PDA

View Full Version : I said it: Federer vs. Nadal Wimby Final


TXKiteboarder
07-03-2006, 10:58 AM
Seriously, do you really think Nadal will fall? His biggest upcoming match will be possibly against Hewitt, IF he can stay alive against Bagy. I personally think Bag-boy will WIN against Hewitt in a five-setter with nothing left in tank for Nadal.


Federer is the heavy favorite, but I am telling you people, who ever underestimates Nadal will eat their own poop.



Get your tivo ready for Saturday, because Fed vs. Nadal on grass will happen. This time fed will show him why he is the best on grass.

Double G
07-03-2006, 11:03 AM
:-| Seriously, do you really think Nadal will fall? His biggest upcoming match will be possibly against Hewitt, IF he can stay alive against Bagy. I personally think Bag-boy will WIN against Hewitt in a five-setter with nothing left in tank for Nadal.


Federer is the heavy favorite, but I am telling you people, who ever underestimates Nadal will eat their own poop.



Get your tivo ready for Saturday, because Fed vs. Nadal on grass will happen. This time fed will show him why he is the best on grass.

Baghdatis and Federer. (Note the period):neutral:

Bassus
07-03-2006, 11:04 AM
On paper, Federer should dominate Nadal on grass.

But Nadal has a dream draw, and he has Federer's number. Federer also made the mistake of dismissing Nadal's chances at the outset of the tournament -- you'd think at this point that Federer would either just say good things about Nadal (like Nadal does about Federer), or keep his mouth shut. You shouldn't talk junk about people who have a 6-1 edge over you!

But to get back to a potential Wimbledon final; Federer should win, but Nadal's superior will would give him a great shot at a big upset.

ACE of Hearts
07-03-2006, 11:04 AM
Its too early to make predictions.I will say that Hewitt and Nadal will meet in the semis.I see Hewitt beating Baghdatis.Nadal hasnt faced anyone thats good and that includes Agassi who is old.

splink779
07-03-2006, 11:05 AM
I wouldn't say Nadal had a dream draw, its just that a lot of the big threats fell before he could meet them. (Roddick, Ljubicic, etc)

bluescreen
07-03-2006, 11:20 AM
very true. nadal was lucky to have some of the top seeds go out early. i still think hewitt will beat him.

dh003i
07-03-2006, 11:22 AM
Nadal has had it extremely easy so far. Sorry, but Hewitt and Baghdatis are simply better players than him on grass. I still say he's at best an average player on grass. Nadal would have been dismantled by a number of the talented grass-court players that Federer defeated. Federer hasn't even lost a set so far, and he's had an extremely tough draw. He's only lost 1 service game. It'd be great for him if Nadal makes it to the Wimbledon Finals by some miracle, because, quite frankly, Nadal doesn't have a chance against Federer on grass. Most of Nadal's record against Federer comes on clay, which is completely meaningless at the Wimbledon.

Who the hell has Nadal beaten on grass? No-one. Sure, he beat a just-about-to-retire Agassi. So what. If Agassi were on the same form/health as he was at last year's US Open, he would have completely destroyed Nadal. Federer has beaten some very good grass-court players. Federer's also beaten the greatest grass-court player of all time, Pete Sampras. The best thing that could happen for Federer is that he meets Nadal at the Wimbledon Finals, because he would destroy Nadal, and this would eliminate the edge Nadal has over him on the surface where -- outside of h2h -- they're basically now of very near equal ability (clay).

Also, it's BS that Federer dismissed Nadal's chances at the outset. Asked about possible threats, Federer specifically mentioned Nadal, although he noted his biggest threats would probably be Nalbandian, Roddick, Ancic, a perfectly reasonable statement.

MR. 81
07-03-2006, 11:30 AM
Nadal has had it extremely easy so far. Sorry, but Hewitt and Baghdatis are simply better players than him on grass. I still say he's at best an average player on grass. Nadal would have been dismantled by a number of the talented grass-court players that Federer defeated. Federer hasn't even lost a set so far, and he's had an extremely tough draw. He's only lost 1 service game. It'd be great for him if Nadal makes it to the Wimbledon Finals by some miracle, because, quite frankly, Nadal doesn't have a chance against Federer on grass. Most of Nadal's record against Federer comes on clay, which is completely meaningless at the Wimbledon.

Who the hell has Nadal beaten on grass? No-one. Sure, he beat a just-about-to-retire Agassi. So what. If Agassi were on the same form/health as he was at last year's US Open, he would have completely destroyed Nadal. Federer has beaten some very good grass-court players. Federer's also beaten the greatest grass-court player of all time, Pete Sampras. The best thing that could happen for Federer is that he meets Nadal at the Wimbledon Finals, because he would destroy Nadal, and this would eliminate the edge Nadal has over him on the surface where -- outside of h2h -- they're basically now of very near equal ability (clay).

Also, it's BS that Federer dismissed Nadal's chances at the outset. Asked about possible threats, Federer specifically mentioned Nadal, although he noted his biggest threats would probably be Nalbandian, Roddick, Ancic, a perfectly reasonable statement.

ok dh003i you speak wise but if the upset happens then don't claim the grass is so slow it looks like clay. It would be contradictory. Nadal is crap on grass. Ok. This is grass. Ok. So if he makes the final he is not crap anymore, right?;)

dh003i
07-03-2006, 11:40 AM
81,

If Nadal upsets Federer, then he very well deserves it. But there's like 0% chance of that happening. It's very unlikely he'll make it to the finals at all, when he'll have to go through Hewitt or Baghdatis to get there. Who the heck has he played on grass so far? A bunch of 100+ ranked players, and a hobble Agassi.

But I will definately say he's been helped out by the changes on grass. It's still grass, and it's still the fastest surface, with most premium on reflexes. But it's been slowed down, and bounces higher. It is a shameful caving in to whining Spaniards and Latins who specialize on clay.

They certainly haven't made the clay at the FO faster to help out grass-court specialists. Why the hell should they make grass slower to help out clay-court specialists? Wimbledon is losing its unique characteristics, with 20-stroke rallies and less net-play. It's unfortunate.

Ripper
07-03-2006, 11:46 AM
Nadal doesn't have a chance against Federer on grass.

This is NOT "normal" grass.

MR. 81
07-03-2006, 11:46 AM
81,

If Nadal upsets Federer, then he very well deserves it. But there's like 0% chance of that happening. It's very unlikely he'll make it to the finals at all, when he'll have to go through Hewitt or Baghdatis to get there. Who the heck has he played on grass so far? A bunch of 100+ ranked players, and a hobble Agassi.

But I will definately say he's been helped out by the changes on grass. It's still grass, and it's still the fastest surface, with most premium on reflexes. But it's been slowed down, and bounces higher. It is a shameful caving in to whining Spaniards and Latins who specialize on clay.

