Tennis Thread - Official

[estebanf]

Oh my God, you mentioned Henman?? a top player on clay? Also Hewitt...another top player on clay? and Moy?...a former 1998 RG winner but WAY past his time.  Esteban, man...really...

yes, why not? Henman in top form was a menace for any player at any surface, same for Hewitt, more like a gladiator than a player. Moya was one of the 2 or 3 favourites to win that RG, and he only lost against Coria with his highest level ever. There were also Nalbandian, Guga, Ferrero, Ancic and a lot of good clay players. These names seen from 2009 may look ''average'' but in 2004 they were extremely solid players being at a great tenistic moment.

Agassi, Seles, and Serena Williams weren't never clay players and the three of them won Roland Garros. Federer, not being a clay player, is by far more dangerous than, for example, Verdasco, Almagro or Monaco, three ''born to play in clay'' players.

See? Comments like this come from people who may have some hidden agenda against Nadal. What makes Kuerten better than Nadal? Nadal's won more clay court tournaments and more RG than Cuga, so I just don't understand why would someone like Kuerten could be better on clay than somebody who's won many more events than him. You are entitled to have an opinion but I don't think you are being objective. Also you are putting Kuerten on a higher level than Bjorg - who won 6 RG.

Easy to explain:

1) I used to enjoy a lot seeing Guga's playing. He was a much more aggresive player than Rafa is, even though Rafa is becoming more and more aggresive day after day. From 2004 to 2007, watching a game with Rafa Nadal in clay was just an outstanding defense demostration, and you may love that but its not my case.

2) I find Guga a much more entertaining tennis player than Rafa, I love his single handed back shot (probably the best of all times) his ''mu?eca'' and he was very charismatic, something I think Rafa lacks of.

3) Guillermo Vilas won double number of clay tournaments than Rafa, and I think Rafa is superior than him under all posible points of view. See? There's no agenda. And everybody knows Guga could have won other 3 editions of RG if he would had been more lucky, because his injuries ruined his career prematurily. Rafa has the ''gift'' of having an incredible physic, he has almost no injuries, and he is much more focused on tennis than other as talented players as Guga or Nalbandian, who take tennis as a profession, not their whole lifes.

This would be like me saying...Stefan Edberg is the greatest grass court player there is when that's a wrong assertion to make when Sampras and Federer have won many more Wimbledon than the swede.

Well, many people in the world think that the 1974 Netherlands national team was the best football lineup in terms of quality and greatness of all times. And they failed at conquering the World Cup. Ayrton Senna conquered less titles than Prost, Schumacher and Fangio and many people think he was the best F1 racer of all times.

Again, I don't think you've been objective or maybe you haven't seen may GS finals. How can you say something like this when Roger and Nadal played last year what many people refer to as the best final in the history of tennis? Or even the one at Australia this year? I watched that 2004 final and it was interesting to see Claudio fighting back, but then saying that final was the most exciting in GS final goes beyond any logic. It's not only about the nature of the match but also the stake.

Well, I also think that federer / nadal final was extraordinary, but it was predicatable since they were 1 and 2 and I think its impossible to compare one comeback with the other. Gaudio was LITERALLY terminated. He said that after the end of the second set he was only hoping to win a few games just not to make a huge embarrasment in front of millions of people watching. Gaudio knew he would lose since set 1. And Rafa and federer are ''friends'' or they have a great relationship, but Coria and Gaudio were public enemies, and that's something that contributed to the general vibe of that final.

You finally admitted it?? I remember not too long ago you thought TEVEZ owned Messi. I remember you even had that in your avatar somewhere,...is funny how things change now.

Messi won two champions league since I've said that, and people can change their minds. I still think Messi has an overall environment that lets him explode, and Carlitos didn't have that at Manchester United.

Anyway, what I put in my signature was ''Tevez Owns Rooney'' and I still think that

Nice to read your posts Ignatius. We should discuss in spanish, though 

[Ignatius]

Esteban, you make some good points, but all of them are based on personal preference rather than objective facts.

It's good to have personal preferences, we all do...but don't let them fool you.

