Not sure men's final will be speciall/ Federer really no.1?

[BeautyVenus]

I think a lot of tennis fans and media have hyped this French Open final maybe it will be a blowout just like the women's final. The meda have a tendency to hype things out of proportion.I just wonder if the French Open men's final will be a blowout or the end result will be exactly what many people already believe that Nadal will find a way to win. And I think this is the surprising thing about Federer. At the Italian Open the world no.1 had two match points yet lost. This is the thing Nadal has gotten into Federer's head he always says the right things in the press. However, how can someone be no.1 and be losing to no.2. In this final it is Federer that has a lot to prove. John McEnroe keeps on saying this guy is going to be the best ever. Its like hold on a minute John because Pete Sampras had NO RIVALS in his era. And please do NOT count Agassi. Agassi was NEVER Sampras real rival because Agassi NEVER beat Sampras when it REALLY mattered. So in a way Sampras has no rivals when its clear Federer has a few.

In my mind if Federer can't beat Nadal he's not going to be no.1 for long?
Maybe John McEnroe has got it all wrong. Maybe Nadal will be the best ever? And maybe Nadal is actually no.1 and not Federer.

 

[superman1]

Maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Breaker]

The only competitive grand slam woman's finals these days are Davenport chokejobs against the Williams sisters.

I'm pretty sure the 2500 point lead Federer has speaks for itself, he deserves to be number one. He only has 13 losses in the last 3 years along with his great performance in all of the grand slams. Fed pretty much has the number one spot locked as even if he loses tomorrow he still gets further ahead of Nadal in the rankings. Nadal would need to win Wimbledon and the US Open along with Federer losing in the first round of both just to pull within 500 points! Federer is 1, Nadal is 2, the rankings indicate the truth in that department.

 

[edberg505]

I think a lot of tennis fans and media have hyped this French Open final maybe it will be a blowout just like the women's final. The meda have a tendency to hype things out of proportion.I just wonder if the French Open men's final will be a blowout or the end result will be exactly what many people already believe that Nadal will find a way to win. And I think this is the surprising thing about Federer. At the Italian Open the world no.1 had two match points yet lost. This is the thing Nadal has gotten into Federer's head he always says the right things in the press. However, how can someone be no.1 and be losing to no.2. In this final it is Federer that has a lot to prove. John McEnroe keeps on saying this guy is going to be the best ever. Its like hold on a minute John because Pete Sampras had NO RIVALS in his era. And please do NOT count Agassi. Agassi was NEVER Sampras real rival because Agassi NEVER beat Sampras when it REALLY mattered. So in a way Sampras has no rivals when its clear Federer has a few.

In my mind if Federer can't beat Nadal he's not going to be no.1 for long?
Maybe John McEnroe has got it all wrong. Maybe Nadal will be the best ever? And maybe Nadal is actually no.1 and not Federer.

Come find me when Nadal is in the final of a slam that isn't played on clay.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

U need to put the pipe down.Win or lose, Fed deserves that number 1 ranking.Rafa is a solid number 2.

 

[Grimjack]

Right now, Nadal (by virtue of the more-or-less meaningless overall head to head record, pretty much entirely on slow surfaces) "owns" Federer on clay.

Federer, although Nadal will never be there to contest it late in a tournament, would certainly (no doubt about it, even to the die-hardest Nadal supporter) "own" Nadal on grass.

The only chance of a real 1 vs 2 rivalry developing is if Nadal starts pulling his weight at the US or AO. But right now, he's really not anywhere near good enough on faster courts for this to be considered a real rivalry. (Although if Fed's results get even a hair better on clay, then the Fed vs Nadal clay-only rivalry will be truly spectacular -- even though Nadal still won't be fit to tote Fed's bags onto the court late in fastcourt slams.)

 

[superman1]

Yes, by their head-to-head you can see that Nadal owns Federer, but if you actually watch their matches you'd think a little differently. If Federer hit a single ball a few inches shorter, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Every time they play, it's always in Federer's hands to win the match. He's always the one with all the weapons and he either pummels Nadal with them or he misses wildly.

 

[goober]

I think a lot of tennis fans and media have hyped this French Open final maybe it will be a blowout just like the women's final. The meda have a tendency to hype things out of proportion.I just wonder if the French Open men's final will be a blowout or the end result will be exactly what many people already believe that Nadal will find a way to win. And I think this is the surprising thing about Federer. At the Italian Open the world no.1 had two match points yet lost. This is the thing Nadal has gotten into Federer's head he always says the right things in the press. However, how can someone be no.1 and be losing to no.2. In this final it is Federer that has a lot to prove. John McEnroe keeps on saying this guy is going to be the best ever. Its like hold on a minute John because Pete Sampras had NO RIVALS in his era. And please do NOT count Agassi. Agassi was NEVER Sampras real rival because Agassi NEVER beat Sampras when it REALLY mattered. So in a way Sampras has no rivals when its clear Federer has a few.

