Wimbledon

Keyzer Soze said:
Federer is only 26 and is not on a downward slide in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Losing to Djokovic in the semis at the Aussie Open and being humiliated by Nadal in the French seems to differ. Never said he was passed it, but he's definitely on a downward slide.

His almost feeble excuses of glandular fever are kind of pathetic, too.
 
That does not equate to a downward slide in the slightest and the illness and injury concerns were quite valid especially at the Australian when his build up was disturbed. Losing in the semi final of a grand slam and a French final to his main rival for the third time in a row no matter how the defeat came about is simply not a basis for that. Nadal was simply better as he has been for three years. There are two finals left to be won this year.
 
Keyzer Soze said:
That does not equate to a downward slide in the slightest and the illness and injury concerns were quite valid especially at the Australian when his build up was disturbed. Losing in the semi final of a grand slam and a French final to his main rival for the third time in a row no matter how the defeat came about is simply not a basis for that. Nadal was simply better as he has been for three years. There are two finals left to be won this year.
Click to expand...

Well the manner of the defeat is relevant because at least on the previous occasions he'd made a fist of it. This last tournament consisted of him absolutely capitulating to Nadal. It was embarrassing to watch, and frankly it looked like he didn't care when he was out there.

I expect Nadal to win Wimbledon, and that'll probably be the final nail in Federer's coffin.

Nadal is just too good, though it pains me to admit that. It's a shame such a boring player is going to dominate world tennis.
 
Count Duckula said:
Well the manner of the defeat is relevant because at least on the previous occasions he'd made a fist of it. This last tournament consisted of him absolutely capitulating to Nadal. It was embarrassing to watch, and frankly it looked like he didn't care when he was out there.

I expect Nadal to win Wimbledon, and that'll probably be the final nail in Federer's coffin.

Nadal is just too good, though it pains me to admit that. It's a shame such a boring player is going to dominate world tennis.
Click to expand...

So if Nadal was to finally beat a player who has dominated him on grass just like he has dominated him on Clay. Or he beats a player that has won numerous titles on three surfaces while continously reaching the Final of the only one to elude him while Nadal has won on one surface, it will be the final nail in his coffin? Aged 26?

OK.
 
i can't believe that Clement vs Schuettler is a quarter final

absolute shite tennis
 
Why the feck did Nadal's post match interview consist mostly of an analysis of Andy Murray's performance? BBC - Small time.
 
Keyzer Soze said:
So if Nadal was to finally beat a player who has dominated him on grass just like he has dominated him on Clay. Or he beats a player that has won numerous titles on three surfaces while continously reaching the Final of the only one to elude him while Nadal has won on one surface, it will be the final nail in his coffin? Aged 26?

OK.
Click to expand...

Nadal's record against Federer at Roland Garros:

(2008) Won: 6-1, 6-3, 6-0
(2007) Won: 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4


Federer's record against Nadal at Wimbledon:

(2007) Won: 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2
(2006) Won: 6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3


Nadal has beaten Federer comprehensively in the French both times. In 2007 Federer ran him closer, but Nadal still won it fairly easily. This year Federer looked lost and confused out there, and quickly succumbed to a battering.

Federer, on the other hand, struggles with Nadal at Wimbledon. In 2006 (when Nadal was only twenty, remember) he won, but required two tie-breaks to do so. Last year he really should have lost. Nadal was his equal throughout the whole match, and only calling the trainer on in the final set because his knees gave out caused him not to win. He wasted two break points of his own.

Nadal is going to beat Federer on grass before Federer beats Nadal on clay.

And before you get me wrong: I really don't like Nadal. I think he's incredibly boring. He clearly has talent (some of his shots and touches are sublime), but his game essentially consists of standing behind the baseline and smashing it into the corners until either one of those smashes results in a winner or his opponent makes a mistake. It's dull tennis and I don't like watching it.

But it's effective, and it's going to make him the best.
 
