2008 US Open

[ShearMagic9]

Great Stuff Roge! Finally got me ahead of those blood suckers at the TAB

Watching Murray 2day he was a completely different player to the one that basically wiped the court with Nadal. He had no self belief and didnt seem half as mentally strong as he claims he is

Part of that surely has to do with how Federer played though?

Federer didn't allow him to play his normal game, and like Federer always does, he raised his game on the big points.

I mean, it's amazing how a set can be so even but yet Federer breaks Murrays serve in 50 seconds at 5-6.

Federer played an amazing game, as he seems to do at the crucial times.

 

[Juddtastic]

Part of that surely has to do with how Federer played though?

Federer didn't allow him to play his normal game, and like Federer always does, he raised his game on the big points.

I mean, it's amazing how a set can be so even but yet Federer breaks Murrays serve in 50 seconds at 5-6.

Federer played an amazing game, as he seems to do at the crucial times.

Yes very true Roge is clearly an experienced champion and that was the difference but Murray's third set was apawling seemed he had given up after he gave away that first break of serve

 

[ShearMagic9]

Yes very true Roge is clearly an experienced champion and that was the difference but Murray's third set was apawling seemed he had given up after he gave away that first break of serve

And that is Andy Murray's problem, which he has worked on, but obviously needs to keep working on it.

After he lost the 2nd set, you knew he was going to bomb out in the 3rd.

 

[whythelongface]

LOL fluked? last year federer was on the verge of going down to nadal at wimbledon. This year, rafa blew an easy 2-0 lead but came back to win in 5. But if it makes you sleep better at night, you can assume whatever you want to.
This is feds last grandslam victory, enjoy while you can.

In the words of John McEnroe "You cannot be serious" - the guy is 27 years old, has obviously been suffering the effects of a viral infection for most of the year and has come out and blitzed the US open. Federer, when he retires, will hold the record for the most slams won and will potentially be the greatest player ever.

 

[Geddy Lee]

and the point is....??? roger beat murray in the finals as well, not a top 4 player.. so?? it doesnt count??

Murray was Ranked 4 before the final.

 

[Geddy Lee]

looks like the nadal haters have crawled out of their dark hole they were hiding all year FFS he has played 84 matches this year, more than anyone. He simply ran out of gas in this tournament.He was way below par against Murray and he played shit throughout the tournament.He mentioned when he got here that he was not feeling well and he is extremely tired.Still did extremely well to take set out of Murray.I have never seen Nadal gasping for oxygen after a rally, today i saw that and i understood that he has got nothing left in his tank.Not saying Murray didnt deserve it, he played one hell of a match, but IMO Nadal was lucky to win against Querrey, let alone Muzza

Overlooking the fact that Canadian TMS is a pretty fast surface as well (not as fast as NY but still) and he has no problems with Murray there, they played one hell of a match, but hey, dont let the facts bother you

I made a good point, you can whinge all you like. You made a good point too, he is probably fatigued, but the equation is as simple as this: in hard court GRAND SLAMS he has reach two Semi-Finals, and it was due to very easy draws as well as his natural determination and grit. In AO his toughest opponent was Mathieu, who retired, and in USO it was Fish. Try and fault that statement. Nadal is a sensational champion but he hasn't proved alot at 2/4 Grand Slams.

 

[Total Power]

Murray was Ranked 4 before the final.

coming into the tournament he was not...rankings are announced weekly, not daily.

 

[Total Power]

I made a good point, you can whinge all you like. You made a good point too, he is probably fatigued, but the equation is as simple as this: in hard court GRAND SLAMS he has reach two Semi-Finals, and it was due to very easy draws as well as his natural determination and grit. In AO his toughest opponent was Mathieu, who retired, and in USO it was Fish. Try and fault that statement. Nadal is a sensational champion but he hasn't proved alot at 2/4 Grand Slams.

if you think semi finals is that bad then ok, i accept your point of view, tsonga played a terrific match vs nadal at aussie open and gonzo did the same the year before that, rafa got a bit unlucky, ran into players who are firing shots on all cylinders, i dont blame him for that loss, i am confident he can do better next year.

