Wimbledon (1 Viewer)

[wuddie]

eyetalian

i am going to ignore all the derogatory comments you've made, because they don't make a case. federer was lucky to get the 2 sets he did in the final, thanks to the rain delay. nadal was cruising, and if anything he was going to win in straight sets. let alone he won them in tiebreakers, which could be anyone's game.

no one on this thread said fed's era is over, nor did anyone say he is crap. he is one of the greats, and like i said, he could have won the french a few times over if it wasn't for nadal.

i am pretty damn sure you have never watched rod laver play, neither have i. but the mere fact that he has won the 4 slams twice puts his name ahead of everyone else's in that regard.

without going any further, you should learn to write coherently.

 

[blakegman]

eyetalian

i am going to ignore all the derogatory comments you've made, because they don't make a case. federer was lucky to get the 2 sets he did in the final, thanks to the rain delay. nadal was cruising, and if anything he was going to win in straight sets. let alone he won them in tiebreakers, which could be anyone's game.

no one on this thread said fed's era is over, nor did anyone say he is crap. he is one of the greats, and like i said, he could have won the french a few times over if it wasn't for nadal.

i am pretty damn sure you have never watched rod laver play, neither have i. but the mere fact that he has won the 4 slams twice puts his name ahead of everyone else's in that regard.

without going any further, you should learn to write coherently.

I honestly don't buy into this argument that titles are titles no matter what, especially in a sport like tennis. I'm 100% certain that the modern greats of today Federer, Nadal etc, would wipe the floor with these very past greats.

It's kind of like Cricket. I don't believe Bradman would have averaged 99 facing Warne and Mcgrath every week.

 

[Aznmichael92]

no one on this thread said fed's era is over, nor did anyone say he is crap. he is one of the greats, and like i said, he could have won the french a few times over if it wasn't for nadal.

i am pretty damn sure you have never watched rod laver play, neither have i. but the mere fact that he has won the 4 slams twice puts his name ahead of everyone else's in that regard.

without going any further, you should learn to write coherently.

Did you even read the previous posts before you said that? If not here I will quote one for you as most of them are from same person.

Mr Federer's reign in mens tennis is well and trully over

Accept the facts people, even if you don't like it

 

[eyetalian]

Thank you Aznmichael92.

Hey Wuddie. Case closed.

Is that coherent enough for you?

 

[wuddie]

I honestly don't buy into this argument that titles are titles no matter what, especially in a sport like tennis. I'm 100% certain that the modern greats of today Federer, Nadal etc, would wipe the floor with these very past greats.

It's kind of like Cricket. I don't believe Bradman would have averaged 99 facing Warne and Mcgrath every week.

modern sportsmen have access to far better equipments and are far better prepared than their predecessors. they are physically more built and mentally more concentrated. like i've said, you can't put past greats into modern standards and compare them, they beat their peers and that's more than you can ask from any sportsman - they played with wooden racquets for god sakes. some decades from now, we may have another freak show which may probably make fed, nadal or sampras look like newbs. ref to my dally m example.

Did you even read the previous posts before you said that? If not here I will quote one for you as most of them are from same person.

oh nooooooo one person, shit, there goes my argument. hats off to you and your best mate here.

 

[aj_number_10]

I stayed up all night and it was the best match ive ever seen. For excitement and quality

In the end Nadal probably deserved it. The first two sets I think Federer played the better tennis. Every Nadal service game Roger would take to duece but Nadal would get out of it. While every Federer service game Roger would cruise through, accept in one of the games for some reason hed get pushed and Nadal would get 1 break point and take it.

Heres a stat you wont see very often. At the end of the 2nd set Federer had 10 more points than Nadal, but yet was down 2 sets. Incredible.

Third and Fourth sets were tough, and were 50/50 sets. The 4th set tiebreaker as someone said was truely brilliant.

In the end Rafa probably just deserved it but only just.

There both brilliant players, and teh best that I can remember playing. Federers still number 1 in my opinion, on everything but Clay, but the gap is as close as it has ever been.

All in all though an amazing match. I was watching highlights of other wimbledon finals recently, and the standard in the Nadal/Fed match was 30x better than every other one its incredible. Truely amazing players.

Not that its relevant, but its cruel Federer will never win the French. Hes a very good clay courter, and if you look at some of the other pretenders to win the French, he is miles ahead. Nadal will be the best clay courter ever and for that reason Fed wont be a grand slam winner, yet Nadal will be probably.

 

[IMABOYDAMON!]

I stayed up all night and it was the best match ive ever seen. For excitement and quality

In the end Nadal probably deserved it. The first two sets I think Federer played the better tennis. Every Nadal service game Roger would take to duece but Nadal would get out of it. While every Federer service game Roger would cruise through, accept in one of the games for some reason hed get pushed and Nadal would get 1 break point and take it.

Heres a stat you wont see very often. At the end of the 2nd set Federer had 10 more points than Nadal, but yet was down 2 sets. Incredible.

Third and Fourth sets were tough, and were 50/50 sets. The 4th set tiebreaker as someone said was truely brilliant.

In the end Rafa probably just deserved it but only just.

There both brilliant players, and teh best that I can remember playing. Federers still number 1 in my opinion, on everything but Clay, but the gap is as close as it has ever been.