They certainly haven't made the clay at the FO faster to help out grass-court specialists. Why the hell should they make grass slower to help out clay-court specialists? Wimbledon is losing its unique characteristics, with 20-stroke rallies and less net-play. It's unfortunate.


"unlikely" is a word you should use with caution when it involves Nadal. ;)

I see your point but you're definitely being ambiguous. I still cannot figure out if Nadal is exceeding your expectations considering the courts are so slow. If they are so, then why are you not putting your $ on Nadal?

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 11:56 AM
The Fed-fans are working up their excuses, so they'll be ready for Sunday. *lol*

Seriously, I don't care who Rafa has played. He's in the quarters at Wimbledon. He's serving out of his mind, hasn't faced a breakpoint in two matches, and he's far exceeded anyone's expectations here. It's not his fault his draw has opened up a bit, but still, when you consider the problems he had last year, you have to admire the way he's stepped up his game on grass. And even "old" Agassi would have given lots of players troubles.

I'm not sure he'll get to the semis, but regardless, this has been a great tournament for him, and should give him a lot of confidence going into the hardcourt season.

And I don't miss the one or two-shot tennis we used to see at Wimbledon. You see Pete serve once, you've seen him serve a hundred times. That's pretty much all we saw for years, backed up by an occasional volley.

I like the fact that you do get some rallies and nice shotmaking -- and it's nice that a wide range of players is able to compete. That's what is angering folks -- they seem to only want the big servers to have a chance.

Or perhaps they just don't want Nadal to have a chance. ;-)

ACE of Hearts
07-03-2006, 12:01 PM
I wanna see Fed vs Nadal final, so Roger can welcome Nadal to his grass lawn in emphatic fashion!Just like Roger entered Nadal's claycourt.

Bassus
07-03-2006, 12:03 PM
As a Federer fan, I'd love to see Federer beat Nadal in the Wimbledon final. Though I typically like to see great matches, I'd actually like to see Federer demolish Nadal for once, as I think it would help him when he plays him on other surfaces. And I'd agree with some others here on at least one point; Federer should beat Nadal rather handily on grass.

But to all of those prediciting an easy Federer win over Nadal; don't you think that the history of the matches between these two would work in Nadal's favor? Don't you think that Federer would have questions, and perhaps go in with lesser confidence than he would against any other player.

But then again, maybe that would help Federer. Maybe if he's up 40-0, or 0-40, he won't take a mental nap, like he did early in the second set of the French final.

Bassus
07-03-2006, 12:06 PM
I wanna see Fed vs Nadal final, so Roger can welcome Nadal to his grass lawn in emphatic fashion!Just like Roger entered Nadal's claycourt.



If Nadal routed Federer on clay, it might actually be easier to take. But as it was, Federer was the only guy to consistently challenge Nadal on clay, and he almost always had chances to either win (Rome), or take charge (Roland Garros). Its those lost opportunities that makes the losses so bitter.

dh003i
07-03-2006, 12:07 PM
VamosRafa,

Fed-fans expect Federer to win the Wimbledon, no matter who he plays (and the US and Aussie Open as well). Hell, I'd expect him to win the Wimbledon facing an at-his-prime Sampras, although I'd say it would be a barely over 50% probability. But against anyone else, it's more like 99%.

I see you're getting ready for a possible Nadal loss before the finals. I don't know if that'll happen in the quarter-finals -- who the hell is his opponent -- but if he makes it to the semi-finals, he'll face either Hewitt or Baghdatis, both of whom are better on grass than him.

To be quite frank, Baghdatis is a tougher grass-court opponent for Roger Federer because he is...well, like Roger Federer. Playing his best tennis at the Australlian Open Final, Baghdatis has a wide variety of shots and plays the game like Federer does. Of course, I hope Nadal does make it to the final to face Federer, so Federer destroys him there. Nadal's head to head is meaningless at Wimbledon. Even though the Wimbledon folks have compromised the grass to help out players like Nadal, it's still grass, and Federer destroys everyone he faces on it.

81,

Given who Nadal's played, he has approximately met my expectations. Even on his worst surface, you'd expect the #2 ranked player in the world to beat a bunch of unfit and head-case 100+ ranked players.

As for his chances to make the final, ha, that's funny. He has a good chance to beat whoever it is he's playing next, as it's another nobody. But against Hewitt or Baghdatis on grass, he's toast. His best odds would be against Hewitt, though. Baghdatis is very much like Federer in his accuracy and variety of shots. Just too good on grass.

ACE of Hearts
07-03-2006, 12:11 PM
I think Nadal would rather play Bags then Hewitt.

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 12:15 PM
I think Nadal would rather play Bags then Hewitt.

Yep. Nadal totally outplayed Bags at IW, 5-7 0-6. I think Rafa's game matches up well against his -- although grass is faster, and that will suit Bags more.

Still, I think Jarkko is going to be a tough test. He worries me more than Bags actually.

But I think Hewitt will be in the semis.

dh003i
07-03-2006, 12:15 PM
I like the fact that you do get some rallies and nice shotmaking -- and it's nice that a wide range of players is able to compete. That's what is angering folks -- they seem to only want the big servers to have a chance.

So, you think that the clay at the FO should be sped up, so that those relying more on shot-making, serving, net-game, and all-court game can compet more effectively, right?

Because if you don't think that the clay at the FO should be sped up to give most players other than clay-court specialists a chance, that makes you a freakin' hypocrite. If you don't want clay to be sped up, that means you only want pure baseline bashers to have a chance.

As it is, I like having a variety in tennis. I don't think clay should be sped up, and I think that the slowing down of grass is atrocious. Clay is way slower than the slowest hard-courts; grass isn't as much faster than the fastest hard-courts. So, how exactly is that fair? It isn't. It's just that the clay-court specialists have been whining up a storm because they don't do well at Wimbledon.

I don't want it to be merely a serving competition. But Sampras never won by pure serving. He also played some exceptional net tennis. And Federer doesn't win Wimbledon by purely serve, although he has exceptional serves. He also plays an exceptional all-court game.

So, really, what justifiable reason do you have for making Wimbledon slower, other than to help out your favorite player? I don't want to make the clay slower, so it'd be easier for Roger to win a Grand Slam -- indeed, one of the things that'd make that unbelievably impressive -- and catapult him into greatest of all time -- is the wide variety of the surfaces.

fastdunn
07-03-2006, 12:16 PM
Bagdhatis will be very dangerous for Nadal.
Niemenen will be also danger but I think Nadal
has pretty good chance to beat him.

If somehow Nadal meets Federer on very chewed up
grass court at final sunday, I think it could be very
close match....

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 12:19 PM
Because if you don't think that the clay at the FO should be sped up to give most players other than clay-court specialists a chance, that makes you a freakin' hypocrite. If you don't want clay to be sped up, that means you only want pure baseline bashers to have a chance.