I should have known you would pull up the amounts of sets won its ridiculous, I actually watched the games. Plus I was talking about Wimbledon, the fact remains he has beat him in the final. The fact remains Nadal has not won on other surfaces, did you not see him get totally outplayed by Tsonga in the Australian. Your assertion that Nadal is just too good and it would be the final nail in Federers coffin is still ridiculous... even if Federer won nothing at all this year.
 
Keyzer Soze said:
I should have known you would pull up the amounts of sets won its ridiculous, I actually watched the games. Plus I was talking about Wimbledon, the fact remains he has beat him in the final. The fact remains Nadal has not won on other surfaces, did you not see him get totally outplayed by Tsonga in the Australian. Your assertion that Nadal is just too good and it would be the final nail in Federers coffin is still ridiculous... even if Federer won nothing at all this year.
Click to expand...

Well I don't mean Federer would cease to be a good tennis player. I'd fully expect him to remain the second (or maybe third, behind Djokovic) best player in the world. I meant it in the context of being the number one -- a spot I don't think he'll hold onto for much longer.

Oh, and bringing up the Aussie Open. Yes, I watched Nadal get outplayed by Tsonga. I also watched Federer get outplayed by Djokovic. Your point?
 
Count Duckula said:
Well I don't mean Federer would cease to be a good tennis player. I'd fully expect him to remain the second (or maybe third, behind Djokovic) best player in the world. I meant it in the context of being the number one -- a spot I don't think he'll hold onto for much longer.

Oh, and bringing up the Aussie Open. Yes, I watched Nadal get outplayed by Tsonga. I also watched Federer get outplayed by Djokovic. Your point?
Click to expand...

Even If Nadal won at Wimbledon, Federer would still clearly be number one in the rankings. Djokovic is quite clearly a notch below Federer and Nadal. You also may want to think before you sarcastically ask me what my point is as well. Federer has won the Australian open three times, Nadal has not won it and has struggled at times... thats my point.
 
Keyzer Soze said:
Even If Nadal won at Wimbledon, Federer would still clearly be number one in the rankings. Djokovic is quite clearly a notch below Federer annd Nadal. You also may want to think before you sarcastically ask me what my point is as well. Federer has won the Australian open three times, Nadal has not won it and has struggled at times... thats my point.
Click to expand...

Well age is incredibly relevant to this discussion. Federer has won the Aussie Open three times, but Nadal is only twenty-two. He has plenty of time to win it. In the here and now (ie, the past two years -- not before), Nadal has really improved as a player whilst Federer has regressed.

And let's be honest, Federer's main rivals are players like Djokovic and Nadal. Prior to their real emergence as serious contenders in the past two years or so he had no one really to run him close. He's a sublime player, yes, but he definitely had it easy in terms of the quality of his opposition for a few years. No wonder he won so many tournaments.

And now, suddenly, as Nadal and Djokovic reach an age where their tennis is approaching its peak, he's suddenly not winning so much anymore, and is struggling to win anything at all.

That he'll remain number one in the ranking despite not winning any Slams this year is just testament to the strange nature of the ATP ranking system.
 
Count Duckula said:
Well age is incredibly relevant to this discussion. Federer has won the Aussie Open three times, but Nadal is only twenty-two. He has plenty of time to win it. In the here and now (ie, the past two years -- not before), Nadal has really improved as a player whilst Federer has regressed.

And let's be honest, Federer's main rivals are players like Djokovic and Nadal. Prior to their real emergence as serious contenders in the past two years or so he had no one really to run him close. He's a sublime player, yes, but he definitely had it easy in terms of the quality of his opposition for a few years. No wonder he won so many tournaments.

And now, suddenly, as Nadal and Djokovic reach an age where their tennis is approaching its peak, he's suddenly not winning so much anymore, and is struggling to win anything at all.

That he'll remain number one in the ranking despite not winning any Slams this year is just testament to the strange nature of the ATP ranking system.
Click to expand...

Count im not going down the Federer had easy opponents route its been done to death. I love how Federer going out in the Semi's and losing in the French Final again as well when there are two grand slams to play equates to him struggling to win something, get some perspective. Also, lets not lose track here either, your assertion that Federer is on a downward slide, Nadal is too good and it would be the final nail in his coffin was what I was debating, not how long he will be number one or the quality of his opponents. I agree age is very relevant... thats what made those claims even stranger when Federer is 26 and won three grand slams in the 2007 season.
 