He doesnt determine the draw, if the draw opens up its not his fault.He beat nole couple of weeks ago, he beat murray a week before that as well... easy draws are a pathetic excuse. If federer was not able to reach this year wimbledon final, you would have said, oh...but federer was not there...but he was there...and rafa did beat him.It doesnt matter. At the end of the day you are arguing with adelaides 97 flag is worth geelongs 2007 flag? and the answer is, although adelaide fluked it, its worth exactly the same..draws doesnt matter.

 

[gaelictiogar]

For once you are correct TP. Draws open up or they don't. People get ill or injured. People move in and out of form. All sorts of things influence results but ultimnately there is only one question....Did you win?

There is a real purity about sport. When people hear Nicklaus name they don't know how many years he spent at number one or how many events he won. They think 18. 18 majors. that is the yardsitck. Equally Sampras career boils down to 14 majors. No one remembers how many weeks at No.1 or how many masters events. 14 is the answer.

Currently Federer is defined by the number 13, Nadal by 5 and Djokovic by 1. If tennis ended tomorrow then in 10 years those are the figures and facts that would matter to how a player is remembered.

 

[Total Power]

For once you are correct TP. Draws open up or they don't. People get ill or injured. People move in and out of form. All sorts of things influence results but ultimnately there is only one question....Did you win?

There is a real purity about sport. When people hear Nicklaus name they don't know how many years he spent at number one or how many events he won. They think 18. 18 majors. that is the yardsitck. Equally Sampras career boils down to 14 majors. No one remembers how many weeks at No.1 or how many masters events. 14 is the answer.

Currently Federer is defined by the number 13, Nadal by 5 and Djokovic by 1. If tennis ended tomorrow then in 10 years those are the figures and facts that would matter to how a player is remembered.

exactly and your ridiculous stats "out of clay" should be discounted as well. Its really ridiculous when people say clay doesnt count, well let me tell you, tennis is not only hard or grasscourts, clay is a part of it too.

 

[Total Power]

...and oh, while we are at it GT, u should the most hated tennis player thread, i am not the only one who hates Federer. The guy is an absolute ****wit when he loses, refuses to give credit to others, blamed the wimbledon finals defeat on light and blamed his loss to Nole at AO on his poor fitness...i can go on, but the guy is a maggot when he loses, accept it or not, its a fact.

 

[gaelictiogar]

People who like tennis played with finesse adn elan dislike clay. Of course the stats of dirt count but the aesthetic impct is dulled by the slow monotony of the grunters paradise.

I know you dislike this but most people recognise McEnroe and Federer as the great pre eminent shot making masters of the open era. Clay slowed them down and gave lesser shotmakers the chance to beat them. That is why many lovers of tennis hate clay. It is simply for endurance athletes. not what the Italians call fantasista players.

Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows are the shotmakers theatres. This allied to the history of both events which easily distance in glamour and lenght that of any other event is why they are the 2 stand out events in world tennis. the twin peaks of the shotmakers game.

 

[Total Power]

People who like tennis played with finesse adn elan dislike clay. Of course the stats of dirt count but the aesthetic impct is dulled by the slow monotony of the grunters paradise.

I know you dislike this but most people recognise McEnroe and Federer as the great pre eminent shot making masters of the open era. Clay slowed them down and gave lesser shotmakers the chance to beat them. That is why many lovers of tennis hate clay. It is simply for endurance athletes. not what the Italians call fantasista players.

Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows are the shotmakers theatres. This allied to the history of both events which easily distance in glamour and lenght that of any other event is why they are the 2 stand out events in world tennis. the twin peaks of the shotmakers game.

Agassi never disliked clay, he said he enjoys clay court tennis.Edberg and Becker said the same thing as well.Plus who cares if people dislike clay or not? its like saying that i dont like to play in the dusty pitches of subcontinent cause its a bowlers graveyard.Well its a part of the game mate, accept it and move on, hardcourt tennis is not tennis, clay, grass and hard IS tennis and clay STATS DO count as much as any other...you attempting to prove otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[gaelictiogar]

I have explicitly said the stats do count. I don't deny that at all. My point is that the two greatest shot making attacking players of the open era - and surely you accept they are McEnroe and Federer - struggled on clay because it slowed them down and trapped them in endurance tests VS athletes without their talent but with great physicality and endurance.

