Looking how many sports are being played on grass, I wouldn't say "grass is expensive and therefore outdated".A dream is not what you build your career on.
Grass has barely any tournament at all levels, from juniors/amateurs to pro, because grass is expensive and therefore outdated.
Because there is significantly more surface-specialty on the men's tour.I know why but I just want to know if the WTA ranking is good enough for Wimbledon why isn't the ATP ranking?
Nadal is my countryman and the same age as me. I've had a blast watching him play and rooting for him for all these years.Just curious: when you read/hear something like that from him, does it slide right off your fan preferences like water on Teflon coating, or it changes your opinion on him?
No, that's not the case. This from the Wimbledon website:Because there is significantly more surface-specialty on the men's tour.
Women's tennis is more uniform across all surfaces.
Latest example: The one who won FO two weeks ago is a grass court lover who openly admitted hating clay. Three of the 4 in the semi final in Paris were flat hitters.
Two unseeded players have won Wimbledon - Becker and Ivanisevic.The seeds at Wimbledon make the most sense. A player’s performance on that surface should have a massive bearing on his seed on that surface. Lendl, despite being world #1 a then-record 270 weeks, which includes 157 consecutive weeks at #1, was only a #1 seed one time at Wimbledon. I.e, Lendl entered Wimbledon as the world #1 player 5 different times, yet was the #1 seed only once. And quite honestly, I think that was 1 time too many for Lendl to be a #1 seed at this event.
You should be putting that question to Djokovic who decided to call off the SF on Friday to finish on Saturday because he can't play unless there is no wind.What is Rafa's opinion on Thiem not getting the same rest time for the French Open final, btw? Has anyone asked him?
Yea they reserve the right to manipulate the seeding but in practice they simply adhere to the WTA ranking 99.9 percent of the time (except upseeding Serena every now and then/every couple of years when they feel like she is severely underranked.. but then that's moot since even the US Open made a one-time exception to push up her seeding last year). Your own quote says "except". So it's an exception to the RULE which is simply the ranking.
You nailed it.Federer would have crucified for blatant favortism, getting in with the big suits, etc etc. These guys have issues because Federer gets Center Court, that would have put it over the edge.
Follow the rules. Nadal knew the rules, this was not something they made at the start of Halle last week, catching Nadal out, then there is a real valid point. If you choose to sit out, then its on you. And if saying Nadal was tired from RG is some excuse, a near 38 year old made the semis also and still made it Halle to gut out a couple of close wins. You snooze, you lose.
I think you mean eight. Nadal was seeded 1 in 2011 but didn't win the title.He is right, it is not fair. If it was fair, he'd be unseeded.
How do you fail to play up to your seeding SEVEN years in a row. Even a 38 year old 3rd seeded Federer did that at his worst slam.
This will all be moot when he's sent packing in the first week.
They should have played the semis at the same time. Nothing to do with Djokovic.You should be putting that question to Djokovic who decided to call off the SF on Friday to finish on Saturday because he can't play unless there is no wind.
Nadal is still the third fav to win it, and who knows, upsets happen on grass, and the draw can open up for him. But he gets no sympathy for willingly sitting out the grass warm ups knowing all he needed was two wins, while Federer played the semis of RG then gutted out a Halle win. He knew the rules for the past 17 years.You nailed it.
Up to 2011 Nole never had enough points to take over the no. 2 place, but he was no. 3 for most of the time. Which, and I guess I need to spell this out for you like to a little child, means Roger got the worse draw.Proves my point. Up to 2011, Djokovic was no threat to Fedr at Wimbledon. In 2009 & 2016, Rafa was absent from Wimbledon. We shall see what happens this year.
No, it can't. There is absolutely no way both Federer and Djokovic will lose early. An extremely small chance that one of them might lose, but for sure not both.Nadal is still the third fav to win it, and who knows, upsets happen on grass, and the draw can open up for him. But he gets no sympathy for willingly sitting out the grass warm ups knowing all he needed was two wins, while Federer played the semis of RG then gutted out a Halle win. He knew the rules for the past 17 years.
Can I just continue to quote this every 5 minutes? This covers it all.Poppycock.
Nadal is not right at all (not even morally).
If he is arguing for some kind of "all slam" uniformity or equality then you can't have genuine equality unless grass court tournaments are at least 1/3rd of the tour and therefore one third of the points that (in theory) could be accumulated by all players
Then and ONLY then does Wimbledon has a moral obligation to follow the ranking. Otherwise they shouldn't because as of right now Wimbledon is uniquely disadvantaged by the fact that the grass season is much shorter than the rest and therefore grass court tennis is under-represented in the ATP ranking results of ALL players. This little but crucial fact seems to just fly over the heads of baldal and his ilk without ever being addressed.
please tell me you realize Federer didn't win your precious grass slam until it was firmed up!Ahhhh . . . I remember the good old days when the clay courters would just skip Wimby altogether and keep pretending that the clay season went on till late summer.
Then they whined like babies and got Wimby to go to 32 seeds so they'd be more "protected."
Then Wimby slowed the grass down and gave clay courters that nice reliable bounce they love so much.
Then the best claycourter in history got to win Wimby, twice.
And yet . . . they still complain.
Nadal can beat at least one of them, so if the other goes out, he will have his chances like last year. Though I think beating them both back to back is likely not going to happen.No, it can't. There is absolutely no way both Federer and Djokovic will lose early. An extremely small chance that one of them might lose, but for sure not both.
*(Argumentum ad hominem )Up to 2011 Nole never had enough points to take over the no. 2 place, but he was no. 3 for most of the time. *Which, and I guess I need to spell this out for you like to a little child, means Roger got the worse draw.
And after 2011 Nadal is basically a journeyman on grass so it didn't matter what his draw was.
I'm not blindly defending anyone!
Banning a referee?Nadal is my countryman and the same age as me. I've had a blast watching him play and rooting for him for all these years.
That doesn't mean I worship the ground he walks on. The guy's a complete jock, somewhat out of touch, and can be pretty salty.
I'm still going to root for him whenever he plays. It's not like he has done/said anything unforgivable (yet)
Yes, after a decade's worth of fruitless toil on lightning-fast lawns, ancient Federer finally won his very first Wimbledon after the hard courts were installed. If only he'd faced the challenge of playing the defending champ at least once on fast grass, in an era where S&V players were sure to make the final! That would have exposed Fed for sure.please tell me you realize Federer didn't win your precious grass slam until it was firmed up!
I'll answer to the obviously loaded question with another obviously loaded question:For example, would you still be his fan, if he disrespects the sport of tennis (which he has displayed many times, and that latest time is only one instance), just because he accidentally was wining a lot when you didn't know better?
I always thought that the draws were set up that #1 would theoretically play #4 if they both made it to the semi-finals and #2 and #3 also would play each other, yet that wasn't the case recently (can't remember which Grand Slam it was?). So theoretically it would be Rafa vs. Roger and Novak vs Dominic; is this the case? Personally I want another Rafa vs. Dominic final!
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.Nadal should be whining about adding some Masters on grass so he can prove that he is worthy of being the second seed at Wimbledon.
Since there is only one event on grass for grass court specialists before Wimbledon, the seeding formula is bang on.