Federer Battles Monfils Today at French Open; Murray Gonzo’d
by Sean Randall | June 3rd, 2009, 8:56 am
  • 286 Comments

Let me come right out and say it, even though Gael Monfils is my guy, I’m actually rooting for Roger Federer here to win today and go on to capture the French Open.

Why am I picking Federer today? For me it really comes down to court positioning. If Monfils stands back like he did in his previous matches, I think the advantage swings in Federer’s favor. With the added drop shot and an ability to hit winners off the backhand wing – something Monfils’ previous opponent Andy Roddick was unable to do – I think Federer will be more than able to run Monfils corner to corner to open up the court and eventually finish off the points.

Federer has also been nerve tested this week with gut checks against Jose Acasuso, Paul-Henri Mathieu and Tommy Haas. Meanwhile, Monfils has coasted against some pretty weak clay competition including Bobby Reynolds, Victor Crivoi, Jurgen Melzer and the aforementioned Roddick.

Granted, Federer has not been playing at his top gear, but I fully expect him to raise his level this week, which as I said a few days ago could be the most important seven days of his pro tennis life.

Federer and Gael have played four times before and Roger’s taken each one. But we all remember their spicy affair a year ago in the French Open semifinals when Monfils pushed Federer in a tight four setter on a cool, damp day. Today, however, the skies will be clear, temperature high and the court playing faster, and I think that all should help Federer to negate some on Monfils’ defensive abilities and the support the Frenchman will have from the crowd.

The seas really have parted for Federer with Rafeal Nadal, Novak Djokovic and yesterday, Andy Murray all gone. The players left, Federer’s 38-1 lifetime against, but will Roger take advantage? Is this match the de facto final?

In the other semifinal, I like Juan Martin Del Potro to smoke Tommy Robredo. DelPo has been playing some dominating tennis in Paris, and while Robredo’s more than accomplished on the clay, I don’t think the Spaniard has the firepower to handle the bigger, stronger Argentine.

But as we have seen this year anything can happen at French Open.

As for yesterday, I picked Fernando Gonzalez to get to the semifinals and now I’m likely going to pick him to go one step further. Gonzo pounded on Andy Murray firing winners past the Brit from all angles and directions. Had Nadal gotten through I may have even taken the Chilean to upend Rafa at this stage.

Robin Soderling remained red-hot, destroying Nikolay Davydenko in what I thought was a surprising result. Credit to Robin who is indeed this years Martin Verkerk. But Verkerk was just a finalist, who will be this year’s champion?


Also Check Out:
Murray Wins Two, Del Potro v Hewitt Friday At Queen’s; Federer Stars In Halle
Isner Battles Blake in DC; Americans on the Move
Andy Murray Admits He Had Fun Beating Gael Monfils Today At The French Open
Murray, Del Potro v Monfils On Tap Wednesday In Rotterdam
Djokovic, Roddick, Nadal Could be Tested Friday; Wozniacki Hits No. 1

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

286 Comments for Federer Battles Monfils Today at French Open; Murray Gonzo’d

grendel Says:

melzer was tough until 5th set. Monfils weakened him. he’s utterly unpredictable. He culd beat Federer, thrash him, just beat him, be beaten, just get beaten, or get thrashed. All scenarios seem plausible.

Verkerk is often brought up in the context of Soderling. He faded away, though. Got a feeling Soderling won’t. He’s one of these players who’s been knocking on the door but keeps just failing to open it. Now that he’s finally blasted it ajar, it would be surprising if he didn’t capitalise.

a


Shan Says:

This year could be the best opportunity for Federer – ever. 4 years ago I thought the same, but this year seems like that rare solar eclipse that he’ll only see once.


Skorocel Says:

Why the f.cking hell have those French idiots put today’s singles matches on 2 courts instead of only Chatrier???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m gonna stangle them!!!!!!!!! Instead of Monfils vs Fed, Eurosport is showing Williams vs Choketzova :-( This can’t be possible…


Twocents Says:

Sean,

I go with you on Gonzo getting by Sod. Violence against violence! Of the 38:1 Fed vs. the remaining field, I watched a couple of them from court side, including the one win for Gonzo. Huge FH and 1st serve. Sod’s been on fire too. But Gonzo’s experience should prevail.

The 4:0 H2H btw La Monf and Fed is really misleading, as Monf is on a rapid rising slope while Fed’s on the inevitable down slope. That’s why I pick Monf. La Monf’s defensive habit may hurt him, as you say.


Shan Says:

Sounds like you should blame Eurosport for that problem, or pay for the internet streaming, which is great btw.


Shan Says:

I enjoy Roland Garros radio and btw, it’s free!


Guga76 Says:

I’m usually on here defending Djokovic, but am glad to represent my other self: the Gonzo fan! Good for him, he finally got a draw where he didn’t meet Fed or Nadal in a 4th round or quarter. I will not be surprised if Soderling struggles to run down those furious forehands (not exactly davydenko’s prowess), but I will also not be surprised if Fernando struggles to hit them under the pressure of being favored to make the final. Here’s to hoping that at nearly 29 years old, the tenured Gonzalez will give us his best stuff. I’m thinking we’ll see at least one forehand over 105 mph….


Shan Says:

Highlight of the match there Fed Monfils – did you see the Fed at the net there?!? WOW!


PietjeP Says:

Hmm…. Fed going into some serious discussion there with the umpire about a call. Not sure if that is a good thing…

BTW that ball retrieving from Monfils… unbelievable sometimes!!! Could it be he gets even more back then Nadal?!


Kimo Says:

TBH, the point should go to Monfils coz Fed played the ball. But in all fairness, even though I think Lahyani is the best umpire, that was one seriously bad call.


PietjeP Says:

Fed survives a break point. So far he hasn’t been able to go for much at Monfils’ serve.

Sean, looks like your man is not standing back waiting…. he is going for his shots.

For Fed I think it is absolutely crucial to take the 1st set. Otherwise the crowd will go bananas and so will Monfils…..


Sean Randall Says:

This upcoming tiebreak could decide Fed’s legacy. Scary. 7 points. Monfils is a dynamite front runner in Grand Slams.


Shan Says:

OH YAH! The Fed takes set #1. What a tight match so far!


Kimo Says:

Fed’s Nerves are made of steel!!!

Now someone please pass me the oxygen.


TejuZ Says:

that was a great tie-break from Federer.. with a few loose shots from his forehand wing. But he looked quite determined there.


St4r5 Says:

Sh**t, I am so relieved, Fed won the 1st set.


Shaky Says:

He looked tight in that breaker. He goes up the mini twice and hits a backhand wide and dumps a forehand down the line in the net.

He did pull it together very well at the end there. But that really could have gone either way. Roger is starting to look like a really slow starter though today.


Daniel Says:

Fed take th first set. Wow, drop return!


Daniel Says:

Monfils felt the moment and made 2 erros that he was not doing before.


TejuZ Says:

wow… early break for Fed.. terrible points from Monfils and good winners from Fed.


Dan Martin Says:

First set statistics were eerily similar (obviously they were close) but the serve speeds etc. all look very similar.

Serena losing in addition to JJ, Ivanovic, and Sharapova means to me that the women’s game needs Safina to win this. If not it is a game without any clear stars at the top week in and week out. Azarenka would have meant something and the young woman who beat Sharapova might be a big deal, but if Kuznetsova wins her second slam what does it do for the sport?


Shan Says:

@Shaky – not bad to take the first set for a slow start then! Could have gone either way but credit to Fed for holding his mini-breaks of serve

BTW, has anyone stayed in Scottsdale, AZ at the Scottsdale Resort club? Am wondering how the tennis is there, thinking about going for a little vacation


jane Says:

Oh Monfils really blew his set point, but Fed’s come to play today. He must smell the trophy. Mirka’s probably dusted and cleared the space in the trophy case already. LOL.


Shan Says:

Monsfils is still pretty tight, Roger’s playing a bit more freely. Already up a break and consolidated


Dan Martin Says:

6-6 5-6 in the breaker to 7-6 (8-6), 2-0 momentum is with Federer for now.


Kimo Says:

Fed’s really on fire now. Monfils is getting frustrated by the fact that Fed’s game is more diverse and more solid from the baseline than Roddick’s.


TejuZ Says:

one shot which Monfils is struggling a bit with is slice to his backhand… wow..thats a second break for Fed.. Monfils looking tired .. he just gave away that game.


Kimo Says:

I keep telling you guys: Big hitters don’t trouble Federer as much as you would think.


Daniel Says:

Fed playing great returning everything and broke for love in a game Monfils was: Monfils!


Sean Randall Says:

Did Fed just with the career slam with that tiebreak? A bit premature I know but…


Dan Martin Says:

Two breaks now – is this going to turn into leconte vs. Wilander 1988? Leconte had set point in the first set and then …


Shaky Says:

… What the heck is monfils doing this set? Federer is swinging freely and hitting well, but what the heck was that drop shot? down 0-30? really? This guy is really disappointing me, down two breaks in about 5 minutes.


PietjeP Says:

Exactly Sean! Crucial! Monfils played very good that first set. Had he won it, he would even lift himself and the crowd. Big set for Fed and he knows it. Monfils did nothing wrong there. Just some good points from Fed in the end of that breaker.

Now Fed starts playing a little more freely. And that is never a good thing for the opponent…

Big question is; will he be able to maintain it? We all have seen some lapses the last year…


Kimo Says:

PietjeP, you’re absolutely right, but you know what, the difference between guys like Fed and guys like Monfils is that guys like Monfils wither away if they don’t win a set, while guys like Fed would have pretty much come out in the second set and played at the same level if not better.


St4r5 Says:

What happened with Monfils? Suddenly no resistance at all?


Edward Says:

Federer finally got over that nervousness from the first set.
Goddamn, he pisses me off when he plays screwy like that!!!
Get your shit together, Fed!!!!


jane Says:

Fed’s running away with it. BTW, I agree with Skorocel – I want to see the Del Po vs. Robredo match too but they’re on simultaneously! Hopefully I can see it on delay later.


youyong Says:

fed should win this match


St4r5 Says:

Nadal must teach all these young players not to give up after losing 1st set.


Edward Says:

wish that guy would get his first serves in for once!


Kimo Says:

Where are all the guys who said Monfils was gonna crush Fed? :D


Shan Says:

What a beautiful net play there on Fed’s serve @ 4-1. Quick hands


Shan Says:

Monfils is falling apart – did you see that lob attempt at the net after Roger returned his dropper?


Daniel Says:

Monfils is playing like a child with Fed! Doesn’t he see that this drops are not working?!


Kimo Says:

St4r5 said:

“Nadal must teach all these young players not to give up after losing 1st set.”

I agree. I remember Monte Carlo’s final last year. Fed was up 5-1 and he had a set point in the first set, Nadal won that set 5-7. Nadal didn’t even give up on a set when he was 1-5 down!!!


St4r5 Says:

Kimmo – they all disappeared without a single trace!


Shan Says:

Wow, Sliderman, so meek on that set point return, lol. You better get your head back on straight if you want a chance in this match!


jane Says:

Thought this would be a more exciting match but the second set quite a drag as Monfils is out of it.

Think will switch over to Del Po and Robredo, as it may be more competitive.


youyong Says:

The $1000,000 question. How did Roger Federer win the 2009 French Open?

1. Novak Djokovic was eliminated.
2. Rafael Nadal was eliminated.
3. Roger Federer is the undisputed GOAT.
4. It is written.

Don’t you get the feeling everything is falling into place for Federer this year at RG? ;)


youyong Says:

hmmm why do i have trouble posting?


youyong Says:

The one million dollar question. How did Roger Federer win the 2009 French Open?

“1. Novak Djokovic was eliminated. 2. Rafael Nadal was eliminated. 3. Roger Federer is the undisputed GOAT. 4. It is written.”

Don’t you get the feeling everything is falling into place for Federer this year at RG? ;)


PietjeP Says:

Monfils looks to be hanging in there… he has not given up yet… If he is able to snatch this set, it will be a match again


I like tennis bullies Says:

unreal this federer and his never ending luck


youyong Says:

federer now serving for the match. hard to see monfils breaking here.


Kimo Says:

bullies, luck favors the brave, and the talented, and in Fed’s case, the genius.

But guys like you will never understand.


Shan Says:

The Fed is up a break, serving @ 5 – 4 in the 3rd. Sliderman is about to go bye bye


TejuZ Says:

Fed won… in straight.. he played well and held his serve steadily to win this match. i guess Monfils faded away after a good 1st set.


andrea Says:

20 straight GS finals and a straight set prediction came true!

yee ha!


Dan Martin Says:

I think in terms of the let down after the first set. It is something that has to be learned in 3 out of 5 play. In a 2 out of 3 set match, a pro loses the first in his head he as to win two sets in a row – doable. Losing the first set vs. an elite player and then think8ing I have to win 75% of the remaining sets gets daunting. I am not saying Robredo will win or even make it a tough match but I doubt he folds up in the early part of the second set because he has been there. He understands a bit more than he did in say 2002.


TejuZ Says:

His semi-final streak of 20 is still alive.. thats all grand-slam in last 5 years in a row. Incredible.


Kimo Says:

20 straight semis folks. For those of you mathematically impaired, that’s 5 years. 5 years not missing a single semi-final in any slam.

That’s consistency you can believe in, folks.


Shaky Says:

Good third set. Monfils looked defeated when he lost the tiebreaker, but hats off to Federer to not giving him many looks.

Monfils isn’t there yet. I thought he’d put up more of a fight, but based on today I’m not impressed.

Is this 20 semis in a row for federer? Unreal.


TejuZ Says:

and another stat at roland garros which even Nadal hasnt matched… i.e 5 consecutive semi-final appearances at the French open.


Shan Says:

Well that’s it, the Fed beats Monfils in a straightforward match after a tough first set. I don’t think Del Potro or Robredo will push Federer much, so I see Fed making it to the final.

I would guess if Fed were to lose that it would be against either Soderling or Gonzalez…it is possible but I would still say the betting odds will be on the Fed.


Dan Martin Says:

Sorry had a call during that last observation – my point is that against a really good or great player you figure you will lose one out of 4 sets. So mentally losing that first set puts you in a position to need to dig in to go the distance. With the masters Series no longer having any 3 of 5 set matches, it leaves the slams, Davis Cup and maybe the finals of the Masters Cup as the only places a player needs to think about going 5. If you win the first set at a slam vs. a top flight player you can realistically think about not going 5.


rose Says:

monfils gave it a fight in the first set but then he just faded away..too bad ..i was hoping for a better match…just wanna point out something bout the french fans and the whole uncle toni’s comments about this crowd..i was expecting the french fans to go crazy today but it seems like they were cheering up more for federer than his own home boy…crazyy..i guess uncle toni was right after all …..


andrea Says:

and kudos to svetlana for pulling thru. she is due for another final appearance.


grendel Says:

That was a naive performance from Monfils – have to admit, Shan got it spot on. Even so, Monfils showed enough in the third to indicate he is potentially a winner at RG. May take a couple of years – perhaps Shan can teach him some strategical thinking – but I think he’ll get there in the end.


Shan Says:

@Dan Martin, and that may be an advantage for more of the journeymen at the slams since they’ve had more 3 of 5 opportunities over the past several years, whereas the younger guys haven’t


TejuZ Says:

well.. i doubt if robredo or Del Potro will as big a threat as Monfils.. but you never know. They are quite steady and consistent. But i guess Fed will prevail in 4 sets.

Regarding the semi-final appearances.. Out of the 20, he has to still play one and out of the rest, he has lost just 3 ( 1 each to Nadal, Safin and Djoker) .. and also won 14 of the last 15 slam semis


St4r5 Says:

So, let’s welcome the new FO champion, Roger Federer!


PietjeP Says:

I think Monfils has everything to be a great player. If he can only keep his head. Sometimes the show element should be less and the concentration a little more.

And a little timing for chosing his shots. Having said that I think he can be a future French open champion. Let’s not forget he didn’t get any preperation at all for this edition!

For Fed I’m not sure which player would be a better line up for him in the semis. But if you want to be the champion, you should be able to beat anybody and everybody…


steve Says:

A much tighter match than it appeared, despite being in straight sets. Monfils gave away the second set but was much sharper in the first and third.

Federer did well in the tiebreak to pick his moment to come in and force the error and bag the set.

