BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Articles/ all comments

These 216 comments are related to an article called:

Roger v Rafa

Page 1 of 5

comment by Porlock (U7853821)

posted May 23, 2007

***************************************???********************************
Your article offers excuses for Nadal who you say was tired in the recent Hamburg clay final which he lost in THREE sets, YET you favor him to win at Roland Garros over FIVE sets.

Is this the kind of analysis you seriously expect people to take seriously. ???

***************************************???********************************

| complain about this comment

posted May 23, 2007

the writer got an expert to give his opinion. AN EXPERT. u can very well see that his analysis is objective & not one sided...

all u can do here is comment on the article & u neednt take it seriously if u dont want to. he wouldnt really care.

he is somehow right about the 5 set point. how many times did fed play 5 sets & how many times did he win? he is more likely to win in 3 sets rather than in 5 because he USUALLY DOES NOT go the distance. the fed express does not really fight; he plays flawlessly for a while but then loses it. rafa doesnt, he fights all the way, as such...he is likely to win on clay, in 3 or 5 sets. one fed win will not really shake his confidence.

| complain about this comment

comment by U8178781

posted May 23, 2007

Piers, this has already been discussed extensively in a thread started by your colleague Caroline. It was widely concluded that Nadal will be nowhere near as tired two weeks on Sunday, and will romp to a convincing straight sets victory.

| complain about this comment

posted May 23, 2007

Just because Federer beat Nadal once on clay doesn't mean that Nadal won't win the French. I believe that Federer needs to realize that Nadal had one three tournaments in a row with one week off. I don't think this has effected Nadal's confidence at all as he still owns 7-4 head to head. If they meet in the final, I pick Nadal with a score line of 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 6-3, in four sets.

| complain about this comment

comment by Owen (U5944801)

posted May 24, 2007

I'm an utterly devastated Liverpool supporter and the only thing that will cheer me up is for Federer to beat Nadal and claim this elusive slam.

In straight sets if you can manage it please Roger.

| complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

comment by gsotennfan1
posted 11 Hours Ago

Just because Federer beat Nadal once on clay doesn't mean that Nadal won't win the French. I believe that Federer needs to realize that Nadal had one three tournaments in a row with one week off. I don't think this has effected Nadal's confidence at all as he still owns 7-4 head to head. If they meet in the final, I pick Nadal with a score line of 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 6-3, in four sets.

......................................

it may be 7-4 head to head in nadals favour but what you seem not to realise is that it was 6-1 in favour of Nadl,so clearly Fed has the upper hand of late.

| complain about this comment

comment by Porlock (U7853821)

posted May 24, 2007

Yes, 6-1 when Nadal actually reached the finals. How about all the times he didn't.

Nadal did very well to reach the final at Wimbledon last year but your 6-1 statistic count conceals more than it proves.

| complain about this comment

comment by U7314819

posted May 24, 2007

gsotennfan1

amazing this pyschic knowledge you have of the exact score. we will all be popping down the bookies to put our lifes savings on your dorothy stokes prediction

| complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

Fed's win in hamburg was crucial. He's widely acknowledged to be the better player but Rafa had the edge on him psychologically on clay. This result boosts Fed's self belief & plants a seed of doubt in Rafa's mind assuming they meet in final. Also,since Borg nobody has won the french 3times on the bounce; Lendl,Courier,Bruguera,Kuerten did it twice but couldnt make it 3. My tip, Fed to win it; Rafa bowing out before the final

| complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

I've taken two weeks off work to watch the French, not to see Nadal, but to watch Federer. In short, I drool at his tennis.

But there is just no escaping the fact that Nadal is simply imperious on clay.

Federer's victory in Germany is being lauded and dismissed in equal measure, but you only have to look at the scoreline.

Since when does Nadal lose 11 out of 12 games? Not when he's in good nick, that's for sure.

