The Trouble City Forums

Full Version: Federer vs. Nadal on 1/2 grass, 1/2 clay court
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is too weird to be anything but entertaining. From WithLeather.com:

I would really watch that.

For a few minutes.

If I ever came across it on television.
That's looks so fucking photoshopped. Has anything like this ever been done?
There's only one way to make tennis surfaces more exciting. Landmines.
But what is more important, that Federer is hitting TO grass, or returning FROM grass? Same with Nadal and a clay surface.

It is a sort of interesting thought at first, but when you realize both surfaces (yours and your opponents) affect the game, it becomes a bit less interesting.
Nadal won in a third set tiebreaker. I didn't think this was real when I first saw it. Weird.
Haha, same here. When I posted above I assumed that was a photoshopped picture and a fake article.

I feel stupid now.
Looks more like Mario Tennis. Boo won.
So, can Rafael finally win when 50-100% of the court is not made of clay? I'm hoping so, but thinking no. Everyone is just too ready to crown his ass, and Federer isn't the best ever for nothing. Whatever happens, I still think Fed has got to be the overwhelming favorite in New York, but this would be a huge step for Nadal.

ETA- On a different note, I have switched up my Williams sister allegiance. I always pulled for Serena before, but that girl is just so damn surly. Venus is much easier to root for.
Nadal thoroughly kicked his ass in the French that, the way he was playing on that day, he could have won in zero-gravity.

If Nadal's gonna get him on grass, this is the year.
Well, next year Rafa will be in the second year of his prime and Roger will be a year older, so there's that. I still think he's got a couple more years before he gets relegated to the "clay-court specialist" category... which is sort of the ghetto of grand slam champions.
That 4th set tie-break was spectacular.
Yep, that was some of the best tennis I've ever seen.
I'll say this. If Nadal doesn't get it done in the 5th, he won't beat Federer on grass/hardcourt in a match that matters ever. He's had all the opportunities he could ask for today to win.
Friggin' rain delays!
Quote:

Originally Posted by tcjsavannah
View Post
I'll say this. If Nadal doesn't get it done in the 5th, he won't beat Federer on grass/hardcourt in a match that matters ever. He's had all the opportunities he could ask for today to win.

I'm not necessarily buying that. He's in the first year of his true prime. However, I think there'll always be an asterisk on the rivalry if he needs Fed to be on the downside of his career before he can beat him on grass. At this point I'm hoping they have to delay the match until tomorrow, because I've got to be away from the television
I don't really know a lot about the rivalry between these two, but I'm pulling for Federer because his Wilson racket sorta looks like the $20 Wilson racket I got from Target.
Federer is going to beat Rafa on clay before Rafa beats Federer on grass or hardcourt.

And now watch Federer lose.
This match is ridiculous.
Oh Come On
Damnit.
Moot point now, but that was amazing. Every time Federer needed an ace he came up with one, but in the end it was like the French.. just a few too many errors.
I didn't expect him to tighten up the way he did the last two games.

And there's been a lot of talk about "hyperbole" around the boards lately, but anything anyone can say about a film pales in comparison to sports announcers. "Changing of the guard". "Greatest of all time". "Will literally ascend to heaven on Jesus Christ's back".
That was phenomenal. Now I'm gonna throw my Wilson racket in the dumpster. Thanks a lot, Federer.
That was the Lawrence of Arabia of tennis. Goddamn.
wow. that was some intense tennis.

probably some of the best I have seen in my lifetime.

I think the last match that I found to be so memorable was that one match where sampras was vomiting his guts out in between games.
In the words of Super Dave Osborne: "I missed it."
I'm not a tennis fan at all but I came across the final and yeah, it was phenomenal.

I wanted Federer to win though!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fazer
View Post
wow. that was some intense tennis.

probably some of the best I have seen in my lifetime.

I think the last match that I found to be so memorable was that one match where sampras was vomiting his guts out in between games.

U.S. Open semifinals, '96? Something like that. Yeah, puking in the 5th set tie-breaker against Corretja. That was something. Then there was the Sampras/Agassi match at the U.S. Open around '01 or '02, where neither of them ever broke the other's serve. That was something, too.

