Wimbledon Seeds

First topic message reminder :

Today is when we know who the Wimbledon seeds will be.

I shall be keeping my eye on this. Will Federer be no.2 seed based on the calculations?

Can't wait to see what seeding Del Potro gets.

Also the Women's seeds shall be interesting too.

BigSal

Yes, might be a little over-optimistic. Perhaps Roger and Rafa only needs to go to 32-30 in the fifth

I think if Roger plays as well at wimby as did at RG he will win this thing. He really served great at RG up to the last game of the first set of the final. I think Roger is praying that Rafa gets knocked out before the final because I honestly don't think he thinks he can beat Rafa in 5 setter.

Socal

I agree that Roger has a very good chance if he plays as well as he did at RG - for all the comments about 'green clay', Wimbledon still plays significantly differently from RG, with a lower and more skiddy bounce which should increase the effectiveness of Roger's serve and make it more difficult for an opponent (especially Rafa) to get a penetrative shot high up on Federer's backhand. Also, the sliced backhand is a more effective shot on grass, being less of a purely defensive option than on clay (where the opponent tends to just murder anything that isn't right to the baseline).

I would like to see another Federer v Nadal match up though - I disagree with your suggestion that Roger is psychologically beaten before he goes on court (at least on grass - I think he knows that to beat Rafa over 5 sets on clay would demand a sustained level of performance he hasn't managed for at least 4 years).

You're also right in your comment that both the top 2 would strongly prefer to be drawn in Andy's half rather than Roger's. It's almost too obvious to point out, but one has been to one SF and the other is a multiple winner.

I still think it would be better for Federer to be drawn on Djokovic's side, if only because we're then given the opportunity of a great semi final between Djokovic/Federer and a Nadal/Federer final (if they all pull through). Even a Murray/Nadal match would be great, Murray has improved and I'm sure he could take a set if not two off Nadal this year.

Dummy, I am neither a Fed fan or a Rafa Fan, either one of them or neither of them could go down as the goat and its fine with me. But frankly, I think Rafa has Roger's number. In a five setter, I think Roger at this stage in his career would have to play the match of his life to take out Rafa. On grass, on hardcourt, on clay; whatever the surface maybe. In tennis I think there are just difficult matchups for certain players. And Rafa is that tough matchup for Roger, and I think both of them know that. Roger doesn't have the same belief against Rafa as he does against anyone else on tour.

Socal, I unfortunately have to agree with you. At this point in their careers' Rafa is the favourite over Roger regardless of surface.

I also agree that this is mainly because Rafa is a matchup nightmare for roger.

Emancipator when you look at it if you were going to create a player to beat Fed it would be Rafa. Fed is righty Rafa is lefty. Fed is a great attacking player Rafa is a great counterpuncher. Fed is a great server, Rafa is a great returner. Rafa hits the ball high and heavy to his opponents backahnd and that is the soft spot in Fed's armor. It doesn't mean Rafa is better overral we really have to wait and see how their careers end up, but it also doesn't mean that we don't take their head to head into consideration either.

I think you've just stopped believing Fed can beat Nadal Socal, keep on believing, it will happen!

It ain't over till it's over but I'm sure you'll be overjoyed if Fed did it!

Yep Feds best hope of a final is surely to be drawn against Nole, especially since Nole just lost to him and would feel the pressure again.
But lets see the draw, there could be plenty of banana skins on the way yet!

Lucius i actually would be quite happy for Fed if he did win wimbeldon this year or possibly next year. As a fan of tennis I want him to have that positive reenforcement to stick around and thrill us for as long as possible. But frankly if he plays Rafa in the final he is toast. If he plays Murray or novak he has a chance.

We'll see, I'd love to see a Nadal/Fed final because if Fed beats Nadal it will certainly quieten down Nadal fans but again, we don't know the draw yet.

Lucius, lets hope it happens. who knows it wouldn't be unconceivable, but frankly I wouldn't bet on Fed beating Rafa in a grandslam final at this stage in their careers.

