Djokovic, Roddick, Nadal Could be Tested Friday; Wozniacki Hits No. 1
by Sean Randall | October 7th, 2010, 9:56 pm

Some pretty good matches are on tap in men’s tennis tonight starting in a few hours. In Tokyo, top seed Rafael Nadal meets the dangerous Dmitry Tursunov in the quarterfinals. ADHEREL

Tursunov hasn’t played much this year because of an ankle injury, but the powerful Russian has a game, that when on, matches up well with Rafa. However, Nadal has won both meetings against DT in straight sets. Tursunov did score a couple of impressive wins this week over Ernests Gulbis and Richard Gasquet.

Fresh off a win last night over Jeremy Chardy, second seed Andy Roddick now hooks up with my man Gael Monfils. Roddick and Monfils, who serves just like the American, have played seven times with the Frenchman ahead with four. Monfils played really well in New York up until that horrendous showing in the wind against Djokovic. If he can cut out the clowning I think he should pull through.

“I am still a bit slow and not using enough my forehand,” Monfils said after his win over Andreas Seppi today. “It will be a tough match against Andy, I have known him for a long time. It will be an interesting match.”

Also tonight, Viktor Troicki battles Guillermo Garcia-Lopez and Radek Stepanek meets Jarkko Nieminen.

All four quarterfinals will be shown live on the Tennis Channel starting just after midnight Eastern with Stepanek.

In Beijing, the top four seeds have all reached the quarterfinals stage which is highlighted by a clash between Novak Djokovic and the suddenly resurgent Gilles Simon. The Serb has won four of five against Simon who just won Metz last week.

Andy Murray is on against Ivan Ljubicic, Nikolay Davydenko has a date with big John Isner and Robin Soderling meets David Ferrer.

In the women’s field, Caroline Wozniacki is the new No. 1 after straight-setting Petra Kvitova last night.

“Serena has been injured for a big part of the season. She’s a great champion,” Wozniacki said. “What she has achieved in her career is a dream for me to achieve. I’ll always see Serena as a big champion. For me right now though, I should just enjoy my moment.”

The Dane now faces former No. 1 Ana Ivanovic in the quarterfinals. Ivanovic had one of her best wins of the year beating Elena Dementieva yesterday. I’ll have more on Wozniacki and her ascension to No. 1 tomorrow.

Not Before 12:00 Noon
R Stepanek (CZE) vs J Nieminen (FIN) – ATP
[5] G Monfils (FRA) vs [2] A Roddick (USA) – ATP
[1] R Nadal (ESP) vs D Tursunov (RUS) – ATP
V Troicki (SRB) vs G Garcia-Lopez (ESP) – ATP


LOTUS COURT start 12:30 pm
[1] N Djokovic (SRB) vs G Simon (FRA) – ATP

Not Before 3:00 PM
[9] N Li (CHN) vs [Q] A Sevastova (LAT) – WTA
[1] C Wozniacki (DEN) or P Kvitova (CZE) vs A Ivanovic (SRB) or [7] E Dementieva (RUS) – WTA

Not Before 7:30 PM
I Ljubicic (CRO) vs [2] A Murray (GBR) – ATP
[1] G Dulko (ARG) / F Pennetta (ITA) vs V Dushevina (RUS) / A Parra Santonja (ESP) – WTA

MOON COURT start 12:00 noon
[5] F Schiavone (ITA) vs [2] V Zvonareva (RUS) – WTA

Not Before 2:30 PM
[4] N Davydenko (RUS) vs [WC] J Isner (USA) – ATP
[8] D Ferrer (ESP) vs [3] R Soderling (SWE) – ATP

Not Before 7:30 PM
[15] S Peer (ISR) vs T Bacsinszky (SUI) – WTA

You Might Like:
ITF 2014 Doping Report: Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic Tested Over 14 Times, Nadal Over 11
Kei Nishikori Announces Positive COVID Test, Withdraws From Cincinnati, US Open In Doubt
On Look, Rafael Nadal Is Now Announcing When He’s Being Drug Tested
Roddick v. Nalbandian; Monfils v. Soderling Friday
Henin v Wozniacki, Roddick, Clijsters, Nadal Feature Wednesday in Miami

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

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

152 Comments for Djokovic, Roddick, Nadal Could be Tested Friday; Wozniacki Hits No. 1

contador Says:

djoko playing some beautiful tennis, jane. simon can’t keep up.

jane Says:

But Simon can keep it up conty; he’s the little iron man. : ) He’s been killing Nole with uber long rallies, a.t.m. Nole needs some easy service points. Finally, though, he closed out set 1. Djoko’ll need to pick it up on his service games, because Gilles likes to work his way into a match and grind it out. Unfortunately, I cannot stay up and watch. Also been watching a little Monfils vs. Roddick. Surprised to see Gael take that first set. He’s back to his long hair, / dreadlocks with headband look – I prefer when it’s sticking up all over. Rod’s serve not looking quite as crisp as it can do.

jane Says:

conty, nole is hitting the dropper well tonight! Some lovely ones. One was hit from well behind the baseline and caught Gilles utterly off guard.

steve-o Says:

C’mon Roddick, you can do this.

steve-o Says:

C’mon, hold!

steve-o Says:

Noooooo. Congrats to Monfils though, he played better than I’ve ever seen him play.

jane Says:

I knew that Roddick vs. Monfils was shaping up to be a mini classic – wish I could’ve stayed up.

Glad Nole won.

Rick Says:

Roddick is beaten as expected! He is a washed up, it was a bad decision he hired other coaches. Brad Gilbert is the guy who gave him a brian for his game.

Rick Says:

Btw, Federer is also craps in the 5 setters. Also the main reason, he could be consider as mentally tough in his game. I don’t remember him winning another classic 5 setters. Involved was being involed in alot of them. Maybe you guys would mention his match with Roddick at Wimbledon last year. But Federer owns him. I was suprised that, Federer had to take 5 sets to beat him. Btw, I didn’t watch any matched of last year’s Wimbledon. Because I am expecting it to be boring, since Nadal pulled out of the tournament. I hope Murray wins a slam, too! I like him alot better than Djokovic.

Kimberly Says:

Rick–i am a rafa fan too but I find myself preferring Nole to Murray. Murray just doesn’t appeal to me. And Nole has a great personality and is funny and not depressing like Andy.

To Feds defense I think he actually does well in five setters but not the classic/epic ones. Falla (Wimby 10), Berdych (AO 09), Hass (RG 09), Del Potro (RG 09) Nadal (Wimby 07) were matches many forgot, but Roger won.

Obviously has has come out on the wrong side of a lot of the ones people remember (Safin 05), Nadal (Wimby 08) Nadal (AO09) Delpo (USO 09) and Djoko (USO10) which are kind of refered to as the epic matches.

And remember in 06 and 07 Roger didn’t play many five setters because he was winning everything (exceept RG of course) in 3.

Novak has a good 5 set record which is suprising considering his physical struggles. I can think of two he lost this year and three he won, Melzer RG and Tsonga AO (lost) Rochus Wimby, Troiki (USO) and Fed (USO). Not to make excuses but he was clearly having physical issues on the two he lost. I believe he went and threw up during the tsonga match and the meltzer match does not merit comment.

Nadal hasn’t played many five setters in GS recently either but the two he played this year he won-Petzchner and Haase. Can’t think of any others he played in 2010.

Kimberly Says:

for all of those hoping for a muzza nole final in bejing its not going to happen. Murray lost to Lbujic.

Kimmi and Contador-are you impressed, i picked that last night! Of course had it been draw challenge i wouldnt have had the nerve and even if my gut instinct had been to pick against murray I prob would have changed it 10 times til I ended up with Murray winning. (like cincy)

Kimberly Says:

Above link for anyone who would like to do the Shaing Hai draw challenge. Join group tennis-x fans to chat, smack talk and track picks.

Thomas Says:

Murray played like crap. His passive pusher style got him into trouble against ljbucic. Here are my tips for murray.

A. Stop being an arrogant punk and hire a coach, you’re not federer
B. Stop acting like a stuck up pansy when anything goes bad.
C. Stop being a p***y and go for your own shots, instead of waiting for other people’s mistakes.

jane Says:

I just saw that Kimberly – jeepers! And in straight sets too. Ljub can be tough, though, and he’s rested, and this is his best surface. I saw too that Soda went out kind of meekly. Maybe these guys just want to get to Shanghai, although I understand that China Open has a big purse.

grendel Says:


I’ll pass on your tips to Murray immediately. I can’t promise he’ll listen – the man has an unfortunate stubborn streak – but I’m going to act on the priniciple that your excellent advice will seep through to his subconscious.


I always think with Nadal and Djokovic in particular (Fed not so much these days – generational), if it comes to 5 sets, they’re almost bound to win. Another way of putting that is that the opponent, by the time it comes to 5th set, has blown his opportunity. That’s why the Melzer win was such a surprise. It was just slightly fortuitous, I thought. Djoko had many more chances to finish the match off than Melzer, who somehow kept hanging on – and then when opportunity knocked, he said “hallo”. It was a strange match, in many ways.

MarkoPolo Says:

I feel sorry for Murray! He is really going through a mental slump ATM. I really hope he gets his act together!? I would love to see a Murray reincarnation!!!!! It will be good for tennis!!!!

On the other hand, I give credit where the credit is due: Kudos to Ljuba for giving the younger generation a run for their money!!!!!! This surface really suits him and seems like he is on fire especially in the serving department.

Nole finished the job faster than I expected!!!!! Good for him he needs that considering what is ahead of him!!!!!!! I hope he gets to the final (even though Isner is no naive opponent!!!!!!), would not mind another title defense!!!!!

I was surprised to see Robin fold so easily!!!!!! I think his mind is already in Shanghai!!!!!!! He can go practice with Murray now and talk about the #4 ATP spot!!!!!?????

Davy is also far from last years performance!!!!! I really miss the Davy Early ball taking fire!!!!!! Of course Isner is always a tough customer…. Not easy to handle serves coming from the third floor…….

