Wimbeldon 2010

[Ong_dynasty]

Federer is out!

[NADALbULLS]

Nadal had played 2 more hours than Soderling heading into this match but by the end Soderling was exhausted and wanted it to be over, 6-1 4th set Nadal wins as expected and hopefully will get to play Murray in the semi.

[GQStylin]

I'm sad to see Federer on the decline. Seems like its mostly mental too as I think he still has the game to be top 2 and continue winning slams, but for whatever reason, he just doesn't seem the same in the head as he use to be when he was undefeatable. Maybe Rafa messed him up or something who knows, butI think if you put Nadal's mental toughness together with Roger's game, he'd still be kicking everyone's asses.

As it stands now its getting to the point where instead of expecting Federer to beat every opponent he faces, now that he seems to be so mortal I have to pray that he gets through each of his matches and moves on. I guess this is good for the other men on the tour, but I miss Jesus Fed so much!!

[NADALbULLS]

It will be cool now that Federer is ranked number 3, it means Nadal and Federer can face-off in semis all the time

Nadal has made semis of the US Open the last 2 years.

[Slava]

This might be the start of his decline. Lasted well though 23 straight grandslam semis is no mean feat and for the first time since 2002 he's having a vacation in July.

[NADALbULLS]

Tsvetana Pironkova is my favorite tennis player, she's the sexiest on tour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Xr7Z-xjd4

[Rich Rane]

Tsvetana Pironkova is my favorite tennis player, she's the sexiest on tour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Xr7Z-xjd4

Hmm...I think I'd take Sharapova, Alona Bondarenko, Dominika Cibulkova, Ana Ivanovic, and Maria Kirilenko over her. I'd rank her with Dementieva, Vera Zvonereva, and Nicole Vaidsova (although she just retired).

[NADALbULLS]

Surely not a fan of Sharapova, unless you like her for tennis skill

[NADALbULLS]

Anyway, Nadal now has won 6 straight sets over Murray at Wimbledon. Looking for his 2nd Wimbledon as he takes on Berdych in the Final.

[Doctor MJ]

It will be cool now that Federer is ranked number 3, it means Nadal and Federer can face-off in semis all the time

Nadal has made semis of the US Open the last 2 years.

So I take it you buy into the explanation that Federer was the superior player and that Nadal just had a match up advantage?

[NADALbULLS]

It will be cool now that Federer is ranked number 3, it means Nadal and Federer can face-off in semis all the time

Nadal has made semis of the US Open the last 2 years.

So I take it you buy into the explanation that Federer was the superior player and that Nadal just had a match up advantage?

That's laughable. Nadal has a suprior head-to-head over nearly everybody, including Murray whom Nadal now leads 8-3. Nadal leads Tsonga 4-1. Nadal leads Soderling 7-2. Nadal leads Djokovic 14-7. The only notable player Nadal is close with is Del Potro, Nadal only leads him 4-3, but Del Potro beat Nadal twice last year when Nadal was struggling with injury and form, so in reality its likely Nadal will own Del Potro too.

The reason why I'm so glad Federer can meet Nadal in semis now is because I want Nadal to increase the head-to-head to 20-7 before Federer can retire.

Nadal (age 24)-
8 Grand Slam titles
18 Masters titles
50 Weeks ranked number one and counting

Federer (age 24)-
5 Grand Slam titles
7 Masters titles
73 Weeks ranked number one

[Rich Rane]

Surely not a fan of Sharapova, unless you like her for tennis skill

At her best, she looks good. In all fairness, a lot of celebrities looks horrible without any work. We still haven't seen your precious Pironkova without it.

[Doctor MJ]

It will be cool now that Federer is ranked number 3, it means Nadal and Federer can face-off in semis all the time

Nadal has made semis of the US Open the last 2 years.

So I take it you buy into the explanation that Federer was the superior player and that Nadal just had a match up advantage?

That's laughable. Nadal has a suprior head-to-head over nearly everybody, including Murray whom Nadal now leads 8-3. Nadal leads Tsonga 4-1. Nadal leads Soderling 7-2. Nadal leads Djokovic 14-7. The only notable player Nadal is close with is Del Potro, Nadal only leads him 4-3, but Del Potro beat Nadal twice last year when Nadal was struggling with injury and form, so in reality its likely Nadal will own Del Potro too.

The reason why I'm so glad Federer can meet Nadal in semis now is because I want Nadal to increase the head-to-head to 20-7 before Federer can retire.

Nadal (age 24)-
8 Grand Slam titles
18 Masters titles
50 Weeks ranked number one and counting

Federer (age 24)-
5 Grand Slam titles
7 Masters titles
73 Weeks ranked number one

Heh, I figured that would be your actual take. Only reason these two haven't met more in the finals is because Nadal keeps losing to players who are worse than Federer. However you look at it, it says something negative about Nadal - and the explanation consistent with what you said assumes that he's losing early because he's NOT playing Federer, which only makes sense if he beats Federer due to match up advantages. But I figure you're really just saying this jokingly without really thinking about what it implies about Nadal's limitations, so no worries.

