Is there a reason to watch the French when u know whos gonna win?

GameSampras · Feb 6, 2009

Bearing Injury, Who could possibly beat Nadal here especially after winning the AO and the momentum he has. Its going to be a very predictable and boring slam.

Just give Nadal his 5th RG and lets skip to Wimbeldon shall we? Nadal is so far ahead of the pack on this court its ridiculous.. He has no rival there. Its sad

Cesc Fabregas · Feb 6, 2009

Nadal is the overwheling favourite but its not a certainty Fed might beat Nadal at Rome or Monte Carlo and knock Nadal's confidence going into the french and Nadal is simply a joy to watch on clay.

edberg505 · Feb 6, 2009

GameSampras said:
Bearing Injury, Who could possibly beat Nadal here especially after winning the AO and the momentum he has. Its going to be a very predictable and boring slam.

Honestly this the most boring of the slams to me. I can sit and watch plenty of tennis for the AO, Wimby, and US. But the FO seriously bores me to tears. It always has and I'm not sure that ever will change. So, no it doesn't matter to me who is winning.

MajinX · Feb 6, 2009

GameSampras said:
Bearing Injury, Who could possibly beat Nadal here especially after winning the AO and the momentum he has. Its going to be a very predictable and boring slam.

Just give Nadal his 5th RG and lets skip to Wimbeldon shall we? Nadal is so far ahead of the pack on this court its ridiculous.. He has no rival there. Its sad

didnt u say the samething about the AO when Fed made it to the Semi's and u were like no1 else left can take him and look what happened, u were like might as well hand over the trophy to him blah blah lol. even if nadal is like 80% chance to win doesnt mean u dont watch. U never know what will happen because this is real life.

GameSampras · Feb 6, 2009

I will be surprised if Fed even makes the final. This loss at the AO I think will linger with Fed for quite some time over the course of the season.. I bet he runs into a great returner and who forces him into a crapload of UE's and beats him.

Cesc Fabregas · Feb 6, 2009

GameSampras said:
I will be surprised if Fed even makes the final. This loss at the AO I think will linger with Fed for quite some time over the course of the season.. I bet he runs into a great returner and who forces him into a crapload of UE's and beats him.

Agreed I can see a Nadal and Djoker final.

GameSampras · Feb 6, 2009

MajinX said:
didnt u say the samething about the AO when Fed made it to the Semi's and u were like no1 else left can take him and look what happened, u were like might as well hand over the trophy to him blah blah lol. even if nadal is like 80% chance to win doesnt mean u dont watch. U never know what will happen because this is real life.

Well I didnt think Nadal would be making the final to be honest. Must less beat Fed on HC after he played the longest match in AO history.

veroniquem · Feb 6, 2009

The reason is to admire the master of the surface teaching a clinic with each match. I can't wait

FuriousYellow · Feb 6, 2009

If all you care about is the end result of the tournament, probably not. If you enjoy watching tennis, absolutely. There are always great matches in any tourney, even if they aren't championship matches.

thejoe · Feb 6, 2009

No. I love tennis, so I'm looking forward to it.

veroniquem · Feb 6, 2009

FuriousYellow said:
If all you care about is the end result of the tournament, probably not. If you enjoy watching tennis, absolutely. There are always great matches in any tourney, even if they aren't championship matches.

Great answer, there is more to tennis than who will win in the end!

anointedone · Feb 6, 2009

I sort of see what you are saying. Still it is interesting to see which players might be making a move on clay to potentially threaten or challenge Nadal in the future. Interesting to see if Djokovic has made further progress on clay and even supplants Federer as the 2nd best clay courter, if Murray makes some big strides on clay, if Federer can remain one of the best on clay after a mediocre French Open performance last year. Also to see if Monfils can back up his surprising result last year, how Monfils and Simon translate onto clay, how Del Potro and Verdasco will perform on clay. Lots of reasons to watch.

seffina · Feb 6, 2009

Of course there is a reason. Some of us enjoy the kind of tennis that is played on clay compared to the other surfaces. It's my second favorite surface to watch.

I also want to see some of the newbies progress on clay. Want to see Monfils and Djokovic further their game.

And I enjoy watching Nadal playing his best.

So there are plenty of reasons if you're a tennis fan.

fantom · Feb 6, 2009

Have you never watched sports before? Have you ever heard of the miracle on ice? How about Buster Douglas over Mike Tyson?

There's always a favorite, but anybody has a chance to win.