BTW, Is the Shangai draw out? If so where? I am looking forward to the potential match-ups!!!!!

margot Says:

jane, kimmi: Hi! Have been busy, busy but was hoping to watch Andy play this weekend…What a silly billy I am….. :( IMHO Andy needs serious time out on a lovely far away deser island , clearly not enjoying the beautiful game at the mo.
BTW my tickets for the Year End at the O2 came today. How exciting is that!!! :) :)
jane: got up v. early and saw Djko’s second set against Simon. I thought he looked v. strong and that serve was working fine :) BTW I love Monfils’ new hair style. He looks like an androginous Vogue model. Mind glimpse of those biceps…;)
kimberly: completely agree with your comments about Delboy. I’m not in his fan club. His huge height gives him such a power advantage but if he were shorter he’d be average.
Whoever writes trunk/funk needs to learn prefix rule, it’s v. v. simple…
And, last but by no means least..guys, guys, chill out. No need for World War 111…

margot Says:

oops “desert island” even..

grendel Says:

margot – your cool good sense and amazing compressed style are always missed when you’re – er -missing. Couldn’t face O2 again personally (would like to try Queens, but I gather it’s almost impossible to get into ???). Anyway, horses for courses, sure you’ll have a g8 time.

contador Says:

that was a surprise to wake and see murray lost. lube can’t ever be counted out, though.

not as surprised about soda and davy,

jane, i fell alseep during djokovic simon. but your guy was impressive. he can defend this title!

since monfils beat roddick, i’ll pick him to make it to tokyo final.

monfils over steps
nadal over troiki

nadal over monfils

g-lo’s battery finally died. niemenen had a fever…


djoko over isner
ljube over ferrer

djoko over ljube

now on to shanghai

grrrrr delpo bashers….

i am it Says:

IMO, last 2 matches Murray lost did not have a whole lot to do with the state of his mind. What I saw this morning was he played a poor tennis, almost in all areas, including defense, which you don’t want to rely on against a player like Ljub, who shoots every ball on the rise.

Federer is predicting Murray and Djokovic to do well in Shanghai, so Murray fans can hope he performs stronger at the 1000 event.

sar Says:

Novak was complaining about smog.

i am it Says:

“grrrrr delpo bashers….”
Could it be more like their reaction to our over-hying of him?

About Ljub, his BH is such beauty, its quickness and instinctive spot selection just throw off the opponent. Murray was given a number chances to get back into the match (e.g. at 2-3 2nd set, on Ljub’s serve, he had 0-30) but each time he erred and erred, credit to Ljub’s serve. Murray assessed accurately, ““He served very well. I made quite a lot of mistakes, so a combination of the two probably didn’t help that much. If you play someone who serves well and you make a lot of mistakes on your own service game, it puts a little bit more pressure on you. That was probably it.”

On Roddick vs. Monfils, that was a good match. I only watched the 1st set and the 3rd set tiebreak as I switched to Djoko-Simon. Monfils was playing offense, high percentage FH and BH cross court to A-Rod’s BH, could not believe he was hitting so good. A-Rod did not sound unhappy with his performance as there was no reason except he lost the match. “You never want to lose, but it was one of the best matches I have played since the spring. I feel more comfortable leaving this week than I did coming in,” said A-Rod.

I always like Djoko-Simon match, their long rallies. In the first set, Djoko had only one BP in the opening game and he converted it, where as Simon could not convert any of his 7, all came in 2 games, opening service game in the 1st set and 5th game 2nd set when Djoko wasted 2 game points. Djoko was impressive but his FH was not as lethal as at the USO. His serve has been staying steady, which is a good thing.
Isner won’t be easy to beat considering he pushed Djoko to 5th set on CLAY at Belgrade. As for Ferrer vs Ljub, I am leaning toward Ferrer.

i am it Says:

over-hying = over-hyping

Vulcan Says:

Regarding Monfils’ win over Roddick…I have only one observation:

Gael Monfils has to be one of, if not the fastest players ever to play the sport of tennis.

One of the points he played in that match involving two gets was one of the sickest displays of court coverage I have ever seen.

Very tough loss for Roddick.

Kimberly Says:

looks like Ana gave Wozniaki a good match but she did not win as i predicted.

I will go with



Shang Hai draw soon!!!!

Vulcan Says:


A fairly routine win against a dangerous player.
Tursunov is kind of a “hard court specialist” and is the kind of player that theoretically could give Rafa problems. Nadal does seem to be making a statement about his desire to establish himself as a dominant player on hard courts by plunging into the Asia swing so deeply right after his big US Open win. Tennis really seems to be gaining popularity in Asia and the fans seem to be very well behaved.

contador Says:

i am it-

nah – it’s not “over-hype” on a player when they win a GS title and reach the rank he did, imo.

he won quite spectacularly too – oh wait…rafa was playing in pain and delpo was 100%. pff

i was critical of delpo when he lost tokyo last year but after he retired in shanghai, he made it clear about his wrist. so, his trouble was more than post GS high and apathy about tennis.

i have never been a fan of rafa’s tenns but i don’t doubt or mock his injuries.

also it is premature to label him as too fragile. he has plenty of time to work out his injury list. perhaps some of his body parts will respond to prp. i wish him all the best.

but waking up to more bad news in cycling too – any day i expect contador to lose his “tour de doping” title – and the bitter old people trying to down lance armstrong to succed . then i can forget about following pro cycling in the usa. it’s already hard to find a broadcast or a stream.

kimberly Says:

Contador-i don’t doubt his injuries or think he is fragile mentally.

But I do think he is overhyped. Just my opinion. I think avid anti rafas are so eager for someone to dominate rafa that they glorified delpo in absentia as he matched up very well against rafa. However, I think nadal has his hands full on tour (at leasr hard court) with or without delpo.

I think when you love a player you see him as more vulnerable or when you don’t he seems invincible. My heart races every rafa match.

kimberly Says:

Contador—i hope this difference in opinion on delpo doesn’t mean we can’t be bracket buddies!!!!

Vulcan Says:

Caveat emptor to my previous statement about tennis’ popularity in Asia…the Djoker/Gadfly QF match has just come on TTC and the Olympic stadium is virtually empty.

contador Says:

kimberly, lol. i promise not to quit you, my bracket challenge buddy! and look at you, you live with “kaiser” and have not poisoned his food. you have to have a level head.

opinions and speculations come with some strong emotions.

actually after us open 09 i was bit bit downplaying delpo’s wins as well. i thought about rafa’s abdominal tear in the semifinal. and i dissected roger’s back, aching thigh tied it to a painful sciatic nerve, aha moment, now i know why he looked stiff, a step slow, made all those ue’s and missed the first serves.

but if one turns their attention to delpo’s personal story with small degree of similar concern, hey, he has his side too. and on closer inspection, his 2008 performance was pointing toward a future star in the making.

margot Says:

grendel: thanku :) Have loads of friends in London, used to work/live there, so stay with them and it’s very social. Queens hmm, difficult, expensive, snobby…

Skeezerweezer Says:

Fed posted on his Facebook page bein in Shanghai, 12000 posted comments and counting, guess he has some fans still :)

Skeezerweezer Says:

Nice win by the tall american tower over Davy….Is his stock rising?

Huh Says:

“Obviously has has come out on the wrong side of a lot of the ones people remember (Safin 05), Nadal (Wimby 08) Nadal (AO09) Delpo (USO 09) and Djoko (USO10) which are kind of refered to as the epic matches.”

That’s why Fed is called greatest by many, him winning greta 5 setters are forgotten coz its only expected of the greatest to win those tough matches. It’s only when someone’s able to beat Fed in a gruelling 5 setter that the match is called an epic coz the Titanic Federer loses to some underdog, that’s like the unexpected or the impossibl happening, kinda upset. It’s human tendency to glorify the triumph of an underdog over the giant, here the underdgs being Nadal, Safin etc and the giant is Fed. Yes, they were still underdogs in the matches which they won against Fed. As simple as that.

And the result is the glorification of those matches by terming them epics, epics, not coz of Nadal’s/Safin’s/DP’s win, but actually coz of Fed’s loss to them. Why call a match epic if Fed wins it as most of the time Fed’s the prohibitive fave in it? But call it epic where Fed’s overlasted in a dogfight of a match, precisely coz Fed, as we all know, is one of the best ever.

Fot Says:

Kimberly, your 9:23 post is right on the money; as well as Huh’s 2:53 post. High fives to both of you.

steve-o Says:

@huh: Very well expressed. Wimbledon 2008 will be remembered not so much because Nadal won, but because Federer lost.

It’s a rare player who can actually add luster to his reputation by losing, but Federer is one such.

Vulcan Says:

Oh brother, give me a break on this one.

Nadal has proven his dominance over Federer time and time again – to suggest that Nadal did not beat him in that final is idiotic. Get real. My respect for what you have to say just taken a nosedive.

Kimberly Says:

Huh, Fot

Now that one thinks about it you are right on the money…does anyone refer to Wimby 07 or Wimby 09 as an epic? No, but they were tough five setters that fed won. But not epics since Fed won them.

Contador—remember, kaiser doesn’t just love fed, he actively roots against Rafa against everyone except Murray and Roddick. I very well may resort to poisoning Kaiser’s food quite soon but it won’t be because of atp tennis. I am more motivated by the multiple 0-6 0-6 losses on the miami tennis courts that I suffer at least once a week no matter how well I play (and he tells me I am fortunate that he is charitable enough to play with me). And more motivation is his weekend indulgence in diving and/or fishing where I get stuck with the kids. Then he comes home and sleeps because he takes dranamine so he won’t get sea sick and is no help at all. These are food poisoning reasons. Not Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal!!!!!!

grendel Says:

Yes, I agree with Fot and Steve-o, that’s a nice piece of argument by Huh. I’m not saying it’s the only way to look at it, mind – I daresay Safin and Nadal fans will have different perspectives – but it’s an ingenious argument which works and feels right to me.

” I think when you love a player you see him as more vulnerable or when you don’t he seems invincible. My heart races every rafa match.”(Kimberley). Yep, that hits the good old nail on the head. Having said which, how on earth can you see Nadal as vulnerable?……

Skeezerweezer Says:


My understanding from steve-o’s post was just that final, not the whole h2h series. You seem to make both one and the same. Rafa did not dominate Fed in that match. That final clearly could have gone either way, a very close and well fought match by both, with Rafa edging out the victory as darkness came. Spectactular match!

grendel Says:

Vulcan, I think Nadal was still underdog (although not in my eyes, as an eternal pessimist) against Federer at Wimby 2008. Many people (most?) saw Federer as favourite this Wimbledon – now you could certainly argue that was wrongheaded, but Fed’s Wimbie reputation being what it is, it was not unexpected.

