French Open

UDAWINNER

To all the Nadal haters, the guy is pure class. To come back from the injuries he's had over the years proves he has it all.

Stella89

Nadal outplayed Federer fair and square . He didn't cheat lol . Nadal is the deserved 2011 french open champion .

Nadal is a champion when he wins and when he loses , he is always gracious in defeat . He is the all round package, physically, mentally, and skillfully . That is what sets him apart from everyone else .

Rob2D

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Yeah, I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Nadal's. I think 50% of what makes him good is just brute force, he's a physical freak, which is not something that I really enjoy watching. I like Federer for the fact that he doesn't need to do any of that. He's just completely natural, and makes it look so effortless and easy. For that reason, I don't really like to see him being beaten by someone like Nadal, who I don't consider to be very naturally talented and seems to get by mainly on power

I'll have to agree. You could never teach anyone his style, its horrible to watch and not practical. The force coupled with the modern racquet technology is what makes him such a contender. Whereas you could put Federer in a match fifty or even a hundred years ago, and he'd still be the best. He is tennis in its purest form.

That said, Nadal is very naturally clever on the clay so I do respect his victory even if I'm not a fan.

Bodhisopha wrote: »

What a player, might go on to eclipse Fed's haul in a more difficult era.

Classy guy too.

Now thats just crazy. We are not, and will not be in a more difficult era of tennis for a long while. Over the last decade there have only been two guys at the top of the sport. Before that in the 80's and 90's, there was much more talent in the top 10.

If Federer quit tomorrow, Nadal would surely overtake him as there would be nobody to stop him. Novak maybe, and thats a big maybe as it would require him to stay on whatever mental high he's on right now. Murray? Laughable. And after that theres nobody really.

Plus I wouldn't say Nadal is classy. He looks like a right knacker. That and all his spitting and scratching and time wasting. He didn't even bother to shave.

To me a classy tennis player is someone like Borg, Edberg or Federer.

KINGVictor

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Yes, I am. You cannot seriously believe he has the natural talent that Federer has. Nadal in his prime (now) has nothing on Federer in his prime, from about three or four years ago. He's won 10 grand slams, and fair play to him. It's a great achievement. But, I do not consider him to be next nor near the likes of Federer in terms of natural talent, and I don't really think that is a very unusual position to be taking. I know plenty of people who agree with me.

Well I know lots of people who will disagree with you as well! Nadal is 25 and you think he is in his prime when the average age of the top 10 is 25? I think he is a phenomenal player and has showed he owns the french open...no one has beaten him in a final in Paris and he still has a lot of energy! Yet he has beateb Federer in Wimbledon twice!...can you kindly explain what talent is?

bing3

Great tournament. Fair play to Roger for not buckling halfway through the second. He played some great tennis, but you gotta take your hat off to Rafa.
Just because he employs a little gamesmanship does not make him a cheat.
Lucky to have two of the best players ever playing at the same time; not to mention Djokovic and Murray.
Roll on Wimbledon...

UDAWINNER

Remember Federer only won the French Open because Nadal was injured.

Stella89

Rob2D wrote: »

I'll have to agree. You could never teach anyone his style, its horrible to watch and not practical. The force coupled with the modern racquet technology is what makes him such a contender. Whereas you could put Federer in a match fifty or even a hundred years ago, and he'd still be the best. He is tennis in its purest form.

That said, Nadal is very naturally clever on the clay so I do respect his victory even if I'm not a fan.



Now thats just crazy. We are not, and will not be in a more difficult era of tennis for a long while. Over the last decade there have only been two guys at the top of the sport. Before that in the 80's and 90's, there was much more talent in the top 10.

If Federer quit tomorrow, Nadal would surely overtake him as there would be nobody to stop him. Novak maybe, and thats a big maybe as it would require him to stay on whatever mental high he's on right now. Murray? Laughable. And after that theres nobody really.

Plus I wouldn't say Nadal is classy. He looks like a right knacker. That and all his spitting and scratching and time wasting. He didn't even bother to shave.

To me a classy tennis player is someone like Borg, Edberg or Federer.

