OT: Wimbledon 09 (Spoiler Alert)

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:00 pm

macsomjrr wrote:How can Federer be the best ever when he is 7-13 against Nadal? He is definitely one of the best but you can't say hands down Federer is the best of this generation let alone all-time.

You can't judge major tournament wins either as today's players play in far more tournaments than players did in the 70s and 80s. What about Lendl? Borg?

In the Tennis World, one is judged primarily by how many Grand Slams tournaments a player has won. Nadal has owned Federer mainly on clay and pulled that amazing win last year at Wimbledon. Nadal is a horse, his game is quite different to the Swiss and is currently paying the consequences. Arthritis at the tender age of 23?

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be back and win many more tournaments, but to do it consistently and on different surfaces with his wonky knees, will be more difficult every year. His game is very taxing on the body and with most tournaments played on hard courts, he'll have to be way more selective where he plays and cut down on his schedule.

Speaking of great players and big records, Jimmy Connors comes to mind. This is a guy that was dominant in the 70's, competitive until the 80's and early 90's, is right among the top players in tournament wins and has a winning record against the great B. Borg.

Is he better then than the Swede? Borg cleans him in GS tournaments and that's what he's being remembered for.

Lendl has won tons as well, but not many big ones.

Federer has at least three more strong years ahead of him, he's been fortunate to stay healthy and his game is much more simpler than Nadals.

He has to be the favourite again to win the US open, with or without Nadal.

Winning 15 Grand Slams is as Mac would say; 'Scary good'.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:08 pm

How can you get arthritis at the age of 23?

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:35 am

Rodster wrote:How can you get arthritis at the age of 23?

Play a sport at a higher level than damn near everyone else. That's how.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:38 am

Rodster wrote:How can you get arthritis at the age of 23?

That's really concerning, because the dude got game and the only way to prevent his career from ending early is to cut down on his schedule. For the past couple of years, Nadal has played week in, week out until he reached the number one spot in the World and as I said earlier, he plays a tough, grinding game.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:48 am

Juicing?

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:33 am

wco81 wrote:Juicing?

It's probably got more to do with the capri pants.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:42 am

Concerning because it's both knees, not just one.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:14 am

10spro wrote:Concerning because it's both knees, not just one.

I'm telling you...having those capris rubbing on his knees while he's running takes it's toll over the years.

NoJoke · Post by **NoJoke** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:29 am

10spro wrote:
macsomjrr wrote:How can Federer be the best ever when he is 7-13 against Nadal? He is definitely one of the best but you can't say hands down Federer is the best of this generation let alone all-time.

You can't judge major tournament wins either as today's players play in far more tournaments than players did in the 70s and 80s. What about Lendl? Borg?
In the Tennis World, one is judged primarily by how many Grand Slams tournaments a player has won. Nadal has owned Federer mainly on clay and pulled that amazing win last year at Wimbledon. Nadal is a horse, his game is quite different to the Swiss and is currently paying the consequences. Arthritis at the tender age of 23?

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be back and win many more tournaments, but to do it consistently and on different surfaces with his wonky knees, will be more difficult every year. His game is very taxing on the body and with most tournaments played on hard courts, he'll have to be way more selective where he plays and cut down on his schedule.

Speaking of great players and big records, Jimmy Connors comes to mind. This is a guy that was dominant in the 70's, competitive until the 80's and early 90's, is right among the top players in tournament wins and has a winning record against the great B. Borg.

Is he better then than the Swede? Borg cleans him in GS tournaments and that's what he's being remembered for.

Lendl has won tons as well, but not many big ones.

Federer has at least three more strong years ahead of him, he's been fortunate to stay healthy and his game is much more simpler than Nadals.

He has to be the favourite again to win the US open, with or without Nadal.

Winning 15 Grand Slams is as Mac would say; 'Scary good'.

Another thing you need to consider in the Fed-Nadal rivalry is that, until this year's Australian Open, Nadal never made it to the finals to play Fed on a hard court major. He always lost before he could reach Fed on a surface that used to greatly favor Federer. It's not Federer's fault Nadal couldn't get that far (just like the French Open win should not be diminished because he did not beat Nadal).

It is a safe bet that the head to head record would be closer if Nadal had been good enough to reach some US Open finals in the past. Fed always makes it to the finals at the French to play Nadal on Nadal's preferred court (and then usually loses and that is why the head to head is skewed). That said, Nadal is awesome as well.

rhymes450 · Post by **rhymes450** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:42 am

Great tournament by Roddick. He won a great battle with Hewitt and played a very complete match against Murray. Very tough loss in the final. While his game is fundamentally similar to what it has always been, I agree with 10spro that the adjustments made, particularly on the backhand wing, where he also throws in a lot more slice than before, have made a considerable difference to his capacity as a player. He seems much more capable of winning extended rallies now and less anxious to keep the points short, resulting in fewer errors. In short, I think he's way more solid off the ground now.

As regards Federer and Sampras and the serve and volley strategy, I think that courts have become slower, making serve and volley riskier.

The grass at Wimbledon isn't what it used to be:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 24,00.html

Seems that hard courts have also been made slower, tho' I think the Deco Turf surface at Flushing Meadows has remained unchanged. Apparently, it's faster than Melbourne and takes less spin, which may explain Nadal's relative lack of success in NY.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:16 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
10spro wrote:Concerning because it's both knees, not just one.
I'm telling you...having those capris rubbing on his knees while he's running takes it's toll over the years.

Nah, I like those capris which by the way he's grown out of them now. But he does need better underwear so that he stops picking on his a$$ every second point or so.