Wimbledon 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.
wr8_utd said:
Same here. Cant stand Federer at all.
Great though he might be he's been lucky he's played in such a weak field of tennis players for years before Rafa came.

When his only so called "rivals" were Hewit and roddick it's no wonder he's been winning slam after slam
Click to expand...

Uhm, what weak field? Agassi,Safin,Hewitt, Roddick, or Djokovic, Murray and Davy who own Nadal on HC's?

And no, Nadal has not won on all surfaces, he's achieved career best at the USO SF. Indoors he has been beaten rather easily by Federer the two times they met.

Nadal is 5-6 against Davy overall and 2-5 outside clay.
Nadal is 2-2 agains Nalbandian and 0-2 before Nalbandian went downhill in the rankings
Nadal is 5-3 against Roddick and 3-3 against him outside clay.
Nadal is 6-4 against Hewitt and 2-4 outside clay.
Nadal is 14-7 against Djokovic and 5-7 outside clay.
Nadal is 4-3 over Del Potro and 1-3 since 2009. 3 of his wins came when Delpo was 19 years old.
Nadal is 14-7 vs Federer and 4-5 off clay.
Nadal is 7-3 vs Gonzalez and 2-3 off clay.

In any case can't see the whole weak era stuff, when 60% of the field are HC specialists and they own Nadal, who is supposed to be the only tough opponent Federer had. Nadal is the best clay courter in his era and probably in the Open era, but outside it, can't see him complain about the weak era.

Besides his HC slams, Federer had Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt etc at Wimbey and Roddick with his 3 finals and 1 sf is not exactly a noname there. Let me remind you that since the late 80's only Becker,Federer,Sampras, Nadal and Ivanisevic have 3 finals or more at WImbey.

"Since" Nadal came I presume it was in 05 when Nadal won his firs slam? I can't see Federer slowing down in terms of winning slams. He won AO this year, RG and WImbey last year, had made it to 23 SF's until this years RG. He also would've had 19 straight finals if it wouldn't had been for his mono -losing to Djokovic in 08 AO.

And I can't see the dig at Roddick, having in mind that he could easily had 5-6 slams under his name if it weren't for Federer.

You have to take into consideration that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. At 29 I can't see Nadal winning a slam given his physical condition and nature of his game. When Federer was in his prime - up to 2008, before he himself had mono and back issues, the H2H was much closer (something like 7-9 predominantly on clay).

Federer is not the same as it used to be as he lost a step or two, the head speed is not the same, easily seen in this Wimbey. Watch any of his matches 4-5 years ago and you'll see how he rips every forhand, unlike now.

In any case we have Catch 22 here - if he beats pretty much everybody bar Nadal on clay - the field is weak. If he loses more and doesn't reach SF's anymore the field is much tougher and it doesn't seem to matter that his losses came to Hewitt, Soderling,Davydenko,Baggy,Berdych etc - the same those "weak rivals".

Anyway H|T over, off to watch Spain - Chile.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Uhm, what weak field? Agassi,Safin,Hewitt, Roddick, or Djokovic, Murray and Davy who own Nadal on HC's?

And no, Nadal has not won on all surfaces, he's achieved career best at the USO SF. Indoors he has been beaten rather easily by Federer the two times they met.

Nadal is 5-6 against Davy overall and 2-5 outside clay.
Nadal is 2-2 agains Nalbandian and 0-2 before Nalbandian went downhill in the rankings
Nadal is 5-3 against Roddick and 3-3 against him outside clay.
Nadal is 6-4 against Hewitt and 2-4 outside clay.
Nadal is 14-7 against Djokovic and 5-7 outside clay.
Nadal is 4-3 over Del Potro and 1-3 since 2009. 3 of his wins came when Delpo was 19 years old.
Nadal is 14-7 vs Federer and 4-5 off clay.
Nadal is 7-3 vs Gonzalez and 2-3 off clay.

In any case can't see the whole weak era stuff, when 60% of the field are HC specialists and they own Nadal, who is supposed to be the only tough opponent Federer had. Nadal is the best clay courter in his era and probably in the Open era, but outside it, can't see him complain about the weak era.

