Will Nadal Win Wimbledon or the U.S Open?

Will Nadal Win Wimbledon or the U.S Open?

  • No way, too fast doesn't fit his game style...

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • Yes, the U.S Open

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • Yes, Wimbledon

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • He will win both

    Votes: 16 80.0%
  • Total voters
    20
G

Grigollif1

Semi-Pro
Will Nadal ever Win Wimbledon or the U.S Open?

Lol...There so much damn talk about Federer winning the French.. I tought It would be fun to put into perspective..
 
Ok in the case of ever, I think he will sneak out a U.S Open title at some point in his career. Probably only 1 though, and he wont beat Federer in the final to do it either if the courts are as fast as they are now.
 
sandiegotennisboy said:
didnt arantxa pull of a USO? pigs fly now and then.
Click to expand...

She did. She was getting smoked in the final by Graf, losing the first set 6-1, down a break early in the 2nd, and Graf's back started to go out. Granted Aranxta filled the void as a worthy rival of Graf's, with Seles out due to the horrendous incident, and had some incredable matches with Graf during the mid-90s(95 Wimbledon final, 96 French Open final)so she deserves some credit for fighting back and relentlessly retrieving, scrapping, digging out balls, which also helped her turn the match around.
 
federerhoogenbandfan said:
She did. She was getting smoked in the final by Graf, losing the first set 6-1, down a break early in the 2nd, and Graf's back started to go out. Granted Aranxta filled the void as a worthy rival of Graf's, with Seles out due to the horrendous incident, and had some incredable matches with Graf during the mid-90s(95 Wimbledon final, 96 French Open final)so she deserves some credit for fighting back and relentlessly retrieving, scrapping, digging out balls, which also helped her turn the match around.
Click to expand...

i coin the name "MANrantxa™" for nadal.
 
I'm going to say....no. I don't think he'll ever win a major other than the French and I don't think he has that many French Opens left in him.

I hope he proves me wrong, because he has already proven how good he is on fast courts and it would be a shame for him not to have any Grand Slam proof of that prowess. But Federer is there, and I don't think Nadal (or anyone else) will beat Federer on fast courts any time soon.
 
superman1 said:
I'm going to say....no. I don't think he'll ever win a major other than the French and I don't think he has that many French Opens left in him.

I hope he proves me wrong, because he has already proven how good he is on fast courts and it would be a shame for him not to have any Grand Slam proof of that prowess. But Federer is there, and I don't think Nadal (or anyone else) will beat Federer on fast courts any time soon.
Click to expand...

Never a major other then the French? At the very least wouldnt you think he would win an Australian Open title some point in the next 5 years? The courts there are reportedly very very slow. Combine that with him beating Federer on hard courts 2 out of 3 times(dont know how fast they were, but definitely faster then Australia)and beating him a slam final(albeit on clay, but still the fact it was a slam final, some were calling for a different outcome for that reason alone)and you think he could go the next 5 years without winning the Aussie Open at any point at least?
 
Well, it's just a prediction. Rebound Ace is slow but you can't slide on it and more guys feel comfortable on it. I'm just hoping that there will be other guys who will step up to the plate and keep tennis from becoming a two man sport.
 
My prediction is that he won't have a very long career.
Players will be able to attack his deffensive 'wall' and he will
burnout before he's 25 or due to injuries.

He will never have a chance to win Wimbledon but maybe have
a chance to challenge at the US Open.

But he will dominate the French for the next 2 or 3 years.

Just my opinion.
 
if it’s on a court that is slow and bouncy, has a wall that can reverberate deafening Sharapova-like shrieks, and is umpired by a buffoon who doesn’t know how to count 20 seconds between points, MANrantxa™ can win it. nuff said.
 
IMHO, human with normal intelligence should be able to realize this by now:

Nadal is not your typical clay courter.

The difference from other caly courters is, as Federer said, Nadal's ability
to hit winners. Check out his winners/errors stats.
 
I think as Nadal's career continues he will be a contender for both. Now I'm not saying he will win it. I'm say he's a contender

As of right now he's a contender for the USopen but unless Blake get's in his way he isn't going to get far
 
Nadal won't be around for that long

:o I have nothing against Nadal but i am a die-hard Federer fan and i believe that Nadal won't have such a long rein of clay court wins. I mean he came literally out of no where to win last year, next thing you know there'll be some new kid on the block stealing away Nadal's title.

Long live Roger Federer and may he have many more wins.(over Nadal):)
 
fastdunn said:
IMHO, human with normal intelligence should be able to realize this by now:

Nadal is not your typical clay courter.

