French Open 2011

Another Grand Slam over....Well there have been so many highlights. I have put what I thought have the been the moments of the tournament.

Best male player of the tournament - Roger Federer - Played the best tennis of the field of players right from round 1 up until the final. So pleased to him playing his best tennis again.

Best unseeded male player of the tournament - Michael Berrer - Ranked 95 in the world. Even though other unseeded players progressed further, I think the fact he beat Raonic and a home favourite in Clement and faced Murray in the 3rd round, I think the quality of players he came through was higher than that of Chela, Ljubicic or Falla.

Best male singles match of the tournament - Roger Federer v Novak Djokovic - Both players produced some brilliant tennis and it was of high quality for 4 sets.

Best female player of the tournament - Li Na - Made history in becoming the first chinese grand slam winner and also playing the better tennis over the tournament. Played some a great match against Sharapova and even more so against Schiavone.

Best unseeded female player of the tournament - Caroline Garcia - at 17 playing both the juniors and reaching the semi finals and the main tournament and winning her first match in a grand slam and also nearly defeating Maria Sharapova is deserved of this worthy mention.

Best female match of the tournament - Jelena Jankovic v Francesca Schiavone - This match was brilliant. Was 3 sets of high class tennis and Schiavone playing like a true champion.

Top 5 moments of the tournament

1 - Li Na winning the Womens Singles - Winning her first slam and also making history and the presentation was brilliant as you could see the emotion in Li Na, but also Schiavone was so gracious in defeat.

2 - Roger Federer defeating Novak Djokovic - Roger had come into this tournament under the radar and all talk was of Novak making tennis history. Sadly for the Serb he ran into a resurgent Federer who played brilliant all tournament.

3 - Heather Watson and Elena Baltacha - Both progressed into the second round of the womens draw for the first time since 1992. Sadly both were beaten, but an achievement none the less.

4 - Lukasz Kubot - Became the first male player from Poland to reach the 3rd round of Grand Slam event.

5 - Andy Murray re-discovers his form - By far played the best tennis on clay that he ever has. Even a minor ankle injury could not prevent him reaching the semi-finals for the first time at Roland Garros.

Worst moment of the tournament

I have selected 2

1 - Fabio Fognini pulls out of his quarter final clash with Novak Djokovic - This by far was one of the biggest crimes in tennis since Serena Williams threatened that poor line judge at the US Open in 2009. He did it with a smile that he could've only learnt from Cristiano Ronaldo and the fact he said he didn't have a chance against Novak was a insult to the players, tournament and the fans.

2 - French Open Organisers refuse people entry to Djokovic v Del Potro - Because of the crazy schedule, this match was originally due to be played on Philippe Chartier and was moved to Suzanne Lenglen and people that had tickets for Philippe Chartier were refused entry. Total madness and nearly spoiled this much look forward to encounter.

What were your favourite moments?

Legend, your views are biased or else what could be the reason for Rafa not being the best player of the tournament?

Its called "opinion" wow, and I seem to remember legend asking what we thought were our opinions.

wow wrote:Legend, your views are biased or else what could be the reason for Rafa not being the best player of the tournament?

Biased? So my views are unbiased to Rafa? Like I said at the top of the article 'What I thought' and I did ask what your favourite moments were to! So you are entitled to disagree.

Hmm, so what is the difference between a view and an opinion?

Well in my opinion I agree with you as I am a die hard fed fan

To be Honest it has to be Nadal for player of the tournament as he won and equalled a 30yr old record. I'd put Murray a close second for turning a near disaster into his best FO performance and one of the strongest performances against Nadal over 5 sets on clay, whilst battling an injury

I don't really see it as anything other than a return to form by Fed - hes done all this before, played great, well done.

For womens - i'd put it equal between Li Na and Schiavone - Li for the win, Schi for the return to form and run to the final. Generally speaking a lot of the top women fell apart this year - otherwise some great female matches emerged though

wow wrote:Hmm, so what is the difference between a view and an opinion?

Well in my opinion I agree with you as I am a die hard fed fan

Well I am not a die hard Fed fan, but I look upon it that the quality of Federer's tennis over the tournament was better than anyone elses. Even though Nadal won it, I don't think he played anywhere near the tennis Federer was producing in earlier rounds.

I am a die hard Murray fan, but more of a tennis fan in general and I cannot justify putting Murray ahead of anyone that plays better tennis.

