Remove this Banner Ad

2011 Australian Open - Part 3

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Well, I won money on the Novak/Clijsters double, but I can't help but feel a bit dirty.

Novak played great tennis in both the semi and the final, but geez the Fed & Murray played poorly. I'll start with the latter; he will never win a GS until he believes he can. Everything after the third game tonight just stank of 'lack-of-belief.' Played far too safe, and the only time he showed some ticker, was when he was down 5-1 in the second set, when the outcome had already been decided. I think he has the game to win GSs, but that counts for nothing if you ain't got it upstairs.

Federer's effort in the semi final worried me too. Just looked too lackadasical, like he really didn't mind losing (I know he makes things look easy/care-free, but this was more than that). Even in his press conference after, I got the feeling that he was happy to fall back on his record, thinking that that would be sufficient way to defend his straight sets loss (i.e. I've bounced back before, so I can do it again, etc).

And don't get me started on the women's draw. Stosur? Hardly worth mentioning, but I seem to recall her saying that she couldn't figure out how she lost her match, after "...playing" so well. Newsflash Sam, hitting well isn't the same as playing well. You can pump as many weights and hit as many balls as you want, but you need to have it upstairs (I know, I know, broken record).

Now to 'Aussie Kim'... sure I love Clijsters, and would love for her to win every tournament she plays in from now til the end of her career, but it's hard to be a fan of the sport, when no one can hold their nerve at crucial moments. I mean, even in the final, I think six of the first seven games of the second set were won due to service breaks. Looking back, was there anyone who could beat Kim if she made the 2nd week...? Probably not.

A real lackluster Aus Open for mine. The Schiavone/Kuznetsova match aside, were there any real epic matches? Don't seem to remember any. Sure there have been five-setters, but long =/= epic.

Channel 7 continue their record as the worst sports broadcaster this country has ever seen. Coming back from an ad break after a point (or even a fault) is played, is simply not good enough. The on-air roles need a drastic overhaul too. Bruce, Sandy, Stubbs, Griggs were woeful, but the icing on the cake for me was the inclusion of Hamish McLaughlin. He doesn't even have to say anything, he just looks like a sloppy human being (refer to Simon O'Donnell), and just screams Ch7 fanboy. You can't tell me there are better people in the industry than that lot! Kudos to the Hewitt commentator experiment - one of the few things that they got lucky with. But throughout the two weeks, you could just feel it in Courier's voice, the guy's obviously frustrated that he has to work amongst such mediocrity. Wouldn't surprise me if he discontinues his contract within 2-3 years. Same goes for Sam Smith, the poor girl.
 
Nole is less than 100 points behind Federer now.Looks like Federers time in the top is very limited now :) He is not even defending that many points from here on :) Hope murray can fire up and drive The Fed out of top 3 .Aide Nole

Who would have thought that you would bag Federer:rolleyes: And the points he isn't defending that you speak of can only help him with his ranking. It's Nadal with his 3 GS's that will have trouble defending all those points. Not that there is anything wrong with that as he is clearly the number 1 at the moment.

Yes Nole and Murray had a good 2 weeks but lets see if they can do it week in week out like Federer has done for almost 10 years and Rafa 5 years before we write off either of them.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Who would have thought that you would bag Federer:rolleyes: And the points he isn't defending that you speak of can only help him with his ranking. It's Nadal with his 3 GS's that will have trouble defending all those points. Not that there is anything wrong with that as he is clearly the number 1 at the moment.

Yes Nole and Murray had a good 2 weeks but lets see if they can do it week in week out like Federer has done for almost 10 years and Rafa 5 years before we write off either of them.

I am sure u would agree rafa is a heavy favourite for a clean sweep of the clay season?? that leaves us with wimbledon and US open.Lets say rafa loses in the semi finals of both.He loses 2,400 points there.He is at the moment 4,000+ points ahead of federer.So federer virtually has to WIN these 2 slams and hope rafa loses early in these 2 slams to actually be EQUAL to rafa.Thats how far ahead Rafa is.

I am a fan of Nole too and i would think Nole is the next number 1.Federer is done.Might still win a slam if he gets the luck of the draw
 
I am sure u would agree rafa is a heavy favourite for a clean sweep of the clay season?? that leaves us with wimbledon and US open.Lets say rafa loses in the semi finals of both.He loses 2,400 points there.He is at the moment 4,000+ points ahead of federer.So federer virtually has to WIN these 2 slams and hope rafa loses early in these 2 slams to actually be EQUAL to rafa.Thats how far ahead Rafa is.