Kuerten was an amazing clay courter, but he retired having WON less clay court tournaments than what Rafa Nadal has already won. Nadal just has turned 23 a few days ago and you saying Kuerten was better than Nadal is not really objective. In tennis we all have our preferences, mine was Boris Becker, but I'm not that biased to say Boris was at the same level or better than Federer or Sampras on grass.

It's ok to like Kuerten more than you like Nadal, it's ok to say Kuerten was more aggressive than Nadal circa 2004-07 and it's even ok to say Kuerten was more charismatic than Nadal (although I don't agree with you), but saying Kuerten was better is just not acceptable. In Sports, the better team or player is the one who WINS.

yes, why not? Henman in top form was a menace for any player at any surface, same for Hewitt, more like a gladiator than a player. Moya was one of the 2 or 3 favourites to win that RG, and he only lost against Coria with his highest level ever. There were also Nalbandian, Guga, Ferrero, Ancic and a lot of good clay players. These names seen from 2009 may look ''average'' but in 2004 they were extremely solid players being at a great tenistic moment.

Well, Henman was never a clay courter. He reached Wimbly's semis a few times but never, ever was a clay courter. So he was not really a menace on clay.

Same with Hewitt. He's indeed a warrior, but never achieved anything on clay (he did win in Houston this year though)

Moya won RG in 1998. in 2004 he was wayyyy past his best. He was a top 10 then, but not at the same level he was in 1998-99

Ancic? you are talking about Mario Ancic from Croatia?? Man, I don't think I have ever seen a player who's less of a menace on clay. Ancic is the typical grass court player serve & volley.

3) Guillermo Vilas won double number of clay tournaments than Rafa, and I think Rafa is superior than him under all posible points of view. See? There's no agenda. And everybody knows Guga could have won other 3 editions of RG if he would had been more lucky, because his injuries ruined his career prematurily. Rafa has the ''gift'' of having an incredible physic, he has almost no injuries, and he is much more focused on tennis than other as talented players as Guga or Nalbandian, who take tennis as a profession, not their whole lifes.

Ok just for the record, being incredible fit is not enough to reach the number 1 in tennis. There's this misconception about Nadal being the number 1 cause he's the fittest guy on the tour and that's bullshit. Nadal is currently the BEST player on the tour cause he's the guy who's won more tournaments than any other player in the past 18 months. Simple as that. And you don't win GS just by being fit... people need to understand Nadal is not only fit, but Nadal is a talented player too with many other weapons in his arsenal. Maybe not as talented as the likes of Fedex or Nalbandian, but definitely a better balance of talent - mind and physical strength

And everybody knows Guga could have won other 3 editions of RG if he would had been more lucky, because his injuries ruined his career prematurily

Really? says who?? I didnt know that. See, speculating is the weakest way to defend an argument. History only remembers FACTS and not speculation theories.

rafa he has almost no injuries

Really? Rafa has injuries all the time. Every year, at the end of each year he misses out the last 3 or 4 tournaments because of bad knees. Actually, every year after Wimbledon there's always a slump in Nadal's performance cause his knees are hurt. That's the main reason why he's adapted more to hard court, so he can shorten the points/matches in order to be FIT for the entire year.

and he is much more focused on tennis than other as talented players as Guga or Nalbandian, who take tennis as a profession, not their whole lifes.

Right..and that's a bad thing I assume, correct?

Esteban, this is professional TENNIS. If you want to be the best, TENNIS has to run your life, simple as that. If you rather eat "asado" and go fishing with your friends instead of being at practice, you will never, ever be the best. So in a way, is really up to the player's priorities...

Well, I also think that federer / nadal final was extraordinary, but it was predicatable since they were 1 and 2 and I think its impossible to compare one comeback with the other. Gaudio was LITERALLY terminated. He said that after the end of the second set he was only hoping to win a few games just not to make a huge embarrasment in front of millions of people watching. Gaudio knew he would lose since set 1. And Rafa and federer are ''friends'' or they have a great relationship, but Coria and Gaudio were public enemies, and that's something that contributed to the general vibe of that final.