I don’t think Federer will ever be favourite against Nadal again – and oddly, I think that may help him. Look forward to their next match.

Ben Pronin Says:

I don’t follow. I consider the first 3 or 4 sets of 07 Wimbledon epic. It’s just that the fifth set makes it seem like a downer. Similar to the Falla match, the fifth set takes out some zest. But how can 09 not be considered an epic? I don’t regard epics as matches where Federer loses, they’re epics when they’re high quality, drama, and close matches. Is 09 Madrid semi not an epic since Nadal won? Or 09 AO semi? I’d say the 09 FO semi with Del Potro and Federer was quite an epic match, especially when Del Potro made a push to come back late in the fifth.

When Murray beat Federer in Cincy back in 06, it was Fed’s first straight set loss in 194 matches. For the longest time, even nowadays, is nearly impossible to close out. That’s what makes his break downs against Nadal and Del Potro last year so out of place. Before the 09 AO final, Federer and Nadal were 2-2 in 5 set matches. The 2 Federer had won ended 6-1 and 6-2. The 2 Nadal had won ended 7-6 and 9-7. So a big factor in why Federer has won only a handful of epic matches compared to the ones he lost is because by the end he usually gains full control. Or his opponent is able to maintain a really high level until finally capitalizing on the tiniest opportunity.

Berdych and Haas lead Fed 2 sets to love last year at AO and RG, respectively. Fed won both 6-2 in the fifth. It’s not epic since both faded by the end. But when Andreev pushed Fed to 5 at the USO in 08, that was a pretty epic match. Andreev pushed until the very end and it was only 1 break of serve in the 5th that sealed the deal for Federer. Imo, Federer losing doesn’t have to equal epic. His losses to Berdych and Soderling this year weren’t epic. They were good, but nothing completely amazing. It was just huge historically, but nothing overly epic about the matches themselves.

steve Says:

@Vulcan: I was speaking specifically of the 2008 Wimbledon final. Not saying Nadal didn’t earn that win, he certainly did and he played at an incredible level.

But it will be remembered because Federer lost more than because Nadal won. That may be unfair to Nadal, because he played a great match, but that’s how it will be remembered.

Even the emphasis on the head-to-head record feeds this dynamic. To emphasize it is to make Nadal secondary and Federer primary. For it is saying that Nadal’s glory partly derives from his record against a particular player. Why is that so important? Well, because that particular player is regarded as one of the greatest ever.

Vulcan Says:

Skeezerweezer, Grendel

Federer may have been favored to win that match – but not by much – the main thing I resent is the implication that Federer somehow didn’t play his best tennis or somehow choked thus giving Nadal the victory and that that is how the match will be remembered. I always thought Federer showed a chink in the armor of his integrity when he resorted to blaming the “conditions” for his loss. The bottom line is that Nadal took that final from Federer simply because he outplayed him and handled the pressure just a slight bit better than Federer did. And trust me, from the vantage point of Nadal fans it will always be remembered as the match Nadal won, not that Federer lost. The audacity of the droves of people out there who insisted that Nadal was a clay court specialist that could never win on Grass but now suggest that his accomplishment was somehow due to a lapse by Federer is astounding.

Ben Pronin Says:

Nadal had made 2 straight Wimbledon finals prior to winning… I think only a handful of people thought Nadal couldn’t win on grass by 08. And most of the experts picked Nadal to win in 4 sets, anyway, so…

And yeah, I don’t think that 08 Wimbledon will be simply remembered as Federer losing. What if Federer had won it with the same score? Then it would’ve been regarded as the greatest comeback of all time rather than just the greatest match of all time. Still would’ve been epic and still would’ve been remembered. But with Nadal winning it also signified the shift of power, which obviously wouldn’t have been the case if Federer was the victor.

That said, as well as Nadal played, I though Federer could’ve played better.

Vulcan Says:

steve Says:

But it will be remembered because Federer lost more than because Nadal won. That may be unfair to Nadal, because he played a great match, but that’s how it will be remembered.

Correct me if I’m wrong here but you are more of Federer fan than a Nadal fan correct?

I would certainly agree that from the vantage point of Federer fans (especially the stingy ones) that that match was lost by Federer and not won by Nadal…hardly a surprise there.

This is basically a matter of giving credit where credit is due and about how what actually happened is a matter of who you ask. There are several reasons I would submit for why I, as a Nadal fan, remember that match as the match Nadal won:

1. The match is regarded by many as the greatest match in history – its doubtful it would be remembered as such if either player had not played at least near their highest level and not been engaged in the match near 100%. Also, for it to be the greatest match the players would have
to be evenly matched.

2. It is precisely because Nadal was not expected to win on Grass that it will be remembered as the match he won

3. Similar to 2. Nadal was only the second Spaniard in history to win Wimbledon, trust me in Spain people see it as the match he won.

Kimberly Says:

Wimby 2008 as a Nadal fan was my favorite match ever–and I thought Rafa had a good chance to win going in (and i’m a nervous nelly). He had absolutely destroyed Federer 4 weeks before in Paris and he crushed Murray in the quarters playing really well. My husband a fed fan, thought Nadal had a good chance but was hoping against hope. Everyone I know thought he had a good chance so I don’t think he was a huge underdog. I wonder what the Vegas odds were. THat’s what would really tell the story.

I recently watched that match however, and I think Nadal is even better now than he was then. And I think Federer is playing similar to how he played sets 1 and 2. Sets 3,4,5 were top flight from both players but I think Nadal has even more weapons now.

Vulcan Says:


Some googled odds had Nadal as the moderate underdog at 9/4 with Federer at 5/4. But as the Wikipedia article states there were many analysts that picked Nadal to win the match.

Im really not sure though how the odds or who was favored to win the match factor in to how the match will be remembered. It comes down to the question of whether Federer somehow didn’t play his best tennis and gave Nadal the V.

Maybe Steve-o can cite some references to support his argument that the majority public opinion out there is that Federer didn’t play his best.

Kimberly Says:

Federer himself thought he played well. He made some silly errors in sets 1 and 2 but sets 3,4 and 5 were his top form. In my opinion (and just my opinion before i get jumped on) that’s why he was devastated after he lost. He played really well and it wasn’t enough. He didn’t really care after being brutally beat down in Paris because he himself had to acknowledge he did not play his best (in fact he mentally didn’t even show up for the match).

I guess some could say Federer lost as sets 1 and 2 were not his best level. But 3 and 4 (he won in close tiebreaks) and 5 were. He did find his A game and brought it. And Rafa won. Period.

Listen, in Austrailia 2010 which was not long ago Federer was top form, as good as ever. In 09 I never felt he was in top form even though he won. So I’m sure he will find it again for some key events. But I don’t think he will consistently showcase it nor should he be expected to at 29 years old with 16 grand slams. I’m sorry but when you have that much, how much more can you really care? That’s why I feel winning RG v. Rafa would be something he really would cherish. Because its something he doesn’t have. Of course I hope it never happens.

steve Says:

@Vulcan: I seem to not be making myself understood here.

Perhaps my meaning will be clearer if I use the passive voice: it will be remembered more for the fact that Federer was defeated than the fact that it was Nadal who won.

Even the Nadal-Verdasco match at AO, which was of the highest quality from both sides, and lasted even longer than the Wimbledon final 2008, will not be so well remembered, simply because Nadal’s opponent was Verdasco and not Federer.

I don’t know where you’re getting this business about the public’s belief that Federer didn’t play his best. I never made or implied such a claim.

Federer gave as much as he could on the day. Nadal was just a little stronger.

Whether Federer could have theoretically played better if circumstances had been different is an utterly academic point.

Nadal has the trophy; that should be enough for his fans. Especially since they tend to believe that winning is the only thing that matters. Well, he won. So why this insistence on meaningless hypotheticals that can’t be proved either way? The result of that match is what it is, and nothing’s going to change it.

skeezerweezer Says:

Yeah I don’t know about the public thing either, I never posted or insinuated that Fed lost it from my end. Rafa earned that victory, no doubt.

The only thing that I distinctly remember was Fed had a hard time seeing in the end, but he also added that they both had to play in those conditions. I remember Rafa said the same, that it was getting difficult to see. Personally I wish they played in more light in the end but like they both said they both had the same conditions to deal with in the end. There is a photo I saw if I can find I will post it that minutes after they were doing the presentation and it was for sure dark.

That said Fed said he played well, and gave Rafa all the glory, it’s all there on you tube…..

Vulcan Says:


I think you’ve made yourself clear enough…in a nutshell the match will historically be remembered not for what Rafa did, but what Federer did not do.

You are making a statement about public perception of a historical event but you are not citing any references to support your assertion…is this assertion just your opinion or are you basing it on a particular slant you have seen in articles on the match?…I simply do not get the same impression. Furthermore your statement was that the match “will be remembered” – do you also have a crystal ball which tells you what the public perception will be in 2025?

If we want to engage in speculation I think it’s safe to say that it was precisely the 2008 Wimbledon title that will go down in history as the point at which Nadal broke through and became an all time great…not the time that Federer failed to win 6 consecutive Wimby titles (yawn).

contador Says:

kimberly –

i’ll bet my new skis federer really doesn’t hold 08 wimbles final match dear to his heart kinda like rafa rather not revisit his FO 09 soderling match.

federer lost in 2008 on the very grass where i was drawn to watching tennis in 2003. it’s all federer’s fault i continue to love tennis now. i don’t care if his opponent was phillipousis. 2003 wimbledon is my most “epic” wimbledon! : )

2003 wimbledon – the beginning of the federer era. yesss.

now atp has #1 nadal. good for you.

but geez… it has to be tough married to wet blanket “kaiser!” please do say hello from me and i hope he plays the bracket challenge. but wait… if he’s out on a boat, then knocked out on dramamine…

…he’s gonna miss the deadline for picking! it starts in the morning your time, and we only have 24 hours after it starts!

here’s an idea. let a “martian” fill in his bracket for him…hehehe.