This is the nature of sports. If It's boring to you, then go watch a Lifetime original movie or something.

GameSampras · Feb 6, 2009

fantom said:
Have you never watched sports before? Have you ever heard of the miracle on ice? How about Buster Douglas over Mike Tyson?

There's always a favorite, but anybody has a chance to win.

This is the nature of sports. If It's boring to you, then go watch a Lifetime original movie or something.

Tyson was a nutcase first of all and didnt take the match seriously with Buster and appeared to be a bit out of shape. Nadal is NONE OF THESE. Hes the mentally toughest player on tour and is always ready to play

kimbahpnam · Feb 6, 2009

You can watch it for the tennis being played.

Oui c'est moi. · Feb 6, 2009

^Agreed. Even if you don't like Nadal the FO is worth watching. He plays a max of 7 matches, there are so many other matches going on the entire tourney. And i love the clay season, esp after a barrage of HCs it's nice to get away from that.

fps · Feb 6, 2009

Oui said:
^Agreed. Even if you don't like Nadal the FO is worth watching. He plays a max of 7 matches, there are so many other matches going on the entire tourney. And i love the clay season, esp after a barrage of HCs it's nice to get away from that.

lol marat didn't actually say that quote in your sig did he?!

aldeayeah · Feb 6, 2009

Honestly this the most boring of the slams to me. I can sit and watch plenty of tennis for the AO, Wimby, and US. But the FO seriously bores me to tears. It always has and I'm not sure that ever will change. So, no it doesn't matter to me who is winning.

I grew up watching the FO, because Spanish players did well on clay, and now the clay court grinding is imprinted in my brain as the one way to play tennis... gimme long rallies over S&V any day of the week.

For the Americans who grew up watching the deeds of Pistol Pete it must look slow as hell, though.

RoddickAce · Feb 6, 2009

Well, just because there is a heavy favourite doesn't mean we can't enjoy the brilliant tennis that goes on.

Oui c'est moi. · Feb 6, 2009

fps said:
lol marat didn't actually say that quote in your sig did he?!

Haha, no.
But i think it's still true, Roger really could write a song (or three) about playing Nadal.

edberg505 · Feb 6, 2009

aldeayeah said:
I grew up watching the FO, because Spanish players did well on clay, and now the clay court grinding is imprinted in my brain as the one way to play tennis... gimme long rallies over S&V any day of the week.

For the Americans who grew up watching the deeds of Pistol Pete it must look slow as hell, though.

Why not a mix of both? Some of the better matches I saw were between 2 different styles. Eberg vs. Chang, Lendl vs. Becker, Sampras vs. Agassi, Edberg vs. Courier. I like seeing the contrast in styles not two guys hitting the ball 6 ft. above the net running them down left and right. Nor do I like seeing a straight up serve fest.

Mick · Feb 6, 2009

sure.
people also buy dvd of tennis matches where the outcomes are known.
at least with the 2009 FO, there is a small uncertainty as to who would win

myservenow · Feb 6, 2009

For me it really all depends on what time the matches will be shown on the East Coast of the USA.

I lost a lot of sleep during the AO getting up at 3:30 a.m. on multiple occasions to watch Fed, Nadal, etc. play their matches live. I still haven't recovered from getting up at 3:30 a.m. to watch the final and then on top of that get so emotionally charged up about the whole thing that early in the day.

I agree that, barring injury or an act of God, Nadal is the hands down overwhelming favorite to run roughshod over everyone at the FO.

So, to answer the OP, yes, I'll keep informed of the results and watch live if the timing is right on the East Coast. But, I won't get as involved with the FO as I did the AO. No real drama with what is about to happen in Paris.

Come Wimbledon and USO, I'll be back in full bore.

COPEY · Feb 6, 2009

fantom said:
Have you never watched sports before? Have you ever heard of the miracle on ice? How about Buster Douglas over Mike Tyson?

There's always a favorite, but anybody has a chance to win.

This is the nature of sports. If It's boring to you, then go watch a Lifetime original movie or something.

LOL good points, of course, but that line about watching a Lifetime orig movie kind of caught me off-guard lol.

P_Agony · Feb 7, 2009

There is no reason to watch the French. I actually think Federer could give Nadal trouble or even beat him there if he's mentally strong, but given his current state, it's not going to happen.