I'm not a hypocrite, freakin' or otherwise, because I love watching claycourt tennis. I love long rallies, and I love watching the players grind it out. Jim Courier was my fave player for many years.

I thought Wimbledon was somewhat boring, although I loved watching Pat Rafter play there. But now that it's a bit slower, I enjoy it more because you actually see more than someone serving and the occasional volley.

Again, it's just a style preference, but that's mine.

skip1969
07-03-2006, 12:21 PM
I think Nadal would rather play Bags then Hewitt.
i agree. it's a waste of time to say he's had an easy draw. sure he has, but he can only beat whoever is on the opposite side of the net. regardless, i think it's a great result for him to make it to the quarters. i also think he hasn't really been tested by someone who is confident or experienced on grass. which is why i tend to agree with ace. he can't POSSIBLY want to face hewitt in the semis (assuming he makes it). hewitt is smart, he runs everything down, he likes grass, has had success at wimbledon. bags is still just finding his way on the grass. it wasn't too long ago that he said the stuff was for football. hewitt, on the other hand, has the saavy to exploit nadal's weaknesses on the surface.

jukka1970
07-03-2006, 12:22 PM
Well I'm a Federer fan, no doubt there. Congrats to Nadal on his matches so far. He certainly has proven that he is adapting to grass. And it looks like Wimbledon wasn't so nuts for seeding him 2 after all.

As for the prediction of a Federer, Nadal final. Nadal isn't quite there yet. He still has to get through either Baghdatis (sp?) or Hewitt. With Hewitt's experience on grass, and the fact that he has won Wimbledon before, I think it'll be Hewitt that he plays, providing Nadal wins his next match first. And this is where I think he'll actually fall is against Hewitt. But hey either way, lets give credit to Nadal for already making it to the quarter finals. I mean a clay court specialist, and he's in the quarters, that's a huge deal. If he does make it to the finals, I don't see Federer losing on his best surface, however we certainly will have a bigger rivalry going. I also don't think Federer will lose because he's been challenged from the beginning, and demolished each of them.

I mean ok, maybe Nadal hasn't had the toughest of opponents, but lets not forget this is suppose to be Nadal's worst surface, and he has made it this far.

I think as a Federer fan, I need to give the credit to Nadal where it's due. Just like Nadal fans should and usually did give credit to Federer for making it to the finals of the French open, his worst surface.

As for the changes in the grass, well I think it's unfair to say that this is why Nadal has made it this far. Every pro needs to adapt to changes. With that said, as DH said I wouldn't want the clay courts sped up, so I'm not sure what they should do with the grass. Is it now to slow, maybe, I guess they'll just have to try different things.

ACE of Hearts
07-03-2006, 12:22 PM
Fed still has a long way, his toughest match is up next.Ancic has been playing very well and even though it was awhile back, he has beaten Roger on this surface.

HollerOne5
07-03-2006, 12:26 PM
So, you think that the clay at the FO should be sped up, so that those relying more on shot-making, serving, net-game, and all-court game can compet more effectively, right?

Because if you don't think that the clay at the FO should be sped up to give most players other than clay-court specialists a chance, that makes you a freakin' hypocrite. If you don't want clay to be sped up, that means you only want pure baseline bashers to have a chance.

As it is, I like having a variety in tennis. I don't think clay should be sped up, and I think that the slowing down of grass is atrocious. Clay is way slower than the slowest hard-courts; grass isn't as much faster than the fastest hard-courts. So, how exactly is that fair? It isn't. It's just that the clay-court specialists have been whining up a storm because they don't do well at Wimbledon.

I don't want it to be merely a serving competition. But Sampras never won by pure serving. He also played some exceptional net tennis. And Federer doesn't win Wimbledon by purely serve, although he has exceptional serves. He also plays an exceptional all-court game.

So, really, what justifiable reason do you have for making Wimbledon slower, other than to help out your favorite player? I don't want to make the clay slower, so it'd be easier for Roger to win a Grand Slam -- indeed, one of the things that'd make that unbelievably impressive -- and catapult him into greatest of all time -- is the wide variety of the surfaces.

If you like having such variety at Wimbledon as you claim, then you should be appreciating the fact that the surface has slowed down, if you know anything at all. Even Brad Gilbert said that the days of the big serve, one shot players like Krajicek, Ivanesivic, Phillippoussis, etc are pretty much gone because of this, and he said QUOTE "now there is more variety, and its more enjoyable to watch." But you can't blame the fact that people are staying back more entirely on the surface because that is just how the game is played all the way around these days. Most players are baseliners, and just because its grass doesn't mean they have to come in all the time, especially if no one else is either.

When it comes to Jarkko Niemimen, I woulnd't be concerned VamosRafa. I watched a lot of the Nieminen/Tursnunov match, and Jarkko was hitting the ball so slow, deep, and basically pushing the ball when it comes to the pro level. I'm sure Jarkko was tougher for Nadal on clay for this reason, but on grass, Nadal won't let him get away with it, and will take him out comfortably.

Soundbyte
07-03-2006, 12:28 PM
Nadal's got a chance...and a very good one at that.

Personally, I'm pulling for a Baghdatis v. Fed final. However, ever since Hewitt dropped in the rankings, he's been playing much better. I guess he feels he needs to prove himself again.

And for all you mentioning Pete's name, lets not forgot that Pete Sampras said himself that he thought Hewitt was the one guy he thought could hold the #1 spot for consecutive years.... (This was Pre-Fed tho :D )

I predict a Hewitt-Fed final, with Fed destroying him in the final (A la US Open)

dh003i
07-03-2006, 12:29 PM
VamosRafa,

Fine, you like watching constant baseline play. I like seeing a wide variety of tennis, and so do most other people. And in fact, I very much like clay, and love watching Federer move on it -- especially the sliding and net-play there (oddly enough, I think that's his best strategy on clay). The fact is, the wide diversity of courts promotes a wide diversity of playing styles.

Slowing down the grass-courts to help out clay-court players is just freakin' hypocritical, because they aren't speeding up the clay-courts to help out S&Vers. It also diminishes the accomplishment of being an all-surface player.

If you like pure baseline play, and don't like S&V and more all-court play, then fine. Just watch the clay-court season, and ignore the Wimbledon. You can watch past clay-court finals during the short grass-court season.

But it's just disgusting that because of whining, moaning clay-court specialist players, they're f*cking up the Wimbledon. 20-stroke rallies is not what the Wimbledon is all about. It's out of line with Wimbledon's great tradition.

HollerOne5
07-03-2006, 12:33 PM
VamosRafa,

Fine, you like watching constant baseline play. I like seeing a wide variety of tennis, and so do most other people. And in fact, I very much like clay, and love watching Federer move on it -- especially the sliding and net-play there (oddly enough, I think that's his best strategy on clay). The fact is, the wide diversity of courts promotes a wide diversity of playing styles.

