McEnroe talking about Nadal and Roland Garros

[Nadal_Freak]

Who said Federer was 100% at last years Wimbledon? Remember mono? If you people use the same excuses for Nadal I dont see why we cant use the same for Federer.

As for Australian Open we can also use an excuse similar to Nadal of altitude...where we can say the courts are slow in Australian Open and the result would be different in a US Open match .

A slam is a slam. But yeah the difference between the Australian Open and the US Open is about the same between the French Open and Madrid speed wise.

 

[ksbh]

Chang ... good point, but let me bring to your attention that the claim about his daughter was made by the stated poster himself. I didn't make it up!

Verbal attacks on other people's family, especially a little girl, is not gentlemen's behavior.

 

[vtmike]

Nadal did it twice lately. Australian Open and Wimbledon.

Fed was NOT at 100% in those matches...He was exhausted after being number 1 for four years in a row...

 

[tonyg11]

Mac better stick to his commentator duties. He is one of the worst when it comes to predictions. He once stood on his head in front of tv because he wrongly predicted a match. Two things mac cant do: coaching and odds making.


Things change quickly in tennis.


Here is my prediction:

When Nadal loses his FO crown he wont even make the final.

If he does, I hope it's against Roger.

McEnroe is probably one of the best tennis analysts in the world as well as the best comentator. You have no idea what you're talking about.

He also stood on his head as a joke because he bet he'd do that if Krajicek blew a 6-0 lead in a tiebreak which he did and which i saw live on TV. Not because he wongly predicted a match. Damn 14 year old kids.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Fed was NOT at 100% in those matches...He was tired after being number 1 for four years in a row...

Federer was 100% fit in both matches before the Wimbledon final Fed didn't drop a set and the Australian it was Nadal who wasn't a 100% whilst Federer was.

 

[mandy01]

Federer was 100% fit in both matches before the Wimbledon final Fed didn't drop a set and the Australian it was Nadal who wasn't a 100% whilst Federer was.

bull..Nadal had a day's rest.
Wimbledon final-Roger clearly did not play well..it wasnt just Nadal who played great it was a case of Roger being extremely poor esp.in the first two sets in the way he played.His unforced errors were ....scary.
That said-Rafa is a bad match-up for Roger so he can beat Roger at 100%
Nevertheless Roger can also beat Nadal at 100% but if he himself plays extremely well.
And no I dont buy the tired and injured excuse..and the altitude excuse.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

bull..Nadal had a day's rest.

He had a 5 hour match the match finished late into the night so it would have messed up his sleeping pattern whilst Federer had 2 days rest.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

He had a 5 hour match the match finished late into the night so it would have messed up his sleeping pattern whilst Federer had 2 days rest.

Sleeping patterns aren't that bad when you don't play until night after a day off. Nadal was definitely fresher for his Final with Federer in the Australian Open due to 22 hours more rest and one night/day more of sleep.

 

[mandy01]

He had a 5 hour match the match finished late into the night so it would have messed up his sleeping pattern whilst Federer had 2 days rest.

he's not a delicate flower.He's a professional athlete.And if he won that final I'm not buying the excuse.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

he's not a delicate flower.He's a professional athlete.And if he won that final I'm not buying the excuse.

Vtmike said Federer wasn't at a 100% for the final I was just saying he was closer to a 100% than Nadal due to having 2 days off and Nadal playing a 5 hour match I never said Nadal was exhausted.

 

[mandy01]

Vtmike said Federer wasn't at a 100% for the final I was just saying he was closer to a 100% than Nadal due to having 2 days off and Nadal playing a 5 hour match I never said Nadal was exhausted.

Did you look at Roger's serve ?
His serving had been bad throughout the tournament except for the QF & SF
He had 20 DFs in total.Something I havent seen by a stretch of time.
Nevertheless your overall statement isnt wrong.Therein lies the match up issue.

 

[vtmike]

Vtmike said Federer wasn't at a 100% for the final I was just saying he was closer to a 100% than Nadal due to having 2 days off and Nadal playing a 5 hour match I never said Nadal was exhausted.

You said Fed was 100% in those matches but Rafa was not...

Federer was 100% fit in both matches before the Wimbledon final Fed didn't drop a set and the Australian it was Nadal who wasn't a 100% whilst Federer was.

So let me get this straight...When Nadal beats Fed, Fed is at 100% but when Fed beats Nadal, Nadal is not at 100%

See how your * shines through?

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

You said Fed was 100% in those matches but Rafa was not...



So let me get this straight...When Nadal beats Fed, Fed is at 100% but when Fed beats Nadal, Nadal is not at 100%

See how your * shines through?