He has now doubled Lendl’s record of 10 consecutive GS semifinals. Go Roger!


fed is afraid Says:

***********


Kimo Says:

Does anyone of you guys remember when was the last time there were no spaniards in the semis of RG?


sensationalsafin Says:

20 consecutive slam semifinals. If that’s not the epitome of consistency then I don’t know what is. I definitely want Federer to win the title but 20 slam semis is truly remarkable. That’s 5 straight years of making atleast the semis in every slam. Unbelievable. Good match too. I figured the first set would be key because we all saw how Monfils has the game to trouble Fed. Had Monfils won that first set, his confidence would’ve been up and he would’ve started swinging more freely and it could’ve been straight sets for him. But losing the first set he crumbled because he knew he played really well and still lost so he was feeling the pressure. Good on Roger, though. Monfils was a really good test and Fed didn’t let himself go down a bunch of sets and breaks like he’s been enjoying in his last few matches.


Shan Says:

@grendel – lol, perhaps, whether we’re just recreational players or pros, all we can do is make our guess when it comes to who’s going to win a match, so that was just my justification for my decision on Fed / Monfils.

I think that Federer might fail in the final against either Soderling or Gonzalez, partly because of the importance that he’s put on winning Roland Garros but also because Soderling and Gonzalez are both playing very aggressively and if they can continue to keep the unforced error counts down like they have up until now then they might have a chance. I also think both of them have the confidence needed to not get overwhelmed just being in the final


Kimo Says:

I really don’t get it when guys say that Fed would have lost in straight sets!!! Other than Nadal on clay, no one can take three straight sets from Roger. (I’m not counting the semi loss at 2007 Autralian Open, he had mono).


Kimo Says:

2008 Australian Open, sorry :)


jane Says:

“andrea Says:20 straight GS finals…came true!”

Gee, and here I thought Fed still had to play the winner of Robredo or Del Po to get to the final. Ah, but they don’t count now do they? Fed will win.


Shan Says:

20 straight GS finals should read “semi-finals” I believe


jane Says:

I believe so too Shan. Just trying to quell the trophy celebrations until they actually happen. :)


youyong Says:

Del potro is playing well today but my gut feel is that his game will disappear when he meets federer in the semis. Like I said earlier, everything is falling into place for Roger at RG this year.


Gordo Says:

The only thing more unbelieveable than Fed finally winning a French Open – and good on him should he pull it off, which it looks more and more like he is going to – is that next week we will be able to say “What’s weird about this?” to the following -

Roger Federer will be the reigning champ at Roland Garros while Rafa will be the reigning champ at Wimbledon.

But that should only be for a month. If Roger wins on the red Paris clay this Sunday he may go on a tear that may only be interupted when Mirka goes into labour!!!


Gordo Says:

fed is afraid Says:
***********

Posted June 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm

- Oh come on, Fed is Afraid – let’s have one more “There’s no way Federer can win this tournament,” or “He will choke” or “He should retire, for he is finished.” Come on… you can do it.


Daniel Says:

For Fed this Slam could be the tie moment: Sampras 14 GS tites and equal Lendl’s 19 finals appearence (if he makes this final).

Wimbledon could be THE tournament of his life. He could achieve two unprecedent records: 15 Grand Slam titles and 20 Slams finals and probably will regain n. 1 spot. Imagine that?!


jane Says:

youyong, Del Po doesn’t have the game for Federer so it doesn’t need to fall apart. Fed has never lost to Del Po nor has he ever been pushed. Del Po’s very good but in my opinion he needs to add more variety and strategy into his game. At this point, he’s powerful and he can attack and defend not to bad, but he is predictable. I don’t know that he doesn’t go into a match with a game plan, but he often doesn’t execute it if he does.

So yeah, I’d agree with you at this point that everything seems to be falling neatly into place for Roger.

Soderling and Gonzalez will likely have a battle and cancel each other out. I am not sure that either one will have the will to fight for the title in the end. Gonza has had the experience of at least playing a few more big matches, for example, the AO final or the Olympics, but his game can go off on the drop of a dime and he doesn’t have near the experience of Fed in these situations. I like to watch Gonza when he’s on form though – wow. I don’t know what to make of how Soderling will react if he gets by Gonza. I mean it’s hard to say, since he’s never been in those big match situations, really, until now. In any case, if we go by past history, typically, against Fed in particular, his pattern is to implode in tense moments or on big points. I don’t know if Soderling can keep bucking trend. It’s hard to say. But if I go with my gut, I don’t think he’d have much chance in this Grand Slam final if he’s to face Fed. Gonza would have a slightly better chance.

I mentioned Kuz’s win on the other thread – I am happy for her today as she finally came out the winner in a match against Serena, and in a very close one too.


Fedfan Says:

Del Potro made it quite easily against Robredo. But they key was saving break points (potro saved 7/7). He got nervous serving for the match.

Fed is 5-0 on him, 12-1 on Gonzo, and 9-0 on soderling. For them, it is almost like having Nadal on the other side of the net….

Two more to go. My feeling it Fed will skip Halle this time. Especially if he wins the French. He has had a tough FO so far – 13 hours on the court already, in 5 matches.

I hope Gonzo and Soderling have a tough 5-setter!


fed is afraid Says:

gordo-roger hasn’t won yet.


Fedfan Says:

Another interesting stat – Gonzo is almost 29, Fed is almost 28, Soderling is almost 25. Del Potro is the only “young” guy in the FO semi.

So much for youth versus experience, in the toughest of slams, physically.

Would be nice to see Fed vs Gonzo final – average age above 28! Both with one handed backhands, and massive forehands….


MMT Says:

Dan Martin said: “…the first set vs. an elite player and then think8ing I have to win 75% of the remaining sets gets daunting.”

The really mentally strong players think one point at a time, because all you have to win is the next point, if you do it often enough you’ll win the games, sets and eventually the match.

I find these coaches to be absolutely useless – their players approach their matches as stupidly as they would whether they were working with a coach or not.

I mean, let’s be honest, if god forbid, something happened to Toni Nadal, and he was no longer coaching Nadal, do you think it would change his ability to compete at all? I don’t think so.

99.9% of these coaches are all committing highway robbery, because they’re doing absolutely nothing to help their players think their way through a match.


jane Says:

“So much for youth versus experience, in the toughest of slams, physically.”

Actually, I think it was MMT and I who had a brief discussion on this a while back, about the older, more experienced players actually doing well on clay. Remember how old Agassi was when he won it – wasn’t it 29? Anyhow, these sorts of things aren’t written in stone or clay. One never knows.


MMT Says:

“Fed is 5-0 on him, 12-1 on Gonzo, and 9-0 on soderling. For them, it is almost like having Nadal on the other side of the net.”

You know Soderling did beat Nadal…this week.


Fedfan Says:

Lets seen what Soderling can do next….. Gonzo is the only one with experience of big matches.

Somebody earlier on commented that Fed now has 5 consecutive semis at the FO, something that even Nadal doesn’t (and probably will never! – i.e., 5 consecutive semis).

That is why, regardless of what happens next, Fed should never be compared to Sampras, becker, edberg or Mcenroe, when it comes to clay and the FO. he is MILES superior to any of them (or all of them combined). Fed’s french record is better than the combined record of all 4 of them. He just ran into the best clay courter of all time. Fed should be compared only to Vilas – Vilas was a spectacular clay courter – he just ran into Borg….

So on clay, Fed is like Vilas, not like Sampras, becker, Edberg or McEnroe.


MMT Says:

You’re right Jane – Agassi was 29 when he won in ’99. Here’s the thread:

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2009-04-12/1160.php


margot Says:

Surely Fed needs to play Soderling in the final. Nadal’s conqueror conquored ….


MMT Says:

Fedfan: That’s a really apt comparison…on clay. In fact, despite his virtuaosity on clay, Vilas only won the French Open once in 1977, a year in which Borg didn’t bother to play due to some idiotic conflict with World Team Tennis. In fact, Vilas was twice Borg’s RG final victim, once in 1975 when Borg was just 19 years old and 1978, the year Vilas was the defending champion. In the latter, Vilas won just 5 games in 3 sets.


Kimo Says:

The atp world tour website chose a great headline about Fed’s win over Monfils:

“Two Wins From Immortality”


Shan Says:

@Jane – Kuznetsova definitely deserved her win today, she might not have the biggest star power but she really has a nice game to watch. I think she’ll be one of the long timers on the double tour after she’s done with her singles career.

As usual Serena expressed her usual regards in her post-match interview:

“I lost because of me and not because of anything she did” – Serena Williams


Guga76 Says:

Fedfan says:

“Would be nice to see Fed vs Gonzo final – average age above 28! Both with one handed backhands, and massive forehands….”

I say – please please please let this be the final! Fed is 12-1 against Gonzo but clay is the only surface where Gonzo might take him to 4 or 5 sets – at which point Fed would surely pull out the win…


jane Says:

I agree Shan; Kuz has the shots, and star power can’t overcome those if it’s not backed up with same. Oh Serena – when will she ever give an opponent credit? Clearly Kuz did “something” to win it in the end; it takes two to have a match.

Kimo – a bit bombastic don’t you think? After all, no one lives forever. :)


Scottish Says:

FedFan you are so right about Feds on clay. He hit a train in Nadal who definitely has Feds #. If it wasn’t for Rafa fed could very well be sitting at 18 slams and going for his 4th FO. To me the current GOAT is already Feds (miles above Sampras on clay) no matter what happens here this year but it would be really nice for him to seal it with a win here. Go Roger!!


jane Says:

I am happy for Del Potro – his first slam semifinal. I wonder where and when he’ll win his first slam, if it’ll be hard courts or what? This is the deepest he’s gone so maybe it’ll be clay. He did win this event as a junior, so maybe in a couple years he will win here again. I think he could win the USO at some point too.


Cindy_Brady Says:

Is Federer better than Lendl, Wilander, Or Kuerten on clay. They each won the title 3 times. Lucky for them Nadal wasn’t on the other side of the net.

I think Federer is. In fact he’s probably the 3rd best clay courter of all time behind Borg and Nadal. Borg is still #1 until Nadal can surpass his FO record of 6.

Federer’s clay court game gets over shadowed because of his accomplishments on grass and hard courts. He’s won 5 Wimbledons in a row. 5 U.S opens in a row and now 5 French open semi finals in a row. Awesome achievement!

To be so good and consistent on all surfaces over a long period of time smells of GOAT.

I hate Federer but the facts cannot be denied. He is the best.


Scottish Says:

Yeah jane Del-Po has a great game and he might surprise us here this year. I hope Fed wins but i don’t think it’s going to be easy and it’s really anyone’s tournament right now. All 4 guys left can win it and I think Feds knows not to take anything for granted.


Shan Says:

@Jane – re court homogenization, if you listen to Del Potro’s interview you’ll hear that he says “now I can play like hardcourts the courts are faster than 2 years ago”, the gist of which is that RG is playing faster than it used to


bstevens Says:

The Federer Express is on schedule!


skeezerweezer Says:

Fed needs to get past Del Potro first. I know he has a good record against him. The guy is tall, has been serving lights out, and is strong hitter. He won’t play defense like Monfils. Saw that match outcome coming a mile away. You’re not going to sit way back and play defence against Fed and win, unless Fed beats himself, which on rare occassions, he has. Nadal figured that out, and when he proved he can play closer to the basline and inside the baseline, boom! Went to another level. But this guy ( Potro ) has been getting better and further on in tourneys. It could be a scary one. IF Fed gets past him, I predict the final will be easier match up for him.


Scottish Says:

I don’t think either matches will be easy SKEEZ. Del-Po hasn’t even taken a set on Roger in their H2H but everything is up in the air right now especially the way Rog isn’t playing his A game. If Feds brings his A game to the next 2 matches no one will touch him.


Tom Foober Says:

Federer played flawless tennis as we have come accustomed to in big moments over the last decade.

Keep in mind this:

*If Roger wins the French will he lose motivation to continue the intense training along with how the effects of being a first time father… what is going to keep him ticking?

Pete Sampras’ record 14 grandslam titles?

I think he respects Pete enough to possibly retire tied with Sampras. Bjorg left the game early and so could Federer. Just a thought.


Scottish Says:

Fed won’t retire. He has said before he wants 18 slams.


JCZ Says:

Soderling and Gonzalez H2H is pretty even. Soderling won the first 3 and Gonzalez took the last 4 but they have been pretty close. The last time they met was in 2007 in World team Championships in clay. Gonzalez won 4-6 7-5 6-4. So the new and improved Soderling has a very real chance to get to his first GS final.

If Fed beats him in the final it would be fitting, he’d at least bet the guy who beat THE GUY in clay.


Gordo Says:

When Sunday comes and if Federer should win the trophy we are going to start to see a lot more GOAT talk.

McEnroe has stated for 2 years that if Roger were to win the French Open then in his (McEnroe’s) mind he would be the greatest of all time.

For me I believe Roger needs to pass Pete’s Slam total – then he will have more Slams than anyone, and he will have won all of the Slams over the course of his career. Should he win the French this year and tie Pete, you would have to think that he is going to get the record sometime this year either at Wimbledon or at the US Open.

It is hard to compare players with others from different eras. How many slams would Rod Laver have been able to win, had he been able to play them when he was a professional from 1963 – 1967?
That’s 20 slam opportunities gone, during the height of his playing prowess.

Still, for those who don’t know – Fred Perry, Roy Emerson, Don Budge, Rod Laver and Andre Agassi have all won all four slams during their playing career.

Only Agassi and Laver have won since the start of the open era in 1968 (which is when tennis became a professional sport meaning the competiions got tougher and the draws got bigger)

As a pro Laver won all 4 slams in the same year in 1969, whereas Agassi is the only player to have won all 4 slams on three different surfaces.

Federer will join quite an elite group and certainly can lay claim to being one of the greatest of all time.

6 winning sets to go. Let’s see what the pressure does to him.

Tick, tick, tick.


Fedfan Says:

Federer is Sampras PLUS “Vilas on clay”.

Fed would have certainly beaten Wilander on clay. The guy was too defensive and loopy, not a lefty. Nadal would have chewed up Wilander.

Lendl and Guga? I am not that sure. I think Fed would be very competitive with them on clay.

Again, they were lucky not to run into Nadal. Or Borg (Lendl did, but then Borg went away).

I would say if you made the list of top 10 clay courters in the open era, Fed is definitely in that group. That’s what separates him from players like Sampras, becker, edberg, mcenroe.

Federer, in the open era – Top 10 on clay, Top 3 on grass (along with Borg and Sampras), certainly top 5 on hard courts (maybe higher). Nobody else can claim all those credentials on 3 different surfaces. Borg faltered on hard courts, Sampras faltered miserably on clay. Lendl faltered on grass. Laver never had to play on hard courts. So where does that leave federer? At the very top….


Tom Foober Says:

Top of the top who ever played… Fedfan.

2 away from history and I cant stand it any longer.

Sunday morning,… Please hurry!!!!!


scineram Says:

Idiot.


Scottish Says:

It’s pretty hard to put anyone above Fed overall. On clay sure Nadal gets the nod and maybe he will surpass Fed overall if he maintains his career but for the moment as an all round player Fed is the hands down winner.


Von Says:

Sean Randall:

“Let me come right out and say it, even though Gael Monfils is my guy, I’m actually rooting for Roger Federer here to win today and go on to capture the French Open.”

You’re so funnny!! Let’s face it, you’re first and foremost a Federer fan, but I suppose for some reason, only beknownst to you, you like to push Monfils?

“Meanwhile, Monfils has coasted against some pretty weak clay competition including Bobby Reynolds, Victor Crivoi, Jurgen Melzer and the aforementioned Roddick.”

This is my basis for my above-mentioned statement. Here you go discrediting Monfils’ competition but says nothing with respect to Fed’s competition. I wonder what MMT, who’s been on a roll with reference to the draws and weak competition, etc., and/or Dan martin, who’s mentioned similarly, would have to say about any of what you’ve written? But then again, since they are both Fed fans, most probably would over-look your remarks. I suppose you could proffer arguments that even though Monfils is ‘your man” as you like to refer to him, you’d argue that you’re being fair. However, if you’re being fair, then why oh why, aren’t you talking of Fed’s ‘weak’ competition. BTW, you just love to push Roddick’s name out front, I wonder why? Is it because you know people like to bash Roddick and will post more?

Just asking, but I do find your arguments at times to be somewhat contradictory. Well, are you all going to answer me or just let this one fall through the cracks? If you don’t I get the picture.

BTW, I still hold to my argument, had roddick been able to get that match post-poned v. Monfils and won the 3rd set, he would haved won the match. Monfils doen’t have what it takes to go 5 sets, but Roddick does. What a pity!

For those who are stats guys, who was the only player who’s played the longest tie-breakers at both the FO 16-18, and the AO 21-21?


Scottish Says:

Von and Sean. I’m a Fed AND Nadal fan. I think both are impressive. I like some other guys too. SO I’m coming at an unbiased view.