Slowing down the grass-courts to help out clay-court players is just freakin' hypocritical, because they aren't speeding up the clay-courts to help out S&Vers. It also diminishes the accomplishment of being an all-surface player.

If you like pure baseline play, and don't like S&V and more all-court play, then fine. Just watch the clay-court season, and ignore the Wimbledon. You can watch past clay-court finals during the short grass-court season.

But it's just disgusting that because of whining, moaning clay-court specialist players, they're f*cking up the Wimbledon. 20-stroke rallies is not what the Wimbledon is all about. It's out of line with Wimbledon's great tradition.


They aren't speeding up the clay courts to help out the serve and volleyers??? MY GOSH you make me wanna scream you are such an idiot. How many people in the top 100 are serve and volleyers and how many are baseliners. All Wimbledon is doing is changing the surface to adapt to the majority (and this is a HUGE majority) of the player's playing style so it is more entertaining for the fans, more exciting points, and you dont have talentless players like Karlovic (with ONE good shot) being able to have a chance and upset players in the top 5 who have tons of talent. Obviously, you can see this wasn't the case in Paris, where all top 4 seeds made the semifinals.

splink779
07-03-2006, 12:37 PM
I don't want to get too involved in these nasty little quabbles that go on here, but I just want to say, you need a weapon or two to beat Nadal. Hewitt will not beat him. Baghdatis can because he is explosive. I just don't see Nadal losing to other, weaker counterpunchers anymore.

HollerOne5
07-03-2006, 12:39 PM
I don't want to get too involved in these nasty little quabbles that go on here, but I just want to say, you need a weapon or two to beat Nadal. Hewitt will not beat him. Baghdatis can because he is explosive. I just don't see Nadal losing to other, weaker counterpunchers anymore.

I agree, even Agassi said it best. If you don't do something with a ball, Nadal will make you pay and you will most likely lose the point. And I definitely noticed this in the match today. Any ball that was hit just ok, or in the middle of the court, Nadal immediately takes control and hits to one of the corners or a sharp angle. Nadal has hit the level where he is hardly going to lose to players ranked below him anymore.

HollerOne5
07-03-2006, 12:40 PM
dh003i, how old are you?

tlm
07-03-2006, 12:40 PM
Great points made by Hollerone5 !!

Simon Cowell
07-03-2006, 12:40 PM
Federer fears Nadal and that's all there is to it. If they meet in the final, Rafael will take it in 4. Come Sunday, I'll be able to add one more line to my signature.

HollerOne5
07-03-2006, 12:41 PM
Federer fears Nadal and that's all there is to it. If they meet in the final, Rafael will take it in 4. Come Sunday, I'll be able to add one more line to my signature.

Love the optimism Simon

ACE of Hearts
07-03-2006, 12:41 PM
We will see about that.This is grass and Hewitt gets pace on grass and moves very well.I am really hoping for Hewitt vs Nadal in the semis.

ACE of Hearts
07-03-2006, 12:42 PM
LMAO.I am hoping they meet so Nadal can find out how it is too face Fed on Grass.

edberg505
07-03-2006, 12:43 PM
I don't want to get too involved in these nasty little quabbles that go on here, but I just want to say, you need a weapon or two to beat Nadal. Hewitt will not beat him. Baghdatis can because he is explosive. I just don't see Nadal losing to other, weaker counterpunchers anymore.

But he did lose to Hewitt almost 2 weeks ago.

skip1969
07-03-2006, 12:45 PM
arguing about the change in surfaces is futile, in my view. the fact remains that there just aren't any players who make their living at the net. simple as that. whether it's servring and volleying, or coming in on everything but the kitchen sink, or chipping and charging . . . any of it. the vast majority of pros today love the baseline. no matter what the surface.

if the grass at wimbledon were the same as it was 10 years ago during sampras' reign . . . i STILL don't think these cats would be trying to get to the net. they'd still be trying to hit winners from the baseline. most pros don't have the confidence, the skills, the athleticism to play that style anymore.

edberg505
07-03-2006, 12:47 PM
Yep. Nadal totally outplayed Bags at IW, 5-7 0-6. I think Rafa's game matches up well against his -- although grass is faster, and that will suit Bags more.

Still, I think Jarkko is going to be a tough test. He worries me more than Bags actually.

But I think Hewitt will be in the semis.

Ugh, I think dislike Jarkko's game more than I do Nadal's and Murray's. Jarkko is quite possibly the world's greatest pusher. That is going to be one long match!

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 12:47 PM
But he did lose to Hewitt almost 2 weeks ago.

He won the first set, and then had shoulder problems and retired after losing the second. I'm not sure what conclusion we can draw from that except that if his shoulder wasn't bothering him he would have done his best to win the third.

dh003i
07-03-2006, 12:48 PM
HollerOne5,

If some in the "top 5" can be upset by a "one-shot wonder" at the Wimbledon, then they suck on real grass, and don't deserve to go far.

Why the hell should the entire surface be changed because some players don't have enough talent/desire to adapt to faster grass? That's what the great challenge of winning the GS is all about. What makes the Wimbledon unique is more S&V, all-court, and net-game. 20-stroke rallies are boring if that's all there is.

I appreciate a wide variety of play and ball reaction. That's why I want a wide variety of courts. I think one of the best matches I ever saw was Sampras vs. Federer at Wimbledon. Absolutely astounding play. A wonderful variety of play, and some beautiful net-play. I remember one of the shots made at the net, Sampras smacked it down, and it almost stuck to the grass (barely bounced). Federer's racquet slammed into the grass trying to hit it on it's very slight rise.

That was some fascinating tennis. And I'd like some more of that.

And of course, the beautiful sliding on the clay is also great, especially when combined with the rare points at the net.

What isn't great is when the speed of the Wimbledon basically is like the fastest hard-court, but isn't ultra-fast like it used to be.

tlm
07-03-2006, 12:51 PM
Which way is it ace,first you are pulling for hewitt because you are saying hewitt has better chance of beating nadal.Then you are saying you want nadal in finals.

I would love to see nadal make it to finals,but i dont think he will.If he does i think fed would beat him,thats the only suface fed can beat nadal on.

ACE of Hearts
07-03-2006, 12:55 PM
Hey tlm, i wanna see Nadal play a grass-courter and Hewitt is a perfect choice.If he beats him, then it could be a good matchup against Fed if Fed is in the final.

HollerOne5
07-03-2006, 12:55 PM
HollerOne5,

If some in the "top 5" can be upset by a "one-shot wonder" at the Wimbledon, then they suck on real grass, and don't deserve to go far.

Why the hell should the entire surface be changed because some players don't have enough talent/desire to adapt to faster grass? That's what the great challenge of winning the GS is all about. What makes the Wimbledon unique is more S&V, all-court, and net-game. 20-stroke rallies are boring if that's all there is.

