Tennis Thread - Official

[D]

Federer is not better than Pete Sampras


Sampras went through amazing players every tourney

Federer has had no competition till here lately and Nadal kicks his ass.

[Axl4Prez2004]

I would rate Laver as the greatest player of all time. He was not able to compete in the Grand Slam events for five years during the peak of his career because the Slams were only for amateur tennis players up until the late 60's. Laver went pro in 62/63 and was not able to take part. Technically, Laver would have gone on to win many more Slams given the chance.

Federer is a clear second though.

Here here on Laver...and classy too!  Did you all see the interview afterwards with McEnroe interviewing Laver, Borg, and Sampras?  How cool was that?  Pete was very gracious ducking the question (with good reason!)  Pete said he can't answer that standing next to Laver and Borg.  So much class.

McEnroe is an amazing commentator btw.  He's my all-time favorite player...the Axl Rose of tennis in his day!   


Can I also add, somebody mentioned some half-volleys by Federer.  Oh my God, he had some backhand volleys that were just unbelievable.  I've missed some good years of tennis. 

Also, great points made by Ignatius earlier.  It's so hard to compare players across generations.  All you can do is be the best against your contemporaries.  One day we'll all be in heaven watching these guys gut it out against each other in their primes!
That's my belief.   

[Eazy E]

Federer has had no competition till here lately and Nadal kicks his ass.

Nadal kicks his ass ON CLAY.  Their head to head record is skewed by the 9-2 record for Nadal on clay courts... and considering Nadal is the "King of Clay", that just goes to show Federer's ability to make it far in clay tournaments and Nadal's inability to do so on other surfaces.  Granted Nadal is improving on grass and hard courts, but pit him against Federer the way he's playing right now and I'll take Roger any day.

[estebanf]

Federer is not better than Pete Sampras

In terms of quality, skills, movements and variety of shots, Federer is a much more complete player than Pistol Pete was.

* Sampras was an average player playing behind the line of serve / Federer is probably the best player on that aspect in history, at least since he improved and pulished his backhand shot.

* Sampras used to abuse of slice. Federer used to do that also, but now he has one of the most extraordinary single handed-backhand shots. He can play it plain and aggresive in almost all circunstances.

* As for drives, Federer has the most powerful and devastating drive from all active players, only comparable with Fe?a Gonzalez's, but Fedex's is much more consistant and regular.

* Sampras could have been better playing at net. Federer doesn't use that resource too much often, but when he uses it he does it flawlessly most of the times. Must admit Sampras' volley was incredible.

* As for serving... this aspect could be considered as a tie.

* Sampras was an average/mediocre player at clay. Federer won several master series and reached 3 RG's finals, winning one of them. They were both superlative players in grass and hard courts.

* Federer is a master of defense, in those few moments in games were he's been attacked. He showed it perfectly with Del Potro at Roland Garros. Sampras was ''average'' as deffensive player.

* Federer can play a variety of effects Sampras couldn't. Also, Federer can explode, if needed, other ''tricks'' like drop shots from any part of the court.

In terms of TITLES, well, Its all said and done. Federer won more grand slams than Sampras; reached more grand slams finals, he won all 4 grand slams and he defeated Pistol Pete in their only match. Oh, and it was in WIMBLY.

Sampras went through amazing players every tourney

Federer played (and still plays) with multi-grand slam champions like Hewitt, Nadal at his best, Agassi, Safin, and other incredible players like Djokovic, Murray, Nalbandian and Roddick.

I dont think Sampras played with much more talented players like the ones I mentioned.

Federer has had no competition till here lately and Nadal kicks his ass.

Well, I dont know what you mean by ''kicked his ass'' but the Nadal-Fedex record difference is not as extreme as federer-roddick. Federer is a much more complete player than nalbandian, and nalbandian was his worst nightmare in 3/4 of Roger's career. Same for Nadal: Nadal was erased from the court twice in two weeks by Nalbandian at two consecutive master series last year, but everybody knows Nadal is a much more complete player than Nalbandian

And let's not forget that, in the Nadal-Federer record, most of the matches were played in clay, where Nadal is an almighty god.