Agreed, don't ever bet on it (especially on clay ) until we see it on hard/grass courts.

socal1976 wrote:Emancipator when you look at it if you were going to create a player to beat Fed it would be Rafa. Fed is righty Rafa is lefty. Fed is a great attacking player Rafa is a great counterpuncher. Fed is a great server, Rafa is a great returner. Rafa hits the ball high and heavy to his opponents backahnd and that is the soft spot in Fed's armor. It doesn't mean Rafa is better overral we really have to wait and see how their careers end up, but it also doesn't mean that we don't take their head to head into consideration either.

Great post, agree with everything.

emancipator wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Emancipator when you look at it if you were going to create a player to beat Fed it would be Rafa. Fed is righty Rafa is lefty. Fed is a great attacking player Rafa is a great counterpuncher. Fed is a great server, Rafa is a great returner. Rafa hits the ball high and heavy to his opponents backahnd and that is the soft spot in Fed's armor. It doesn't mean Rafa is better overral we really have to wait and see how their careers end up, but it also doesn't mean that we don't take their head to head into consideration either.

Great post, agree with everything.

For me a good example of a counterpuncher is Hewitt. Counterpunchers usually are defined as they use the pace of the opponents ball against them. As Nadal is capable of creating his own ball speed i would say he is definately not a counterpuncher - yes hes good at defending, but the two are not the same. Federer and Murray i think are the current top players who use an opponents power against them, which is why for example Federer has great dominance over Roddick and Soderling. Murray you might notice appears to take control of Del P more easily than most. However Federer (and Murray - if we're honest) have weapons at their disposal (far more than Hewitt) - in Federers case he is happy to go out using these weapons.

socal1976 wrote:Dummy, I am neither a Fed fan or a Rafa Fan, either one of them or neither of them could go down as the goat and its fine with me. But frankly, I think Rafa has Roger's number. In a five setter, I think Roger at this stage in his career would have to play the match of his life to take out Rafa. On grass, on hardcourt, on clay; whatever the surface maybe. In tennis I think there are just difficult matchups for certain players. And Rafa is that tough matchup for Roger, and I think both of them know that. Roger doesn't have the same belief against Rafa as he does against anyone else on tour.

Out of interest, would anyone say Agassi was a perfect matchup for Sampras?

Now clearly the H2H between these two was far closer (20-14 to Pete), with Pete winning most of the big matches. But I was broadly thinking if you looked at Pete's serve volley game and then imagine Agassi, Who perhaps was the greatest returner the game has seen, who loved to pass people at the net, who took the ball on the rise so early with a short backswing etc etc. Would you then say on paper he was Petes worst matchup? For me it was a perfect matchup in a way it pitched the best of each playing style against one another and so it was one of those matchups where the game resonated and the best was brought out of each player. I personally think that the matchup was a worst case matchup for Pete, except on one level... mental. Of the two i would say Sampras was the stronger, especially when you consider the ups and downs of Agassi's career (i have to admit i liked Agassi for his human side). My point is that had Pete been a little more fragile and Agassi and bit more mentally consistent across his career, then we may talk about that matchup in a very similar way to the way we talk about fed and Nadal. It seems to me that even with the worst game style matchup on paper, the mental side may well still be the determining factor.

Tom

Interesting question, and it does highlight the point Socal was making earlier that a psychological edge also helps in these types of match up.

With all the discussion there's been about Nadal on here recently, and given his poor record against Davydenko, surely a player like Agassi would be the worst possible match up for him - someone who takes the ball early and hits flat, so not giving that extra fraction of a second for Rafa to get into position. I also wonder how Rafa's return and passing shot game would stand up against a really good serve volley player (in the Sampras or Edberg class) on quicker courts. Unfortunately, we aren't likely to find out because no-one is courageous enough to take that tactic on and the playing conditions have made it more difficult to succeed.

dummy_half wrote:Tom

Interesting question, and it does highlight the point Socal was making earlier that a psychological edge also helps in these types of match up.

With all the discussion there's been about Nadal on here recently, and given his poor record against Davydenko, surely a player like Agassi would be the worst possible match up for him - someone who takes the ball early and hits flat, so not giving that extra fraction of a second for Rafa to get into position. I also wonder how Rafa's return and passing shot game would stand up against a really good serve volley player (in the Sampras or Edberg class) on quicker courts. Unfortunately, we aren't likely to find out because no-one is courageous enough to take that tactic on and the playing conditions have made it more difficult to succeed.

