Roland Garros

Boom! Cracking start to the French with Rafa getting taken to 5 by Isner. All talk is on Djokovic to see if he can keep his streak and get past King Rafa and Prince Roger for Grand Slam #2. In the form of his life and he's a bloody good shot too.

Classy Cliejsters through and Ivanovic out of the women's draw but noone cares about that!



gc.

I watched a bit of Sharapovas game last night but I'm not sure I remember any of the tennis at all.... :>

I watched the Rafa game and it was EPIC. I would think Isner if he played against any of the lower seated players we would have had a nice upset. He had a 1st serve at more than 80% and mostly 220+ The guy is like 6.9" or something and because of that most of Rafas return shots was up shoulder hight .... excellent game to get myself into the French Open.

As for Ivanovic, fuck me she has a hot body! Argh I just want to slam that shit ...

Nadal played like a complete mug for 3 sets in that match. Isner is an easy beat generally for any top level player. You can only serve half the time in tennis but you've got to move the whole time - something which guys his height have shown since time began to suck at. Hitting 3 balls in a row more than 4 steps away from him is usually enough to get on top of the point. Amongst the tall guys Del Potro is about as good there is terms of movement....

...and who coincidentally is playing Djokovic next.

Yeah always unlucky catching one of these good players on the come back from injury @ low seeding. Should be a cracker.



gc.

Berdych got smoked by a qualifier in the 1st round.... shame.

Tsonga... 2 sets to love up, 4-2 up and serving.... and loses in 5 sets to Wawrinka!

Wawrinka again has Federer to face. How often can these two guys end up in the same section of draws?

Djokovic and Del Potro's match postponed (fading light) at 1 set all. It was looking like Djokovic had it under control but Del Potro played an excellent 2nd set - served his way out of trouble brilliantly a couple of times.

Well.. .this has ended up with a pair of great semi-final showdowns... Nadal vs Murray and Federer vs Djokovic.

BOOM Djokovic goes down to the great man. Epic French final... I imagine Fed is feeling fairly relaxed compared to years past. Underdog status even. Should be a cracker!



gc.

Except in 2009 when Nadal lost in the quarters Federer has always been the underdog at the FO.

Murry must feel like the man forgotten. Time after time he leaves with a whimper at slams.

No matter what happens in the final Federer has pwnd a lot of critics by making another slam final even. I bet the people at Babolat will be happy with the variety of game these new balls have allowed to happen - unlike the last few decades at Roland Garros. These matches have been faster than the Aussie Open even.

Saw this pic also from after he won.... Classic framing with the background.

I'm really enjoying watching Roland.Garros.2011.Mens.Quarterfinals.Gael.Monfils.vs.Roger.Federer at the moment The Frenchman put up a good battle in the end. But the Fed just has too much class.

And I'm looking forward to seeing him against Djokovic and Nadal presently. I still enjoy watching them despite knowing the outcomes.

It's taken me a while to come to grips with this loss.

I am a huge Federer fan and have always been anti-Nadal for a few different, but mostly arbitrary reasons (not unlike supporting foreign sports teams, I suppose). But it's time for RF to accept that Nadal is a superior player. Not just on clay either. Obviously time will tell if Rafa can catch the Fed on total Grand Slam titles, but the writing is certainly on the wall with him much more than half way there, and Federer lacking the genuine mental fortitude and fighting spirit that Rafa exemplifies.

Rafa leads in ALL important categories in their 'rivalry'

All matches: Nadal 17–8
All finals: Nadal 13–6
Grand Slam matches: Nadal 7–2
Grand Slam finals: Nadal 6–2
Best of five set matches: Nadal 9–3
Five set matches: Nadal 3–2

This is a pretty pathetic 'rivalry' if you ask me. Rafa is clearly superior and it's fairly embarrassing (as Jono pointed out on twitter a few days back) that Federer claims that even at his peak is a better player... especially on clay.



gc.

Mmmmm nope. Every player in history has had a nemesis... many of whom achieved far less. For Sampras for example it was Fabrice Santoro.

The reality is head to heads matter nothing for the simple reason they only consider you against your peers - not against any all-time list. Sampras never played Laver and Federer never played Lendl so the metrics by which a player's greatness is considered are things which span all-time. Number of slams and weeks at #1 being the two most significant ratings. In each of those Nadal pails against Federer at this stage.