------------------------------------------
Very happy to see Roddick playing that well, and much more happy to see Roger in the place that he deserves. Congratulations to Federer, the best player in tennis history. 

[Ignatius]

Nadal kicks his ass ON CLAY.  Their head to head record is skewed by the 9-2 record for Nadal on clay courts... and considering Nadal is the "King of Clay", that just goes to show Federer's ability to make it far in clay tournaments and Nadal's inability to do so on other surfaces.  Granted Nadal is improving on grass and hard courts, but pit him against Federer the way he's playing right now and I'll take Roger any day.

Nadal's kicked Federer ass in all surfaces. More than half of their matches has been played on clay so obviously Nadal has won more times on clay than any other surface. But let's not forget, Nadal has beat Roger on grass and hard courts; Wimbledon, Miami, Dubai and of course, Australia.

Calling Nadal the "King of Clay" is so  2007. Nadal has a better record on hard courts than any other player in 2008 and 2009. I wish people gave that up already. He's not just improved, he's been the best throught 18 months on hard courts.

And, I do not want to take any credit away from Federer. I already said he's now (in my books) the best tennis player in the history, but take the last two slams he's won and the highest ranked player he's played against was Juan Martin del potro (ranked #5).  This year, he's lost to Nadal once, Djoker twice and Murray three times. He's not played against any of these three players on his way to RG and Wimbledon.  On the french, he struggled against unseeded players; Acasuso and Haas (unseeded then) and was taken to a 5th against Del Potro whose best clay cour result then was a quaterfinal. In Wimbly, he did beat good players; Karlovic, Soderling and a rejuvenated Haas, but again, he didn't really play a top 10 player until Roddick. Andy had not played a GS final in years but was able to take the match to a decissive 5 set.

I don't really think Federer is playing better than last year. The only match I was really impressed was against Haas in the wimbly semi final, that was too good.  So saying Federer would beat Nadal any day is a risky assertion. Like I said, all the credit to the swiss, but let's not forget WHY he lost the number one and WHAT other player/s have been constanly beating him over the past 12 months.

Hard court season is coming up now. This is where Murray, Djokovic and Nadal have achieve BETTER results than Federer this year. If Nadal is fit, Roger will struggle if he plays against the spaniard, the same way the swiss will struggle if he's against Murray and Djokovic. This summer will be interesting.

[Gnrfan]

Federer is not better than Pete Sampras


Sampras went through amazing players every tourney

Federer has had no competition till here lately and Nadal kicks his ass.

I have to say i think Federer has played better players. Sampras is my Tennis idol but his stats just can't compare to Federer now. Less title in a longer period. The only thing that Sampras has is the total time at No1, which Federer has time to try an beat. Aside from that Federer has all the important records.

To me now its:

1/ Federer
2/ Laver
3/ Sampras

Nadal's kicked Federer ass in all surfaces.

Thats true.... but Federer has also beaten Nadal on all surfaces. Lets not forget according to reports Federer's back has been bad for nearly 2 years and his tennis is definatly improved in the last 5 months. Every player has their bogey players and Nadal is certainly Federers.

Calling Nadal the "King of Clay" is so  2007.

Its just a term.... You can't call him the King of Grass or King of Hard Courts because Federer has won 6 of the last 7 Wimbledons and the last 5 US Opens. The king of clay is not saying he's rubbish at the others because he certainly isnt but rather a title for how brilliant he is on clay.

And, I do not want to take any credit away from Federer. I already said he's now (in my books) the best tennis player in the history, but take the last two slams he's won and the highest ranked player he's played against was Juan Martin del potro (ranked #5). 

I think you can only beat who's in front of you. In the French Nadal was not good enough to beat Soderling and therefore didn't get to the final against Federer.