The “weak competition” talk to me is invalid. The earlier rounds are SUPPOSED to be weak which is why you have the rankings the way they are. Fed or Nadal are not supposed to play the better guys until deeper in the tourney which is why Nadal’s loss is even more shocking against #23. It’s not until you get to the quarters that the real tournament begins.

That is why 20 consecutive semis for Fed is so impressive and double the next best guy.


Von Says:

Gordo:
“Federer will join quite an elite group and certainly can lay claim to being one of the greatest of all time.”

He’ll be ONE of the greats, but definitely NOT the greatest. This discussion has been bandied around from here to ying, yang, many times over. I know Fed fans want him to be the GOAT but guys it ain’t gonna happen, ever. So live with the reality of it and just enjoy whatever success comes his way. History repeats itself to show if one is great at year ?, in five to ten years, someone else will come along who will break those records. We’ve seen this scenario repeated umpteen times, hence GOAT is only relative to a certain period.
_________________
Fedfan:

“Lendl and Guga? I am not that sure. I think Fed would be very competitive with them on clay.”

Guga beat Fed in the third round of the FO in 2004, and Guga has been dominant on clay for several years. Between 2002 and 2004, what did Fed do at the FO? Bear in mind Fed turned pro in 1998 and has been playing at the FO for quite a long time. In 2001, he lost to Corretja in the QF, and it wasn’t until 2004 that he finally got to the third round, only to lose to Kuerten. In 2005 he made the SF and was beaten by Nadal. From 2005 to 2008 he’s made it to the finals. Hence, when Fed says he doesn’t have an FO problem, he has a ‘Nadal’ problem, it’s partly true but not unequivocally true, because he’s had problems prior to Nadal with other clay courters at the FO.


Von Says:

Ooops: “For those who are stats guys, who was the only player who’s played the longest tie-breakers at both the FO 16-18, and the AO 21-21?”

correction: AO 21-21 s/b 21-23.


Scottish Says:

Von: it’s true that GOAT is a relative term and there are many factors but some records stand as The mark. Will Tiger Woods be the GOAT in golf if he doesn’t beat Jack’s 18 majors? Even Tiger said that is the # to beat. Is the # of slams alone the key factor? Maybe and if so Sampras is the current GOAT. But it’s kind of weak to say that Rog will NOT be the greatest when we don’t even know what will happen on Sunday. No one can predict the future. Will there ever be another Gretsky in hockey? I doubt it.


Von Says:

“Tom Foober Says:
Top of the top who ever played… Fedfan.

2 away from history and I cant stand it any longer”

How could it be history? IF, and I say IF, Fed wins the FO title, since it’s not a 100 per cent sure thing, he would have only TIED Sampras’ GS record. Sampras was the player who created the history NOT Fed. However, should Fed win a 15th slam, he then will have made history. Hold on now, which must be very hard to do, but you’ve still got a long way to go! This must be extremely agonizing for a Fed worshipper. My heart goes out to you! LOL.


sensationalsafin Says:

Federer may not be the greatest seeing as how it took him quite a few years to hit his stride. But since then, Federer has been the most consistent player ever. Before Monte Carlo and since then, Fed has only reached the semis or better in all the events he’s entered. And he’s on the decline right now. The new generation barely beats him in Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic. They all need 3 or 5 sets usually. And the other young guys, have yet to beat him at all. Yet he’s not the GOAT because of this and this and that and this. Is it really that easy to argue against his GOAThood? He’s still such a great fighter, I wouldn’t write him off that easily. Not because of the slams and the titles, but because of the consistency.


grendel Says:

“I still hold to my argument, had roddick been able to get that match post-poned v. Monfils and won the 3rd set, he would haved won the match.”(Von)

We have a psychic in our midst, I see. Oh, the consolations to be derived from rewriting history…..


Von Says:

Scottish:

“But it’s kind of weak to say that Rog will NOT be the greatest when we don’t even know what will happen on Sunday.”

I don’t think it’s weak at all to say Federer will NOT be the GOAT.

Sampras is NOT the current GOAT, he is the greatest of his era, but not of all the other eras and players who’ve gone before. And, federer will NOT be the GOAT, but he is and will continue to be the greatest of his era. There are too many factors to be taken into consideration to issue such a proclamation of him being the greatest of all time.
__________________
“The “weak competition” talk to me is invalid. The earlier rounds are SUPPOSED to be weak which is why you have the rankings the way they are. Fed or Nadal are not supposed to play the better guys until deeper in the tourney which is why Nadal’s loss is even more shocking against #23. It’s not until you get to the quarters that the real tournament begins.

That is why 20 consecutive semis for Fed is so impressive and double the next best guy.”

Going by your above statement, on how weak the draw should be for the top players to advance, which BTW is a BIGGG pet peeve of mine, how could you then say that 20 consecutive semis at the GS level is impressive, considering the competition is weak? This is where I find this reasoning and acclamation to be flawed. I am yet to be convinced that had the top players been dealt more difficult draws they would have emerged so victorious? It’s a topic and system I have great difficulty in correlating in my mind, and your statement on the draws are supposed to be weak, confirms my thinking. I honestly feel if the Nos. 1 and 2 players are so good, then why do they have to be enabled by weak draws to arrive at the QFs. I’d appreciate your thoughts on the topic with respect to my thinking.


Von Says:

grendel:

“We have a psychic in our midst, I see. Oh, the consolations to be derived from rewriting history…..”

If you’ve noticed I igored your previous comments a few months ago and then again, last evening, and I am going to stick to what I’ve stated to you several months ago, I’m NEVER going to answer your comments, and I mean it. I’m doing so now to remind you of my statement to you at that time, just in case you’ve forgotten. You are sarcastic and rambunctious and I’m not going to feed your addiction to start a war — you thrive on this stuff. jane and some others allow you to do this to them repeatedly, and I don’t understand why, but be that as it may, remember I WON’T, and you can underline that. You need to remind yourself repeatedly that i’m entitled to my musings, the same as you and you don’t have cate blanche to pick, pick, pick, pic, pic, pic, ad nauseam.

BTW, why don’t you allow yourself for ONCE, the luxury of basking in the joy of Federer’s wins, if even momentarily. On second thoughts why not even try carpe diem, that would be super. Or is it that you’re so masochistic that you won’t/can’t allow yourself to be happy and/or joyful? OY VEY and sheesh! You should be in the Journal of Psychiatry with a HUGE and I mean HUGE question mark next to you. OY VEY!!!!!

I’m on top of the world today, and I’m not going to let you drag me down into the mire. find another prey to stick your tentacles in, not moi. Bon soir.


zola Says:

I think the GOAT argument is very invalid. It is apples and oranges. Too many parameters to consider. surfaces, balls, racquets, the field, the calendar, everything….
I don’t understand this persistence to crown someone as the GOAT!

I said even when Fed was not doing well. That he is one of the greatest of all times. but no GOAT. because there is no such thing as a GOAT!

I commend his persistence. Even at times of trouble he put it together and came to compete in FO again and again and never gave up until the perfect scenario emerged. Rafa is out and he doesn’t even need to beat one player in top 10. They can give him the trophy today!

I do not put an asterix for this win. But I would like the Fed fans not to get too carried away with the GOAT discussion when Fed has a losing record againt several other players. He is definitely one of the greatest of all times.

I think this win will boost his confidence and will motivate him to play more, which is great for tennis.


blah Says:

how can federer be the third greatest clay courter of all time when he hasn’t won one fo… give me a break, if you want to dismiss the weak competition for federer argument, then you can’t use the what if nadal wasn’t on the other side argument. I guess everyone should have just laid down for fed so he could get his 28 slams.

Also, 1 out of 4 predictions means not failing completely, yay.


Von Says:

sensationalsafin:

I didn’t say we should write off federer, did I? I never said he’s NOT consistent. I’m only saying that there’s no such thing as a GOAT, but the greatest in each player’s era, and what’s wrong with that?

If Fed fans want to hang the shingle on his locker door as the “GOAT”, please do so, and don’t let my silly comments stop you. Lord knows I’m insignificant in the grand scheme of things, so please don’t get all worked up by my statements, for which I think there’s a basis and not pulled out of thin air.

Question: Why is it so difficult for a non-Fed poster to write a rebuttal to a Fed poster’s claims on Fed’s greatness. Is it because I hit a raw nerve?


FoT Says:

Zola, this is one Fed fan who isn’t even thinking about GOAT, Ram, Lamb or anything else! lol! I’m thinking about the next match against Del Potro. We have to win that one first. I know Roger has a great record against him but this tournament has been nothing but unusual so anything can happen. I just want Roger to concentrate on his next match against Del Potro, and Del Potro ONLY.


Kimo Says:

Von, it’s almost hard for me to believe what you’re saying.

If Fed wins at RG this year, and never wins another tournament ever again (he’ll win more, but indulge me), you can’t compare Sampras’s 14 to Fed’s.

Sampras didn’t reach 20 semi’s in a row. Sampras didn’t play the RG final at all, let alone three times in a row, and had Fed not come up against the greatest claycourter of all time he would have won them. Sampras didn’t win 5 straight Wimbledons (coz, get this, Federer of all people denied him that), he didn’t win 5 straight US Opens. Sampras had a limited serve and volley game.

It’s hard for me to fathom how you can put both 14 titles on the same level.

And I know you hate the goat debate, but it’s not some fan hype. Talk about Fed being the goat started by tennis legends who know much more about the game than you and I way before Federer even came close to 5 slams.

If you hate the “all time” aspect of the GOAT title, then fine. He’s the greatest the game has ever seen so far.

Happy now?


blah Says:

by the way, am I the only one who wants to see a del potro soderling final? that way this repetitive slam switching/sharing cycle would be stopped temporarily. Just when you thought it wouldn’t be nadal fed fed nadal anymore it looks like it may well lasts toward the end of the year.. 4 years of the same is enough for me…


Dan Martin Says:

My sister who is a major Rafa fan made a point to go to Paris to see the matches today and yesterday (she made the reservations a few weeks ago and lives in Spain). She had a great time. She saw Serena-Kuznetsova and Robredo-Del Potro


zola Says:

It seems the journalist is either too curious or has run out of questions:

Q. Two questions: What’s the originof your name, Del Potro? Where does itcome from?

JUAN MARTIN DELPOTRO: I don’t have a clue.

Q. Where do your grandparents come from?

JUAN MARTIN DELPOTRO: From Tandil. That’s the city where I come from.

btw, JMDP and Soderling in their first GS semi!


zola Says:

blah
the way this tournament goes, it could be me and you in the final!


zola Says:

Dan,
Vamos to your sister!


jane Says:

Scottish, no offense, but going on pure logic, the following seems rather contradictory:

” It’s not until you get to the quarters that the real tournament begins.

That is why 20 consecutive semis for Fed is so impressive”

If the “real” tournament doesn’t begin until the quarters, because, as you say, it’s supposed to be easy for the top guys until the later rounds, then doesn’t that in fact *devalue* those consecutive slam semis? You can see what I mean here right? I am not saying they should be devalued but that there seems to be a logical flaw in there. It would suggest, somehow, that in fact when a lower ranked fellow reaches the later rounds, it’s *his* run that is the more impressive, albeit also more rare, as because of the tougher earlier rounds. I am going on your logic here, not saying this is in fact the case. Let me be clear.

“but some records stand as The mark. ”

But don’t they stand only as the mark for surpassing that record. Sure, Fed is one of the greatest and will have set, tied, and broken a number of records before he retires (which i don’t think will be any time soon); however, there are records he hasn’t broken and probably won’t; there are things others have done that he hasn’t. “One Of” is the proper denotation in my opinion.

Besides which, aren’t goats put out to pasture?

LOL – sorry couldn’t resist the urge to lighten it up!


Tom Foober Says:

Pete Sampras best ever on grass, no question about it.


jane Says:

Sorry – I just realize Von already responded to the same issue in Scottish’s post which I did in my last post; i just got home and am making my way through the thread but hadn’t yet read that far.


blah Says:

“If Fed wins at RG this year, and never wins another tournament ever again (he’ll win more, but indulge me), you can’t compare Sampras’s 14 to Fed’s.”

Yes you can.

“Sampras didn’t reach 20 semi’s in a row.” Semis mattered? someone tell nalbandian.

“Sampras didn’t play the RG final at all, let alone three times in a row,” okay, fed’s a better clay courter. I would take Sampras over Federer on grass anyday.

“and had Fed not come up against the greatest claycourter of all time he would have won them.” really? how do you know that? what if he ran into guga in his prime? Isn’t it fun to say rafa is the greatest clay courter of all time when he would help your argument in some way. I remember before last year’s fo a bunch of fed fans were saying borg is superior to rafa.

“Sampras didn’t win 5 straight Wimbledons (coz, get this, Federer of all people denied him that),” it’s more due to the fact that he ran into an on fire krajicek in 96 or he would have 7. Add to that sampras began to decline after winning the 2000 wimbledon final.

“he didn’t win 5 straight US Opens. Sampras had a limited serve and volley game.” A limited game that won him 14 slams. how blind are you? I was not aware that a prettier and a more “complete” game won you slams or matches. Is that why Nadal kept beating Federer?

What does limited serve and volley game mean? Federer is worse in that area (by quite some margin) and Sampras had a big forehand along with incredible speed in his prime. I guess only offensive baseliners can be in the discussion for goat. It’s fun to dismiss serve and volley because you haven’t seen it and you don’t like it, isn’t it?

“It’s hard for me to fathom how you can put both 14 titles on the same level.” Well, there.

“And I know you hate the goat debate, but it’s not some fan hype. Talk about Fed being the goat started by tennis legends who know much more about the game than you and I way before Federer even came close to 5 slams.

If you hate the “all time” aspect of the GOAT title, then fine. He’s the greatest the game has ever seen so far.”

Why don’t people understand that it’s done in different circumstances. If you give federer an old heavy wooden raquet and tell him to go play on old grass, would he win that many wimbledons? how would you know that? Would his offensive baseline game work as well? All one can say is he is the greatest of his era.

“Happy now?”

Not really, fedtards like you who show up only when he starts winning piss me off.


zola Says:

FoT,

You are one great Federer fan and you guys have been through so many ups and downs. He is now going to be a dad and will have his 14th major and it will happen.
To you from a Rafa fan. I think the stars are lined up for because it is as if someone from another planet is messing up with this tournament.

But the GOAT discussion is something else. Anyway, you know that I am happy for you.


blah Says:

previous post- 8 straight wimbledons actually. he already has 7, in 3 straight and 4 straight. Federer has dominated these few years, but people often think that compared to a short period of dominance and vanishing after that short period, longevity in the game is worthless. Why don’t we wait a few more years before starting this “debate” that has been brought up over and over and over and over and over again.


jane Says:

“I don’t understand this persistence to crown someone as the GOAT!”

I don’t get it either; I totally get the excitement over someone breaking a record or setting a new one. That I can comprehend – that IS exciting. But this illogical, unprovable notion of goat is a strange one to me. I’ve watched tennis since the late 70s- early 80s (less obsessively then but still…), and I really don’t recall GOAT this hype, for instance, when Sampras was setting records. Maybe it’s because of the internet? I dunno.


blah Says:

I think it’s more due to the media. As time has progressed they keep wanting to make a GOAT and to make a sports icon and figure heroic. Businesses market these people and they make these godlike images out of these sports stars. Their status has gotten more and more important and we forget that they are just athletes. That’s why today they are idolized and treated as if they were royalty. This stands true in any other sports. GOAT talk is everywhere these days; it’s rather annoying.


FoT Says:

jane, the internet has totally changed the view of tennis. Back in ‘the day’, we only had about 4 channels on television to watch (and tennis wasn’t at the top of the chain by any means), then you had to search through the local newspapers in the corner, in the back, to find anything on tennis. So some people probably thought about GOAT but no one but that person knew it because we couldn’t communicate with each other! But now – with the click of a button – someone in China will know exactly what I’m thinking and my view points – just like that. Amazing, isn’t it!


zola Says:

******
If Fed wins at RG this year, and never wins another tournament ever again (he’ll win more, but indulge me), you can’t compare Sampras’s 14 to Fed’s.

Sampras didn’t reach 20 semi’s in a row. Sampras didn’t play the RG final at all, let alone three times in a row, and had Fed not come up against the greatest claycourter of all time he would have won them. Sampras didn’t win 5 straight Wimbledons (coz, get this, Federer of all people denied him that), he didn’t win 5 straight US Opens. Sampras had a limited serve and volley game.