In my mind if Federer can't beat Nadal he's not going to be no.1 for long?
Maybe John McEnroe has got it all wrong. Maybe Nadal will be the best ever? And maybe Nadal is actually no.1 and not Federer.

I am sorry but you are clueless. First considering Agassi and Sampras. What do you mean Agassi never beat Sampras when it really mattered? He beat him in a grandslam final and aslo a semfinal. If that doesn't matter I would like to know what is your criteria. He also beat him in a bunch of Master series events which are the second biggest tournaments after grandslams.

As for Nadal, if his winning streak on clay goes to 200 he still won't be # 1 on the rankings unless he can beat fed and other top players for that matter on other surfaces which he hasn't shown he can do.

 

[dandy2fast]

Maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

Surely

 

[dandy2fast]

Federer really #1? And if he is not, then who is? Nadal, the one <perhaps 2 tommorrow> time slam winner? Nadal the guy who never finds his way to a slam final not played on clay, often beaten by a not very high ranked player?

7 or 8 slams against 1 or 2 slams, the biggest difference in ranking between the #1 and the #2 since the atp tour creation, and you ask if Federer is the legit #1 ?



Your question is simply insane.

 

[jackson vile]

I think a lot of tennis fans and media have hyped this French Open final maybe it will be a blowout just like the women's final. The meda have a tendency to hype things out of proportion.I just wonder if the French Open men's final will be a blowout or the end result will be exactly what many people already believe that Nadal will find a way to win. And I think this is the surprising thing about Federer. At the Italian Open the world no.1 had two match points yet lost. This is the thing Nadal has gotten into Federer's head he always says the right things in the press. However, how can someone be no.1 and be losing to no.2. In this final it is Federer that has a lot to prove. John McEnroe keeps on saying this guy is going to be the best ever. Its like hold on a minute John because Pete Sampras had NO RIVALS in his era. And please do NOT count Agassi. Agassi was NEVER Sampras real rival because Agassi NEVER beat Sampras when it REALLY mattered. So in a way Sampras has no rivals when its clear Federer has a few.

In my mind if Federer can't beat Nadal he's not going to be no.1 for long?
Maybe John McEnroe has got it all wrong. Maybe Nadal will be the best ever? And maybe Nadal is actually no.1 and not Federer.

*Not the Sampras part*

I agree with this, it just seems as if people are pushing this far far to hard. Instead of it naturally happening it seems as if they are trying to will it to happen.

David was kicking the snot out of Roger and Roger got really upset, Roger thinks he should win just because it is him.

The thing is that it is not up to Nadal to "figure a way out" Nadal just beats him plain and simple, however it is up to Roger to find a way to win.

Roger had the easiest draw that one could dream of, we saw a 152th player almost kick his butt, and we saw the only real competitor David, kicking the snot out of him.

Nadal is far far better than David, so how is Roger going to beat Nadal.


Nadal had the wost possible draw and was really tested, he faced the best players, he won. Roger will simply not be ready as he did not play good enough players to get him ready, while Nadal did.

In the end I hope that the winer will win, end of story. Let things naturally happen and happen the way they are supposed to.


But I say yes, Roger will be the GOAT if he pulls this off, if not Nadal will bring in a whole new erra that has never been seen before.

 

[msn]

Richard Kraijek pretty much owned Pete. I saw him roll Pete a couple of times. He did to Pete (S&V through him) what Pete did to everybody else.

Not exactly a rival, as he wasn't ranked high enough for them to meet enough in big matches.

If Roger and Rafael are healthy for a couple of years, they will play plenty and this will resolve itself.

 

[LowProfile]

*Not the Sampras part*

I agree with this, it just seems as if people are pushing this far far to hard. Instead of it naturally happening it seems as if they are trying to will it to happen.

David was kicking the snot out of Roger and Roger got really upset, Roger thinks he should win just because it is him.

The thing is that it is not up to Nadal to "figure a way out" Nadal just beats him plain and simple, however it is up to Roger to find a way to win.

Roger had the easiest draw that one could dream of, we saw a 152th player almost kick his butt, and we saw the only real competitor David, kicking the snot out of him.

Nadal is far far better than David, so how is Roger going to beat Nadal.


Nadal had the wost possible draw and was really tested, he faced the best players, he won. Roger will simply not be ready as he did not play good enough players to get him ready, while Nadal did.

In the end I hope that the winer will win, end of story. Let things naturally happen and happen the way they are supposed to.