All in all though an amazing match. I was watching highlights of other wimbledon finals recently, and the standard in the Nadal/Fed match was 30x better than every other one its incredible. Truely amazing players.

Not that its relevant, but its cruel Federer will never win the French. Hes a very good clay courter, and if you look at some of the other pretenders to win the French, he is miles ahead. Nadal will be the best clay courter ever and for that reason Fed wont be a grand slam winner, yet Nadal will be probably.

Fuck off. Nah j/k j/k.

Yeh, it was pretty good.

 

[jannny]

Hey, why does nadal's playing style suit clay?

 

[IMABOYDAMON!]

Hey, why does nadal's playing style suit clay?

Cause he eats clay.

 

[wuddie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ajojkDFQX8

no question federer/nadal, even hewitt, would DESTROY these guys.

modern sportsmen have access to far better equipments and are far better prepared than their predecessors. they are physically more built and mentally more concentrated. like i've said, you can't put past greats into modern standards and compare them, they beat their peers and that's more than you can ask from any sportsman - they played with wooden racquets for god sakes. some decades from now, we may have another freak show which may probably make fed, nadal or sampras look like newbs. ref to my dally m example.

.

 

[Aznmichael92]

Hey, why does nadal's playing style suit clay?

yeap like what A High Way Man said. The way he hits the ball is like a whip which generates spin where as Federer more of like a follow through hit. Whip as in his racket goes straight up rather than go across his body.

 

[dux&src]

Hey, why does nadal's playing style suit clay?

Nadal is the "clay-court king" because growing in Spain most of the tennis courts were clay courts. Needless to say this has given him the edge against competitors when playing on clay-courts.

Therefore it would be natural for him playing on clay to be as good as he is.

 

[dux&src]

haha thats like me. I was like motherf*** break nadal. Then he didnt break I was like, f*** haha

Yeah put it there!

man that 8 hours of TV was really all high-class tennis!

oh and then did u see the game later in the fifth set i think it was 7-7 and then Nadal had a break point " omg don't let nadal break you!!!!" i was like "ZOMG please don't break Federer".
oh well it was 8-7 then Nadal was serving it out! i pretty much thought it was hopeless when the umpire said" Nadal 8-7 new balls please"

i was screaming how come Nadal get's new balls!!!!!
And he is freegin serving it out for the championship!

Pretty much meant no hope!!
why couldn't they give federer the new balls!?

 

[jannny]

Yeah put it there!


why couldn't they give federer the new balls!?

why does federer needs new balls? is his taht bad

lol yea i noe ei, oh well that's tennis.. I also find serving first in the set an advantage.

 

[dux&src]

lol yea i noe ei, oh well that's tennis.. I also find serving first in the set an advantage.

Serving first in the set an advantage??
i find receiving, the advantage particularly playing against someone you haven't played before.:d Let them serve and see what their style is!

oh but generally if u serve first there would be so much pressure on you to hold your serve! If you don't you have to break back!

 

[Nasonex]

Nadal in Manacor with the replica Wimbledon trophy with his family

[img=http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/5082/dpdpphotos101763440no1mp9.th.jpg]

 

[Aznmichael92]

Yeah put it there!

man that 8 hours of TV was really all high-class tennis!

oh and then did u see the game later in the fifth set i think it was 7-7 and then Nadal had a break point " omg don't let nadal break you!!!!" i was like "ZOMG please don't break Federer".
oh well it was 8-7 then Nadal was serving it out! i pretty much thought it was hopeless when the umpire said" Nadal 8-7 new balls please"

i was screaming how come Nadal get's new balls!!!!!
And he is freegin serving it out for the championship!

Pretty much meant no hope!!
why couldn't they give federer the new balls!?

I find that is pretty unfair that federer didnt get new balls. I mean its still fair that federer gets the new ball as everyone is on serve but no they gave new balls after break of serve. Pretty lame.

 

[wuddie]

I find that is pretty unfair that federer didnt get new balls. I mean its still fair that federer gets the new ball as everyone is on serve but no they gave new balls after break of serve. Pretty lame.

fk me dead, shows how much you morons know about tennis. the umpire asks for new balls after 7 games in the first set, and every 9 games after. nadal got new balls through sheer luck.

who are you to criticise me?

 

[Anonymou5]

Rofl @ comment about Sampras being an even match for Nadal on clay. If they played on clay Nadal would just moonball to Sampras' backhand all day, just like he does against Federer.

Yes Federer never technically beat 'everyone' on hardcourts but the implication is that he dominated. No one has ever gone as well as he has in a single season (2005: 59-2, undefeated in HC masters that he played that year iirc). In fact, you'd be hard pressed trying to find a run on hard courts by any player that even comes close to Federer's 05/06 HC record.

 

[Aznmichael92]

fk me dead, shows how much you morons know about tennis. the umpire asks for new balls after 7 games in the first set, and every 9 games after. nadal got new balls through sheer luck.

who are you to criticise me?

No technically he is meant to change the balls at every 7 or 8 games. If you watch tennis consistantly you will know which I doubt you do. You probably dont even watch tournaments like the Medibank International. If someone is serving for the set, they will generally keep old balls for most situation as they want to keep it fair as possible.