*********

see,

even when two players have won equal number of majors ( a record number), it is hard to copmare them. And this is Sampras and Federer who played just a few years apart from each other. Then how can you compare players who have won titles 40-50 years apart?


zola Says:

I think some evil force has created the “GOAT” topic to keep the fans busy! a trap!

but seriously, see how many hours we waste talking about something that doesn’t even exist!


Tom Foober Says:

Tied with Pete,… + French title {that pete don’t have btw}..

all that… AND the streak of consecutive semis in slams…

Federer, best ever.


jane Says:

Kimmi,

I’m not trying to be contentious here, but humour me. There are things that Sampras did do that Fed didn’t right? Wasn’t he the longest ever at number 1? Hasn’t he won 7 Wimbledon trophies to Fed’s 5?

Or what about Nadal, didn’t he have the longest streak on any surface at 81 matches in like – ever? And wasn’t he the only man since Borg, so far anyhow, to win the FO and Wimbledon in the same year?

My point is this – one person’s accomplishments are one thing, but other person might’ve accomplished something just as spectacular in a different way or to achieve a different goal.

There are MANY greats in any sport – not ONE greatest.

Why can’t we celebrate them all instead of trying to put one above all the rest and everything anyone else might’ve done?

I don’t get it. I find it’s somehow all about ego. Maybe there’s a connection between ego and history, with a capital H?


Tom Foober Says:

Nadal best on clay.

Sampras best on grass.

Federer best on hardcourt.

Federer, best ever.


Tom Foober Says:

People always are asking me….

why do those tennis players scream so loud?
or even at all?

I tell them they are breathing. Exhaling while swinging.

similar to Karate students when striking a blow.


jane Says:

blah, “4 years of the same is enough for me…” I hear ya.

“All one can say is he is the greatest of his era.”

Gosh – and isn’t this enough? Seems to me that’s quite the accolade for anyone!

It’s like somehow the “GOAT” declaration — which will be declared by whom? The Queen? John McEnroe? Who? — will be the cherry on top of the sundae. But people forget that someone is going to come along and eat it. LOL. No records last forever.

This is all about fame right? I mean that’s how we’re using “immortal” in this context? So isn’t Fed already famous? Won’t he already be remembered forever?

“Amazing, isn’t it!”

FoT the internet as a medium is amazing, but the GOAT talk is bombastic hype in my opinion.


zola Says:

Tom Foober
***
I tell them they are breathing. Exhaling while swinging.

similar to Karate students when striking a blow.
***

that’s true. Just the karate students do not shriek!

I love the way Dokic exhales. **phoooo….*** it is not a scream. just the sound of air.


Dan Martin Says:

I do have a piece on the whole GOAT debate that I will post after the FO as it seems inappropriate to post a general article during one of the 4 main phases of the year. If I had to pick a GOAT, if the term even makes sense, I would pick Laver at this point. He won majors as an amateur, he won majors as a pro (the pro tour prior to the Open Era had its own set of majors), and he won majors during the Open Era. He won the calendar slam twice. I am not sure how majors on the pre-open era circuit translate to today. I am not sure how the WCT finals translate to today. Heck, in 1986 Lendl won in New Haven where the semifinals featured Becker vs. McEnroe and Lendl vs. Connors and Lendl then beating Becker in the final after each semifinal went 3 sets. New Haven today is an after thought in 1986 it was a better final four than we saw at TMS Cincinnati 2007. These things do not translate well. The equipment gaps, sports medicine gaps, nutritional gaps (i.e. people used to take salt pills to avoid cramping as H2O used to be believed to cause muscle cramps!) etc. also play a tough role in declaring a GOAT with any degree of accuracy.


zola Says:

Dan,
Can you compre Laver with Federer? or sampras?

I think it will be a great excercise to understand whether or not such a discussion is valid.

see how many parameters you have to consider and you can tell us if such a comparison is even possible.


Von Says:

Kimo:

Blah has done a fine job answering your questions, and has pretty much echoed what I would have said, so hats off to Blah and thanks. Kimo, I hope you’re satisfied with his answers and if you need any further input from me, I’ll be glad to do so. One point I’d like to make though, is that serve and volley is not an easy style to play, it’s very tiring and Sampras made it look easy, so kudos to him. I’d like to see Federer play serve and volley for an entire tournament, and I’m sure he wouldn’t be able to do so.

I’ve set the stage for the discussion so you guys can argue it out; I’ll just read and enjoy. I try very hard not to get into the Fed discussions because there’s only ONE of me and hundreds of Fed fans, coming out of the woodwork even as I write. LOL. However, at times it’s hard to swallow this quest of theirs to anoint Federer as the greatest of what, I don’t know.
______________________
Blah:

Fed fans go on about if it weren’t for Nadal Fed would have won the FO many times over, and it’s the reason why I gave those stats to show them that he didn’t do diddly until after Guga got hurt, Coria was faced with drug charges and Nalby only played when he felt the urge to do so. Had those guys been around, Federer would not have seen an SF at the FO, and that’s the truth! Also, if we really want to face facts, Fed does not play as a true clay courter. Yes, he knows how to slide, but he has a hard-court offense style game which he has successfully applied to clay.

Fed fans and others make fun of Roddick, but if I were to use their Nadal analogy and apply it to Roddick, then I can say if it weren’t for Federer Andy Roddick would have won umpteen GS titles. Fed has stopped him at the finals, SFs and QFs levels, as Andy’s rank began dipping. So you guys can come up with another what ‘if’ scenario.

I know Zola and some Nadal fans feel I don’t like Nadal because I’m very vociferous as to his antics, etc., but a lot of that is in retaliation to some of Zola’s rants towards Roddick, and truth also. Anyway, be that as it may, I’d like them to know that I was one very sad tennis fan when Soderling beat Nadal last week. I wanted to see one more time if Federer could indeed beat Nadal at the FO since his win at Madrid, and his constant talk of how much he has improved his clay court game. It didn’t turn out that way, and now if Federer wins, well I’ll never know.


jane Says:

My 6:35 pm post above should be to Kimo not Kimmi. Sorry for the confusion!


grendel Says:

Von

“I’m NEVER going to answer your comments, and I mean it.” And then follows the usual stuff.

I’ve never come across anyone so given to self-deception as you, my friend. Incidentally, you did not ignore my comments a few months, you went on a characteristically venomous rampage.

“You are sarcastic and rambunctious and I’m not going to feed your addiction to start a war — you thrive on this stuff.”

“Sarcastic?” Yes, sometimes – but I’m a novice compared to you. Just looks back on some of your posts. “Rambunctious?” My dictionary says “full of youthful energy and boisterousness”. Well, thankyou, but I rather doubt you meant that. You probably meant quarrelsome in some sense. Yes, there is indeed that side to me, and I am not proud of it. But as always, you get it almost entirely wrong. I loathe getting involved in anything with you, which is why I constantly restrain myself whatever nonsense I hear you spouting. Not that you can’t talk sense, b.t.w., you are a clever and informed woman, if somewhat humourless.

But every time Roddick loses, you come up with an excuse. Not only are you the worst sore loser I’ve ever seen, you have the unholy nerve to accuse others of this. I generally ignore this, in the interests of peace. Unlike you, I mean exactly and precisely what I say. I do not, absolutely do not, like arguing with you, no, arguing is not possible with you, I mean quarreling. You’re so vicious once you get going that I swallow all the endless crap you put out about Federer even though I certainly find it offensive – and incidentally, if anyone did a tenth, a hundredth of that vis a vis Roddick, you’d just explode.

“BTW, why don’t you allow yourself for ONCE, the luxury of basking in the joy of Federer’s wins, if even momentarily”. As so often with you, I’m lost as to whether you are a consummate hypocrite or whether you just have no idea what you do. As a matter of fact, I thought the match with Monfils today was a little disappointing, given what I know Monfils can do. But all the same, I enjoyed it very much, because I just love the way Federer plays, and I thought he was doing it pretty well today. Even when he is not at his best, he is still an absolute joy for me to watch, I wish I could describe in particular the huge pleasure I take in his very varied forehands, I enjoy his serve far more than Sampras’ (whilst conceding Sampras was the greater server, I just derive more satisfaction from Federer’s, but that’s personal taste), his movement is bliss, and one might go on, but perhaps you get the picture. The trouble is, I do not have the skill.

But the main reason which inhibits me is you. I know exactly the kind of sarcastic muck you’ll come up with – how dare you accuse anybody else of being sarcastic – and so I just censor myself. Among other things, you are a bully , Von.

You forever go on about freedom of speech. But effectively, you deny it to others.


Von Says:

jane; Put on your glasses, it’s KIMO not Kimmi. LOL.

_______________
Dan Martin: I’ve always said that if there is a GOAT it has to be Laver, since he has two career slams and 165 titles. Additionally, he was disallowed from competing for quite a few years. Laver’s stated there isn’t a GOAT on many occasions, and if there’s anyone who knows what he’s talking bout, it has to be Laver, so I’ll defer to him.

I also mentioned in an earlier post addressed to Sean Randall that I’d like to hear your views on Sean’s relentless talk of ‘weak’ competition in the draws of the other players at the FO, save Federer. I’d appreciate some input from you, however, if you choose to decline, I’ll understand.


Von Says:

What happened to my last two posts to jane and Dan Martin?


Von Says:

Dan Martin:

I typed a rather in-depth post to you on laver, and it got lost. Anyway, I feel if there’s any one player that should be anointed the GOAT it should have to be Laver. He won 165 titles and has two career grand slams. Additionally, he was not allowed to compete for several years and played with a heavy wooden racquet. Hence, I feel he’s the best candidate. Laver has been humble enough to state that there isn’t anything as a GOAT and I’ll defer to him.


Von Says:

@ 7:09 pm, I’ll do a Pontius Pilate here and say “What I’ve written, I’ve writen.”


Scottish Says:

Wow this is all a lively bunch. Just got home have enjoyed reading the posts.

In relation to the “weak competition discussion” it’s really not that difficult. Pretty much every sport I know where there is H2H match-ups the best players and teams play against the worst as they progress. Hockey, Football, Basketball etc. Who wants to see Nadal and Djoker play in the first round? The question isn’t about weaker or not (because that’s the way sports is played), it’s about consistency. And this is exactly a valid point. The fact that Fed has stepped up in the last 20 slams and not fallen to a weaker player shows 2 things. 1. He is consistently playing at a level above the other weaker players which no other current player is doing (or has ever done). Nadal in this FO is a perfect example. and 2. Tennis is a sport the REQUIRES a player to be at a level above the rest to do so. No one can go out there and take his opponent for granted.

I don’t see why this is so hard for you to grasp.


Tom Foober Says:

One more thing on the GOAT discussion.

Lets all just agree than “someone” can claim rights to the GOAT crown.

Who it is?

Several candidates, all deserving,.. in reality its impossible to ever come to an agreement {ie Tiger Woods over Jack Nicholson – golf} on the GOAT after thinking for hours about all the factors Von discussed and Dan Martin.


Dan Martin Says:

If we only look at the 4 majors and award 10 points for a title, 7 points for a runner up, 4 points for a semifinal and 1 point for a quarterfinal finish then we’d have a mathematical model for comparing players, but I think Von and others’ points stand that the rackets, banning pros prior to the open era, strings, … all get left out of the calculus.


zola Says:

Dan,
I wish it was that easy. You can use points perhaps for one year not for a span of 50 years where everything is so different.

What about this? Start comparing just two players. Sampras and Federer. We had an example above. Can you really come up with something to say who is better?

I also ask you to consider the field , the number of master series they “HAD” to play, plus the racquet technology, surfaces, etc….

It is already a headache!


Scottish Says:

Ok the GOAT issue. I totally agree with you that there are lots of factors and it’s pretty tough to compare someone now to 30 years ago (or whenever). The only comparison we can really make is within a “generation” of tennis. But I don’t think the GOAT is all that invalid and again pretty much every sport has one. Some sports are easy to pick them: Jordan, Gretsky, Armstrong etc. because these athletes were waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of anyone else in their sport.

But with tennis there is tough competition out there and arguments for whoever all over the place. But seriously when it comes right down to it there are only a few tennis players in the running and what is funny about this discussion is that we’re talking about a player who has potentially 2 or 3 years of high level play level.

I mean what’s all this crazy talk about Fed on the decline and going to retire? LOL. The guy is still right here in EVERY slam he plays and he’s only 27. Guys have been winning tournaments well into their late 20s and early 30s for years.

It’s really stupid if Fed wins a bunch more slams (especially if he wins at the FO) and gets out there ahead of Sampras to say anyone has been better. That is just blind denial.


Scottish Says:

Tom Foober:

“Several candidates, all deserving,.. in reality its impossible to ever come to an agreement {ie Tiger Woods over Jack Nicholson – golf} on the GOAT after thinking for hours about all the factors Von discussed and Dan Martin.”

I’ve said this before Tiger Woods himself said that the 18 Majors of Jack was THE highest achievement and that was his main goal.

Why do you think all the players want to win the majors? It’s because the are MAJOR!! LOL


zola Says:

Scottish,

Having better results can be different than being better.

As I proposed to Dan, you can just start with two players and see if you can find a formula to compare them. Then maybe you can expand that model to the rest.

The GOAT is mainly to satisfy the fans. I would love to hear Rafa’s name as the GOAT! but is he really? or sampras fans would love to bear his name as the GOAT, Fed fans the same.

13 maajors ( up to now), 15 master sheilds and four years of dominance speaks for itself. that’s pretty extraordinary. but is he better tha Rafa on clay? I don’t think so! So there goes the GOAT discussion.


jane Says:

“Lets all just agree than “someone” can claim rights to the GOAT crown.”

Sorry will never do so, for all the logical reasons already presented re: eras, technology, surfaces, number of majors played (remember Mac and that group didn’t even play in AO so couldn’t possible win as many slams), and so on ad infinitum, etc, etc. too many variables to launch an indisputable argument. Hence GOAT unprovable.

In mine, and many people’s view, there is no such thing as ONE greatest of all time.

I don’t believe in vampires; I don’t believe in GOATS.

So I’ll agree to disagree.


Scottish Says:

Zola. Isn’t that the point of the GOAT is that it doesn’t revolve around 1 aspect of the game and in this case type of court? It has be taken into consideration across a number of factors. Sure Rafa is better than Roger on clay. And trust me I am a Nadal fan and was a Sampras fan too. I love tennis in general so I’m not pushing a player’s agenda.

But to say that in any sport the GOAT debate is for fans is bull. I just read an article about Jack Niclaus defending his Majors and wins and not conceding the GOAT to Tiger. It’s not just for fans and writers.


Von Says:

Scottish:

“The fact that Fed has stepped up in the last 20 slams and not fallen to a weaker player shows 2 things. 1. He is consistently playing at a level above the other weaker players…”

You’ve just proved my point that Federer has played and is playing against weaker competition and it’s the reason he’s remaining at the top.

“..which no other current player is doing (or has ever done).”(or has ever done).”

You’re kidding right? Sampras destroyed his competition, and so have those players before Federer’s time, e.g., Connors and McEnroe.

“Nadal in this FO is a perfect example. and 2. Tennis is a sport the REQUIRES a player to be at a level above the rest to do so. No one can go out there and take his opponent for granted.”

Didn’t Ancic beat Federer at Wimbledon a few years ago? That’s similar to Soderling beating Nadal last week, and hasn’t Nadal, Murray (when he wasn’t in the top 4), Djokovic, Canas, Gonzalez and some others beaten Federer, so where’s the consistency?

“I don’t see why this is so hard for you to grasp.”

It’s hard for me to grasp because I don’t see how anyone can be the best if he doesn’t face stiff competition. It’s easy to beat the lower ranked guys, and there’s a reason why they are lower ranked.

When the draw came out for this FO, I’ve read five (5) tennis analysts and heard several commentators state that Federer’s draw was the easiest, except for Sean Randall, who has stated that some other players’ draws were cushy, even in this article on Mon Fils.


jane Says:

Exactly Dan – something always gets left out because there are too many variables.

People say there will never be another Gretzsky, but there will be. There’ll be another but he’ll be different and achieve things differently and maybe set some records, break some and not achieve others. So this mystery person will be one of the greats. Not THE greatest.

GOATs don’t exist. Your piece, imo, should prove why. Because it’s a debate that can never be resolved.


zola Says:

Von,
First I appreciate your feelings towards Rafa’s loss. Second, I speak my mind. If I said anything about Rodick’s on court behavior ( when was it? last summer?), it is because that was my feeling at the time and perhaps if he does that again, I will say something again. I don’t think you don’t like Rafa. Exactly because your reactions are not to him, but to me.

Anyway, Roddick had a great FO. better than before even with minimal preparation and I bet he will do much better in wimbledon, because he has put the effort. So enjoy his run.


zola Says:

Scottish,
I have discussed this many times here and other places.

