuz its not like it was given to him...he has earned it.

HollerOne5
07-02-2006, 09:32 AM
Also missing from the transcript of Roddick's interview that someone posted, was Roddick saying something like the fact "but it doesn't matter because every one has to play on this grass, not just me." So big deal, even if the grass is slower?? You can't blame the fact that S&V's aren't dominating Wimbledon on the mere fact that the grass is thicker and supposedly slower. In every facet of the game, there is less S&V, on any surface. That has been created by the extreme fitness, techniques, technology, and ability to hit great passing shots from defensive positions. It has a lot less to do with the types of grass people. Roddick is just whining because his 140 mph serves won't carry him to the final, and he has to rely on his crap groundstrokes and even worse volley.

Nadal is playing from the back court as much as Federer, and even Agassi said his groundstrokes on grass were extremely effective. Of course, a big server, like Kendrick, is going to give Nadal more trouble on grass. So just goes to show that grass still does have its advantages for a big server.

dh003i
07-02-2006, 10:09 AM
as a Federer fan, I hope Nadal gets to the finals on his easy draw, so Federer can bagel him.

I just think it's extremely unlikely, because he isn't a good grass-court player. He's had trouble all the way so far. His physical fitness gave him the win over Kendrick, otherwise he'd be toast. Sure, that's a good thing for Nadal, and an indictment for Kendrick. And if every other player who Nadal would have to play before getting to the finals has a good game for grass, but just not enough endurance to last the match, then that's good for Nadal, but a terrible indictment of all of his lazy opponents.

In any event, Federer isn't someone who's going to run out of gas. He isn't in as a physical condition as Nadal is, but he's still in very excellent condition.

HollerOne5
07-02-2006, 10:27 AM
as a Federer fan, I hope Nadal gets to the finals on his easy draw, so Federer can bagel him.

I just think it's extremely unlikely, because he isn't a good grass-court player. He's had trouble all the way so far. His physical fitness gave him the win over Kendrick, otherwise he'd be toast. Sure, that's a good thing for Nadal, and an indictment for Kendrick. And if every other player who Nadal would have to play before getting to the finals has a good game for grass, but just not enough endurance to last the match, then that's good for Nadal, but a terrible indictment of all of his lazy opponents.

In any event, Federer isn't someone who's going to run out of gas. He isn't in as a physical condition as Nadal is, but he's still in very excellent condition.

There is a difference between you and most of the other Nadal/Federer fans on this board. Seriously. Instead of praising both players and announcing your favorite, you don't really praise anyone. You just bash Nadal. Obviously, he's already going farther in Wimbledon than you predicted before it started, and will continue to go further. And don't blame it on an easy draw or lack of his opponent's fitness or whatever, just get over it already dude. And you know for a fact that Federer would NOT bagel him in the final.

dh003i
07-02-2006, 10:34 AM
HollerOne,

Yea, you're right, I seriously understimated how easy his draw was.

Maybe Federer wouldn't bagel him, but it would be a blowout.

PS: I've praised Federer's accomplishments before. But there's really not much to say. 7 grand slams by 24 -- half-way to Pete Sampras' record, and as many as he had at the same age -- pretty much says it all. #1 for so long, #1 in ATP race, etc.

As for bashing Nadal, well, I'm just stating the truth -- he's not a good grass-court player. He's also into gamesmanship, and cheats (time between points).

tlm
07-02-2006, 11:32 AM
Hey dhoo3i,if nadal makes the finals i will bet you a thousand dollars fed does not bagel him.

HollerOne5
07-02-2006, 12:06 PM
I don't think Nadal is a bad grass court player dh0003i, I just think Federer is exceptional. If Nadal was so bad, I doubt he would have ever won a match on grass, or would have some type of Wimbledon record like Davydenko. Now that is a bad grass court player, losing first round every year at Wimbledon is a bad grass court player. You just like to bash Nadal, when in actuality he is 5-1 on grass this year and 8-4 lifetime on grass. Just shows he hasn't played a lot on the surface yet.

But I guarantee you Federer would not blow out Nadal, just based on the mental battle and the fact Nadal fights for every point, no matter the surface. Plus, I think Federer, even on grass, would be thinking about the fact that he hasn't been able to beat Nadal in so long.

Simon Cowell
07-02-2006, 12:09 PM
The truth is that Roger is getting more and more nervous as Nadal continues to advance. Nadal's superior warrior mentality would be enough to psyche out Roger if they do meet in the final.

127mph
07-02-2006, 04:13 PM
simon cowell belives that nadal is better than sampras.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-02-2006, 04:16 PM
simon cowell belives that nadal is better than sampras.

Are you serious? I have never seen him say that.

sureshs
07-02-2006, 04:19 PM
So just goes to show that grass still does have its advantages for a big server.