I wasn't in the least bit surprised to see Federer defeat Nadal. We all know what he's capable of. After all Federer was quite awesome despite losing to Nadal in five in Rome 2006 (I think it was Rome), bossing most of the contest and holding two match points.

But Federer did not win that match and in last year's French Open final, Nadal was merciless.

It is a sign of Federer's propensity to collapse sometimes that he won the first set in that match 6-1. Anyone recall the start of the second set? Nadal held serve and then Federer, maintaining his clean and aggressive hitting, went 40-0 up only to have a debatable line-call in his favour. Federer, clearly feeling good about his game, was happy to replay the point and was subsequently broken. From that point on, in my opinion, he never even looked in it.

Despite his incomparable brilliance and consistency, against Nadal, on clay, in France, I don't hold out too much hope for Federer. He doesn't 'match up' well against him, as they say.

But any confusion as to who the world's best tennis player is nonsense.

| complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

sjsinclair -

I remember that very clearly too. Nadal made the nervous start and Federer dominated him in 2006 French final during the first set. The second set, that 40-0 and 40-15 points were so crucial. That overrule somehow ruffled Federer - but it should not have. He let Nadal come back into the game. In fact, he had 2 break points the very next game - and had a very short ball to the forehand that skidded off the service box line forcing an error. It was a little bit of unluck too. But, there is a little bit of truth to the mental aspect of the matchup with Nadal. The way Nadal fights every point and his intensity during the crucial points sorta fluster Fed. In fact, during last week's Hamburg finals, I really thought that the match was not at their best from both players - but from Nadal's side the lack of intensity was what was more missing than his game. Fed needs to match Nadal's intensity and not give an inch mentally to win this.

| complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

The other intriguing thing about Hamburg was not just the confidence that the victory gave Federer - but the 6-2, 6-0 finish (from 2-6 1-1 15-40), and the way he started dictating the rallies rather than fighting to stay in. Even though Nadal has mentioned that he will not be nervous or worried, I think he has to think about it.

| complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

I also watched the RG final last year and did notice that Fed's game seemed to fall away after conceding that break early in the second set after being up 40-0. It just seemed that he ran out of ideas after that and couldn't keep up the same level of play. Nadal, on the other hand, showed everyone that day why he's such a formidable force on clay.

If the two meet again in the final and I say if, especially in the case of Federer, I would have to say Nadal is the favorite even though I'm a huge fan of Fed.

| complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

I wish everyone would stop talking about the FO final last year ... its a very painful memory.

| complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

Let's see, what was the first set score in Hamburg? Oh yeah, it was 6-2 Nadal. Federer is being too cocky. Nadal could have one that match in straights. At one all he had a 30-40 chance in which he missed an easy forehand. Sure good job from Federer, but at Roland Garros Nadal will work for every single ball. Nadal was just fatigued. If you read all of the articles Nadal says he doesn't care. Fed, I'm sorry, but Roland Garros is NADAL's house. Four sets: winner Rafa.

| complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

I think Rafa still has to be favourite to take the French Open Title. During his 81 match record unbeaten run he looked near invincible; and I believe Roger's win in Hamburg had a lot to do with the amount of tennis Rafa had played. Saying that, Roger did play some superb tennis in the last two sets.
I think Federer realises that a lot of that win was down to Nadal's tiredness. However, psychologically the win is still huge for Federer, regardless of Nadal's physical or mental state at the time.
I hope that Rafa and Roger both get to the final and the player who plays the best wins. Although, I would like to see Roger finally win the French Open; and if he can overcome Rafa at Roland Garros then perhaps he will deserve the title of greatest player of all-time.