I think we should let Dan do all the hard work.:) ( sorry Dan. you said it yourself!)
Let him start it and we will bombard him with questions and will see. We will either find the magic solution and formula for GOAT or will out it to rest!


jane Says:

And Dan, my point above about Johnny Mac and them only playing 3 majors already discounts your “points” idea, because they couldn’t possibly collect as many given they played less majors. See the problem? And that’s only one problem of many.


Scottish Says:

Von; “You’re kidding right? Sampras destroyed his competition, and so have those players before Federer’s time, e.g., Connors and McEnroe.”

The next closest semi-final streak in slams (which is what I was referring to) is 10 right. HALF of Sampras. He’s been in the semis or better for 5 YEARS.

Anyway, it seems the debate is endless. You can kill the GOAT if you want – your choice. You can begrudge the way the draws work out – your choice. I hope in the end you can actually sit back, relax and watch some great tennis – whoever might be playing. :-)


Dan Martin Says:

Zola,

I think the math idea is a bit nuts as well. I think Federer and Sampras can be more easily compared to one another than to Laver due to the proximity and brief overlap of their careers. Still, the new strings, slower grass courts, etc. make it less than straight forward. Both guys playing most or all of their careers after 1990 helps due to the Super 9/Masters Series/1000 Series events being of a shared importance in their careers. Still, I think until Federer retires it is hard to compare a full body of work to one in progress. I have views on who is better between those two. However, my views are a little different than they were when i wrote on the topic back in my 411mania.com days. Also, my interest in the question has waned some since those days as well.


zola Says:

Dan,

***I think Federer and Sampras can be more easily compared to one another than to Laver due to the proximity and brief overlap of their careers.****

I think because this is the easiest comparison, it has to be the starting point, because you do not have as many parameters. Once this can be solved, I think we can work out from there to include other players.

I think instead of endless discussions, this is a constructive way to maybe solve a long-time debate.


Von Says:

Scottish:

“Anyway, it seems the debate is endless. You can kill the GOAT if you want – your choice.”

Thanks for replying, and giving me the option to kill the ‘GOAT’; you’re very kind. How would you suggest I kill the “GOAT”, with a bow and arrow? LOL. I couldn’t resist that one, and I’ll most certainly practice and practice on how best to kill the ‘GOAT’ that horned animal. ha, ha.

“You can begrudge the way the draws work out – your choice. I hope in the end you can actually sit back, relax and watch some great tennis – whoever might be playing. :-)’

You have no idea of how I’d love to unscramble the draws, but that’s wishful thinking. I watch tennis every day and even subscribe to the Tennis Channel. Even though all of my faves are out of the FO, I’m still avidly watching and posting, and that’s how much I love tennis.

BTW, I take it you’re new here, since I’ve not seen you posting before. If so, a hearty WELCOME to you and I look forward to interacting with you outside of the GS tournaments. For me, tennis is an all-year sport, and the cycle is never-ending. Cheers and thanks.


Scottish Says:

Yeah Von, new on here. Been following tennis casually for 10 years or so now but more closely since Wimby last year. I really don’t have any fav players other than Nadal and Fed because to me they are light years ahead of the rest of the crew. But all in all I enjoy tennis if the match is a good, close one. I enjoy the banter here and it seems clean which I am interested in. Some blogs I have read, people are just vulgar and rude. A little sarcasm and humour is fun but some people take it way too personal. After all it’s just an opinion. See ya around!


Von Says:

Zola:

You’re welcome, and thanks re: Andy Roddick. If that young man only knew how much grief I’ve gone through for him, I’d think he owes me some mucho dollars. LOL. I’ve never had to argue one moment for my kids. WOW. I’ll just say c’est la vie to what has gone before between us, and can only hope that our situation will be more cordial in the future. Cheers.


Scottish Says:

Hey Von, we could also call it the BOAT – “Best” and you could sink it. LOL


Fedfan Says:

Do you really believe Sampras had the ability to reach 30 consecutive slam semis, or 10 consecutive slam finals? Not even close. Because he was so miserable on clay. How can anyone be GOAT, if they are so miserable on one surface?


zola Says:

Scottish
I love the “BOAT”!

Von,
c’est la vie.!
and Cheers to Rafa and Andy!


Fedfan Says:

Nobody ever criticised Sampras for being so miserable at the French Open. He was so often a loser in the first or second rounds. 24-13 lifetime (so he won less than 2 matches on average before losing at the FO). How can anyone even THINK of him as a goat, his record being SO bad in one of the slams?


Kimmi Says:

Who would have thought Federer would be in this position at French open this year – the way he was struggling for the last 3 months ? This shows you how unpredictable this sport is. Good to see how he did not lose the belief, now he has a great chance of winning a tournament many people predicted he will not. I hope he relax and play his best tennis when it counts.


Von Says:

Scottish:

“Hey Von, we could also call it the BOAT – “Best” and you could sink it. LOL”

I’d have to find the same iceberg which caused the Titanic to sink, and that’s too much work, or I’d have to load up the boat way past the plimsoll line, and that might do the trick. LOL. Are you suggesting I put Federer and Sampras in the boat too? Nah, I’ll just settle to bow and arrow the GOAT.

Hey, you’ve got a sense of humor, I like that. I come here for laughs, but sometimes ??? ….


Scottish Says:

Got have a sense of humour or else the world is pretty dull. I wear bright orange too and my office has orange walls. LOL


Von Says:

Fedfan:

No one is saying Sampras is the GOAT. I think most people are saying there isn’t a ‘GOAT’ period. And, we all know clay was not Sampras’ forte.


FoT Says:

Kimmi – I agree with you. Earlier in the year so many people were ready to write Roger off…saying he’s too old, he won’t do anything in the slams anymore, the young guns have taken over, etc. Tennis can change in a heartbeat. I don’t know what the rest of the tournament will bring, but I am proud of what Roger has done so far. With all the trouble he had earlier – to keep that SF grand slam streak in tack is just amazing (particularly for an old man) *wink*…lol

So I hope Roger continues to move forward in the draw and take care of business on Friday. Some people thought Monfils would be a hard task and the others easy. Well, Monfils match turned out to be easier than some anticipated so anything can happen. Those who are not giving Del Portro a chance need to just see what has happened in this tournament so far – it has been very unpredictable. So Roger definitely can not take this guy lightly.

I also remember when Del Portro lost earlier in the year really badly, people were writing him off. When Rafa was winning everything earlier, some were saying he would win all the majors. What I’m saying is that we shouldn’t have that “what has he done for me lately” attitude because players can get hot anytime, any tournament and can change their season around, even when most fans think they are ‘down and out’.


Scottish Says:

FoT: Yeah Roger still has a long way to go here and nothing is in the bag. I am still nervous for him althogh at least today he stepped up a bit and took more control. He needs to play better though to beat DelPo.


FoT Says:

Scottish, I don’t think Del Potro matches up well with Roger (or at least he hasn’t in the past) because Roger loves to bring Del Potro up to the net and he’s not a good mover up-to-front. So if Roger plays the way he has played against Del Potro before – hopefully it’ll be enough to get him through.

But I agree – he has to play better and hopefully he will.

Well, I’m signing off for the night.

Good night everyone! And Von… don’t pick on me tonight! lol! I’ve noticed that no matter what I write, Von has something negative to say. lol!

Good night Von! *smile*


Von Says:

FoT;

“Good night everyone! And Von… don’t pick on me tonight! lol! I’ve noticed that no matter what I write, Von has something negative to say. lol!

Good night Von! *smile*”

How many times have you posted here? I’ve only rebutted your comments 3 times in all of that time, and it was only during this FO, so I think you’re kinda exaggerating, don’t you think? The times I’ve rebutted are: (1) Concerning your remarks that people should “leave Federer alone”, (2) your statement with respect to Roddick’s win over Jouan, and (3) MonFils draw and his weak competition.

“I’ve noticed that no matter what I write, Von has something negative to say.”

Outside of those three (3) occasions I’ve mentioned above, would you care to elaborate on your “no matter what I write, Von has something negative to say” statement, because since my last remark to you on MonFils, where you were putting him down on his competition, I believe you’ve posted several times since, and I’ve not once said anything more.

Anyway, Good night and thanks for the *smile*, and a *smile* in return.


Kimmi Says:

Exactly FoT. Fingers crossed for Fed.
Talking about Del Potro, this guy has proven so many people wrong. He has shown so much dedication, hard work and resilient. I am sure good more things will happen to him. I am glad his ranking is getting stronger, by reaching semi here – he is separating himself from # 6, he will now have a breather.


Tom Foober Says:

Del Potro over Federer? Who thinks it could happen?

I sure as heck don’t but I do think Gonzalez can beat Federer. It reminds of times in tennis when the outcome looked so obvious and….

BOOM!!!! Something we never saw coming happens. Like when Chang won, who saw that coming over Edberg, come on!


Tom Foober Says:

Soderlings magic runs out against Fernando I think

If not, well then godspeed to the Swede!


grendel Says:

The GOAT thing is really, in my mind, an emotional issue, and therefore can never be resolved. Some people are partial to the idea, others are not. But if you think a tennis GOAT is over the top, how about Frew Macmillan – he reckons Don Bradman is the GOAT in ALL sport.

This raises an interesting question. Could one, logically, invalidate the idea of a tennis GOAT whilst accepting the idea of an overall sports GOAT? Whatever you think, Macmillan’s notion is not as preposterous as it seems. Bradman’s batting average was so overwhelmingly higher than anybody elses’ – the equivalent in tennis terms might be winning 30 grand slams – that not only is it utterly freakish, but one can be almost certain that it will never be overtaken.

Still, these are questions really to ponder over a pint, not to be taken too seriously.


Cindy_Brady Says:

If Federer wins Roland Garros and Wimbledon, the Sampras GOAT people will suddenly be running for the hills and the Fed GOAT alumni will be coming out of the wood work.

I think I’m gonna puke!!


Tom Foober Says:

Cindy_Brady

Don’t bragg on yourself too much and the puking part I can do with out.

You made a good point. Fed can put the G.o.a.t. talk to bed with a few more majors.


Ryan Says:

If federer wins the french then i would say that he is the GOAT. Coz lets face it…mens tennis comes down to the slams. Thats the ultimate challenge.All the other figures about how much they won on one surface or how long they were number 1 or watever just serves as the means to ultimately get wat all the players want to get……that is to win the slams.So I feel slams are the ultimate measure of success in mens tennis and wen we take that into consideration fed has better credentials than sampras. So hence fed could be the GOAT.


Edward Says:

when everything is taken into consideration, it really is not possible for there to be an all-time greatest.
there are too many factors that shift and evolve over time. Is “Titanic” the highest-grossing film of all time, or is it “Gone With the Wind” when the earnings are adjusted for inflation?
also, each of the great players of the game has achieved something that the other has not and will not.


Ryan Says:

As for the different eras all i gotta say is that its only getting tougher.Even laver himself had said that winning a grand slam now it obviously much tougher than wen he did it. Wen he won the Grand Slam 3 out of 4 tournaments were grass and plus the fitness and other physical factors that were required to stay at the top were much lesser than today. So as time goes by tennis is only gettin tougher and that makes wat fed has done even more difficult compared to laver’s or borg’s era.


Ryan Says:

Until now even the anti feds were like….until fed wins the french he wont be the GOAT…. coz they knew that he wont win it as long as nadal is around. Now that they see there is a possibility that he could do it….they have started to question the whole idea of GOAT itself. Its funny….


jane Says:

“So I feel slams are the ultimate measure of success in mens tennis” But don’t forget that greats like J.Mac and Borg didn’t play the AO so couldn’t have collected as many titles as some of the later players. As Edward said, and others have said… it can’t be resolved.


jane Says:

I’ve questioned the idea of GOAT since the first day I posted here and make the same comments every time it comes up. It has absolutely nothing to do with Nadal losing at the French. Well, it does insofar as many people are ready to “declare” Fed is the GOAT. Maybe even some tennis insiders. Good money in all that marketing you know. Good hype for tennis. You can see the reasoning behind it. Anyhow, people will believe what they believe regardless of reasoning sometimes, and so be it. We’re all entitled to our opinions. GOAT believers and unbelievers alike.


Ryan Says:

Well if borg or mcenroe didnt play the AO then thats their loss. Its not as if the AO wasnt considered to be slam coz laver won it back in the day and it was still considered a slam.Yes they mite not have played to set records which is true. But anyway there is no official GOAT….its upto the individual to decide.There mite be people who even declare soderling as the GOAT coz he beat the unbeatable.


Ryan Says:

“I’ve questioned the idea of GOAT since the first day I posted here and make the same comments every time it comes up. It has absolutely nothing to do with Nadal losing at the French”

Jane, ur not included.


Twocents Says:

Oops, looks like my Waterford crystall ball was replaced with a Walmart glass ball made in China, by Sean.

I stick to my Gonzo over Sod call, though. And I’m holding of flight reservation to RG till after men’s semi.

La Monf gave it his all. Both him and Fed were feeling too much pressure. Fed was the more experienced and lucky one. Monf played a good first set and fought back in the 3rd, but he’s no way near his top form. Mental thing can only carry you so far. Fitness matters most, imho. monf should havecalled MTO before end of 2nd set. As grendel pointed, it was a disappointing display from Fed, again.


Edward Says:

Von, you commented: “Didn’t Ancic beat Federer at Wimbledon a few years ago? That’s similar to Soderling beating Nadal last week”

not at all the same thing. not even close. Ancic beat him in 2002 before he began dominating the sport. Rafa, the world number one was aiming for a Roland Garros record of five in a row and lost to the 25th ranked player in the fourth round of his most successful slam tournament. this was a colossal upset. one would have bet on at least a finals appearance.
there have always been solid players looking for the opportunity to break through. there are no easy draws. never have been.


zola Says:

Ryan
****
Until now even the anti feds were like….until fed wins the french he wont be the GOAT…. coz they knew that he wont win it as long as nadal is around. Now that they see there is a possibility that he could do it….they have started to question the whole idea of GOAT itself. Its funny….
****

when Fed was in trouble some people used the GOAT argument against him. saying he will never be the GOAT. I wrote at that time , here and other places, that it was a joke. it is an impossible task. And regardless of Fed winning a FO or not, he is one of the greatest of all times, becsue of everything else he has achieved.

A couple of years ago I had a lengthy discussion with another fed fan, a very nice one, that lasted a few days. we actually tried to find a way to compare the players from different eras and we were convinced that it was not very easy. I

Now Dan is (hopefully) going to write about it and we will have lots of time for discussion .


zola Says:

grendel

*******
This raises an interesting question. Could one, logically, invalidate the idea of a tennis GOAT whilst accepting the idea of an overall sports GOAT?
***********

nope! still against it. This is apples and oranges mixed with cherries, blueberies watermelons, bananas, you name it!


Mina Says:

“But don’t forget that greats like J.Mac and Borg didn’t play the AO so couldn’t have collected as many titles as some of the later players. As Edward said, and others have said… it can’t be resolved.”

Which brings up another additional point – had Borg played the AO and gone deep, would it have made it harder for him to achieve the multiple back-to-back FOs & Wimbledons? We see historically how it’s almost virtually impossible to win the AO, FO, and Wimbledon 3-pack all in one year. Some players, like McEnroe, opted to not play the AO in order to have a longer off season to rest up or devote more time to training for the rest of the season and the final 3 Slams. Obviously, he did so because he felt this game him an edge and he’s even acknowledged this in interviews.

Which doesn’t really resolve the GOAT debate either way and in fact, probably adds more ammunition to the side that says that there isn’t a single GOAT in tennis.


Twocents Says:

Oops, my Waterford crystal ball was replaced by a Walmart glass ball (made in China), by Sean, I guess. LOL…

Good call again, Sean. But I stick to my Gonzo over Sod pick. And I’m holding off flight reservation to Paris till my man passed JMDP. Again, H2H btw JMDP and Fed is misleading. JMDP is only 20! And he sure has taken a page out of Rafa book: piling up compliments to Fed off court.

Here’s my share of armchair hindsight on this QF:
Dear La Monf, please fire Rasheed and hire Uncle Toni! Rumours had it since Miami that Rafa wanted to dump his dear uncle. Part of Rafa’s recent un-Rafa moodiness.

