Hamburg Final: Federer (1) - Nadal (2)

[grafrules]

What do you think about Novak's chances if he plays Rafa again in the French open ?? French open is bit faster clay than Hamburg. Novak nearly beat Nadal yesterday, wonder if the faster clay would benefit Novak ??

French Open clay is NOT faster then Hamburg. Nadal is the favorite at the French over anyone.

 

[grafrules]

Other then those two, you have had guys like Gonzalez, Roddick, Baghdatis, Safin, Hewitt, and Djokovic, all who choked big time in those finals.

How do you choke when you get outplayed and get your ass handed to you as almost all of those guys did in those slam finals. Djokovic choked away 1 set, not the match, at the U.S Open. That is about it.

 

[zagor]

What do you think about Novak's chances if he plays Rafa again in the French open ?? French open is bit faster clay than Hamburg. Novak nearly beat Nadal yesterday, wonder if the faster clay would benefit Novak ??

FO will be higher bouncing,outdoors and best of five,IMO Nadal is even more of a favourite against Novak there then he was in Hamburg.

 

[grafrules]

FO will be higher bouncing,outdoors and best of five,IMO Nadal is even more of a favourite against Novak there then he was in Hamburg.

I agree totally.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

What do you think about Novak's chances if he plays Rafa again in the French open ?? French open is bit faster clay than Hamburg. Novak nearly beat Nadal yesterday, wonder if the faster clay would benefit Novak ??

I don't think it will. Roland Garros seems to be the highest bouncing of all the clay surfaces so I think a slightly faster but much higher bouncing surface would benefit Nadal.

 

[zagor]

How do you choke when you get outplayed and get your ass handed to you as almost all of those guys did in those slam finals. Djokovic choked away 1 set, not the match, at the U.S Open. That is about it.

Yeah,I'm sure Hewitt for example choked big time while he was getting double-bageled.In the USO final last year Djokovic choked only a first set IMO with 5 SPs on his own serve however those 2 SPs he had in the second set were on Fed's serve and I've seen Fed save tons of BPs with his serve since he entered his prime and became number one.So in my opinion Djokovic choked away one set,not the match.

 

[dh003i]

So your examples are based on a player in his first slam final (Djokovic) and in his first Masters final (Nadal) and those are supposed to be on par with Federers losing big leads in matches he has played many times before. Not to mention you have to go back over 3 years to come up with an example, and have it be one when the player was only 18 years old. The desperation from you *******s is truly a comedy act. Keep up the entertainment. By the way there is nothing called a puxxy.

Fed's one of the mentally strongest players on tour. Look, many other player against Nadal would have just packed it in, stopped even trying (this is also where I think Roddick deserves credit). I don't care how much talent Fed has, he wouldn't have 12 GS without being mentally strong; not even close. Maybe 3 or 4.

PS: Although I don't think Safin is as talented as Federer, as his fans seem to think, perhaps he is nearly so...he surely had enough talent in him for more than 2 GS. But Safin is a prime example of what happens when you have insane talent, but no work-ethic and little mental strength.

 

[zagor]

Fed's one of the mentally strongest players on tour. Look, many other player against Nadal would have just packed it in, stopped even trying (this is also where I think Roddick deserves credit). I don't care how much talent Fed has, he wouldn't have 12 GS without being mentally strong; not even close. Maybe 3 or 4.

I agree with you,anyone who knows anything about tennis realizes that talent alone(even as big as Fed's) is not enough to dominate the game like Fed did in the last 4 years and win so many slams,it's just not possible.But let the haters spew their venom,Roger will bounce back and shut them up anyway.

 

[dh003i]

Federer's victims within his 12 slams have all been mental has beens that he has owned. There were only two who could keep up with him, Nadal and Agassi. Nadal unfortunately didn't convert on the 3-4 chances he had in that 5th set, and Agassi was old and ran out of steam after the 3rd set tie breaker. Other then those two, you have had guys like Gonzalez, Roddick, Baghdatis, Safin, Hewitt, and Djokovic, all who choked big time in those finals.

Really, you would bet Federer to beat Nadal at the USO at this point? The same Federer that got destroyed by Mardy Fish and beat by a subpar Andy Roddick on HCs? I highly doubt that.