Of course, the gold standard of Wimbledon finals is the Borg/McEnroe match of 1980, with that insane 22 minute tie-break (16-18) in the 4th set.
I just watched the wrap-up special on ESPN 2. It's interesting that all three of their analysts seem to be picking a different guy to be the favorite at the Open. Brad Gilbert has fully partaken of the Nadal Kool-Aid, proclaiming him the heir to Sampras' grand slam throne. Or maybe he just really wants to be his next coach.

I feel like Federer is still going to be the guy to beat, considering Nadal hasn't gone beyond the quarterfinals in New York. There doesn't seem to be anybody else other than Djokovic who can contend regularly for slams, so I think Roger still has a great chance to beat Sampras title record.

I still haven't seen enough of that final set... unfortunately I don't have ESPN Classic.
My wife asked if this meant Roger was done, I told her no. In fact, if I were a betting man, I would put money on him winning the Open.
There has been a little noise about the fact that some of the greatest champions, guys like Borg and McEnroe, were done after the age of 25. But as I mentioned earlier, who else is going to take the titles from him? Tennis doesn't have the depth of the eighties, when Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, etc. were making sure that the Borg, McEnroe, Connors era was done. Djokovic is a bit of an unknown quantity to me, and I don't see Nadal going on the type of run Roger did. Sure, he could end up with a ton of majors, and I hope he does because he's fun as hell to watch play, but I don't get the sense that he's going to be dominant on hardcourt. Federer could conceivably get a major or two a year for another three or four years. Somebody else has to step up.
Sampras won 6 majors past the age of 25.

Agassi won 5 majors past the age of 28.

Sampras won 6 majors past the age of 25.

Connors won 4 majors past the age of 25.

Becker won the Australian Open at the age of 29.


I think Federer has a few more years of great play left in him. His era of absolute dominance is over but he could pick up three or four more majors over the next 3-4 years. Sampras, Agassi and Conners all won a major past the age of 30.

This era as of right now has two great players, one of which has yet to prove that he can win on hardcourts. Federer may never get his French Open title but I have no doubt that he will win at least two more majors (which would tie Sampras).

The biggest hurdle may not be his body but his mind. He may decide he's had enough and retire.
Yeah, I watched this since there wasn't shit else on TV. I'm not into tennis at all, so I had no fucking clue what was going on or who was winning until Nadal dropped it like it was hot on the court. Even still, that was a great matchup.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey
View Post
I just watched the wrap-up special on ESPN 2. It's interesting that all three of their analysts seem to be picking a different guy to be the favorite at the Open. Brad Gilbert has fully partaken of the Nadal Kool-Aid, proclaiming him the heir to Sampras' grand slam throne. Or maybe he just really wants to be his next coach.

Yeah, I was wondering about Gilbert there when he predicted Nadal was going to win the U.S. Open, and even hinted that possibly he could make it to 15 slams before Federer (maybe I misheard him, because that's crazy talk right now...Nadal has 5, Federer has 12). Nadal's worst surface is hard court...he's still very good on it, but there's plenty of guys who can give him major trouble on hard court (which is what the U.S. and Australian Opens are played on), much more than there are on clay or grass.

Quote:

I feel like Federer is still going to be the guy to beat, considering Nadal hasn't gone beyond the quarterfinals in New York. There doesn't seem to be anybody else other than Djokovic who can contend regularly for slams, so I think Roger still has a great chance to beat Sampras title record.

Djokovic's best surface is hard court, and he's realistically got a pretty good chance against Federer on it (he beat him on hard court at this year's Aussie Open, and last year in the run-up to the U.S.). Federer will remain a huge threat on grass for three or four more years, barring injury. The guy's game is perfect for Wimbledon, and aside from Nadal I can't see very many upcoming grass threats on the tour. So yeah, it's very hard for me to imagine Federer not winning any more majors. And I definitely can't imagine him wilting away like Brad Gilbert seemed to be implying.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10