You never see Nadal get petulant on the court and disrespect the ball boys/girls , linemens and umpires, like Federer does when he is losing . You will never see Nadal being ungracious and embarssing in defeat like Federer is when he loses . THe australian open final from a few years ago when FEd started openely crying in his defeat speech , His way of trying to win over the crowd, it was pitiful. The gulf in class between these champions Nadal and Federer is enormous in favour of Nadal i'm afraid .

MisterAnarchy

Stella89 wrote: »

Nadal outplayed Federer fair and square . He didn't cheat lol . Nadal is the deserved 2011 french open champion .

He outplayed him at times but Federer gave him a good run and if he had taken his break points better he may have won.
The main problem Federer has with Nadal is mental .He cannot play the big points well enough and doesnt make enough of his break points.
Just like Nadal has a hoodoo over Federer ,Djokovic now has the hoodoo over Nadal.

Federer's second serve has deteriorated over the last few years ,frankly its a liability,he only won 39& of points on it today ,in Madrid against Nadal it was less than 30%.

The new Babolat balls made the tournament alot better,there was much more variety in the style of tennis which is welcome.
Hopefully Wimbledon will speed the grass up a bit in the coming years as I'm growing tired of baseline bashing .

Some of the trolling on here about Nadal being a cheat is ridiculous.
Sure he isnt the easiest on the eye ,and he is a deliberate time waster ,but he is a very decent guy with a superb temperament.
As for not having natural ability ,thats preposterous,do not forget he is naturally right handed not left and could have made it as a soccer player if not for tennis.
He is a class act .

Looking forward to Wimbledon .

Da Shins Kelly

KINGVictor wrote: »

Well I know lots of people who will disagree with you as well! Nadal is 25 and you think he is in his prime when the average age of the top 10 is 25? I think he is a phenomenal player and has showed he owns the french open...no one has beaten him in a final in Paris and he still has a lot of energy! Yet he has beateb Federer in Wimbledon twice!...can you kindly explain what talent is?

I'm not belittling Nadal's achievements. I don't think that anything he has won has been undeserved or that he isn't a great player. Like I said earlier, I admire his attitude a lot. I think he's got a great outlook and is very, very positive. It's something that a lot of other players could learn from. I just prefer Federer. As I said before, Federer makes it look easy. It's always completely effortless for him. My arguement is that a lot of Nadal's greatness comes from the fact that he's a physical freak. Part of his game is pummelling the opposition into defeat. That, to me, is not pretty to watch and is not a mark of natural talent, more a mark of a lot of hard work in the gym. Federer doesn't need to do that, and three or four years ago was virtually unbeatable without ever having to resort to strength superiority. Federer could fit into any era of tennis and be amazing, whereas Nadal is very much a product of these times. That's the difference. Federer is a player for all generations, and a true legend of the game. Nadal isn't. He's a great player and great ambassador for the game, but there is no way that Nadal today would be anything approaching what Federer was in his best days. Federer four years ago literally had no weaknesses. Today, he's older, he has a family, his priorities are probably shifting slightly, so the torch is beginning to pass over. I have no problem with Nadal taking over, I think he's a great player. However, I really don't believe I will ever see another player as great as Federer in his heyday, including Nadal.

And I'd just like to add, that the idea of Nadal being a cheat is ridiculous. I do not agree with that at all. The nature of the game is changing all the time, becoming more about strength as anything else. Nadal is a sign of that change. There's nothing wrong with it. And to suggest that Nadal is somehow bad for the game is outrageous. The lad also appears to be an absolute gent, and a hard worker. I'd never knock that.

BQQ

UDAWINNER wrote: »

Remember Federer only won the French Open because Nadal was injured.

And Djokovich never faced Nadal in either of his slam wins.

Stella89

I think the problem Fed has with Nadal, and evey other player for that matter. . . Is Nadals Natural ability to return shots that no other player could , to not only return shots that no other player could , but to return shots that most people coudln't with often winning shots utilizing his natural ability and skill that no other player in the world could do . Nadal doesn't usually have dips in mental lapses, he is by far the best mentally prepared tennis player .