| complain about this comment

posted May 25, 2007

Hey. You know, I was going to say, why does everybody want Federer to win the French Open & be considered the greatest? I guess the same reason I want Nadal to win the French & Wimbledon. And just for the record, I LOVE Federer's game. It's beautiful & effortless. I actually modeled my game after his. But tennis, like boxing, is a sport about 2 guys(or girls)who go at each other toe to toe until there's only one standing. I believe Federer needs Nadal. As much as Borg needed McEnroe or Graf needed Seles & of course, Evert & Navratilova. Much like Ali-Frazier, Bird & Magic. If Federer wins the French, what else is there for him to fight for? If the French Open is the last & only thing for him to work for & burn for, I hope he doesn't win it for sometime. Now I'd love for him to win it eventually but not right now. Maybe like Agassi, he can win it in his later years. But if this is the only bit of drama keeping tennis interesting & exciting, I say GO RAFA! VAMOS! And continue your clay court run after Borg's record & keep challenging Federer for the No.# 1 world ranking. If that means he stops Federer from winning the last title to complete his excellent resume, then so be it. And btw, did anybody actually SEE the Hamburg final? Especially all the intense Federer fans? I SAW IT. I've seen every match Federer & Nadal have played against each other except the exhibition last year & the clay-grass court exhibition in Mallorca. I saw the Hamburg final & I don't think Federer should think anything has changed as far as his progress on clay against Nadal. He SHOULD feel confident because no matter what, a WIN is a WIN but Nadal looked so obviously mentally & physically fatigued. Having played & WON all those clay court matches in Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome & Hamburg, I think really caught up with him in that final. And you know Nadal has a ton of respect for Federer. He probably knew he had to be at his best(no matter what the surface)to beat Federer. Nadal's game really centers around his stamina, intensity & fight. If he isn't coming to the court with some of that energy against Federer then...well, the score says it all, 2-6,6-2,6-0. There was NO fight from Nadal at the end. And that's very UNLIKE Rafael Nadal. To not bring the fight to the court. So, I'm sure Nadal was saying to himself, hey, if I can pull this match out in str8 sets, than cool. If Federer gets hot, I'll hang in there &...but he couldn't & he's only human. So, Federer better know that the Nadal performance in the Hamburg final will most likely NOT be repeated in the French Open final. If anything, he'll want some revenge. And now, finally, his streak is over. He can relax a little, now that the pressure of continuing that ridiculous win streak is over & he can focus on continuing another win streak. His unbeaten record at the French Open. :)

| complain about this comment

posted May 25, 2007

Thank you secretstevie. Nadal was NOT playing his best. I think he wanted his streak to get over. Roland Garros is a slam. His match against Del Potro I think will be lop sided. At the French he is another player. Roger is a great player, but Nadal has the confidence. Sure Fed's got some, but Roland Garros no. I think Rafa will come through his half and beat Federer in a revenge match. Federer won't win. This is a hat-trick for Nadal. If Nadal get's injured then yes Federer will win. But if they meet in the final, Rafa in four sets.

| complain about this comment

comment by Same_AJ (U6541933)

posted May 25, 2007

No comments!

| complain about this comment

posted May 25, 2007

A very interesting prospect and a fantastic discussion so far.How i wish football fans will see a few pages of what intelligent banter tennis fans write.
Anyway i seem to agree with secretstevie a lot.I am a Nadal fan mainly because i recognise that he is a fantanstic and skillful player & he's also a very strong ,intelligent and focused young man.Look at the gap between Nadal and the rest of the other young prospects (Murray, Monfils,Gasquet,Djokovic) and you see how strong he has to be to be no.2 in the world win no 'on-court respect' for Federer. Don't get ne wrong I love watching Federer and i like reading all the superlative words about him but he is human and we all love to see a bit of drama.He would be so much more greater being pushed by Nadal but people please don't doubt Nadal's greatness.
Now to the Rome final, quite simply it was obvius Nadal was tired( i remember telling a friend that he would finish his unbeaten run there cos he was playing too many matches) but in a way he may not be affected by his loss to Federer as abit of pressure will be off for Roland Garros.
Federer is still a fantastic clay-courter but i will fancy Nadal this year if he does not get injured or show fatigue.
All in all, we are witnessing a king and probably the crown prince of tennis and it's magic to have these two guys playing at the moment.