See, here's where you talk about personal preference. I believe for you and maybe for Argentina, that RG final of 2004 was the most exciting final in recent history. But for Tennis in general and for the rest of the world, the Nadal Vs Federer Wimbledon final will go down as one of the best finals in the history of tennis! I understand you were more emotionally involved with the 2004 final cause there were two argentinians facing each other, they both hated each other and it was a dramatic ending...but please, that final was not even 1% as relevant and exciting to TENNIS as the Roger Vs Nadal final in Wimbledon 2008

Anyway, what I put in my signature was ''Tevez Owns Rooney'' and I still think that

You are right..i knew i had seen that before  However, I remember reading a post of yours a few years ago in which you said Tevez was a better striker than Messi. It's ok though, everyone can change their minds 

Nice to read your posts Ignatius. We should discuss in spanish, though 

Agreed Esteban! Vamos a ver que pasa con Del Potro contra Federer hoy

[estebanf]

Del Potro is 2 sets to 1 against Roger. Please God let the guy win one more set. THIS is the true final of the tournament.

[Gnrfan]

Del Potro is 2 sets to 1 against Roger. Please God let the guy win one more set. THIS is the true final of the tournament.

Get in there! Great to see Federer in the final. I just hope he can win it.

Big props to Del Potro for 3 sets probally the better player. But his fitness just went and Federer just started playing with him. I think the difference in the end was Federer's variety opposed to Del Potro big serve and big hit game.

Come on Roger!

[estebanf]

Yes, great Del Potro's performance. This is where great players appear, in the decisive moments, and Federer was born for them. I wonder how many points of distance are left from Del Potro to Murray right now...

[Gnrfan]

Yes, great Del Potro's performance. This is where great players appear, in the decisive moments, and Federer was born for them. I wonder how many points of distance are left from Del Potro to Murray right now...

Well Murray has gained points this week, so he's further ahead of Djokovic now. In fact if Murray had got to the final and Federer had lost to Monfils Murray would have gone 2nd. Obviously Nadal has lost points but he's so far ahead it doesn't really matter. But Djokovic is the biggest loser from the french and i reckon Del Potro must be getting close to him in 4th.

[Ignatius]

Good semis y'terday.

I was impressed when SoderKing came back 4-1 against Gonzo in the 5th to win 6-4. Great effort.

Del Potro did pretty good against Roger. I don't know what gotten to him in the final two sets; he looked tired so I just going to assume he didnt have any energy left. He should work on hit fitness thought cause yesterday's match it shoould've been his had he been as fit as Roger.

Now regarding points, there's still a huge gap between Djokovic and Del Potro. The Djoker will lose around 600-800 points only (Nadal 1400 more or less) while Del Potro will add around 800. Right now there's 4000 point's difference so I don't think Del Potro will reach Novak's unless the serb loses every match from here till the rest of the year and the argenitian wins it all. Let's not forget, Del Potro has a shit load of points to defend after Wimbledon.

[Gnrfan]

I think this Soderling vs Federer final might be a classic.

Yesterday Federer seemed content to let Del Potro go for his shots and if he does that again then Federer will see that ball going passed him a lot.

I think the first set is vital for both men, but more so Soderling. If he wins that then i predict a 5 set match. If Federer wins the first then i think he'll take it in 4.

Guile vs brute force. Who wins?

[Ignatius]

I think Federer.

Soderlin's played incredibly well but this is his first GS. He's handled the pressure well so far, but we are  talking about a GS final against probably the best player in the history of tennis if he wins tomorrow. 99% of all people will be rooting for Federer, the crowd will be rooting for Federer...Soderling is up against a wall here. Also, Soderling is yet to win a set in all matches he's played against Roger so obviously that'll be on each player's minds.

Now heading up to Wimbledon...

Nadal withdraws from Queens http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8085394.stm and http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/Nadal/aguanta/dolor/elpepudep/20090606elpepidep_7/Tes

The article in spanish says:

Uncle Toni: "Let's see if we make it to Wimbledon. It's not clear. But even if he has to go with a shock treatment, if he's reasonably well, he'll go. Right now, however, we can't tell".