I think on an average basis I agree Fed played better than everyone all tournament whereas Nadal built form over the 2 weeks and ended up being too much for Roger today...just shows how its about peaking at the right time in slams.

Agree the scheduling was crazy including today really. They need to start splitting matches between the showcourts better rather than put all the key matches onto the same courts...plus it always seemed to be the mens matches that suffer. And to think FO starts matches earlier in the day and a day earlier than Wimbledon yet have many more carryover matches! Come on FO, you can do better than this.

In another category - players I felt sorry for most: would go to Albert Montanes and NoDjo for the same reason - Fognini, and also Delpo for bad scheduling. People keep saying how hard done to Nole was but you could argue the same for Delpo who was in a good position with good momentum before they had to stop the match with Nole. Had they carried on Nole may not have reached the position of potentially playing Fognini...

With the unofficial top 5 all in good form (and I include Delpo in that 5, not Sod) Wimbledon should prove very interesting!

Tom_____ wrote:To be Honest it has to be Nadal for player of the tournament as he won and equalled a 30yr old record. I'd put Murray a close second for turning a near disaster into his best FO performance and one of the strongest performances against Nadal over 5 sets on clay, whilst battling an injury

I don't really see it as anything other than a return to form by Fed - hes done all this before, played great, well done.

For womens - i'd put it equal between Li Na and Schiavone - Li for the win, Schi for the return to form and run to the final. Generally speaking a lot of the top women fell apart this year - otherwise some great female matches emerged though

Some good points there Tom

There were 7 seeded players left in the womens draw in the quarter finals. I can't remember the last time that happened. A lot of the top women players fell away in the latter rounds.

Credible mention to Schiavone. She does like to scrap on court.

Let's face it, the first semi was very poor compared to the second one. The FO 2010 final was poor and the SW19 10 final was also very poor.

Yes Nadal hits a heavy top spin and can run everywhere but crowds all over the world don't enjoy his matches.

lydian wrote:I think on an average basis I agree Fed played better than everyone all tournament whereas Nadal built form over the 2 weeks and ended up being too much for Roger today...just shows how its about peaking at the right time in slams.

Agree the scheduling was crazy including today really. They need to start splitting matches between the showcourts better rather than put all the key matches onto the same courts...plus it always seemed to be the mens matches that suffer. And to think FO starts matches earlier in the day and a day earlier than Wimbledon yet have many more carryover matches! Come on FO, you can do better than this.

In another category - players I felt sorry for most: would go to Albert Montanes and NoDjo for the same reason - Fognini, and also Delpo for bad scheduling. People keep saying how hard done to Nole was but you could argue the same for Delpo who was in a good position with good momentum before they had to stop the match with Nole. Had they carried on Nole may not have reached the position of potentially playing Fognini...

With the unofficial top 5 all in good form (and I include Delpo in that 5, not Sod) Wimbledon should prove very interesting!

Some great points there lydian

I felt sorry for Montanes too. The fact he played a 5 setter and was annoyed by the MTO and then see the winner give the place up without even trying must've left him fuming. And again with Delpo, might have been a different story had the match not carried over.

And I agree, Sod is not a top 5 player!

Tenez is "Nadal hits a heavy top spin and can run everywhere" part of your forum signature as it seems to appear on every post you make? Just wondering.

Tenez wrote:Let's face it, the first semi was very poor compared to the second one. The FO 2010 final was poor and the SW19 10 final was also very poor.

Yes Nadal hits a heavy top spin and can run everywhere but crowds all over the world don't enjoy his matches.

I wouldn't have said the 1st semi was poor. That was more of a tactical battle and displayed more of a mental approach. Still had some great groundstrokes and some class rallies. Feds and Djoko were literally hitting through each other.

I watched the final and I got annoyed with Feds because he didn't at any stage change his tactics. Nadal upped his game and Roger's standard declined.

I would still watch Nadal and so will the crowds at Wimbledon

Tenez wrote:Let's face it, the first semi was very poor compared to the second one. The FO 2010 final was poor and the SW19 10 final was also very poor.

Yes Nadal hits a heavy top spin and can run everywhere but crowds all over the world don't enjoy his matches.

This is your "unbiased" opinion again is it Tenez .. spoken with your usual transparancy.. Im sure you could be more obvious if your really tried Try speaking for yourself and not "crowds all over the world"

I wouldn't have said the 1st semi was poor. That was more of a tactical battle and displayed more of a mental approach.