With regards to consistency of performance the head to head is also a facetious comparison. In a 2 year stretch Federer made his way to a pile of clay-court finals and was beaten in most by Nadal. Yet, during that time when over 60% of the year is played on hard courts Nadal manages zero finals match-ups with Federer.... because he was consistently losing earlier at hard court tournaments. That sort of trend skewed the h2h way out of whack. The real h2h is not you against player B, it's you against the whole field. Federer and Nadal's career stats there are about even.

It is only by virtue of Federer's clay court ability he faced Nadal so often on it. But if Federer had somehow been worse on clay and not made so many finals his h2h against Nadal would be miles better. So, using the same h2h retard logic the other way around, if Federer was worse on clay he'd actually look like a better player? lol...

In much the same way, being in a slam final and losing seems to make your record look less great then someone who wins a higher percentage of theirs. But surely being in way more slam finals is the only way to win any (as Lendl proved with a less than 50% winning rate in slam finals). Again, in that respect, Federer makes Nadal look like a mug when you compare their primes. Fed made 10 slam finals in a row once... and 6 in a row another time. Nadal's best run is 3.

Also on the topic of clay. Clay makes up about 25% of the year and history has shown time and time again there will be guys who excel there and are hardly a blip elsewhere - Sergi Bruguera (2 French Opens), Thomas Muster (1), Michael Chang (1), Andres Gomez (1)... if clay rankings existed they would be top 2 all the time in their day - but overall they're barely top 10.

So far as Federer lacking the mental fortitude of Nadal.. again, that's a pretty dubious claim. Nadal looks like he's got the killer attitude but looks can be deceiving. It doesn't mean he is harder than Federer. Sampras never said boo but was the death-walker in most matches - playing ruthless tennis just as Federer has done since the 2003-ish. It's only that people focus mainly on finals performances that they conveniently ignore all the times Federer wiped the floor with players ranked 5 and below players (winning over 175 matches in a row at slams - compared with Nadal's best run of 24 matches - and Lendl's 77 matches). Nadal, by contrast, lost many occasions earlier in tournaments like a limp fish - it's only that when he's in-form we see him more often in finals on TV playing his best.

As Nadal is younger than Federer people are quick to pull out the "he's on track to pass Federer" call which may be true. But. more often than not, slam wins are not certain. Jim Courier was completely dominant in the early 90s - tracking ahead of Nadal and even Borg when he was 22 and had a pile of slams in his belt.... but then it stopped just like that. From 25 on he won nothing. Ditto for the converse; Federer won nothing until he was 23... and then amassed slams at a rate of more than 2 a year for the next 5 years... three times winning 3 in a year - something Nadal has done once and is highly unlikely to do again given the competition and the fact he's won 2 hard court slams in 16 attempts so far compared to Federer's 9 in 22 attempts (plus 6 in 10 attempts on grass).

If Nadal doesn't win another slam this year he'll have to win 2 each year for another 3 years just to get even with Federer's current total. That is a monumental ask with Djokovic starting to click, Murray surely having at least a few good runs when he sorts his crap amongst others.

There is no doubt Nadal is a great, possibly bordering on being the all-time great on clay. But to say he's got anything on Federer at this stage is just looking at pretty irrelevant miniature which don't reflect the main criteria used to rank players on the all-time list.

Add to that... Season ending championships... Federer is on 5 - tied with Sampras and Lendl as all-time leaders.

Nadal is on 0. If he wins it every year left in his career he might catch up.

Forgot to add... one thing about age in tennis is it's not entirely a like-for-like comparison. Some people turn pro younger or mature younger. In the late 80s and through the 90s there were dozens of teens in the top 100. In fact, sometimes as many at 5 or more in the top 20.... Nowdays - there isn't a single teenager in the top 200 (men's). Modern strings, training and intensity required to be a top player have almost negated the likelihood of a teen beating someone in their 20s as used to happen a lot in the 80s when a talented newby could literally have a good day and blow a top guy off the court: Becker winning Wimbledon, Chang the French Open, Sampras the US Open etc..

If you look at a tennis career as having a prime of 5-7 years you could consider the 'prime' for top guys as from when they won their first slam.