As far as Wimbledon goes... Nadal beat Federer last year in a 5th set so he was not a certainty to win Wimbledon if he'd have played. Its not Federer's fault that Murray and Djokovic lost before they played him. I think a GS is the same no matter who you beat. And you certainly don't win 15 by getting lucky draws. I think Roddick was playing as good Tennis than anyone at Wimbledon and Federer came through a tough match.... a sign of a true champion.

I don't really think Federer is playing better than last year. The only match I was really impressed was against Haas in the wimbly semi final, that was too good.  So saying Federer would beat Nadal any day is a risky assertion. Like I said, all the credit to the swiss, but let's not forget WHY he lost the number one and WHAT other player/s have been constanly beating him over the past 12 months.

I think Federer is playing better than Wimbledon of last year. So many Unforced errors in 2008 and obviously had trouble (we now know it was his back) on court at times.

Is he playing that much better he'll be No1 at the end of the year.... I'm not sure of that but he is certainly injury free now that gave him such a sub-par 2008. Already this year he has beaten Nadal on Clay and got to all three GS finals winning 2 and losing 1 and now is back at No1.... so i'd say its already been better than last year.

Hard court season is coming up now. This is where Murray, Djokovic and Nadal have achieve BETTER results than Federer this year. If Nadal is fit, Roger will struggle if he plays against the spaniard, the same way the swiss will struggle if he's against Murray and Djokovic. This summer will be interesting.

Yeah Federer does struggle against the other top 3 but Federer has less points to defend than the others and of course there is the US Open where he hasn't lost since 2003 to come. I love the Hard Court season.... you always get classics. I'll never forget Murray beating Nadal last year. Its Murray's best surface so i look forward to that. I hope Nadal gets back fit coz right now i think we have 6 players capable of winning big on Hard Courts.

[Ignatius]

Thats true.... but Federer has also beaten Nadal on all surfaces. Lets not forget according to reports Federer's back has been bad for nearly 2 years and his tennis is definatly improved in the last 5 months. Every player has their bogey players and Nadal is certainly Federers.

According to reports coming from Federer's camp?

I don't buy it. Federer hasn't missed any big tournament in God knows how long, if his back had been so bad, he would've at least missed a few. Nadal's missed a major, 2 master cups, 5 Master 1000's and Davis cup all due to injury. I'm not saying Federer's back has not bothered him at some stage, but that's not the reason why his results have not been that great over the past year and a half. Simply put, other players were just better and in Nadal's case, Rafa has always done the same to beat Federer regardless the year.

I don't think he's improved that much in the past 5 months. He did win the French and Wimbledon but did he did so in a dominant fashion like he's done in the past? In the french open he was on the edge of losing against Acasuso, Haas and Del Potro. He won those matches because he's got what it takes to win close matches, but not because he was dominant against those players. In Wimbly, he played better and beat some good quality players, but again, he has not won the tournament in straight sets like he's done in the past.

Its just a term.... You can't call him the King of Grass or King of Hard Courts because Federer has won 6 of the last 7 Wimbledons and the last 5 US Opens. The king of clay is not saying he's rubbish at the others because he certainly isnt but rather a title for how brilliant he is on clay.

No it's not. "King  of Clay"is a label Nadal's tried to get rid off over the past the past two years. It does imply that Nadal "only" does well on clay courts and that's not true. King of clay would've been something more appropiate to players like Kuerten or Muster, but not Nadal. A player who's won majors and master1000's in all surfaces deserves something else.

I think you can only beat who's in front of you. In the French Nadal was not good enough to beat Soderling and therefore didn't get to the final against Federer.

True, I'm not saying Nadal would've beat Federer in RG, but every match is different. If Soderling beat Nadal it doesnt necessary mean that Federer would've beaten Nadal cause he beat Soderling. That's not how tennis works.  In the end, it doesnt' really matter, Federer won and that's that. However, just for the sake of analyzing things, I do believe Roger himself was more or less relieved he didn't have to face none of the players who have beat him this year on the way of winning RG and Wimbledon.