I appreciate a wide variety of play and ball reaction. That's why I want a wide variety of courts. I think one of the best matches I ever saw was Sampras vs. Federer at Wimbledon. Absolutely astounding play. A wonderful variety of play, and some beautiful net-play. I remember one of the shots made at the net, Sampras smacked it down, and it almost stuck to the grass (barely bounced). Federer's racquet slammed into the grass trying to hit it on it's very slight rise.

That was some fascinating tennis. And I'd like some more of that.

And of course, the beautiful sliding on the clay is also great, especially when combined with the rare points at the net.

What isn't great is when the speed of the Wimbledon basically is like the fastest hard-court, but isn't ultra-fast like it used to be.

Well, for example, I think its safe to say someone like Roddick would be going further than he did if the grass was much faster, but we all know Roddick only has a good serve and a big forehand and THATS it. Let's just look at some of the players that did well at Wimbledon, and did NOTHING at any other grand slams, and tell me where your point is?? Just because you saw 2 of the greatest players ever (Federer and Sampras) play a great match at Wimbledon, doesn't mean the Ivanisevic finals were at all entertaining? I think most will agree with me, and not you, honestly, and no offense, that the Wimbledon tennis is much more fun to watch now. Who liked to see Sampras hit 2 or 3 aces a game when he played at Wimbledon? The same goes for Goran, and Mark P, Michael Stich, Krajicek, etc...the list goes on.

dh003i
07-03-2006, 12:57 PM
Skip,

Yes, but slowing down the Wimbledon is going to encourage players to not bother mastering S&V and a net-game, or getting better at it.

The logic seems to be something like, well there aren't many S&Vers, chip & chargers, net-players, or all-courters anymore, so let's make the Wimbledon slower: but that only contributes to the problem!

PS: Yes, I realize that the all-court Federer leans more-so towards the baseline side. However, his most interesting tennis comes against people who come to the net, when he generally does something remarkable from the baseline, or also comes in to the net.

dh003i
07-03-2006, 01:04 PM
HollerOne5,

I agree that having players who are just primarily servers, and can do nothing else, be very successful at Wimbledon isn't too great to watch.

However, I think that when Roddick was playing good -- and he did have some good finals against Federer at Wimbledon -- he was more than just a great server with a forehand.

Maybe something should be done to make it less likely that pure servers with nothing else do very well at Wimbledon. But I don't like slowing down the courts so it basically plays like the fastest hard-court, but with non-uniform ball reaction due to the non-uniform surface.

However, I think the reality is that pure big servers get taken care of by complete players at Wimbledon. Andy Roddick probably has a better serve than Roger Federer -- although Fed's serve is I think a great serve, very accurate, and tricky. However, Roddick didn't beat Federer at Wimbledon, even when the courts were faster than now.

HollerOne5
07-03-2006, 01:04 PM
Skip,

Yes, but slowing down the Wimbledon is going to encourage players to not bother mastering S&V and a net-game, or getting better at it.

The logic seems to be something like, well there aren't many S&Vers, chip & chargers, net-players, or all-courters anymore, so let's make the Wimbledon slower: but that only contributes to the problem!

PS: Yes, I realize that the all-court Federer leans more-so towards the baseline side. However, his most interesting tennis comes against people who come to the net, when he generally does something remarkable from the baseline, or also comes in to the net.

No no and no.

You are an idiot man. There was never that much great play at the net even back when the grass was faster. It was always BIG serve, easy put away volley.

THE Wimbledon is doing just fine. And John McEnroe stated today that the courts aren't THAT much slower, at least not as slow people are making them out to be. He just said the game has changed so much that it is more attributed to the fact rather than the surfaces changing.

And one more point, just because you have grass for not even one month on the tennis calendar, doesn't mean there are going to be lots of serve and volleyers out there in the game. The majority of the year is played on neutral surfaces, where with fitness and racquet technology where it is today, the baseline game (or all court) is the most popular playing style for a reason.

skip1969
07-03-2006, 01:07 PM
Skip,

Yes, but slowing down the Wimbledon is going to encourage players to not bother mastering S&V and a net-game, or getting better at it.

The logic seems to be something like, well there aren't many S&Vers, chip & chargers, net-players, or all-courters anymore, so let's make the Wimbledon slower: but that only contributes to the problem!
oh, i agree with you. i grew up with all that power tennis on grass, and after years of it, it bored the hell outta me. that's not to say that i didn't appreciate serve and volley. i did. and i still do (maybe even moreso now that i never get to see it). but that whole ace, ace, ace thing . . . or the two-shot rallies . . . yeah, it was a bit much. there were, of course, guys like edberg or sampras, who didn't just serve everyone off the court. they had good serves, but they were never acing machines. and they moved so well to get to the net, and had terrific hands . . . THAT'S what made serve and volley cool to watch.

i find players (like roddick, for example) who have a huge serve, but very little else, very hard to watch. but i see your point. if say, ten years ago, only 25% of the men on tour were true serve and volleyers, then slowing down the grass didn't do much to help them, did it? now, they're practically extinct. and there's not much incentive for the next generation to learn how to become gifted net players.

skip1969
07-03-2006, 01:09 PM
holler, is it REALLY necessary to keep calling the guy an idiot?

dh003i
07-03-2006, 01:10 PM
HollerOne5,

BS. Sure, there were some big-serve, and easy put away volleys. But there was also a lot of interesting play on grass when it was faster. Just because the points were shorter doesn't mean they were less interesting. As for the dynamics of players not working on their grass-court games because the grass-court season is short, then I say we should have a longer grass-court season.

And i you want to talk about how the game is changin so much, and that's promoting baseline play, how about having some limitations on the type of racquet equipment used? Just about every other sport has limitations on the equipment you can use. Golf, for example, has strict rules on the composition of the golf-clubs.

HollerOne5
07-03-2006, 01:11 PM
holler, is it REALLY necessary to keep calling the guy an idiot?

Its just frustrating, his points are invalid and unsophisticated and all revolve around his obsession with Federer and hatred of Nadal. Although here he refers to Nadal as one group, clay-court specialists.

dh003i
07-03-2006, 01:13 PM
skip,

Thank you.

I'm willing to sacrafice, and have a lot of droning ace-machine play, if we can some more interesting net play. Alot of tennis fans only watch the best players anyways. It's definately worth it to promote the development of players like Edberg, Samras, etc.

HollerOne5
07-03-2006, 01:14 PM
HollerOne5,

BS. Sure, there were some big-serve, and easy put away volleys. But there was also a lot of interesting play on grass when it was faster. Just because the points were shorter doesn't mean they were less interesting. As for the dynamics of players not working on their grass-court games because the grass-court season is short, then I say we should have a longer grass-court season.