While I highly respect and applaud Monf’s respect towards the game and the Fed, he should have kept it off court, just like Rafa. If I were in Monf’s coaching team, I’d put down an order, not an instruction, before the match: “Call MTO when you lose 1st set. Demand it if you have to.” This may not change the end result. But that’s the best thing he could have done. Monf played a hell of 1st set and lost it, and he let Fed turned it around from it. Fast backward to 2007 Wimbledon final 1st set, Rafa waited, until Fed almost sat down thinking he just broke Rafa, he challenged the call. And they went to tie break. Fed was visibly unraveled. Everyone in tennis world knows Fed hated HES. Well, Rafa still lost 2007 WO. But who would sya it did not help his 2008 confidence?! I can’t help thinking it would not have gone to the 5th, had Rafa not irritated the TMF so much with all the calculated HES calls. Call it gamesmanship or not, this is professional tennis we are talking about, not country club competitions. HES, MTO, and backhand (and fitness, lately) are Fed’s weak spots. Opponents have every right to attack his weak spots to win. Well, my mind is for win, but my heart is for fair play…

And to SOME, not all, of Fed fans, please celebrate Fed’s 20 consecutive runs into slam semi as much as you could, and deservingly. But for god’s sake, stop right there! Fed’s still one match away from just KEEPING his 2008 FO points! You are creating pressure on Fed, just like the media you all disdain, by all this GOAT talk.


sensationalsafin Says:

Does it really matter if Fed’s the GOAT or not? I mean, should he win the French, break Sampras’s record, etc etc, I’m sure everyone’s simply going to praise him for being such an outstanding player and accomplishing these amazing feats. But, for those of you in the US listening to the McEnroes, Drysdale, Gilbert, Cahill, Robinson, etc, they’re all going to be praising Fed and proclaiming him the God of Tennis if he wins the French. I can see it now, at Wimbledon. Johnny Mac is going to go on and on about how great Federer is and how perfect it is he tied Sampras’s record at the French and has a golden opportunity to break the record at Wimbledon or maybe the US Open. McEnroe, Laver, Haas, Del Potro, all these players, past and present, attempt to proclaim Fed the GOAT. For Haas and especially Murray, beating Fed or losing close matches to him makes it that much more significant if he’s the “GOAT”. But for Laver and McEnroe to say it, what’s their motivation. It’s simple, they know what it takes. They know how much work Federer puts in to do everything he does. McEnroe has stated on several occasions that when he was on top he would pride himself in never putting in any hours at the gym or anything like that and still being so good. Yet he acknowledges how no player could possibly get away with that in today’s game. Von, you’re always bitching about the draw. You criticize the top players for having easy opponents in the early rounds. Well why don’t you criticize the opponents for being too easy. Acasusco showed he’s capable of playing some great tennis. It’s up to him to become more fit, to become mentally tougher, and to maintain a consistently high level of play in order to close out Federer or whoever else. Why is it Federer’s fault? They’re all tennis players. He’s just pushed himself harder to become as good as he can be. And if he know gets to play easier opponents in the early rounds, then that’s just another reward he’s earned. When he started, he was in the same boat as everyone else. He’s worked hard for his ranking and top status. And I don’t understand why anyone would want to see number 4 and number 1 play in the first or second round. That’s just stupid. And if you really think tough early matches would make them lose before they’d go deep, which is basically saying they’re worse than the rest of the field, then how did they do it before they were ranked 1 and 2 and 4 and so on. It’s not like Nadal got to number 1 or even 2 without having won a single title or slam or anything. He was 3 or 4 when he won his first French wasn’t he? And he wasn’t ranked that high when he started that clay season and won all the masters. Way back when with the 16 seeds system, yeah it allowed for more challenging early matches but how deep was the field back then really? We have a “Big Four” right now, even though I’d say it’s a “Big Five”, yet you still have so many other players out there who are legitimate title contenders and some slam champions. All this talk about weak competition and weak this and fixed draws that. Why doesn’t John McEnroe ever say, “If all my opponents were as bad as Federer’s then I’d easily have 13 slams, too”? Because he knows how much work Fed’s put in and how much work he has to continue to put in to have the amazing results he’s had.


Edward Says:

one can consider that Federer’s 2006 season is perhaps the best season of any player since Laver in 1969.

I wonder if the Spanish are calling Soderling “joder-ling”


Edward Says:

correction – it IS the best season of any player since Laver.


grendel Says:

This topic will never go away, because many people are disposed to the idea of GOAT on emotional grounds. Even some who dislike it now. The caste list will just change, that’s all.

Much more reasonable, it seems to me, is the bar room opinion of this sort:”He’s the best I ever saw”. “Oh, really,” someone might reply.”well, as it happens, I reckon so and so is”. Of course this limits you to your own time span. Only very few, these days, can go back to Laver.

But I think it is natural to feel so and so is, when flying, the best you’ve seen.
You may be utterly convinced that noone could ever have been better. But that must remain a private feeling.


TejuZ Says:

well… everybody are entitled to their opinion abt the GOAT. Its not as though fed will be given an award saying hez best of all time. if the majority feels hes the GOAT, he is GOAT in their eyes.. for others he isnt. No use arguing abt it.

But regarding the draw being easy for top players… its so absurd to even think of pitting No 1,2,3,4 against each other in round 1 or 2 .. what are you trying to achieve here?? Well.. As per the seedings.. Anybody in top 32 will not face each other till the 3rd round… but those 32 can randomly play anybody between 32 and 108. Similarly top 16 guys can be pitted against anybody between 17 and 32 in 3rd round. So it doesnt mean No 1 will face No 32.. he could face No 17 in the 3rd round.

If somebody are wishing No 1, 2, 3 and 4 has face each other in early rounds.. that means their fav is probably not one of them :-)


sam Says:

Well said Tejuz……….


zola Says:

Mina

****
had Borg played the AO and gone deep, would it have made it harder for him to achieve the multiple back-to-back FOs & Wimbledons? We see historically how it’s almost virtually impossible to win the AO, FO, and Wimbledon 3-pack all in one year.
****

great point.
I am not sure how many mandatory matches they had to play compared to 8 master series and 4 GSs that the player have to play now.


Cindy_Brady Says:

I consider the soderling upset of Nadal the biggest upset in tennis history. Passing Ashe over connors in 75.

No one saw this coming. Soderling was trounced by Nadal a couple months earlier on red clay. There was no reason to believe anything would be different.

Back to the GOAT argument.

Grand slam wins are the true measure of a professional tennis player’s career. The best compete against the best under the most pressure packed of circumstances. The player that seems to emerge at the top all the time is Federer (20 semis in a row is mind boggling) against all styles of play on different surfaces.

Should he emerge with the FO crown and another Wimbledon or US open title, the debate will be put to rest. He will have acquired more grand slam wins, final and semi-final appearances than anyone else.

IMO, Sampras and Federer are equal on grass and hard courts. What separates the two is clay. Federer’s game is clearly better. Let’s not forget that the only meeting between the two was at Wimbledon, on grass, Sampras’s best surface and Federer won at age 19.

Federer not only by winning the FO and besting the 14 grand slam mark of Sampras leaves no room for the Sampras fans to go. He accomplished more. Federer is the GOAT.

No disrespect to Rod Laver but the competition was not nearly as talented or deep. He never played hard courts either. Not his fault but clearly a weakness on his resume for GOAT. Throw a Nadal on him at the FO or a Pete or Roger on him at Wimbledon. Would he have won a grand slam. I think not.

Federer is and is going to be regarded as the best to have ever played when it is all said and done.


sensationalsafin Says:

Comparing Federer and Sampras is kinda hard. It’s not their fault they only played two tournaments on grass a year. But their dominance is pretty even. I mean Federer would still need to win a few more Wimbledons and you could say they’re clearly equal.

As for hardcourts, Federer is the best hardcourt player ever. Sampras doesn’t even come close. Federer has made 5 straight semis at the AO, winning 3 and making 1 other final. Sampras won 2 AO’s in 14 years. Federer owns the US Open winning 5 straight. Sampras won 5 over his career but never 5 straight. And outside the slams, Federer has no equal. 56 straight matches. I think 10 of his MS are hardcourt. When Federer was dominating, he was untouchable on the hardcourts. Sampras was still prone to upsets. You couldn’t count on Sampras to win all his matches the way you could with Federer. He’s the most accomplished hardcourter of all time. Statistically speaking, of course.


sensationalsafin Says:

And I agree Soderling beating Nadal is the biggest upset of all time. Maybe it’s hard to fully grasp since it just happend, but considering EVERYTHING, Soderling had absolutely no business beating Nadal. I expected Nadal to win 6-2 6-2 6-3 maybe. Maybe worse, maybe better. But losing in 4 sets, not even in 5, but 4 sets. And despite the tiebreakers, Soderling was very dominant in that 4th set. Nadal, undefeated at RG, number 1 in the world, holder of 3/4 slams, lost one match (in a final) on clay all year, has like a 1000-5 career record on clay, beat Soderling 6-1 6-0 last time they met on clay about 3 weeks ago. Soderling… I think he had a losing record for the year coming into the FO. Last time he pushed Nadal was 07 Wimbledon, on grass. No way he should’ve beat Nadal or even come close. Plus Soderling is known to be better on fast surfaces. Can anyone imagine Davydenko beating Federer at Wimbledon? Yeah, it’s something like that.


scineram Says:

“Throw a Nadal on him at the FO or a Pete or Roger on him at Wimbledon.”

With wood?


Cindy_Brady Says:

scineram,

Borg played with wood and generated wicked top spin.

Good players can play with broom sticks. Yes, Nadal would still beat Laver with a wood racket. Sampras and Federer would still be more than a match for Laver at Wimbledon.

Don’t kid yourself.


TejuZ Says:

sensationalsafin Said:”Federer has made 5 straight semis at the AO, winning 3 and making 1 other final.”

Its 6 semi-finals in a row.. where he won 3 AO and 1 Runner Up.


sensationalsafin Says:

My bad. But that strengthens my argument if anything.


jane Says:

“But for Laver and McEnroe to say it, what’s their motivation”

Good question sensationalsafin. In my opinion their motivation is to promote the sport of tennis, which is something you hear Mac talking about a lot. Fed, in breaking records, brings attention to tennis. And at parties and whatnot, I’ve heard people say, oh I stopped watching tennis after Borg, or Sampras, but I’ve started watching again because of Fed and Nadal’s rivalry or some such. You see, these sorts of accolades reach the wider populace. Just like everyone and their dog knows who Tiger Woods is, whether they know what a putter is or not, people know about Federer and Nadal now. It’s good for tennis! And you know I say this as someone who wants a little more change, so I am not being biased here. Of course Mac and Laver, et al, know what Fed has accomplished and have great admiration for him, how could they not? He’s done so much in tennis! He’s one of the greatest, no doubt.


Von Says:

“Von, you’re always bitching about the draw. You criticize the top players for having easy opponents in the early rounds. Well why don’t you criticize the opponents for being too easy.”

I’m not the only one, but I post here frequently and am picked out, especially by most of the FEDERER fans, who are are a clique. I do state that some of the opponents are too soft and they ‘choke’ when they face Federer, which i think is ridiculous. he’s just a man, and an athlete like the other players, hence, I don’t understand why they don’t put up more of a fight, instead of handing him the wins on a platter, trimmed with wrappings. It’s now the order of the threads, that when one of you target a poster, who you deem to anti-Federer, the others will follow suit, embellish and turn the topic into a massacre. That poster becomes a target from there on.

Look at the threads and you’ll see that there are many who complain about the easy draws; especially for the FO. The writer of this article mentions it all of the time and none complain about his thoughts on the draws. Several tennis analysts talked about Federer’s easy draws and it was mentioned by several posters repeatedly.
I didn’t start it, only when Roddick’s draw was pointed out to me as being in Federer’s side of the draw. I eventually added my two bits worth, then I read I needed to have my ‘brain examined’.

What I’ve noticed here, some have a comprehension problem, and misinterpret what’s written, and that’s not my problem, it’s theirs. But, it’s wrong to gang up on anyone just because they have an opinion different from those of you. With Federer fans it’s only about them, and no one else has a right to say anything. I’d like to know why so many of you who only show up when things are all fine and dandy with him, don’t post during the bad times. I know the answer, you don’t have anything to brag about, which places you all on equal footing with the other posters who keep these threads going in your absence. You show up in the fair weather and move in for the kill, bulldozing everyone else out of the way. Enjoy the ride.

I never said I wanted No. 1 to play against No. 2, I said I’d like to see a ‘pot luck’ draw for once, and I’d like to see fairer competition, where the top seeds are challenged more. And, when I say top seeds, I mean the “top ten” and the player I support is in the top ten, so what’s wrong with that. I’d like to see if that kind of scenario were to take place how it would all turn out. However, that was misinterpreted and now it’s the interpretation of “If somebody are wishing No 1, 2, 3 and 4 has face each other in early rounds.. that means their fave is probably not one of them.” And, we have another Fed fan saying: “well said”. Have it your twisted way and interpret it whichever you want, that’s your problem not mine.

Additionally, some are HUGE exaggerators, anything said is ‘always’. Mention something anything a few times and it becomes “always”, or a “series” of comments. Lord help us.

What’s needed when Federer fans are posting en masse is for a non-Fed to be a conformist, (and there are some who do that very well, but I’m not one), agree with them on everything and drench Federer with accolades. OK you want agreement and accolades, here goes:

“Federer is the most magnificent, balletic tennis player I’ve ever set eyes upon. He’s the one and only GOAT, and there will never be anyone like him again. He has destroyed every single record, even those of the ball boys and umpires, and will continue to do so for eternity.” Now that, and $2.50 will get him and each of you a ride on the bus.


Von Says:

“sensationalsafin Said:”Federer has made 5 straight semis at the AO, winning 3 and making 1 other final.”

“Its 6 semi-finals in a row.. where he won 3 AO and 1 Runner Up.”

“My bad. But that strengthens my argument if anything.”

LOL, you guys thrive on these stats and can’t seem to get enough of them — you’re insatiable. I have a suggestion, why not have a template typed up with Federer’s resume on these threads, and then keep adding to the stats each time he hits another SF or QF or whatever. Also, you need to have one ready for his losses too. Let’s see the good with the bad now. LOL.


jane Says:

” I’d like to see if that kind of scenario were to take place how it would all turn out. ”

I think this would be interesting too. The top seeds, and most of my faves are in the top ten too, do seem to be somewhat protected by the seeded draws. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the names were thrown into the air and placed on a drawsheet where they land. Would the cream still rise to the top? Similarly, even the rolling rankings help to protect the top guys to a degree. Yes, they do have to defend points, but for players who’ve won slams recently, they have that “cushion” of points that carries them when they aren’t playing their absolute best. And that goes for all of them, not only 1 or 2.

Von, you make a interesting point about us posters who stick around even when are favorites are not winning just to talk about tennis and all of the players. It’s amazing how many new posters have shown up in the last two weeks, since Madrid, who prior to that, during the clay season, were nowhere to be seen. We post all year. Maybe we should get some accolades from Tennis X? LOL. Maybe a gold watch or something. Or $2.50 for a bus ride? Ha.


sensationalsafin Says:

How is players choking against Federer the fault of the draw or anyone else besides these players? Yeah it’s ridiculous but he’s not JUST a man. He’s one of the greatest tennis players ever. And he’s worked his ass off to have people tremble when they play him or hear his name. How is it Federer’s fault or the draw people’s fault that Tommy Haas is one of the greatest chokers in today’s game? I’m starting to get the sense you’ve never played competitive tennis. Federer could have 2 slams against Haas. If he holds that winning record, 8-2 or whatever, then when Haas does gain a lead no matter how great, he’s gonna feel the pressure of finally beating this guy who always beats him. Pro or not, everyone feels pressure.

The idea that the draw is too easy and blah blah blah is ridiculous. Right now, no matter how easy the draw is on paper, any draw is tough for Federer. And on paper, any draw on clay is easy for Nadal. Yet Fed’s through and Nadal’s out. Tennis isn’t about the draw, it’s about the day.


sensationalsafin Says:

Fed’s resume is on wikipedia. Saying the stats mean nothing is just as ridiculous as saying they mean everything. When it comes to Federer’s semifinal against Del Potro on Friday, the stats mean nothing. The only stat that might play on Del Po’s head is his 0-5 record against TMF. But when you’re looking at someone’s career as a whole, you’re not going to focus on his good and bad days, you’re going to see his results. The QFs, SFs, Fs, wins, losses, titles, prize money, etc.


Von Says:

How come you weren’t posting when he was losing? I know the answer, you’ve stated it: “because it hurts too much”. So now he’s winning, your big mouth is opened up along with the others who couldn’t stand the hurts and you’re yapping non-stop. pathetic.

“Fed’s resume is on wikipedia. Saying the stats mean nothing is just as ridiculous as saying they mean everything.”

I wouldn’t know about wikipedia, because AI NEVER use it, due to its facts being flawed.