Thangs Says:

Skeezerweezer, it would have been straight set assault if there was no rain delay…

Kimberly Says:

COntador-you are right, I do not think Wimby 08 is Feds fav moment. However, I think it probably ranks above Rafa’s memory of RG 09. Epic Final loss v. fourth round shock upset of the decade. I’ll take losing an epic final. I think I was depressed for a week. I might have been as sad as Rafa. The only person who prob felt worse was Gus Hanson, the professional gambler who bet 1 million euros that Rafa would win RG.

Kaiser will never miss draw challenge. He’ll dive all morning, go back, sleep, eat all of my kids food, do the draw challenge, and return to sleep without assisting in baths, story time or anything else. I may force him to play tennis with me with the threat of divorce in the late afternoon (and yes I will still lose 0-6, 0-6 even with the dramamine) but thats about all I will get. The good news is he really hasn’t been following the asian swing so he has no idea about who is in form etc. He lives for that, fanstasy football march madness etc. He will study head to heads and all of that too. Maybe the dramamine will affect his picks so he will lose.

With that said I’m excited for draw challenge!!!!

Skeezerweezer Says:

Well that was Rafa’s fault during the rain delay , he should have never challenged Fed at Air Hockey in rhe mens locker during the rain delay

steve-o Says:

@Vulcan: You had a separate point, which was that Federer had not given his best that day. I made clear that I had never said such a thing. I don’t know where you got that.

Of course it is a great achievement to win at Wimbledon. But my question to you is: do you think it is an even greater achievement because of the opponent Nadal faced? If he had beaten Safin, instead, would it have meant less to you?

Again, it’s the focus on the man who was beaten, rather than on the title itself, that I’m pointing out.

What Nadal has done is amazing and puts him among the all-time greats. Indeed only one player of the current era has achievements that can even be spoken of in the same breath–that’s Roger Federer, of course.

But by his own choice, he himself seeks to always cast himself as the underdog and downplay his own stature and lower expectations. Can you wonder, then, that people sometimes ignore the magnitude of his accomplishments?

You can remember Wimbledon 2008 however it pleases you. But I believe that a large part of it will be for the fact that Federer was beaten.

Everyone remembers the fall of Arthur and the end of Camelot, more than it was Mordred who did it. Many people mourn and hope for the once and future king to return. It’s just human nature.

That’s unfair to Nadal, because he played extremely well to earn his victory. And he is certainly no Mordred.

But as I said, there are some human beings who cast a long, long shadow. Even their absence is felt as much as their presence, their defeats mean as much or more than their victories. Federer is one such.

grendel Says:

It’s all about perspective. And remember, that changes. So, for example, it MAY be that in 10 to 15 years, Nadal will be seen as a much greater player even than Federer. Or they may be seen as equals. Or, after all, Federer will be seen as the greater man. Each case will likely yield different perspectives about seminal matches. Will Federer be the doomed Arthur? Or will he become even more legendary as the prematurely doomed Arthur who actually returns, albeit briefly? Or will Nadal be the conquering Alexander, sweeping all before him?

It’s interesting that these questions are still not resolved……

Von Says:

whoa, I haven’t posted here in quite a while, and I’m making a liar of my myself, as i promised I wouldn’t be doing so in a long time. Anyway, when one doesn’t post, become entangled in debates, et al., only reads, one sees a lot more and remember/assimilate even more.

Vulcan, correct me if I’m wrong, but if I rememebr correctly, when you initially entered this site and began posting, you were a huge Fed fan, and to a much lesser extent, a Nadal fan. It was more like a 75/25% ratio, Fed to Nadal. Now, if my observation is correct, you are probably a 99.5% Nadal fan?? I’m always curious as to why some fans change their allegiance, and it’s not a knock on you at all, just a huge part of my background, which involves the mind connection, as to why people do such turnarounds, and my curiosity gets the better of me, ergo, my question to you.

BTW, today was the first time I’ve seen a post from you not knocking Roddick and proffering your famous YouTube exhibits. You have my admiration, as I’m sure it took a lot of generosity on your part to be so fair to Roddick — gratis.

In that match, Monfils used his speed to beat Roddick, which is why Roddick lost that tie-break. I’m sorry Roddick did not get to go further at Tokyo, as he needs a boost to his flagging confidence. However, I knew in my heart, when I saw the draw, that he’d 99.5% lose to Monfils due to the other’s speed, but I had hoped that it would not have happenend. It did, but I think Andy can take heart that he played agressively, and well, and that’s all that matters.

Roddick needs match play as he’s not had a good run since Miami.The mono has not helped either, but yesterday was the best I’ve seen him play since he beat Nadal at Miami. That said, I’m hopeful that things are beginning to turn around for him and he’ll be able to salvage his season, by returning to his Miami form.
Kimberly: I think you and jane should get together and write your official bios for this site, which would eliminate your constant need to repeat/inform us of your day to day lives. Just saying, you know, as most of your posts are filled with your day to day activities. I’d like to read more tennis related stuff than your life’s challenges.

Additionally, you seem to enjoy knocking many players, but you’re oh so very sensitive when it comes to your fave. Just remember, reciprocity and comeuppance, they go hand-in-hand.
steve-o: “But it will be remembered because Federer lost more than because Nadal won. That may be unfair to Nadal, because he played a great match, but that’s how it will be remembered.”

I think that’s very true, because of where their career paths were at the time of that loss. Added to that, Fed being the legend that he is, makes it difficult to see it the other way around.
contador: From your comments on PRP et al., I take it you’re in the medical field. I have quite an extensive background in that area also, but mainly of the mind/body connection. Anyway, I’ve had personal experience with respect to DelPotro’s injury and I can say without a doubt that PRP does not work on nerve damage, which is DelPotro’s complaint, but it’s effective mainly on tendinitis.

My chief doctor (and his team/associates) who’s the Surgeon/doctor for a few of the professional baseball teams who do spring training in my area, and I have had extensive discussions on PRP, due to his declination of my request for PRP treatment. From what I’ve assimilated, (DelPotro was also mentioned in our conversation) from different articles writen on DelPotro, he had cubital tunnel syndrome, which affects the elbow and the whole arm, and can also present as carpal tunnel syndrome. Anyway, to make a long story short, PRP is not the recommended treatment for damaged and/or impinged nerves, but only for tendinitis, which is an inflammatory condition, and not a nerve impingement malady.

I’ve had release of shoulder and carpal, and I hate to say it, but I don’t see DelPotro returning to maximum hitting power.
jane; I rememebr, last year when you were jubilating re: the Djoker’s win over Nadal in Cincy, I mentioned to you at the time that it was mostly due to Nadal’s torn ab, which was common knowledge to the Djoker, and it’s the reason why the Djoker came out firing on all cylinders. I read in one of your posts recently wherein you stated, that you’ve mentioned that ab injury before and acknowledge that Nadal was indeed injured at Cincy. I hate you say this, but NO you didn’t, I reminded you of it at the time of your celebration and you just brushed it aside.

I’m surprised at the manner in which you’ve changed your tune with respect to DelPotro, where you now want to see more proof of him being a serious challenger, and you expound on consistency, et al., in his game. Prior to his winning the USO, you were the most vociferous on this site as to him being the next best thing in tennis along with Cilic and Gulbis (I hope you remember it well) but since DelPotro won the USO and has shown he belongs with the big boys, which kinda makes him equal to the Joker, you’ve changed your tune, and are citing titles won, and are singing the “he’s only a year younger than Djokovic” song. I don’t understand why the sudden change, and the stats/consitency issue you keep beating to death.

To be exact, I think DelPoro is 18 months younger than the Djoker, but consider you’ve also touted the fact that players peak at different ages, why are you stressing on the negative issues? I don’t get it. Consistency is not only relevant to playing tennis … but you get my drift, I’m sure. Oh, what a tangled web we weave ….

It’s funny to me, but I also notice your sudden and/or growing love for Fed each time he’s beaten by the Joker. LOOOL

contador Says:


thank-you but i do know prp has not been a treatment for nerve compartment syndromes like carpel tunnel and cubital tunnel.

the link i posted last night or the night before was delpo talking after his retirement last year in shanghai saying he had “tendonitis.” whether they thought it was tendonitis at the time or what i don’t know. delpo said “yes” to “tendonitis” a year ago when asked. something lost in translation? maybe. did he have prp for tendonitis or ever have prp? i do not know. there was a long lag between miami 09 and his wrist surgery in may 2010. i did read the surgery was to his right wrist for carpel tunnel. did he present with numbness in his forefinger , thumb and palm? or his little pinky and ring finger? i don’t know. it’s pretty easy to differentiate between ulnar and median nerve pain to the hand. did he have both? did he have tennis elbow too indicating more cubital tunnel syndrome? i don’t know that. nothing has been said about the elbow. or do you know something about it from delpo? did his brachial plexus suffer too? don’t know that either. but no, prp unfortunately wouldn’t help nerve compartment syndromes.

he did have to retire i recall with something to do with a leg and another non-wrist complaint.

when i mentioned prp and his “body parts” i was referring to hoping delpo can use such a treatment if he continues to have injuries. (not nerve damage or nerve entrapment ) i thought we went over this before? maybe not.

just to make it clear. i do know what prp is what it is used for at present. but how it’s administered and with what adjuncts depends on where one is and by whom one is being treated.

kimberly Says:

Tennis channel is showing tokyo. Monfils and step.

contador Says:

i have the fromsport stream.

kimberly Says:

Monfils is a physical specimen.

contador Says:

he really is something when he’s hot. monfils.

now if he can hold. this match is in his bag.

contador Says:

stepanek turning on the charm – great net play.

but monfils serving for match.

kimberly Says:

Monfils wins easy. Congrats to him on making it to the final.

Now of course I’m nervous! The announcer said the roof being closed wroks to troikis advantage. I am still nervous after the Glo loss last week about rafa indoors.

Is bejiing behind in time? Is that why no matches have started.

Kimmi Says:

yay la monf. made my day..or is it night? now go win the title..

