Excluding Fed, who has the best shot at beating Nadal at the French Open?
- Thread starter jamespolk
- Start date
maneater
Semi-Pro
Naaaahhh..2008 is Rafa's and probably Wimbledon too! He should have won it this year, Fed was soo lucky where as Federer wasn't even close to beating Rafa in French.
I think Fed will win about 2 slams max this year, I hope im right for the love of the excitement of the game, and for my sanity...Fed, try play Golf or something, he looks like a Golf player... (boring) give the other dudes a chance!
I think Fed will win about 2 slams max this year, I hope im right for the love of the excitement of the game, and for my sanity...Fed, try play Golf or something, he looks like a Golf player... (boring) give the other dudes a chance!
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
Maybe a motivated Nalbandian. He's already proven himself on hard court. I don't know how he'll fare on clay.
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
Lol! A golf player! He should do a charity golf event with Ivan Lendl and Michael Chang!
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
It's funny, that the die hard Nadal fans thinks he will be undefeated come 2008 at the French Open. His defeat will come to the most unlikely opponent other than Federer... :shock:
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
Or he should just...stop winning and start getting beat, somebody should forget to charge his battery now and then and make tennis exciting again!
Yeah, tennis is a bit of bore these days, with Federer and all of the same baseline retriever style from 90% of the players.
M
Morrissey
Guest
Uhh, no. The only way he doesn't win the French is if he's injured. The guy is money on clay. As for Nalby he's not a good clay courter, his best surface is indoor or fast hardcourt.
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
Uh.. believe what you want, but wait and see and maybe prove me wrong.
M
Morrissey
Guest
I don't have to believe anything, these are facts and I'm basing what I say on what has happened and is more than likely to happen again.
I posted this very same thing 12 months ago and the guy lost a bet with me and let me pick a Nadal pic for his avatar. He fulfilled his bet and disappeared ever since. (@wright)
Until someone beats him he's the man. If you state otherwise you'd be putting yourself behind the 8 ball. Same with Fed at Wimby.
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
I am going to be around, as long as god allows me. Lets wait and see....
No hard feelings, either way.
M
Morrissey
Guest
Yeah, same here. But Nadal is still the fave at the French though. ;-)
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
^^^
No arguments...
Most def, Nadal is the man to beat. But, I stand by what I said.
No arguments...
Most def, Nadal is the man to beat. But, I stand by what I said.
flyer
Hall of Fame
Well who exactly is this unlikely lose you seem to be predicting to? Because there are so many people that for the past 3 years have said Nadal will lose at the French and they will probably keep saying it for as long as he plays and eventually they will be right but not because they are smart, just because he can't win forever, so I'm wondering what your prediction is based on or if it is just a hunch thats a smudge above wishful thinking?
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
Nikolay Davydenko, Djokovic (he goes for both Fed and Rafa), Youzhny, Safin, Ferrer, Paul Henri Mathieiu (sp). Your right in terms of he can't win forever, and I don't think he will go 28-0 on the Paris Clay, come 2008. Those are the names that I comes to mind, but I am no expert, just my opinion. Time can only tell....
flyer
Hall of Fame
Wow I would say Youzhny, Safin, and Mathieu are quite a large large stretch considering the surface, but w/e I guess I can't tell you your wrong, just it seems to me your prediction is based on nothing more than wishful thinking
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
M
Morrissey
Guest
Of all the people on the list I would say that Joker and Davy would have the most realistic shot of taking a set off Nadal at the French in a best of 5 set match. Youzhny? He's on a 3 match losing streak vs Nadal. Losing on clay, grass and indoor for Christ's sake. How does he have a shot at being the one to beat Nadal at the French. Safin? I'll pretend you never said that. Mathieu if he gets far enough to meet up with Nadal again and he'll choke like he always does. Ferrer is best on HC, better traction and his shots travel quicker. On clay he has no weapons and slippery footing. Only Fed has enough to take Nadal down on clay and especially in a 5 set match that counts.
You know you could earn a lot of money betting on Nadal´s opponents in the first 4 rounds. Put your money where your feeling tells you, good luck with that.
Forget about Almagro, his mental age is not older than 12.
Monaco would need to play the match of his life to even have a chance but he is one of those 2nd tier players who can trouble anyone on clay.