Endurance has a place in the sport but it is not fantasy. Are great central defenders in soccer remembered witht eh affection Cruyff or best are? No. People love speed adn finesse in sport.

 

[Total Power]

I have explicitly said the stats do count. I don't deny that at all. My point is that the two greatest shot making attacking players of the open era - and surely you accept they are McEnroe and Federer - struggled on clay because it slowed them down and trapped them in endurance tests VS athletes without their talent but with great physicality and endurance.

Endurance has a place in the sport but it is not fantasy. Are great central defenders in soccer remembered witht eh affection Cruyff or best are? No. People love speed adn finesse in sport.

how about rafa troubling federer on grass? dont deny it, even you know that in 2007 rafa was the better player, but he just couldnt finish it off. He beat federer on his favourite surface and all of a sudden its due to feds injuries, grass slowing down blah blah...when on grass, in the 3 meetings they had, fed should have comfortably accounted for rafa.Rafa is not your typical claycourter, you are mistaken, his game is suited to all surfaces other than extreme fast hard/indoor courts...FACT! tennis is no longer the game played in the 80s or 90s.If that was true, then serve and volley tennis would be well and truly alive now

 

[Drummond]

well done mr federer

this tournament has proven a couple of things

1 nadal is found out on the faster (fastest) surfaces - and is really just a claycourt specialist who fluked a victory over a struggling federer at wimbledon. who did he beat to win the gold medal? fernando gonzales?

Got to be the worst post I’ve read on this forum all year, which actually says a lot given all the rubbish that is posted when the January experts come out of their hiding. How the heck is Nadal a ‘claycourt specialist’ when he reached the Semi’s at the Australian Open and the US Open, and WON Wimbledon? No doubting clay is his best surface but to suggest he’s a claycourt specialist really does show you up for your lack of knowledge. This isn't even including the MS events he's won on hard courts as well as his title in Queens. Who did he beat to win the Gold medal? As TP said, first he had to beat Djokovic in the Semi’s which most people probably didn’t think he could do, then he beat Gonzalez in straight sets. Gonzo might not be as good as his ranking suggests but he’s still a tough player and had a great week to get there.

Look who is talking.Everytime roger lost to rafa, its ALWAYS cause he is not fit or played crap tennis. He is now 12-6 head to head and rafas true BITCH and YES CLAY COUNTS, if you dont count clay, let me discount wimbledon as well, why not??

C’mon TP, surely you must know by now that whenever Federer loses to Nadal it is simply because he played like rubbish and made too many unforced errors… People have no idea, they need to actually stop and think for a second as to why Nadal continues to beat him when they play.

People forget that the 2006 Wimbledon final was very close, two tiebreak sets and one of the sets he lost I seem to recall he had a great opportunity to take it. And then the 2007 final where IMO he would have won had his knee not played up. He was full of momentum, taking the 4th and really looking like the better player. Early in the 5th he had a whole heap of break points but as usual Federer served a million aces to get himself out of trouble. And come this year, Rafa should have won in straight sets. Had 0-40 to take a…5-4 lead I think it was but couldn’t convert. Then he had a huge chance to wrap it up in 4 but lost it.

And then there’s the giant steps he’s taken at the Australian and US Slams. As TP alluded to, he ran into guys who were absolutely on fire in 2007 and 2008 and there wasn’t much he could do. Next year I’m confident he’ll improve even further at these Slams and given the fact that he’s still so young and improving every year, expect even better results in 2009.

 

[Total Power]

Got to be the worst post I’ve read on this forum all year, which actually says a lot given all the rubbish that is posted when the January experts come out of their hiding. How the heck is Nadal a ‘claycourt specialist’ when he reached the Semi’s at the Australian Open and the US Open, and WON Wimbledon? No doubting clay is his best surface but to suggest he’s a claycourt specialist really does show you up for your lack of knowledge. This isn't even including the MS events he's won on hard courts as well as his title in Queens. Who did he beat to win the Gold medal? As TP said, first he had to beat Djokovic in the Semi’s which most people probably didn’t think he could do, then he beat Gonzalez in straight sets. Gonzo might not be as good as his ranking suggests but he’s still a tough player and had a great week to get there.