Frankly it was a lung battle. A marathon. Very little effort to find lines or hit winners. I did not see a mental battle.

I watched the final and I got annoyed with Feds because he didn't at any stage change his tactics. Nadal upped his game and Roger's standard declined.

What would you expect him to do? Run like Murray and Djoko until Nadal is forced in taking the risk first? He cannot, it's a physical issue not a tactical one.

Let's stop talking about strategy and smart play when it comes to playing Nadal on clay. You can either rally with him or you can't. SO far only Djoko has the stamina and footwork to do so...allowing him to make a clear difference with his talent when facing Nadal.

Tenez wrote:

I wouldn't have said the 1st semi was poor. That was more of a tactical battle and displayed more of a mental approach.

Frankly it was a lung battle. A marathon. Very little effort to find lines or hit winners. I did not see a mental battle.

I watched the final and I got annoyed with Feds because he didn't at any stage change his tactics. Nadal upped his game and Roger's standard declined.

What would you expect him to do? Run like Murray and Djoko until Nadal is forced in taking the risk first? He cannot, it's a physical issue not a tactical one.

Let's stop talking about strategy and smart play when it comes to playing Nadal on clay. You can either rally with him or you can't. SO far only Djoko has the stamina and footwork to do so...allowing him to make a clear difference with his talent when facing Nadal.

If Roger can't change his game up, then he lacks variation!!!

You can't keep going for winner after winner after each return for crying out loud!

The whole lung busting theory is nonsense. Players still need to hit the ball!

Its just still Nadal's moment, poor Rog played exceptionally well only to panic on important points and lose the match, some sins just don't change.

If Roger can't change his game up, then he lacks variation!!!
--------------------------------

Not at all. it's an energy issue.

Federer is not beaten by tactics, plans or variation...thus far anyway.

He is beaten by players who can send a heavy ball difficult to control and can retrieve balls that would be winners against anybody else. In short Nadal on clay and maybe Djoko at times across surfaces.

It's like a featherweight v a heavyweight. Despite the lighter boxer being faster, sharper, he won't win v the heavyweight.

Tenez wrote:If Roger can't change his game up, then he lacks variation!!!
--------------------------------

Not at all. it's an energy issue.

Federer is not beaten by tactics, plans or variation...thus far anyway.

He is beaten by players who can send a heavy ball difficult to control and can retrieve balls that would be winners against anybody else. In short Nadal on clay and maybe Djoko at times across surfaces.

It's like a featherweight v a heavyweight. Despite the lighter boxer being faster, sharper, he won't win v the heavyweight.

It is not an energy issue. Take the first set. Federer was playing at times passive with his backhand. Varying the length and height and pace. This was working. Then he decides to attack with his backhand too soon thus making UE's. That is why Nadal is successful because he works the point with his angles thus then using the forehand to crush the opponent. In the 3rd set he started taking the ball too early on his forehand hence there was no pace and why Nadal was able to retrieve. Panic. If Federer had any tactical nouse he would be able to 'adjust' his gameplan to the situation.

Saying that the biggest boxer hits the hardest wins is total nonsense as well becuase Valuev would be mutiple champion and isn't.

It is.

The parallel with boxing is to make a point. Mentioning particular cases is not very helpful.

Then he decides to attack with his backhand too soon thus making UE's

That is non-sense, I am afraid. The more he waits on his BH the more likely he is going to shank or be sent in the far end corner by Nadal's FH CC. This is exactly why he is left with no choice but take risk from his BH as well as FH.


Most the points they played were short and that is why in my view it was a pretty close match. Had Federer been dragged in longer rallies more often he woudl have stood zero chance. At least with those short rallies he kept Nadal on his toes.

Tenez, Federer lost the match in the usual way, beaten by a better opponent consistently exploiting his weaknesses. Not bad for a guy in poor form most of the event. You need to get over it, arguing the ins and outs of Fed's BH wont change the result.

Nadal completely owns Federer in slams and has done since 2007...its Federer's weakness to change or adapt that is the issue. They are both the same bodyweight and height...Federer is as fit and has as much stamina as Nadal...Federer needs to change his game but shows little willingness to do that. Yes he kept Nadal on his toes today but this was a sub-par Nadal and Federer couldnt play much better. We know what a 100% Nadal can do.

Bottom line: Federer needs a new strategy, and probably new racquet...but its probably too late

Tenez wrote:It is.

The parallel with boxing is to make a point. Mentioning particular cases is not very helpful.