But I say yes, Roger will be the GOAT if he pulls this off, if not Nadal will bring in a whole new erra that has never been seen before.

I do not agree with any of this.

Nalbandian kicking the snot out of Federer? No. Federer was kicking the snot out of himself. Once Federer began to play even a little bit better down 0-3 in the second, he completely turned the match around and was dominating until Nalbandian retired. On the other hand, Nadal was tested until the very end by Paul-Henri Mathieu. I would say Nalbandian is a far more dangerous opponent than Mathieu.

Federer had the easiest draw one could think of? No. Nadal had a far easier draw. Massu, Berdych, and Nalbandian are far more dangerous than Hewitt, Djokovic, and Ljubicic on the clay. You say Diego Hartfield almost kicked Federer's butt? You call a straight-set victory almost getting your butt kicked? You have a lot to answer for.

Nadal did not face the best possible players. He did not face one quality clay-courter. I would also say that Federer did not face extremely quality clay court players either, but his draw was more difficult than Nadal's.

How will Nadal usher in a new era of tennis? Did Kuerten usher in a new era? What about Jim Courier? Sergei Bruguera? These guys all won the French at least twice. Nadal will have even less effect upon the tennis world because his fast court game is not up to par with Courier's or Kuerten's. When Nadal wins the French and Wimbledon back-to-back, come see me and I'll give you a cookie.

 

[slice bh compliment]

=jackson vile...we saw a 152th player almost kick his butt...

Overstate much?

I'm sure that was just for effect, though.

 

[slice bh compliment]

Hey, everyone, I think BeautyVenus is going to be watching the match while flipping through the leading gay interest magazines...Whoever wins, BeautyVenus is just rooting for a makeout session after a long, sweaty match.

 

[LowProfile]

Hey, everyone, I think BeautyVenus is going to be watching the match while flipping through the leading gay interest magazines...Whoever wins, BeautyVenus is just rooting for a makeout session after a long, sweaty match.

That's a bit of a character attack, but it's very very funny. :mrgreen:

 

[slice bh compliment]

That's a bit of a character attack, but it's very very funny. :mrgreen:

Hahaha thanks. And, yeah, sorry, BeautyVenus, for attacking your character.

 

[jackson vile]

I do not agree with any of this.

Nalbandian kicking the snot out of Federer? No. Federer was kicking the snot out of himself. Once Federer began to play even a little bit better down 0-3 in the second, he completely turned the match around and was dominating until Nalbandian retired. On the other hand, Nadal was tested until the very end by Paul-Henri Mathieu. I would say Nalbandian is a far more dangerous opponent than Mathieu.

Federer had the easiest draw one could think of? No. Nadal had a far easier draw. Massu, Berdych, and Nalbandian are far more dangerous than Hewitt, Djokovic, and Ljubicic on the clay. You say Diego Hartfield almost kicked Federer's butt? You call a straight-set victory almost getting your butt kicked? You have a lot to answer for.

Nadal did not face the best possible players. He did not face one quality clay-courter. I would also say that Federer did not face extremely quality clay court players either, but his draw was more difficult than Nadal's.

How will Nadal usher in a new era of tennis? Did Kuerten usher in a new era? What about Jim Courier? Sergei Bruguera? These guys all won the French at least twice. Nadal will have even less effect upon the tennis world because his fast court game is not up to par with Courier's or Kuerten's. When Nadal wins the French and Wimbledon back-to-back, come see me and I'll give you a cookie.

Total BS David was whipping his butt, David either hurt himself or just plain got tired. And this is a person that Roger beats regularly, not counting Roger's out of shape slip up.

roger had two people retire? Yea that is not easy, The rest of the players are once again people Roger regularly faces and beats.

As for Nadal vs Mathieu, Mathieu was trained specificly on this surface to win this tournament, and furhter more was giving 100% not saving any thing for future games.

Nadal had Haas, Blake, Safin, Hewitt, Andy, Ivan, and didn't he have Gonzalez in his draw also.

You know what, I want to see Roger get that draw at the big W, what's that you say that will never happen, Huh, odd that

All the players that could beat Nadal including the answer to Nadal were in his draw, with many people that he had never played against before.

Roger got the same old people that he was used to that have proved to be no threat to him for some time.


Roger was almost unable to handle Hartfield, Roger had so many mishits it was not funny. He looked like he could be swept, like he did not belong there. That Hartfield made Roger look like a fool, that should not be happening with the "world #1"


Roger is good as long as everthing goes his way, and the player is afraid and plays defensive, Nadal does not do that and thus Nadal wins time and again.

As you are such a hater that you do not realize that Nadal is only 20, he has how many clay wins in a row.

Nadal will only get better with time and he can beat almost anyone at any time, he will improve on the hard court, he already kicked Roger's but multiple times on hard courts, and then almost agian when in Florida.