Hi guys. very sad for murray and no comment right now. now i am cheering for bold bomber to win it all. go ljub

kimberly Says:

All the guys left in bejing r nices guys who I would like to see win….baldie, ferrer, john isner and of course novak.
I would pick novak if I had to guess. Then ferrer then baldie then isner.

kimberly Says:

Ahhhhh…rafa giving me nerves here. Blew two break chances.

goat galz Says:

I see you have escaped from Bellevue and gone off your meds again. Cut the crap. You posted in September, that’s not a long time ago. Stop ruining this blog site. I see old man Roddick is about to be knocked out of the top ten.

ta ta dolls

Kimberly Says:

rafa wins 1st set in tie break but gets broken 1st game of second set :-(

Von Says:

contador: Your mention of the other body parts with respect to PRP, now makes it much more understandable to me, thanks.

Ben Pronin Says:

Djokovic can’t get a first serve in for his life.

kimberly Says:

Rafa struggling. Troiki playing well.
Not watching novak isner.

Not sure I can stay up or want to see more.

margot Says:

grendel: don’t know if you’ve got up early on this grey British morn to watch a bit of tennis…but I’m the opposite of kimberly, almost can’t be bothered to watch Rafa cos I feel he’s just gonna win whatever….But here comes Troicki taking a set and looking up for it too….

steve-o Says:

Isner volleys spectacularly well for such a tall guy. He doesn’t have a great baseline game, though.

Djokovic is playing well. Beating Isner in a tiebreak is really hard.

margot Says:

steve-o: I’m sure Isner is a lovely bloke but his game is horribly limited and based on that huge serve, someone as talented as Djko should win easy- and seems he is.

kimberly Says:

Ahhhhh nadal, serving for the match and got broken twice. Wtf!!! No I didn’t go to bed. Now troiki to serve for the match. Guess who I’m not picking to win shang hai!

Daniel Says:

Wow! Troicki challenged a let first serve that was out, Nadal double faulted and made 3 silly mistakes. Now Troick is serving for the match at 6-5, after coming back from 3-5 Nadal serving for the match. Amazing!!!

Daniel Says:

This was bad luck. At 30-15 he had a bad call which would gave him 4-15 2 match points, he challenged and the ball was goodm and Nadal even with the bad call couldn’t put the ball into play. He didn’t even argued with the empire to get the point, got tentative and now tiebreak. Troick deserve this match due to that bad call, he would have been 40-15 match point on serve.
If he lose this will be a huge injustice.

Daniel Says:

Nadal almost double faulted on match point Troicki.

Daniel Says:

What a wrong foot to set match point on serve by Troicki. Phenomenal!!

margot Says:

You sleepy heads missed a real humdinger! Rafa wins, quel surprise! However, I feel Troicki was the victim of rubbish umpireing. How unfair tennis sometimes!
BTW grendel, I think Thomas is British and somewhat entitled to feel p***** off.

Daniel Says:

This was a tense tiebreak, but this is really unfair. I don’t understand untill now why didn’t Trociki fight for a point which was already his when serving 30-15 after hawkeye should the ball good. The judge called out after Nadal hit a ball he couldn’t return and then instead of having the point htey replayed. No way he would have lost 40-15 serving the way he was. NAdal made those silly errors as if he was embarased by winning after that point. Such a high quality match end by a bunch of errors by the lines judges when in the most important times.

Nadal is already playing great with all stars aligned for him, now he is even winning due to bad calls, as if he needed those!:)

margot Says:

Daniel, just read your comment above, totally agree.

Thomas Says:

WTF? The umpiring was rubbish. Troicki should have had 2 match points when serving for it. He should have won.

kimberly Says:

Rafa pulled through but it was ugly. Troicki had two match points. Troicki played very well, rafa played well served 18 aces but sloppy misses in his ground game that should have cost him. Troiki kind of choked.

I guess I’m happy rafas through. Want him to win the tourney. He only has three tourneys after this for the rest of the year. If he actually plays them all.

gordon Says:

Daniel, you are 100% right. Troicki was better and he deserved to win this match. I just can’t stand any more how Nadal can take his time and extend the match, specialy in for him critical moments. They should invent statistical measur, of a time taken by Nadal on his serve. It is not fair to the oponent who needs to keep concentration twice as long if he plays Nadal…

kimberly Says:

And yes troicki should have taken it up with the ump.

gordon Says:

And what will be his chances of overturning the call? Quite slim, but as result of arguing he will lost a touch with the game in critical fimal moments of the match. As you all see the only one who did benefit was Nadal who saw all that but he was numb… what a sportmenship.

kimberly Says:

Gordon–i don’t think any player would tell the ump, yes I had no play give him two match points but I certainly don’t have a warm and fuzzy feeling about this win.

steve-o Says:

Troicki served for the match and had two match points.

That’s not a “kind of a choke”. That’s a massive choke. It’s the level of choke that makes you wonder how Troicki survived, cause there sure as hell wasn’t anyone around to give him the Heimlich maneuver.

Still, credit to Nadal for holding his nerve. It’s how he wins, after all.

mem Says:


bad calls are a part of sports! all players get them at one time or the other. umpires and linesmen aren’t perfect! troicki made a decision to move on, so,, don’t even go there! both guys had their chances. if you’re looking for excuses, stop right there; there are none! it was clear that pressure was getting troicki and he made a bad decision. that’s tennis!

it’s a shame someone had to lose. troicki has game and he brought the heat tonight! played incredible, the best i have ever seen him play. hats off to him! without a doubt he had nadal on the ropes right down to the wire and had me on the edge of my seat. if rafa doesn’t get his act together between now and tomorrow, monfils is going to clean his clock and i wouldn’t be surprised.

Vulcan Says:

Wow that was some rollercoaster of a match. Troicki served enough aces to beat Nadal but when it came down to it he just didn’t have the experience and mental toughness to see the job through. Another one for the scrapbook as far as examples of players that give Nadal problems on hardcourts…anybody that can hit aggressive flat strokes, is slightly above average in height, righty, and has a two handed backhand equals at best a war of attrition and at worst crushing defeat for Nadal on hardcourts.


Your observation about my shift from Federer to Nadal is quite astute. The percentages you cite are not far off. The main reason for the shift is pretty simple…Nadal takes some of the qualities I admire most about Federer to the next level and into the next decade.

About Roddick, I recently saw a Youtube video where he did basically the exact same thing at 2010 AO as he did back in 2008 against Kohlschreiber. It boggles my mind that he could make the exact same mistake twice. He doesn’t seem to understand that you don’t get to replay a point if you let the ball go when your opponent hits a winner and you were NOT distracted by the line umpire calling out because the line umpire called out AFTER you let the ball go. I may have to change the caption on the video because I am now starting to think that Roddick may actually be totally clueless and not deceptive after all. I think back to all of the times he has argued over net cords and it does persuade me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Vulcan Says:

When did the out call come on the 30-15 point? Was it before, during, or after Nadal made contact with the ball? If it was before or during contact the point has to be replayed, as it was…if after Nadal should have lost the point.

johhny Says:

roddick didn’t rape umpires and ball girls/boys in his loss to monfils this time. i was quite surprised he behaved like normal human being. hope he will continue with his anger management sessions.

there is hope for a humble roddick but Von’s “the Novak Djokovic ultimate hater” train has left the station.

mem Says:


your comments are so stupid until they are funny! so, what you are saying is it’s nadal’s fault when tennis players lose concentration against him and fail to close out matches. tennis is a game for big boys. if troicki can’t stand the pressure, then he’s in the wrong profession. you don’t ever hear nadal complaining about anything his opponents does. many times, i have watched opponents get tired during a match against nadal take a time out for no apparent reason, get a massage and break nadal’s rhythm and come back playing twice as good because there was nothing wrong with them, they just needed to catch their breath. how unfair is that! nadal knows it, but he never says one word! atp tennis is a competition for men, not a job for babysitting grown professional players. if players haven’t learned how keep their focus, just too bad!

so, get over it!

margot Says:

johhny@4.29: using “rape” wrong, it’s just not appropriate.

Mindy Says:

I must add my voice to mem’s regarding this whole business of the so-called “bad call” by the umpire. What I find interesting, is that the outrage over these so-called bad calls, and there are many of them in tennis, only occurs when it is in favor of Rafa. Not suprising, given the inherent bias on this site, but hypocritical nevertheless.

Rafa has been on the losing side of bad calls or non calls himself. In his semifinal match with Murray in Toronto, Rafa had a break point and Murray double faulted. However, the umpire didn’t call it. That would have given Rafa the break and he would have been up 4-2 in the first set. He couldn’t do anything about it, so he just played on.

Rafa didn’t try to blame that one inexcusably bad call for his loss. He made a joke about the umpire watching another match and then said that it was one point and there are many points in a match. That’s how a champion handles something like that. However, I don’t recall there being any outrage on Rafa’s behalf for this botched call. Unfortunately, even with the development of technology and the challenge system, there will still be questionable, bad, or non calls in tennis matches.

Troicki had the option to make his case to the umpire. He chose not to do so. End of story. Troicki had his opportunities subsequently to win the match. He didn’t get the job done. Rafa got the win. Let’s not get in an uproar about some phony “bad call” controversy just because it happened to not be at Rafa’s expense this time! Rafa still had to win the match.

Troicki served brilliantly, but so did Rafa. Once again we saw why Rafa is a great champion. He didn’t play his best in that match. Troicki gave him all he could handle. However, as great champions are wont to do, Rafa found a way to win. Yes, he and Fed have that quality in common. That’s what separates them from the rest of the pack.

I have no bad feelings about this match. It was a gutsy win from Rafa. When it counted, when the pressure was at its most intense, that’s when Rafa stepped up and delivered.

Von Says:

Troicki is a choker. Anyone remember the USO when he could have closed out the match in 3 sets? He was up a break, and then got another one, lost one, then got broken when he was about to close out the match with one break still in hand.

Bad calls are very common nowadays due to the umpires not doing their jobs, and relying on the players to point out the mistakes and/or using hawkeye. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, I don’t become offended or blame the players for losing it when the umpires mess up, as they are the ones who suffer the loss, not the umpires.

Vulcan, I firmly believe that Roddick is not deceptive in his behaviour, and I further believe that he has a problem with respect to eye-sight. I think it’s why he misses a lot of his shots painting the lines.

BTW, thanks for your answer to my question. I was a bit befuddled when I noticed the shift and thought to myself maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.
johnny: I hate NO ONE. I speak the truth with respect to what I see, but it’s not due to hate, and many don’t like to hear the truth.