Besides his HC slams, Federer had Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt etc at Wimbey and Roddick with his 3 finals and 1 sf is not exactly a noname there. Let me remind you that since the late 80's only Becker,Federer,Sampras, Nadal and Ivanisevic have 3 finals or more at WImbey.

"Since" Nadal came I presume it was in 05 when Nadal won his firs slam? I can't see Federer slowing down in terms of winning slams. He won AO this year, RG and WImbey last year, had made it to 23 SF's until this years RG. He also would've had 19 straight finals if it wouldn't had been for his mono -losing to Djokovic in 08 AO.

And I can't see the dig at Roddick, having in mind that he could easily had 5-6 slams under his name if it weren't for Federer.

You have to take into consideration that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. At 29 I can't see Nadal winning a slam given his physical condition and nature of his game. When Federer was in his prime - up to 2008, before he himself had mono and back issues, the H2H was much closer (something like 7-9 predominantly on clay).

Federer is not the same as it used to be as he lost a step or two, the head speed is not the same, easily seen in this Wimbey. Watch any of his matches 4-5 years ago and you'll see how he rips every forhand, unlike now.

In any case we have Catch 22 here - if he beats pretty much everybody bar Nadal on clay - the field is weak. If he loses more and doesn't reach SF's anymore the field is much tougher and it doesn't seem to matter that his losses came to Hewitt, Soderling,Davydenko,Baggy,Berdych etc - the same those "weak rivals".

Anyway H|T over, off to watch Spain - Chile.
Click to expand...

Did Federer play Agassi at his peak? No
Did Federer play Sampras more than once at his peak? No

Safin was a hugely talented player but he always was temperamental and never likely to challenge to Fed. So yeah we're down to just 2 decent opponents in Roddick and Hewitt and forgive me for saying so but their not exactly the very definition of a "strong field".

Hewitt and Roddick have losing records of something like 13-14 matches against Fed. That's what you call a strong field?

And please don't mention Davy, Djoko and Murray. Their the hugest chokers of the modern era. Djokovic being number 3 is an absolute insult to tennis.

You seriously can't compare this era to the last one where we had the likes of Agassi, Sampras, Rafter, Ivanisivic,Kuerten, Henman, Kafelnikov, Phillipousis, Chang just to name a few.

Federer might have overtaken Sampras' record of Slams but imo Sampras' achievment is way more commendable due to the opponents he had to play. It was a field way way way harder than what Fed has ever faced (Nadal aside)

And Nadal has beaten Fed on both his favorite surfaces (the hard courts of Australia AND the grass at Wimbedon). I don't see Fed even coming close to Rafa on Rafa's favorite surface.

Oh and yes, Nadal HAS won all surfaces but not at all slams.
 
wr8_utd said:
Same here. Cant stand Federer at all.
Click to expand...

No shit. I didn't notice this at all!!! :smirk:

Great though he might be he's been lucky he's played in such a weak field of tennis players for years before Rafa came.

When his only so called "rivals" were Hewit and roddick it's no wonder he's been winning slam after slam
Click to expand...

aah that old myth again ..
 
wr8_utd said:
Did Federer play Agassi at his peak? No
Did Federer play Sampras more than once at his peak? No
Click to expand...
Federer played Agassi 11 times and all of those times Agassi was ranked top 10. Agassi was ranked #1 in 03 the same year when Federer beat him twice at the TMC. When was exactly Agassi's peak? In the middle of the 90's when he was on meth and was not as focused at tennis as in the latter part of his career? Or was he in his prime before 95 when he was missing slams for fun and was exiting in the opening rounds of slams to Flach, Martin and 20 years old Haas?

Agassi in his 30's was still wining slams and Masters he was not that far off his peak.