I am a fan of Nole too and i would think Nole is the next number 1.Federer is done.Might still win a slam if he gets the luck of the draw

Pick one. Will Federer win another slam or not?
 
I'd say Federer will win another slam if he doesn't have to face a fit Djokovic or Nadal. It doesn't matter what his ranking is, at his best (I'm talking now, not his best during his career), I think he's still better than everyone else's best besides those two. Sampras was slam hunting in the twilight of his career. Didn't give a shit about his ranking. Won the USO when he was 31 and retired. Federer will have the same mentality, and I think that's fair enough. If you're consistently making at least the QF's of grand slams, you still have a genuine competitive chance for titles.
 
I'd say Federer will win another slam if he doesn't have to face a fit Djokovic or Nadal. It doesn't matter what his ranking is, at his best (I'm talking now, not his best during his career), I think he's still better than everyone else's best besides those two. Sampras was slam hunting in the twilight of his career. Didn't give a shit about his ranking. Won the USO when he was 31 and retired. Federer will have the same mentality, and I think that's fair enough. If you're consistently making at least the QF's of grand slams, you still have a genuine competitive chance for titles.

Agree.
 
Well I got that hopelessly wrong. I thought I'd better come back and own up to it!

Novak is better than I remembered. Haven't really seen much of him this last year - he has definitely progressed. Murray - well you know I worry about him. Absolutley terrible body language when things arent going well. So easy for an opponent to feed off that. He seems to have a lot of demons causing him self-doubt. He needs to find someone who can sort his head out, because I still believe he has the talent to compete with the "big 3" which it probably has now become.
 
Pick one. Will Federer win another slam or not?

Sorry i dont have a crystal ball to show me how the draw will open up.I have maintained my view after his Aussie open win last year that he will not win a slam by beating a fit rafa or fit nole.IF he gets LUCKY and he has to face the likes of hewitt in the semis and maybe roddick in the finals, he will.Thats how he won majority of his slams.
 
Sorry i dont have a crystal ball to show me how the draw will open up.I have maintained my view after his Aussie open win last year that he will not win a slam by beating a fit rafa or fit nole.IF he gets LUCKY and he has to face the likes of hewitt in the semis and maybe roddick in the finals, he will.Thats how he won majority of his slams.

You can't say a guy is finished, and then say he might win a slam or two because of luck. That's not how it works. He is either finished, or he is still winning slams. Covering your bases nicely there.
 
You can't say a guy is finished, and then say he might win a slam or two because of luck. That's not how it works. He is either finished, or he is still winning slams. Covering your bases nicely there.

He is finished as a top player.I am saying that for the last couple of years.But he is still good enough to be in the top 5.If he gets lucky with the draw he can win a slam.Thats what i am saying.What part of that dont you understand? :rolleyes:
 
He is finished as a top player.I am saying that for the last couple of years.But he is still good enough to be in the top 5.If he gets lucky with the draw he can win a slam.Thats what i am saying.What part of that dont you understand? :rolleyes:

All of it. Your posts hurt my brain.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

He is finished as a top player.I am saying that for the last couple of years.But he is still good enough to be in the top 5.If he gets lucky with the draw he can win a slam.Thats what i am saying.What part of that dont you understand? :rolleyes:

Agreed, needs everything to go his way with the draw. If he faces a big hitter or one of the top 3, he is gone as far as I am concerned. I mean I like Gilles Simon, but the writing was on the wall when Federer lost two sets to him and then compounded by somehow losing a set to Robredo!
 
Agreed, needs everything to go his way with the draw. If he faces a big hitter or one of the top 3, he is gone as far as I am concerned. I mean I like Gilles Simon, but the writing was on the wall when Federer lost two sets to him and then compounded by somehow losing a set to Robredo!

Do you also agree with the part where your boyfriend says he is no longer a top player, but is still a top 5 player? :rolleyes:

Just say he will never win another grand slam. Just say it. Say he's finished. You agree with TP that he is done, so say it. You are covering your ass, so when he wins Wimbledon and then the US open, you can say, 'Oh well Nadal had a crook knee, and Novak got knocked out so the draw opened for him.' :rolleyes:
 
He is still a top 5 player, but there is a gap between what I call the top 2 (Nadal and Novak) and the rest of the top 5. If the top 2 are in the final they will win. If they are not, it is open, and that opens the door for Federer even in his twilight.

I agree with TP, if Nadal/Djokovic are fit, Federer won't beat them anymore. His movement has slowed as a result he is unable to cruise through matches as easily and his backhand is being exposed more clearly. However, if the top 2 are fit and in a semi final against Federer there will only be one winnner nowadays.
 