After looking at Nadal Match I am starting to think Federer will have a real match on his hands.

I'd love Federer to win but Nadal is playing some tennis. At present I am looking at Nadal beating him in 3.

Sad if that happens - Hope I am very wrong
 
A few things to add to this Federer/Nadal debate.

1. Federer had glandular fever pre the Aussie Open. He himself has said he missed 30-odd days of training. Find any player on the circuit who had the same illness, and they wouldn't have come back in twice the time. To get to a French Open Final, when you are physically below-par is a feat in itself. Nadal is the greatest clay court player of his generation. Federer was destroyed by him this year. There is no shame in that, Federer had a terrible game by his standards, Nadal was brilliant.

2. Nadal is improving all the time, and he has made huge improvements this year after already being a fantastic player. It is no surprise he has started to catch Federer. Attributing that to a Federer decline is lazy, and ill-informed. Anyone who has had an injury-interrupted season like Federer will struggle to automatically revert to his imperious best.

3. Nadal's main weapon against Federer is a high bouncing forehand to Roger's backhand. He won't be able to play that shot on grass(or at least no as effectively). We will now get to see how good Nadal actually is(if they both get to the final of course) on grass. Federer has something to prove, and he has shown in the last couple of games that he is approaching his best form. Nadal has been extremely impressive, but people should not be deceived into thinking Andy Murray presented any sort of real test for him. Nadal like Federer has gotten here largely untested. The only true challenge left for either player is each other, or avoiding a catastrophic loss of form.

4. I am slightly worried for Federer if he plays Nadal in the final, Nadal's form has been outstanding, and if he carries that through to a final against Roger, then it will largely depend on which player handles the pressure better. For me that will be Roger.


This may yet turn out to be Nadal's year, but Federer is far from a spent force, and I fully expect him to be in the final of most if not all grand slams for the next few years.

My Prediction: Federer to beat Nadal in 5 sets. The press to backtrack and say he's rediscovered something he never lost.
 
I think Safin has only so much great tennis in him at this point. I'm surprised he has held it together this well. As long as Fed doesn't underestimate Safin, Roger will win (fingers crossed!!).
 
Count Duckula said:
Does anyone else find Nadal boring to watch? At least compared to other players. Just seems to me that he stands at the baseline smashing balls into the corners most of the time. Clearly not always, and he plays some lovely shots, but I swear a lot of his points are won through sheer strength.

Sadly I think he's going to win Wimbledon and probably go on to dominate world tennis for the next few years. Federer is on a downward slide and Nadal is only twenty-two. Shame, really.
Click to expand...

I find some of the shots he plays are amazing and that sometimes makes him exciting. But just now and again. I'd rather watch Federer.
 
brophs said:
A few things to add to this Federer/Nadal debate.

1. Federer had glandular fever pre the Aussie Open. He himself has said he missed 30-odd days of training. Find any player on the circuit who had the same illness, and they wouldn't have come back in twice the time. To get to a French Open Final, when you are physically below-par is a feat in itself. Nadal is the greatest clay court player of his generation. Federer was destroyed by him this year. There is no shame in that, Federer had a terrible game by his standards, Nadal was brilliant.

2. Nadal is improving all the time, and he has made huge improvements this year after already being a fantastic player. It is no surprise he has started to catch Federer. Attributing that to a Federer decline is lazy, and ill-informed. Anyone who has had an injury-interrupted season like Federer will struggle to automatically revert to his imperious best.

3. Nadal's main weapon against Federer is a high bouncing forehand to Roger's backhand. He won't be able to play that shot on grass(or at least no as effectively). We will now get to see how good Nadal actually is(if they both get to the final of course) on grass. Federer has something to prove, and he has shown in the last couple of games that he is approaching his best form. Nadal has been extremely impressive, but people should not be deceived into thinking Andy Murray presented any sort of real test for him. Nadal like Federer has gotten here largely untested. The only true challenge left for either player is each other, or avoiding a catastrophic loss of form.