Then he decides to attack with his backhand too soon thus making UE's

That is non-sense, I am afraid. The more he waits on his BH the more likely he is going to shank or be sent in the far end corner by Nadal's FH CC. This is exactly why he is left with no choice but take risk from his BH as well as FH.


Most the points they played were short and that is why in my view it was a pretty close match. Had Federer been dragged in longer rallies more often he woudl have stood zero chance. At least with those short rallies he kept Nadal on his toes.

Not at all. Thats playing the percentage and assumption that he will shank it. He can slice it if need be. Considering when Nadal plays a looping backhand, why not take on the forehand? This is something that Djokovic has done lately and we have seen the results.

High risk, high reward strategy doesn't work against someone like Nadal. Feds needs to learn to win ugly. If that is something he won't address, then he will always have a problem with against Nadal.

lydian wrote:Tenez, Federer lost the match in the usual way, beaten by a better opponent consistently exploiting his weaknesses. Not bad for a guy in poor form most of the event. You need to get over it, arguing the ins and outs of Fed's BH wont change the result.

Nadal completely owns Federer in slams and has done since 2007...its Federer's weakness to change or adapt that is the issue. They are both the same bodyweight and height...Federer is as fit and has as much stamina as Nadal...Federer needs to change his game but shows little willingness to do that. Yes he kept Nadal on his toes today but this was a sub-par Nadal and Federer couldnt play much better. We know what a 100% Nadal can do.

Bottom line: Federer needs a new strategy, and probably new racquet...but its probably too late

Lydian this is aflawed argument, Nadal is possibly the best clay courter of all time and most of fed's losses against Nadal have come on clay. Out of 3 Wimby finals one was a total rout for Rafa and he managed to win only one and we know that how close encounter it was. Oz open final was a very close one and 2008 was Rafa's best year.

Rafa still have to open ATP tour finals and Fed did beat Rafa handsomely on a faster hard court. It is a shame that Nadal has not managed to produce same kind of form on faster hard courts hence avoiding encounteers with Fed.

It has been opposite in Fed's case, he has been 2nd best clay courter of his time which meant that he kept reaching finals and meeting Rafa at his best surface. Rafa gets no walk over on other surfaces other than clay.

High risk, high reward strategy doesn't work against someone like Nadal.
--------------------------------------
Well first he almost did. That is teh strategy that could have land him a 6/2 in the first set.

And that's his only option. He can't rally like Djoko and Murray. He has a SHBH. There is no way around that. A BH slice will do nothing to help him...watch the video again!

"Nadal only loses when he is injured", is an old adage and does not hold true anymore. Djoko beat fit nadal not once, twice, thrice but four times in a row.

I sincerely wish Delpo to start firing again so this air of invincibility can be blown away as soon as possible.

Lydian, In 20 years time, Federer will still be the greatest. Nadal will be remembered as a super Wilander who like him won on clay and slow grass.

Tenez wrote:Lydian, In 20 years time, Federer will still be the greatest. Nadal will be remembered as a super Wilander who like him won on clay and slow grass.

Nadal holds the record for holding no. 2 position for longest duration of time. It will take some effort to equal the no. 1 ranking record of Roger and 16 slams record.

wow wrote:

lydian wrote:Tenez, Federer lost the match in the usual way, beaten by a better opponent consistently exploiting his weaknesses. Not bad for a guy in poor form most of the event. You need to get over it, arguing the ins and outs of Fed's BH wont change the result.

Nadal completely owns Federer in slams and has done since 2007...its Federer's weakness to change or adapt that is the issue. They are both the same bodyweight and height...Federer is as fit and has as much stamina as Nadal...Federer needs to change his game but shows little willingness to do that. Yes he kept Nadal on his toes today but this was a sub-par Nadal and Federer couldnt play much better. We know what a 100% Nadal can do.

Bottom line: Federer needs a new strategy, and probably new racquet...but its probably too late

Lydian this is aflawed argument, Nadal is possibly the best clay courter of all time and most of fed's losses against Nadal have come on clay. Out of 3 Wimby finals one was a total rout for Rafa and he managed to win only one and we know that how close encounter it was. Oz open final was a very close one and 2008 was Rafa's best year.

Rafa still have to open ATP tour finals and Fed did beat Rafa handsomely on a faster hard court. It is a shame that Nadal has not managed to produce same kind of form on faster hard courts hence avoiding encounteers with Fed.

