Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by sureshs, Jul 1, 2006.
I think he will.
if the odds is 1:20, I can win $100 back.
Not this year...I don't think he will make it past the quarterfinals.
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.
Who has he beat on grass that's worth mentioning?
Rafa beating Fed on grass would mean the birth of a new era in tennis; that's all I can say!
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?
What makes Agassi worth mentioning? All I can remember is his straight sets loss to Henman, and a couple tough matches against two nobodies.
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.
i would love to see it,but he isnt strong enough yet on grass to win.
i think fed will win the French before Nadal wins Wimby
Are you people on crazy pills?
Nadal fans look past all that. It's agassi! He's ageless and should beat everyone!
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.
My sentiments exactly...however...NADAL WILL WIN THE US OPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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. ;-)
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.
Hewitt will have something to say about that.I dont care about queens, i thought Hewitt had alot of chances and couldnt convert.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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 . . .
I am not sure how to interpret that, sorry.
I know what I meant, but I think leaving it ambiguous is best . . .
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.
Don't be a wimp. Either have the guts to state your point clearly or stop posting and wasting our time.
How am I wasting your time? Am I forcing you to read or respond to a post that wasn't directed to you?
Come on VamosRafa, tell me what you really meant, you arent scared of little me now are you.
That statement alone revealed to me how f'ed up this **** is.
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.
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.
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.
watch this video and tell me he doesn't stand three feet behind the baseline.
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
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.
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.
Why would it mean that everyone besides Nadal is really bad? Couldn't it just as easily be interpreted as Nadal is really good?
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!
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.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.