Federer beat Sampras at the old, fast grass of Wimbey when he was 4 times defending champion at the time and Federer was exactly 2 years apart from winning his 1st slam. I don't think he was closer to his prime than Sampras.
Safin was a hugely talented player but he always was temperamental and never likely to challenge to Fed. So yeah we're down to just 2 decent opponents in Roddick and Hewitt and forgive me for saying so but their not exactly the very definition of a "strong field".
Click to expand...
Safin beat Federer to win the 05 AO, I don't buy that never likely to challenge him. He also did beat Sampras in straights at the USO before that. At AO he widrew against Shuettler in 03, lost to Federer in 04, and to Roddick and Baghdatis, in 07-08. Granted he was competitive till around 06, but to call 2 times slam champion, 2 times finalist and SF at every slam never likely to challenge is plain ignorant.

Hewitt and Roddick have losing records of something like 13-14 matches against Fed. That's what you call a strong field?
Click to expand...
Courier is 4-16 against Sampras, is he not a challenger? Villas is 5-17 against Borg, he is not capable opponent also? Just because Federer matches well with Roddick doesn't mean that the latter one sucks. Hewitt is 7-17 against Federer, as clearly Federer is better than him, but let me remind you that Hewitt had 2 hip surgeries and still manages to make it to the latter stages in slams - he doesn't lose exatly to nobodies there - loses to Federer, Nadal, Roddick etc. Only because Federer is better than both that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have won like 4-5 slams each if it weren't for him.

And please don't mention Davy, Djoko and Murray. Their the hugest chokers of the modern era. Djokovic being number 3 is an absolute insult to tennis.
Click to expand...
Djokovic has a slam to his name. Granted Federer wasn't at his best at the time, but he also has 1 final, 5 SF's and 5QF's in slams since his breakthrough in 07'. He also won 5 Masters and 1 TMC. Not bad for 23 years old. Murray has numerous finals and Masters to his name losing them to Federer(slams). I don't think you would call him a choker in AO this year and in 08 USO where he soundly beat Nadal.
Funny to say Davy is a choker also having in mind that he has winning H2H against your boy. Kafelnikov who arguably has the same abilities as him, managed to win 2 slams(without even winning a Masters) maybe that was in a stronger era?

You seriously can't compare this era to the last one where we had the likes of Agassi, Sampras, Rafter, Ivanisivic,Kuerten, Henman, Kafelnikov, Phillipousis, Chang just to name a few.
Click to expand...
Agassi who was playboy in the 90's, on meth, missing slams for fun, not even entering the AO till 95, falling out of the top 100, and winning the grand total of 3 slams till 99?
Rafter who was a big time journeyman till 97, not able to get past the 4th round in any slam, with worse results than Safin, who you don't consider as a challenger, that Rafter?

Ivanisevic who is the definition of a choker and who should've been out in 01 if it wasn't for that rain delay, who won exactly how many slams in the 90's?

Kuerten was a transitional player and his best years came 00-onwards.

Henman - who exactly was he? Much lesser player than one David Nalbandian.
Scud who if I recall correctly lost to Federer in straights in 03 Wim.

Chang? A glorified moonballer that won zero slams in the 90's and would've had 0 slams if it wouldn't been for that freaky run in the RG.

If you are looking for a strong era to compare, you have to look back in the 80s or even in the 70's.

Federer might have overtaken Sampras' record of Slams but imo Sampras' achievment is way more commendable due to the opponents he had to play. It was a field way way way harder than what Fed has ever faced (Nadal aside)
Click to expand...

And who are those opponents? Pioline, CHang, Martin, Ivanisevic, Moya or COurier at Wimbey? Same Courier that got eliminated by a certain journeyman Forget ranked 1000 something year later?

Or his draws in Wimbey in 97,98 and 00 when he met exactly 0 top ten ranked players on the road to the finals?

Or his 2 AO's when Agassi wasn't even in the draw?

Tell me who had he faced in the so called tough field? Courier who was washed up after 93, or Agassi who is nothing like Nadal in terms of consistency, or that would be Becker, who had won less slams in the 90's than Agassi in the 00's? Goran, CHang, Martin or Pioline, who had combined 0 slams won in the 90's?