4. I am slightly worried for Federer if he plays Nadal in the final, Nadal's form has been outstanding, and if he carries that through to a final against Roger, then it will largely depend on which player handles the pressure better. For me that will be Roger.


This may yet turn out to be Nadal's year, but Federer is far from a spent force, and I fully expect him to be in the final of most if not all grand slams for the next few years.

My Prediction: Federer to beat Nadal in 5 sets. The press to backtrack and say he's rediscovered something he never lost.
Click to expand...

Good post. He has reached the semis in all 3 grandslams. Reached the final in the French where he lost to the greatest claycourter ever, IMO. Downward slide indeed.
 
brophs said:
2. Nadal is improving all the time, and he has made huge improvements this year after already being a fantastic player. It is no surprise he has started to catch Federer. Attributing that to a Federer decline is lazy, and ill-informed. Anyone who has had an injury-interrupted season like Federer will struggle to automatically revert to his imperious best.

3. Nadal's main weapon against Federer is a high bouncing forehand to Roger's backhand. He won't be able to play that shot on grass(or at least no as effectively). We will now get to see how good Nadal actually is(if they both get to the final of course) on grass. Federer has something to prove, and he has shown in the last couple of games that he is approaching his best form. Nadal has been extremely impressive, but people should not be deceived into thinking Andy Murray presented any sort of real test for him. Nadal like Federer has gotten here largely untested. The only true challenge left for either player is each other, or avoiding a catastrophic loss of form.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
IF Federer loses and Nadal goes on to dominate or be on equal footing in grand slams (win about 2 a year), it'll reinforce my view that Federer is not the best ever.
No supposedly best ever player gets dominated by one 22-year old player that much and even on his own favorite surface. Even when Nadal was younger he never went away and won most of his matches against Federer, albeit most were on clay. He's so young though, at that age (and even now), he's been more successful and has won more slams than Federer did. He's now finally catching up on other surfaces as well and has a chance to truly embarrass Federer... I'd cringe for Federer if he gets beaten on HIS turf, just after he looked so helpless against Nadal in the French. Nadal went close last year and keeps getting closer.

I've seen a better (and more powerful) forehand (it's also inconsistent as feck as Boris Becker commented on last night and the amount of unforced errors he makes on that side, coupled with the fact that the one-handed backhand's weakness is returning high top spin balls - hard to get your racket over the ball and hit it with any pace and depth back, bit of the same problem Sampras had - is why he loses convincingly against nadal on clay), service (that's the two most important strokes in tennis - few number one's who had an average forehand, lots of them who had a great one with an average backhand... no need to comment on the importance of the service) and volley in one player.

Btw Federer turns 27 after Wimbledon, and though people go on about that age (26-28) being your prime, I'm not sure recent history of results from other players at that age supports this. Most start to drop off around this age even.
 
One more thing: if Federer had a better service (say, a Sampras one, who had a better first serve, but a far greater second one... best second serve ever) and a better volley (if you've watched him enough and don't go believe that mantra how he's so great at EVERYTHING.. you'll notice how many fecking easy volleys he misses... I've seen him feck up so many volleys after he's set it up brilliantly from the baseline, it's unworthy of a supposed ''most complete player ever''... he doesn't have a very good success rate at the net in general anyway.), he'd play serve and volley more against nadal... especially on his first serve and especially on grass... It'd make life much easier and he'd get more free points, but alas...
 
Kevin said:
IF Federer loses and Nadal goes on to dominate or be on equal footing in grand slams (win about 2 a year), it'll reinforce my view that Federer is not the best ever.
No supposedly best ever player gets dominated by one 22-year old player that much and even on his own favorite surface. Even when Nadal was younger he never went away and won most of his matches against Federer, albeit most were on clay. He's so young though, at that age (and even now), he's been more successful and has won more slams than Federer did. He's now finally catching up on other surfaces as well and has a chance to truly embarrass Federer... I'd cringe for Federer if he gets beaten on HIS turf, just after he looked so helpless against Nadal in the French. Nadal went close last year and keeps getting closer.