Who said the stats don’t mean anything? is that your misguided interpretation? Ah, comprehension again, I get it.

For you everyone who doesn’t conform to your thinking is talking ‘BS, pathetic, stupid, whatevah!!!! I’m not going to bother with you because I know you’re just a kid, and that’s how kids talk, but you need to inject more rational thinking into your comments and stop being so bellicose every time someone says anything you don’t want to hear. Bye.


Von Says:

“Right now, no matter how easy the draw is on paper, any draw is tough for Federer.”

Well that’s his problem isn’t it? And too darn bad for him! Poor baby.


jane Says:

JMDP means Juan Martin Del Potro. What does TMF mean?


sensationalsafin Says:

I wasn’t posting when he was losing because it gets boring after a while. I’m too lazy to type it all out and explain why I think he lost. Quite frankly it’s not a big deal. I don’t have to see Federer win all the time. I definitely want him to win right now, that’s for sure. But in the Masters when he’s losing to Djokovic or Murray, my only complaint was the way he did it. If it’s a great match then I don’t mind as much if either one of them wins. I like Djokovic and Murray a lot and once Fed wins his 15th slam, I’ll stop rooting for him. I’ve said that before. I want Djokovic and Murray to win multiple slams, too. Hell, I don’t like Nadal but he sure does know how to play a great match.

Von, you criticize me and other Fed fans for giving him so much praise. In my view, he deserves it. He’s worked hard and achieved a lot. My problem with you is that you try to undermine all of that. The top players aren’t challenged enough, players choke, they’re just human, blah blah blah. I’ve played competitive tennis, I know how much work needs to be put in to have good results. It’s easy to say oh he’s going to win because he’s better and whatnot. But imagine, just for a second, playing a full match against a player of equal caliber. The thought is actually scary. You have to bust your ass no matter who you face. I don’t really understand why you can’t grasp this idea. Your favorite player, Roddick, happens to have natural short comings that he’s busted his ass to overcome. His best year was 2003, 6 years later he posts his best FO result. Every year since about 06 he’s seemed to have made incredible progress that makes him better and better. And yeah, it sucks when he’s completely outplayed by someone who’s just naturally better. But Roddick’s posted some wins over Monfils this year and it’s because he worked damn hard to do it. I’ll make fun of Roddick’s choppy technique and his limited abilities, but I can’t undermine all the work he’s put in to become a much better player than he was naturally born. Federer’s lucky in that he was born with so much talent. But talent alone won’t get you anywhere. Just ask Safin, Monfils, Murray, Berdych, Gasquet, Baghdatis, Nalbandian, etc. They have to put in the work. This isn’t just directed at you Von. I don’t see how people can allow themselves to say someone has an easy draw or this and that is set up and easy and blah blah blah. It’s ridiculous.


sensationalsafin Says:

I think it means The Mighty Federer.


jane Says:

Where’d TMF come from? I’ve seen it before but have never asked what it meant; seeing it alongside JMDP made me think it might have something to do with Fed’s name. But it sounds like another press term.


sensationalsafin Says:

I think Peter Bodo made it up. I see it on his blog all the time.


Von Says:

“This isn’t just directed at you Von. I don’t see how people can allow themselves to say someone has an easy draw or this and that is set up and easy and blah blah blah. It’s ridiculous.”

Then speak to everyone and don’t single me out, and don’t tell me I’m always bitching. Do you know the meaning of bitching? Here’s the dictionary meaning:

“3. Slang. a. a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.
b. a lewd woman.”

I don’t think I meet those requirements. Again, this can only come from a kid, who is generalized in his thinking and uses slang. Don’t tell me I’m always bitching, I don’t like it.

As I’ve stated, I’m not the only one who talks about the draws, even the professional writers do, so don’t single me out. It’s ridiculous, and disrespectful to tell me I’m bitching. Would you like me to call you a foul-mouthed brat? This is how name calling begins.


grendel Says:

Von says, Fed fans are a clique. No, they aren’t. They have nothing in common with each other, they do not combine in any remotely concerted fashion. although Von, on the other hand, is constantly seeking allies, reassurance, etc.

on all sites, you get regulars, and what you might call seasonals. trust Von to make a non-existent conspiracy of it.

Few, if any, Fed fans, are as obsessively protective about federer as Von is about Roddick. Some of us who are fed fans endeavour to be objective. That is not easy, and one never quite gets it right, but at least one tries. I don’t get the least impression that Von is interested in truth except insofar as it serves her cause.

Most Federer fans just like to express their appreciation. It’s a fairly harmless pursuit, and many of them, I think, are bewildered by the sheer animosity ranged against them. I am different, I am aware of that, and Von can throw as many brickbats at me as she likes, but the way she goes for the other Fed fans, as for a while she went for Djokovic fans, and for another while Nadal fans (you wonder who will be next) is hectoring beyond any acceptable norm, imo. It is just so out of proportion that I would imagine most of them have no idea what she’s on about.

the easy draw thing, on which Von obsesses, is pure grist to the mill of the conspiracy theorist, which is exactly what Von is. There is no ideal solution to the question of draws which, in the nature of things, are sometimes lopsided. That’s how it goes and, like many things is unfortunate but not obviously remediable. A calm discussion is fine. that’s not what you get from Von.

Von imagines I enjoy having a go at her. She implies bizarre things like I get sexual gratification from doing it. It’s a clever way of getting you to shut up, and Von is all for shutting inconvenient people up. I know nothing of Von and care nothing. But she puts up,on a public forum, and in an incredibly hostile tone, all kinds of slurs and absurdities. Not all the time, no. She is a clever and knowledgeable poster, and has interesting things to say. But she does it a lot, and my belief is that people are frightened of her and wish to avoid unpleasant confrontation. Since this is a public forum, insofar as Von deliberately traduces people, I will, stamina permitting, point this out. Just because it is public. If the organisers of the site don’t like that, they are welcome to ban me. I won’t protest. I don’t want to post on a site where bullying gets passed over in silence.


Von Says:

ROTFL — this is hilarious!!!!!!~! I’ve had my laughs for the day and we now have a Psychiatrist and a patient. LOL. LOL. Just what this site needed!! I can’t help laughing this is so funny. OMG this is unbelievably funny from where I sit.


Von Says:

A book and a bouquet of flowers for the story-teller.


jane Says:

“They have nothing in common with each other, they do not combine in any remotely concerted fashion.” grendel I think you’re overstating your case here.

They have nothing in common? Fed fans do have something in common: The all support and love Fed. And that’s the common denominator to which I believe Von was referring.

And she’s right, too, that many of the posters who are posting now were not posting while Fed was having a rough patch, but have now resurfaced to sing his praises. And I suppose this is fair enough; it feels good when your guy/gal/team is winning. Some, however, have made it a special point to knock other players in the process, and to overshadow other players accomplishments, (i.e., Nadal hasn’t done this, Sampras never did that) which I find distasteful and kind of play-ground-ish. I also hate all this GOAT blather but have to suck it up I suppose. Or make my rants in the process by way of venting against the media hype at large. “Fight the Power!”

Finally, it is a little strange for us “regulars” to suddenly be outnumbered by droves of fans who’ve not been around in a long while. You probably remember this as you used to post more regularly yourself. Well, we have fairly interesting and on-going conversations here about tennis matches, players, history, match ups, rules and so on. In this, regs like MMT, Voicemale1, zola, Von, Twocents, Kimmi, blah and others always contribute and have lots to say on these various matters throughout the season. And some of the new and returned posters have lots to contribute as well. But there is little doubt the dynamic has shifted kind of dramatically.


sensationalsafin Says:

I’m sooooo confused. What dynamic?


Von Says:

I suppose it’s around 7:30 pm GMT, and the pubs are opened. Seems like someone has had quite a few pints, LOL.


jane Says:

sensationalsafin – lol sorry to confuse you. By dynamic, I mean that throughout this season the threads here have been progressing as usual with the regular posters and some drop ins conversing about tennis. But suddenly – really since Fed won Madrid – SEVERAL new and returned posters showed up at once. At first it was quite nasty, with Fed and Nadal fans going at each other. But now it’s mainly Fed’s fans talking about him. It just wasn’t like that before.

To give you an analogy, it’s like this: let’s say you’ve been going to your Psych class all semester, and there are about 100 people enrolled, but the average attendance throughout the year has been about 50 people, people who ask questions and take the course very seriously. Then suddenly, right before the final exam, the other 50 show up in the last week and have their hands up and are asking all sorts of questions because they’re freaking out that the final exam is around the corner.

Do you get my drift? If you were one of the 50 there are term, it’s a little weird. You’re probably thinking – who are these people? Or where have these people been until now?!! LOL! I’m not complaining. It’s just a quick shift, notable only to those of us here all along. That’s all i meant.


MMT Says:

I would like to clarify one thing: the GOAT discussion does not ask who would beat whom but rather who is the most accomplished based on their results. It is indeed impossible to say who would beat whom, but very possible to compare results.

As such, the issue of surfaces (3 of 4 slams pre 1974 were on grass), racquet technology (wood, versus composite versus modern strings) and competition (he didn’t have ‘such and such’ to contend with) is largely irrelevant, because all contemporaries played with the same conditions, so their results speak for themselves.

To me, there is only one salient issue: how to compare the results in professional tennis (pre-Open era) to Open tennis. Since professional tennis didn’t really have the equivalent of grand slams until the mid-60′s, we must somehow compare tournament results to touring results, and professional “slams” to open era slams.

Thus even Laver’s professional results are hard to compare to Gonzales’ becuase Gonzales primarily dominated touring professional tennis, while Laver dominated tournament professional tennis. And Laver results are difficult to compare to the open era since he only had one (and one quarter of a) good slam winning year in the open era.

To be honest, we should really strip Laver’s amateur slam from consideration since that competition did not include full professionals, who regularly pummelled “graduating” amateur champions. If you do not, then you must include Roy Emerson in the discussion, to which I have not been in the past, but today I’m convinced that the availability of professional tennis as the pinnacle of tennis (and his absence therefrom), puts his entirely amateur slams in a worse light.

Sampras and Federer is a different question – their comparison is more straight forward, since both their careers were entirely in the open era. At the moment, since Sampras is ahead of Federer, I give him the edge, and the conversation contains Sampras, Laver and Gonzales.

If, however, Federer passes Sampras (regardless of the combination of slams he does to achieve it)I would give Federer the edge over Sampras and Sampras would drop out of the discussion leaving Gonzales, Laver and Federer.


sensationalsafin Says:

Ohh I gotcha. Yeah I guess you’re right. I’d say I’m one of those people who’s returned. Although I always read the blogs and comments throughout the year, I’m just too lazy to write out the long paragraphs I usually write. I guess the reason I’ve started again is because I’ve been so freaking bored since school ended.

But tennis-wise, with Fed’s interesting win in Madrid and now his chance to win the French, a lot of people are undermining his achievements. I’m sure Von would get super pissed if I started analyzing Roddick’s US Open win and said he should be slamless right now. And I could think of plenty to say in order to undermine Nadal’s achievements. But all this things are far too impressive and I can only give credit to these guys for doing all they’ve done. And being a Federer fan, knowing how great he was when he was number 1 4 years in a row and how he’s won 13 slams, I don’t like all these people saying oh he’s had it easy and this and that. I still remember when Sean declared 2002-2006 the weakest era ever or something like that. Maybe it wasn’t the strongest, but can you really call Federer and Nadal weak? And Von, you should be on your hands and knees kissing Federer’s feet. Why? Because it’s thanks to him that Roddick has worked so hard to improve his game. In 2003, Roddick had a serve and a forehand. Again, I’ll still criticize his choppy technique, but he’s gotten a lot smarter and become a much more complete player since then. He can very his backhand, he can come into net, play good defense, play smart offense, etc. That’s thanks to Federer. He raised the bar for every single player out there. The 13 slams Fed has are personal accomplishments, but making the entire ATP tour work a thousand times harder to catch up to one player is something I don’t think any player has ever done. When Federer was dominating, there was too much order for everyone. Now there’s disorder, and that’s also thanks to Federer. I know what the sport of tennis consists of and that’s what makes Federer so incredible. And now I, as a Fed fan, have to thank Nadal for making Federer bust his ass even more to become better. Federer pushed everyone to be more consistent. Now Nadal’s going to push everyone to be more aggressive while maintaining that consistency. Roddick’s made everyone develop giant serves. I just can’t stand by while so many people undermine all these players. It’s not fair to them.


zola Says:

MMT,
How can we compare the accomplishments of two different era?

do we look at the field? number of slams? number of tournaments they had to play?

that’s hard to compare too.

I agree with Tejuz,

I think GOAT is not a verdict or a prize. It is how the fans feel and as such, I think it is a very individual decision.

But hopefully after RG ( or wimbledon) there will be some time to discuss it in detail.


jane Says:

This last bit is really well-said sensationalsafin

“Federer pushed everyone to be more consistent. Now Nadal’s going to push everyone to be more aggressive while maintaining that consistency. Roddick’s made everyone develop giant serves.”

The reason I like the way you close your post is that you’re looking beyond ONE player and seeing how they all contribute a lot to this sport. I honestly feel that since Djoko worked his way up, more players are using down-the-line drives for winners. Also, did you notice in the Gonzalez vs. Murray match how Gonza used Murray’s “mix up” technique on him? Yep, even Gonza, the power player that he normally is, was mixing up pace, using slices and drop shots. That’s down to Murray, who likes to play a differently kind of aggressive, brainy tennis.

The thing is, all these players add to the sport and conversation and learn from each other. That’s what’s so great about watching and loving tennis. It’s an INDIVIDUAL sport.


MMT Says:

Zola said: “MMT, How can we compare the accomplishments of two different era? do we look at the field? number of slams? number of tournaments they had to play?”

All you can do is look at the results a player had against the players he played ASSUMING they were the best players available.

You wouldn’t, for example, compare ITF titles, when ATP titles are available. As such, you shouldn’t compare amateur slams when professional tennis is available. This is why Emerson’s amateur slams are discounted (in general), and why Laver’s amateur slam should be discounted as well.

As such, slam totals really should come into the equation until AFTER the start of the open era. Laver won an amateur slam, and Gonzales two US Championships, but those accomplishments pale in comparison to what they did as professionals and in the open era. But Sampras and Federer played entirely in open eras.

BTW – I think what you mean when you said, “era” is their competition, but to me this an empty comparison because in order for an “era” or competition to be deemed stronger, the only real measure is the number of slams others won while the “dominant” player dominated. But for the era to be stronger, the dominant player necessarily HAS to have been less dominant – so you really can’t include a strong “era” or competition in the consideration because that means a player who dominated less would be given credit for being in a stronger era, and of course, the era wouldn’t have been so good if they dominated MORE.

That, to me, is backwards, when considering who is the greatest player.

Coincidentally, I don’t have an answer to how you compare touring professional tennis vs. tournament professional tennis vs. open tennis. But of those 3 categories, la creme de la creme is Gonzales, Laver and Sampras, for sure.


zola Says:

MMT,
I have to leave now, but I will come back later to answer this.

just quickly, the tennis magazine had a comparison of the “field” or “competition” by adding the number of slams won by the top ten players.
The first thought that came to my mind was that how could they win that many slams ( in 90s I think). because their careers were longer. That’s another point. The surfaces, number of obligatory tournaments, ….

I will look for it and we can continue.


Von Says:

sensationalsafin:

“And Von, you should be on your hands and knees kissing Federer’s feet. Why? Because it’s thanks to him that Roddick has worked so hard to improve his game. In 2003, Roddick had a serve and a forehand…”

Maybe Roddick will get down on his knees to thank Federer, except I don’t think he should. He did the work not Federer. Sorry, I would NOT get down on my hands and knees to give thanks to any mortal, only the Almighty. I know I’ve been criticized by ad infinitum by one for my spiritual beliefs, but I’ll still stick to them, and that is no mortal is deserving of adoration, period.


grendel Says:

jane:”They have nothing in common? Fed fans do have something in common: The all support and love Fed. And that’s the common denominator to which I believe Von was referring.”

Von “referring”? She was ranting at the top of her voice in an extraordinarily abusive fashion. And when Sensational Safin courteously explains his position, he is given a bucketful of piss and accused for good measure of being “bellicose”. It’s not even risible. There’s something so wrong there it’s gone beyond it. It’s also counterproductive. And this is why:

I have listened to what you have had to say, jane, and because you have done it in a reasonable and also courteous manner, I wish to repay the courtesy by paying serious attention. And the way you phrase it, I can understand why you feel aggrieved. Even so, I am not entirely convinced. I am not as aware as you evidently are of all the party affiliations, but when I first came on to this site, I would say it tended to be split between Fed and Nadal fans, with more of the former, wouldn’t care to say what the ratio was. And I would say that was so of just about every other similar tennis forum. And this in turn probably reflected opinion generally around the world. This might be a cause for regret, but people generally have ever gone for heroes in fairly simpleminded ways. Not just in tennis, it’s the way it goes. Blame human nature, if you like.