And Nadal has beaten Fed on both his favorite surfaces (the hard courts of Australia AND the grass at Wimbedon). I don't see Fed even coming close to Rafa on Rafa's favorite surface.
Click to expand...
Federer has beaten Nadal twice on his favourite surface - clay.Can't see how AO is Federer's favourite surface. Nadal's less favourite surface is USO and he hasn't even came close to reaching the final to face Federer. The grass of Wimbledon is significantly slower than what it used to be favouring Nadal. The closest to what the conditions at the USO are(where they have not met) are the TMC where Nadal won 0 sets against Federer in their two meetings there.

Oh and yes, Nadal HAS won all surfaces but not at all slams.
Click to expand...

No he hasn't. The USO's surface is quite different from what the AO is - there are different types of HC's you know.

Federer is the only tennis player who has won slams on 5 different surfaces - the HC's in Australia, USO, Rebound Ace(old AO surface), clay and grass.

I can't see from where this hate towards Federer comes from. Federer alike Nadal is phenomenon in tennis and both are writing the history books. Enjoy their game while you can.
 
wr8_utd said:
You seriously can't compare this era to the last one where we had the likes of Agassi, Sampras, Rafter, Ivanisivic,Kuerten, Henman, Kafelnikov, Phillipousis, Chang just to name a few.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I think you just hurt your own argument.

None of those players barring Sampras and Agassi (and maybe Kuerten on clay) are much, if any, better than the players Federer and Nadal have competed with over the last seven or so years. Hewitt is (or at least was) better than Chang, Roddick is better than Philippoussis, Rafter and Henman were better at the net than anyone today but there's a reason their type of player is just about extinct, Ivanisevic is a good comparison for Safin (talented but moody and inconsistent), etc.

As Enigma pointed out, even Agassi had that long period in the middle of his career where he was a druggie doing nothing on the tennis court. I always remember him losing to a 15yo Hewitt and saying that he (Hewitt) had nothing and would do nothing in his career. :lol: That rubbish really hurts his good-guy image, but I like to think that it was the drugs talking.

It's just that Federer's (and to a lesser extent Nadal's) ridiculous consistency has made such a big gap.
 
MadDogg said:
To be honest, I think you just hurt your own argument.

None of those players barring Sampras and Agassi (and maybe Kuerten on clay) are much, if any, better than the players Federer and Nadal have competed with over the last seven or so years. Hewitt is (or at least was) better than Chang, Roddick is better than Philippoussis, Rafter and Henman were better at the net than anyone today but there's a reason their type of player is just about extinct, Ivanisevic is a good comparison for Safin (talented but moody and inconsistent), etc.

As Enigma pointed out, even Agassi had that long period in the middle of his career where he was a druggie doing nothing on the tennis court. I always remember him losing to a 15yo Hewitt and saying that he (Hewitt) had nothing and would do nothing in his career. :lol: That rubbish really hurts his good-guy image, but I like to think that it was the drugs talking.

It's just that Federer's (and to a lesser extent Nadal's) ridiculous consistency has made such a big gap.
Click to expand...

Rafter was a 3time grand slam winner and always capable of beating Sampras or Agassi.

The other names mentioned besides Henman were all Slam winners.

It's just that the field then was more competitive with a lot more slam winners around that now.

Jokeovich is the 3rd best player now. Rafter used to be the 3rd best player then.No comparison at all.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Federer played Agassi 11 times and all of those times Agassi was ranked top 10. Agassi was ranked #1 in 03 the same year when Federer beat him twice at the TMC. When was exactly Agassi's peak? In the middle of the 90's when he was on meth and was not as focused at tennis as in the latter part of his career? Or was he in his prime before 95 when he was missing slams for fun and was exiting in the opening rounds of slams to Flach, Martin and 20 years old Haas?

Agassi in his 30's was still wining slams and Masters he was not that far off his peak.

Federer beat Sampras at the old, fast grass of Wimbey when he was 4 times defending champion at the time and Federer was exactly 2 years apart from winning his 1st slam. I don't think he was closer to his prime than Sampras.

Safin beat Federer to win the 05 AO, I don't buy that never likely to challenge him. He also did beat Sampras in straights at the USO before that. At AO he widrew against Shuettler in 03, lost to Federer in 04, and to Roddick and Baghdatis, in 07-08. Granted he was competitive till around 06, but to call 2 times slam champion, 2 times finalist and SF at every slam never likely to challenge is plain ignorant.


