Early Wimbledon Talk

[DarthFed]

That match does speak poorly on Roger, he lost to a guy who'd done nothing on grass before that day. He played scared for much of it and was just bad at the end. If he played up to standard he'd have won, like he had 65 straight times before.

 

[Moxie]

That match does speak poorly on Roger, he lost to a guy who'd done nothing on grass before that day. He played scared for much of it and was just bad at the end. If he played up to standard he'd have won, like he had 65 straight times before.

I know we can do this all day, but I'm not going to let you make a "nothing" out of Nadal. There are only a couple of grass options per year, and Rafa had won Queens that year (beating Djokovic-in-training), and he was in his 3rd Wimbledon final against Roger. That's not "nothing." Streaks end, particularly between these two. (They each ended each others' win streak on their favorite surface.) Federer played a lot of beautiful tennis in that match. If he and Rafa were capable of playing their best tennis all of the time, no one would beat them but each other, and Djokovic sometimes. You've already said that Nadal was the better man on the day, so I guess we can leave it at that. You're never going to stop believing that Roger should never have lost that match, no matter what history and tennis at that time tells you.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There is no question that Rafa is more dependent on draw to get throught to the second week. However, I believe in the saying that "luck favors the prepared". Now, Rafa is prepared going in to the grass season this year. Hence, I have a feeling that he will have a very nice draw with a sequence of four gimme opponents avoiding all dangerous floaters.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Roger was not in his groove in that Wimbledon final (2008) mentally. There was something holding him back mentally. If you look at 2007 and 2008 videos in sequence, you will know that Roger was a bit lesser player in 2008. The dip was mostly in the mental dept. He wasn't going for his shots with the same confidence or groove. His mental shape that day wasn't his best. What caused this? The bad beat by Nadal at FO. And 6 months of lacklustre results. It happens you know. He was not sick during Wimbledon 2008 but bad results caused by it earlier the year dented his confidence. It was visible. He was just not his best self. This is as true as the fact that Rafa did play very good tennis that day.

Rafa was fantastic. He was as fantastic as any player could have been against Roger who wasn't a grass court specialist. A very special performance. If Roger was at his best that day, all he know is that we could have seen an even closer match. This match could have ended in three sets if Nadal didn't fall on the court. So this really shouldn't have been as close a match as it turned out to be. But Rafa's credit cannot be taken away.

 

[El Dude]

Dude, if Murray met Nadal at Wimbledon, who do you think would win? My money would be on Nadal. That's not the full picture of course, as they have to get there and Murray might have a marginally greater chance of progressing to the second week... but I'd still have Nadal as a serious contender based on the form he's in.

I've got to give the edge to Nadal in a match vs Andy. That said, Andy is probably less likely to be upset against a lesser opponent who is good on grass (e.g. Dustin Brown), so I probably give Andy a slightly better chance overall. Just my opinion, of course, and I'm not particularly attached to it.

 

[Puppet Master]

I don't know exactly where to put this masterpiece I found on Facebook, so in light of predicting who is going to beat who at SW19 this year:

 

[brokenshoelace]

I was reading through the first page re: Nadal's chances and it's interesting.

Someone (I think Denis) mentioned that they would have Raonic or Dimitrov as bigger favorites. I think Nadal is a unique case in the sense that he has a bigger chance for an early upset than say, Raonic, but a better chance at actually winning the tournament. I'm not fond of Nadal's chances at Wimbledon at all, and until he gets past of the first week, I'll remain skeptical, but if someone from the future tells me "either Dimitrov or Nadal has won Wimbledon 2017, which one do you think it was?" I'll feel pretty comfortable saying it's Nadal.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm not punishing him, he's done great to reach all those finals but there's no doubt he hasn't played up to his normal standards on many occasions once he's gotten there. Even a couple wins were shaky performances.

Whether it's better to get there and lose or lose early? Yes and no, it is a great debate in sports. Part of MJ's mystique is he was untouchable on the biggest stage. Montana was greater than Brady before this last SB IMO because he was way better in his SB appearances. It's just a difference of opinion. As of now I wouldn't put Roger ahead of Sampras on grass, but another title here obviously would do it.

I don't necessarily disagree with this general outlook, although your previous post suggesting Nadal was nothing special in 2008 is a bit over the top, but hey, we all have sour grapes over specific losses so I get it (not being a dick here, I'm serious). What I found genuinely interesting is a previous claim you made that Roger "underachieved" at Wimbledon. To me this is very tricky, somewhat harsh, but potentially true.