Federer is overwhelmingly the most popular tennis player in the world. Please accept I do not say this in a spirit of one-upmanship. As a matter of fact, I find myself in an odd position, because I am so constituted (and I am neither ashamed nor proud of this) as to generally be in a minority position in nearly everything. Federer is my sole exception, my “vice” if you like – although I would stress that it is his tennis that I love, and I became a fan of his very early on, long before his great success; that is by no means always the case. Anyway, I do think this general popularity is bound to find reflection on the sites – I can see how annoying this may be, but don’t readily see what can be done about it. Certainly casting frenzied abuse (which you do NOT do) is not a sensible way of dealing with the problem.

Another thing, jane. I daresay I am being insensitive here, but I don’t notice the extent of self-congratulation you posit w.r.t. Federer. Of course there are those who so indulge, just as there are plenty of haters – and I expect you don’t notice them so much, just because you don’t really like Federer (and, b.t.w. why the devil should you?). Have you thought of another thing? There are quite a few regular Federer posters who have left – they have been put off by the extreme hostility shown to Federer. And boy, is it extreme. And I think there is cause for concern that these posters have departed ship.

.”did you notice in the Gonzalez vs. Murray match how Gonza used Murray’s “mix up” technique on him? Yep, even Gonza, the power player that he normally is, was mixing up pace, using slices and drop shots. That’s down to Murray, who likes to play a differently kind of aggressive, brainy tennis” I don’t think you are right here, jane. Gonzo’s always done that, you know. Possibly Murray has pushed him more in this direction, I don’t know.


huh Says:

Actually nobody needs to kiss the hands and/or feet of Federer or anyone else for that matter. I mean instead of doing hugging/kissing it’s enough if we just admire players and enjoy their shots, even tantrums and antics ! ;-)


Cindy_Brady Says:

The top players should be protected by seedings. They have earned it by consistent play throughout the year.

A pot luck draw would be stupid!

It would be a disaster for Wimbledon for instance to have Federer match up against Nadal in the 1st round. One great player eliminates another great player. That would put too much luck in the draw and less into talent. In the end, two players could eek through and never play a top 10 player along the way. The tournament could end up having a turkey final because all the good players eliminated one another early.

Pot luck draws are full of flaws.


huh Says:

Hello Grendel, so you are a Fed fan ;-) ! But cool down, these things do happen in life, but you have to move on being composed and completely at peace with yourself, albeit givin a rat’s @$$ as to what others think of you or your loved ones, ain’t it?


huh Says:

Hola Grendel, so you are a Fed fan, eh? Well then, we are in the same boat !


jane Says:

grendel, I think some Fed fans left because he was losing. Which most tennis players do from time to time, although Fed didn’t do for a long time. Call them fairweathers, if you will.

And I am privy to the most extreme abuse. Many people put down Djokovic because he retires, oh well. Others, like Sean, who is an authority at this site who has admitted he doesn’t like Djoko, calls him a “Garbage Collector.” Others call him jokebitch instead of calling by his name. I let it roll or I fight as I see fit.

When I began posting here in 07 it was because I was buoyed by the competition players like Rafa, and the then-rising Djoko, in addition to stalwarts like Roddick and Safin, were able to give Fed. But I had no idea I would be called a “shrew” and an “ignorant slut” and so on just because I didn’t support Fed, and so at the time I reacted by indulging in some ad hominem attacks on Fed and his fans as a way to survive. I was bored by predictability and I remain ever so. Seriously, I could count on my two hands the number of fans of other players at the time: zola, SG, Shital Green, myself, Voicemale1.

Anyhow, my point is that sometimes to survive abuse, people resort to it themselves. Personally, I try to avoid personal attacks – of players or posters. I like the mix of humanity and players. And yet I am inclined to resist being overwhelmed by the majority and support those on the margins.

As for Gonzalez, I have read elsewhere, and I believe the commentators I was listening to said it as well, that he mixed up his game more, that he “out-Murrayed Murray.” I thought that sounded about right, but admittedly I have not followed Gonzo closely other than in some of his big matches – AO 07, MC 07, Olympics 08 – and I recall mainly remember his power.


jane Says:

Apparently, too, Murray and Gonzalez practiced the week before their match, so it’s not too far fetched to say Gonza may’ve taken something away from that. I dunno for sure.

This quote from an article gives an indication of what I was trying to saying about the variety / mixing Gonzalez displayed, which as I’ve mentioned, I hadn’t noticed to this degree before:

“The first set showcased Gonzalez’s powerful forehand, that often drove Murray back and forth across the baseline as he tried unsuccessfully to chase after the ball. Murray’s power shots looked very average in contrast.

[...] Gonzalez’s shot selection was the highlight of his match, picking out drop shots, passing backhands, lobs and stunningly confident winners as if he were in an exhibition match.”

To me, this second paragraph describes more of the likes we see from and read about Murray, than we do about Gonzalez. Anyhow… you can say you “don’t think I am right”. Maybe I hadn’t followed his matches as closely as you had. The link for the quote:

http://www.live-tennis.com/category/Tennis-News/Andy-Murray-out-of-the-French-Open-as-he-loses-to-Fernando-Gonzalez-200906020013/


huh Says:

Jane, very bad that such abuses were hurled at you ! However it’s good that you have been posting continuously since 2007 (time of Djoko’s rise) !


grendel Says:

jane, I say “I don’t think you’re right” with very little authority. It really is just “don’t think”. Am happy to be corrected if nec. I just always recall Gonzo having a pretty varied game, although sometimes he would deploy the techniques at his command in a puzzling way. Sometimes, one would get the impression (perhaps mistaken) that he would go into a sort of passive/would-be-subtle mode for no other reason than a kind of bizarre buggins turn principle. Possibly he was conserving energy?

It is shocking that you should have been called an “ignorant slut”. I’ve had a great deal more than that thrown at me, but then I am much more confrontational than you, so I have no cause for complaint on a strictly personal level. But with regard to fed fan departures, no doubt some were fairweathers. But I wasn’t referring to them. To give you a couple of names, Tari and Joanne both left in disgust, and there are quite a few others. Anyway, sod it, that’s the way it goes , what the hell.


grendel Says:

Just one point about Roddick’s serve. I get the impression this is very much a one off (as, for different reasons, is the equally distinctive Karlovic serve), with even Roddick at a loss as to how he can consistently generate such power. “Mavericks” of this kind can’t really be influential – if we leave aside Monfils, a questionable case – can they? Inspirational perhaps, that’s another matter.


Daniel Says:

Jane, I don’t agree with the “there is only Fed fans here”, now as an exception.

When Nadal was winning everything this year there was a lot of Nadal fans (GOAT debate also was here with the possibility of Nadal achieving the Grand Slma this year), same as when Djoko won AO last year, I remember it clearly. The problem with Federer it’s the nature of his results: records being broken and the GOAT debate which some are pro and others against. He generates more “polemic”, in this way!
If Nadal was still in the draw and had won a fifth RG, the history would be the same, a lot of Nadal’s fans will be praizing him.

Just check the treads one month ago, the dynamic change as tennis changes, one win is enough to chane the entire year. Now is Fed time, maybe in 3 weeks would be Murray, if he happens to win Wimbledon! It’s just like a season of the year!


jane Says:

Daniel, you may be right – and I apologize for not mentioning on the regs above, as you’re always here and posting a lot on all the matches and players. You’re the local math expert too, thankfully, and one of my favorite posters. Anyhow, dynamics do shift a lot, again you’re right about this, but there was a very palpable shift, at least from my perspective, after Madrid. As with most things, it probably depends where you’re coming from.


skeezerweezer Says:

Wow, this was one long **s dicussion, and the topic of GOAT. Please, lets wait until the tourney is over.

I will say this though about Fed, if he wins. If he wins, mark my words the burdened will be lifted and he will win many more slams before he retires. Why? There is a lot of pressure on these next few days. If he gets 14, and the #14 is on FO Clay, his confidence and relaxation of play will go through the roof. He only has to concentrate on majors from there on out, guys now are playing championship level tennis into there 30′s, so just do the math yourself. That is why this tourney, this opportunity, is the most important for Feds history. I for one hope he plays aggressive and goes and gets it, and not think for a moment that it is going to be given. I’m out


grendel Says:

so it’s easy, huh? just turn up….

Apart from a tired Nadal in madrid, Federer has been unable to beat his 3 rivals for rather a long time. That’s the reality. I hope he can change this. But if he can’t, that shouldnt be so surprising, time being what it is, and he’s had a decent innings.


zola Says:

Daniel,
It is true. When a player plays better the fans get excited about it and want to share their excitement. There are a few among all types of fans who like to gloat and that can be tough to handle sometimes, but mostly it is OK.

grendel,
I think Fed will play better from now on especially if he wins the FO. Tennis is mostly a confidence game.


sensationalsafin Says:

That’s something I haven’t thought of much during this FO. I’m so nervous that I’m only focusing on tomorrow, and if all goes well, Sunday. But it’s true that Federer has been struggling with confidence a lot since the start of this year and winning any slam would be a huge boost. Just look at how well Nadal played after the AO. And on grass, Federer definitely still feels like he’s the top dog and he’s the guy to beat. And that’s pretty legitimate, he lost 7-9 in the fifth to Nadal after all, 0-6 or anything like that.

I’m pretty excited for Wimbledon. I hate the clay, I can never see the ball on the TV. The grass is just easy on the eyes.


Sean Randall Says:

Six sets from history. Will he do it with no one in the Top 4.


Von Says:

Cindy Brady:

When I said ‘pot luck’ I didn’t mean it as the norm for all tournaments, I meant on a trial basis to see what results a draw along that format would yield, and. I don’t think it’s that far-fetched or stupid.

BTW, I’m pretty confused as to your stance on Federer and Nadal. When you initially began posting you seemed to be pro Nadal, and anti-Federer, but then you were also into the whole drug scene with respect to Nadal, and putting down Federer. However, since Federer won Madrid, it seems you’ve shifted allegiances. Just asking because I like to know who’s a fan of whom. Call it enquiring minds want to know.


zola Says:

sensationalsafin
****
I’m so nervous that I’m only focusing on tomorrow, and if all goes well, Sunday.
****

lots of chocolate icecream!


Kimmi Says:

Fed post match after a win against Monfils – he said he was very nervous coming into this match; It’s amazing he would say this because I felt he played his best match of the tournament so far. He was hitting the ball very crisp and the movement was superb.
Maybe he plays better when he is nervous. I hope so, because he is bound to get very nervous in his next match. If he can come this sharp tomorrow then I can see him making a very good match against JMDP


sensationalsafin Says:

It just goes to show you no matter how great and accomplished you are, you still feel the jitters. But Federer said it’s important for him to feel nervous because it’s an indication he still cares for the sport a lot.


Daniel Says:

Soderling seems on a mission! But I will agree with zola, when it comes to a final in a Grand Slam the thing is more mental than anything, and if him for once realize that he is playing a final with a shot at a title of this nature against Federer (hope so) he can feel the pressure and underperform.

Fed had being in this situatuion before but this time (as the whole toruney has being) he can feel the pressure more than ever. I think we are heading for a dramatic final, one way of another!


vared Says:

Others, like Sean, who is an authority at this site who has admitted he doesn’t like Djoko, calls him a “Garbage Collector.”

Jane we will find out in Sean’s column IF Fed wins whether Sean will call Fed the garbage collector. It will either be Soderling (25) or Gonzalez (12). Actually Sean should make comparisons between Djokovic and Fed when Fed was 21 and started playing decent tennis. I don’t recall if he was beating quality players all that often. Fed was born in 81 and won his first slam in 2003.
Of course it’s easy to compare a 21 year old with a 27 year old. It will be interesting to see what Sean has to say after Sunday.


Andrew Miller Says:

Call me crazy, but Federer these days is looking like is he playing “for the love of the game”. I know it’s tough to call it that way, but it seems like he’s taken the torch from Roddick, who wears his love for the sport on his sleeve, and is soaking it up in Paris. Is it just me or does this tournament seem to have a little Ivanisevic cerca 2001 Wimbledon, or Agassi cerca 1999or Sampras cerca 2002 in it? I know it’s crazy to look at it that way, given Federer’s three straight finals and ridiculous resume, and the fact that his success, even last year’s “poor by Federer 2004-2007″ standards, but I feel like the crowd is on his side for the first time since, well for a while. It’s a lot different than it was when he was #1 – now he’s the guy that the STADIUM wants to win (rather than half the stadium or most of the stadium…the stadium itself wants to be part of Federer’s historic potential win). Hell even his opponets – Del Potro basically wants Federer to win. That was like Medvedev in 1999.

I know Soderling and Gonzalez would like nothing better than to destroy that vision and nostalgia and “seems like 1999″ stuff, but I am rooting for Federer. I wanted Roddick to win, but he got rotten luck in playing an evening match, with no lights in the city of lights, against someone who knows the dirt (bad combination for Roddick, but I like his result this year! He showed up). Now that Roddick’s out, I want Federer to win the whole deal.

If Soderling or Gonzalez, or even del Potro, win the French Open, more power to them. Whoever wins this year deserves it.


Ryan Says:

“Others, like Sean, who is an authority at this site who has admitted he doesn’t like Djoko, calls him a “Garbage Collector.” ”

Its not about how you win grand slams but whether u win them or not.Sean doesnt like djok and he has made it clear. So stop asking the same question over and over again.


Ryan Says:

To vared – If u wanna believe that fed is the garbage collector…go ahead but make sure u dont go around telling everyone coz they’ll think ur stupid.He has even won titles after beating djokovic and murray for example in US open 2008.How does he become the garbage man in that case….or wen he won wimbledon beating nadal in 2006 and 2007 or wen he beat nadal recently in his hometown on his surface.So why dont u cut the bulls@!t.


jane Says:

vared, Sean already said he won’t. It’s pointless to try to get him to retract that comment or justify it; he won’t. It doesn’t even matter that Djok beat Fed in straights to win his slam title. Trust me, I’ve defended Djoko to him numerous times, all to no avail. He doesn’t like him and that’s it.


Von Says:

jane and vared:

Sean has two favorite players when it comes to bashing, Djokovic and Roddick. He calls Roddick the ‘pusher’ because for some reason, only known to him, he feels Andy pushes the ball from the back of the court. He also has some other well chosen names for Andy.

After Roddick lost to Tipsy at Wimby, Sean dedicated a whole thread to that loss, with a headline of ‘Roddick, Blake and Sharapova stinks up Wimbledon’. At that time, Roddick had only returned to the tour for one week from his shoulder/back injury in Rome and was playing very match deprived and still injured. Andy’s only prep for Wimby was at Queens. At Wimby, He ran into a hot Tipsy, who pushed Federer at the AO to 5 sets. Despite my references to Roddick’s injury a few times, Sean refused to take into consideration the facts surrounding Roddick’s poor form and insisted that Roddick indeed stunk up Wimbledon and everything was smelling like garbage. It was indeed very unkind to Sharapova too who was also playing with an injured shoulder, and has subsequently had to have surgery. I asked Sean whether he still felt the same about the Wimby stink up stuff when it was announced that Sharapova required shoulder surgery and his response was emphatic that he’ll stand by his comments. Hence, in view of that situation, where injuries were the prevailing factor, do you guys believe Sean will change his ‘garbage collector’ name for Djoko? Not in a million years. Sean is like Pontius Pilate: “What I have written, I have written”. Good luck and keep on hoping, but it ain’t gonna happen! I’d say give it up.


vared Says:

Oh OK Ryan, I guess you told me. Sean hates Djok and Von says he hates Roddick. Everything is clear now. I happen to like both. Not many I don’t like.

Top story: Serena Williams Tries To Explain Mysterious Wimbledon Illness
Most Recent story: Andy Roddick Wanted To Play The US Open... But Denied!
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Jul 28 WTA - Jul 28
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Rafael Nadal2 Na Li
3 Roger Federer3 Simona Halep
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Petra Kvitova
5 Tomas Berdych5 Agnieszka Radwanska
6 David Ferrer6 Maria Sharapova
7 Milos Raonic7 Eugenie Bouchard
8 Juan Martin Del Potro8 Angelique Kerber
9 Grigor Dimitrov9 Jelena Jankovic
10 Andy Murray10 Victoria Azarenka
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.