It has been opposite in Fed's case, he has been 2nd best clay courter of his time which meant that he kept reaching finals and meeting Rafa at his best surface. Rafa gets no walk over on other surfaces other than clay.

Wow i hope for you own sake you are not calling WTF at London a faster hard court. Are you serious? Honestly. That court is as slow as it comes except is at indoor court which and suprise suprise hard courts slams and most hc tournaments are played outdoors and guess what Federer's hard court record against Nadal out door is, 1-4. You forget their 2007 Wimbledon final was a close encounter as well or did you leave that out conveniently? Close encounters or almost never wins you the slam as shown again today. You either the winner or not.

Tenez wrote:High risk, high reward strategy doesn't work against someone like Nadal.
--------------------------------------
Well first he almost did. That is teh strategy that could have land him a 6/2 in the first set.

And that's his only option. He can't rally like Djoko and Murray. He has a SHBH. There is no way around that. A BH slice will do nothing to help him...watch the video again!

A backhand slice can work. I am sorry but if he is able to nulify Roddick and even Hewitt who is the closest to Nadal, he should be able to find away to defeat Nadal. He needs to work the angles round the court more, he did this in phases and that worked. He needs to learn discipline.

Tenez...unlike you I'm not bothered about the greatest label because as I have said many times there is no such thing as a definitive GOAT in tennis, only opinions.
Also, you forget that Nadal won hardcourt slams, Olympic singles Gold, and Davis Cup. #1 or #2 tally doesnt really matter, after all Sampras holds the record for y/e #1's.
But you can tell Federer is getting prickly about the GOAT subject as this Telegraph article infers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rogerfederer/8558464/French-Open-2011-Roger-Federers-aura-dimmed-by-an-indestructible-nemesis-that-is-Rafa-Nadal.html

Yes wow - In fact in 20 years time we will talk of Federer and Laver and maybe Borg...and that's it...the new champions will take centre stage like Nadal and Djoko now but they will slip down the list like Becker, Wilander and Edberg have.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

wow wrote:

lydian wrote:Tenez, Federer lost the match in the usual way, beaten by a better opponent consistently exploiting his weaknesses. Not bad for a guy in poor form most of the event. You need to get over it, arguing the ins and outs of Fed's BH wont change the result.

Nadal completely owns Federer in slams and has done since 2007...its Federer's weakness to change or adapt that is the issue. They are both the same bodyweight and height...Federer is as fit and has as much stamina as Nadal...Federer needs to change his game but shows little willingness to do that. Yes he kept Nadal on his toes today but this was a sub-par Nadal and Federer couldnt play much better. We know what a 100% Nadal can do.

Bottom line: Federer needs a new strategy, and probably new racquet...but its probably too late

Lydian this is aflawed argument, Nadal is possibly the best clay courter of all time and most of fed's losses against Nadal have come on clay. Out of 3 Wimby finals one was a total rout for Rafa and he managed to win only one and we know that how close encounter it was. Oz open final was a very close one and 2008 was Rafa's best year.

Rafa still have to open ATP tour finals and Fed did beat Rafa handsomely on a faster hard court. It is a shame that Nadal has not managed to produce same kind of form on faster hard courts hence avoiding encounteers with Fed.

It has been opposite in Fed's case, he has been 2nd best clay courter of his time which meant that he kept reaching finals and meeting Rafa at his best surface. Rafa gets no walk over on other surfaces other than clay.

Wow i hope for you own sake you are not calling WTF at London a faster hard court. Are you serious? Honestly. That court is as slow as it comes except is at indoor court which and suprise suprise hard courts slams and most hc tournaments are played outdoors and guess what Federer's hard court record against Nadal out door is, 1-4. You forget their 2007 Wimbledon final was a close encounter as well or did you leave that out conveniently? Close encounters or almost never wins you the slam as shown again today. You either the winner or not.

2007 Wimby was close but Lydian talks of Nadal owning Fed which is not right. There is always competiton between two when they are not meeting on clay. I always knew that o2 was a faster hard court, only this year they were saying that courts were slowed down. I am not aware of 4-1 record of Nadal over fed, can you please elaborate.

Close matches are close then there should be not talk of owning. It is only because of French open that Nadal has such a huge advantage but same thing is going to happen to nadal at djok's hands.

wow wrote:Lydian this is aflawed argument

No its not. Federer hasnt beat Nadal in a slam since 2007 - when Nadal was still finding his feet on non-clay surfaces. Yes their matches are sometimes close but its Nadal who now wins the key points, the key moments...