To be fair though, this is not a team sport, so while I get the comparisons to Jordan's 6-0 final record and all, it's obviously not the same since one off day, or hell, one off set and you could lose, especially on grass (I get you were talking about the mystique of being undefeated in the finals in general, and not comparing tennis to basketball).

But it's funny, I actually think where Roger underachieved at Wimbledon is not in the finals he lost. Nadal was in better form in 2008 and in his head, and while you could argue for that match, I can just as easily argue about how Roger "should" have lost the previous year's final... and I think Novak was a better player in 2014 and 2015. So of those 3 finals, I guess when you combine the chances he had in all of them you could say he should have won at least one more Wimbledon title.

But I'm of the opinion that, mystique of being undefeated in finals aside, it's probably better to lose to a Nadal or Djokovic in the final, than lose to Berdych, Tsonga (after being up 2 sets to love) Stakhovsky, or Raonic. Those are the losses Roger should have an issue with at Wimbledon, and in that sense, yes, you could argue there were years where he certainly underachieved.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't necessarily disagree with this general outlook, although your previous post suggesting Nadal was nothing special in 2008 is a bit over the top, but hey, we all have sour grapes over specific losses so I get it (not being a dick here, I'm serious). What I found genuinely interesting is a previous claim you made that Roger "underachieved" at Wimbledon. To me this is very tricky, somewhat harsh, but potentially true.

To be fair though, this is not a team sport, so while I get the comparisons to Jordan's 6-0 final record and all, it's obviously not the same since one off day, or hell, one off set and you could lose, especially on grass (I get you were talking about the mystique of being undefeated in the finals in general, and not comparing tennis to basketball).

But it's funny, I actually think where Roger underachieved at Wimbledon is not in the finals he lost. Nadal was in better form in 2008 and in his head, and while you could argue for that match, I can just as easily argue about how Roger "should" have lost the previous year's final... and I think Novak was a better player in 2014 and 2015. So of those 3 finals, I guess when you combine the chances he had in all of them you could say he should have won at least one more Wimbledon title.

But I'm of the opinion that, mystique of being undefeated in finals aside, it's probably better to lose to a Nadal or Djokovic in the final, than lose to Berdych, Tsonga (after being up 2 sets to love) Stakhovsky, or Raonic. Those are the losses Roger should have an issue with at Wimbledon, and in that sense, yes, you could argue there were years where he certainly underachieved.

I look at it like this, if you tell someone that Roger would have the most majors and Wimbledon was his best slam and he reached 10 finals...I think everyone would be surprised that he was only 7-3 in those finals. I listed the finals record for Nadal, Djoker, Sampras, and Borg and they were 29-0. Out of those 29 I'm thinking only 3 went to 5 sets. That's the difference. Certainly the losses to Berd, Tsonga and Stakhovsky were terrible but he was in bad form those entire years and probably wasn't going to win the tournaments anyways. When you reach the final obviously you are close to winning and that's when you expect the greatest players to rise up. In 2008 and 2015 he disappointed to say the least. 2015 was indescribably bad and that's when myself and some other Fed fans felt he's probably never winning another major. 2014 was different considering his age and Nole playing outside this world, that's maybe the best match he's ever had serving in a defeat and he turned back the clock in regards to movement. The poor ROS and weakened forehand lost him the match but those were constants.

 

[Carol]

I was reading through the first page re: Nadal's chances and it's interesting.

Someone (I think Denis) mentioned that they would have Raonic or Dimitrov as bigger favorites. I think Nadal is a unique case in the sense that he has a bigger chance for an early upset than say, Raonic, but a better chance at actually winning the tournament. I'm not fond of Nadal's chances at Wimbledon at all, and until he gets past of the first week, I'll remain skeptical, but if someone from the future tells me "either Dimitrov or Nadal has won Wimbledon 2017, which one do you think it was?" I'll feel pretty comfortable saying are you comparinf it's Nadal.

Are you comparing Nadal with Dimitrov? well, when this last one wins a couple of Wimbledon titles or gets several finals then maybe we could do some comparison

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Yes, Roger shouldn't really have lost that match against Tsonga. He sort of wasted his 2010 and 2011 Wimbledon campaigns.