On the other hand, I firmly believe you ARE capable of hate, as you have been very vociferous as to which players you *hate* (your words) Murray, Fed, Serena and Safina, and your constant references to those players give credence to my thoughts on the topic. I remember there was a period of time you sunk your teeth so deeply into Murray and wouldn’t let go. The poor guy couldn’t do anything right in your eyesight. Not to mention the various links you like to post. That said, why do you accuse me of hating the Djoker? There’s a very juicy link I could post on the Djoker digging up the court in Shanghai last year, which shows that he’s not that wonderful/gracious as some think. Google it, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. That said, before you throw stones at Roddick, you should think of your own fave’s behaviour.

FYI, No one would use the word *rape* in their description of a tennis player’s behaviour, if they didn’t hate that player. If your statement wasn’t so gross, I’d find it funny. Your hate for Roddick goes way back, and is very deep-seated. I began listing some of the Djoker’s faults due to some of his fans who behave like you do, as it became tiresome reading the nonsensical garbage spewed towards Roddick. It was a sort of balancing the scales of justice, so to speak on my part. Anyway, have fun doing what you do best, and that’s hating. You have some friends on this site who ride with you on the Roddick hate train.

Von Says:

margot: I don’t know if you remember a while back, when I facetiously stated that both Andys seem to follow the other when it comes to losing. Well, it seems as though they did it again this time around. Luckily for Andy M. Soderling got knocked out early also, or else there could have been a shift in their ranking positions, had Soderling gone deeper in Beijing.

guy Says:

sure troicki got a bad call, but this was a point to GIVE him match points, not to WIN the match. that’s an important distinction.
and the way he played the 2 matchpoints later, you can’t say it was a given he would win even at 40/15.

besides, the bad call wasn’t for break point or to break serve. he was still 30all. which means being such a big server he was odds on to win that game. he only had to win two points, which is only one more than before. and he couldn’t.

then he had more match points and couldn’t take it, one match point on his own serve, one on nadal’s second serve.

basically, nadal was giving him a christmas present today, free points all over the place, broke himself with 4 unforced errors at the end of 3rd set which is unheard of.

troicki just couldn’t get it done even though he played some great stuff throughout the match.

Mg Mg Says:

I think he meant “berate”.

bobby Says:

There were many a times,were Rafa was on the wrong end of calls.As for taking of time during service,you should check with stop watch,and you will find that 99% of time he serves within the given 25 sec.It is mostly a perception that he takes more time because he serves when time is around 20-22 sec.But it is still within the allotted time.Most of the other players serve within 10-15 sec.Definitely Nadal takes more time than many players but 99% of time he serves within the time limit of 25 sec.Concentration plays a great part in tennis.So a player who is easily distracted does not deserve to win in tennis.A player should be able to concentrate the whole match whatever be the circumstance.An opposition player taking time on service should not affect affect a player who strives to be a champion.Otherwise he does not deserve to be a champion.

guy Says:

good points

and no one ever mentions that as a returner who happens to be getting run around by the server, it might be nice to have some recovery time.
that’s better than being run around by agassi then being rushed into the next point.
still it’s true, nadal is a terrible sport, which explains all the racket breaking and umpire abuse and on court tantrums.

Mg Mg Says:

That is what Rafa said on his FB. I can’t read Spanish though.

“Mañana en una final de nuevo. Muy contento. Ahora me voy a cenar aqui en el hotel con mi equipo para estar descansado mañana. Hoy no jugue del todo bien pero… Lo importante es estar en la final!
Back in a final tomorrow. Very happy. Now I am going for dinner with my team here at the hotel to be rested for tomorrow. I didn’t play well… today but… important to be in the final anyway!!!”

Kimberly Says:

Von Says:

Kimberly: I think you and jane should get together and write your official bios for this site, which would eliminate your constant need to repeat/inform us of your day to day lives. Just saying, you know, as most of your posts are filled with your day to day activities. I’d like to read more tennis related stuff than your life’s challenges.

Additionally, you seem to enjoy knocking many players, but you’re oh so very sensitive when it comes to your fave. Just remember, reciprocity and comeuppance, they go hand-in-hand.

At first I was going to go the high road and fail to dignify this with a response. But I will respond to this rubbish just once. After that is scroll on down baby!

Do you go out of your way to be nasty? And my life doesn’t have “challenges”. I’m a pretty blessed individual. Obviously you are not or you would not come on this site on vent your anger at people.

And btw, I actually kind of like Roddick. And my fav gets based more than anyone so I can be sympathetic to not liking to listen to your fav get bashed. But we all bash a lot of the players. It’s actually part of having something called a sense of humor.

To Others–still not thrilled with Rafas play last night but so glad he won.

Draw is out for Shaing Hai. Some tricky picks.

Kimberly Says:

To do draw challenge for Shaing Hai. Join tennis-x fans group to track everyones picks.

grendel Says:


first, re Thomas. Honestly, I wasn’t laughing at him (apologies to you Thomas if it came across like that) – it really could have been anyone (including me) making that kind of post (giving advice to a player), and I couldn’t resist the image of – well, you know. Thomas posts rarely, and I always rather like his posts when he does, and more often than not agree with him.

I wish wish wish I coulda seen Troicki/Nadal. I would absolutely like to see Monfils/Nadal. Can you let me know which stream you use, and also, what time it will be on (British time, obviously?)Do you like watching streams? That is, can you SEE the tennis properly? Not like on a nice big telly, is it?

“I lost my concentration after the first set,” Nadal said. “It’s a long season and there is a lot of pressure so it’s easy to lose your concentration.” That’s really all I meant after his loss to Lopez – no one can keep it going all the time. What he CAN still do, however, is concentrate in the crucial moments.


About Troicki being a choker. I think that might be unfair. He definitely choked against Djokovic and it seems he choked against Nadal. But consider who they are! One would hope this is a learning process, and that next time he comes up against one of the very best, he will have the experience to be able to tough it out should it come to the death. If he still keeps throwing it away, well, conclusions will inevitably be drawn. Incidentally, don’t you think he is a man to watch – if he keeps improving, he may become a genuine challenger for top honours. Or do you think that’s going too far?

About Roddick. I was astonished when you alluded to possible poor eyesight, and then I remembered that oddly endearing habit he has of blinking, which does suggest he may be trying to focus. But then why does he not wear either glasses or contacts? In sports like tennis and cricket, the eye is absolutely crucial.

Kimmi Says:

great to see monfils playing well in tokyo. last night i was listening to the commentator in his match and he said it feels like monfils davis cup experience is helping him out in big matches.

did not see roddick match but last night monfils was very compose. aggressive when he needed to and ofcourse great defense. he served very well under pressure, couple of times he was a break down and he come up with huge serves on the T

just came across his post match quote and thought he still not sure what to do out there but the main thing is he is making improvement.

“I am playing better and better. I change my game every day. Some days I’m defensive, some days I’m aggressive. Some times I’m on the net too much.”

lol. classic monfils!

he doesnt have a good record in the finals. 2-6 so far. playing rafa tomorrow does not help his course either. it will be great if he manages to beat the bull. go la monf

Go la monf

Kimberly Says:

Mindy—I thought the match was ugly, Rafa served very well but some more mistakes than usual on the rest of his game but I agree, he was a champ and eked through with his B game. Sometimes thats all you can do. Unfortunately no one can bring their best every single game. Sometimes one has to figure out to win when their game is not on. In my opinion that separates the best from the good. Federer is great at winning when his best game was absent. He almost did at USO Semi and has done it countless times.

Rafa got a horrendous call from the ump in the wimby QF match with Soda sending him down double break point in the second set and he pulled it out and brought his best and saved the game.

With that said, he needs to improve his level tonight to beat Monfils. I’m sure he will do his best.

Do you think it’s wise for him to play these three weeks in a row? I guess after Shaing Hai his schedule lightens up.

Vulcan Says:

Nadal gets Simon or Wawrinka first and then possibly Fish in the next round??? I guess there are no “easy” draws at Masters series tournaments but this one seems to be particularly steep for Rafa.

The main thing that struck me about Nadal’s pulling through that match was the absolute indifference he seems to have to the score – he plays exactly the same game on the first point of the match or up 40-love and 5-0 as he does match point down in the tiebreaker…its an absolute flatline that amazes me everytime I see it.

margot Says:

grendel: I subscribe to tennistv. I’ve tried freebie streaming and have found it really unsatisfactory- keeps freezing. No, it’s not as good as the telly but better than nothing.
You can buy a tournament or a match quite cheaply to test if u like it or not. I like Goodall and Koenig commentating, which is a bonus. Rafa v. Mr Showboat is on at 5am UK time I believe. I’m certainly going to try and see some of it.

Vulcan Says:


Excuse the delayed response I had to take some time out to watch Mozart’s “Salieri” (as you seem to see him) win his Tokyo SF match against an ace machine.

I would say that this entire discussion comes down to an assessment of who is the more popular guy not only today but who will be remembered more in future years. A highly speculative debate.

“Of course it is a great achievement to win at Wimbledon. But my question to you is: do you think it is an even greater achievement because of the opponent Nadal faced?”

Yes of course but this is not exactly a David and Goliath situation here. Nadal is simply not Federer’s Freddy Krueger. He had already achieved a greatness that is explicitly separate from what Federer has achieved. His accomplishments on Clay alone merit greatness…the fact that he won on Grass at all is what makes the match so memorable…beating Federer was just icing on the cake.

“But by his own choice, he himself seeks to always cast himself as the underdog and downplay his own stature and lower expectations. Can you wonder, then, that people sometimes ignore the magnitude of his accomplishments?”

Absolutely, the fact that he is humble should have no bearing on how much credit he gets for his accomplishments – at least from a fairminded person. The accomplishments for any player from Nastase to Edberg should stand alone and be appreciated for what they are.

I agree that this is a separate question from how (or whether) he will be remembered overall by the general public over time.

Because you are predicting what the future perception of the general public will be its pretty clear that you think Nadal will never surpass Federer in tennis achievements…or that even if he does Federer is just such a wonderful and charismatic guy that even if Nadal wins 20 majors Federer’s irrepressible charm will result in him always endearing the public more (again were talking about the global public here not just the “Fedesphere”).