Courier is 4-16 against Sampras, is he not a challenger? Villas is 5-17 against Borg, he is not capable opponent also? Just because Federer matches well with Roddick doesn't mean that the latter one sucks. Hewitt is 7-17 against Federer, as clearly Federer is better than him, but let me remind you that Hewitt had 2 hip surgeries and still manages to make it to the latter stages in slams - he doesn't lose exatly to nobodies there - loses to Federer, Nadal, Roddick etc. Only because Federer is better than both that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have won like 4-5 slams each if it weren't for him.


Djokovic has a slam to his name. Granted Federer wasn't at his best at the time, but he also has 1 final, 5 SF's and 5QF's in slams since his breakthrough in 07'. He also won 5 Masters and 1 TMC. Not bad for 23 years old. Murray has numerous finals and Masters to his name losing them to Federer(slams). I don't think you would call him a choker in AO this year and in 08 USO where he soundly beat Nadal.
Funny to say Davy is a choker also having in mind that he has winning H2H against your boy. Kafelnikov who arguably has the same abilities as him, managed to win 2 slams(without even winning a Masters) maybe that was in a stronger era?


Agassi who was playboy in the 90's, on meth, missing slams for fun, not even entering the AO till 95, falling out of the top 100, and winning the grand total of 3 slams till 99?
Rafter who was a big time journeyman till 97, not able to get past the 4th round in any slam, with worse results than Safin, who you don't consider as a challenger, that Rafter?

Ivanisevic who is the definition of a choker and who should've been out in 01 if it wasn't for that rain delay, who won exactly how many slams in the 90's?

Kuerten was a transitional player and his best years came 00-onwards.

Henman - who exactly was he? Much lesser player than one David Nalbandian.
Scud who if I recall correctly lost to Federer in straights in 03 Wim.

Chang? A glorified moonballer that won zero slams in the 90's and would've had 0 slams if it wouldn't been for that freaky run in the RG.

If you are looking for a strong era to compare, you have to look back in the 80s or even in the 70's.



And who are those opponents? Pioline, CHang, Martin, Ivanisevic, Moya or COurier at Wimbey? Same Courier that got eliminated by a certain journeyman Forget ranked 1000 something year later?

Or his draws in Wimbey in 97,98 and 00 when he met exactly 0 top ten ranked players on the road to the finals?

Or his 2 AO's when Agassi wasn't even in the draw?

Tell me who had he faced in the so called tough field? Courier who was washed up after 93, or Agassi who is nothing like Nadal in terms of consistency, or that would be Becker, who had won less slams in the 90's than Agassi in the 00's? Goran, CHang, Martin or Pioline, who had combined 0 slams won in the 90's?


Federer has beaten Nadal twice on his favourite surface - clay.Can't see how AO is Federer's favourite surface. Nadal's less favourite surface is USO and he hasn't even came close to reaching the final to face Federer. The grass of Wimbledon is significantly slower than what it used to be favouring Nadal. The closest to what the conditions at the USO are(where they have not met) are the TMC where Nadal won 0 sets against Federer in their two meetings there.



No he hasn't. The USO's surface is quite different from what the AO is - there are different types of HC's you know.

Federer is the only tennis player who has won slams on 5 different surfaces - the HC's in Australia, USO, Rebound Ace(old AO surface), clay and grass.

I can't see from where this hate towards Federer comes from. Federer alike Nadal is phenomenon in tennis and both are writing the history books. Enjoy their game while you can.
Click to expand...


Fantastic post.

I'll point to this when discussing Federer and say "What Engima said".
 
wr8_utd said:
Rafter was a 3time grand slam winner and always capable of beating Sampras or Agassi.
Click to expand...
Rafter was and is 2 times GS winner, and was good for exactly 5-6 tournaments when he reached 2 finals and 3 SF's. He was non existent till 97 and retired after 01. Rafter was owned by Hewitt 1-3 in his prime. Sure his Win in 98 at the USO is quite impressiv beating Sampras in 5 setter, but his 97 run wasn't that impressive beating non ranked Agassi in one of the worst years in his career, Rusedski,Chang and Rios (glorified choker who reached #1 without winning a slam).Rafter reached the #1 in 99 when he won 1 slam, had 1SF and 2 3rd rounds, 2 MS finals and that's it.