I think Agassi and Nadal would have produce some awesome matches personally. the only real glimpse we got is in Montreal 2005 when Agassi was obvious post peak and old, but still capable of competing right at the top of the game and Nadal was young, yet to reach his potential. That game was excellent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZVz_GP_aac
One particular point at 1:18 to 1:38 is basically how well Agassi would have had to play for an entire match against Nadal as he is these days to beat him.

I have to say i think overall Agassi would have been a tough matchup for Nadal, but Nadal would have to be the best player at being able to suck up the Agassi play of being moved from side to side - so i think it wouldve simply been close.

As for Serve and volley winning vs. Nadal, maybe on the courts and balls of old, but then Nadal would maybe have a different game plan then also.

Anyone heard Borg's interview with the BBC and his pick for Wimbledon? Federer.

Also an overview of the top 4 seeds by one of their bloggers (his pick is also Federer):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/06/top_four_wimbledon.html

Borg tipped Nadal in 2008

Borg Tipped fed in 2009

Sampras tipped Fed to win 10 Wimbledons in 2010

Borg tips Fed to win 2011

Borg also believes Murray will one day win wimbledon (as of 2009)

That's interesting Tom, Borg has been correct on his previous Wimbledon predictions. Did he predict in 2010?

When did Sampras predict Fed would win 10 Wimbledons, that's a lot! I think Murray will win Wimbledon one day too.

Borg is almost as good at predictions as that german octopus during the world cup.

Here's a little story about Borg.....In 1979, after a win in the early rounds of US Open, Borg was being interviewed and was asked who he thought would be the next great player to emerge (McEnroe was already pretty famous). Borg said right away that it would be Ivan Lendl, a relatively unknown player who lost in the second round that year. "He's very good, he said, and he will get better".
Only three years later, Lendl reached his first of 8 straight finals at the Open.

He's not always right though, he said Federer would win FO 2008....didnt quite get that one right!

It's a bit tricky I'd have thought, to make predictions while your on tour then when you've retired and don't know the players so much personally? Maybe I'm wrong but I'd have thought it would impact your ability to make impartial predictions. His prediction for Lendl is good, he went on to win 8 slams, no small number, 99.9% of players would settle for that and that's more than McEnroe.

As for his prediction for the FO, fair enough, he got that wrong, I'm more interested in his Wimbledon predictions! Which appear good and it's not big thing, we'll find out soon! He seems good with his Wimbledon predictions.

Tom, I think Nadal is what we traditionally understand as a counterpuncher in tennis in that the strengths of his game are returning, retrieving, and passing his opponents when they move in. I understand your point about his ability to generate his own pace with the speed of his swings. And of course he can still attack when he needs to. I think that when I talk about counterpuncher I am talking about the general tactics that they play with, not there ability to generate their own pace. Under your definition Davydenko a very aggressive player would be considered a counterpuncher and like you said Fed would be considered a counterpuncher, I don't think that is people's idea of counterpunching.

As for matchups, I think Agassi in his prime would have been a real tough matchup for Nadal. The guy right now who plays sort of like Agassi and who this year has given Nadal trouble is Djokovic, and Davydenko is even more like agassi. Djokovic has adjusted to the modern strings and hits with more spin, but early on in his career his forehand was much flatter. But both guys go up the lines really well and have solid two handers, get after the return, and take the ball relatively early.

I certainly don't think Davydenko is a counterpuncher, as he tries to dictate play and has perhaps one of the best core rotations to generate power on the tour. The element of Nadal's game that fits in with counterpunching is his ability to soak up power shots from others by retriving, but he does try to dictate play using his own power. For me counterpunchers hit winners using the opponents pace. Nadal usually stands in a position where much of the pace has left the ball before he strikes. He does to much damage too often to be a counterpuncher. Likewise with Fed, he plays too aggressively to be a counterpuncher, but then he does love the opponents pace - another hybrid for me.

I don't really think any of the top players are counterpunchers at the minute.