Wimbledon Preview Talk

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I mean, you don't have to predict a massacre for Nadal for it not be considered an upset. You could have actually picked Federer to win and still not think it's an upset that Nadal won. It really was as close to a 50/50 as I remember any Wimbledon final being.

 

[Kieran]

Let's be frank, it wouldn't have been an upset if Rafa had won the Wimbledon finals in 2006 and 2007, either. Fedfans can be glad that he was still young and not yet ready.

The weather looks exceptionally hot next week, which is great for tennis, and thankfully they won't need to close that blasted roof. Courts will dry up fast as well. What's the odds on Rafa being placed on an outside court in his opener? Fairly good odds, I reckon...

 

[nehmeth]

^^^ I seriously doubt having been a former (2x) champion and with the huge following he still has, that they would put him on an outer court.

 

[Kieran]

^^^ I seriously doubt having been a former (2x) champion and with the huge following he still has, that they would put him on an outer court.

They did it to Pete in 2002. I wouldn't put it beyond them...

 

[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.

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.

That wasn't even close to Nadal's greatest match and Toni agrees also. I'd say his best ever performance was the 2010 Monte Carlo final against Verdasco where the latter won just one game.

“Today I think, at this level, that you could go toe-to-toe with Federer…but let’s go with the usual tactic, that is, attack the backhand.” And the truth is, I think that Federer saw how powerless he was very quickly and didn’t put up much of a fight. "He had a bad plan, a very bad one. Therefore, he only won four games. These things happen occasionally.

What do you think when people say it was one of Rafael’s greatest matches?

No, I don’t think so. Federer didn’t play well enough. I’ve seen Rafael play better many times. Although I suppose I ought to go back and watch that match, I’ve never watched it again."

http://rafaelnadalfans.com/2013/09/01/toni-nadal-rafa-is-probably-the-player-with-the-most-match-wins-playing-poorly/

 

[brokenshoelace]

Let's be frank, it wouldn't have been an upset if Rafa had won the Wimbledon finals in 2006 and 2007, either.

I actually strongly disagree with this. 2006 would certainly have been a considerable upset considering Nadal was virtually a grass rookie and he struggled mightily in 2007 including having to play on 6 straight days. The general consensus throughout the 2007 final was an element of near shock as to how well Nadal was playing.

2007 is debatable but 2006 would have been a pretty big surprise.

 

[nehmeth]

^^^ I seriously doubt having been a former (2x) champion and with the huge following he still has, that they would put him on an outer court.

They did it to Pete in 2002. I wouldn't put it beyond them...

uzzled

2002 he was ranked thirteen in the world (at the time), and retired later that year. You saying Ralf is about to go the same way??

 

[Kieran]

Let's be frank, it wouldn't have been an upset if Rafa had won the Wimbledon finals in 2006 and 2007, either.

I actually strongly disagree with this. 2006 would certainly have been a considerable upset considering Nadal was virtually a grass rookie and he struggled mightily in 2007 including having to play on 6 straight days. The general consensus throughout the 2007 final was an element of near shock as to how well Nadal was playing.

2007 is debatable but 2006 would have been a pretty big surprise.

Going into that 2006 final he was 6-1 in the H2H going in and had started his dominance of Federer. After a lousy start to the final, he bunched the second set when serving for it. He just wasn't ready yet, too young and awed by the occasion. In 2007, it definitely wouldn't have been 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.

That wasn't even close to Nadal's greatest match and Toni agrees also. I'd say his best ever performance was the 2010 Monte Carlo final against Verdasco where the latter won just one game.

“Today I think, at this level, that you could go toe-to-toe with Federer…but let’s go with the usual tactic, that is, attack the backhand.” And the truth is, I think that Federer saw how powerless he was very quickly and didn’t put up much of a fight. "He had a bad plan, a very bad one. Therefore, he only won four games. These things happen occasionally.

What do you think when people say it was one of Rafael’s greatest matches?

No, I don’t think so. Federer didn’t play well enough. I’ve seen Rafael play better many times. Although I suppose I ought to go back and watch that match, I’ve never watched it again."

http://rafaelnadalfans.com/2013/09/01/toni-nadal-rafa-is-probably-the-player-with-the-most-match-wins-playing-poorly/

*Sigh*

The very post you quoted talked about how bad Federer's gameplan was. Also the part about Nadal winning the most matches while playing so horrible is so irrelevant it's not even funny. The 2008 FO was Nadal's greatest ever tournament, and there's not even a close second. By definition, this makes the part about him winning while playing badly irrelevant since it was definitely not the case throughout that fortnight.

Now, are you seriously telling me that match in which Nadal hit 43 winners to 6 unforced errors, in a grand slam final, against Roger Federer, is "not even close" to the best match Nadal ever played? But crushing Verdasco in the Monte Carlo final is somehow more impressive than beating Federer in the Roland Garros final?