And i you want to talk about how the game is changin so much, and that's promoting baseline play, how about having some limitations on the type of racquet equipment used? Just about every other sport has limitations on the equipment you can use. Golf, for example, has strict rules on the composition of the golf-clubs.


Well, I don't know how good of a player you are, but I'm about a 5.0, 5.5, and I can tell you that its not the racquets that are doing the damage. I still play with a prestige classic as many players do on tour. Strings are more to blame than anything, but its not so much the actual string, as it is the technology and knowledge that is now known, in reference to stringing hybrids, tensions, etc etc. No limititations will ever be made, I guarantee you, when it comes to strings, so thats just the way its going to be. But, I'd say the BIGGEST reason why tennis has become such a baseline game is superior technique and superiror fitness, and that's it!

dh003i
07-03-2006, 01:22 PM
HollerOne,

Actually, you're the one who's points are invalid and unsophisticated, because you're being very short-sighted. If a lot of alot of one-serve wonders if the price you pay for a genius like Sampras -- and many lesser very good net-players -- every generation or so, then it's very much worth it (c'mon, few watch matches by lowly ranked players anyway, and pure big-servers are always completely and totally destroyed by all-round players like Federer).

As for my "hatred" of Nadal, what I hate is his gamesmanship, which I think crosses over into the territory of cheating when he's consistently violating the time rules (yes, other players do this too, and no I don't know who they are, because I don't watch nobodies ranked very lowly; more scrutiny is rightfully on the better players, unlike in basketball where they constantly give favorable calls to the better players). More-so than that, I hate some of his stupid fans, who feel the need to bash Wimbledon and grass; to make stupid and completely internally incoherent points like "Nadal's the best player in the world, b/c of his h2h with Fed," when we all know that there is no single sport where h2h determines who the best is, because it's never ever ever consistent; oh, and best of all, that Federer said they shouldn't give him a trophy for surpassing Borg's grass-court record, because he was angry with Nadal (as if that makes any sense).

PS: When I said racquet, I was referring to both frame and strings -- the whole thing as one. And why the heck not put limitations on the strings, for pro-players? Unless you have a better way to encourage more all-court play and S&V, especially at Wimbledon (obviously, there's nothing to be done about physical conditioning; but I think this also helps out at the net).

skip1969
07-03-2006, 01:28 PM
well, whatever the reasons . . . the game is the way it is right now. i think a bunch of factors have led us to where we are. my biggest beef with the game is how similarly everyone seems to play nowadays. it's very homogeneous, and i'm a guy who likes his contrasts.

i agree with you, holler, that players are stronger, fitter. or rather, that there are more of them to contend with. i also think that to begin with, serve and volley was always a tougher way to succeed on tour. i don't think they will limit the technology, either.

grass is becoming more irrelevant. especially if it's altered to such a degree that it resembles every other surface . . . or if it's tampered with to the point that everyone and their uncle has a chance to win on it. what's the sense in that, really?

sureshs
07-03-2006, 01:39 PM
Seriously, do you really think Nadal will fall? His biggest upcoming match will be possibly against Hewitt, IF he can stay alive against Bagy. I personally think Bag-boy will WIN against Hewitt in a five-setter with nothing left in tank for Nadal.


Federer is the heavy favorite, but I am telling you people, who ever underestimates Nadal will eat their own poop.



Get your tivo ready for Saturday, because Fed vs. Nadal on grass will happen. This time fed will show him why he is the best on grass.

I said it first.

arosen
07-03-2006, 01:56 PM
Federer hasn't even lost a set so far, and he's had an extremely tough draw. He's only lost 1 service game. It'd be great for him if Nadal makes it to the Wimbledon Finals by some miracle, because, quite frankly, Nadal doesn't have a chance against Federer on grass.

You know, right before the first ball was struck at this Wimby I would have totally agreed with you. Even after Nadal's first match I would. Who the heck is Kendrick anyway. Yet after watching him grind Agassi and Labadze, I am not so sure anymore. The grass is worn out by now. The bounce is higher and slower. Rafa has volleyed extremely well when he needed to. He is supremely fit, and more importantly he is 6-1 against Federer. If he beats Hewitt to get to the finals, watch out for the biggest upset of the modern tennis era.

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 02:05 PM
Its just frustrating, his points are invalid and unsophisticated and all revolve around his obsession with Federer and hatred of Nadal. Although here he refers to Nadal as one group, clay-court specialists.

Why not try to be the better man, and not use ad hominem attacks? Attack the idea, not the person. But, it's not just you, plenty of people employ ad hominem attacks, and I include myself in this. They're hard to resist when you're frustrated.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-03-2006, 02:09 PM
You know, right before the first ball was struck at this Wimby I would have totally agreed with you. Even after Nadal's first match I would. Who the heck is Kendrick anyway. Yet after watching him grind Agassi and Labadze, I am not so sure anymore. The grass is worn out by now. The bounce is higher and slower. Rafa has volleyed extremely well when he needed to. He is supremely fit, and more importantly he is 6-1 against Federer. If he beats Hewitt to get to the finals, watch out for the biggest upset of the modern tennis era.

You know the funny thing is there have been many on here saying the last couple years that mens tennis is at an all time low, and their enjoyment level of watching it has gone down severely. I thought it was overstated and did not really believe them. However if Nadal won Wimbledon this year with his current game I would realize the detractors of the current mens field, and those that have gone as far to call it the worst mens field ever were actually right on the mark. Mens tennis would truly be at the embarassing all time low that a few detractors said it was, and I would realize these are people I should have listened to all along.

Hopefully by the start of 2011 mens tennis would return to a semi-adequate state to the point of being worth following a bit of again. I certainly would not give it a second look until then, instead concentrating on the gender that produces some semblance of quality still-the womens game.

Aykhan Mammadov
07-03-2006, 02:22 PM
Strange, strange, strange... to see Nadal, clay-courter among - Federer, Bjorkman, Ancic, Baghdatis, Nieminen.

IMO this is maximum what clay-courter can do, to reach 1/4 final.

Bye, Nadal.

unjugon
07-03-2006, 02:24 PM
In my opinion, Nadal will have more trouble with Jarkko than with either Hewitt or Baghdatis.

Jarkko is a guy who can be extremely consistent, is a lefty -makes it odd-, and can hit a monster shot out of nowhere. He can really mix up the pace. Iīd expect Nadal to come through in a close match, though an upset is possible.

At this moment, I donīt believe Hewitt or Baghdatis can beat him if he plays like the last couple rounds.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
07-03-2006, 02:29 PM
Bags and Fed will meet in the final
Bags will kick Nadals *****.
Fed will beat bags in 3.

TXKiteboarder
07-03-2006, 03:25 PM
i guess many of you are still underestimating him.


if you think Bag-man or that "come on" guy has the rocks to send Nadal to a play pan, we will just have to see it on FRIDAY :)

FEDEXP
07-03-2006, 03:55 PM
Uh, gee, where's my crystal ball when I need it?