Lydian, you mght not care about the goat debate but you have dedicated 100s of long posts trying to diminish Federer accomplishments. It's well documented.

However at nearly 30 he still is as good as Nadal on clay bar a few points there and then and did beat the best player on clay while Nadal failed to win a set against him.

lydian wrote:

wow wrote:Lydian this is aflawed argument

No its not. Federer hasnt beat Nadal in a slam since 2007 - when Nadal was still finding his feet on non-clay surfaces. Yes their matches are sometimes close but its Nadal who now wins the key points, the key moments...

Wimby 08 could have gone either way and so was OZ open 2009. Nadal wins key points but he too has won only 2 slams since then. French was always going to go Nadal's way. If Nadal manages to win Wimby 2011 then he will be definitely in a position to overtake fed's 16 slams but it is an assumption at the moment. We have to wait and see as how the Wimby goes? Andy believes that he can beat nadal and he should that sooner, Delpo is another player when back at his best will be a bete noire to nadal.

Fed saved nadal by taking Djoko out. Djoko now owns nadal and IMO Nadal will never win against Djoko. And they definitely have few more years to go compared to Fed.

Wow - when I talk of 'owning' I mean mentally. Federer has an aversion to playing Rafa because at key phases in matches he breaks down. Since 2007 the slam results are as follows:

2008: FO final, Federer loses last set 6-0
2008: SW19, ok close result but Nadal probably wins in straights if not for rain breaks
2009: AO final, Federer loses last set 6-2
2011: FO final, Federer loses last set 6-1

So in what way are the matches that close? My point is that Nadal is inside Federer's head, that he owns his mind at key points in matches.

wow wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

wow wrote:

lydian wrote:Tenez, Federer lost the match in the usual way, beaten by a better opponent consistently exploiting his weaknesses. Not bad for a guy in poor form most of the event. You need to get over it, arguing the ins and outs of Fed's BH wont change the result.

Nadal completely owns Federer in slams and has done since 2007...its Federer's weakness to change or adapt that is the issue. They are both the same bodyweight and height...Federer is as fit and has as much stamina as Nadal...Federer needs to change his game but shows little willingness to do that. Yes he kept Nadal on his toes today but this was a sub-par Nadal and Federer couldnt play much better. We know what a 100% Nadal can do.

Bottom line: Federer needs a new strategy, and probably new racquet...but its probably too late

Lydian this is aflawed argument, Nadal is possibly the best clay courter of all time and most of fed's losses against Nadal have come on clay. Out of 3 Wimby finals one was a total rout for Rafa and he managed to win only one and we know that how close encounter it was. Oz open final was a very close one and 2008 was Rafa's best year.

Rafa still have to open ATP tour finals and Fed did beat Rafa handsomely on a faster hard court. It is a shame that Nadal has not managed to produce same kind of form on faster hard courts hence avoiding encounteers with Fed.

It has been opposite in Fed's case, he has been 2nd best clay courter of his time which meant that he kept reaching finals and meeting Rafa at his best surface. Rafa gets no walk over on other surfaces other than clay.

Wow i hope for you own sake you are not calling WTF at London a faster hard court. Are you serious? Honestly. That court is as slow as it comes except is at indoor court which and suprise suprise hard courts slams and most hc tournaments are played outdoors and guess what Federer's hard court record against Nadal out door is, 1-4. You forget their 2007 Wimbledon final was a close encounter as well or did you leave that out conveniently? Close encounters or almost never wins you the slam as shown again today. You either the winner or not.

2007 Wimby was close but Lydian talks of Nadal owning Fed which is not right. There is always competiton between two when they are not meeting on clay. I always knew that o2 was a faster hard court, only this year they were saying that courts were slowed down. I am not aware of 4-1 record of Nadal over fed, can you please elaborate.

Close matches are close then there should be not talk of owning. It is only because of French open that Nadal has such a huge advantage but same thing is going to happen to nadal at djok's hands.

Wow, about the 4-1 record. The simple break down is they played 5 hard court matches outdoor and Federer won only one of them, Miami 2005 i think. He has lost 4 times including in a hard court slam to Nadal.

