Wimbledon Preview Talk

[GameSetAndMath]

The Men's doubles draw is out. Very few singles players are playing in doubles. Last year's winners Sock and Popsicle are seeded #3. Tipsy is playing with Mahesh Bhupathi. Rosol is playing with Klizan. Other than that mostly only doubles players playing.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

According to the ATP website, Fed said that he had had the best prep for Wimbo ever. I swear Roger, if you lose now...
All those years on tour surely had some effect on his mental health

Come on, he is not going to say in the press conference "I actually like two weeks gap as I don't really need practice to play on grass. This three weeks hurts me as other players will be finding their grass feet and form, making life more difficult for me".:laydownlaughing

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

can mods move the tedious fedal war poasts to the tedious ultimate fedal wars page. thanks.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The key to victory for Fed in Wimbledon is how well he returns and how efficiently he converts his break points. We already know this. But, this IBM infographics makes it crystal clear.

Sadly, Fed is still struggling in the ROS and BP conversion area, which are crucial.

According to Pete Sampras, winning in Wimbledon is more dependent on ROS than on serving.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It would be interesting to see how Tommy Haas does. He is projected to play with Raonic in 2nd round. Given that Tommy is coming back after an year, I don't expect him to upset Raonic, although might give him trouble (especially if Milos himself is not healed properly).

Actually, Tommy plays Lajovic in 1st round and he is not a slouch either. He has big serve which will help him in Wimby.

 

[lindseywagners]

esp. since there's no rivalry! Nadal owns Federer lock, stock, & barrel!

There WAS a rivalry though. Why does everyone forget what it was like in 2005-2009? Do you not remember their memorable matches (and I'm not even talking about Paris, Wimby or AO)?

 

[Fiero425]

esp. since there's no rivalry! Nadal owns Federer lock, stock, & barrel!

There WAS a rivalry though. Why does everyone forget what it was like in 2005-2009? Do you not remember their memorable matches (and I'm not even talking about Paris, Wimby or AO)?

Believe, on faith for years I called it a rivalry, but looking at the cold hard numbers over time, I see where it was more luck than anything that took some of those victories from Rafa! I always thought there was something Roger could do to counteract Nadal's strengths, but he rarely did what I thought he should which is relentlessly attack! True enough he'll get passed many times, but in my era, it was expected! Today's pros are so gutless, you pass them a couple times and the next time they approach the net is to shake hands after a loss! Even on clay courts, if that's your game to attack the net, you have to keep on doing it! You just lose slower by playing into the strengths of a baseliner hanging back! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Front242]

Relentless attack over best of 5 is extremely difficult, especially on clay and that's why his RG 2008 game plan sucked so badly 'cos that's pretty much what he did there.

 

[Fiero425]

Relentless attack over best of 5 is extremely difficult, esp. on clay and that's why his RG 2008 game plan sucked so badly 'cos that's pretty much what he did there.

McEnroe and Edberg; not gonna get to more than 1 FO final, much less win it without doing just that! Sometimes that's all you can do! Adriano Panatta beat Bjorn Borg twice, only because of attacking tennis! No one else came close! :nono :angel: :dodgy: = Back in the 70's, it was routine for Borg to use a FO win as a springboard to another Wimbledon title! lol! Who else will ever win the FO and Wimbledon back to back for 3 straight years and come within a match of making it 4; '78-'81! :clap :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Front242]

Even Toni Nadal said Roger did not play well in that final in 2008, fully admitting it was more about Roger playing crap than his nephew playing amazing in that final so I think that tells you what playing non stop net rushing and mindless first strike aggression does on clay against Nadal. It may work on a faster court like Madrid which plays more like hard court than clay and this is backed up by Roger actually beating him there, but the courts at RG are way different and this most definitely will not work. If it did do you really think he'd not at least have won more than 4 games in the whole match? Btw, Novak does not beat Rafa playing non stop aggression either. He picks his moments and that's totally different than non stop attempting winners from impossible angles/positions.

 

[shawnbm]

Rafa went up 6-1 on federer in the first two years, but folks forget that fed turned it around and won 5 of the next seven heading into the 2008 FO final--he broke the clay streak in Hamburg. He was then 6-8 down to Rafa--hardly anything other than a good rivalry. It was the victory in Paris that changed the dynamic, especially after fed had dominated nasal in both sets in Monte Carlo that year, only to lose each 7-5 as I recall. You could see what was coming I Paris--Roger seemed to needlessly over hit even she already well up in nadalon Nadal. At any rate, since then Roger slid down and Rafa went up--a lot of matches on clay and bards turned it from then, but it was damn good for about four years there.

 

[DarthFed]

Yes Roger wasn't the same Roger but he still looked like the 2nd best player for much of 2008 and he was on his best surface. Comparing that to Nadal who was probably like 20-5 on clay heading into the RG QF is stupid. Roger was 10-0 on grass in 2008 and hadn't dropped a set, most figured he'd get the job done and start to salvage what for him was already a very bad year.

No they didn't, I and many other people had Nadal as a favorite that year, it was very clear that Roger was not playing his best grass court tennis and the year before when he was clearly playing better he barely beat a 1 year younger Rafa in an epic 5 setter. It was clear the pendulum was swinging in what was already a very near 50-50 coin toss. I mean it wouldn't have surprised me if RF won, he was the greatest grass court player of a generation but no one stays on top forever and it was clear that he had been steadily losing his aura of invincibility relative to the rest of the tour. Meanwhile Rafa was playing his absolute best grass and clay court tennis of his career, and it was known he had a gamestyle that irritated Roger. I actually believed at the time that Rafa would take him in 3 or 4 tight sets.

