emerckx53
Semi-Pro
See above...
Darren Cahill - Fed Would Not Have Beaten Rafa
- Thread starter Antonio Puente
- Start date
See above...
But you know what? Nadal wasn't there today. He couldn't even play. If Rafa was allowed to magically show up for the final, what does Cahill think, that Nadal would have won?
Federer won his 6th Wimbledon title today. Nadal did not win Wimbledon today. Facts are facts!!!
Why are we comparing Fed's play today against Roddick vs last year's final against Nadal? !? !? ?! ?? !? !? !? !? !
And Cahill is similar to some others who thought they were finally able to push Fed aside last year. Nadal has been "their" guy for a while. Perhaps Cahill is now thinking it's too bad he didn't go with Fed when he had the chance, instead of coaching the adidas crop of crap he's stuck with.
GameSampras
Banned
The way Fed was playing today? hell no he wouldnt have beaten Rafa. Unlike Roddick, Nadal wouldnt choke all those set points away and his return was superior to Roddick who couldnt return a Fed serve to save his life.
And what exactly was Roddick doing at the net? How many times did he leave the court open for Roger to hit a winner?
Nadal in an easy 4 sets at the most today against Fed the way he was playing
And what exactly was Roddick doing at the net? How many times did he leave the court open for Roger to hit a winner?
Nadal in an easy 4 sets at the most today against Fed the way he was playing
vtmike
Banned
I disagree...Roddick would've cleaned Nadal in straight sets!
Infact even Soderling might have taken out Nadal in Round 4 or something...
Last edited:
Pretty sure you're not giving Roddick any credit. I think it's hard to say someone who served 50 aces and hit 107 winners (most of them were quite incredible) played badly.
egn
Hall of Fame
Amen. Injuries are something athletes have to deal with.
Lol I just read all of GameSampras' posts in his threads over the final and I can't help but crack up. Hey Game it's okay that your boy is not the record holder just be like the *******s and say "slam total does not make one the greatest" sheesh.
viktorkwan
Rookie
It's pointless for Darren Cahill to say whether Fed couldn't have beaten whoever etc in the final with the way he played...
A tennis match is a match-up between 2 individuals and leaving tennis talent and skills aside, sometimes it's a matter of who has a better day, a luckier day or has more heart full stop.
A win is a win no matter how easy you make it look or the fact that you had to battle through 5 sets in almost 4 hours etc.
Would Fed use the same tactics he did against Roddick if he were to play Nadal? or if he were to play Murray?
Most probably not.
So there's no point talking about what would have happened had Fed played someone else.
I personally respect Cahill for what he's achieved with Hewitt and Agassi and now Verdasco through the Adidas programme...but he should really put some thought into it before going on and on about nothing at all...
A tennis match is a match-up between 2 individuals and leaving tennis talent and skills aside, sometimes it's a matter of who has a better day, a luckier day or has more heart full stop.
A win is a win no matter how easy you make it look or the fact that you had to battle through 5 sets in almost 4 hours etc.
Would Fed use the same tactics he did against Roddick if he were to play Nadal? or if he were to play Murray?
Most probably not.
So there's no point talking about what would have happened had Fed played someone else.
I personally respect Cahill for what he's achieved with Hewitt and Agassi and now Verdasco through the Adidas programme...but he should really put some thought into it before going on and on about nothing at all...
good to know you just read scores and dont actually watch matches
nadal was broken that game, he just happened to break back
:\
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Wow, did you watch a different match all together? Andy clearly gave away that tie break LOL
Winners or Errors
Legend
If he said that, he was smokin' something in the booth. Roddick would have beaten Nadal quicker than he lost to Federer today. Just incendiary remarks to sell something...
matchmaker
Hall of Fame
He wouldn't have hit 50 aces that's for sure...
And that being the quintessential reason he won, yes, one could wonder what would have happened if he played Nadal...
But hypotheses are not reality.