As far as Wimbledon goes... Nadal beat Federer last year in a 5th set so he was not a certainty to win Wimbledon if he'd have played. Its not Federer's fault that Murray and Djokovic lost before they played him. I think a GS is the same no matter who you beat. And you certainly don't win 15 by getting lucky draws. I think Roddick was playing as good Tennis than anyone at Wimbledon and Federer came through a tough match.... a sign of a true champion.

I'm not saying Federer won because of luck. He's the champion, he deserves it.  Nadal was not the clear favorite anyway coming into Wimbledon so I'm not saying he would've won had he played. Roddick played just as good as Roddick could have played and it was not enough. But again, Andy Roddick is no Nadal nor even Andy Murray in terms of these two players know what it takes to beat Federer cause they do it all the time.

Even you said after the semis match that Federer was going to win in three sets against Roddick. You didn't believe in Roddick. Why? Because you knew Murray had more chances to beat the swiss than the american. I'm pretty sure that thought wanderer Federer's mind also. Does he rather play a guy he's beat 16 out of 18 matches including a Wimbledon Final? or against the crowd's favorite to whom he's lost 7 out of 9 matches? I think the answer is very simple.

The frame of mind would've been totally different had he played Murray in the final.

I think Federer is playing better than Wimbledon of last year. So many Unforced errors in 2008 and obviously had trouble (we now know it was his back) on court at times.

Sometimes people seem to scratch the surface only. You are saying he committed more unforce errors because of his back? Federer made UE cause he was playing Nadal in the final. If losing against Nadal was something that had never, ever HAPPENED before then I would probably agree with you, but Roger has lost 13 times against the spaniard so I don't think it was just "his back". Besides, Nadal took him to 5 close sets at Wimbledon in 2007 so you are saying he had back problems then also?

Nadal beat Federer simply because he was the better player that day. Back problems had nothing to do with that...instead, Nadal beating Federer at the french and allowing the swiss 4 games only may have gotten something to do with it, Nadal beating the swiss so many times may have something to do with it, Nadal getting closer and closer to claim the number 1 spot then may have gotten something to do with it...

It's all about momentum and pressure. Tennis is a very psychological sport and Roger reached a point in which he just didn't know what to do. Roger had the pressure - not Nadal - and he failed to deliver.

Is he playing that much better he'll be No1 at the end of the year.... I'm not sure of that but he is certainly injury free now that gave him such a sub-par 2008. Already this year he has beaten Nadal on Clay and got to all three GS finals winning 2 and losing 1 and now is back at No1.... so i'd say its already been better than last year.

Last year he was number one also, he reached 3 GS finals, won 1. This year he's won two yeah, but the question remains the same for me...is he really playing better?

Again, he struggled to win the French Open and didnt face Nadal. Fair enough, he won the French and that's the only thing that matters, but he didnt win the French like Nadal's done in the previous 4 years.

In Wimbledon he seemed stronger out there, but again, he didnt destroyed his rivals like he used to and he didn't face any of his main opponents. And yes, he got the number 1 back because Nadal withdrew from Wimbledon. I give Roger credit, but to me he's been fortunate enough to have things going his way. We'll see what happens once the hard court season begins.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Nadal is gonna make Federer cry on the hard courts of NYC like the last time those two met on a hard court.

[Gnrfan]

Thats true.... but Federer has also beaten Nadal on all surfaces. Lets not forget according to reports Federer's back has been bad for nearly 2 years and his tennis is definatly improved in the last 5 months. Every player has their bogey players and Nadal is certainly Federers.

According to reports coming from Federer's camp?

I don't buy it. Federer hasn't missed any big tournament in God knows how long, if his back had been so bad, he would've at least missed a few.

Federer has played less tournaments this year than anyone i think. You can't say when Nadal is injured, thats the reason he loses and then say Federer's arguments don't stack up. You have to remember that Federer also had Glandular Fever back in Jan 08 which is horrible for a sportsman. It drains energy and it usually takes 18 months to compltetly disapear from your system. If Federer says he had a bad back i'd believe him, just like i believe Nadal especially when it happens in line with a dip of form.

And lets be honest with all Nadals claims of injury he has only missed one GS himself.