| complain about this comment

posted May 25, 2007

As I recall Nalbandian used to beat Roger when they were younger, but not any more as Roger learned to beat him.
Nalbandian sp ? is a very hard direct hitter and was tough.
Federer may have to adapt a different style to counter Rafas power play as at times he is overcome by power players and for a time Roddick lifted his game and gave Roger more trouble than the score suggested.
This will be interesting at RG but on another note I have reliable information thats its very unlikely Sampras will be at Wimbledon wise choice if true.

| complain about this comment

comment by Isamat (U3990092)

posted May 25, 2007

Federer's win over Rafa in Hamburg has added the perfect spice to RG this year. Rafa certainly should have been tired - but whether he was or not - I don't think he would have looked weary had he not been losing heavily at the back end of the match - it takes nothing away from the importance of Federer's win - I have always thought - from Rome 06 onwards, that Federer has the tools and the game to beat Rafa on clay - what he needs is the execution and the belief - in RG 06 both let him down and in MC this year, the belief seemed muddled - I don't know how much that was about Rafa or Roche. But now, Federer not only KNOWS how to beat Rafa on clay, he can FEEL it too.

Rafa remains the favourite of course, how can you bet against someone with such an incredible record on the surface. But the mental balance of strength between them has shifted notably. Federer has now beaten Rafa three of the last four times they've played, and now also on Rafa's beloved clay. If he makes it to the final I am backing him to win.

| complain about this comment

posted May 26, 2007

I believe the Fed express will win it this year.The win over Nadal in Hamburg would give him a massive boost of confidence and ease the nerves which always seem to afflict him in the opening periods of matches with Rafa.
Those who claim Nadal is naturally favoured in a five sets match should watch the Rome final of last year. Federrer actually had match points and seemed the player with the extra gas at the end. Basics error cost him that match.
They both would have some tricky matches leading up to the final but if they get there, then is the Fed Express for me!

| complain about this comment

posted May 26, 2007

I think Nadal let Federer beat him in Hamburg.
Now the poor sucker actually believes he can beat Nadal in Paris - NO WAY!

| complain about this comment

comment by p-train (U8468058)

posted May 26, 2007

I think most of the points relating to the potential Federer-Nadal clash at the French have been covered. The only disappointment now would be if one of them (or both) didn't make it to the final.

I wanted to pick up on Rajah's comments about Andy Murray; firstly, that if you're going to insult the guy and call him a LOSER then at least get the spelling right.

Secondly, for the last 10-12 years the British public has spent most of the early part of July moaning about Tim Henman's lack of fight/determination/back-bone, etc. Personally I feel incredibly sorry for the guy who has carried the burden of a whole nation's hopes of a Brit winning Wimbledon for so long, and then it seems that at the end of his career, he is remembered as a middle-class niceboy who never had enough guts to win a slam. The fact that he was consistently in the top ten for a number of years and made the semis of three different slams seems to elude people.

Then we get to Murray - someone who isn't from such a comfortable background as Henman, and someone who, despite his bad temper and slightly adolescent attitude, definitely has got grit and determination - the two things that were apparently lacking from Henman's game. Yet still, with Murray only 19 (or 20?) years old and into the world's top ten and we're already giving the guy a hard time.

To call someone like Murray a loser is pretty inaccurate - he's already beaten Federer, Roddick and Ljubicic, and very nearly took Rafa, and what with Henman reaching the end of his career, Murray is the only player who gives the British public a realistic hope of producing a Wimbledon winner. Were it not for him, then we'd be back to the days of the early 90's, clinging desperately to the hope that a British wildcard, ranked 137 in the world might make the forth round.

I agree that Murray's not necessarily the best in front of a camera, but his career is not in Hollywood, it's in tennis, and as far as I can tell he's pretty damn good at tennis.

| complain about this comment

posted May 26, 2007

I think Nadal let Federer beat him in Hamburg.
Now the poor sucker actually believes he can beat Nadal in Paris - NO WAY!