Yea, and to Fed's credit, to begin with, Nadal had his # on HC too, quite often. But lately, Fed's dominated their HC's. So how is that mentally weak? Sounds like overcoming adversity to me.

And look, a lot of other players, against Nadal, just would have gave up. They wouldn't be making it to clay-court finals. They wouldn't have the mental fortitude to "forget about" completely blowing the 1st set, and almost doing the same thing in the 2nd set, to win the tie-breaker.

As for Federer vs. Nadal at Wimbledon, imo, they have slowed down Wimbledon a lot. It's disgusting. It really should be a skidding, fast, low-bouncing surface. But it isn't what it was. It is more favorable to clay-courters. That said, I still think Nadal would have made the final, even with 1980's grass. I think Nadal's about as good a grass-courter as Bjorn Borg; that is, 2nd tier, all time...behind Federer, Sampras, Gonzales, Laver, McEnroe and a few others. But I just don't think he would have been as competitive with Fed on faster lower-bouncing grass.

None-the-less, even playing out of his mind on grass at the final -- it was clearly his best match of the tourney by far -- he still lost. And don't give me that, "it's because of injury" crap. Federer played some extremely clutch tennis to reverse things.

 

[slice bh compliment]

...I think Nadal's about as good a grass-courter as Bjorn Borg; that is, 2nd tier, all time...behind Federer, Sampras, Gonzales, Laver, McEnroe and a few others. .....

Yeah, Bjorn only won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, making him the most accomplished 2nd tier grass court player in history.

 

[Morrissey]

What do you think about Novak's chances if he plays Rafa again in the French open ?? French open is bit faster clay than Hamburg. Novak nearly beat Nadal yesterday, wonder if the faster clay would benefit Novak ??

I think Nadal would win in 4. The clay at RG bounces higher, its warmer than Hamburg and its most importantly outdoors in the middle of the day. And it´s a best of 5. It´s harder to beat Nadal in a best of 5 and on clay.

 

[superman1]

That said, I still think Nadal would have made the final, even with 1980's grass. I think Nadal's about as good a grass-courter as Bjorn Borg

Oh lord, you didn't just say that about a 5 time Wimbledon champion....

Nadal wouldn't have gotten anywhere with that grass and those racquets. Before the grass slowed down, baseliners couldn't do crap on grass. Borg served and volleyed, Lendl couldn't win it. Agassi was the only guy who won it, and Nadal doesn't have anything near Agassi's return of serve. Then they slowed the grass down for the baseliners and Hewitt was able to take it, and since then it has been a baseline fest.

 

[Morrissey]

Oh lord, you didn't just say that about a 5 time Wimbledon champion....

Nadal wouldn't have gotten anywhere with that grass and those racquets. Before the grass slowed down, baseliners couldn't do crap on grass. Borg served and volleyed, Lendl couldn't win it. Agassi was the only guy who won it, and Nadal doesn't have anything near Agassi's return of serve. Then they slowed the grass down for the baseliners and Hewitt was able to take it, and since then it has been a baseline fest.

I agree with alot of it until the end. It´s been a baseline fest since Hewitt because there´s no serve and volleyers anymore.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Oh lord, you didn't just say that about a 5 time Wimbledon champion....

Nadal wouldn't have gotten anywhere with that grass and those racquets. Before the grass slowed down, baseliners couldn't do crap on grass. Borg served and volleyed, Lendl couldn't win it. Agassi was the only guy who won it, and Nadal doesn't have anything near Agassi's return of serve. Then they slowed the grass down for the baseliners and Hewitt was able to take it, and since then it has been a baseline fest.

Wimbledon is still the fastest slam. It has the least break of serves. Maybe they made the surface a little less bad bouncing but it still is the hardest of all the slams to break.

 

[Morrissey]

Wimbledon is still the fastest slam. It has the least break of serves. Maybe they made the surface a little less bad bouncing but it still is the hardest of all the slams to break.

I´m not sure if that´s a known fact that Wimby is the hardest to break serve but it´s certainly not faster than the US Open.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

I´m not sure if that´s a known fact that Wimby is the hardest to break serve but it´s certainly not faster than the US Open.