No it's not. "King  of Clay"is a label Nadal's tried to get rid off over the past the past two years. It does imply that Nadal "only" does well on clay courts and that's not true. King of clay would've been something more appropiate to players like Kuerten or Muster, but not Nadal. A player who's won majors and master1000's in all surfaces deserves something else.

Well what can we call him? He certainly can't be King of Grass 1 GS to Federer's 6 and he can't be King Of Hard Courts 1 GS to Federers 9 (i think). You can win all the Masters 1000 you like thats not where the greats earn their names.... its at the GS's and Nadal is the best ever on clay IMO and i don't see it as in anyway disrespectful to call him the King Of Clay. I would agree he is the best player in the world at the moment..... but he has got to where he is mainly on the back of his amazing consistancy on Clay. Yes he had a great year last year on all surfaces but that doesn't mean people should forget how good he is on Clay.

True, I'm not saying Nadal would've beat Federer in RG, but every match is different. If Soderling beat Nadal it doesnt necessary mean that Federer would've beaten Nadal cause he beat Soderling. That's not how tennis works.  In the end, it doesnt' really matter, Federer won and that's that. However, just for the sake of analyzing things, I do believe Roger himself was more or less relieved he didn't have to face none of the players who have beat him this year on the way of winning RG and Wimbledon.

Oh of course he is relieved but you get what you deserve in Sport and if Murray didn't deserve to beat Roddick and therefore he didn't get to play Federer. Its all well and good knowing how to beat someone but if that person gets to the final and you don't you'll never get the chance to show it.

Anyone would like to avoid Nadal.... who wouldn't. But if Nadal doesn't make it to the final you can't turn around and say "Well this GS isn't worth playing for, coz Nadal couldn't beat Soderling".

Even you said after the semis match that Federer was going to win in three sets against Roddick. You didn't believe in Roddick. Why? Because you knew Murray had more chances to beat the swiss than the american. I'm pretty sure that thought wanderer Federer's mind also. Does he rather play a guy he's beat 16 out of 18 matches including a Wimbledon Final? or against the crowd's favorite to whom he's lost 7 out of 9 matches? I think the answer is very simple.

The frame of mind would've been totally different had he played Murray in the final.

I thought Federer played the worst game of his tournament in the Final. Roddick played incredibly well. I though Federer would win in 4 because i thought Federer would play better especially on Roddick's serve.

Last Time Murray came accross Federer in a GS final.... Federer destroyed Murray. And that was on Murray's Favourite surface. Yes Murray had an incredibly tough Semi but still Federer took him apart.

Also it adds pressure to Federer to play someone who he is expected to beat doesn't it? I mean Roddick had no pressure at all on him did he? I'm not saying that he would of preferred Murray but i'm saying that there isn't much evidence that Murray would of done any better against Federer on grass in the final of the a GS.

Last year he was number one also, he reached 3 GS finals, won 1. This year he's won two yeah, but the question remains the same for me...is he really playing better?

Again, he struggled to win the French Open and didnt face Nadal. Fair enough, he won the French and that's the only thing that matters, but he didnt win the French like Nadal's done in the previous 4 years.

But thats whats so Amazing... despite not being 100% he still reached 3 GS finals. And when you say he didn't win like Nadal did.... what do you mean. Because everyone seems to be suggesting that Nadal beats Federer quite easily and often so was it that impressive? I think it is.... but you can't have it both ways. You can't say Nadal has Federer's number and say he wins tournaments better because he played someone he finds confortable to beat in the Final ..... thats a contradiction.

The most impressive record going in Tennis is Federer's US Open run.... even Nadal at Roland Garos can't match that consistancy.