Playing against an opponent with a bad gameplan and playing your best match ever are not mutually exclusive. You think Roger would have lost that horribly using the same approach against say, 2011 Nadal? Or hell, 2006 Nadal for that matter?

The match is not some isolated performance to where it can simply be attributed to Fed's bad gameplan. Nadal was flat out on fire for two weeks, dropping a ludicrous 41 games all tournament, which included winning the 4th round 1, 0, 2 the QF 1, 1, 1, the semi finals 4, 2, 6 and the final 1, 3 and 0.

Process that for a second.

 

[Kieran]

^^^ I seriously doubt having been a former (2x) champion and with the huge following he still has, that they would put him on an outer court.

They did it to Pete in 2002. I wouldn't put it beyond them...

uzzled

2002 he was ranked thirteen in the world (at the time), and retired later that year. You saying Ralf is about to go the same way??

Rafa is ranked tenth and hasn't won as many Wimbos, or even come close in five years. Pete had won it as recently as 2000, and was the seven time champ. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Rafa finds himself off the show courts at least once...

 

[Fiero425]

^^^ I seriously doubt having been a former (2x) champion and with the huge following he still has, that they would put him on an outer court.

They did it to Pete in 2002. I wouldn't put it beyond them...

uzzled

2002 he was ranked thirteen in the world (at the time), and retired later that year. You saying Ralf is about to go the same way??

Nyah, Rafa isn't that smart! Sampras had gone over 2 years without winning a title by that time! After he had won his last Wimbledon in 2000, it wasn't until he caught fire at 2002 USO that he looked like his old self, blasting serves past all comers! Luckily his favorite pigeon was waiting in the final and he took Agassi out in 4 sets! His ranking had dropped to #22 before the tournament, but was seeded #17! That #13 year end ranking was a gift and he left the game while the "getting was good!" lol! Rafa will hang around longer I'm sure, probably having a lot of commitments and endorsements he's not willing to drop! More power to him! I'll have a separate tape handy to record the humiliations! :cover :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

Rafa's nowhere near retiring. If he was at that stage, he wouldn't have bothered to comeback. Next year is the Olympics, I can't see any of the top players retiring before that happens...

 

[Carol]

They did it to Pete in 2002. I wouldn't put it beyond them...

uzzled

2002 he was ranked thirteen in the world (at the time), and retired later that year. You saying Ralf is about to go the same way??

Nyah, Rafa isn't that smart! Sampras had gone over 2 years without winning a title by that time! After he had won his last Wimbledon in 2000, it wasn't until he caught fire at 2002 USO that he looked like his old self, blasting serves past all comers! Luckily his favorite pigeon was waiting in the final and he took Agassi out in 4 sets! His ranking had dropped to #22 before the tournament, but was seeded #17! That
#13 year end ranking was a gift and he left the game while the "getting was good!" lol! Rafa will hang around longer I'm sure, probably having a lot of commitments and endorsements he's not willing to drop! More power to him! I'll have a separate tape handy to record the humiliations! :cover :laydownlaughing

How many titles Federer has won these last two years? and he is still #2, incredible but true how the ranking is working......:huh: uzzled

 

[the AntiPusher]

They did it to Pete in 2002. I wouldn't put it beyond them...

uzzled

2002 he was ranked thirteen in the world (at the time), and retired later that year. You saying Ralf is about to go the same way??

Nyah, Rafa isn't that smart! Sampras had gone over 2 years without winning a title by that time! After he had won his last Wimbledon in 2000, it wasn't until he caught fire at 2002 USO that he looked like his old self, blasting serves past all comers! Luckily his favorite pigeon was waiting in the final and he took Agassi out in 4 sets! His ranking had dropped to #22 before the tournament, but was seeded #17! That #13 year end ranking was a gift and he left the game while the "getting was good!" lol! Rafa will hang around longer I'm sure, probably having a lot of commitments and endorsements he's not willing to drop! More power to him! I'll have a separate tape handy to record the humiliations! :cover :laydownlaughing

"Rafa isn't as,that smart "

14 grandslams titles, only player who has a career h2h record over the recent top 30 (stat I last reference in 2013) including twice as many wins over defeats over the beloved G"GOAT" of his generation. Yeah, that young fella isn't "Smart" :nono

 

[nehmeth]

How many titles Federer has won these last two years? and he is still #2, incredible but true how the ranking is working......

1. Djokovic
12 titles and 3 finals

2. Federer
9 titles and 8 finals

3. Murray
6 titles and 2 finals

4. Wawrinka
6 titles and 0 finals

It looks as though it is working pretty well.

 

[Fiero425]

uzzled

2002 he was ranked thirteen in the world (at the time), and retired later that year. You saying Ralf is about to go the same way??