The difference from other caly courters is, as Federer said, Nadal's ability
to hit winners. Check out his winners/errors stats.
Click to expand...

Person with normal intelligence should be able to realize this by now:

Nadal relies on alot of errors from the very top players to win his matches, although he causes alot fo those errors, on slower surfaces it is easier to do this. He never hits as many winners as Federer in one of their matches, and usually is not even close, as well as some of the other top players. On faster courts matches are won by winners, not lost by errors, thus Nadal loses to these people each time on fast court if they are "on".

His offensive game is quite good, and much better then other clay court specialists, but is still by far the weakest of the current top 5 players.
 
Here's why Nadal will not win anything but the French:

outside of clay, EVERYONE knows they have a chance against Nadal. This means confidence and belief in knowing they can win. Pros will look at Nadal's past results in all the non-clay events and feel much less intimidated going into matches. When you play with confidence, you play much better. And even if you're down, you believe you can come back.

And not just #68 ranked players. Maybe even #100!
 
Yeah I don't wanna sound biased against Nadal or anything of that nature. He definitely has a different style and is great on clay. I'd say he has about 70% of winning a hardcourt slam, either USO or AO...in about 2 years' time. That is if he can stay as fit and injury-free. IMO he's gotta have better and heavier strokes on hardcourt. By the same token, the other rising young players are hungry to win hardcourt slams as well. Gasquet, Monfils and Djokovic may have a better shot at it if they stay on course. Roddick may dominate again. Who knows!
 
your poll is a little biased : "no way...doesnt fit his game style". It would have been enough to say "no way"...you do not need to add some persuasion.

In any event I do not believe that Nadal will win either tournamnet. He has zero chance of winning Wimbledo...however he could win the US OPEN!!!! He has already beaten Fed twice!!! In fact Fed barely beat Nadal once!

If Nadal does not meet Blake I really don't know of anyone who can stop Nadal as he has already beaten the best. Nadal has a good chance of winning the US open but the odds are against him.
 
dude he cant play grass for sure, so dont even mention about that anymore... hard maybe but im not taking my chance

The Pusher Terminator said:
your poll is a little biased : "no way...doesnt fit his game style". It would have been enough to say "no way"...you do not need to add some persuasion.

In any event I do not believe that Nadal will win either tournamnet. He has zero chance of winning Wimbledo...however he could win the US OPEN!!!! He has already beaten Fed twice!!! In fact Fed barely beat Nadal once!

If Nadal does not meet Blake I really don't know of anyone who can stop Nadal as he has already beaten the best. Nadal has a good chance of winning the US open but the odds are against him.
Click to expand...

hewitt might, cuz he lost in clay, but grass and hard is a whole dif story ;)
 
The Pusher Terminator said:
your poll is a little biased : "no way...doesnt fit his game style". It would have been enough to say "no way"...you do not need to add some persuasion.

In any event I do not believe that Nadal will win either tournamnet. He has zero chance of winning Wimbledo...however he could win the US OPEN!!!! He has already beaten Fed twice!!! In fact Fed barely beat Nadal once!

If Nadal does not meet Blake I really don't know of anyone who can stop Nadal as he has already beaten the best. Nadal has a good chance of winning the US open but the odds are against him.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? He has hardly played any decent players on hardcourt aside from Fed and Ljubicic. I won't mention Blake because he owns Nadal. He has yet to play an inform Safin, Hewitt pretty much owns him on hard, Nalbandian, And Gonzo is pretty dangerous on hards as well. Not to mention a few other dangerous floaters.
 
Let's start by eliminating Wimbledon from the poll. He will never win Wimbledon. Insert the Aussie Open for Wimbledon. Answer to amended question. Probably will win an AO before he retires, MAY win a U.S. Open. Better chance at AO than USO but USO not out of the question. As to the poster who asked who Nadal has ever beat on hard courts, don't know. Other than having a winning record against Federer on hardcourts, I am not familiar with his other opponents.
 
edberg505 said:
Are you kidding me? He has hardly played any decent players on hardcourt aside from Fed and Ljubicic. I won't mention Blake because he owns Nadal. He has yet to play an inform Safin, Hewitt pretty much owns him on hard, Nalbandian, And Gonzo is pretty dangerous on hards as well. Not to mention a few other dangerous floaters.
Click to expand...

Oh forgot to mention Berdych.
 
Nadal is improving his serve, so, his chances get better every day. All he really needs a slightly bigger serve, a good slice approach shot, and a better backhand volley.
 
The AO and French are a lock for him from now on, if they slow down Wimbledon any further he will likely capture it. He says he wants to win that one the most, and we all know Rafa is a warrior and doesn't let mental games get in the way of his success like a certain someone.
 
fastdunn said:
IMHO, human with normal intelligence should be able to realize this by now:

Nadal is not your typical clay courter.

The difference from other caly courters is, as Federer said, Nadal's ability
to hit winners. Check out his winners/errors stats.
Click to expand...

I think Moya/Ferrero/Kuerten/etc. are able to hit winners just fine, most clay courters can transfer their success to hard courts ala Moya (Aussie Open) Ferrero (US Open) and Kuerten (Masters Cup beating Agassi AND Sampras consecutively). Based on these guys I tend to agree that a clay courter that can hit winners has a chance on hard courts as well, so a US Open isn't out of the question and barring injury he has a chance to being a favorite at the Aussie Open as well.
 
Breaker said:
I think Moya/Ferrero/Kuerten/etc. are able to hit winners just fine, most clay courters can transfer their success to hard courts ala Moya (Aussie Open) Ferrero (US Open) and Kuerten (Masters Cup beating Agassi AND Sampras consecutively). Based on these guys I tend to agree that a clay courter that can hit winners has a chance on hard courts as well, so a US Open isn't out of the question and barring injury he has a chance to being a favorite at the Aussie Open as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah but none of those guys won a U.S or Australian Open title. I think Nadal has a better shot at the Aussie then them, but wont ever be as dominant there like he is at the French(winning every year). I do think he could win a U.S Open but not right away.
 
federerhoogenbandfan said:
Person with normal intelligence should be able to realize this by now:

Nadal relies on alot of errors from the very top players to win his matches, although he causes alot fo those errors, on slower surfaces it is easier to do this. He never hits as many winners as Federer in one of their matches, and usually is not even close, as well as some of the other top players. On faster courts matches are won by winners, not lost by errors, thus Nadal loses to these people each time on fast court if they are "on".

His offensive game is quite good, and much better then other clay court specialists, but is still by far the weakest of the current top 5 players.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me or not?
"better" than other clay courters ? It's not clear whether you're saying:
Nadal the typical clay courter or not ? Yes or no ?

In the match with Ljubicic, Nadal hit almost same number of winners
as Ljubicic's. And he hit more number of winners against all the players
before semi's. All these with very few unforced errors.

So much for the claims that Nadal soley relies on other's unforced errors.
As Federer said, the difference in match with Nadal compared to others,
Nadal jumps all over you whenever there's slight opening.

That's fundametally different mentality from typical clay court tennis...
 
In the match with Ljubicic, Nadal hit almost same number of winners as Ljubicic's. And he hit more number of winners against all the players before semi's. All these with very few unforced errors.
Click to expand...

So hitting only slightly fewer winners then a top player who sucks on clay in the semis, and just got a bogus draw to get there(Ljubicic), and about the same as Djokovic and Mathieu on his favorite surface, shows his aptitude for hitting winners on any surface relative to other top players. Pleeeaaasssee! :rolleyes:

So much for the claims that Nadal soley relies on other's unforced errors.
Click to expand...

Actually no your attempt was a lame one. Playing Federer, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, or even Hewitt or Roddick on a fast court he would have not nearly the winners as them, and rely on unforced errors. Matches on fast courts are won by who hits more winners, not who makes fewer mistakes usually.
 
I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me or not?
"better" than other clay courters ? It's not clear whether you're saying:
Nadal the typical clay courter or not ? Yes or no ?

He is better then other clay courters, and is not 100% the typical clay courter, but that does not mean he has the type of game that translates well vs top players at Wimbledon or the U.S Open.
 
federerhoogenbandfan said:
So hitting only slightly fewer winners then a top player who sucks on clay in the semis, and just got a bogus draw to get there(Ljubicic), and about the same as Djokovic and Mathieu on his favorite surface, shows his aptitude for hitting winners on any surface relative to other top players. Pleeeaaasssee! :rolleyes:
.
Click to expand...

I do not understand your logic here. Hit as many as top attacking player
and with low # of unforced error. Who is more solid attacking player ?

federerhoogenbandfan said:
Actually no your attempt was a lame one. Playing Federer, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, or even Hewitt or Roddick on a fast court he would have not nearly the winners as them, and rely on unforced errors. Matches on fast courts are won by who hits more winners, not who makes fewer mistakes usually.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. It's always about winners/error ratio.
Not the shear number of winners.
 
federerhoogenbandfan said:
I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me or not?
"better" than other clay courters ? It's not clear whether you're saying:
Nadal the typical clay courter or not ? Yes or no ?