That is why I feel sorry that the Beast or Dr. Ivo have not won Wimbledon. If they cannot do it, can other guys hope to win coming to the net? Even Federer is backing off and has become a right-handed Nadal.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-02-2006, 04:20 PM
as a Federer fan, I hope Nadal gets to the finals on his easy draw, so Federer can bagel him.

While the final would likely be straight sets, I think there would only be one bagel. A 6-1 or 6-2 set is not a bagel.

Bassus
07-02-2006, 04:36 PM
as a Federer fan, I hope Nadal gets to the finals on his easy draw, so Federer can bagel him.

I just think it's extremely unlikely, because he isn't a good grass-court player. He's had trouble all the way so far. His physical fitness gave him the win over Kendrick, otherwise he'd be toast. Sure, that's a good thing for Nadal, and an indictment for Kendrick. And if every other player who Nadal would have to play before getting to the finals has a good game for grass, but just not enough endurance to last the match, then that's good for Nadal, but a terrible indictment of all of his lazy opponents.

In any event, Federer isn't someone who's going to run out of gas. He isn't in as a physical condition as Nadal is, but he's still in very excellent condition.



Federer SHOULD dominate Nadal on grass, and if not for their history, I would expect that he would should they meet.

But by now it should be obvious to all -- including Federer fans like me -- that Nadal has Federer's number, and not just on clay. While Federer has a mental-strength edge on most players, Nadal clearly has it over Federer. The thing about Nadal is that, even if he were bageled in a set, he would just come back and try even harder in the next set, and he would have the advantage of knowing that Federer would not have a single, solitary moment of relaxation or peace in the match.


So even though grass would take away Nadal's two strongest, versus-Federer techical strengths (high-heavy forehand to the backhand, and retrieval of seemingly sure winners), Nadal would still have his greatest advantage over Federer --- superior will.

Simon Cowell
07-02-2006, 04:43 PM
Are you serious? I have never seen him say that.

I've never said that Nadal is better than Sampras. Please ignore 127mph, he's a ninkumpoop.

sureshs
07-02-2006, 04:55 PM
simon cowell belives that nadal is better than sampras.

He could be, you know. Was watching a Davis Cup match between Sampras and Kafelnikov, and to be very frank, Federer and Nadal's play seems more powerful and devastating.

The Pusher Terminator
07-06-2006, 01:00 AM
I've never said that Nadal is better than Sampras. Please ignore 127mph, he's a ninkumpoop.

yeah thats a classic 127 mph move. He has done that to me many times. He's a born again "Fedian." Its sort of like a born again Christian except that Born again Fedians are completely insane and will attack unless you conform to their beliefs.

Chang
07-06-2006, 01:19 AM
I've never said that Nadal is better than Sampras. Please ignore 127mph, he's a ninkumpoop.

Ninkumpoop? WTF?

The Pusher Terminator
07-06-2006, 01:23 AM
Ninkumpoop? WTF?

Oh you dont know what that means?

If you look it up in the dictionary you will find a picture of 127mph

bagung
07-06-2006, 01:25 AM
I think he will.
yes..... nadal will beat fed in 5 sets......

Chang
07-06-2006, 02:35 AM
Simple answer. NO

The Pusher Terminator
07-06-2006, 02:51 AM
"Roger may have the ranking points, but Nadal clearly is his superior. Just as it took one man, Buster Douglas, to overthrow Tyson as the king, maybe Nadal is the man who will befall Federer. As unbelievable as it sounds, Nadal may ruin the spectacular reign of Federer."....TENNIS WEEK.

sureshs
07-06-2006, 09:18 AM
Are you all convinced now that Nadal will win Wimbledon? Or do you still think he will lose to Baggy first just like you thought before every round? Or are you still arguing that grass is slow, ball is high etc?

shawn1122
07-06-2006, 09:24 AM
The problem is Baghdatis gets so screwed with the high bounce. He got bagelled at pacific life open by Nadal. He just couldnt handle "Nadal's balls" in the second set. The only way Baghdatis is gonna win this is if the bounce is a lot lower. But, at the same time Baghdatis is playing so much better now, so he still might beat Nadal. Otherwise, it's Nadal vs. Fed in the Wimbledon 2006 final (sickening I know.)

ACE of Hearts
07-06-2006, 09:27 AM
If Nadal wins wimbledon, it would be like the Twilight Zone.My only beef have been his opponents and their lack of fire power.Bags needs to serve well.

gts072
07-06-2006, 09:50 AM
Fed will beat Nadal rather easily in the finals if they meet IMHO. Its his court, his turf, and he has his blazer too, Goddamnit!!! ;)

alienhamster
07-06-2006, 10:03 AM
If Nadal wins wimbledon, it would be like the Twilight Zone.My only beef have been his opponents and their lack of fire power.Bags needs to serve well. Or lack of mental strength. Fed's obviously got the firepower. As does Bagdhatis.

janipyt05
07-06-2006, 10:22 AM
lets just take one match at a time ppl rafa and fed still have one match b4 they both get to finals you never wat can happen.

The Pusher Terminator
07-06-2006, 10:56 AM
Are you all convinced now that Nadal will win Wimbledon? Or do you still think he will lose to Baggy first just like you thought before every round? Or are you still arguing that grass is slow, ball is high etc?

Absolutely NOT!!! BUT if by some miracle Nadal does make it to the finals then he will beat Fed. Nadal does not lose grand slam finals and Fed is mentally weakened.

ksbh
07-06-2006, 11:53 AM
You've just been insulted! Rafa made it to the semis.

i will take it as an insult if rafa were to make it to the semis of wimbledon as should other tennis professionals. and ill take it personally if anyone is to suggest that rafa will win wimbledon. if such a suggestion is made, riots shall ensue

ksbh
07-06-2006, 11:55 AM
And what exactly has Nadal done to be considerd one of the 2 best players ever? Winning 2 French Opens and getting to the semis (so far) of Wimbledon qualifies one to be one of the best ever?!

Strange logic that. Using that logic, there must be over a hundred 'one of the best ever' players in the world!

We should consider ourselves lucky that we are witnessing possibly the best two players ever and their rivalry.

Tchocky
07-06-2006, 12:00 PM
He will if Federer gets injured and can't play and is blessed with another easy draw. I think Roddick will win Wimby if those two things happen as well.

ksbh
07-06-2006, 12:06 PM
Roddick will never win Wimbledon regardless of Federer being in or out. There's a good chance that Roddick may never win any more grand slam titles.

I think Roddick will win Wimby if those two things happen as well.

harryz
07-06-2006, 12:15 PM
whether Federer (who should beat Bjorkman routinely) plays Baghdatis or Nadal in the final. Either match up should be terrific. I believe that Fed will beat Nadal in three or four sets, but it will be close depending upon several factors:

- Federer has the better serve against most players but Nadal returns very well. How well on grass against Fed's serve, compared to clay or hard courts, will be important.

- Returns will be a toss up. Fed is returning magnificently, especially off of the backhand. He hit topspin and drive winners against Ancic that were incredible. Then again, he has trouble with Nadal's hook serve in the ad court.

- Back court rallies will depend upon how long they last. Fed's slice works much better on grass than on hard courts or clay, so his BH isn't a liability. If rallies are 5-6 strokes or fewer, Fed will have the edge here. More than 6 strokes and Nadal will control the match, and momentum will be a big factor.

- Net play goes to Federer, hands down.

- Offense to defense transition is a toss up, but I'd give the not to Fed on grass (even money on hard courts and to Nadal on clay) since he can slice and use his touch to greater effect on this surface

- Intangibles have to go (barely) to Nadal, since he has beaten Federer so often this year. At the same time, this has been Fed's tourney and he has a huge win streak on grass. Most interesting. All depends on confidence.

I love how some guys think Nadal is better than Federer since he has a better head to head record. Let's not forget that Federer has reached the finals of his last 9 tournaments and has won 7 slams. No matter-- they'll be playing each other the next 10+ years, God willing, and both will improve. I'll bet they'll play each other 40-50 times in their careers, so 7 matches isn't too many. Let's have some perspective. As it stands now, Fed is the more complete all court player; yet Nadal has shown great ability to improve very fast.

No matter what happens, tennis wins-- not to mention if Baghdatis plays terrifically and even beats Nadal!

HollerOne5
07-06-2006, 12:24 PM
I think on paper Bagdahtis would be the tougher matchup for Federer on grass, but in all likely hood, Rafa would have the better chance at winning. I don't think Marcos thinks he can beat Roger, and I think he would sort of choke at the moment of winning Wimbledon, while Rafa is tough as nails, and thinks he owns Roger deep inside.

fastdunn
07-06-2006, 12:25 PM
Actually Nadal's service return is a weakness in his game.

Roy
07-06-2006, 10:54 PM
With Fed's form, don't think Nadal can beat him this year on grass.

pound cat
07-07-2006, 03:56 AM
Here's the definitive answer to the original question.

"Incidentally, if you want to try it at home, the chant goes “Marcos Baghdatis”, to the tune of “Bring on the champion”. Premature? Well, possibly. But it is nevertheless an alluring fact that, in eight out of the past nine grand-slam events, the player who put out Hewitt has gone on to win the title."

Sorry Rafa...Marcos has fate on his side. It's all the praying he does on the court. LOL

mowcopian
07-07-2006, 03:57 AM
i think tht, yes federer will ahve a tough match against nadal on sunday, if he gets there that is, but i think tht at the moment nadal doesnt have the game on grass to trouble federer.