Djokovic won 1 slam in 08, got to 2 SF's, won 2 matsters series and 1 final, won the TMC and couldn't even smell the #1 position. I can't see how his ranking is undeserved when players like Rios, Kafelnikov and Rafter got to #1 in the 90's.

The other names mentioned besides Henman were all Slam winners.
Click to expand...
The other mentioned like Goran and Chang won zero slams in the 90's, Kafelnikov is not a patch on Safin and Hewitt despite winning as much slams as they, he was all in for the money as he said it himslef. He ascended to # 1 losing 6 straight tournaments in the first round, collecting the entrance fee. That speaks volumes abot the level of competition when he goes to #1 losing 6 straight times in the 1st round.

It's just that the field then was more competitive with a lot more slam winners around that now.
Click to expand...
Don't agree here as well. Where it was more competitive? Nowadays the speed of the surfaces is slowed down, There are no clay court specialists, no grass specialists, cause the field can play equally well on every surface. Most of the guys on tour and the top players does't have weaknesses in their game like it was before - Agassi went to the net only to shake hands, Change serve was worse than that of Serena, Courier backhand was club level, Martin moved like a 40 years old on court, etc..

Jokeovich is the 3rd best player now. Rafter used to be the 3rd best player then.No comparison at all.
Click to expand...

Well as we speak Djokovc has 1 SF, 3 QF's in slams won masters last year and was 4 times finalist in MS last year with the worst result - QF. Even though he is in a slump, his year is much better than any year bar 97 and 98 when Rafter won a slam and did nothing else.

Dyslexic Untied said:
Fantastic post.

I'll point to this when discussing Federer and say "What Engima said".
Click to expand...
thanks, mate.:)
 
Agassi and Nadal winning Wimbledon without all the free points a big serve gets you are the greatest achievments in Tennis since the Borg era.

And it isn't the surface that has stopped Nadal winning the US Open, it's the time of year the event is held. After a punishing clay court season and then Wimbledon the poor guy is spent. If they held it in June one year he'd be for more likely to win it.
 
wr8_utd said:
Rafter was a 3time grand slam winner and always capable of beating Sampras or Agassi.

The other names mentioned besides Henman were all Slam winners.

It's just that the field then was more competitive with a lot more slam winners around that now.

Jokeovich is the 3rd best player now. Rafter used to be the 3rd best player then.No comparison at all.
Click to expand...
You can't look just at how many Opens they won as a comparison, as that works both ways. If the 'back-up' players are just as good as now (which IMO is true), then their lack of Open titles actually proves that Federer and Nadal are better than Sampras and Agassi. There is rarely a big tournament where today's two aren't firing, whereas with Sampras and Agassi there was a lot more of a chance for the 'back-up' players (except Sampras at Wimbledon I guess).

You're argument is basically saying you'd rate Federer higher if he wasn't winning as many Open titles, which doesn't make sense.

The one thing I will note is that with the playing surfaces being more similar now (compared to how they used to be) it does call into question how much is Federer/Nadal's consistency, and how much is the fact Sampras/Agassi played on courts that were more significantly different.

As an Australian I know how good Rafter was, and he was a fantastic serve-volleyer, probably the best I've seen since I've started watching tennis. He also had a very under-rated serve that worked extremely well with his charge to the net style. However I don't think he's that much better than Djokovic, if at all. In a head to head I think it would be the surface that would be the key, if it was at the US or Wimbledon courts when Rafter was at his best than I'd probably tip him, any other time and I'd expect Djokovic to win.
 
Nearco said:
Agassi and Nadal winning Wimbledon without all the free points a big serve gets you are the greatest achievments in Tennis since the Borg era.

And it isn't the surface that has stopped Nadal winning the US Open, it's the time of year the event is held. After a punishing clay court season and then Wimbledon the poor guy is spent. If they held it in June one year he'd be for more likely to win it.
Click to expand...