I've seen a better (and more powerful) forehand (it's also inconsistent as feck as Boris Becker commented on last night and the amount of unforced errors he makes on that side, coupled with the fact that the one-handed backhand's weakness is returning high top spin balls - hard to get your racket over the ball and hit it with any pace and depth back, bit of the same problem Sampras had - is why he loses convincingly against nadal on clay), service (that's the two most important strokes in tennis - few number one's who had an average forehand, lots of them who had a great one with an average backhand... no need to comment on the importance of the service) and volley in one player.

Btw Federer turns 27 after Wimbledon, and though people go on about that age (26-28) being your prime, I'm not sure recent history of results from other players at that age supports this. Most start to drop off around this age even.
Click to expand...

How would Nadal beating Federer on grass be embarassing? Nadal's quite good at tennis as well you know. Even Sampras lost a few times on grass.
 
forgetting about their tennis abilities, Federer seems like an arrogant prick... with his cap and blazer with his initial in gold embroidered on it, talking about how perfect and brilliant his game is.
Nadal's only apparent flaw however,is that he supports Real Madrid and has a big arm
 
EspadaYdaga said:
forgetting about their tennis abilities, Federer seems like an arrogant prick... with his cap and blazer with his initial in gold embroidered on it, talking about how perfect and brilliant his game is.
Nadal's only apparent flaw however,is that he supports Real Madrid and has a big arm
Click to expand...

He is confident of course, but I don`t find him arrogant. He just seems as a polite and charming guy who likes being in the spotlight. I like his interviews, comes across as very articulated and clever, funny even. Nadal on the other hand is boring as hell, looks straight down whenever being interviewed. And his apparent flaw is that he has on small arm, not the big one.
 
Kevin said:
IF Federer loses and Nadal goes on to dominate or be on equal footing in grand slams (win about 2 a year), it'll reinforce my view that Federer is not the best ever.
No supposedly best ever player gets dominated by one 22-year old player that much and even on his own favorite surface. Even when Nadal was younger he never went away and won most of his matches against Federer, albeit most were on clay. He's so young though, at that age (and even now), he's been more successful and has won more slams than Federer did. He's now finally catching up on other surfaces as well and has a chance to truly embarrass Federer... I'd cringe for Federer if he gets beaten on HIS turf, just after he looked so helpless against Nadal in the French. Nadal went close last year and keeps getting closer.

I've seen a better (and more powerful) forehand (it's also inconsistent as feck as Boris Becker commented on last night and the amount of unforced errors he makes on that side, coupled with the fact that the one-handed backhand's weakness is returning high top spin balls - hard to get your racket over the ball and hit it with any pace and depth back, bit of the same problem Sampras had - is why he loses convincingly against nadal on clay), service (that's the two most important strokes in tennis - few number one's who had an average forehand, lots of them who had a great one with an average backhand... no need to comment on the importance of the service) and volley in one player.

Btw Federer turns 27 after Wimbledon, and though people go on about that age (26-28) being your prime, I'm not sure recent history of results from other players at that age supports this. Most start to drop off around this age even.
Click to expand...

So, IF Nadal goes on to win the same amounts of grand slams as Federer, he will not be clearly the best ever anymore... is that not obvious. IF Federer gets beat by Nadal on grass it would be so extremely embarassing and cringeworthy that he may as well curl in to the foetal position on court because if he is the greatest he can not get beat by a very good player... ever. IF Nadal looks no closer to winning in US or Australia as his shiny "I won more sets at Wimbledon than Federer did the French" medal indicates he should be, he is catching up on all surfaces.

OK.

Also you did not listen to what Becker said properly. His words were that it is one of his greatest weapons but when he has an off day it is the first thing which goes a bit forcing some unforced errors because of the difficulty of the shot. It is not a weakness.
 
Psmith said:
How would Nadal beating Federer on grass be embarassing? Nadal's quite good at tennis as well you know. Even Sampras lost a few times on grass.
Click to expand...