The article goes on saying he has been having pain in his knee, the problem wasn't deemed to be serious (bone edema), only a matter of pain, but it's been getting worse and worse. In the end he didn't bend his knees like he usually does and that was affecting his shots. In the third set against Soderling he said to his camp "It hurts. I can't...", but they decided not to comment on it afterwards because "you have to be a good loser".


I don't know how bad his knees are hurt. Nadal's has played with bad knees before, but withdrawing from Queens is not a good sign. If Nadal goes to Wimbly (and I'm almost 100% he will) this will be his first tourney on grass this year for him, so it'll be more difficult for him to adapt. He could lose the #1 if Federer wins RG, Halle and makes it to the Wimbly final if Nadal doesn't play or crashes in the first round.

[Gnrfan]

Get In There.

Arise Sir Roger.... Best Player ever? Who Cares..... Just great to see him win.

He is now certainly top 3 of all time. Laver and Sampras the only other contenders. Personally i think Federer is the best ever.

Longest Reign as No 1
Joint most GS of all time
Career Grand Slam
Hasn't lost at the US Open since 2004
5 consecutive Wimbledon wins
Olympic Gold Medal
3x 3 Slams in a year
Most GS finals in a row - 10
19 GS final appearances (Only one man has ever beaten him)

Simply incredible.

[Ignatius]

I was so happy to see him win. He really deserved it 

I really think he's the best ever now. Eventhough it'd have been unquestionable had he beaten Nadal in the final, in my books he deserves to be "The Greatest of all time". Last year we were having this discussion here and all of us thought he needed the french to be the GOAT. Well, now he's got it, let's just stick to what we said...Federer is the all time Great.

The final was a no brainer. Soderling couldn't control his nerves and Federer just kept his cool. I don't blame Robin, it was his first GS final and there was too much going on. A great tournament for the swede though...I'm sure we will see much more from him. In a way, the swede's performance reminded me of the french Tsong? when the blasted through the Australian Open in 2007, beating everyone (including Nadal) except his loss against the Djoker in the final. the french, hasn't really lived up to the expectations since, I don't know if the swede's future will hold similar results.

It's a great time for tennis guys. Even Johnny Mac said it yesterday when he was asked if this era was the best ever and he said it was. Hopefully, if Nadal plays Wimbledon we will see Rafa more motivated than ever up against the GOAT and the likes of Murray, Djoker and raising stars Del Potro and Soderling.  I can't simply wait.

[estebanf]

He's the best of all times, no doubt about it.

He's the player with the biggest amount of Grand Slam titles (with Sampras) and with more finals (with Lendl, if I'm not wrong) BUT he won all 4 grand slams. Other 5 players won the 4 slams, but Federer won more titles than them all, including Laver, Emerson and Agassi. Not being a clay player, he is the 5th or 6th player with more total Roland Garros finals, all of them consecutively.

In terms of ''quality'', Federer is 1298309123109 times better and a more complete player than Sampras. I haven't seen Laver. I did saw Agassi, and I think the comparison with the kid is much more tight in terms of quality than againts Sampras.

Let's no forget Nadal is probably the 2nd or 3rd favourite player to win the next US Open and if he succeds he will obtain all grand slams and will be very close to Agassi in total number of grand slams (7 against

After seeing this final, I now realise HOW CLOSE was Del Potro to win the tournament... just a few games

[Gnrfan]

The Only thing i'd like to see is Federer getting back to No.1

Sampras holds the record weeks at No1 and showed incredible resiliance to get overtaken at No1 on several occasions before going back to No.1. Some have said that Federer doesn't have hunger to get back to No1 and was all about the GS. I dont think thats true i just think Nadal is incredible. But some have said it.