Mr Judixxann or whatever your name is, i'm not sure you went past elementary school, i guess that that's what you'd do if u're are on an 81-match streak.

Down to business:
Rafa didn't skip Hamburg because of the following reasons:

He wanted to set a record of clearing all the Clay court Masters b4 RG'07 - Good reason

He wanted to 'kill' federer psychologically by widening their head-to-head gap to 8-3 - Bad reason

He didn't want federer to win any clay court masters at all for fear of him gaining some confidence - Bad reason

He's gotten overconfident, thinking he would n't get tired, or be tired and still beat federer - Bad reason

So, as you can see, professional judgement and common sense shows that you should skip some tournaments to take a rest, or you'll lose when you don't expect it (Federer @ Cincinati'06).
Rafa was insincere and greedy.Now it's cost him his 81-match streak and made him to concede some mental strength to Federer.Head to head is now 7-4...ha ha

Let's wait and see what happens at RG'07

| complain about this comment

posted May 26, 2007

Hi Folks .... i love all these articles on The Fed and Nadal ..... i think the reason is we talking about the greatest rivarly in tennis history ?? ....i dont say that lightly having grown up with Mac V Borg and Sampras and Agassi ...... but considering Nadal is only 20, and hopefully the Fed wants to play for another 5 good years ( injury free ),
i think we are only seeing the beginning ......lets not forget that Grass court novice Nadal got the FINAL of Wimbledon last year ..... awesome ..... also, as i see it, even though there are a lot of good youngsters out there, these two are MILES ahead of the chasing pack, and i dont see that slowing down as they drive each other to greater heights.
John Mcenroe ( in my opinion the greatest player/Character in tennis history ) has gone on record as saying Federer is the most talented player he has ever seen ( shivers go up my spine ) and that Nadal reminds him of Borg ...... well .... maybe this is a little indulgent but for the record ..... I see Federer as a mix of Sampras ( Phlegmatic, steel nerve etc etc ) and Mcenroe ( Talent , touch, vision etc etc ) .. and Nadal as a mix of Borg ( incredible consistency, power and topsin etc etc ) and Connors ( intensity, desire, every shots his last etc etc ) ...................
A quick note to Fedchamp, the main reason Nadal was in Hamburg was out of loyalty to Federer and the other players on the tour. When the ATP Director wanted to strip Monte Carlo and Hamburg of their Masters Series status( Despite the fact that they have been running for over 100 years ) and give it two more non descript American cities, Federer and Nadal took upon themselves ( with the overwhelming support of their fellow players ) to say they didnt agree and were prepared to stand up for that belief . I think normally Nadal would have bypassed Hamburg after a heavy clay court run, where he won the three tournaments he entered.
Lastly, reluctantly, i feel Nadal will probably win the French, because he has beaten the Fed in the last two in 4 sets, and my understanding is that The clay in Paris is a little livelier than most and Nadals shots to Federer,s backhand will kick a little more visciously than Hamburg. Like all other Fed fans out their, i hope i,m wrong and that the barrier he hurdled in Hamburg may..... just may ... get him home ..........

| complain about this comment

posted May 26, 2007

Fedchamp or should that be fedchump! did you really take my comment seriously??
:-)