My take on the situation generally:

-Nadal's general advantage over Federer is way overblown because they play so much on clay. Over their career, I wouldn't give any major plus in Nadal's column relative to Federer based on that. However, I would say he has some advantage in the way they matchup relative to the way they play the field.

-I do think that as of last year pre-injury, Nadal had surpassed Federer as the best player in the world.

-What to make of Nadal losing before the finals so often? Well he doesn't, Federer's just remarkably consistent in his domination. Nadal's not lacking anything compared to champions in general, but his peak performance is clearly not up there with peak Federer yet (Nadal's best years still have 10+ losses, while Federer's best was 4 losses, and he has 4 years with less than 10).

-Regarding Nadal being ahead of Federer at this age, that's true, and not a point without merit, but it is more complicated than that. Nadal reached elite form earlier than Federer, but so did Boris Becker. And by the time Federer was a year younger than Nadal is now he was putting up a much more dominant season than we've ever seen from Nadal.

[NADALbULLS]

Federer took a long time to win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a 12 month period (2009). And no coincidence it was the same year Nadal was riddled with injury, family divorce and form slump.

Whereas already in 2008-09 Nadal won French Open, Wimbledon and Australian Open all within the space of 12 months and all vs Federer in the Final. Within those 12 months Nadal also won Olympic Gold (which included a defeat of Djokovic in the semis which actually left Djokovic in tears) on a hardcourt observed to be faster than US Open. So in fact Nadal has had a greater 12 month period than Federer ever did.

And given that Nadal's prime goal is to win the US Open, I think its safe to say his best is still to come. I think we'll get to see Nadal vs Federer at the US Open because Federer will likely be seeded 3, and that means they'll have a 50% chance of meeting if they are both in the semis (and they both have been the last 2 years).

[Slyk]

Nadal just won his second Wimbledon today congrats to him!!

[Doctor MJ]

Federer took a long time to win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a 12 month period (2009). And no coincidence it was the same year Nadal was riddled with injury, family divorce and form slump.

Whereas already in 2008-09 Nadal won French Open, Wimbledon and Australian Open all within the space of 12 months and all vs Federer in the Final. Within those 12 months Nadal also won Olympic Gold (which included a defeat of Djokovic in the semis which actually left Djokovic in tears) on a hardcourt observed to be faster than US Open. So in fact Nadal has had a greater 12 month period than Federer ever did.

And given that Nadal's prime goal is to win the US Open, I think its safe to say his best is still to come. I think we'll get to see Nadal vs Federer at the US Open because Federer will likely be seeded 3, and that means they'll have a 50% chance of meeting if they are both in the semis (and they both have been the last 2 years).

You're look at this too simplistically. Consistently getting to the finals of the French and losing only to the greatest clay court player ever is MUCH more impressive than reaching a grand total of 1 final at a hard court slam in your entire career. I mean, going through 10 majors, and losing only twice, in the finals, to the same guy, on that guy's best surface and your worst surface is by far the most amazing run of domination ever seen in tennis history.

Because of Nadal being in his way on one particular surface preventing him from achieving the calendar slam, it's entirely possible that superfically Nadal will look like the more dominant player by putting it all together in one year. Nadal won't actually have had the superior season though unless he does more than that. If he does it while having a comparable overall record to Federer's best, that may do it. If he does it while dominating all his matches in majors significantly more than Federer did it, that may do it. If he were to go on a crazy streak where he won significantly more than 4 majors in a row, that may do it.

So yeah, entirely possible Nadal surpasses Federer in every conceivable way, but you've got to look at it in more depth and see the context properly.

[Ong_dynasty]

Federer took a long time to win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a 12 month period (2009). And no coincidence it was the same year Nadal was riddled with injury, family divorce and form slump.

Whereas already in 2008-09 Nadal won French Open, Wimbledon and Australian Open all within the space of 12 months and all vs Federer in the Final. Within those 12 months Nadal also won Olympic Gold (which included a defeat of Djokovic in the semis which actually left Djokovic in tears) on a hardcourt observed to be faster than US Open. So in fact Nadal has had a greater 12 month period than Federer ever did.

And given that Nadal's prime goal is to win the US Open, I think its safe to say his best is still to come. I think we'll get to see Nadal vs Federer at the US Open because Federer will likely be seeded 3, and that means they'll have a 50% chance of meeting if they are both in the semis (and they both have been the last 2 years).