He is better then other clay courters, and is not 100% the typical clay courter, but that does not mean he has the type of game that translates well vs top players at Wimbledon or the U.S Open.
Click to expand...

OK. Points well taken. We'll see how his game translates
on hard courts and grass. I'm not 100% sure either.
I was talking to ther people who compared Nadal
with Aranxa(?, I forgot her name).
 
fastdunn said:
I do not understand your logic here. Hit as many as top attacking player and with low # of unforced error. Who is more solid attacking player ?
Click to expand...

Ljubicic is not a top anything player on clay, he was only in the semis since his draw was a joke. You wont see him past the 4th round of the French ever again. He is a legit #4 in the World, but certainly not on clay, and I cant believe he was even in the semis.
 
fastdunn said:
OK. Points well taken. We'll see how his game translates
on hard courts and grass. I'm not 100% sure either.
I was talking to ther people who compared Nadal
with Aranxa(?, I forgot her name).
Click to expand...

Sanchez Vicario? Well she never won Wimbledon, but made the finals twice, losing both to Graf, one of them in an incredable match. She made two finals at the U.S Open, winning one vs a clearly injured Graf in the final.
 
Come on guys... Even Ferrero made a US OPEN final. Nadal has definitely chances to win it, specially having seen him play in Toronto, Madrid and Dubai. Has everybody here seen any of those matches? He CAN play on hard courts, so he CAN win it, as much as Federer can win the french. The possibility exists and nobody can deny it. I'm not so sure about Winbledon though:(
 
edberg505 said:
Are you kidding me? He has hardly played any decent players on hardcourt aside from Fed and Ljubicic. I won't mention Blake because he owns Nadal. He has yet to play an inform Safin, Hewitt pretty much owns him on hard, Nalbandian, And Gonzo is pretty dangerous on hards as well. Not to mention a few other dangerous floaters.
Click to expand...

I guess beating the former US open champion Andre Agassi doesnt count? And he has also beaten FED and Lubcic....you cant discount that as you have!
 
MR. 81 said:
Come on guys... Even Ferrero made a US OPEN final. Nadal has definitely chances to win it, specially having seen him play in Toronto, Madrid and Dubai. Has everybody here seen any of those matches? He CAN play on hard courts, so he CAN win it, as much as Federer can win the french. The possibility exists and nobody can deny it. I'm not so sure about Winbledon though:(
Click to expand...

Big deal even if Nadal had as much chance to win the U.S Open, as Federer the French. I always said I never felt Federer had any chance to win the French anyway, so that would not mean much, it would mean almost nothing for Nadal at the U.S open as well.
 
no and no

Win? Will he ever reach the second week at Wimby? I don't even like his chances to reach the QF at the USO. However, he could win the AO because he plays well in the heat and the surface is conducive to his style of play: slower and yields higher kicking balls with all the spin he generates than he'll find at Wimby or the USO.

Wimby
1. serve not a weapon
2. game too defensive: he stands too far behind the baseline; P. Chartier has a lot of room behind the baseline for him to run down balls on a slower surface
3. swings are too big: the baseliners that have had success (Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian) have flat, compact strokes--the ball will be on him too quickly for him to dictate the points

...same holds at the USO
 
MR. 81 said:
Come on guys... Even Ferrero made a US OPEN final. Nadal has definitely chances to win it, specially having seen him play in Toronto, Madrid and Dubai. Has everybody here seen any of those matches? He CAN play on hard courts, so he CAN win it, as much as Federer can win the french. The possibility exists and nobody can deny it. I'm not so sure about Winbledon though:(
Click to expand...

This makes sense. If Ferrero can make a USOPEN final, why not Nadal. And shoot, didn't MaliVai Washington make the final of Wimby? If he can do it, so can Nadal.

However, it will be interesting to see if Nadal can beat the #86 guy on grass tomorrow.
 
federerhoogenbandfan said:
Big deal even if Nadal had as much chance to win the U.S Open, as Federer the French. I always said I never felt Federer had any chance to win the French anyway, so that would not mean much, it would mean almost nothing for Nadal at the U.S open as well.
Click to expand...

I guess in your opinion reaching a final and a semifinal and loosing to arguably the best claycourter ever doesn't mean he was close to winning it. Your argument doesn't hold
 
Why don't we just wait and see what happens?? The speculation on these boards has always seemed off - I don't know if it is because no one knows what they are talking about, or are just in denial. I remember for the past 2 weeks, everyone on here was saying how Federer was going to beat Nadal at the French, so whatever....
 