And that being the quintessential reason he won, yes, one could wonder what would have happened if he played Nadal...
But hypotheses are not reality.
GameSampras
Banned
50 aces and over 100 winners against Roddick, the king of crappy movement and poor return of serve. That wouldnt of happened against Rafa. Who is far superior to Roddick in every way when it comes to movement and anticipation
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
nadal woudln't have even gotten past wawrinka or hewitt.
Polaris
Hall of Fame
Cahill may be right, assuming that the "Rafa" he meant was a healthy Rafa from last year.
A lot of posters - both positive and negative - tend to forget an essential aspect of Federer's game when they say that "Roger played great today" or "Roger was dishing out crap today". They forget that unlike most players who play almost the same game against all opponents, Federer is known to vary his approach depending on the opponent. This includes amount of spin, return strategy, rallying strategy, amount of depth, etc. The only other top player who does that as obviously as Federer is Andy Murray (though Roddick should be given an honorable mention in the light of recent events). Federer has gone so far as to admit that he needs a particular kind of opponent in order to play a great match.
People who say "Roger was so bad today that he would be creamed by XYZ" or "Roger in this form would murder XYZ" are missing the fact that Federer's game adapts to the match-up. I'm not saying anything original. Laver has pointed out the same thing, in much more eloquent terms.
The point is that he showed up for the final. Rafa didn't. Murray didn't. Roddick did and put a mighty wrench into the works. It might not have been pretty tennis, but it was one hell of a competitive encounter.
A lot of posters - both positive and negative - tend to forget an essential aspect of Federer's game when they say that "Roger played great today" or "Roger was dishing out crap today". They forget that unlike most players who play almost the same game against all opponents, Federer is known to vary his approach depending on the opponent. This includes amount of spin, return strategy, rallying strategy, amount of depth, etc. The only other top player who does that as obviously as Federer is Andy Murray (though Roddick should be given an honorable mention in the light of recent events). Federer has gone so far as to admit that he needs a particular kind of opponent in order to play a great match.
People who say "Roger was so bad today that he would be creamed by XYZ" or "Roger in this form would murder XYZ" are missing the fact that Federer's game adapts to the match-up. I'm not saying anything original. Laver has pointed out the same thing, in much more eloquent terms.
The point is that he showed up for the final. Rafa didn't. Murray didn't. Roddick did and put a mighty wrench into the works. It might not have been pretty tennis, but it was one hell of a competitive encounter.
Last edited:
feetofclay
Semi-Pro
Lawrence, don't make assumptions that you can't substantiate. If you had read a previous post you would have seen this,
Originally Posted by Rhino
"Not true, Nadal was broken once in that match (he broke back)."
My reply,
"Apologies. I had forgotten that, selective memory on my part."
Originally Posted by Rhino
"Not true, Nadal was broken once in that match (he broke back)."
My reply,
"Apologies. I had forgotten that, selective memory on my part."
yes,... Nadal announces withdrawal from Wimbledon 2009 shortly after losing to Hewitt, saying that was the final test.
This is a great post. I am sure if Murray had made the final Roger would have come out guns blazing like he did at the US Open to prove a point. I honestly don't think he expected Roddick to play as well as he did, but props to him for coming through in the end.
Sure, but Rafa with tendinitis < king of crappy movement.
Also, if you watched this tournament you'd know Roddick is ATM far from the worst mover on tour.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
If Cahill said that, then I say Cahill was simply reaching toward fantasy-laced conjecture because he had his nose up Murray's oaf ass the entire tournament, and all but said he would win if he faced Federer in the final. Since Murray was a (predictable) total failure, Cahill has to say something---anything to ease the pain of Federer dominating, hence the Nadal fantasy.
Nadal couldnt beat hewitt or stan in an exo. What makes Cahill think that by the end of the 2 weeks playing best of 5 set matches that nadal would have the knees to even stand.