To me Federer is the best ever now but i think getting back to number 1 against a strong player like Nadal will take any doubt (if there is any) away.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

He should have smacked that whacko

[Ignatius]

Let's no forget Nadal is probably the 2nd or 3rd favourite player to win the next US Open and if he succeds he will obtain all grand slams and will be very close to Agassi in total number of grand slams (7 against

Hmm...I'll say he's now the 1st favorite as he still is the number 1 in the world. To many maybe he's second after Federer, that's ok...but definitely not 3rd.

After seeing this final, I now realise HOW CLOSE was Del Potro to win the tournament... just a few games

You mean, how close was Del Potro to reach the FINAL.- Again, there's this tendency on this forum to assume things based on personal preferences. If Del Potro had played the final, he would've gotten to play Soderling. And trust me, the swede would've been much more comfortable playing the argentinian than playing Federer. So don't assume just because Del Potro took Fedex to 5 sets, he'd had it easy against Soderling 

Federer is now 3000 points away of Nadal. If Rafa doesnt play wimbly (im pretty sure he will) and Federer wins Halle and gets to the Wimbly final, the swiss will get the #1 back.  Let's hope the spaniard is fit and ready for the grass GS.

[estebanf]

there's this tendency on this forum to assume things based on personal preferences.

Oh God... and what do you want me to base me on? Tennis is a sport, passion and preferences will be always involved, this is not algebra or maths. Yeah, same for me thinking Federer and Djokovic are more favourite than Nadal to win the US Open, so what? Sometimes you talk like if you were the paradigm of tennis knowledge...

You dont always need to base the favouritism of players in a tournament  in the ranking. Sampras was always the main favourite to win Wimbledon no matter what ranking he had. Agassi was always one of the main favourites, if not THE favourite, to win both Australian and northamerican opens, even if he was 20th in the ranking. And Marcelo Rios and/or Carlos Moya were never favourite at ANYTHING even being #1 at the ranking. Guga was never favourite at Wimbledon being #1 for a long long time...

I repeat: tennis is not exact science, its not math. If it were,  it wouldn't be as entertaing as it actually is.

[Gnrfan]

there's this tendency on this forum to assume things based on personal preferences.

Oh God... and what do you want me to base me on? Tennis is a sport, passion and preferences will be always involved, this is not algebra or maths. Yeah, same for me thinking Federer and Djokovic are more favourite than Nadal to win the US Open, so what? Sometimes you talk like if you were the paradigm of tennis knowledge...

You dont always need to base the favouritism of players in a tournament  in the ranking. Sampras was always the main favourite to win Wimbledon no matter what ranking he had. Agassi was always one of the main favourites, if not THE favourite, to win both Australian and northamerican opens, even if he was 20th in the ranking. And Marcelo Rios and/or Carlos Moya were never favourite at ANYTHING even being #1 at the ranking. Guga was never favourite at Wimbledon being #1 for a long long time...

I repeat: tennis is not exact science, its not math. If it were,  it wouldn't be as entertaing as it actually is.

I think the difference is that Nadal has won as many Hard court titles as anyone over the last 18 months and thats why Nadal will be favourite. He won the last major on Hard Courts and he's the No 1. Some of those guys you mentioned hardly ever won regular season tournaments let alone slams.

This is Tennis and Nadal is the best player in the world and has proven he can win on all surfaces and thats why he'll be favourite in my eyes. To be honest i think Nadal will be more of for the US than Wimbledon despite Federer's record in flushing meadow and Nadal being Wimbledon reigning champion. I just wonder if Federer will now fancy his chances at Wimbledon... Nadal isn't 100% , mentally losing his dominance at the french must affect him a little and now Federer has no shackles of pressure. 15th Grand Slam? could be.

[Ignatius]

Oh God... and what do you want me to base me on? Tennis is a sport, passion and preferences will be always involved, this is not algebra or maths. Yeah, same for me thinking Federer and Djokovic are more favourite than Nadal to win the US Open, so what? Sometimes you talk like if you were the paradigm of tennis knowledge...

What I meant was more in line with you saying "del potro was a few games away to win the tournament".  In another words, you already assumed Del Potro would've beat Soderling in the final...and I just made a comment about you being a little bit biased that's all.