All the stats say otherwise. 17% to 21% breaking percentage differential is a big difference from Wimbledon to the US Open. I don't think it's a coincidence. US Open makes it easier to take the ball early which makes it seem like a faster court.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

Federer should have win in straight or Nadal retired. :evil:

 

[veroniquem]

Federer should have win in straight or Nadal retired. :evil:

I'm sure that according to you Fed should always win. Well, he hasn't won much so far this year and it's not Nadal's fault, sorry.

 

[dh003i]

Yeah, Bjorn only won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, making him the most accomplished 2nd tier grass court player in history.

Maybe I should clarify. Accomplishment nad greatness wise, he's first tier, behind only Sampras and that guy from the 1800s who had as many Wimbledons than Sampras (William Renshaw).

But I think that talent wise, Borg wasn't a natural grass-court player, like Laver, Sampras, Federer.

 

[dh003i]

Oh lord, you didn't just say that about a 5 time Wimbledon champion....

Nadal wouldn't have gotten anywhere with that grass and those racquets. Before the grass slowed down, baseliners couldn't do crap on grass. Borg served and volleyed, Lendl couldn't win it. Agassi was the only guy who won it, and Nadal doesn't have anything near Agassi's return of serve. Then they slowed the grass down for the baseliners and Hewitt was able to take it, and since then it has been a baseline fest.

I was just talking about the speed of the grass....my point is that, without Federer, Nadal would be considered a great grasscourt player, building towards an all-time great grasscourt player.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

I'm sure that according to you Fed should always win. Well, he hasn't won much so far this year and it's not Nadal's fault, sorry.

According to me, you would shut up and stop quoting me! :evil:

Since when do I remotely blame Nadal for Federer's problem now. Like I said many times in other threads, it is all mental for King Fed. Great champs do get in a slump once and while and reemerge to play better, a recent example would be Tiger Woods.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

And when King Fed is playing better, Fedfans are not going to rub it in.

 

[vincent_tennis]

the injury t/o broke fed tempo =/

 

[Greenfin Beta]

Who cares what Agassi says(who actually played both prime Sampras and Federer),it's way more important what some internet hacks think here,their opinion has far greater value.

hahaha... you aren't serious, are you?

 

[Sentinel]

the injury t/o broke fed tempo =/

I was thinking that too, except that in the second set Fed was up 5-2, right. And once again he lost several games in a row and next thing it was 5-5.

On another note, what would have been most embarassing was if Nadal had retired after winning the first set 7-5.

 

[zagor]

hahaha... you aren't serious, are you?

I was being sarcastic because of all the "great internet experts" here claming that Federer is mentally weak and overrated which is IMO a huge load of BS,you don't dominate the way he has if you're not very mentally strong no matter how talented you are.

 

[ksbh]

ROFL! DUde, you're a riot!

raffa in 3 because he's tired, otherwise it would be Raffa in 2.

 

[ksbh]

Zagor ... what about Mats Wilander who happens to be a former tennis great? He ain't no 'internet expert'. Mats said Federer's balls shrink against Nadal. And surely, Federer's proved that so many times now that even his most ardent fans ought to accept Mats remarks?!

I was being sarcastic because of all the "great internet experts" here claming that Federer is mentally weak and overrated which is IMO a huge load of BS,you don't dominate the way he has if you're not very mentally strong no matter how talented you are.

 

[ksbh]

Federer would have beat the cr*p out of Tsonga had they played in the Australian Open final.

Looking back I would have liked to see a match between Federer and Tsonga in the AO of after for that matter

 

[zagor]

Zagor ... what about Mats Wilander who happens to be a former tennis great? He ain't no 'internet expert'. Mats said Federer's balls shrink against Nadal. And surely, Federer's proved that so many times now that even his most ardent fans ought to accept Mats remarks?!

Your tennis great Mats Wilander also said that Fededer is much better then your idol Sampras,so If you're gonna value his opinion,value all of it not just parts that suit your agenda.Also Wilander has never played neither Federer nor Nadal while Agassi on the other hand has played Sampras,Federer and Nadal so he is more suitable to give his opinion and overall I value Agassi's opinion more then Wilander's because I think Agassi has better understanding of the game(in my opinion not saying it's a fact).