Djokovic needs to improve a lot on clay to challenge Nadal.
Davydenko would be the only one of these with a good chance but he tends to choke against top players.
Last edited:
Nadal_Freak
Banned
I have a feeling the world going to blow up tomorrow as well. :lol: Nadal is money on clay and betting against him is stupid. It is all wishful thinking but the only way he goes down is injury. French Open clay is the perfect clay for Nadal. (slow and high bouncing)
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
Okay Morrisey, let's hold on to this and come back to it when the time comes. Deal? :twisted:
35201
Rookie
Maybe Ferrer, but very little chance. Federer really needs to perfect everything when he's Nadal, especially on clay. Sometimes Federer wins a match 6-0 6-1 and it just seems like he didn't even put much effort into flooring his oppenent. He can't do that against Nadal. Ferrer would have to match Nadal step by step to beat him, which I doubt he can do.
futuretoptenner
Semi-Pro
Murray could.
federerfanatic
Banned
Here is the order of best chance to beat Nadal on clay:
1. Federer
2. Ferrer
3. Nalbandian
4. Davydenko
5. Hewitt
I totally disagree with Baghdatis. Baghdatis cant even beat Nadal on hard courts, and cant even get a set off him on grass. Djokovic? I am not sure of his ability on clay yet, despite making the French semis yet.
1. Federer
2. Ferrer
3. Nalbandian
4. Davydenko
5. Hewitt
I totally disagree with Baghdatis. Baghdatis cant even beat Nadal on hard courts, and cant even get a set off him on grass. Djokovic? I am not sure of his ability on clay yet, despite making the French semis yet.
Nadal isn't "money on clay", and luck had nothing to do with Federer beating Nadal at Wimbledon. Federer was simply amazing, clutch, great. That's why he's a candidate for GOAT. Federer beat Nadal at Hamburg, and had a good plan at the FO, with all those break-points; just didn't execute well that day. It happens. Nadal is not invincible on clay.
Nadal's other problems are simply that his body isn't holding up, and he isn't doing a good job of managing things. He is simply injury-prone, due to the way he plays.
Nadal's other problems are simply that his body isn't holding up, and he isn't doing a good job of managing things. He is simply injury-prone, due to the way he plays.
I think if Fed had a good plan at RG, Nadal had a better plan at Wimbledon. No, the kid is not invincible on clay, but nobody is on any surface. As it happens he is the best by far on clay, just as Federer is the best by far on grass.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Winning 81 straight matches on clay is close to money as there is. lol Hamburg is not the traditional clay (high bounces) that Roland Garros is. No one has beaten Nadal on the high bouncing clay in 3 and a half years.
nadal_freak,
Winning 40-something straight on grass, including beating Nadal playing as good a game as he's ever going to play on grass, is "as close to money" as it gets under that criteria too (not to mention winning the AO without losing a set). Come to think of it, Federer's as close to money as it gets just about anywhere, given he's winning about 90% of his matches these last 3 years, with 3/4 slams in 3 of the last 4 years. The fact remains that no-one is invincible, and that trends can change at any time.
No-one would've thought Sampras' streak at Wimbledon would end by losing to Federer. That was a hell of a lot more of a surprise than it would be if Nadal lost at RG.
Aabye,
Yes, Nadal's plan at Wimbledon was that they would slow down the grass to further destroy the Wimbledon tradition and make Wimbledon the 2nd slowest slam, almost like green clay. Nevertheless, Nadal did have a good plan at Wimbledon, but he didn't have a better one than Fed did at the FO. He just executed better.
Winning 40-something straight on grass, including beating Nadal playing as good a game as he's ever going to play on grass, is "as close to money" as it gets under that criteria too (not to mention winning the AO without losing a set). Come to think of it, Federer's as close to money as it gets just about anywhere, given he's winning about 90% of his matches these last 3 years, with 3/4 slams in 3 of the last 4 years. The fact remains that no-one is invincible, and that trends can change at any time.
No-one would've thought Sampras' streak at Wimbledon would end by losing to Federer. That was a hell of a lot more of a surprise than it would be if Nadal lost at RG.
Aabye,
Yes, Nadal's plan at Wimbledon was that they would slow down the grass to further destroy the Wimbledon tradition and make Wimbledon the 2nd slowest slam, almost like green clay.