And then there was the surface itself, which was becoming more and more clay like as the weeks went on, where balls all of a sudden bounced high and where the back of the court looked like it was a playground. I mean almost every significant factor of determining the outcome was aligning with Nadal. It really wasn't a stretch to believe he'd win, and I think it was mainly a testament to Federer's great mental that he actually made the match a battle. At least, thats how I interpreted the match.

Sure Roger was looking a little worse but then he also was worse in 2007 than in 2006. In 2007 he was too passive from the baseline until the 5th and he had the same issue the first two sets of 2008. He manned up and started going for shots after an embarrassing 2.5 sets. And that's what was disappointing, it took him that long. He was clutch in the tiebreaks but anti-clutch the first 2 sets. If you had him getting straight setted you must have really thought he was garbage coming in. Nothing pointed to him getting embarrassed in 3 or 4 sets coming in IMO

 

[Front242]

Pretty damn tough conditions for the first week of Wimbledon! Gonna be hard for those playing long matches in that heat.

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&LAND=UK&LEVEL=51

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Pretty damn tough conditions for the first week of Wimbledon! Gonna be hard for those playing long matches in that heat.

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&LAND=UK&LEVEL=51

Looks rain free at least, thanks to roofs. :snicker

 

[Carol]

Talking about Wimbledon, a good preparation and the most important to be healthy can help to make a good roll
I see in this vid how well Rafa is moving, much better than these past months
Great point! :clap
http://youtu.be/JFgZnEd_S6M

 

[atttomole]

According to the ATP website, Fed said that he had had the best prep for Wimbo ever. I swear Roger, if you lose now...
All those years on tour surely had some effect on his mental health

And he also said that it was a good preparation for the other players because they all had a week extra.

 

[Carol]

Wawrinka says about the top four: "they did more than me but now I'm strong enough with my tennis to beat them, I'm also mentally strong enough to stay with them and finish the match, that's the way I believe in myself"

 

[brokenshoelace]

Great comparison, given that Rafa's win streak on the surface stood at 4 heading into that match.

No you're right. 2008 Federer was the same Federer won won 64 matches on grass, as evidenced by losses to baby Murray, Fish, Roddick, Montanes, Stepanek, and others... TMF indeed.

Context.

This is so dumb. Nobody was surprised then. Nobody is surprised in hindsight, and the same poster (you) who for years, said "I'd be surprised if Federer beats Nadal at any slam at this point" is now changing his tune because he can't get over a match that happened ages ago. This is legitimately terrible logic.

PS: My comparison is far better than the idiotic comparison that equated that loss to Nadal losing at RG the first time. Fed fans are on fire.

Yes Roger wasn't the same Roger but he still looked like the 2nd best player for much of 2008 and he was on his best surface. Comparing that to Nadal who was probably like 20-5 on clay heading into the RG QF is stupid. Roger was 10-0 on grass in 2008 and hadn't dropped a set, most figured he'd get the job done and start to salvage what for him was already a very bad year.

Funny, you still had Nadal beating Novak this year at the FO.

Anyway, the fact that even Fed fans haven't backed you up on this one says a lot. You're attempting to flat out change facts. Nobody was surprised in the least that Nadal won. By definition, that can't be an upset.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Even Toni Nadal said Roger did not play well in that final in 2008, fully admitting it was more about Roger playing crap than his nephew playing amazing in that final so I think that tells you what playing non stop net rushing and mindless first strike aggression does on clay against Nadal. It may work on a faster court like Madrid which plays more like hard court than clay and this is backed up by Roger actually beating him there, but the courts at RG are way different and this most definitely will not work. If it did do you really think he'd not at least have won more than 4 games in the whole match? Btw, Novak does not beat Rafa playing non stop aggression either. He picks his moments and that's totally different than non stop attempting winners from impossible angles/positions.

There is no way a top 10 professional tennis player plays well and loses 1, 3 and 0. There is even less chance that an all time great and a then world number one plays well and loses 1, 3 and 0. So yeah, while the win was a result of Nadal playing likely his greatest match ever, and therefore, literally nobody in history would have beaten him on that day (or even taken a set?), the nature of the win was also a result of a rather suicidal, and frankly somewhat desperate gameplan by Federer. He probably would have made the scoreline more respectable if he'd just played his normal game, but at the same time, I kinda see where he's coming from since his usual game wasn't getting the job done against Nadal on clay. Still, he needed a happy medium, rather than kamikaze approach.

 

[DarthFed]

No you're right. 2008 Federer was the same Federer won won 64 matches on grass, as evidenced by losses to baby Murray, Fish, Roddick, Montanes, Stepanek, and others... TMF indeed.

Context.

This is so dumb. Nobody was surprised then. Nobody is surprised in hindsight, and the same poster (you) who for years, said "I'd be surprised if Federer beats Nadal at any slam at this point" is now changing his tune because he can't get over a match that happened ages ago. This is legitimately terrible logic.

PS: My comparison is far better than the idiotic comparison that equated that loss to Nadal losing at RG the first time. Fed fans are on fire.

Yes Roger wasn't the same Roger but he still looked like the 2nd best player for much of 2008 and he was on his best surface. Comparing that to Nadal who was probably like 20-5 on clay heading into the RG QF is stupid. Roger was 10-0 on grass in 2008 and hadn't dropped a set, most figured he'd get the job done and start to salvage what for him was already a very bad year.

Funny, you still had Nadal beating Novak this year at the FO.

Anyway, the fact that even Fed fans haven't backed you up on this one says a lot. You're attempting to flat out change facts. Nobody was surprised in the least that Nadal won. By definition, that can't be an upset.

I picked Nadal on this board to jinx him, the superstitious part of me.

Haelfix is the only one I've seen think it would be a massacre for Rafa. that's pessimistic to put it mildly.