He is still a top 5 player, but there is a gap between what I call the top 2 (Nadal and Novak) and the rest of the top 5. If the top 2 are in the final they will win. If they are not, it is open, and that opens the door for Federer even in his twilight.

I agree with TP, if Nadal/Djokovic are fit, Federer won't beat them anymore. His movement has slowed as a result he is unable to cruise through matches as easily and his backhand is being exposed more clearly. However, if the top 2 are fit and in a semi final against Federer there will only be one winnner nowadays.


Yeah but he said Federer was no longer a top player. I am going by actual definition here, not by personal opinion on whether there is a gap between players or whatever. He is still a top player. Fact.

You are basically conceding though that Federer will continue to make quarter finals and semi finals. If the draw then opens up for him (ie Nadal and Novak lose), I would say stiff shit to the haters. Weren't the two best players, clearly above the rest, good enough to win through? I know Federer has been doing that for years. But apparently, according to TP, the draw has been opening up to him for years now!
 
TP said Federer was finished on here in 2008 when he was struggling after that Wimbledon loss. He has won 4 slams (and made 2 other finals) since then. No point bringing it up though because, like the majority of success in his career, it can be put down to incredible luck.
 
TP said Federer was finished on here in 2008 when he was struggling after that Wimbledon loss. He has won 4 slams (and made 2 other finals) since then. No point bringing it up though because, like the majority of success in his career, it can be put down to incredible luck.

I mentioned that earlier but he skipped right over that part.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

TP said Federer was finished on here in 2008 when he was struggling after that Wimbledon loss. He has won 4 slams (and made 2 other finals) since then. No point bringing it up though because, like the majority of success in his career, it can be put down to incredible luck.

He has been on a pretty steep decline since then.If not Nadals injury he wouldnt have won wimbledon or F.O.For F.O you know this is a fact, dont kid yourself.This is how the bloke won majority of the slams, got lucky to be in the era of roddicks and hewitts.
 
Yeah but he said Federer was no longer a top player. I am going by actual definition here, not by personal opinion on whether there is a gap between players or whatever. He is still a top player. Fact.

You are basically conceding though that Federer will continue to make quarter finals and semi finals. If the draw then opens up for him (ie Nadal and Novak lose), I would say stiff shit to the haters. Weren't the two best players, clearly above the rest, good enough to win through? I know Federer has been doing that for years. But apparently, according to TP, the draw has been opening up to him for years now!

Can you read? oh i forgot you dont have a brain to process the arguments.I said he was lucky to be in a weak generation..during his dominance 2004-2007, Rafa was mostly a teenager, learning to play on other surfaces (and still owned him h2h).Murray and Nole were teenagers.The strongest competition came from Roddick , Agassi, Hewitt,Safin and to a lesser extent Nadal (non clay).Enter 2008.Rafa learns to play on grass and hardcourts, Nole has a breakthrough in the aussieopen, and the bloke won 4 slams since then.FACT.You can deny it, if Roger was younger and in the present generation,he still would have won slams but half of what he has now.

P.S Waiting for TIRO to bring the Mono argument into play now :rolleyes:
 
Yeah but he said Federer was no longer a top player. I am going by actual definition here, not by personal opinion on whether there is a gap between players or whatever. He is still a top player. Fact.

You are basically conceding though that Federer will continue to make quarter finals and semi finals. If the draw then opens up for him (ie Nadal and Novak lose), I would say stiff shit to the haters. Weren't the two best players, clearly above the rest, good enough to win through? I know Federer has been doing that for years. But apparently, according to TP, the draw has been opening up to him for years now!

He is a good player, he is not longer a top 2 player. I would call the top 2 the top players. As I said there is a gap between players 1 and 2 and the rest of the topish players like Murray, Federer, Sodering, Del Potro.

Federer will make quarters as lets be honest, the quality drops off after 20 ish in the world, and he still should beat players below that.
 
I had this arguement in a debate at uni. We were discussing why mens sport is televised and womens struggles to I said the words "It's because people would rather watch men because they are better at it"! Went down a treat:D

I now pose this question. Who would win the following match:

Kim Clijsters v Yannick Vandenbulcke

One is at the top of her field and arguably the best player in the world and the other is ranked 1000 and battling it out on the futures tour!

I'm gonna go Vandenbulcke 6-1 6-2:thumbsu:
 
Depends how many sets you are talking. Women are that poor the can't play best of 5, so a man will always beat a girl in a best of 5 99.99% of the time. Best of 3, I recon Serena might beat a few of them.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom