As you seem to know your stuff......from what i can see one of the reasons that Federer isnt as good on clay is because his ability to swerve and spin the ball as he does so well on grass isnt as important on clay??
The French Open
- Thread starter Brophs
- Start date
As you seem to know your stuff......from what i can see one of the reasons that Federer isnt as good on clay is because his ability to swerve and spin the ball as he does so well on grass isnt as important on clay??
I really dont like the way Federer has been so well beaten.
no match. nadal is unstoppable
Another break, fecking hell 5-0, Nadal to serve for the title.
A Nadal advantage is that he is a left handed which helps greatly as it matches his strength, his forehand, up against most players’ weakness their backhand. Even if his opponent has a great backhand on the clay they are hitting off balance and above there shoulders too often to be as aggressive as they would be on a faster surface with lower bounces.
Yeah, that's definitely one of the reasons, as the great clay players are all about angles. You only have to look at Rafa today to see what I'm talking about. But mostly it's because on clay, he can't run the ball through the court like he can on grass/hard. The ball holds up too much, and suits the more mobile player. One of the things Pat Cash pointed out in The Sunday Times is that most players(including Roger) slide into the shot on clay, but if you watch Rafa he slides out of the shot, as he gets to the ball so quickly, which means he is constantly moving, and very hard to pass.
Looking at this game, it is a mixture of Federer under-performing, and Nadal being brilliant. Having said that, Nadal will only improve on clay, so maybe Roger's best chance of winning this tournament will be for someone else to knock him out etc. I doubt he would get as much satisfaction from that.
No excuses, Federer has lost three finals against Nadal in a row now. And the difference between them on clay is getting bigger... whilst Nadal improved alot in his second wimbledon final and nearly beat Federer.
Federer will never win Roland Garros if he has to play Nadal. He'll get shat on.
He's not as great from the baseline as people say either... and I've said this all along: his net play is not that good. The misses he makes from easy volleys (okay some are not easy as they seem, especially when the ball comes back mid-height with little pace, it's rather trickey... but good-great volleyers, and people seem to think Federer is this amazing alrounder, will put them away mostly) is very apparent and is no one-off... he does it regularly.
Federer will never win Roland Garros if he has to play Nadal. He'll get shat on.
He's not as great from the baseline as people say either... and I've said this all along: his net play is not that good. The misses he makes from easy volleys (okay some are not easy as they seem, especially when the ball comes back mid-height with little pace, it's rather trickey... but good-great volleyers, and people seem to think Federer is this amazing alrounder, will put them away mostly) is very apparent and is no one-off... he does it regularly.
Federer will never beat Nadal on clay unless he improves immensly. He practically lost every point on his second serve, so his serving has to be top notch. Federer, whilst probably the greatest ever player, cannot volley. He would have won a lot more points if his volleying was up to scratch. There is no point in just hitting baseline rallies with Nadal on clay. Nadal makes very few unforced errors and he punishes every weak shot that comes back to him. Realistically every shot Federer hits has to be extremely good or Nadal will piss all over him.
Federer is not as good as he is made out to be. He is lucky to have played at a time when there is no other dominant player at his peak and the challengers are a couple of youngsters.
Sampras would have never lost 4 games in a row to the same player at the same tournament. He would have figured out a way to win. He still managed to beat Federer a couple of times having not played competitive tennis for years. His serve and volley was far superior and he is a much better battler. Federer is an artiste but bottles it whenever he has to fight.
Sampras would have never lost 4 games in a row to the same player at the same tournament. He would have figured out a way to win. He still managed to beat Federer a couple of times having not played competitive tennis for years. His serve and volley was far superior and he is a much better battler. Federer is an artiste but bottles it whenever he has to fight.
2003 Wimbledon
2004 Australian Open
2004 Wimbledon (2)
2004 U.S. Open
2005 Wimbledon (3)
2005 U.S. Open (2)
2006 Australian Open (2)
2006 Wimbledon (4)
2006 U.S. Open (3)
2007 Australian Open (3)
2007 Wimbledon (5)
2007 U.S. Open (4)
Dont be ridiculous. The guy is still only 26, more is to come. We will see what happens at the US Open and Wimbledon.
No surprise. You only seem to turn up on these forums when United or Federer loses. Federer is clearly the better player than Sampras. Sampras didn't even get past the second round of the French Open. Federer has reached the final 3 times in a row and the only player to have beaten him is Nadal. Who, unfortunately for Federer, is the greatest clay courter ever.
When Sampras was 22, the likes of Becker and Edberg were only 28 and still at the top. He had a great like Agassi who was around the same age and competing with him.
Federer won all his titles in the 4 years when he hasn't really had any great competition apart from clay. And even now, the competition is coming from a couple of 21 yr olds.
Your claim that Sampras never got past the second round shows what a retard you are. Even more retarded is the claim that Nadal is the greatest clay courter ever.
Federer is just lucky to have played at a time when there was no great competition and has capitalized on it.
Does not seem retarded to me, seems reasonable. Sampras never got to a french final and played Agassi in five major finals losing only one the Australian in 1995... hardly the basis for a great rivalry. The Nadal claim is also debatable its a toss up between him and Borg.
I've had this argument about competition too many times now. I know he reached the semis once in '96 or '97 but on the whole he has struggled in the French Open. I'm struggling to think of a claycourter better than Nadal. He's won 4 French Opens already at only 22 and lost 2 games in 110. Borg's the only one that comes close but that was a completely different era which I don't know much about.
Out of curiousity, do you even watch sport? Or do you just go around the internet being a WUM (and on the whole failing spectacularly)?
What time and channel would the Nadal/Federer match be on?
It finished 3 hours ago.
feck sake, what a Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime I am.Had a couple of quid on Nadal cause I was told he was the greatest certainty in sporting history, I doubt I've ever watched a tennis match in my life.