When players like Fed are not acustomed to see " normally winning" shots coming back with interest from Nadal , thats when they have doubts and Are unable to defeat him .

Nadal doesn't let bad shots or unlucky call affect him as much as other players do . He is has a great natural ability to block these things out and concentrate on the moment .

All these things are what sets him apart from everyone on the court .

BQQ

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Federer doesn't need to do that, and three or four years ago was virtually unbeatable without ever having to resort to strength superiority. Federer could fit into any era of tennis and be amazing, whereas Nadal is very much a product of these times. That's the difference. Federer is a player for all generations, and a true legend of the game. Nadal isn't. He's a great player and great ambassador for the game, but there is no way that Nadal today would be anything approaching what Federer was in his best days. Federer four years ago literally had no weaknesses.

I don't think Nadal is appreciably stronger than federer in tennis terms (maybe in an arm-wrestling contest though)
Fed's serve is a much bigger weapon in fact.
Nadal's real advantage is fitness - his ability to get balls back is amazing. He's also mentally stronger.

Nadal beat him here 4 years ago and was unlucky not to win wimbledon that year too (fed won 2 tiebreaks in final)
3 years ago nadal won 2 slams to fed's one beating him on both occasions, so clearly he was a match for fed in his prime

Da Shins Kelly

Stella89 wrote: »

Nadal doesn't let bad shots or unlucky call affect him as much as other players do . He is has a great natural ability to block these things out and concentrate on the moment .
.

I wouldn't really call that talent though. More mental strength. You could be the most talented person in the world and still be emotionally or mentally weak. Sure, there's loads of people involved in other professions that have talent in abundance but can't hold it together mentally. That's got nothing to do with talent, it's just mental endurance. McEnroe is a great example of that - flying off the handle, very emotionally unpredictable and all over the place, but amazingly talented.

Da Shins Kelly

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

could have made it as a soccer player if not for tennis.
.

Apparently the same can be said of Federer, and he is also an incredible chess player too supposedly.

RosyLily

Great match from both players; although it deserved a 5th set, that would have made it extra special! I like how both men are very gracious towards each other. They are fantastic ambassadors for the game and ideal role models for the juniors... or anyone for that matter!

Really looking forward to Wimbledon now...should be an excellent tournament!

MisterAnarchy

BQQ wrote: »

Nadal beat him here 4 years ago and was unlucky not to win wimbledon that year too (fed won 2 tiebreaks in final)

Thats an interesting point about the tie breaks.
There was a time Federer would hardly ever lose a tie breaker,you could bet your house on him .
Now he is poor on them,I cant remember the last time he won a tie break against Nadal.

the_monkey

I can understand the frustration towards Nadal, I can't stand him myself - but more cos of the SPanish media, I managed to catch the game on BBC so it was grand, at the end of the day, Fed has a problem mentally with him, he let him get back into the 1st set and didn't take his chances later on - would it have been different with Nole - very possibly yes - but we'll never know!!


I do agree he has a habit of playing mind games - well they must be mind games ?? - saying he is not good enough to win this tourno etc....

I mean clearly he was ???

I also wonder about the trainer, did he really need him ? or just time, he was
upsetting a run by Federer then, and if he really needed the trainer fair enough - but I question this, I sometimes do the same - but I am an amateur, if I am getting my ass handed to me on a plate, I take a toliet break and it can swing things in my favour.


Again - up to Fed to rise above this .

Bodhisopha

the_monkey wrote: »

I can understand the frustration towards Nadal, I can't stand him myself - but more cos of the SPanish media, I managed to catch the game on BBC so it was grand, at the end of the day, Fed has a problem mentally with him, he let him get back into the 1st set and didn't take his chances later on - would it have been different with Nole - very possibly yes - but we'll never know!!


I do agree he has a habit of playing mind games - well they must be mind games ?? - saying he is not good enough to win this tourno etc....

I mean clearly he was ???

I also wonder about the trainer, did he really need him ? or just time, he was
upsetting a run by Federer then, and if he really needed the trainer fair enough - but I question this, I sometimes do the same - but I am an amateur, if I am getting my ass handed to me on a plate, I take a toliet break and it can swing things in my favour.