HollerOne5 said:
Why don't we just wait and see what happens?? The speculation on these boards has always seemed off - I don't know if it is because no one knows what they are talking about, or are just in denial. I remember for the past 2 weeks, everyone on here was saying how Federer was going to beat Nadal at the French, so whatever....
Click to expand...

...and you keep coming back to read em cuz of your inner masochist.

speculating is the fun part cuz you feel like nostradamus when your prediction turns out right and you get to say "i told you so" to all the haters.

well, anyway (back to the thread)... MANrantxa should be able to pull off an Aussie Open. i wouldnt bet any money on other majors unless people die, retire, or are injured.
 
At least 5 French Opens
-he already has 2 and is practically a shoe-in for a third consecutive next year. He will be 21 when he wins his third. From there, another 2 almost seems conservative.

At least 2 Australian Opens
-Rebound Ace is slow, takes heavy topspin about as well anything, and has good traction for speedy, change-of-direction players...it is about as kind a court to Nadal's strengths as anything. I'd pick him for 2007 even.

At least 1 US Open
-Nadal won in Montreal last year, which plays about as close to the USO surface as any outdoor hardcourt. Cinci is supposed to be closest, but last year, players commented that Montreal played even faster than Cinci. He also downed the second best indoor-hardcourt player in the world, Ljubicic on a fast indoor court in Madrid on a bum knee. I've seen Rafael flatten out his shots before....he can do so with extreme accuracy, don't kid yourself..I think the adjustment to more aggressive court positioning and risk-taking will depend on how he is coached...he has the tools to evolve his game for faster courts; he is one of the most gifted athletes to play this sport, and shows the desire to adapt, challenging himself to improve on grass, improving his net skills by playing doubles, and already making impressive strides in his serving.
There is much more competition on fast hardcourt in the near future...but with a good draw and the avoidance of Mr. James Blake, Nadal could definitely pocket at least one USO, in two or more years.

At least one Wimbledon :
-much has been said/written about the slowing of the courts at Wimbledon...baseliners have shown only increasing success there. Not so much an issue of the speed of the surface as it is of movement on the surface....his lightning change of direction is hampered by unfamiliarity with the surface...but he is a former soccer stud and seems hungry to improve on grass...one Wimbledon title is not out of the question, albeit not for at least another 3 or 4 years.
 
fastdunn said:
The difference from other caly courters is, as Federer said, Nadal's ability
to hit winners. Check out his winners/errors stats.
Click to expand...

Exactly and he hit a number of them against Federer on hardcourt.

C'mon people. I mean sure Nadal will have his problems on grass especially with his style and his less than stellar history of grass performances but anyone who concludes already that Nadal can't win at the AO or U.S. Open are just haters.

Nadal on hardcourt is not the same as Nadal on grass. The guy did reach the fourth round of the AO when he was 18 years old and the third round at 17 years old. Who knows how far he would have gotten had he not skipped out on this year's tournament. He also lost to a super improved Blake last year at the U.S. Open which looked surprising then but certainly other than Fed losing to Blake is no longer a surprise now. Plus, Nadal has shown he could beat Federer on hardcourt something almost nobody else on the tour can confidently claim.
 
Just a reminder to those who think Wimbledon is some super fast, big serving fest where claycourters can't do well-Coria, Ferrero, & Gonzalez all made the 2nd week last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
HollerOne5 said:
Why don't we just wait and see what happens?? The speculation on these boards has always seemed off - I don't know if it is because no one knows what they are talking about, or are just in denial. I remember for the past 2 weeks, everyone on here was saying how Federer was going to beat Nadal at the French, so whatever....
Click to expand...

NOW I FEEL INSULTED! Please edit to "every blind Federer fan who didn't even watch Rome's final and though Fed was closer than ever to winning the French just by the score". Roger played EXTREME tennis at Rome, on a faster court and against an unusually inaccurate Nadal and still didn't win. I said dozens of times he had no chances of beating him in Paris. So please don't include me there;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Federer and Wimbledon/U.S. Open Three Peat
Replies
8
Views
1K
Gilgamesh
G
anointedone
  • Poll Poll
When will Nadal win the U.S Open
Replies
15
Views
1K
TennezSport
TennezSport
I
Which player was hurt most by each of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
Replies
27
Views
3K
kandamrgam
kandamrgam
lambielspins
  • Poll Poll
Nadal to ever win U.S Open
2 3
Replies
106
Views
8K
DSH
DSH
capriatifanatic
  • Poll Poll
Will Nadal win any slam titles this year?
Replies
20
Views
2K
Steve0904
Steve0904
Back
Top