 

[simi]

I'm pretty sure the 2500 point lead Federer has speaks for itself, he deserves to be number one...

It doesn't matter who wins tomorrow, Federer will ADD to his point lead and have a larger gap to the second ranked Nadal. By winning tomorrow, Nadal will only defend his points from last year. Already, Federer has advanced further in this tournament than last year, so will add to his point total. If Nadal should lose tomorrow, the point gap will grow a whole lot more.

 

[slice bh compliment]

...I'm pretty sure the 2500 point lead Federer has speaks for itself, he deserves to be number one. ...

Oh sure. Roll out that ATP computer nonsense. What a conspiracy!

 

[Breaker]

Total BS David was whipping his butt, David either hurt himself or just plain got tired. And this is a person that Roger beats regularly, not counting Roger's out of shape slip up.

roger had two people retire? Yea that is not easy, The rest of the players are once again people Roger regularly faces and beats.

As for Nadal vs Mathieu, Mathieu was trained specificly on this surface to win this tournament, and furhter more was giving 100% not saving any thing for future games.

Nadal had Haas, Blake, Safin, Hewitt, Andy, Ivan, and didn't he have Gonzalez in his draw also.

You know what, I want to see Roger get that draw at the big W, what's that you say that will never happen, Huh, odd that

All the players that could beat Nadal including the answer to Nadal were in his draw, with many people that he had never played against before.

Roger got the same old people that he was used to that have proved to be no threat to him for some time.


Roger was almost unable to handle Hartfield, Roger had so many mishits it was not funny. He looked like he could be swept, like he did not belong there. That Hartfield made Roger look like a fool, that should not be happening with the "world #1"


Roger is good as long as everthing goes his way, and the player is afraid and plays defensive, Nadal does not do that and thus Nadal wins time and again.

As you are such a hater that you do not realize that Nadal is only 20, he has how many clay wins in a row.
Nadal will only get better with time and he can beat almost anyone at any time, he will improve on the hard court, he already kicked Roger's but multiple times on hard courts, and then almost agian when in Florida.

Trust me, anyone who's spent time on these boards knows how long the man's been on the earth.

Mathieu is not a clay courter, never has been, never will be, he succeeds on fast courts where his money lies.

You say Hartfield made Roger look like a fool? I'm sure he was thinking the same thing after walking off the court being defeated in straight sets, tell me, are you Djokovic in disguise?!?!

 

[FEDEXP]

And what kicked off this thread..the Beauty Venus garbage that Sampras had no rivals (and I am a Sampras fan)-uh, he never won the FO so he never was in any position to compete to have rivals on clay.

 

[Docalex007]

Total BS David was whipping his butt, David either hurt himself or just plain got tired. And this is a person that Roger beats regularly, not counting Roger's out of shape slip up.

roger had two people retire? Yea that is not easy, The rest of the players are once again people Roger regularly faces and beats.

As for Nadal vs Mathieu, Mathieu was trained specificly on this surface to win this tournament, and furhter more was giving 100% not saving any thing for future games.

Nadal had Haas, Blake, Safin, Hewitt, Andy, Ivan, and didn't he have Gonzalez in his draw also.

You know what, I want to see Roger get that draw at the big W, what's that you say that will never happen, Huh, odd that

All the players that could beat Nadal including the answer to Nadal were in his draw, with many people that he had never played against before.

Roger got the same old people that he was used to that have proved to be no threat to him for some time.


Roger was almost unable to handle Hartfield, Roger had so many mishits it was not funny. He looked like he could be swept, like he did not belong there. That Hartfield made Roger look like a fool, that should not be happening with the "world #1"


Roger is good as long as everthing goes his way, and the player is afraid and plays defensive, Nadal does not do that and thus Nadal wins time and again.

As you are such a hater that you do not realize that Nadal is only 20, he has how many clay wins in a row.

Nadal will only get better with time and he can beat almost anyone at any time, he will improve on the hard court, he already kicked Roger's but multiple times on hard courts, and then almost agian when in Florida.

The match will start in 3 hours and 35 minutes....I will bash this post badly and shove it back in your face in about 7 hours after Roger wins the French. I'm looking forward to it. See ya.

 

[kooyah]

As for Nadal vs Mathieu, Mathieu was trained specificly on this surface to win this tournament, and furhter more was giving 100% not saving any thing for future games.

Um, didn't Nadal grow up playing on clay?

 

[jackson vile]

The match will start in 3 hours and 35 minutes....I will bash this post badly and shove it back in your face in about 7 hours after Roger wins the French. I'm looking forward to it. See ya.

So how about that bashing.... Oh wiat that's right :mrgreen: