Roland Garros 2010

[wr8_utd]

I was counting 2006. One thing about Fed is that he has had serious career stamina. A lot of players explode on the scene and fizzle out around their mid 20s. Fed has managed to keep it going and isn't really showing signs of any significant drop off. I doubt Rafa can do it.

Yeah that's quite impressive. But now even he's beginning to fade away a bit.

Nadal, we should not forget has been playing for absolute ages. Infact he was just 15 when he played his first ATP level match. That's almost 8 to 9 years of playing now so it's not really a surprise he will tire out sooner.

And sadly Nadal has always had a lot of injury issues. He was out for 3-4 months due to a stress fracture back in 2004 or 05 when he missed the Aussie open, then his knee issues.

I yet think he'l win some slam until he's 27.

 

[wr8_utd]

Easy, he'll end up with 8 or 9 French open titles by the time he finishes and it will never be beaten.

As much as I would love that I can't see it happening. He's on 5 now. Winning 3 or 4 more won't be easy.

People are improving on clay too now. I can see Nadal winning 2 more on clay.

After that he'l be around 27 and it's not easy to run around and play the way he does on clay at that age.

But yeah he probably will beat Bjorg's record.

 

[Kevin]

But the face with Roddick remains he yet bottled it. 3 set points to go 2 sets to love up and he bottled it.

No one has the balls to beat Federer in slams, except Nadal. They all crumble mentally as soon as they see Federer on the other side. People like Roddick who have something like a 14-2 record against him are embarrassing. Roddick was a bloody former world number 1 and a long time number 2 and he's never beaten Fed in a Slam? That's just shameful.

Federer is a great player no doubt and will probably go down as one of the best but he had a very very poor field and opposition.

Roddick and Hewitt were his only real threat until Nadal came into the picture and as we know Nadal owns Federer.

The era before this was so much stronger, we had players like Samprass, Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisivic, Ferrero (in form), Safin, Kuerten , Chang and so many more who were capable of winning slams and actually won them.

The current field is one of the poorest in a long time. Only Nadal and Federer can really win slams. Roddick and Hewitt despite being former number ones are total jokes, Djokovic is the worst number 3 in decades and Murray is well just Murray.

Fully agreed. Halleluyah!~

 

[Allforone]

As much as I would love that I can't see it happening. He's on 5 now. Winning 3 or 4 more won't be easy.

People are improving on clay too now. I can see Nadal winning 2 more on clay.

After that he'l be around 27 and it's not easy to run around and play the way he does on clay at that age.

But yeah he probably will beat Bjorg's record.

I disagree, i can easily see it happening personally, had it not been for his knees today would have been his 6th French open title in a row and hed still remarkably be unbeaten at Roland Garros! its ridiculous how good he is at the French so much so when fit no ones touches him, todays victory was also the second time hes won the thing without dropping a solitary set the entire tournament!

For me the gaps widening on Clay not shortening, Nadal is as far ahead as hes ever been now, his main rival in the earlier years at Roland Garros (federer) is his bunny on Clay, Soderling today was a total mismatch and yet hes now considered on the best players in the world on clay….. Almagro is probably as good as it gets after Rafa on clay at the moment, which says it all.

Id be very surprised if, injury permitting Rafa didn’t win the next 3 French opens on the bounce, i can also genuinely see him retireing with that Soderling defeat of last year (when he was clearly unfit) as his solitary defeat at Roland garros in his entire carear…..if he stays healthy.

Hes more dominant at the French than Federer was at Wimbledon.

 

[Nearco]

The era before this was so much stronger, we had players like Samprass, Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisivic, Ferrero (in form), Safin, Kuerten , Chang and so many more who were capable of winning slams and actually won them.

The current field is one of the poorest in a long time. Only Nadal and Federer can really win slams. Roddick and Hewitt despite being former number ones are total jokes, Djokovic is the worst number 3 in decades and Murray is well just Murray.

That's a very simplistic argument. Del Potro, Murray and Soderling are all very strong players and would have won Grand Slams in an earlier era. I mean Rafter's wins came against Philipousis and Rusedski fer fecks sake.

I agree that the problems these players have is mental rather than physical. Soderling missed tons of winners today that he would have made against any other player.

 

[wr8_utd]

Yeah he's definitely more dominant than Federer was/is on grass but people will come up and have the odd matches of their lifetime against Nadal.

He was a class above this year but people have improved.

Nadal beat Almagro 6-1 6-1 6-1 in the Quarters in 2008 and this year it was so much closer with the 7-6 7-6 6-4.

Nadal is still by and far the greatest on clay right now but you do have occasional upsets.

Never know, Del Potro and his big hitting could trouble Nadal or even Davydenko who has a good record agaisnt Rafa.

I see nadal getting to 7 and maybe 8. 9 is a step too far imo. 4 more French Open titles seems almost impossible for me.

Even Federer was eventually beaten on grass.

And plus the way Nadal plays, he will have health problems at some point which is another reason I don't see him winning 3 or 4 more on clay.

I can see him winning 1 or 2 Wimbeldons more though.

 

[wr8_utd]

That's a very simplistic argument. Del Potro, Murray and Soderling are all very strong players and would have won Grand Slams in an earlier era. I mean Rafter's wins came against Philipousis and Rusedski fer fecks sake.

I agree that the problems these players have is mental rather than physical. Soderling missed tons of winners today that he would have made against any other player.

Prior to beating Rusedski in the final he had beaten Chang and Agassi and that's no small feat.
And the year he beat Philipousis he beat the legend i.e Sampras in 5 sets in the semis!
And yeah I had forgotten another very good player in that era, Kafelnikov.

Oh and talking of the current era:
Murray strong player? Really? What has he done till now? A couple of Masters on Hard courts aside? He has reached 2 finals in slams and been embarrassed in both. Every other slam he almost always gets knocked out in the 4th round.

Soderling has never gotten past the 2nd round in Australia and the 4th in Wimbeldon. Del Potro yeah is a real threat and injury permitting a real number one in the future. But he's the only real threat.

And yes, all players have mental problems. They just don't have the belief against the likes of Federer and Nadal ( on clay especially).
Chokervic has won one grandslam and never looked like adding to it since then.

This field is nowhere as good as the previous era. The last 5 or 6 years all buy 2 slams have been won by Nadal and Federer.

 

[wr8_utd]

I really hope Nadal can win the USO at some point and complete the Career Golden Slam though

 

[Nearco]

Prior to beating Rusedski in the final he had beaten Chang and Agassi and that's no small feat.
And the year he beat Philipousis he beat the legend i.e Sampras in 5 sets in the semis!
And yeah I had forgotten another very good player in that era, Kafelnikov.

Oh and talking of the current era:
Murray strong player? Really? What has he done till now? A couple of Masters on Hard courts aside? He has reached 2 finals in slams and been embarrassed in both. Every other slam he almost always gets knocked out in the 4th round.
.

But Murray had to play Federer in both Finals, that's the point. And on the way to the Australian Final he had to beat Nadal.

The support players from the earlier era look better than today's because they didn't have Nadal and Fedrer to contend with. Kafelnikov was no better than Davydenko. One of your statements was that Djokovic is the weakest number 3 for decades. How about Marcelo Rios getting to number 1 in the era you're defending??

 

[wr8_utd]

True Rios got to number 1 but again that just highlights my point, the era was so competitive that everyone won tournaments. It was not like the current era where just 2 people can really win any slams.

Murray and Chokervic were above Nadal for a large part of the last 1 year despite the fact they have 1 slam between them.

Rankings can be deceptive.

Rios was a decent player but he also had beaten Agassi in straight sets once. Can you imagine a player of Rios' limited calibre beating a Nadal or a Federer in straight sets nowadays?

You say Kafelnikov was no better than Davydenko and yet he won 2 slams which is a great achievment.

There were just too many very good players in that era. All of them potential champions and that's why we have seen so many different champions that time.

And the Agassi Sampras rivalry was every bit as good as Nadal Federer.

 

[wr8_utd]

But Murray had to play Federer in both Finals, that's the point. And on the way to the Australian Final he had to beat Nadal.

The support players from the earlier era look better than today's because they didn't have Nadal and Fedrer to contend with. Kafelnikov was no better than Davydenko. One of your statements was that Djokovic is the weakest number 3 for decades. How about Marcelo Rios getting to number 1 in the era you're defending??

And Rios was number 1 for a very short while, Djokovich has been consistently the number 3 for 3 years now. So it's not a fluke achievment like Rios getting to 1st.

 

[Nearco]

Rios was a decent player but he also had beaten Agassi in straight sets once. Can you imagine a player of Rios' limited calibre beating a Nadal or a Federer in straight sets nowadays?

No, because Nadal and Federer are way better than Agassi ever was.

And Chang was shite as well.

 

[wr8_utd]

Agassi as of now is yet ahead of Nadal in terms of grand slams won and has also completed the Career Golden Slam so show the guy some respect.

Now I'm a massive Nadal fan but for me Nadal is definitely not better than Agassi was, yet. Agassi was really good on all surfaces and he had far harder and more competition than Nadal has had.

This current era is not even close to being as competitive and good as the previous.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

No, because Nadal and Federer are way better than Agassi ever was.

Sorry but Andre was a better all round player than Nadal.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Now the era I wish I would've seen is the Llendl, Becker, Wilander, Mcenroe, Connors, Edberg era. Sounds like a blast. . Shame Borg retired before some of these guys came through. But his rivalry with Mcenroe sounds just as orgasmic.

 

[Raoul]

No, because Nadal and Federer are way better than Agassi ever was.

And Chang was shite as well.

Federer is but, Nadal isn't quite there yet. Agassi was an all court player.

 

[Nearco]

Nadal has won GS's on all three surfaces.

 

[wr8_utd]

Yea but not at all 4 Slams. USO is a faster and harder court than Aussie Open.

 

[Raoul]

I really hope Nadal can win the USO at some point and complete the Career Golden Slam though

Career Grand Slam you mean ?

I do think he will win it given that Fed is beginning to slow down a bit and the likes of Del Potro and the others aren't going to win every year. This may be Rafa's year to get it done.

That said, I doubt he will catch Fed's Slam total because Fed will win about 3 or more before he's done. I think he's the type to continue doing damage well into his 30s like Agassi did.

 

[EdWeatherall]

Career Grand Slam you mean ?

I do think he will win it given that Fed is beginning to slow down a bit and the likes of Del Potro and the others aren't going to win every year. This may be Rafa's year to get it done.

You've got imagine it's going to tough for him though, as it's a surface that suits Roddick and Murray, and perhaps more significantly, you've got to think that the hard court season is the most damaging for his knees

Especially with two big hard court tournaments (Montreal and Cincinnati) before the US Open

 

[wr8_utd]

Career Grand Slam you mean ?

I do think he will win it given that Fed is beginning to slow down a bit and the likes of Del Potro and the others aren't going to win every year. This may be Rafa's year to get it done.

That said, I doubt he will catch Fed's Slam total because Fed will win about 3 or more before he's done. I think he's the type to continue doing damage well into his 30s like Agassi did.

Career Golden Slam is all 4 slams and the Olympic Gold too which Rafa won in 2008

That's something even Federer has not managed to do so it will be an incredible achievment to complete it. Just the bloody USO is left.

And yeah I agree I can't see Nadal getting anywhere close to Sampras' 14 let alone Federer's (current) 16.

He just wont last that long sadly. Federer I think will win slams for maximum another 2 years, can't see him winning slams like Agassi in his 30's. Even Agassi just won the 1 Aussie Open afaik in his 30's.

 

[wr8_utd]

You've got imagine it's going to tough for him though, as it's a surface that suits Roddick and Murray, and perhaps more significantly, you've got to think that the hard court season is the most damaging for his knees

Especially with two big hard court tournaments (Montreal and Cincinnati) before the US Open

Yep can't see Nadal doing too well on the American Hard Courts and especially since it comes at the end of a very tiring season.

But nadal's beginning to play lesser tournaments so maybe he could do it. He really wants the one final Slam to complete his collection.

 

[Raoul]

The Olympic Gold isn't respected, not in the US at least. Nowhere near a proper slam.

 

[wr8_utd]

Not respected maybe but there are still just 2 people who have ever completed a career golden slam so it's a big achievment in a sense.

And I remember Federer saying he really badly wanted to win it in 08.

 

[Raoul]

Not respected maybe but there are still just 2 people who have ever completed a career golden slam so it's a big achievment in a sense.

And I remember Federer saying he really badly wanted to win it in 08.

I think Nadal has a decent shot at winning a proper slam in one year (next year). Provided he can stay healthy of course.

 

[wr8_utd]

Grand Slam? nahh I just can't see him winning all 4 in a year. 2008 was probably his best chance when he played great tennis but that got ruined.

I can see him even pulling off 3 of the 4 slams but he'l come short at Flushing Meadows

 

[Raoul]

Grand Slam? nahh I just can't see him winning all 4 in a year. 2008 was probably his best chance when he played great tennis but that got ruined.

I can see him even pulling off 3 of the 4 slams but he'l come short at Flushing Meadows

His best years are still to come imo. That means next year and possibly the year after, during which Fed will be 29/30 and no longer at his peak. The best time if any for Rafa to pull it off.