I'm really looking forward to the Hard Court season now. Murray is in big trouble because of the points he has to defend but guys like Nadal should have the easiest run back o Number 1 unless Federer really turns it on. Below are the points the players have to defend from now to the end of the year based of GS & Masters1000 tournaments. I was suprised by the numbers:

Nadal - 3050
Federer - 3060
Murray - 4700
Djokovic - 3450

When you look at that you think if Nadal comes back fit then he has a great shot at Number 1 by the end of the Year. Federer would have to win the US Open again and at least one other to have a chance. On the other side Murray and Djokovic have alot of point to defend and both don't seem to be playing as well as this time last year so there are definate possibilities of position changes between now and the end of the year.... So don't worry Ignatius i'm sure Nadal will be Number 1 by the end of the year

[Ignatius]

It's obvious that we don't share the same opinion here, but since there are a few points I'd like to make regarding this debate, I thought they could add to this discussion.

Federer has played less tournaments this year than anyone i think.

He took 45 days off after the Australian yeah but that was an easier decission to make cause there are no important tournaments that take place from late jan till early march.

You can't say when Nadal is injured, thats the reason he loses and then say Federer's arguments don't stack up.

I never said that. I don't know what happened in RG, Nadal played too short and lost. This could've been because he had pain on his knees and could not stand to hit the ball the way he does or it could've been because Soderling was unstoppable that day. Either way, Nadal has not played a single official match since, so it's safe to assume he may be in some kind of pain, specially since he was forced to withdraw from Wimbledon where he was the defending champ and where he had to defend 2000 points.

You have to remember that Federer also had Glandular Fever back in Jan 08 which is horrible for a sportsman. It drains energy and it usually takes 18 months to compltetly disapear from your system. If Federer says he had a bad back i'd believe him, just like i believe Nadal especially when it happens in line with a dip of form.

Again, he didnt miss a single tournament. He played the same tournaments he plays each and every year. Whether it was mono or a bad back, it wasn't enough to stop him from playing every tournament so I don't believe it was bothering him that much.

And lets be honest with all Nadals claims of injury he has only missed one GS himself.

Yes, and 2 Master Cups, 5 1000's tournaments and a davis cup. Nadal's injury is not a broken bone or even a torn muscle. It's a tendiditis. Like I have said before, Nadal's knees are more in pain on the second half of the season because he's already put a lot of pressure throughout the year and because hard court (this is where players suffer the most physically) start from August and last till the end of the year. If you take a look at all tournaments Nadal's  missed because of injuries, they've all taken place from september onwards (with the exeption now of Wimbledon). 

This year however, Nadal's played more matches coming into RG than any other previous year. He won 5 tournaments before RG...Truth to be told, it's his fault. He should've missed one or two clay court tournaments, but he had to defend a shit load of points and he played them all. We already know the consecuences...he had to skip wimbledon. I'm sure he'll learn from this.

Well what can we call him? He certainly can't be King of Grass 1 GS to Federer's 6 and he can't be King Of Hard Courts 1 GS to Federers 9 (i think). You can win all the Masters 1000 you like thats not where the greats earn their names.... its at the GS's and Nadal is the best ever on clay IMO and i don't see it as in anyway disrespectful to call him the King Of Clay. I would agree he is the best player in the world at the moment..... but he has got to where he is mainly on the back of his amazing consistancy on Clay. Yes he had a great year last year on all surfaces but that doesn't mean people should forget how good he is on Clay.

Obviously something different. I'm not saying he's the king of grass or the king of HC, but he's won tournaments there also, and calling him "the king of clay" implies that he only does well on clay. It's on that surface where he has achieved better results in the past, but not in the last 18 months. He's now an all around player who is tough to beat in all surfaces. You can obviously call him whatever you want, but IMO, King of clay doesnt give him justice.

Oh of course he is relieved but you get what you deserve in Sport and if Murray didn't deserve to beat Roddick and therefore he didn't get to play Federer. Its all well and good knowing how to beat someone but if that person gets to the final and you don't you'll never get the chance to show it.

Anyone would like to avoid Nadal.... who wouldn't. But if Nadal doesn't make it to the final you can't turn around and say "Well this GS isn't worth playing for, coz Nadal couldn't beat Soderling".