| complain about this comment

posted May 27, 2007

This comment is not aimed at criticizing Nadal, but to underline facts. Nadal is a one dimensional player, and as such, his playing is quite boring. Make no mistake, he is exceptionally good at what he does, but his particular success essentially on clay demonstrates the above. On clay the ball is much slower, and the players can play one more shot even when the opponents hit a winner, also because, besides the ball being slower, the players can slide and gain the extra length that allow them to reach the ball in time and make the opponents play one more time. In fact, Nadal especially relies on the opponents unforced errors. We find a parallel in the way Borg used to play, (although Nadal is far less talented), as much as a parallel can be found in the boring way Roddick plays and Sampras used to, essentially relying on services (one dimensional players), although, again, Roddick is far less talented. Fortunately, with the arrival of Federer we saw the demise of the boring one dimensional players as world number ones, for the sake of the beautiful game: all tennis lovers should pray for the type of tennis played by Nadal and Roddick to be defeated - kids and young players tend to imitate number ones, because their way of playing is paying off. There was a time (quite recently) when it was all service, and young players focused their training on that only aspect, because for Sampras it was paying off. Back to Nadal one dimensional playing: his number two status is mainly built on clay tournaments, which prove my analysis. A further demonstration of the above analysis is the fact that Nadal and Federer usually play against each other on clay, because, while Federer is a complete player, (in my view, the best of all time), and often reaches the final of tournaments on clay, Nadal rarely do the same on other surfaces: hence Nadal good record (so far) against Federer. But there is also something else that is boring with Nadal (and also irritating). It is all the yelling when he hits the ball; it is all those pathetic and ridiculous long pauses between services; it is his looking at is coach for help when he is in trouble: indeed not an edifying attitude – this also shows some lack of respect for the opponents and the public. Finally, in my view, clay is the easiest surface, it is where average players can make their mark and win grand slams, which happened so many times in the French Open history. We have never seen great players only winning on clay, but we have a great number of great players who never won on clay. To sum up, even if Nadal may occasionally win on other surfaces, since his fame is essentially build “on clay”, (see “on clay” as double meaning), he can be identified as the kind of the average players, <laugh> <steam> <loveblush>

| complain about this comment

posted May 27, 2007

I'm a huge fan of the Fed, but I'm a bit concerned that he may be looking too far ahead in the Men's draw. It's as if he is already looking forward to the final. That can be a very dangerous mindset to have, as it can distract you from the task at hand, i.e. focussing on and executing you game so that you can defeat your opponent on the other side of the net in first, second and third-round games. Undoubtedly, Federer is aware of this (at least I hope he is), given the fact that he's used to playing deep into the second week of Grand Slams. If he is, he would do well not to move away from this approach and take his RG matches one match at a time.

He should not be concerned with Nadal for now. Just focus on who his first round match with Michael Russell.

| complain about this comment

comment by p-train (U8468058)

posted May 27, 2007

cimaparte, how can you say that all Sampras had was a serve? You don't win 14 slams with just a serve. Rusedski had a good serve, but I'm pretty sure he didn't win 14 slams.

| complain about this comment

posted May 27, 2007

I am not saying that Sampras was only serve, but that the serve was his main weapon - in my view, without the big serve he would not have won Wimbledon so many times: I still remember point after point won on aces, and how bored I was sometimes in watching him playing. The fact is that there are very few players in tennis history like Federer on whom you can say to have seen some exceptional paying, out of the ordinary, and this in a consistent way – with Federer you are always sure to have a good time watching a Tennis match, it was not always the case with Sampras

| complain about this comment

posted May 27, 2007

NADAL!!! lol....yep, i agree, this is still Nadal's tournament....twas a pity at Hamburg (haha...ati he let federer win! lol...thats funny!) cud be true...but ya, he looked tired, i just hope he'll be well rested for this one....
does anyone know when (time GMT as well) Nadal is playing his first game? ive been checking fixtures, but they only show day 1...
thx