C’mon TP, surely you must know by now that whenever Federer loses to Nadal it is simply because he played like rubbish and made too many unforced errors… People have no idea, they need to actually stop and think for a second as to why Nadal continues to beat him when they play.

People forget that the 2006 Wimbledon final was very close, two tiebreak sets and one of the sets he lost I seem to recall he had a great opportunity to take it. And then the 2007 final where IMO he would have won had his knee not played up. He was full of momentum, taking the 4th and really looking like the better player. Early in the 5th he had a whole heap of break points but as usual Federer served a million aces to get himself out of trouble. And come this year, Rafa should have won in straight sets. Had 0-40 to take a…5-4 lead I think it was but couldn’t convert. Then he had a huge chance to wrap it up in 4 but lost it.

And then there’s the giant steps he’s taken at the Australian and US Slams. As TP alluded to, he ran into guys who were absolutely on fire in 2007 and 2008 and there wasn’t much he could do. Next year I’m confident he’ll improve even further at these Slams and given the fact that he’s still so young and improving every year, expect even better results in 2009.

Great post, well said.

 

[Ricketts]

No mention of Rog, Drummond.
Disappointing.

 

[Power King]

I don't think people realise that a major reason Federer struggles with Nadal (even on grass), is because Nadal exposes Fed's high-range (shoulder height) backhand.

It's not exactly one of Federer's strengths, but of course Federer has no weaknesses

If Nadal can hold hiw own by standing on the baseline and forcing Federer deep, then Nadal will often try to expose this shot when setting up plays. Look out for it next time you watch them.

 

[Total Power]

I don't think people realise that a major reason Federer struggles with Nadal (even on grass), is because Nadal exposes Fed's high-range (shoulder height) backhand.

It's not exactly one of Federer's strengths, but of course Federer has no weaknesses

If Nadal can hold hiw own by standing on the baseline and forcing Federer deep, then Nadal will often try to expose this shot when setting up plays. Look out for it next time you watch them.

exactly...the bigfooty armchair experts unfortunately thinks that statistics are everything. Never too late to start learning tennis hey GT?

 

[gaelictiogar]

If Rafa were good enough to final regularly on fast courts this theorising could be tested but of course regular finalling on fast courts requires a better game.

The grass has slowed considerably. Luckily for Rafa. 20 years ago he wouldn't have gotten a sniff.

Besides too much is made of head to head. Blake and nalbandian have winning head to head records V Nadal. Are they better players? No. They simply ran into him on his weak surfaces.

 

[Total Power]

If Rafa were good enough to final regularly on fast courts this theorising could be tested but of course regular finalling on fast courts requires a better game.

The grass has slowed considerably. Luckily for Rafa. 20 years ago he wouldn't have gotten a sniff.

Besides too much is made of head to head. Blake and nalbandian have winning head to head records V Nadal. Are they better players? No. They simply ran into him on his weak surfaces.

you have to see where they met and when they mate.. blake leads nadal 3-2 , barely...with nadal winning the last 2 encounters. Nalbandian was just too hot when he beat nadal, he even went on to beat federer in that streak... however on a consistent basis, neither blake nor nalbandian are able to do it... or on big tournaments like grandslams. Rafa on the other hand is 5-2 against federer in grand slams...speaks for itself hey?????

and your whinge about the grass is shit. He is the wimbledon champion and owned , your so called great man, on his favourite surface, something he cant do on rafas favourite surface...what was the score again? 4 games?

 

[fryingpan]

lulz @ Rafa.

Back to clay mate

 

[Total Power]

lulz @ Rafa.

Back to clay mate

you mean the wimbledon champion and world number 1 and the guy who owns federer? Federer was real lucky rafa didnt make it through to the finals, otherwise his glandular fever would have been back again

 

[fryingpan]

you mean the wimbledon champion and world number 1 and the guy who owns federer? Federer was real lucky rafa didnt make it through to the finals, otherwise his glandular fever would have been back again

lolz, so Federer won the US open due to luck because Nadal got smashed by Murray?