Polaris
07-03-2006, 03:55 PM
The Fed-fans are working up their excuses, so they'll be ready for Sunday. *lol*

Et tu Susan? I thought you were more restrained than the Pusher and the Count.


Seriously, I don't care who Rafa has played. He's in the quarters at Wimbledon. He's serving out of his mind, hasn't faced a breakpoint in two matches, and he's far exceeded anyone's expectations here. It's not his fault his draw has opened up a bit, but still, when you consider the problems he had last year, you have to admire the way he's stepped up his game on grass.
Agree with that. Hats off to Nadal.

And I don't miss the one or two-shot tennis we used to see at Wimbledon. You see Pete serve once, you've seen him serve a hundred times. That's pretty much all we saw for years, backed up by an occasional volley.
I'm sorry to say that you betray your tennis IQ by saying that about Sampras. He is not my favorite player, but I contend that if you've seen Pete serve a hundred times, you would still not know how he does it.

I like the fact that you do get some rallies and nice shotmaking -- and it's nice that a wide range of players is able to compete. That's what is angering folks -- they seem to only want the big servers to have a chance.

Not true again. Don't generalize. This "They" that you speak of don't all want to give the big servers a chance. Some of them just want to see a different style of play.

Or perhaps they just don't want Nadal to have a chance. ;-)
Perhaps. But listen, we are not playing happy families here. If Federer loses, I'll be sad, but I won't whine that they don't want to give him a chance. Nadal is a great player, and great mover. Unfortunately, I find his strokes ugly. That is my problem and not Nadal's, and has absolutely nothing to do with Federer or Safin. If Federer and Safin didn't exist, I would have the same opinion about Nadal. Your post - the smiley notwithstanding - like that of many fanatic followers of Federer and Nadal, appears myopic and demonstrates an inability to encompass the diversity inherent among the followers of any sport.

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 05:30 PM
I'm sorry to say that you betray your tennis IQ by saying that about Sampras. He is not my favorite player, but I contend that if you've seen Pete serve a hundred times, you would still not know how he does it.

I never said I knew how he does it. His serve was phenomenal. I just got tired of watching it.

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 05:40 PM
I never said I knew how he does it. His serve was phenomenal. I just got tired of watching it.

Oh come on, how is that fair? Four 1 month of tennis, there is the grass season. For 2-3 months there is the clay court season, filled with tournaments, three master series tournaments, and a grandslam! What is there for the grass season? Wimbledon, two events that are worth something, and then some lower end events that most players skip.

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 06:02 PM
Oh come on, how is that fair? Four 1 month of tennis, there is the grass season. For 2-3 months there is the clay court season, filled with tournaments, three master series tournaments, and a grandslam! What is there for the grass season? Wimbledon, two events that are worth something, and then some lower end events that most players skip.

I'm not saying I don't admire Pete and his accomplishments. Moi still considers him the GOAT. But watching him serve his way through match after match, on grass AND hardcourts, wasn't the most thrilling.

I can admire his accomplishments without necessarily loving his style of play. How many times did that guy get down 0-40, and serve his way out of trouble? With 4 aces.

But of course, I was a big Pat Rafter fan, so what do you expect. ;-)

But the ONE time I really wanted Pete to do well on grass, what does he do? Lose to Corretja in the Davis Cup quarter. I still can't believe I was yelling "Come on, Pete" and "Ace, Ace" at a grasscourt match. But hey, the things you do for your country. ;-)

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 06:04 PM
I'm not saying I don't admire Pete and his accomplishments. Moi still considers him the GOAT. But watching him serve his way through match after match, on grass AND hardcourts, wasn't the most thrilling.

I can admire his accomplishments without necessarily loving his style of play. How many times did that guy get down 0-40, and serve his way out of trouble? With 4 aces.

But of course, I was a big Pat Rafter fan, so what do you expect. ;-)

But the ONE time I really wanted Pete to do well on grass, what does he do? Lose to Corretja in the Davis Cup quarter. I still can't believe I was yelling Come on, Pete at a grasscourt match. But hey, the things you do for your country. ;-)

First of all, you used "Moi" incorrectly, second of all, why are you evading my question?

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 06:11 PM
First of all, you used "Moi" incorrectly, second of all, why are you evading my question?

Sorry, didn't realize this was a test. I thought this a tennis messageboard where you can post random things. Other posters seem to have the same view, too.

I believe you are one of the folks who have been aggrandizing the grass season for the past few months. Did I get that word right, professor?

The grass season kept becoming more important the more Rafa was winning on clay and the more he beat Federer. At least that is my recollection.

But yes, overall, I agree. One month on grass is such a short part of the tennis year, with only Wimbly having a lot of points.

Did I answer your question completely, or do I need extra credit to avoid failure? ;-)

bagung
07-03-2006, 06:17 PM
nadal will meet fed in the final, why not.... at this moment, nadal is the only one who can beat fed regularly, he prooved it in clay & hard court, now is the time to beat fed in grass......

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 06:17 PM
Sorry, didn't realize this was a test. I thought this a tennis messageboard where you can post random things. Other posters seem to have the same view, too.

I believe you are one of the folks who have been aggrandizing the grass season for the past few months. Did I get that word right, professor?

The grass season kept becoming more important the more Rafa was winning on clay and the more he beat Federer. At least that is my recollection.

But yes, overall, I agree. One month on grass is such a short part of the tennis year, with only Wimbly having a lot of points.

Did I answer your question completely, or do I need extra credit to avoid failure? ;-)

You know, by adding the emoticon at the end of your comment, you are not neutralizing your point and making it less of a sarcastic flamebait. Maybe you shouldn't be frustrated at me for your mistake, but yourself. I enjoy grass court tennis no more than I enjoy clay court, but I prefer variation over a constant.

Also, you still haven't answered the question. I asked, "How is that fair?"

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 06:21 PM
You know, by adding the emoticon at the end of your comment, you are not neutralizing your point and making it less of a sarcastic flamebait. Maybe you shouldn't be frustrated at me for your mistake, but yourself. I enjoy grass court tennis no more than I enjoy clay court, but I prefer variation over a constant.

Also, you still haven't answered the question. I asked, "How is that fair?"

I agree, FUA, it's just not fair. ;-) They should swap the seasons, and have most of it on grass, and have just one or two clay events a year. But life just isn't fair, alas . . . Can't get rid of those darn claycourt players.

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 06:25 PM
I agree, FUA, it's just not fair. ;-) They should swap the seasons, and have most of it on grass, and have just one or two clay events a year. But life just isn't fair, alas . . .

Yeah, I guess you're right. **** any attempt to make up for life's inequalities. How about, you go in front of all of those people that run for breast cancer every year and say "But life just isn't fair, alas . . . You might as well not run, they were meant to die."