Nevertheless, Nadal did have a good plan at Wimbledon, but he didn't have a better one than Fed did at the FO. He just executed better.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Sampras never won 81 straight on grass and he was getting old. It was bound to happen. Yes Fed is almost automatic on grass as well but he almost lost to Nadal last year so it wouldn't be as much a surprise as Nadal losing at the French Open. Nothing is more automatic than Nadal at the French Open.nadal_freak,
Winning 40-something straight on grass, including beating Nadal playing as good a game as he's ever going to play on grass, is "as close to money" as it gets under that criteria too (not to mention winning the AO without losing a set). Come to think of it, Federer's as close to money as it gets just about anywhere, given he's winning about 90% of his matches these last 3 years, with 3/4 slams in 3 of the last 4 years. The fact remains that no-one is invincible, and that trends can change at any time.
No-one would've thought Sampras' streak at Wimbledon would end by losing to Federer. That was a hell of a lot more of a surprise than it would be if Nadal lost at RG.
Aabye,
Yes, Nadal's plan at Wimbledon was that they would slow down the grass to further destroy the Wimbledon tradition and make Wimbledon the 2nd slowest slam, almost like green clay.
The courts at Wimbledon are still faster than the Australian Open and most hard courts out there. Nadal just feels more comfortable on grass than hard courts. Grass takes spin better as you can't tee off on it as much as on hard courts.
Only because there isn't much grass-court tennis. Winning 5 Wimbledon slams in a row is a hell of a lot more impressive than 81 straight clay-court matches, and also more impressive than 3 RG in a row.
Last year, Wimby was slower than the AO. And also, Wimbledon grass courts aren't supposed to take spin very well and let the balls bounce up so high. It is supposed to be a low-bouncing surface. Another *******ization of it.
Jonnyf
Hall of Fame
Exactly as I was going to post, A serious question, would Nadal retain the number 2 ranking if their wasn't as many clay masters and clay tournaments? Their is basically a clay tournament every few weeks in the tennis calender. Think of grass theirs what (point counting tournaments ie. not Boodles..) Nottingham, Halle,Queens and Newport. No masters series. How many clay masters are their?
Winning Wimbledon 5 years in a row is FAR more impressive than the 81 matches on clay. If Grass was as fast as it was in even 2000 Nadal wouldn't have got to the final imo.
What are you talking about?
Hardcourts: 2 Slams, Masters Cup, 6 Masters Series.
Clay: 1 Slam,3 Masters Series.
Why you ask that being Nadal´s worst surface ridiculously dominant in the tour? If anything, you should ask how close he would be to no.1 if there were not so many hardcourt events.
And just to let you know, in terms of ranking points Nadal has been the 2nd best on grass and the 3rd best on hardcourts this year so you do the math.
Jonnyf
Hall of Fame
I was talking about grass and Clay, He was the 2nd best on grass after he played how many events? I don't think he would be 2nd if their were more grass tournaments
Ok that´s wishful thinking. I was talking of facts.
Jonnyf
Hall of Fame
I was being hypothetical with my entire post, didn't you get that?
Nobody is invincible on any surface but Nadal won 81 matches in a row playing the biggest clay events, not small tournaments with weak draws to enhance his streak, and he didn´t need to play a 5th set in 3 years at R.Garros. Nobody else can say that on any surface.
So you can say he is amazing and great at R.Garros, don´t be shy...
Yes I did, I just thought that your hypothesis didn´t make much sense given the tournaments Nadal plays on each surface and his results.
Jonnyf
Hall of Fame
Fair point, but I meant what would happen if their was for example less Clay tournaments and more grass tournaments. I personally feel his ranking could in all probability be different, you may disagree fair enough as is life.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
5 slams equals 35 straight wins. 81 wins>35 wins. Though Sampras's longevity is very impressive, I would say Nadal has dominated his 3 slams more than Sampras ever did with Wimbledon.
Taking spin well has to do with the surface giving unpredictable bounces due to the spin. Hard courts don't do that and therefore players can take the ball early and overpower Nadal from the baseline. Nadal is learning to do that as well but that goes against his instinct of being a grinder in nature.
Roger is Boring
Rookie
Nobody.
10char
10char
Babolast
Legend
Dont count on it..