 

[Carol]

There are three significant things that can help Rafa to reach the second week, his serve which has improved a lot, his BH and his healthy knee

 

[the AntiPusher]

There are three significant things that can help Rafa to reach the second week, his serve which has improved a lot, his BH and his healthy knee

Typically when a player takes some time off from playing matches, the serve is something that they can tweak for the next tournament. Maybe Moya will get him to change his service grip

 

[Carol]

Typically when a player takes some time off from playing matches, the serve is something that they can tweak for the next tournament. Maybe Moya will get him to change his service grip

He has now plenty time to practice the serve and hope he does

 

[atttomole]

I look at it like this, if you tell someone that Roger would have the most majors and Wimbledon was his best slam and he reached 10 finals...I think everyone would be surprised that he was only 7-3 in those finals. I listed the finals record for Nadal, Djoker, Sampras, and Borg and they were 29-0. Out of those 29 I'm thinking only 3 went to 5 sets. That's the difference. Certainly the losses to Berd, Tsonga and Stakhovsky were terrible but he was in bad form those entire years and probably wasn't going to win the tournaments anyways. When you reach the final obviously you are close to winning and that's when you expect the greatest players to rise up. In 2008 and 2015 he disappointed to say the least. 2015 was indescribably bad and that's when myself and some other Fed fans felt he's probably never winning another major. 2014 was different considering his age and Nole playing outside this world, that's maybe the best match he's ever had serving in a defeat and he turned back the clock in regards to movement. The poor ROS and weakened forehand lost him the match but those were constants.

When you say 29-0 at slams, are you talking about their best grand slam tournaments, or just in general? I remember Djokovic lost finals at the US Open and RG. Nadal lost in Australia, US Open and Wimbledon. Using your reasoning, Roger is 1-4-if I am not mistaken-at the French Open finals, which makes him worse than Sampras (who is 0-0) who never reached the finals at RG.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

After the first week of warm-up tourneys in Stuttgart and Netherlands, here are the current odds of winning Wimbledon for various players as per the bookies. Anyone with a 1% or better chance is listed.

1. Andy Murray 14/5
2. Federer 10/3
3. Rafa 11/2
4. Novak 6
5. Raonic 15
6. Kyrgios 20
7. Sasha 25
8. Stan 28
9. Cilic/Thiem/Grigor 40
10. JMDP 50
11. Tsonga/Kei 66
12. Berdych 100

I agree with the top seven odds, after that it is kind of debatable. JMDP is even doubtful as to whether he will play in Wimbledon. Raonic had recent injuries and need to prove that he is back in action in full form.

 

[DarthFed]

When you say 29-0 at slams, are you talking about their best grand slam tournaments, or just in general? I remember Djokovic lost finals at the US Open and RG. Nadal lost in Australia, US Open and Wimbledon. Using your reasoning, Roger is 1-4-if I am not mistaken-at the French Open finals, which makes him worse than Sampras (who is 0-0) who never reached the finals at RG.

I'm just talking their best slams, sorry for not making that more clear.

Nadal 10-0 at RG
Borg 6-0 at RG
Sampras 7-0 at Wimbledon
Djokovic 6-0 at Australia

And definitely 1 win is better than 0 even if Sampras had made 20 finals.

 

[El Dude]

I was reading through the first page re: Nadal's chances and it's interesting.

Someone (I think Denis) mentioned that they would have Raonic or Dimitrov as bigger favorites. I think Nadal is a unique case in the sense that he has a bigger chance for an early upset than say, Raonic, but a better chance at actually winning the tournament. I'm not fond of Nadal's chances at Wimbledon at all, and until he gets past of the first week, I'll remain skeptical, but if someone from the future tells me "either Dimitrov or Nadal has won Wimbledon 2017, which one do you think it was?" I'll feel pretty comfortable saying it's Nadal.

This is pretty much what I was getting at above, but in reference to Andy. I think Rafa is more likely for a first week upset, but if they both reach the second week I think their chances are more equal.

 

[Moxie]

After the first week of warm-up tourneys in Stuttgart and Netherlands, here are the current odds of winning Wimbledon for various players as per the bookies. Anyone with a 1% or better chance is listed.

1. Andy Murray 14/5
2. Federer 10/3
3. Rafa 11/2
4. Novak 6
5. Raonic 15
6. Kyrgios 20
7. Sasha 25
8. Stan 28
9. Cilic/Thiem/Grigor 40
10. JMDP 50
11. Tsonga/Kei 66
12. Berdych 100

I agree with the top seven odds, after that it is kind of debatable. JMDP is even doubtful as to whether he will play in Wimbledon. Raonic had recent injuries and need to prove that he is back in action in full form.

I'm a bit surprised seeing Kyrgios and Sasha over Stan, Cilic/Thiem and maybe even Grigor. I think Kyrgios has the game, but probably not the mentality (yet,) and I don't think Sasha has the game (yet.) Though he did improve a lot on clay in a short time, but then dumped out of the FO.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Are you comparing Nadal with Dimitrov? well, when this last one wins a couple of Wimbledon titles or gets several finals then maybe we could do some comparison

You might want to read my post again in order not to miss the point by a mile.