I will conclude by simply stating my opinion as I myself do not have the ability nor the desire to attempt to forecast current or future public perception (or awareness) of who is the more popular player. At the present time, in my mind, I remember that match as a critical juncture in the Federer/Nadal rivalry and a very important milestone for both players. It was Nadal on the way up and Federer on the way down. In terms of how big of a step up or down and how memorable a step…its about 60/40 in favor of Nadal’s uprising vs Federer’s downfall. Speculating on how I will remember it in the future…the more ground Nadal gains on Federer the more that match will be remembered for Nadal’s increasing overall greatness not Federer’s waning dominance at Wimbledon.

i am it Says:

I think you and Kimberly were the two watching the match and posting last night. I was watching too but at 3:00 AM did not feel like saying anything. You summed up what happened.

“Wow! Troicki challenged a let first serve that was out, Nadal double faulted and made 3 silly mistakes. Now Troick is serving for the match at 6-5, after coming back from 3-5 Nadal serving for the match. Amazing!!!
“This was bad luck. At 30-15 he had a bad call which would gave him 40-15 2 match points, he challenged and the ball was good, and Nadal even with the bad call couldn’t put the ball into play. Troicki didn’t even argue with the empire to get the point, got tentative and now tiebreak. Troick deserves this match due to that bad call, he would have been 40-15 match point on serve.
If he lose this will be a huge injustice.

“This was a tense tiebreak, but this is really unfair. I don’t understand untill now why didn’t Trociki fight for a point which was already his when serving 30-15 after hawkeye should the ball good. The judge called out after Nadal hit a ball he couldn’t return and then, (instead of fairly awarding the point to Troicki), it was replayed. No way he would have lost 40-15 serving the way he was. NAdal made those silly errors as if he was embarrassed by winning after that point. Such a high quality match end by a bunch of errors by the lines judges when in the most important times.”

To add, there was another bad call in the 3rd set tiebreaker disfavoring Troicki. Not quite sure if it was due to embarrassment Rafa committed those 3 UEs. It seemed to me more like he was over-agitated or some form of momentary mental lapse because they were all too easy shots that Rafa makes 9.999 out of 10 times(this time, he threw one forehand wide on the Ad side, from inside the court; he shanked another easy overhead smash into the net, etc.).

Rewind to the 8th game of the 3rd set in which Rafa took break, he did not hit a single winner in the entire game. Trocki was hitting so well, each of his shots could had been a winner if it not had been for Rafa’s ultimate defense, which was spectacularly at its best.

Troicki was totally in an insane zone through out the match, he played the best I have ever seen and could not believe he was capable of that. Rafa too must have been surprised.
Unfortunately Troicki was not awarded the winner badge. Not everything is fair in life, not always. It was absolutely a great match, from both ends.
I seriously wonder why everything has to be evaluated from the Win / Loss paradigm, esp. for viewers’ pleasure. I have to deep-think about it.

i am it Says:

I am not sure if this is Fed-Nadal rivalry thread. Could you take that discussion to the relevant thread, please?

Vulcan Says:

Relax and don’t get your panties in a bunch…if you read my post you would see that I was concluding anyway…also are you the new moderator for this site?

Vulcan Says:

“a huge injustice”

Folks if you are going to make these kinds of appraisals of what happened please at least be sure that what you think you saw was really what happened. I know the commentators said something about it alluding to it possibly being a bad call but they don’t always get things right either.

I say again:

Did the linesperson call out before, during, or after Nadal struck the ball?

I intend to watch the footage again tonight but maybe someone out there has a photographic memory and can say EXACTLY what happened.

i am it Says:

No need to be offended, Vulcan, not a moderator but if every thread is filled with Fed-Rafa rivalry, it can get boring. That’s all I was trying to say. Unfortunately came out at the wrong time. Apology.

Huh Says:


Nadal has never dominated Fed except on clay. Of course, credit to Nadal, he beat Fed in AO and WIM. But those matches were hardly about dominance of one guy by the other. Moreover, Fed at his peak(upto 07) dominated Rafa outside clay and not otherwise. And it’s not like Fed hasn’t challenged Rafa on clay ever either.

i am it Says:

It seemed to me like the call and hitting occurred almost at the same time. I can assure that the call had zero impact on the shot. It was just un-returnable. Rafa barely and clumsily had a contact on the ball.

Vulcan Says:

I am it, no worries, I just get the impression that the Tennis-X message boards err on the side of inclusivity as opposed to strict authoritarian rule over who says what, where, and when…but I’ll watch myself from now on k? ;)

About the linecall…waaaaaaaaaaiiiiit a minute, tell me you aren’t talking about the shot that Troicki hit that landed deep in the corner on the deuce court side and caught the outside part of the line that Nadal attempted to half-volley????? If that’s the one Nadal absolutely had a play on it…I remember him being late on contact but he easily got there in time. I don’t know if this is another umpire judgment call situation or if its spelled out in the rule books saying that if you so much as nick the ball and you are distracted by an out call its a replay but Nadal was there in plenty of time from my recollection.

Vulcan Says:


At the risk of pissing IAI off (oh well I guess I’ll take that risk) I will summarize the argument very simply:

Steve-o speculates that Nadal will be remembered in a way analogous to the way a Vice President is remembered whereas I speculate that he will be remembered in a way analogous to the way a succeeding President will be remembered.

i am it Says:

I think you are talking about the one in the tiebreaker, which was replayed fairly, albeit a bad call from the linesman.
I was talking about the 4th point (30-15, 6-5, 3rd set). That point should have been awarded automatically to Troicki.
Funny thing to add, at the end of the game, Troicki goes to the umpire, and mentions about the lost opportunity, I am guessing he must have but that was a futile effort as it was untimely. It was bad judgment of the umpire. Nothing else. Rafa won the match. Troicki played great. Those who watched had great fun. Let’s move on.

sar Says:

Isner supposedly won 69% from his first serves. Didn’t see the stats. If so, Nole has a great return game.

skeezerweezer Says:

“I would say that this entire discussion comes down to an assessment of who is the more popular guy not only today but who will be remembered more in future years. A highly speculative debate.”

Highly Speculative? LMAO

skeezerweezer Says:


“Nole has a great return game.”

Yeah I have totally new respect for Jokers return of serve game, IMO the best in the game now. Thought he was always a good returner, but watching that match against Fed at USO he is a great returner…….

gordon Says:


you are ignorant on the points I try to make. There is the rule of tennis that each player needs to obey: “play shall be continuous and a player shall not unreasonably delay a match for any cause. A maximum of twenty-five (25) seconds shall elapse from the moment the ball goes out of play until the time the ball is struck for the next point. If such serve is a fault, then the second serve must be struck by the Server without delay. ” In Nadal’s case (of rule abuse) this was more then obvious in last US Open. Even this is known to everyone, it is very uncommon for umpire to impose this rule against him. As result it is very common for Nadal go over 30 seconds and sometimes he will come close to a full minute after a long rally.
When play (between Nadal and Federer) had to commence after one of the rain delays at Wimbledon (point # 188, Nadal’s serve # 111), Nadal took all the time in the world, prompting one commentator to reiterate that the umpire had already called time. The warm-up period was not recorded on the TV, but from a video tape recording of the match, Nadal continued with his warm-up for 34 seconds after the umpire had called time (Federer had already returned to his chair). Nadal delivered his first serve 111 seconds after time had been called, more than 50 seconds after Federer had already been in position, ready to receive. This point in particular demonstrated Nadal’s blatant disregard of the play-shall-be-continuous rule.
In a second set of a Montreal match between Djokovic and Roddick, on a game point of 4-1 lead to Djokovic, he suggested to Roddick to challenge the point that eventually resulted in 3-2 score and at the end Roddick claimed that set. This is a perfect example of excellent sportsmanship and not of stupidity as mem indicates.
For some people winning at any cost is ultimate goal, but thanks God there are still exceptions.

Ben Pronin Says:

“If so, Nole has a great return game.”

Sar, this is a pleasantly amusing comment. Based on stats alone, Djokovic is the best returner in the game, atm. But out of curiosity, I looked up last night’s stats. Here are some interesting and telling numbers:

First set, Djokovic hit 3 aces to Isner’s 7. Second set, Djokovic hit 2 aces to Isner’s 0! I’m not sure, but Isner not hitting a single ace in a set is quite shocking. It’s not like he had an 11 hour match the day before to leave his arm drained. Also, Djokovic had 0 double faults to Isner’s 3 which means in 3 matches, Djokovic has hit only 1 double fault. We all know how much Nadal has improved his serve, but Djokovic should be recognized for recovering his serve as well has he has.

Isner is not the best returner by a long shot, so it doesn’t really say anything that he converted 1/2 break points in the match. But Isner is one of the biggest servers in the game and he let Djokovic conver 3/12 break points. Impressive returning from Novak, to say the least. And according to the ATP stats, both players won 70% of first serve points in the first set.

The final should reveal more about the state of Djokovic’s serve. Ferrer is one of the toughest returners himself.

Skeezerweezer Says:


Nice post, great research to back up your opinion :)

Mindy Says:


I just had to respond when you mentioned that terrible call in Rafa’s quarterfinal match against Sod at Wimbledon! You must be reading my mind! After I made my initial post, I remembered that moment and thought about mentioning it. However, I was kind of drained from watching Rafa battle it out with Troicki, so I just let it go.

I agree with you about Rafa not playing his best tennis. My feeling is that it’s some mental fatigue right now. Rafa pretty much confirmed that in his post match press conference, when he spoke about his loss of concentration. It’s not surprising, given what he has accomplished this year. We would love to think that these athletes are like machines, however, they are all too human.

That is one reason that I was concerned about Rafa playing in three straight hardcourt tournaments. I know his reason for playing in Bangkok, but still wasn’t happy to see him there. I thought it might be too soon after his USO win. Then he had that bad loss to G-Lo and that kind of confirmed my bad feelings. There has been a lot of discussion about this among Rafa fans. Many feel that it’s not necessary, given Rafa’s insurmountable lead in points and having already secured the year-end number one ranking.

Honestly, sometimes I just have to realize that Rafa will do what he will do. I can see that winning this title in Tokyo means a lot to him. He may feel that this is the time to show that he can actually be a force in the fall hardcourt season.

