duffguy808
New User
Yes he can. Roger is the man
In 2007, Federer also lost to Canas twice, does that mean Canas was close to Federer? Federer was not playing his best in 2007 (in fact far from it, which is why Nadal was even close), his serve basically saved him.
In 08, were it not for the mono, no practice time lost and Fed wins. Courier saw this too. He was a professional tennis player by the way.
Nadal won 4 matches in AO2011 without losing a set he was playing great. In his case an acute injury took him out.
Federer played ok in the first 6 matches, but that's only because his B game is good enough to beat most others on grass quite easily. He didn't really face anyone tough up till the final.
In 2008, Federer loses to Fish and Roddick in Indian Wells and Miami. Is that really much worse than losing twice to Canas in 2007 Indian Wells and Miami? Canas, after all, was a lucky loser and a qualifier in those tournaments and he beat Federer twice.
Let me know when you decide to leave the realm of fiction and come back to reality.
Nadal pulled his hamstring early on in the match. On top of that, he was playing Ferrer, who makes you run all over the court. Nadal had no chance after that.
Hewitt and Safin were his toughest opponents. Do they ring any bells? They have 4 majors between them.
wow, the mod sures ares takings its easy this weeksjust sayings. no offences. having reads throuh your posts historys i can see that you are a good poster.
Hey buddy, nice to see you back. Love your avatar.The 2008 match was closer than the 2007 match. FO08 was very telling, Federer getting beaten so soundly in a final hadn't happened before and it wasn't entire due to Nadal playing his best. Federer was nowhere near his best level having missed so much practice. Without mono, I don't see Nadal pulling out Wimby 2008 the way he did.
2003 was the last year Federer went into the US Open with a hardcourt slam final under his belt.
In 2008, Federer loses to Fish and Roddick in Indian Wells and Miami. Is that really much worse than losing twice to Canas in 2007 Indian Wells and Miami? Canas, after all, was a lucky loser and a qualifier in those tournaments and he beat Federer twice.
Nadal pulled his hamstring early on in the match. On top of that, he was playing Ferrer, who makes you run all over the court. Nadal had no chance after that.
Hewitt and Safin were his toughest opponents. Do they ring any bells? They have 4 majors between them.
Match-ups,Canas is a tough match-up for Fed on a slow HC while Fish and Roddick never were.Overall Fed's level in 2007 was way higher than in 2008.He did lose to Volandri in Rome but he was affected with separation from his coach Tony Roach,he was in the middle of making an important decision and it showed in his play.
Nadal played well against Ferrer but just wasn't good enough on the day,David was brilliant and should have reached the final as well(had SP to go 2-0 against Murray).Nadal didn't play poor by any means.
Both of them way past their prime with grass also being Safin's worst surface.
yeh he played well for someone with 1 hamstring. 8)
Perhaps a better response would be how someone could play at all with only one hamstring![]()
exactly, he hardly did play at all. Poeple lose all credibility when they say 'he played well" when we all know he played bad and was on 1 hamstring![]()
I wonder how he managed to win 9 games against the #7 player in the world with only 1 hamstring. Quite perplexing indeed.
exactly, he hardly did play at all. Poeple lose all credibility when they say 'he played well" when we all know he played bad and was on 1 hamstring![]()
If Roger never wins a slam title again, he will never win a major!
Take my prediction to the bank.
yeh he played well for someone with 1 hamstring. 8)
which part is perplexing?
You don't find it perplexing how a player could win 9 games in a professional match with one of his hamstrings missing? The only thing more perplexing is how a prime Pete Sampras in 2001 (1 year before winning the USOPEN in 2002 and still in his prime as defined by you) lost to a baby pre prime Federer in a slam on his best surface! Kinda suggests if prime Federer played in Sampras' era, he would have zero slams. Sampras was indeed lucky then that he played in such a weak era.
(In the Ferrer-Rafa match at 2011 AO, I noticed on slow-motion replays that every time Rafa had to change direction he showed obvious pain on his face, so he ended up being late for Ferrer's down-the-line shots because it took him too much time to stop on the tramline and run to the other tramline. So Ferrer hit down-the-line a lot and Rafa would be a fraction late and mistime his shot each time resulting in error)
AO 2011? When he got hurt in the first set and could barely move?
(Yes that's the match, I'm telling you what the injury caused - he couldn't push off quick enough after changing direction - that was why he kept playing but couldn't win enough points to beat Ferrer, because Ferrer kept hitting down the line rather than crosscourt. Rafa was fine going crosscourt because he was stationary and didn't need push-off, but when he had to suddenly push-off to the other side he felt the pain and therefore was late getting to the other tramlines)
not at all..if that player is Nadal.
That's a shame Fed is on the same side as Djokovic again, that is unbelievable , they're always on the same half. nadal is lucky.
You know the draw was rigged so Nadal and Fed would be on opposite halfs of the draw, everyone on the freaking planet wants the possibility of a Nad/Fed final.
Djokovic, despite his spectacular run this year still has yet to build up enough star power (especially at Wimbledon) to have the majority of people want to see him in the final over a Rafa or Roger.
BTW I am not complaining because I want/hope to see a Rafa/Roger final.
This is very true, Nadal has never beaten Djokovic this year and would probably be clobbered again if they met.
(Clobbered? Like in Miami where Rafa won the 1st set and went on to lose in a 3rd set tie-breaker? Or Indian Wells where Rafa won the 1st set? In slams, Rafa has only ever lost ONE match after winning the 1st set. Sorry, but Djokovic is yet to convince anyone that he is a great slam player)
Methinks someone has forgotten the clobberings a certain spaniard received on his best surface at the hands of Djokovic. Nadal is extremely lucky to be avoiding Djokovic till the final. In those 3 set matches with Nadal, Nadal was at his ultimate best, Djokovic was not.
(sorry, but Djokovic can't beat Rafa in a slam, he's just not good enough. Win 2 sets? Sure, but under the pressure of a slam, Rafa only gets better while Djokovic obviously doesn't get better. He's got 2 Australian Opens, and he's never beaten Rafa at a slam)
Sorry, you can be in denial all you want, but the Djokovic that Nadal faced at USO10 is not the same Djokovic of today. Had Nadal been good enough to get past Ferrer at AO11, Djoker would have thrashed him. It was only Federer that essentially saved Nadal for FO11. Slam or no slam, Djoker beats Nadal hands down anywhere, any place, anytime. Those are just the facts.
(I saw Djokovic beat Rafa 3 straight times in 2009. Was really impressed with Djokovic, until I saw him play Rafa at the US Open..... :lol:
If they are the facts then they have already occurred, everywhere, including Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Australian Open and.....US Open)
I realize this may come as a shock to you, but it's not 2009 anymore. That was then, this is now. Players change. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges and making false extrapolations. Djokovic of today is a completely different player. Yes the facts have occurred as I said, Djokovic is 4-0 against Nadal this year. You realize that 0 losses means undefeated? That means Djokovic has beaten Nadal any place and every time.
(Yeah it's like 2008-09 all over again. His Australian Opens don't scare anyone, and neither do his non-slam wins over Rafa, seen it all before)
I just don't think He can win anymore on HC, and on clay we already know, so his chances are only on grass.
If He can't win grass where will He win??
Nowhere else, not to mention that He will be so down in confidence that will hard for him to come back again.
For me this title is already in the bag, Roger is playing his best tennis ever, just played amazing in RG, could have beaten Nadal there, or let Djoker have done the job, but He failed. Now it is his turn.
If He wins on grass He has a 20% chance to win the US Open.
I really don't think Roger's best surface is grass, he has far more hard court titles with better performances on average.