| complain about this comment

posted May 27, 2007

I would like to make a comment about Cimapartes remarks .....
Broadly, i both agree and disagree with your comments if that makes sense ..... i think Nadal is a little one dimensional, but definately not boring ...... his game may be repetitive, but he brings a fantastic desire and energy to the court. I also used to find Sampras,s matches at Wimbledon quite uninteresting because his serve was so good ..... but to say he was only a serve is a little ridiculous ..... by any stretch he was a marvellous volleyer, an art which is rarely seen these days, and surely the ultimate tennis combat, a man at the net and a man at the baseline ..... Sampras had a great forehand, probably the best we had seen for a long time until Federer came along.
One point i would like to make is that Sampras did have a relatively weak backhand. In my view one of the reasons he amassed so many slams was because at Wimbledon, especially in the 90,s, the lower bounce of the ball meant he could hit backhands from nearer hip height than shoulder height, which was more the case on other surfaces ( One of the reasons so many single handed backhanders have done so well indoors is because of the lower bounce .... Sampras,Federer,Becker,Mcenroe etc )
I also feel that if Sampras was playing today, he wouldnt have won 5 US Opens and 2 Australian Opens ..... the reason ..... in the 90,s analysis of opponents weaknesses wasnt as evident as it is today. Federer has a good backhand, but an unbelievable forehand. All the players know that hitting the ball to Federers forehand is a recipe for disaster, and i wouldnt be suprised if 90% of shots get aimed at his backhand . Sampras,s backhand was nowhere near as good as that, but i would bet that people only aimed to the wing around 60 % of the time . The match i will never forget was the US Open Quarter Final in 1997, Sampras was playing Petr Korda ...... Korda aimed at Sampras backhand on nearly every point, something i had never seen before, and beat him in 5 sets.... Sampras only won one more non Wimbledon slam after that ... his last ... the 2002 US Open ...... I have always wondered if he would have been able to win all the other Non Wimbledon slams if that tactic has been used earlier ....

| complain about this comment

comment by rondamo (U5553534)

posted May 28, 2007

for me its hard to look past these two as they have dominated mens tennis 4 quite a while now. But i think someone like davydenko or even nalbandian could throw a spanner into the works. i think Nadal will breeze into the final with maybe one 4 setter and the rest straight sets but im still not sure about feds on clay. The better player out of the two overall but in my opinoin its the same as SAMPRAS/AGGASI - sampras was the better overall player but jus cudnt cut it on the clay! Im gonna go out on a leg and say the final will be Davydenko vs Nadal (Presuming thier not in the same half of the draw bcoz i havent looked) anyone agree or disagree?

| complain about this comment

posted May 28, 2007

So many people on this thread are completely mad.

The win for Federer in Hamburg WAS important - the first time he has beaten Nadal on clay is a major landmark.

At THE SAME TIME, no-one is now saying that Federer is favourite for Roland Garros. Of course Nadal is favourite - one tired loss doesn't mean he's not the greatest clay courter ever.

That said, Federer has a CHANCE - as in he could win, but probably won't. Maybe 25-75.

If he does somehow pull off the win against Nadal in the final, I think that he then must be considered the greatest ever, having beaten the clay-court king on his own patch.

| complain about this comment

comment by Ian B (U3864728)

posted May 28, 2007

Federer all the way. No way will Nadal overcome the clay court brilliance of Tim Henman in the 3rd round :-)

More seriously, with the weather in Paris at the moment, will the tournament be finished in time for Wimbledon?

| complain about this comment

comment by nik (U2197344)

posted May 28, 2007

You know Federer is not a man who loves to boast about himself. So when he says he has figured out Nadal's game - he said that even before the win in hamburg - I believe him.

So *if* Federer and Nadal meet in the final, Federer is my favorite by a large margin. At the level both of them are playing, game intelligence will make the difference, and there I see Federer leaps and bounds ahead of Nadal.

I say if because there's always a chance for a surprise.

| complain about this comment

comment by kamal9 (U8458433)

posted May 28, 2007

I think Federer is the greatest player around right now, but im not so sure if he would beat Nadal in the final of the French Open, I think that Nadal is still the better player on clay, but my moneys of Federer to take the other three grand slams

| complain about this comment

posted May 28, 2007

I don't get it. Why are people so confident in Federer winning RG this year? He was inconvincing throughout most of the clay court season. He was even inconvincing in Hamburg but for the last two sets of the tournament.

Of course, the win is a huge confidence booster for him, but seriously. Just look at the clay court rankings for this season. Or even the results since the Australian Open. Clearly, Nadal is the red hot man right now. Even the bookies are putting Nadal as their favorite.