Again - up to Fed to rise above this .

Again, you are twisting the man's words.

He never said he wasn't good enough to win the tournament, he said he wasn't playing good enough to win the tournament, he simply acknowledged that he wasn't playing well and he was right.

Honesty used to be an admirable trait.

brimal

It's also worth noting that Nadal didn't like the new Babolat balls. Although he couldn't comment on them as they are one of his biggest sponsors.

Pisco Sour

Just having a looking through their respective grand slam totals here.

Rafa has won his 10th slam, just a couple of days after his 25th birthday..

Roger won his 10th slam at the age of 25 years and 5 months. So Rafa is 5 months ahead in reaching the target. Not as much as I thought.

At Rafa's exact current age, Roger had 8 slams (to Rafa's 10). The breakdown being:

Clay: Roger 0-6 Rafa
Grass: Roger 4-2 Rafa
Hard: Roger 4-2 Rafa

It remains to be seen who will end up with more slams at the end of their careers, but I think it is certain that Rafa will (assuming he surpasses Borg) be the greatest Clay courter of all time, while Roger the greatest Hard Courter. Pistol Pete probably still number 1 on the grass, with Roger the next greatest.

As Rafa says though, he can't be the greatest of all time until he surpasses Federer's total.

Wimbledon and US Open are going to be great now. Federer back on form, Djokavic being immense all year, even on clay, Murray looking strong, and Nadal of course still winning the big ones. Would be great to see Del Potro get back to his 2009 level. At his best he can mix it with those 4.

Pisco Sour

KINGVictor wrote: »

Yet he has beateb Federer in Wimbledon twice!...can you kindly explain what talent is?

Once

Pisco Sour

UDAWINNER wrote: »

Remember Federer only won the French Open because Nadal was injured.

Nadal was in that competition and reached the 4th round, although admittadly far from his best. But staying fit is a part of sport. When have you ever seen Roger not at 100% in a slam? Once, when he had mono. He takes care of himself. Just because one guy can't keep himself in good nick does not take away from the other guy's (who knows how to stay healthy) success.

Pisco Sour

Rob2D wrote: »

Now thats just crazy. We are not, and will not be in a more difficult era of tennis for a long while. Over the last decade there have only been two guys at the top of the sport. Before that in the 80's and 90's, there was much more talent in the top 10.

If Federer quit tomorrow, Nadal would surely overtake him as there would be nobody to stop him. Novak maybe, and thats a big maybe as it would require him to stay on whatever mental high he's on right now. Murray? Laughable. And after that theres nobody really.

I couldn't disagree more. The reason this current era appears uncompetitive is because Roger and Rafa are THAT good, that they have made the others look average. In the 90's there was no standout player (with the exception of Pete on grass), so the era was more competitive. But just because it was more competitive doesn't mean the players were better. Roger Federer would have been just as successful if he played in the 90's (probably would have had less Wimbledon's but definetely more wins at Roland Garros).

Take some of the players from this era (Hewitt, Roddick etc) and put them in the 90's and I guarantee they would have won more slams than they have in this era. Poor Roddick would be considered a tennis legend if he was around in a different era, he has lost so many slam finals to Roger.

What I will say though is that if Rafa was around in the 90's, while he would no doubt have dominated on clay (Rafa V Kuerten in their primes would have been some contest), and have been a force on hard courts, I do not believe he would have stood a chance at Wimbledon, on the old lightning quick grass courts. The big serve and volleyers of Goran, Pete, and even Henman would have been far too much for him. He certainly has benefitted from the ludicrous decision to slow the wimbledon courts down, and take away the unique high speed, low unpredictable bounce element that made Wimbledon so wonderful.

jcf

Nadal won't surpass Federers haul, he will burn out before then - but we'll see...

Also Federer won a lot of his slams when he didn't have many rivals - Nadal was only starting out on other surfaces etc...

jcf

04072511 wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. The reason this current era appears uncompetitive is because Roger and Rafa are THAT good, that they have made the others look average. In the 90's there was no standout player (with the exception of Pete on grass), so the era was more competitive. But just because it was more competitive doesn't mean the players were better. Roger Federer would have been just as successful if he played in the 90's (probably would have had less Wimbledon's but definetely more wins at Roland Garros).