You sound a bit worried. I feel much the same. I do believe that the only real concern now is the mental aspect. Rafa seems find physically and, with all the big serving in yesterday’s match, probably wasn’t physically pushed too much.

You are right – it WAS winning ugly! I do agree with you that Rafa will have to play much better if he wants to beat Monfils. I have been watching La Monf and it appears that he has decided to actually play tennis and not be the clown. You know that if anyone can get it done, it’s Rafa!

Again, thanks so much for bringing up that call at Wimbledon. We seem to be following the same train of thought!

Mindy Says:

Sorry, I meant to say FINE physically!

grendel Says:

“watching that match against Fed at USO he is a great returner…….” (Skeezer)

exactly my impression. amazing how many really good returners there are these days. When Connors, and then Agassi were great, it’s almost as if that aspect of their game was so unusual you wanted to draw attention to it. Now, there’s Djoko, Ferrer, Nalby, Murray, and up to a point others, including Nadal and sometimes Fed.

Skeezerweezer Says:

“…it’s some mental fatigue right now.”

Welcome to being #1. ask Fed :)

Kimberly Says:

Mindy says:

I have been watching La Monf and it appears that he has decided to actually play tennis and not be the clown. You know that if anyone can get it done, it’s Rafa.

Agreed. Monfils seems to have found his form since Davis Cup. I hope Rafa can bring it mentally. I am proud that he is in the final and I’m sure he will compete.

But I agree that Rafa must be mentally fatigued. To win USO then go on the press tour in NYC and Madrid, fly right to thailand, adjust to time change, play a tourney, fly to tokyo, play another tourney, going deep in both, consecutive day matches…i’m tired just thinking

and then to go play a masters series in yet another city. i’m sure he will get a late start but I am concerned that he will just run out of gas. The good news is I think he at least has a rest before Paris.

I really don’t care that much what he does for the rest of the year. I want him to win AO11 so bad I can taste it already. I just worry he will injure his body and his long term future in this sport. However, because the courts are so fast the points are relatively short so maybe he’s not punishing his body too much.

goat galz Says:

Do you go out of your way to be nasty?

Yes, she does go out of her way. Von is a miserable human being, a bully, a control freak, and someone who should be monitored closely by competent mental health staff. Let’s just hope she hasn’t had the opportunity to breed. Like most borderline personality disordered people she needs constant attention. Just ignore her and hopefully she will be straight-jacketed soon.

Vulcan Says:

i am it Says:

It seemed to me like the call and hitting occurred almost at the same time. I can assure that the call had zero impact on the shot. It was just un-returnable. Rafa barely and clumsily had a contact on the ball.

OK, I have just watched the footage of the point and the call definitely came AFTER Nadal made contact with the ball. Nadal WAS there in plenty of time but that is irrelevant. The point should of gone to Troicki. A very tough break for the Serb. He deserved to win that match.

Von Says:

Vulcan: At Tokyo there were tons of bad calls. Roddick, got robbed of a point in his match vs. Monfils, and he had to replay the point as a second serve, which gave Monfils a very good opportunity to get into a long rally = Roddick lost the point, and the game turned out to be a long one, as Andy had to battle to keep his serve from being broken.

Huh Says:


Cool Down! ;)

Mindy Says:


Well, good news! Rafa won and in fine fashion! The match was much easier than I expected, surprisingly so! Rafa was focused and on fire. Nice to see after that tough match with Troicki.

I am reminded again of something a Rafa fan said yesterday – Rafa thrives on the kind of match he has last night with Troicki. Even if he is battling some mental fatigue, somehow those competitive juices get flowing. Just look at how he responded in the final. He took control right from the start and Monfils seemed like the one who was tired or just out of it.

Rafa made sure not to make the same mistakes he did last night. His forehand is a weapon of mass destruction and that backhand was working much better. Beautifully done! I think this meant a lot to Rafa, given how poorly he always does during this time of the tennis calendar.

I think this match will only give Rafa more confidence and momentum going into Shanghai. He has a tough draw, but that’s the way it is these days in the men’s game. If he gets through the first two matches and reaches the quarterfinals, I think his chances look good. I don’t fear Davy at all. Bring it on!

Don’t worry! After Shanghai Rafa will take a break. Again we seem to be in sync with our thoughts. I totally want him to win the 2011 AO. I am almost obsessing over it, even thought it is months away. I would like to see Rafa do well now, but the big picture is the 2011 AO! That is where Rafa could make history, the kind of history that would put him in the discussion as one of the greatest to play the game.

Vulcan (and also Kimberly),

I also went back and checked my recording of the match to see what happened with that bad call. I had to replay it a few times to make sure, but the out call was definitely after Rafa made contact with the ball. The point should have been given to Troicki, based on my understanding of the rule. However, I think that the chair umpire may have thought that the out call came before Rafa made contact. The out call was very close to the time that Rafa made contact. We have the luxury of checking out a replay over and over. He had to make the call on the spot. If he thought that the out call came before Rafa made contact, then that would explain his ruling. It would be wonderful if umpires or linespeople were perfect, but they do make mistakes.

The fact is that the match was still on Troicki’s racket. He was self-destructing even without the bad call. I watched the next point after that call and Troicki had Rafa out of position and was at the net and had a clear volley winner. Somehow he hit it into the net. I didn’t remember that he actually double faulted to lose the game. He did go speak to the chair umpire after he lost the game, but that was too late. The commentators kept wondering why he didn’t at least challenge the call immediately.

As for that other call when it was 6-6 in the tb, they replayed it and Troicki won it to give him his second match point. The bottom line is that he had his chances even after that call and didn’t get it done. It’s unfortunate but a player has to handle it, keep his composure and stay focused.

I dislike comments such as someone “deserving” to win the match. If we awarded wins on that basis, then the tennis history books would look much different. Troicki still had his chances and didn’t win. That’s how it goes. Now this little tempest in a teapot can be put to rest for good.


Keep smiling! Rafa will be okay! :)

Vulcan Says:

Von, Mindy,

Of all of the possible scenarios that can generate unfair or missing decisions by the umpire I would say that the most complicated scenario is where the ball lands in, is called out, and the player MAY have had a play on the ball, and the challenge system is used to overturn the call. The situation requires the Umpire to not only make a judgment as to whether the player had a play on the ball but photographically recall precisely when it was that the out call came. I have seen numerous occasions where this sequence has caused unfair rulings by the umpire…if ever there was a scenario that warranted a review system as in football this would be the one. As proved by Roddick in Australia there is also apparently quite a bit of confusion out there among the players as to precisely how the logic works and under what circumstances they have the right to a replay.

Skeezerweezer Says:

The mud is thick up here, and the fog is dense

grendel Says:

Vulcan – by football, are you by any chance referring to the goal England should have been awarded against Germany in the World Cup? A hawkeye system would have cleared that up. I’m not sure that in the scenario to which you are alluding – and it’s curious how often Roddick seems to be involved, there was one like that in a match with Federer, I think at AO – that resolution is necessarily possible. Sometimes, as in for example l.b.w. decisions in cricket, there can be no categorically correct decision. Surely this just mirrors life, which has uncertainty built into it. It’s not as if it happens that often, so it’s liveable with, maybe even adds a bit of realistic spice.

Skeezer, that’s a rather gorgeous line. you have poetry in your soul!

skeezerweezer Says:


I just don’t have the novella skills of others :-)

grendel Says:

That was below the belt, Skeezer!
And yet, it was just, I do declare.
from a weeping admirer

Kimberly Says:


Rafa always manages to bring his best for the final. I am so happy for him. I love to see him add to his hardcourt collection.

And as someone else said, he is now starting to play hardcourt tennis, rather than merely clay court tennis on hardcourt.

I have no fear of Davy or Murray. I think if Rafa loses it would be in the 1st or second round partially due to the natural let down after winning Tokyo.

But I don’t care that much about Shaing Hai. I am borderline obsessed with AO11. It would lift his career to the next level. Right now I don’t get in the GOAT debates because I truly don’t feel Rafa has an argument at the moment v. Federer. When/if he gets in double digits and if he held 4 consecutive slams maybe then he will enter the conversation. I think he can do it!

Skeezerweezer Says:


Ha! I got you on that one :) Keep up the writing, It’s made good talk up here, for and against, and keeps the tennis passion running high.

Vulcan Says:


I was referring to the replay system that is used in American football where plays which are too difficult to call on the fly are reviewed on video to give the referees more of chance to analyze precisely what happened…an example would be a wide receiver catching a ball right at the sideline and attempting to touch both feet on the ground to make it a legal catch…the referees would go to the video to see if both feet actually touched.

Skeezerweezer: Maybe take some decongestant to help yourself see things a bit more clearly? ;)

Von Says:

Vulcan; “As proved by Roddick in Australia there is also apparently quite a bit of confusion out there among the players as to precisely how the logic works and under what circumstances they have the right to a replay.”

I think the players’ confusion stems from the fact that some of the umpires don’t seem to know the rule themselves. Additionally, there is a gross inconsistency among the umpires’ overruling of bad calls from the linesmen, as there is the human discretionary factor that comes into the equation. If you pay close attention to the umpires’ MO on various situations when there is supposed to be an over-rule, each one, or I should say, nearly each one, rules differently. There isn’t a universal or united form of over-rule, among the umpires and their interpretation of the rule which results in the action taken. Hence, don’t you think the players will automatically become confused? I know I would, as therein lies a certain amount of doubt and/or trust which is caused by the umpires’ reaction and/or action taken, due to their many inconsistencies.

I think ATP should give the umpires a sort of *cheat sheet* which they can use when these situations arise, as it’s evident from their over-rules and/or actions taken, that they are in lala land when it pertains to how they should handle some situations. For example, some umps may give the point to the player who was proved right by hawkeye, and then some would say replay the point. In those cases, is it any wonder why the players become angry and/or lose it, thus causing a scene with the umpires? Some of the umpires, I hate to say it so bluntly, appear as though they are just a bump on a log, taking up useful space, or should it be useless space = Physically present, but emotionally unavailable, LOL.

Top story: Djokovic Ties Federer For All-Time Weeks Ranked No. 1
Most Recent story: Roger Federer Won't Play The Miami Masters