Wimby 2007 was not close. Nadal had nothing left in the tank in the fifth set and lost 5 games in a row. Nadal without his bubbling energy is quite toothless. he can't rely on his touch, flair and anticipation to finish matches. Same thing happened in Miami. once his energy level drops he can be bagelled even by Lacko.

wow wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

wow wrote:

lydian wrote:Tenez, Federer lost the match in the usual way, beaten by a better opponent consistently exploiting his weaknesses. Not bad for a guy in poor form most of the event. You need to get over it, arguing the ins and outs of Fed's BH wont change the result.

Nadal completely owns Federer in slams and has done since 2007...its Federer's weakness to change or adapt that is the issue. They are both the same bodyweight and height...Federer is as fit and has as much stamina as Nadal...Federer needs to change his game but shows little willingness to do that. Yes he kept Nadal on his toes today but this was a sub-par Nadal and Federer couldnt play much better. We know what a 100% Nadal can do.

Bottom line: Federer needs a new strategy, and probably new racquet...but its probably too late

Lydian this is aflawed argument, Nadal is possibly the best clay courter of all time and most of fed's losses against Nadal have come on clay. Out of 3 Wimby finals one was a total rout for Rafa and he managed to win only one and we know that how close encounter it was. Oz open final was a very close one and 2008 was Rafa's best year.

Rafa still have to open ATP tour finals and Fed did beat Rafa handsomely on a faster hard court. It is a shame that Nadal has not managed to produce same kind of form on faster hard courts hence avoiding encounteers with Fed.

It has been opposite in Fed's case, he has been 2nd best clay courter of his time which meant that he kept reaching finals and meeting Rafa at his best surface. Rafa gets no walk over on other surfaces other than clay.

Wow i hope for you own sake you are not calling WTF at London a faster hard court. Are you serious? Honestly. That court is as slow as it comes except is at indoor court which and suprise suprise hard courts slams and most hc tournaments are played outdoors and guess what Federer's hard court record against Nadal out door is, 1-4. You forget their 2007 Wimbledon final was a close encounter as well or did you leave that out conveniently? Close encounters or almost never wins you the slam as shown again today. You either the winner or not.

2007 Wimby was close but Lydian talks of Nadal owning Fed which is not right. There is always competiton between two when they are not meeting on clay. I always knew that o2 was a faster hard court, only this year they were saying that courts were slowed down. I am not aware of 4-1 record of Nadal over fed, can you please elaborate.

Close matches are close then there should be not talk of owning. It is only because of French open that Nadal has such a huge advantage but same thing is going to happen to nadal at djok's hands.

Federer hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007. the term owning is quite loose anyway, but it seems reasonable to apply it when some one has lost 4? matches and 12-5? in sets

I dont buy that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal today. Nadal has been out of form most season and yet still getting to finals or winning. Its ridiculous to say Nadal will never win against Nole again. Yes there are lots of players who can challenge Nadal and isnt Fed glad all these guys werent around during his prime years?

Tenez wrote:Lydian, you mght not care about the goat debate but you have dedicated 100s of long posts trying to diminish Federer accomplishments. It's well documented.

However at nearly 30 he still is as good as Nadal on clay bar a few points there and then and did beat the best player on clay while Nadal failed to win a set against him.

You see that's the point you seem not to get, nearly is not good enough in the world of professional sport. If he beat the best player on clay, well done. they should give him the trophy The best player on clay won the FO today, nothing hard to understand about that.
Also it seems Federer was the one winning most of the long rallies today especially those above 16 shots. Kind of blows your stamina theory into water doesn't it. Have a look at official rally stats from a credible source, you'll learn a lot there.
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/pointstream/index.html?promo=ps_featured_matches&matchid=1701

lydian wrote:I dont buy that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal today.

Why would you? It woudl spoil your day...Djoko knew that his biggest rival for the title was Federer, not Nadal. He owns Nadal. Nadal played four sets against a very tired injured Djoko and he coudl not win a single set. Even one-legged Murray was close to beat him.

Even old Fed almost did beat Nada on clay!

wow wrote:

lydian wrote:Tenez, Federer lost the match in the usual way, beaten by a better opponent consistently exploiting his weaknesses. Not bad for a guy in poor form most of the event. You need to get over it, arguing the ins and outs of Fed's BH wont change the result.

Nadal completely owns Federer in slams and has done since 2007...its Federer's weakness to change or adapt that is the issue. They are both the same bodyweight and height...Federer is as fit and has as much stamina as Nadal...Federer needs to change his game but shows little willingness to do that. Yes he kept Nadal on his toes today but this was a sub-par Nadal and Federer couldnt play much better. We know what a 100% Nadal can do.