Like I said Gnrfan, Federer won both GS's and that's what most people will remember.  All the credit to him, the others were not good enough to make it to the late stages. However, I'm just trying to make a point. Federer was fortunate that he didnt have to face any of those players; Nadal, Murray and Djokovic. It's true other players beat them, but hey, tennis is not mathematical formula. If A beats B and B beats C, it doesn't mean A will beat C.

Also it adds pressure to Federer to play someone who he is expected to beat doesn't it?
 

I disagree.

Federer has had Roddick's number for a very long time. I think he was relieved. Playing Murray will have put much more pressure on Federer's side. First of all, the crowd would've been all over. The final could've been like a Davis Cup match and you know how that is when you are playing at your opponent's home court. Pressure there is hell for the visitor. Also, Murray has beaten Federer 7 outta of 9 times, so the pressure on there is also on Federer. How does he enter a match against the crowd's favorite who happens to have beat him constanly over the past year? Mentally it drains out. This is why Federer loses 70% of the matches he plays when he faces Nadal, Nadal has the edge mentally cause he's beat him so many more times...

I'm really looking forward to the Hard Court season now. Murray is in big trouble because of the points he has to defend but guys like Nadal should have the easiest run back o Number 1 unless Federer really turns it on. Below are the points the players have to defend from now to the end of the year based of GS & Masters1000 tournaments. I was suprised by the numbers:

Nadal - 3050
Federer - 3060
Murray - 4700
Djokovic - 3450

When you look at that you think if Nadal comes back fit then he has a great shot at Number 1 by the end of the Year. Federer would have to win the US Open again and at least one other to have a chance. On the other side Murray and Djokovic have alot of point to defend and both don't seem to be playing as well as this time last year so there are definate possibilities of position changes between now and the end of the year.... So don't worry Ignatius i'm sure Nadal will be Number 1 by the end of the year

The problem with those numbers are that they are not FAIR.

Nadal will lose the 800 points he earned last year at the olympics. He obviously won't have a chance to defend that title. In a few weeks he will lose another 1000 he won last year in Canada. That tournament was held in July last year because the olympics so Nadal will lose those points. He will have the chance to "claim" them back in Ausgust when the Canadian open starts this year.

So, In a 2 week span, Nadal will lose another 1800 points. This will probably relegate the guy to #3 in the world before he's back from injury. So in a 2 month span Nadal will have lost 5500 points.

Hopefully, after Canada, he doesnt have many points to defend, so he should be able to claim the number 2 spot back and if Federar tanks, maybe even the number 1.

Either way, this second half of the season is going to be awesome!!!

[Gnrfan]

Either way, this second half of the season is going to be awesome!!!

Couldn't agree more. I looked up the odds on Nadal and Federer being No1 at the end of the year and they still have Nadal as favourite to end the year at No1 so they don't appear to have much faith in Federer's ability on the Hard Courts.

[Ignatius]

Finally!

The Rogers Cup tournament started yesterday. A 1000 series tournament featuring 19 of the top 20. It also marks the return of the former world number one Rafael Nadal.

The draws have not been kind with Nadal nor Murray. Federer has a much easier path (or so it seems). Nadal could play Del Potro in the quaters and then Djokovic or Roddick in the semis. Murray has Davidenko, Gonzalez, Hewiit, Haas, Ferrero, Karlovic...all those players are on his side. Potential semis with Federer.

I don't hold many expectations for Rafa. He's seems to be fit, but he's hitting the ball badly. I was watching him practise a few days ago and he's really off target. This is normal though, he hasn't touched a racket in almost 6 weeks. His knees seem to be ok though. I'll be happy if he just played a few singles matches to get some kind of rythm. That, along with the doubles action he's getting, will allow him to play at least 3 matches (he already won the first doubles encounter).

My favorites for this tournament are Andy Murray, Davidenko, Del Potro and Roddick. I'm not including Federer cause he's been too busy with his twins and wife and has not really though tennis that much since Wimbly. His mind is not ready yet and with Djokovic you never know. He could win the tourney in straight sets or lose in the first round. It's really difficult to predict with the Djoker.

Anyway, the fun has just started.