I think everybody is excited of the prospect of yet another Federer - Nadal final but we'll just have to wait a couple of days. I'm also looking forward to the possible Federer - Davydenko semi. I really hope Davydenko manages to get through to the semis, I give him a good chance against Federer. If Federer destroys Davydenko there, then I'll give him a 50% chance of winning RG. Otherwise, it's Nadal all the way!

| complain about this comment

posted May 28, 2007

Thank you GuirnoNI. Remember three weeks ago how everyone was like Federer doesn't stand a chance? Well, yes it was a confidence booster to beat Nadal in Hamburg, put Nadal wasn't 100%. In a grand slam final, Nadal will give it 200000%. Nadal also wants revenge for the streak. Nadal def. Federer in four or five sets.

| complain about this comment

posted May 28, 2007

the problem this week is the weather will be terrible. According to the BBC Weather the forecast is:

Tuesday: Sunny Intervals
Wednesday: Heavy Rain
Thursday: Cloudy
Friday: Light Showers
Saturday: Light Showers

| complain about this comment

posted May 28, 2007

Now Federer has 'felt' what it is like to beat his bogeyman on clay, there is a chance he might start repeating the feat! He has done this in the past, so there is no reason to doubt that he is capable of it.

Nadal certainly didn't look particularly tired at 6-2 up in the Hamburg final.

The most notable change for me was in Federer's game; he started to play like he does at the other Slams. Moving up the court and really attacking, rather than the rather embarrassing Henman-esque slice that Nadal routinely devours.

After the pummelling Nadal received, it is possible that he - dejected - started to run out of ideas.

Let's hope that they do meet in the final - not even this thread would have the legs to last much longer than it already has! ;P

| complain about this comment

posted May 28, 2007

listonliston

i would just like to say that you don't get serve volleyers anymore because even at wimbledon the balls are bouncing up because of the resurfacing done over the last few years, so they don't get through the draw anymore.

i think federer will lose to nadal in 5 sets if they play!!!!

| complain about this comment

comment by Porlock (U7853821)

posted May 29, 2007



excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses.

May the better player win.

| complain about this comment

comment by Owen (U5944801)

posted May 29, 2007

Nadal lost to Federer on clay - yes, it is a big deal. Grow up and get on with it Nadalians.

Of course Nadal is still favourite to win, but its not a sure thing anymore - Nadal will be worried. Losing an 81 game winning streak will do that to you.

And Roger saying he's figured out Nadal's clay court game....I'm not so sure - didn't Tony Roche say the same thing before last year's championship?

It is building up to be the biggest Slam in years. Lets just hope Tim Henman doesn't knock Nadal out in the 3rd round and make this debate immaterial.....

| complain about this comment

posted May 29, 2007

Cards on the table - I am an enormous Federer fan. And I would just like to say that if Nadal were to beat RF on grass by 2-6, 6-2, 6-0 the week before Wimbledon, I would be SERIOUSLY worried, period.

We all know Roger has the game to beat Rafa on clay. He hasn't done it before because he hasn't believed it himself. Now he does. I think that will make all the difference. If the Swiss is on song then nobody in the world can stay with him, and that includes Nadal on a clay court.

| complain about this comment

comment by Sarah (U4358239)

posted May 29, 2007

Let's hope the best player wins. And, also to whoever was asking about the weather, the forecast is good for the rest of the tournament.

| complain about this comment

posted May 29, 2007

Federer is a 'nice' person, but has absolutely zero personality. He also does not have a natural game for clay, but most often finds a way to win on overall shot making ability.

Personally I would love to see Canas win. What a player, what a story, not a cheat and great personality. Also unlike Federer, he does not have a nervous tic and has beaten him twice this season, hail King Canas !

| complain about this comment

Page 1 of 5

HINTS & TIPS

Deleting comments

You are in charge of your own space - if you see an offensive comment, you can delete it

Reasonable debate is allowed - please don't delete a comment just because you don't agree with it

If you are not sure, or feel a comment warrants further attention, you can refer it to a moderator instead