Nadal won 10 slams in the 7 years from when he won his first. Federer won 15. The slow-down later in a career is the thing which is hard to avoid. Some are athletic 1-in-a-billion people like Federer.... Will Nadal be one or will his harder career have a toll on him earlier?

Federer being 1 step slow means he loses a few % more of his close matches because he has so much more innate ability to win points. Nadal being 1 step slow means he loses 20% more of his close matches (David Ferrer at the Aussie Open, Del Potro at the USO in 2009, Tsonga at Aussie in 200... so dependent on speed is his whole game. (which is why he's been trying to hit-out more in the past 6 months - to learn to end points quicker - surely so he's not a wounded antelope once he loses some of his court speed in a few years)

Wow lots of rubbish rationalisation there.

Fact is, if Federer is playing Nadal in a Grand Slam final tomorrow, you put the fucking HOUSE on Rafa.



gc.

WOW Rob you really do talk a lot of shit when it comes to tennis, wish I can find the thread you post 2-3 years ago saying Rafa won't win another GS because of his knees.

Nathan. If you think that's rubbish step back for a second and see how completely retarded the argument that Nadal is close to being as great a player as Federer when he is pwned in virtually every category that matter because he beats him 2/3 of the time. Think of all the times Federer won slams because Nadal lost earlier.

The h2h debate is the fodder of partisan hacks and people who read too many spur-of-the-moment news items about tennis. Not once ever have I seen a list of all-time greats with an asterisk by someone's name saying (but they lost to so and so lots of times).

16 slams > 10
237 consecutive weeks at #1 > 54
5 year end championships > 0

No doubt it reads like that to people who don't know much about tennis. The post is intended to help get people past news reporting, the bulk of which is entry-level reporting by people who clearly don't know a hell of a lot about tennis.

Not sure I said he wont win another because of his knees but that it would hinder him.... (maybe I did come to think of it...) As it stand, it hasn't really yet but other injuries have. Nadal is apparently injured every time he loses. lol

Nadal plays Federer tomorrow. Any surface.

Who do you pick?



gc.

In their overall French Open form?

Federer wins 75% of the time on any surface other than clay.

On the last year's average form, Nadal 75% of the time on any surface.

Think about that match. How many crucial points did Nadal win by running down one more shot? Tons... on almost any hard court 90% of those points would have been over already in Federer's favour.

I would not be surprised to see Wimbledon play slow as sin this year... Huge server Ivo Karlovic tweeter earlier today something really funny... "In couple of years I'll become clay court specialist. Because that will be the fastest."

lol. He's right. They have absolutely ruined the Aussie Open with these new fluff up balls, and Wimbledon with the hard, dusty surface which is now as slower than many hard courts. It's just making too much tennis a complete baseline ball-bashing fest. The FO this year was so entertaining solely because the new balls they swapped to were so unbelievably fast. It caught a lot of players off-guard and allowed more styles to succeed.

Nadal goes down in a heap of unforced errors to Tsonga at Queens.

Just saw an interesting comparison of Nadal and Federer's slam careers which might put their ability to achieve in another perspective.

Federer beat 3 top ten opponents in 6 of his first 10 slam wins.

The French Open in 2011 was the first time Nadal has done it in his 10 slam wins.

What is the trend here: unless Nadal gets an draw where his peers lose prematurely he doesn't usually win a slam? Is he a fair-weather dominator?

blah blah blah trends blah blah!

Nadal may be better at the moment, but I am not a fan of his style of tennis. I would much rather watch Federer.

Same. I love watching him because he has such a crazy variety and style. Frankly I'm just fucking sick of watching him lose to Rafa.



gc.

Re-Action contributing his most intelligent tennis-related comment so far.

Nadal played like a chump in losing to Tsonga. Probably better that he gets his kinks ironed out before Wimbledon as it's the most likely tournament for any of the top players to go out early unexpectedly.

Just out of interest.. does any of you play tennis in real life? should post some of your tennis vids on to youtube if you do have any... I'm keen watch and learn..

Yes. I did for many years and now more a hobby.

Do you mean posting vids of ourselves or vids we like? If it's the later then this are heaps of good compilation vids for learning purposes. This guy is quite popular on specific stuff: http://www.youtube.com/user/FYB2007

For general videos... this is one of the greatest shots ever hit (and caught on film). Federer hitting an overhead lob. Outstanding improv and skills required to do this.