Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by TacoBellBorderBowl1946, Jun 21, 2009.
And loses to Federer in 4 sets. U heard it here first
wats with the obsession of saying things first.... someone wanna explain?
because if the prediction came true, people would think you're nostradamus the 2nd
I am a huge roddick fan. Can he get by del potro in the quarters and murray in the semis (if draw goes as planned). I am not sure. He is playing great but the crowd will really support Murray.
delpo is new on grass and murray pushes sometimes. If murray and andy play i think its 50/50, depending on how andy hits his forehand.
meh, could be.
but if you are wrong, then what?
Not likely to happen but possible. It's also possible Roddick loses in second round. :evil:
Semifinals will be:
Roddick - Gonzo / Haas - Roger
I don't like Roddick much..but I'm with you!!!
Go Andy Roddick!!!!!
I think your prediction is good, but i'm saying Federer will beat him in 3.
I feel like Roddick is bound to win Wimby sometime and now is his time. I say Roddick wins final in straight sets. He's never very good after he drops a set.
its also likely nadal wont be the #1 player in the world after this...
You made this thread 5 years late..
That's mean. Poor Andy Roddick. Just wait.
Would love to see Andy go deep , much better to watch than many
I love this prediction. Most are making "predictions" about a Fed-Murray final. As if that could even be called a prediction. This prediction, though, has stones. It has a massive amount of cajones, as they say. I hope this is right, just so TW posters can suck it.
That being said, I'm going with Murray in the semi against Roddick to make it to the final---aw, screw it. I'm with you, OP, except I'm going with Roddick the whole way. Let's just go for broke. Go Andy!
By the way, this one's for the haters---**** ***!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmm, strange that got edited, except not
agree, roddick has the weapons, he just needs to use them
This is Roddick's year
If Roddick can play consistently like he did in the AO he will be through to the semis at least and then it is all about stepping up his game against Murray. However Roddick and Murray are not your most consistent slam performers lets see them both meet in the semis first.
This is a thread on Roddick. Stop changing the subject.
Looks like someone touched a sensitive nerve.
No. I just don't like people like you bashing Nadal in every thread just because they don't agree with what I said. Going off topic like everything is totally uncalled for.
The one silver lining of Nadal's sad injury situation and missing Wimbledon is he could be fresher than ever for the U.S Open. I hope so anyway! I would love to see him atleast make the final this year there, maybe even win and complete his own Career Slam.
It would be quite amazing to see 2 legends like Fed and Nadal complete the career slam in the same year.
Agassi's stock would drop quite a bit though if that happened even though he completed his career slam in way more polarizing conditions than Fed and (potentially if he wins USO)Nadal.
Some people think I come across as anti-Agassi but I am not. I look that way since I point out the deficits in his career and record compared to other truly great players which many of his supporters seem to ignore. I actualy liked him when he played and I was so annoyed with him just tanking all of 96-98 all because of one dissapointing U.S Open final loss. I do wish he had beaten Sampras in the 95 U.S Open final as I think his career might have been alot different if he had, but that was no excuse to throw away 3 or so years of what would have been the prime of his career (hence now saying he hardly a prime which is true). With Becker hardly playing after 95 (although the little tennis he played in 96 was probably his best tennis since 89 so such a shame he didnt stay healthy that year), Edberg retiring, Courier washed up, the game suffered tremendously with Agassi's slump. The popularity really dipped from 96-98 and the continuation of a Sampras and Agassi rivalry, with Chang playing well as well, would have been so much better for tennis as a whole as well as Agassi's own career. That is why it is kind of funny to see Kafelnikov or Krajicek types who won their slams during the Agassi sabatical (not saying Agassi would have stopped them but just saying this is what was filling the void during the Agassi MIA) glorified now as I remember when they won their slams and people tried to market them as new faces or stars of the game the tennis viewing public all seemed to yawn and ask where Becker and Agassi where. It would be funny to see what these same people gloriying them now really thought back then as well.
When analyzing his career his lack of dominance, his lack of success vs tough opponents (he was even owned by a prime Courier, and in big matches- not small tournaments like Murray vs Federer so far), and his terrible consistency by the very high standards given to a many time slam winner puts him another level altogether below the likes of Lendl, Connors, even McEnroe. Agassi's career slam was a great feat but I thought it was always excessively built up, and yes Federer and Nadal both completing it in the same year would drop his stock and the reverence given to that particular feat further. Djokovic or/and Murray could even complete the career slam someday too, and I think many will in the future.