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Federer would have beat the cr*p out of Tsonga had they played in the Australian Open final.

Yep but someone got in the way of that.

 

[veroniquem]

According to me, you would shut up and stop quoting me! :evil:

Since when do I remotely blame Nadal for Federer's problem now. Like I said many times in other threads, it is all mental for King Fed. Great champs do get in a slump once and while and reemerge to play better, a recent example would be Tiger Woods.

You forced my remark by claiming that Nadal SHOULD have retired which is unacceptable since no player should ever retire in an important final unless they really can't move and Nadal is brave enough that he would never chicken out of a match like that (remember Wimbledon?) and would always finish the match with or without pain. It is something to be admired for not criticized for. If you don't want to hear from Nadal fans, don't provoke them...

 

[NikeWilson]

Nadal was only 70% and he still beat Federer!

Federer is Nadal's *****!

 

[TennisandMusic]

Your tennis great Mats Wilander also said that Fededer is much better then your idol Sampras,so If you're gonna value his opinion,value all of it not just parts that suit your agenda.Also Wilander has never played neither Federer nor Nadal while Agassi on the other hand has played Sampras,Federer and Nadal so he is more suitable to give his opinion and overall I value Agassi's opinion more then Wilander's because I think Agassi has better understanding of the game(in my opinion not saying it's a fact).

You're also aware that Moya has said Federer and Nadal are "nothing" compared to how good Sampras was correct? And I don't think Moya has a chip on his shoulder concerning Sampras, like Agassi does...

 

[zagor]

Nadal was only 70% and he still beat Federer!

Federer is Nadal's *****!

I thank you for your great contribution to this thread and also remind you that beatch(the classy term you use to describe Federer) also beat Nadal at Wimbledon finals two times in a row and also at Masters Cup two times in a row(both matches in TMC Fed won in straights).

 

[zagor]

You're also aware that Moya has said Federer and Nadal are "nothing" compared to how good Sampras was correct? And I don't think Moya has a chip on his shoulder concerning Sampras, like Agassi does...

I don't think Moya used the term nothing but nevertheless I find it strange that he thinks that Federer to whom he has lost 7 times(including the one loss when Moya was the number one and Fed was 17 years old or something) is "nothing" compared to Sampras whom he actually beat in Masters Cup.Does Moya have a mental block against Federer maybe? Also Courier said that Federer at his best is the best player who ever picked a racquet,Kramer said something similar as well(does he have a chip on his shoulder against Sampras as well?),Laver and Mcenroe think very highly of Fed as well.In the end I have my opinion while you Sampras fanboys have yours and we're both entitled to it.

 

[Darth Nihilus]

Congratulations to Nadal. He was too good when it counted. We'll see what happens in a few weeks.

 

[dh003i]

Zagor ... what about Mats Wilander who happens to be a former tennis great? He ain't no 'internet expert'. Mats said Federer's balls shrink against Nadal. And surely, Federer's proved that so many times now that even his most ardent fans ought to accept Mats remarks?!

Maybe Mats Wilander is jealous of Federer for having bigger balls than him? Ya know, balls that win 12 GS, instead of 7.

 

[ksbh]

Zagor Zagor!!! If Mats thinks Federer is better than Sampras, so be it ... Federer is better than Sampras! Mats Wilander also said Federer's balls shrink against Nadal. That is true as well!

By the way, what has Sampras got to do with a discussion of Federer's mental strength against Nadal? You don't sleep with a cut-out of Sampras, do you?! LOL!

Your tennis great Mats Wilander also said that Fededer is much better then your idol Sampras,so If you're gonna value his opinion,value all of it not just parts that suit your agenda.Also Wilander has never played neither Federer nor Nadal while Agassi on the other hand has played Sampras,Federer and Nadal so he is more suitable to give his opinion and overall I value Agassi's opinion more then Wilander's because I think Agassi has better understanding of the game(in my opinion not saying it's a fact).