Bottom line: Federer needs a new strategy, and probably new racquet...but its probably too late

Lydian this is aflawed argument, Nadal is possibly the best clay courter of all time and most of fed's losses against Nadal have come on clay. Out of 3 Wimby finals one was a total rout for Rafa and he managed to win only one and we know that how close encounter it was. Oz open final was a very close one and 2008 was Rafa's best year.

Rafa still have to open ATP tour finals and Fed did beat Rafa handsomely on a faster hard court. It is a shame that Nadal has not managed to produce same kind of form on faster hard courts hence avoiding encounteers with Fed.

It has been opposite in Fed's case, he has been 2nd best clay courter of his time which meant that he kept reaching finals and meeting Rafa at his best surface. Rafa gets no walk over on other surfaces other than clay.

If 4 sets and 2 tie breaks was a total rout in 2006, then clearly todays match was an even bigger rout for Fed?

or just maybe all wimbledon finals have been competitive bar the very first ever set and have been much more competitive than their FO encounters

Tenez wrote:Nadal without his bubbling energy is quite toothless.

Abit like your arguments. Nadal in 2007 was still a relative rookie on grass and yet still got to the final. In 2005 at Miami (when Nadal was 18) there was no disgrace losing on hardcourt in 5 sets to Federer. Plus he'd played for a month straight on clay (with 3 back to back weeks) before getting to Miami. Seriously, are these the best arguments to try to nullify Nadal's achievements - and why do you want to do that anyway, what is your motivation here?

Tenez wrote:Lydian, you mght not care about the goat debate but you have dedicated 100s of long posts trying to diminish Federer accomplishments. It's well documented.

Of course I have

And you got banned in your rabid need to denigrate Nadal.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:I dont buy that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal today.

Why would you? It woudl spoil your day...Djoko knew that his biggest rival for the title was Federer, not Nadal. He owns Nadal. Nadal played four sets against a very tired injured Djoko and he coudl not win a single set. Even one-legged Murray was close to beat him.

Even old Fed almost did beat Nada on clay!

You still haven't learnt that almost and hypothetical situations don't win matches. The one who walks home with the trophy is the winner. I remembered last year USO final when Djokovic was supposed to beat Nadal because he thrashed him 3 straight times on hard courts before then. He ended up winning 1 set in total and the runner up trophy. Possibly would have been the case again today. Nadal unlike Federer does not know when he is beaten, he comes back and find ways to beat the player. Murray, don't make me laugh, he is apparently gunning for himself to beat Nadal at Wimbledon this year, i've heard that before. Will end up losing again. Federer, Djokovic, Murray combined against Nadal is grand slam, wait for it an unbelievable 4-15 record against him. Yes you heard right 4-15. He has beaten then 15 times to his 4 loses.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:I dont buy that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal today.

Why would you? It woudl spoil your day...Djoko knew that his biggest rival for the title was Federer, not Nadal. He owns Nadal. Nadal played four sets against a very tired injured Djoko and he coudl not win a single set. Even one-legged Murray was close to beat him.

Even old Fed almost did beat Nada on clay!

So, Djoko owns Nadal even though hes never beaten him over 5 sets in any slam event in 5 attempts on all three surfaces, including their most recent slam encounter and has a losing H2H?

Tenez wrote:Why would you? It woudl spoil your day...Djoko knew that his biggest rival for the title was Federer, not Nadal. He owns Nadal. Nadal played four sets against a very tired injured Djoko and he coudl not win a single set. Even one-legged Murray was close to beat him.

Even old Fed almost did beat Nada on clay!

Tenez, just what is your problem? I mean, really what is your problem? Do you think I care about these flawed and childish posts? I like to watch all these players, they are all great talented players and the close rivalries we now have are good for tennis.

By all means keep up your rabid hate of Nadal but I really couldnt care less

Just posted this in the wrong place

Slams H2H vs. each other for the big 4

Nadal 15-4
Djoko 4-10
Fed 9-10
Murray 2-6

If ive got that right Some one appears streaks ahead there then, only one guy positive

Just watch the post match interviews and interesting to see Feds remark:

“It’s always me who’s going to dictate play and decide how the outcome is going to be,” said Federer. “If I play well, I will most likely win; if I’m not playing so well, that’s when he wins.

That suggests overall he thinks he's rarely played well against Nadal in a slam.