You're look at this too simplistically. Consistently getting to the finals of the French and losing only to the greatest clay court player ever is MUCH more impressive than reaching a grand total of 1 final at a hard court slam in your entire career. I mean, going through 10 majors, and losing only twice, in the finals, to the same guy, on that guy's best surface and your worst surface is by far the most amazing run of domination ever seen in tennis history.

Because of Nadal being in his way on one particular surface preventing him from achieving the calendar slam, it's entirely possible that superfically Nadal will look like the more dominant player by putting it all together in one year. Nadal won't actually have had the superior season though unless he does more than that. If he does it while having a comparable overall record to Federer's best, that may do it. If he does it while dominating all his matches in majors significantly more than Federer did it, that may do it. If he were to go on a crazy streak where he won significantly more than 4 majors in a row, that may do it.

So yeah, entirely possible Nadal surpasses Federer in every conceivable way, but you've got to look at it in more depth and see the context properly.

I think I have made my point clear with my view on Nadal and Federer and really don't want to continue on.
But can't you say the same thing with Nadal? I mean only stopping Nadal for ever having what 5x french/wimbledon double is who people consider the best player of all time and in his fav surface? (and ofcourse injury).
With regards to hardcourt. Nadal is learning and it is only a matter of time before he dominates it (that is ofcourse he knee's dont give up on him.!

[Doctor MJ]

I think I have made my point clear with my view on Nadal and Federer and really don't want to continue on.
But can't you say the same thing with Nadal? I mean only stopping Nadal for ever having what 5x french/wimbledon double is who people consider the best player of all time and in his fav surface? (and ofcourse injury).
With regards to hardcourt. Nadal is learning and it is only a matter of time before he dominates it (that is ofcourse he knee's dont give up on him.!

Almost winning 10 majors in a row >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost winning 2 majors a year for few years. I don't see how this is at all confusing. Nadal will not belong in the "peak" conversation with Federer until he gets to a point where he dominates on all 3 surfaces consistently like Federer did.

I want to be clear: By no means am I saying he can't - he just shouldn't get credit for it until he's actually done it (and that it's not as easy as some might think - even for Nadal).

[Ong_dynasty]

I think I have made my point clear with my view on Nadal and Federer and really don't want to continue on.
But can't you say the same thing with Nadal? I mean only stopping Nadal for ever having what 5x french/wimbledon double is who people consider the best player of all time and in his fav surface? (and ofcourse injury).
With regards to hardcourt. Nadal is learning and it is only a matter of time before he dominates it (that is ofcourse he knee's dont give up on him.!

Almost winning 10 majors in a row >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost winning 2 majors a year for few years. I don't see how this is at all confusing. Nadal will not belong in the "peak" conversation with Federer until he gets to a point where he dominates on all 3 surfaces consistently like Federer did.

I want to be clear: By no means am I saying he can't - he just shouldn't get credit for it until he's actually done it (and that it's not as easy as some might think - even for Nadal).

Oh I agree, without Nadal and for a few years Federer was unstoppable and probably could have reached 20 majors. But I also believe that his era before Nadal came and when Nadal was still young was a pretty weak era. I mean the best players he had to beat was Hewitt and Roddick. Now you can give me the whole well they won a slam and the likes of Murray, djokovic, Soderling, Del Potro, Tsonga and so forth have not (or only one one). But you can see from watching them who has more to their game. The only player who actually had the game to beat Federer was Safin, but he was never really able to put it together consistently. and I have not looked, but to highlight my point I bet you the current group have better records against Federer than the likes of Hewitt and Roddick.
The reason I brought up the Wimbledon and French double is because everybody knows thats the hardest double to win. I mean if he did win it 5x in a row (hypothetically speaking). he would have topped Borg at the age of 24 and outside of Borg and Federer (who won it by default as Nadal was not fit) no one has ever to do the double.
At the age of 24, Nadal is already dominating 2 surfaces and has a slam in the other. i mean that is more than Federer did at his age. and you are going to say "everybody knows that federer was a late bloomer". which is true. but who is to say that Nadal is not a late bloomer in hard court?! (can you even say that considering he already won a grand slam in it?). You can even make an argument that the way the grand slams are done skew federer's record and discredits Nadal's record. I mean imagine if there was only 1 grand slam for each surface or 2 grand slams for clay how different the record would be. I just find it so "2005" when people say Nadal is a clay court specialist when he was won grand slams on all surfaces already and regularly in the semi finals in hard courts (which people consider he is weak at).

I also think this highlights the differences between how people from America / Canada view greats in tennis and here in Europe. your ranking's (i remember reading them awhile back) weight significantly on number of majors, while we tend to put greater emphasis on the wimbledon and french double.

[NADALbULLS]

You can even make an argument that the way the grand slams are done skew federer's record and discredits Nadal's record. I mean imagine if there was only 1 grand slam for each surface or 2 grand slams for clay how different the record would be.

+1