I remember what he said a few seasons ago very well, because it shows how conscious he is about being the REAL number one (not just in points, but also in truly being the best and not being dominated by any one player):

In fact, Federer fell one match short of winning the Grand Slam itself, capturing the Australian, Wimbledon and U.S. titles and losing in the final of the French Open to Nadal. When Nadal followed up his Paris win by reaching the Wimbledon final on his worst surface, grass, it seemed like the gap with Federer was closing.

But then everything changed. Nadal had a poor hardcourt summer and lost in the quarterfinals of Flushing Meadows. Federer won the Masters Series in Toronto and took the U.S. Open title.

“After winning Wimbledon, I sort of said, ‘okay, whoever wins the U.S. Open I guess is really better,” said Federer. “So came here and won. It’s fantastic. Now I totally deserve to be No. 1 for the rest of the season and hopefully I can back it up again next season.”
-------------------------

http://www.tennis.com/tournaments/2006/usopen/usopen.aspx?id=45446

He himself will find it utterly embarrassing to follow up the 6-3 6-1 6-0 humiliation at the french with another loss in the final of the biggest tournament of the world... this time around on HIS favorite surface. In his own eyes/words, he'll not be the real number one anymore.

The timing of it all (having lost the french final so emphatically, not being his best year so far, people starting to doubt him, etc etc) is very very bad... he won't be viewed by many as the true world number one anymore and he himself would agree.

The right (and unsurprising) attitude for a proud top sportsman.
 
Keyzer Soze said:
So, IF Nadal goes on to win the same amounts of grand slams as Federer, he will not be clearly the best ever anymore... is that not obvious. IF Federer gets beat by Nadal on grass it would be so extremely embarassing and cringeworthy that he may as well curl in to the foetal position on court because if he is the greatest he can not get beat by a very good player... ever. IF Nadal looks no closer to winning in US or Australia as his shiny "I won more sets at Wimbledon than Federer did the French" medal indicates he should be, he is catching up on all surfaces.

OK.

Also you did not listen to what Becker said properly. His words were that it is one of his greatest weapons but when he has an off day it is the first thing which goes a bit forcing some unforced errors because of the difficulty of the shot. It is not a weakness.
Click to expand...

Yes he WOULD find it extremely embarrassing and cringeworthy. That's the standards he set himself, as I elaborated with him showing just how conscious he is about this.

And being the greatest ever, even if he isn't, you can indeed get beat by a very good player... but losing quite consistently to the one guy (who only just turned 22) who is your main rival, who is achieving more than he himself has ever done by the same age, who's just humiliated you in front of a world wide audience giving you the worst loss you've endured since your junior days and who is still improving... I'd say Federer takes this more seriously than his fanboys.
 
Kevin said:
Yes he WOULD find it extremely embarrassing and cringeworthy. That's the standards he set himself, as I elaborated with him showing just how conscious he is about this.

And being the greatest ever, even if he isn't, you can indeed get beat by a very good player... but losing quite consistently to the one guy (who only just turned 22) who is your main rival, who is achieving more than he himself has ever done by the same age, who's just humiliated you in front of a world wide audience giving you the worst loss you've endured since your junior days and who is still improving... I'd say Federer takes this more seriously than his fanboys.
Click to expand...

No you elaborated on Psmith's post with a quote from 2006 which has little relevance to most of your original post and misses out on the three titles he won in 2007, also the fact that this tennis season is not over. You are taking it out of context to suit your argument and it is not working, your original post was still full of loads of hypothetical "if this" comments. Nadal has beat Federer in the French for three years running, just like Federer has beat him at Wimbledon. Federer has won consistently on all surfaces shown by his titles and his persistence in getting to the French final.

The fanboy comment is also why I have no further interest in discussing this with you, its childish. It is not about that, its about the game of tennis and the way Federer plays the game. Its about people like you ignoring facts and trying to jump on the back of a great tennis player based on half a season where he has had a few problems when he won three titles last year. The same problems which he came through to reach the Semi's and the French final again no less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.