I wasn't asking for swapped seasons, hell, I don't even care if it's grass or not. I'd just prefer to see there to be actual variation of courts and styles. Maybe you should try to be a little more objective, because I know that I've made the strides.

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 06:28 PM
Yeah, I guess you're right. **** any attempt to make up for life's inequalities. How about, you go in front of all of those people that run for breast cancer every year and say "But life just isn't fair, alas . . . You might as well not run, they were meant to die."

I wasn't asking for swapped seasons, hell, I don't even care if it's grass or not. I'd just prefer to see there to be actual variation of courts and styles. Maybe you should try to be a little more objective, because I know that I've made the strides.

Look, you are taking this a bit too seriously. My Dad is dying of prostate cancer, but I don't think anything I say here to an obsessive Fed fan has anything to do with that, thank you very much. In fact, tennis has nothing to do with that. I think those types of analogies have no place here.

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 06:32 PM
Look, you are taking this a bit too seriously. My Dad is dying of prostate cancer, but I don't think anything I say here to an obsessive Fed fan has anything to do with that, thank you very much. In fact, tennis has nothing to do with that.

Sorry, you're not doing that to me. I've had plenty and plenty of relatives die of Cancer, and other horrible diseases. The point is, saying "well, gee, shucks, ife just isn't fair!" isn't a worthy point. You're not the only one who has had a family member die in a dreaded way, so don't act like it, and more importantly, don't be alone in it. Embrace them while you can, and understand that other people have gone through what you have.

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 06:35 PM
Sorry, you're not doing that to me. I've had plenty and plenty of relatives die of Cancer, and other horrible diseases. The point is, saying "well, gee, shucks, ife just isn't fair!" isn't a worthy point. You're not the only one who has had a family member die in a dreaded way, so don't act like it, and more importantly, don't be alone in it. Embrace them while you can, and understand that other people have gone through what you have.

And you aren't doing it to me either. As some of you guys like to joke about Nanny Nadal here, I too have my own breast lump issues -- I'm undergoing treatment as we speak for a suspect lump. I'm not a young woman, and well, let's just say, I fully support the American Cancer Society and do the Relay for Life walk every year.

I've never been asked to speak at it, but I walk it.

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 06:39 PM
And you aren't doing it to me either. As some of you guys like to joke about Nanny Nadal here, I too have my own breast lump issues -- I'm undergoing treatment as we speak. I'm not a young woman, and well, let's just say, I fully support the American Cancer Society and do the Relay for Life walk every year.

I've never been asked to speak at it, but I walk it.

I actually never said anything to you about being insensitive towards cancer victims, so, I think you are taking this too seriously and personally. They're just electrons, unless you're not using a CRT.

bluescreen
07-03-2006, 08:14 PM
this is sad and very pathetic. congratulations u guys for bringing personal insults on this board to a new low. i find it funny that every time nadal and federer r discussed on these boards somebody eventually starts the trash talking and everyone else jumps on the band wagon. not 1 post on this page is even about tennis, and i find that quite sad. i dont see words like "personal insults" and "cancer victims" in the title, so i dont know why u guys r talking about such things.

dh003i
07-03-2006, 08:37 PM
The attempt to homogenize the tennis courts is simply pure hypocrisy. No-one's making the clay-courts any faster, so it's BS to slow down the grass-courts. Let's have a lot of variety, so that tennis is fresh, and not the same thing year-round.

To all these disrespectful, historical ignoramus' who want to destroy Wimbledon's tradition, ach, I can't even say anything. It's just disgusting.

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 08:55 PM
this is sad and very pathetic. congratulations u guys for bringing personal insults on this board to a new low. i find it funny that every time nadal and federer r discussed on these boards somebody eventually starts the trash talking and everyone else jumps on the band wagon. not 1 post on this page is even about tennis, and i find that quite sad. i dont see words like "personal insults" and "cancer victims" in the title, so i dont know why u guys r talking about such things.

I didn't bring up Federer, and I don't think Susan's argument had much to do with Nadal. Also, there weren't any personal insults.

Chang
07-03-2006, 09:04 PM
ok dh003i you speak wise but if the upset happens then don't claim the grass is so slow it looks like clay. It would be contradictory. Nadal is crap on grass. Ok. This is grass. Ok. So if he makes the final he is not crap anymore, right?;)

The upset won't happen, Nadal is about to play Neminen and Neminen will waste him cause he plays pace.

Polaris
07-03-2006, 09:48 PM
Good heavens, this thread has taken a strange turn, and now I am bummed that it began with someone quoting from my post. Here I was talking about following tennis in a broader sense than just Federer vs. Nadal and what do we get? A bitter - and hurtful - altercation between a Federer fan and Nadal fan. I will now go and sulk in my corner.

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 09:50 PM
I guess it's fit for an apology. I'm sorry, Susan.

VamosRafa
07-03-2006, 10:29 PM
I guess it's fit for an apology. I'm sorry, Susan.

Thanks, FUE. I appreciate that the focus is back on tennis.

FedererUberAlles
07-03-2006, 10:57 PM
Thanks, FUE. I appreciate that the focus is back on tennis.

I really wasn't trying to derail, obviously, but I can't stand when people try to use "Life isn't fair" as an argument.

HollerOne5
07-04-2006, 12:37 AM
Bags and Fed will meet in the final
Bags will kick Nadals *****.
Fed will beat bags in 3.


Haha, there will not be a year where Bags makes the finals of 2 grand slams.

AAAA
07-04-2006, 06:19 AM
The attempt to homogenize the tennis courts is simply pure hypocrisy. No-one's making the clay-courts any faster, so it's BS to slow down the grass-courts. Let's have a lot of variety, so that tennis is fresh, and not the same thing year-round.

To all these disrespectful, historical ignoramus' who want to destroy Wimbledon's tradition, ach, I can't even say anything. It's just disgusting.



Tradition is the all white rule, the Royal Box, no play on middle sunday as a general rule, the grass courts, the lack of advertising billboards around the courts, etc. The court speed is not part of tradition and never has been.

FedererUberAlles
07-04-2006, 09:37 AM
Haha, there will not be a year where Bags makes the finals of 2 grand slams.

Baghdatis is pretty damned good, and in a few years, I don't see why he won't be having consistent results. I see a resemblance between him and Nalbandian.

TXKiteboarder
07-04-2006, 03:40 PM
Good heavens, this thread has taken a strange turn, and now I am bummed that it began with someone quoting from my post. Here I was talking about following tennis in a broader sense than just Federer vs. Nadal and what do we get? A bitter - and hurtful - altercation between a Federer fan and Nadal fan. I will now go and sulk in my corner.


seriously dude, you dont want to be in the middle when these fed and rafa hooligans get into a brawl. I have my bias like how much I dislike orgasmopova but forget to show thanks to Martina Navratilova, who has been playing professional tennis for over 30years.