And then you said something about Agassi being a better player than Sampras...to which I chose not to really comment cause it'd have lead to another argument that really I don't really think it'd contribute in any way to this discussion... but then again, that's an opinion and NOT a fact. Sampras was a better player I have no doubts in my mind because he won many more tournaments than Agassi did, their HEAD to HEAD was in Sampras favor and Sampras held the number 1 spot for much, much longer...but hey, as usual you don't really agree with FACTS. 

I think the difference is that Nadal has won as many Hard court titles as anyone over the last 18 months and thats why Nadal will be favourite. He won the last major on Hard Courts and he's the No 1. Some of those guys you mentioned hardly ever won regular season tournaments let alone slams.

This is Tennis and Nadal is the best player in the world and has proven he can win on all surfaces and thats why he'll be favourite in my eyes. To be honest i think Nadal will be more of for the US than Wimbledon despite Federer's record in flushing meadow and Nadal being Wimbledon reigning champion. I just wonder if Federer will now fancy his chances at Wimbledon... Nadal isn't 100% , mentally losing his dominance at the french must affect him a little and now Federer has no shackles of pressure. 15th Grand Slam? could be.

See Esteban? This in an unbiased post. 100% objective.

Gnrfan knows his tennis. His favorite is Murray but he is aware of Federer and Nadal's accomplishments!

[estebanf]

ok, this discussion is becoming senseless. You want to believe that the ranking determinates it all, cool. I prefer to take in consideration other aspects like the past, history, skills, and ''moments'' of the players to try to estimate who will win a tournament. Federer won 5 US Opens, one million hard-court master series, he won other 3 titles at the other hard court grand slam, but ''he's not the favourite'' because he is #2 and Rafa, who NEVER won a single US Open trophy and won 7 hard court grand slams less than Federer, is the #1 and ''there nothing more to explain in here: the fact he's one determinates it all''.

If THAT is being objective, well, I think I will stay away from objectivity. I still think Federer and Djokovic have more chances to obtain the US Open trophy than Rafa Nadal. They are, in my eyes, more dangerous players in hard courts than Rafa, and ''they've proven to be able to win the tournament'', and Rafa doesn't. Oh, and for God's sake, I have not any agenda against Rafa.

[Gnrfan]

Federer won 5 US Opens, one million hard-court master series, he won other 3 titles at the other hard court grand slam, but ''he's not the favourite'' because he is #2 and Rafa, who NEVER won a single US Open trophy and won 7 hard court grand slams less than Federer, is the #1 and ''there nothing more to explain in here: the fact he's one determinates it all''.

I can see what you are saying but in the last 18 months the only hard court Federer has won was the US Open, i believe. and that was a against Murray who has never been in the final. Federer has the worst record of the top 4 against each other this year, athough he has beaten Nadal on clay.

Due to the lack of Grass tournaments i could see an arguement for that Federer could be considered the favourite for Wimbledon, but on hard courts no one has won as many titles in the last 18 months than Nadal. and Federer is well down on that list i would imagine.

Now Federer is probally my fav tennis player of all time. But facts are facts and he isn't the player of 3 years ago where any defeat was an upset. Instead of Him being favourite for every event now there are 4 maybe 5 guys that have genuine shots at winning the slams and more importantly have all beaten Federer.

Now i will say that Federer is a big game player.... Only Nadal has beaten him in GS finals (3 French, 1 Wimbledon, 1 Oz Open). So if he gets to the final then he's a force but to say that Federer's US Open win is his only winning points he has to defend pretty much says its all. If Murray, Del Potro, Djokovic play Federer they all fancy their chances as where with Nadal those players remain the underdog. Guys like Murray & Del Potro still have to win a slam to even enter the "favourite" arena. Djokovic career seems to go up and down and its been a while since he's seriously contested a Slam after that Oz Open victory in 08 so he has something to prove.

I think if Federer wins Wimbledon then maybe people can start saying he's getting back to old form. If Nadal wins Wimbledon again then thats a crushing blow to Federer who dominated on grass for so long.

.... But hey Federer is the greatest player ever..... So write him off at you peril.