[Gnrfan]

Well Federer is out. good match mind. When Tsonga is playing well he is one of my favourites to watch and for bits today he played well.

The big shock is Federer let a 5-1 set lead go. I know he has been busy with the twins and hasn't practiced in two weeks before the tournament but to let that position go is odd and i'm sure a bit of a reminder for Federer that there are guys that can beat him if his standard drops to 90%.

As far as Murray goes..... he battered Ferrero in one of Murrays best displays yet. But he wasn't as good today and Tsonga will be a tough match. I'm hoping that Murray gets to the final and Nadal doesn't so Murray can take the no2 spot from Nadal.

[Gnrfan]

Well Murray, Roddick, Del Potro & Tsonga left in. A New Wave maybe?

If Murray beats Tsonga he goes to No.2 albeit probaly for a short period. But with Djokovic, Federer & Nadal out if Murray can take this title he'll get as close to No.1 as well as he ever had been. And with Federer's focus maybe elsewhere and Nadal still recovering Murray has gotta try and get to as many finals as he possibly can in preperation for the US Open

[estebanf]

Del Potro erased Rafa Nadal and today defeated Roddick in a tough match, with nineteen aces 

we have a great final to see tomorrow!! Go Delpo Go! 

[estebanf]

we have a great final to see tomorrow!! Go Delpo Go! 

 

[Gnrfan]

Another classy win for Murray. Up to No2 in the world.

Del Potro is an incredible player but he needs condidtioning. Little injures become bigger as he gets more tired. the same thing happened to Murray a few years ago. I also think that Del Potro's style is suseptible to injury and stamina problems. Such big swings must take it out of him especially in 5 set matches

[estebanf]

yes, i agree, and that's something he needs to solve URGENTLY if he hopes to be #1 someday.

He moves extremely well for a 2.00 meters guy, he's fast and flexible, not like other tall guys like karlovic, rusedsky or ancic. And his right arm, his drive, is a shotgun. It's between him, Gonzalez and Federer where to find the best drive in the circuit.

but it seems he finds very hard to keep his physic in form in long matches, and i think that's the only reason he lost today, because he played better than Murray all tournament long.

anyway, he stepped up to #5 position. A good US Open (semis) could make him make another step up.

[Ignatius]

Congrats to Murray. I sorta predicted he was the man to watch here.

I was kidnapped the entire weekend so no tennis on TV for me, I couldn't even watch Nadal against Delpo on friday. 

I knew Del Potro was going to beat Nadal anyway. He's usually not the best match-up for Rafa on equal terms so this time around it the argentinian was the favorite. I did watch Rafa's first two matches and he's totally off rythm.  The knees don't seem to bother him so I'm not really concerned on that aspect. It's his tennis what worries me. He's playing too short and with players like Delpo, Davidenko or Tsong? he is really going to struggle.

As for Federer, I knew he was not going to get far. The match against Tsong? from what I've read was really strange but in the end the french advanced.

Djokovic did what he does best, being Novak Djokovic. It's a mystery with this guy.

And Murray...his hard work has payed out. Apperantly he's trained really tough in Miami leading up to this tournament. Andy is way fitter than he was 6 months ago. He's put on some muscle weight. I've read his calory intake prior to this tournament was close to 6000 calories per day. I saw him play against Ferrero and Davidenko and he didnt even have to try hard to beat those guys. It's really scary to see how much damage this guy can do.

Now we have Cincinnatti. Hopefully Rafa can play a few more matches in addition with some doubles action. I don't think Nadal will go any further than the quaterfinals here either. My favorites here and Roddick and Federer. I'm not considering Murray cause no one has won back to back Masters 1000 tournaments in hard court in a while. Delpo seems physically drained.

[Gnrfan]

Yeah Murray must be feeling the sting of so much Tennis.

I disagree that Del Potro out played Murray. I thought Murray stuck with him all along knowing that Delpo would tire. I think Delpo will struggle to ever get as fit as Nadal or Murray coz of his size and how much energy he takes out of himself with his ground strokes.