Given that the FO is also IMO the most boring major to watch, I may pass it, or watch just the matches of my favorites. Wimbeldon I don't like too much either. I'd take HC over clay or grass any day.

fps · Feb 7, 2009

there are lots of reasons to watch the FO. it's not just the final that's worth watching!! At AO, 2 best matches were Nadal-Verdasco and Gasquet-Gonzalez, for instance (alright, the final comes 3rd).

raiden031 · Feb 7, 2009

fps said:
there are lots of reasons to watch the FO. it's not just the final that's worth watching!! At AO, 2 best matches were Nadal-Verdasco and Gasquet-Gonzalez, for instance (alright, the final comes 3rd).

Its funny that the final will likely be one of the least interesting / most disappointing matches of the tourney like its been the last couple years

tangerine · Feb 7, 2009

It's always worth watching a clay genius at work. You clearly aren't a tennis fan if you don't enjoy watching a master perform at his best.

GameSampras said:
Bearing Injury, Who could possibly beat Nadal here especially after winning the AO and the momentum he has. Its going to be a very predictable and boring slam.

Just give Nadal his 5th RG and lets skip to Wimbeldon shall we? Nadal is so far ahead of the pack on this court its ridiculous.. He has no rival there. Its sad

The only thing's that sad is you wouldn't be saying any of this if it were Federer.

zagor · Feb 7, 2009

tangerine said:
It's always worth watching a clay genius at work. You clearly aren't a tennis fan if you don't enjoy watching a master perform at his best.

The only thing's that sad is you wouldn't be saying any of this if it were Federer.

Look at his username and think again.If he's a Fed fan I'm a fan of Greg Rusedski.

veroniquem · Feb 7, 2009

tangerine said:
It's always worth watching a clay genius at work. You clearly aren't a tennis fan if you don't enjoy watching a master perform at his best.

The only thing's that sad is you wouldn't be saying any of this if it were Federer.

So true! The same guys who are loudly complaining about Rafa's domination of RG being supremely boring have found Wimbledon massively exciting for the whole 5 years that Federer was totally unbeatable there, same story with the USO!!

Dilettante · Feb 7, 2009

Is there a reason to watch the French when u know whos gonna win?

Tennis.

10 char.

NamRanger · Feb 7, 2009

GameSampras said:
Tyson was a nutcase first of all and didnt take the match seriously with Buster and appeared to be a bit out of shape. Nadal is NONE OF THESE. Hes the mentally toughest player on tour and is always ready to play

U.S. was a massive underdog against The Soviet Union in Hockey. We all know how that turned out. And it's not like The Soviet Union didn't show up to play either.

federerdomination · Feb 7, 2009

Yes so I can see Federer win

Anyways, the hockey example is good - all this is speculation and u never know what will happen

Zaragoza · Feb 7, 2009

GameSampras said:
Bearing Injury, Who could possibly beat Nadal here especially after winning the AO and the momentum he has. Its going to be a very predictable and boring slam.

Just give Nadal his 5th RG and lets skip to Wimbeldon shall we? Nadal is so far ahead of the pack on this court its ridiculous.. He has no rival there. Its sad

Did you watch Wimbledon in the 90's?

stician · Feb 7, 2009

I watch slams for great matches throughout the tournament. Match ups get good as early as the 4th round at a major. So yeah I would watch it even if Nadal is the favorite to win.

Big-Serve · Feb 7, 2009

I think that Novak will bring Rafa in a very dangerous situation this year at the French Open!

Leublu tennis · Feb 7, 2009

How is Verdasco on clay? He should have knocked off Nadal at the AO. But, with more experience I think he will play better.

zagor · Feb 7, 2009

Zaragoza said:
Did you watch Wimbledon in the 90's?

Good comeback but it wasn't exactly the same as Sampras was upset by Krajicek in '96 and was pushed to five sets by Goran in '95 and '98,he also never won Wimbledon without losing a set.Nadal on the other hand won FO last year without even losing a set(losing a really low total number of games as well)and so far nobody was able to push him to five sets at the FO.I've never seen anyone dominate any surface the way Nadal dominates clay.

Cloudy · Feb 7, 2009

the French is my fave slam by a long way. I can't wait.

edberg505 · Feb 7, 2009

zagor said:
Good comeback but it wasn't exactly the same as Sampras was upset by Krajicek in '96 and was pushed to five sets by Goran in '95 and '98,he also never won Wimbledon without losing a set.Nadal on the other hand won FO last year without even losing a set(losing a really low total number of games as well)and so far nobody was able to push him to five sets at the FO.I've never seen anyone dominate any surface the way Nadal dominates clay.