Spot on
In all honesty, on clay Sampras probably would have lost 6 games in a row to Nadal.
I actually think it is Nadal who is overrated, he never really seems to do anything on any other surface(yes he has made some finals) but almost all of his wins are on clay. He has no equal, and is greatly helped by the fact that he is a left hander when he plays on clay, because his spins are so much different than the right handers. That said, I reckon that the younger Novak Djokovic has already surpassed on grass and hard court, and will be the better all arounder over time. As good as Nadal is, remember Kuerten won three French Open's himself.
Sorry, but Federer is/was better than Sampras, the one who is often overlooked in terms of greatness recently is Agassi who could have won so many more Grand Slams if he would have focused more on tennis. That said he DOES have the career Grand Slam, something everyone else mentioned hasn't or probably won't achieve.
Oh and Agassi was ten times the showman compared to any of those other guys.
Agassi was a 8 time Grand slam winner
Becker and Edberg won 6 Grand slams each
Apart from a couple of 21 year olds, who is Federer competing against ?
Davydenko ? Ferrer ? Nalbandian ? Roddick ?
None of them are a match to the players Sampras was up against. A 36 year old Sampras proved he could still beat Federer. And even Federer said that he genuinely believed Sampras still had the game to play in the final rounds on most grand slams. It shows the mediocre competition that is around these days.
Amazing!
I think perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part. I still think Federer will walk it next year though
Agassi was a 8 time Grand slam winner
Becker and Edberg won 6 Grand slams each
Apart from a couple of 21 year olds, who is Federer competing against ?
Davydenko ? Ferrer ? Nalbandian ? Roddick ?
A 36 year old Sampras proved he could still beat Federer. And even Federer said that he genuinely believed Sampras still had the game to play in the final rounds on most grand slams. It shows the mediocre competition that is around these days.
Oh yeah, you think Federer is gonna give his all in an exhibition match and risk injury? Don't be so stupid. Sampras probably took it serious as hell, but Federer prob treated it like training. Sampras won't be fast enough round the court now, the style of tennis has changed, etc.
Mediocre competition? Piss off with that too. If the competition was so much better in Agassi Sampras days, why was it always those 2 talked about pretty much. Mediocre competition obviously -_-
I don't see anything mediocre about Djokovic, Roddick, or Nadal. All very good talented players.
That was a friendly match. And Federer's not going to say, "Sampras can't hack it." is he? It's like saying Orlando Pirates are a better team than United if they beat us next month.
The fact that a 26 year old Federer needs to 'give his all' to beat a 36 year old Sampras who hadnt picked up a racquet in years speaks for itself. Federer's comment that he genuinely believed Sampras could still play in the final rounds of grand slams speaks about the shite competetion that he has.
Sampras was a superior athlete to Federer in terms of both athleticism and speed. This one is not even a contest
Roddick won 1 grand slam in his career....the likes of Jim Courier (4 grand slams) and Pat Rafter (2 grand slams) during the Sampras era have done better. If you are going to include one hit wonders like Roddick as competition, then there is a list in Sampras era as well - Petr Korda, Richard Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Chang, Micheal Stich etc.
Djokovic is still yong and lernin. He has great potential and for the first time, Federer is having to compete on non clay courts.
Nadal is great on clay and wouldnt have troubled Sampras on any other court either. There were several great French open champs when Sampras played too.
Not quite...it is like our '99 team beating our current team a few times in a series of friendlies.
If an old group of aging/retired players who may not have played for years beat the current ones even in friendlies, then there is a question mark over how good the current team is. If the likes of Butt, Sheringham, Yorke, Cole, Stam, Irwin and Becks are even now able to beat the likes of Carrick, Rooney, Tevez, Ronnie, Evra, Rio and Vida, then they are surely the better players. If the 99 team lost, it wouldnt prove that they are an inferior team but if they won (more than once) it would surely prove they are superior.
No it wouldn't mean anything because it was a friendly. An exhibition match. There's a reason why it's called exhibition match.
You really need a better argument than this. You could also say that a 20 year old Federer beat a Sampras at the peak of his game on grass, hence Federer is better.
The fact that a 26 year old Federer needs to 'give his all' to beat a 36 year old Sampras who hadnt picked up a racquet in years speaks for itself. Federer's comment that he genuinely believed Sampras could still play in the final rounds of grand slams speaks about the shite competetion that he has.
How so?
If you are going to include one hit wonders like Roddick as competition, then there is a list in Sampras era as well - Petr Korda, Richard Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Chang, Micheal Stich etc.
Djokovic is still yong and lernin. He has great potential and for the first time, Federer is having to compete on non clay courts.
Nadal is great on clay and wouldnt have troubled Sampras on any other court either. There were several great French open champs when Sampras played too.
So can you give me a list of the players that made Tennis so competitive during the 90s?
It's a fair argument that Federer did not have a good level of competitors around untill 2-3 years ago. Likes of Hewitt, Roddick were never upto the standards. You could say it's not his fault but he would not have won so many slams if Nadal and Novak had surfaced two years earlier. If he can not overcome the challenge of Novak and Nadal now, he won't go down as best player ever.
Played Becker in one grand slam final, Wimbledon 95 final... beat him
Played Edberg in one grand slam final, US Open... got beat
6-3 against Agassi in grand slams, 3-0 against Becker in grand slams
As i said hardly the basis for great rivalries. Becker and Edberg were also on their way down hill when Sampras was in his prime, its like saying Sampras was a major rival of Federers in the later years.
The Connors, Mcenroe, Borg era is the only time there has been numerous great players playing near their best at the same time.
Thats plain silly.
he'll be among top three players in 7-8 years, maybe less
Oh well, maybe next year
I was expecting big things. What a disaster.