Mind you if it wasnt for Agassi's career slam, say had he not won one of his 92 Wimbledon or his 99 French, he would probably now rank below Edberg, Becker, Wilander, all time. So clearly it did boost his career to what it would have been without it. Even with it he still should rank below Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors clearly thugh.
Don't worry, people who claim they said it first are ALWAYS wrong (except me).
Have to agree with most if not all of that.I think if he won USO '95 things could have definitely been different but you're right,for an all time great he never really had that period of domination and was very inconsistant during the whole 90s.He didn't even play his best slam-AO until he was like 25 or something for chrissake,had made lots of bad decisions and not enough dedication to the game when he was young.
Still,he did complete his career slam in really polarizing conditions and was the only one(alteast that I know of)who ever won Wimbledon on fast grass from the baseline,I always greatly respected that accomplishment.
He also had that great presence,tennis was just much richer with him around,not just because of his great game but amazing charisma as well.He certainly left a void when he left.
Then why do you keep doing it by saying that Nadal is a wimp, that he can only play on one very particular surface, with only one particular type of ball, in only one particular altitude, that he has a one-dimensional game, that he's in poor physical condition, that he has no stamina, that's he's mentally weak, that he's too emotional, etc.?
Yeah he was definitely a big star of the sport even in his twilight years. He always had that intangible star appeal that neither Sampras or Federer, as great as they are, ever really had. Which is another reason it is even sadder he did not carry out his true prime and the cream of his rivalry with Sampras all the way from 1995-1999 like it should have. He was working, competing, and completely professional in his approach from 1999 onwards the way he should have been from 1990 onwards at a much younger more athletically primed age.
Granted when you speak of winning the career slam in polarizing conditions, you know that only really is different at Wimbledon today and Federer has won Wimbledon 5 times so he was certain to have done it anyway. Who was going to stop him from winning even 1 Wimbledon amongst todays field, probably with the 90s grass he might have won maybe 6 since I grudgingly concede Nadal would probably find it tougher vs Federer on that grass, and that grass still probably wouldnt be enough to put say Roddick over the top vs Federer as the gap is just to much overall. In either case still many Wimbledons and definitely the career slam as the French Open courts are the same AFAIK. Nadal is too early to tell, first he has to complete the grand slam at the Open, then see what his Wimbledon record is in a few years to decide his likelihood to have won it on the old type of grass. Really Wimbledon up until a few years ago was the only grand slam surface changed though. Australian Open did change several years ago, but Federer won on the old rebound ace anyway, and Nadal would actually benefit from the old rebound ace vs the new AO courts.
2 more matches. I like him against both Hewitt and Murray. Great match against Berdych
Berdych was a big result for ARod. I like him a lot - he's my favourite American player, but his game is tailor made for Murray IMO.
one more match and he's there. He will have to play really better though.
Then it's all down to the score in sets to see who get's the perfect prediciton
Quit trying to copy me mate.
06-22-2009, 05:17 AM
It won't work for 2 purposes.. the date and the fact it ain't happening.
the thing is andy has to hit through his forehand to have a chanced
My prediction for the semi:
Andy will win (yes I know, gutsy )
Don't fall down off that limb you're going out on!
well im going with andy roddick. hes been my favorite player for a while and he lost last year because he pushed
but hes improved and if he hits through he can win
200mph serve + 107mph forehand = victory over Fed in 3. Pray for death.
I was right...... Tomorrow if andy plays well he can win it!!!!!!!!
200 mph serve? Pretty sure he set the all time record at 155mph...
Well Andy is going to need 200mph serve + nuclear forehands to beat JesusFed.
Good call Taco,
except 3 is more l;ike it.
You mean like that one?
Good call. Hope you had money on this prediction
I put money on Roddick winning the title. It was always unlikely
but at 34/1 it was worth a bet after all anything can happen.
Il be rooting for Roddick and my Money
but Roger should win this in three sets.
Roddick deserves this title more than anyone
but it's a shame Federer (his daddy) stands in the way.
Yeaahhh that's it
Separate names with a comma.