T1B

- By winning, Federer would become just the 6th man in tennis history to win all 4 'slams' -- and would also then hold all 4 at the same time

- Nadal is going for his 3rd straight French Open title

- Despite Federer absolutely dominating tennis over the past 4 or 5 yrs, Nadal owns a 7-4 record, a 5-1 record on dirt, and a 2-0 record at Roland Garros, v. Roger


Nadal is, IMO, going to go down as one of (if not THE) greatest dirtballers ever.

It says here that R. Nadal will win on Sunday in surprisingly 'easy' fashion -- 4 sets.


Your call .... ?

I'll take WGARA in 4 sets.

For some reason, I think Federer is going to beat him. The dirt win vs Nadal in Hamburg a couple of weeks ago might have given him the confidence that he can actually beat Nadal on clay.

^^Agreed. Though Federer was struggling before Hamburg, that was a huge win for him. I have a funny feeling he wins in 5 tomorrow but slips up at either Wimbledon or the US Open and doesn't win the grand slam this year.

Toddowen wrote:..playing a game that is slightly more demanding than badminton?

Nice try.

L45B wrote:

Toddowen wrote:..playing a game that is slightly more demanding than badminton?

Nice try.

No shit! Obviously, Tardowen hasn't played tennis... ever.

Very demanding sport. Unless one considers running around for three or four hours straight on a court in 100 degree temperatures is easy. If so, all the power to you.

What a fucking idiot.

Fascinating idea, Toddowen.

One of the Euro men's tournaments a couple of years ago trotted out scantilly-clad women to work as 'ball-girls' for the event.
Well, maybe not that scantilly-clad, but in sort of a more modest 'Hooters' look.

All kidding aside, judging by the day and age we're in, I thought this concept was a lock to catch on.

To my knowledge it hasn't been used at any tourney since.

Baffles me.


Since Tennis crapped the bed and let star wars racquets ruin the sport, what they need to do is to raise the net by a few inches.
A slightly larger ball helps to slow the pace and make the game more watchable, but players complained that they were hurting their arms when playing with the larger balls .... save the jokes.

Higher net .... best answer at this point in time.

That and more tittie girl ball-girls.


Fu is right also, of course.

Tennis is a VERY demanding sport.

Mentally, physically and emotionally.

Nadal steamrolled through the first set. Second set more competitive so far.

The thing about clay courts is it allows for slower court play. Nadal is at an advantage on this surface. For those here that have never played on a clay court... it slows the ball down significantly. The reason you see the "full Western grip" is because the clay courters can play with an open stance and hit the ball at the last second.

Roger is mainly a high speed player and this clay surface takes away his strength. Playing on clay is like giving these guys a wooden racket.

Fresno's Robert Kendrick almost beat Nadal a few years ago on a faster surface. Not like I have a USPTA card or anything.

edit: Roger is off today. His footwork is sloppy.

Anybody wanna bet on the replay?

Being a semi-casual tennis fan, this match really sparked my interest. Roger made a lot of unforced errors, but Nadal was relentless when his back was against the wall on breakpoints. Hopefully, Nadal and Federer can go at it for a few more years and a young american player can participate in the rivalry.

Question:

If Federer was playing and in his prime during the Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier era, would he have 10 grand slams?

He probably wouldn't.

Then again, Sampras probably wouldn't have 14 and Agassi probably wouldn't have 8 if they had played in the Federer era.


Just another way to look at it.

Chang? Solid player to be sure, but I don't see how Michael Chang would've posed a real threat to Federer's continued dominance.

Two years ago John McEnroe and Jimmy Conners said Federer is the best player ever.

He's the most complete player ever, IMO.
And his movement, court coverage, and overall dexterity is too good for words.

I'd put Federer on the short list of greatest ever.
Laver, Sampras, Tilden, Borg .... a few others in the discussion ...

Nobody has ever dominated a short 'era' (4-5 yrs) like Federer has.
That is, IMO, a product of two factors converging.

1. He's a truly elite champion
2. Other than Nadal, and primarily on clay, there hasn't been anyone to challenge him

That and more tittie girl ball-girls.

When the Central Blood Bank makes its nightly call begging for me to give blood again, and I find some reason to procrastinate and put them off, I always think, "jeez, get some bikini'ed hotties to stand around waving fans and serving juice and cookies, and I would make it happen every single time". Do you want the fucking blood, or not?

poptart wrote:Nobody has ever dominated a short 'era' (4-5 yrs) like Federer has.

True, but what of his competition? Safin, Roddick, Blake, and Nadal just haven't lived up to the expectations.

I know Federer's game is brilliant. His one-handed backhand is lethal and his net play is really solid too. Nobody hits passing shots like he does. He seriously makes other players look foolish (except for Nadal on clay), but I just wonder if he is that good or the competition is that bad. Its probably a little of both.