Nyah, Rafa isn't that smart! Sampras had gone over 2 years without winning a title by that time! After he had won his last Wimbledon in 2000, it wasn't until he caught fire at 2002 USO that he looked like his old self, blasting serves past all comers! Luckily his favorite pigeon was waiting in the final and he took Agassi out in 4 sets! His ranking had dropped to #22 before the tournament, but was seeded #17! That #13 year end ranking was a gift and he left the game while the "getting was good!" lol! Rafa will hang around longer I'm sure, probably having a lot of commitments and endorsements he's not willing to drop! More power to him! I'll have a separate tape handy to record the humiliations! :cover :laydownlaughing

"Rafa isn't as,that smart "

14 grandslams titles, only player who has a career h2h record over the recent top 30 (stat I last reference in 2013) including twice as many wins over defeats over the beloved G"GOAT" of his generation. Yeah, that young fella isn't "Smart" :nono

So you're one of those people who equate physical prowess to intellect? I'll have you know, Borg was thought a genius, when in fact he read comic books and slept an inordinate amount of time! His brand of tennis was every bit, if not more debilitating to him mentally and physically due to the inferior equipment utilized! He didn't go out of his way for intellectual stimulation of any kind; actually breaking up his first marriage because he'd rather stay home when Mariana wanted to go out and "boogie!" Rafa's been a pro since 15 IIRC and after all this time, his English is about as bad as some who've never left their village of birth! This guy has been around the world many times over and I don't think he's grown in the least! The other players I see it all the time; Nole, Roger, and others are brain surgeons in comparison! Sorry, but that's how I see it! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Carol]

How many titles Federer has won these last two years? and he is still #2, incredible but true how the ranking is working......

1. Djokovic
12 titles and 3 finals

2. Federer
9 titles and 8 finals

3. Murray
6 titles and 2 finals

4. Wawrinka
6 titles and 0 finals

It looks as though it is working pretty well.

I was asking about how many MS and GS titles has won these last two years

 

[tented]

^^^ I seriously doubt having been a former (2x) champion and with the huge following he still has, that they would put him on an outer court.

They did it to Pete in 2002. I wouldn't put it beyond them...

I suspect Nehmeth is correct, especially considering Rafa's popularity. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if his second or third round match isn't on Centre Court (assuming he makes it that far!), but I doubt they'd do it in the first round.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Nyah, Rafa isn't that smart! Sampras had gone over 2 years without winning a title by that time! After he had won his last Wimbledon in 2000, it wasn't until he caught fire at 2002 USO that he looked like his old self, blasting serves past all comers! Luckily his favorite pigeon was waiting in the final and he took Agassi out in 4 sets! His ranking had dropped to #22 before the tournament, but was seeded #17! That #13 year end ranking was a gift and he left the game while the "getting was good!" lol! Rafa will hang around longer I'm sure, probably having a lot of commitments and endorsements he's not willing to drop! More power to him! I'll have a separate tape handy to record the humiliations! :cover :laydownlaughing

"Rafa isn't as,that smart "

14 grandslams titles, only player who has a career h2h record over the recent top 30 (stat I last reference in 2013) including twice as many wins over defeats over the beloved G"GOAT" of his generation. Yeah, that young fella isn't "Smart" :nono

So you're one of those people who equate physical prowess to intellect? I'll have you know, Borg was thought a genius, when in fact he read comic books and slept an inordinate amount of time! His brand of tennis was every bit, if not more debilitating to him mentally and physically due to the inferior equipment utilized! He didn't go out of his way for intellectual stimulation of any kind; actually breaking up his first marriage because he'd rather stay home when Mariana wanted to go out and "boogie!" Rafa's been a pro since 15 IIRC and after all this time, his English is about as bad as some who've never left their village of birth! This guy has been around the world many times over and I don't think he's grown in the least! The other players I see it all the time; Nole, Roger, and others are brain surgeons on comparison! Sorry, but that's how I see it! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

No, I am a guy who has an IQ over 165, currently leads a team of security architects for one of the world's largestsoftware companies and currently get my ass kicked on weekends by teenager s and ex college players at USTA tournaments. My point is to be a top ranked player it takes more than physical prowess to beat the so called smart playersconsistently. IMO

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The weather looks exceptionally hot next week, which is great for tennis, and thankfully they won't need to close that blasted roof. Courts will dry up fast as well. What's the odds on Rafa being placed on an outside court in his opener? Fairly good odds, I reckon...

I actually think they would put Rafa on the centre court for Tuesday. They will also put Murray on the centre court. They will put Fed on court 1. This is because Fed is playing someone who has never played a grass court match (we are not talking about winning) anywhere in the world, not just in Wimbleon. On the other hand Rafa is playing Belluci a decent bloke.

On Thursday, it will be Fed and Rafa on centre court with Murray on court 1.

Thankfully, the court assignment problem will not occur after that. :devil