Hypocrisy at its finest when you said the reason Federer lost to Nadal at the Wimbledon and Australian because Federer wasn't a 100%.

 

[maximo]

Hypocrisy at its finest when you said the reason Federer lost to Nadal at the Wimbledon and Australian because Federer wasn't a 100%.

Go back to haterville.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Go back to haterville.

Why are you stalking me .

 

[vtmike]

Hypocrisy at its finest when you said the reason Federer lost to Nadal at the Wimbledon and Australian because Federer wasn't a 100%.

That was a sarcastic reply to Nadal_Freak's post on how Nadal is never 100% when Fed beats him...You need to reread the thread before coming to conclusions!

and if you agree with him then you really need to look in the mirror...

 

[TennezSport]

Nicely Done.........

Read this for an intelligent analysis of Roger's game in Madrid.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=262306

Thanks for sharing that link. Fair and impartial review of the match with some telling stats. I think other players are starting to figure Raf out, so this could be a very interesting FO indeed. If Raf does lose this years FO (unlikely), it will not be one player but a series of tougher matches that could do the damage. Only time will tell.

CHeers, TennezSport

 

[babolat15]

i tought fed was playing great, i dont think he has a shot at FO tho

 

[wangs78]

Actually it's easy when your serve doesn't let you down. The serve is the most important shot in the game, and Fed's serve was brilliant in that match. He kept Nadal guessing, and Nadal's return game really suffered from it. Fed also went for his shots without fear. Sure, some of them were unforced errors, but some were winners, and some forced Nadal to errors. Finally, Federer also excuted the dropp shot to perfection. The best drop shot in the sport by far, as proven both aginst Del Potro and against Nadal.

Agreed. Roger played aggressive and enough of his shots worked in key moments to keep him focused on the match. Usually, Nadal will capitalize on his first break point and if that had happened in Madrid, Nadal would have probably won the first set bc we all know how Roger doesn't exactly play his best when coming from behind against Nadal. That was the difference. Roger saved a couple of breaks and then converted his first one. Usually it's the other way around between these two guys.

 

[wangs78]

i tought fed was playing great, i dont think he has a shot at FO tho

Me neither. But I actually think that this is the first year where Roger will go into the FO with very little pressure. Even if he makes it to the final and has to face Nadal, everyone is going to expect him to lose, probalby even himself. I think this is actually good for him bc Roger can play more freely if he thinks he's going to lose anyway. So watch out, I think Roger could surprise us this year. With that said, if I were a betting man, I would still bet on Rafa.

 

[P_Agony]

Exactly. The 2 flukes of Fed vs Rafa on clay(Hamburg 2007, Madrid 2009) were when Rafa was dead tired at the end of the claycourt season.

You mean the same Rafa who beat a sick Federer at Wimbly and afterwards he beat Fed in the AO who suffered from a bad back?

This goes both ways buddy. If Fed didn't beat a 100% Nadal, Nadal sure as hell didn't beat a 100% Fed.

 

[TheTruth]

All the stars aligned in Madrid for Federer. Mcenroe is spot on he knows Fed only won because Nadal was worn out due to no rest day between matches and because the altitude helped his biggest weapon and masked his biggest weaknesses by helping to keep the points short.

With the extra rest day at Roland Garros no one will be tired, so the better player will win. Joker showed in Rome that hes the number 2 on the real clay. Anyone who doesn't see Joker as Nadal's biggest threat is Blind.

Federer has to get over 80% of first serves in to have a chance to beat Joker or Nadal on the Roland Garros clay to make up for their baseline superiority, but even then he'll probably still lose. Notice how the *******s always focus on the first serve % every time Federer loses instead of focusing on his baseline inferiority?The baseline inferiority is always explained in terms of a mental lapse, or mono, or some other rubbish excuse...lol

Great post. Glad to see McEnroe finally coming off of all that rubbish talk and telling it like it is.

Oh, and agree with nadal, you are a great poster!

 

[TheTruth]

It's funny how when Federer self-destructs against Djokovic, saying that he beats himself is "mere excuses" and "not giving any credit to Djokovic". Yet, when Fed beats Nadal, excuses like "He was tired" are perfectly legit.

hypocrisy at its best.

You're talking about hypocrisy,

when on the one hand, you're saying Fed self-destructed and Djokovic didn't beat him fair and square? So, you're not giving Djokovic any credit at all.

However, you say Nadal is not tired after winning three tournaments in a row with little rest in between, but Fed won fair and square. Fed just lifted his game, but Djokovic didn't?

I don't know. That doesn't make sense to me.