Pretty much what I was going to say. But like I said before, I'm not the biggest fan of clay court tennis anyways. So it really wouldn't matter who is playing. I guess I'll only be watching Tsonga and Gasquet play to see how they handle the pressure. Hopefully they're both fit enough to participate this year.

edberg505 · Feb 7, 2009

Leublu tennis said:
How is Verdasco on clay? He should have knocked off Nadal at the AO. But, with more experience I think he will play better.

See FO 2008 and you will have your answer.

veroniquem · Feb 7, 2009

Leublu tennis said:
How is Verdasco on clay? He should have knocked off Nadal at the AO. But, with more experience I think he will play better.

With more experience? Lol, Verdasco is 3 years older than Rafa. You're putting too much hope on the face of one match that Verdasco didn't even win. That loss to Rafa is gonna hurt him more than you think.

zagor · Feb 7, 2009

edberg505 said:
Pretty much what I was going to say. But like I said before, I'm not the biggest fan of clay court tennis anyways. So it really wouldn't matter who is playing. I guess I'll only be watching Tsonga and Gasquet play to see how they handle the pressure. Hopefully they're both fit enough to participate this year.

Clay was never my preffered surface to watch as well but I'll still watch FO even though it is pretty obvious who is going to win(barring some miracle).If you watch the whole tournament there are bound to be some good and exciting matches.For example the best match for me at AO(besides Nadal-Verdasco semi)was Gasquet-Gonzo(even though it was 2n round I think),it was so great to watch Gasquet coming to the net all the time,even chip and charging.I don't watch tennis just for top players,there are plenty of guys outside top 5 who are capable of producing great matches as well.Plus I always enjoy to watch Fed regardless of the surface or the opponent,same for some other players like Tsonga,Nalbandian,Gasquet,Ancic etc.

Al Czervik · Feb 7, 2009

Great question. In fact, after the Australian, I got depressed thinking this exact same thing. Somebody might take a set from Rafa if they get hot. But three sets, forget it. He is too damn good. I think I'll watch to see who else competes. I think Fed will cash out in the round of 16 or so. Maybe a Verdasco or somebody can get hot and give Rafa a tough semi or final.

zapvor · Feb 7, 2009

FuriousYellow said:
If all you care about is the end result of the tournament, probably not. If you enjoy watching tennis, absolutely. There are always great matches in any tourney, even if they aren't championship matches.

my sentiments exactly. allez!

0d1n · Feb 7, 2009

Hmmm, my reason would be that I enjoy playing and watching good tennis.
Your reason for not watching is probably because you prefer making an arse out of yourself (through your lack of tennis knowledge and intelligence) on a tennis related forum.
To each their own I say ...

Edit.
I'm convinced Sampras would have given Nadal a run for his money in the Roland Garros final, and would have made it competitive...unlike Federer. Oh wait ... no... he probably would have lost in the second round to Ramon Delgado...bummer.

edberg505 · Feb 7, 2009

zagor said:
Clay was never my preffered surface to watch as well but I'll still watch FO even though it is pretty obvious who is going to win(barring some miracle).If you watch the whole tournament there are bound to be some good and exciting matches.For example the best match for me at AO(besides Nadal-Verdasco semi)was Gasquet-Gonzo(even though it was 2n round I think),it was so great to watch Gasquet coming to the net all the time,even chip and charging.I don't watch tennis just for top players,there are plenty of guys outside top 5 who are capable of producing great matches as well.Plus I always enjoy to watch Fed regardless of the surface or the opponent,same for some other players like Tsonga,Nalbandian,Gasquet,Ancic etc.

Yeah, it seems like Gasquet has found a new interest in serving and volleying. I hope he keeps doing it and doesn't shy away. I already liked watching him play but I'd enjoy watching him more if he were to keep doing it.

NamRanger · Feb 7, 2009

Because a miracle could happen, Federer could go into 2005 mode and Nadal could have an off day. It's possible for Nadal to lose; he isn't invincible.

Mick · Feb 7, 2009

if a person doesn't watch a tennis tournament because he knows someone is going to win, that person probably would not have watched tennis for the last seven or eight years

during those times, we pretty much knew that nadal was going to win the FO and federer was going to win everything else !

Is there a reason to watch the French when u know whos gonna win?

Banned

Legend

Legend

Professional

Banned

Legend

Banned

Bionic Poster

Professional

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Banned

Legend

Legend

Professional

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Rookie

Legend

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Similar threads