TacoBellBorderBowl1946
Professional
And loses to Federer in 4 sets. U heard it here first
Not likely to happen but possible. It's also possible Roddick loses in second round. :evil:
You made this thread 5 years late..
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---**** ***!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a thread on Roddick. Stop changing the subject.its also likely nadal wont be the #1 player in the world after this...
This is a thread on Roddick. Stop changing the subject.
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.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.
Don't worry, people who claim they said it first are ALWAYS wrong (except me).wats with the obsession of saying things first.... someone wanna explain?
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). 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.
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.?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.
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.
2 more matches. I like him against both Hewitt and Murray. Great match against Berdych
one more match and he's there. He will have to play really better though.
200mph serve + 107mph forehand = victory over Fed in 3. Pray for death.
Good call Taco,
except 3 is more l;ike it.
I think your prediction is good, but i'm saying Federer will beat him in 3.
You mean like that one?