 

[ksbh]

A certain Zagor claims that Mats Wilander also said that Federer is better than Sampras. Doesn't seem like the kind of comment a jealous man would make! Seems more like a fact plainly stated ... the one about balls, I mean!

Maybe Mats Wilander is jealous of Federer for having bigger balls than him? Ya know, balls that win 12 GS, instead of 7.

 

[ksbh]

And that person is gonna keep getting in Federer's way for some time to come!

Yep but someone got in the way of that.

 

[Morrissey]

Someone said that Nadal should have retired. Fat chance, the guy played out the match with Ferrero in Rome with a massive popped blister on his foot. He's got too much honor and respect for Fed to just quit like that. BTW, if Fed can't win a set with two breaks and up 5-1 he doesn't deserve to win any match. If Nadal had quit everyone would have given him hell for bailing out and not giving Fed a proper victory. SO with the majority of Fedfans Nadal is in a no win situation. If he quits he's a pu$$y and if he comes back and plays through some pain he used fake injury and "tactics" to get inside Fed's head. So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. That's pretty weak for a 12 slam winner to just get rattled by a simple injury timeout with a 2 break lead. Once again, Sampras wouldn't have let that happen, not even clay. He would have closed it out at 5-1. And I don't even like Sampras.

I thought I had seen change in the Fedfan nation when they were all rooting hard for Nadal against Joker on Saturday. But I guess the "****" behavior never truly leaves the Fedfan afterall. (BTW, that is not to the good fans out there, you guys know who you are.) But when Nadal won again on clay I thought most would have been ok with it because it would have been worse for Fed to lose to an arrogant and cocky guy like Joker. But even losing to Nadal still makes you guys bitter and the excuses never end with you people. Lastly, Nadal took the injury timeout when he was down 5-2 and on his serve so he would have stopped the momentum for himself. If Fed had held serve at 5-1 to win the set Nadal would have taken the timeout after losing the set, but he broke, took the timeout before serving so that in itself would have been a momentum breaker from Nadal's perspective. Now I know very well that the anger and bitterness coming from most Fedfans is pure denial and they're grasping for any reason to explain Fed's meltdown yesterday. Instead of blaming Fed who blew the match, they blame a stupid injury timeout and Nadal, again. You guys had a chance to show class like your idol and took the low road and decided to rip Nadal for no good reason, again.


PS, I know I ripped Joker and I apologize for that, but he is an arrogant guy. He has potential to improve his behavior and demeanor, he's still 20. So I'll give him time to lose the tactics and cockiness.

 

[anointedone]

Someone said that Nadal should have retired. Fat chance, the guy played out the match with Ferrero in Rome with a massive popped blister on his foot. He's got too much honor and respect for Fed to just quit like that. BTW, if Fed can't win a set with two breaks and up 5-1 he doesn't deserve to win any match. If Nadal had quit everyone would have given him hell for bailing out and not giving Fed a proper victory. SO with the majority of Fedfans Nadal is in a no win situation. If he quits he's a ****** and if he comes back and plays through some pain he used fake injury and "tactics" to get inside Fed's head. Ha! That's pretty weak for a 12 slam winner to just get rattled by a simple injury timeout with a 2 break lead. Once again, Sampras wouldn't have let that happen, not even clay. He would have closed it out at 5-1. And I don't even like Sampras.

Well Sampras is much tougher mentally then Federer, and I wouldve said that long before this weekend. Federer may indeed have the more complete game, but Sampras's mental strength was a huge cut above Federer's, and nobody who watched both play throughout their careers who has a shread of objectivity would dispute that. That is perhaps a reason Federer has been fortunate to not have more serious rivals in the early stages of his dominance, since unlike Sampras he probably would not have coped as well with that.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

You forced my remark by claiming that Nadal SHOULD have retired which is unacceptable since no player should ever retire in an important final unless they really can't move and Nadal is brave enough that he would never chicken out of a match like that (remember Wimbledon?) and would always finish the match with or without pain. It is something to be admired for not criticized for. If you don't want to hear from Nadal fans, don't provoke them...

Forced your what? Go back and read my post again if your comprehension skill is subpar. I never force anything down your throat, at least not just at you only &directly.

Provoke you, once again, get off your high horse.