Agassi even more, as he won in back in the days when the grass was much faster and the bounces lower.

I don't think the USO being in August is the reason why Nadal hasn't won it. AO is in January and he has made it to 1 final he won. The surface and conditions favor him more than what it is in Flushing.

There's enough break after Wimbey to get ready for the USO.


Meanwhile Sod is 1 set up and 4-1 against Belucci in the second. Have to say he looks even better today - his returns are deeper and he hit plenty of return winners of both 1st and 2nd serve. Had a lot of UF errors today of course but his level has increased since the start of the tournament.
 
I dont think there's any doubting that Federer is one of the top 2 if not the best ever in tennis history. I'd still like to see Roddick beat him at a Wimbledon final. Just once please.
 
Nadal is struggling.

He's playing some of the most disgraceful tennis I have ever seen him play in this 2nd set.

Even when he's playing badly he's always trying. In this 2nd set Nadal has looked lethargic, short of ideas and absolutely pathetic.

He keeps wasting chances and never attacks his opponents serve and keeps waiting for a tie break. Soderling is going to hammer Nadal, if Nadal makes it far enough to face him
 
I have to say Wimbledon is getting completely overshadowed by the World Cup for me
 
mehro said:
I dont think there's any doubting that Federer is one of the top 2 if not the best ever in tennis history. I'd still like to see Roddick beat him at a Wimbledon final. Just once please.
Click to expand...

he's on his half, they can and probably will meet in the semis. Should be a cracker.

oh boy, Nadal calls the trainer again trying to disrupt his opponent's rhytm. :rolleyes:We have seen that so many times..
 
Rafa is making some bad decisions.

But nice to see a traditional serve and volleyer do well.
 
Serve and volley tennis is a bit boring imo, one of the things that made the 08 Wimbledon final so fantastic was that there was practically none of it.
 
R_Nick said:
Serve and volley tennis is a bit boring imo, one of the things that made the 08 Wimbledon final so fantastic was that there was practically none of it.
Click to expand...

It used to be boring. But it is played so less nowadays that it is a kind of novelty.

I agree about the 08 final though. :drool:
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Rafa loses the second set. I think he's heading home.
Click to expand...

Yeah. He's been awful since the French Open.

I din't think he could get any worse than his Queens performance but he's proving me wrong here.

He's been a disgrace in this entire match. When he has chances he does not take them and he's missing the simplest of shots.

And I don't get why he's not trying to place his 2nd serve a bit better. It's been getting hammered time after time but yet he does not learn. Good thing Nadal's not defending any points from last year
 
Yea I don't think it's fair on the German to just say Rafa is playing shit, he's playing some good stuff himself.
 
1 out of 11 break points.

I might hate Federer but he would have never struggled against opponents like this the way Nadal's doing. ( at his peak)
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Well Petzscher played two great points. Can't blame Rafa.
Click to expand...

Well it's not just this point is it. 1 break point of 11 converted is a shocking stat.

I remember watching Nadal struggle against Istomin at Queeens and I was really worried about his chances back then.

If, somehow, Nadal does come back to win this, i'm afraid of what Soderling could do to Nadal in this form
 
aaah, classless from Nadal again. WTF with that fake injury card. It's becoming a disgrace everytime he's in a losing situation he calls the trainer.
 
massey said:
Is rafa losing because His leg's hurting again ?
Click to expand...

Better not use that as an execuse, Nadal.

the other guy looks exhausted, Nadal should be running him around and not taking a time out
 
Enigma_87 said:
aaah, classless from Nadal again. WTF with that fake injury card. It's becoming a disgrace everytime he's in a losing situation he calls the trainer.
Click to expand...

Atleast he does not blame it on the mono in the press.
 
wr8_utd said:
Atleast he does not blame it on the mono in the press.
Click to expand...

Hm, if you are implying that Federer fakes injury, can you tell me the last time he called for a trainer?

Nadal is always like that. If you are injured - you concede the match and get off the court. Injury time outs are always tactical. How many injury timeouts did Mahut and Isner take playing 7 hours straight?
 
Come on Nadal, 2 more break points. Surely he won't waste 2 more?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.