Take some of the players from this era (Hewitt, Roddick etc) and put them in the 90's and I guarantee they would have won more slams than they have in this era. Poor Roddick would be considered a tennis legend if he was around in a different era, he has lost so many slam finals to Roger.

What I will say though is that if Rafa was around in the 90's, while he would no doubt have dominated on clay (Rafa V Kuerten in their primes would have been some contest), and have been a force on hard courts, I do not believe he would have stood a chance at Wimbledon, on the old lightning quick grass courts. The big serve and volleyers of Goran, Pete, and even Henman would have been far too much for him. He certainly has benefitted from the ludicrous decision to slow the wimbledon courts down, and take away the unique high speed, low unpredictable bounce element that made Wimbledon so wonderful.

Spot on, pluis the surfaces of the US and Aus Open have been changed slightly, to slow it down - right to Rafa's advantage.

SharpshooterTom

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

but there is no way that Nadal today would be anything approaching what Federer was in his best days. Federer four years ago literally had no weaknesses.

Not sure I buy this. Nadal beat him at his own turf at Wimbledon back in 08 after demolishing him at RG that same year both of which when Federer was still 26. Went on then to defeat him at Australian Open, at age 27. It would interesting actually to see if Federer would have still won 16 grand slams if Nadal was born 5 years earlier.

Federer's been fantastic, no doubt the greatest ever still but he was beating people like Andy Roddick, a past it Lleyton Hewitt, ageing Agassi, Baghdatis/Gonzalez/Philippoussies etc.

BazBox

Delighted Nadal won yesterday, fantastic achievement for him to have 10 Grand Slams. I don't understand why people think he is a cheat and a scumbag, fair enough he takes a lot of time between points but thats up to the umpires to penalise him if they feel Nadal is taking the piss

Also on this thing of saying he's not playing well enough to win the tournament, is that not Nadal being honest, look back to the first week of the Fench Open and you will see he was well below-par and all he did was admit that in press conferences????You can see whenever Nadal and Federer play each other there is a massive mutual respect between them and Nadal has repeatedly said Roger is the best tennis player ever!

Anyway, onwards and upwards to Wimbledon it will be interesting to see how Djokovic reacts to having his streak broken, I might put money on Federer to win it he should really have put Nadal away only for a mental block, if he doesnt have to face Nadal he will breeze through it. Like a previous poster said, I would also love to see Del Potro reach his 2009 form and if he did that would make it 5 top class players in the mens game

Pisco Sour

BazBox wrote: »

I would also love to see Del Potro reach his 2009 form and if he did that would make it 5 top class players in the mens game

When it comes to Wimbledon you just never know with Andy Roddick. On his day he can be an enormous handful. I have never seen somebody play so well and still lose a final (2009). A long shot of course admittadly.

Rob2D

04072511 wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. In the 90's there was no standout player (with the exception of Pete on grass), so the era was more competitive. But just because it was more competitive doesn't mean the players were better. Roger Federer would have been just as successful if he played in the 90's

I didn't say they were all better, just that there was more talent relative to the time, therefore it was more competitive. And I also said that Federer would be great in any era.

So you in fact agreed with both things I said. Please to be reading posts properly before you comment in future.

jcf wrote: »

Nadal won't surpass Federers haul, he will burn out before then - but we'll see...

A valid point. Unless Babolat make some bionic knees for him or something, I can't see Rafa tearing around the court into his 30's.

Pighead

Fantastic from Nadal yet again. What a warrior. Was slow to get going yesterday but once he found form he was immense.

Strange comments from Federer after the game in the press conference

"It's always me who's going to dictate play and decide how the outcome is going to be. against Nadal.

If I play well, I will most likely win in the score or beat Nadal.

If I'm not playing so well, that's when Nadal wins. So it's always pretty straightforward when we play each other"

Sounds a bit bitter from Fed and pretty wide of the mark. I'd say jcf would have burst a blood vessel had those words come from Nadal's mouth.