Borg: Rafa will win Wimbledon 2008

[Total Power]

Before the final at Flushing Meadows you were predicting Nole would win....what happened? Straight sets win for federer. Afetr that game wyou were predicting that fed would never beat nole again in a Slam...what now? When someone elsepredicts that Djoko can wein Wimbledon - which clearly he can - you dismiss that.

You do make some sense but your blindness to reason thwarths you. The best bet to win next years Wimbledon is Roger federer. If fit he will be odds on. After that nadal and Djoko have a more or les equal chance of beating him. This is the reality that the bookmakers odds will reflect next summer provided all are fit. On every surface other than grass Roger Federer is favourite to win every competition he enters and of course his off clay record against Nadal is a winning one as one would expect. On every surface other than clay Djoko is now as much a danger to him as Nadal is. If you want proof of this look at the odds for Melbourne when they come out.

oh the irony blindness says the biggest rafa hater of all times, who blames feds groin as the reason for rafas victory at RG

Who said that fed is not the favourite? however fed is ageing and history shows that he will be on the decline from now on, also rememeber fed has been lucky with injuries quite a lot, while rafa and nole will only improve for here.Fed has 1 more year to win it, cause from 09 it will all be nole and rafa show

 

[gaelictiogar]

oh the irony blindness says the biggest rafa hater of all times, who blames feds groin as the reason for rafas victory at RG

Who said that fed is not the favourite? however fed is ageing and history shows that he will be on the decline from now on, also rememeber fed has been lucky with injuries quite a lot, while rafa and nole will only improve for here.Fed has 1 more year to win it, cause from 09 it will all be nole and rafa show

To be honest TP I don't hate Rafa. I regard him as limited and brutalistic on court and his talent is less sublime than Federer's and indeed Djokovic's but I respect him as just short of true greatness for his resilience and toughness.

Federer has not been lucky with injury. His relative injury freeness is a result of his languid free flowing style. He has so much talent that he doesn't rely on gut busting joint damaging effort as much as say Rafa does. At 27 Nadal will be a crock if he doens't develop the game to stop him playing at 100% all the time.

Of course eventually Federer will lose the top spot. Of course he will but it is not clear that either Nadal who lacks the all round game to be number 1 or Djokovic will take over. It could be someone else. Besides if Federer nenver played another game he is secure as one of the all time greats. His 2003 to 2007 5 year reign is the most dominant period open era tennis has ever known and who says he is finished? He has just put the 2 most prestigious events back to back - again!!

The best bet is that by the time he is knocked off top spot he will have broken the records for Slams won and weeks at No.1. Indeed he is already well on the way. After that lesser talents can take over for their 15 minutes of fame.

 

[Total Power]

I disagree re: injuries.Boris becker said a few years ago, that federers wrist action on forehand can lead to serious injuries in the future, it was well analyzed by doug spreen the ATP trainer and he agreed with him. Look federer is not the only guy in the atp who has a free flowing style of gameplay, theres been others in the past as well and they had injuries.The tennis schedule makes everyone injury prone, afterall it takes toll on his body

Anyway, so you disagree federer is not on the decline? just prior to the US open you were posting that federer is on the decline. Oh so you are back on the bandwagon now? how typical

 

[gaelictiogar]

rafa was stopped by the king of grass while nole lost to rafa on grass

TP if you watched the first set of that semi you will know as well as anyone else that Nole is at the very least every bit as competent as Nadal on grass. In fact with Roger playing relatively poorly by his standards had injury not robbed Djokovic of a final place - and that is what happened - Nole would possibly have troubled Federer in the final at Wimbledon as much as Nadal did.

However as Bomber says as of now Nole and Djoko combined have as many major grass court tournament wins under thier collective belt as they have weeks at No.1...which is to say Big Fat Zero. In comparison Roger federer has 5 Wimbledons and nearly 200 consecutive ( and counting ) weeks at No.1. Everything else is conjecture.

 

[Total Power]

Again, you rely on hypotheticals , winning 1 set doesnt mean winning the match ffs and rafa broke nole early in the 2nd set as well. Would have beaten, should have beaten has no place in tennis im afraid.I can also say that if rafa didnt choke in those 6 break points he achieved in the final set, he would have beaten fed, but meh...

I am still waiting for you to explain how come 35 unforced errors in a marathon match is playing poorly? rafas gameplan to break federer down, fed played his guts out and rafa matched him point by point, infact was better than him in the first 4 sets.FFS mate, roger was unable to get a single break point even for 4 sets, that is domination.Here are examples of 5 set matches with players at their prime

Agassi vs Sampras, Australian open 2000 (5 set match) Unforced errors count
61 vs 69
Federer vs Safin australian open semi final
51 vs 46

These are some of the best tennis matches i have seen in my entire life, 7 unforced errors (with 2 tiebreak sets as well) per set is NOTHING for a big hitter like federer, my goodness GT, stop that lame argument

 

[CanonNo1]

I told myself i wouldn't bite at Total Power's posts, but this one tipped me over the edge ....

... Would have beaten, should have beaten has no place in tennis im afraid...

Followed by

...I can also say that if rafa didnt choke in those 6 break points he achieved in the final set, he would have beaten fed...

TP, surely you are contradicting yourself here? In one sentence you say should have's and would have's have no place in tennis ... yet in the following sentence you say Nadal would have beaten fed but he choked on the 6 set points. How many break points did Federer have in french open this year ... wasn't it something like 17? Therefore, using your logic, if Federer hadn't 'choked' he would have won.

Anyway, as you say, would haves and could haves have no place in the game. I've done the following exercise just to see how the two have compared since 2003. Interesting analysis -

Since Wimbledon 2003

Roger Federer
GRAND SLAMS
Slams Played = 18
Finals Made = 14 (78%) * All surfaces
Won = 12 (67%) * 3 Surfaces
Runner Up = 2 (11%) * 1 Surface
Semi Finals = 2 (11%) * 2 Surfaces

Rafael Nadal
GRAND SLAMS
Played = 15
Finals Made= 5 (33%) * 2 Surfaces
Won = 3 (20%) * 1 Surface
Runner Up = 2 (13%) *** 1 Surface
Semi Finals = 0 (0%)

NOTE
- Federer has played in 10 Grand Slam Finals in a row .... Nadal has played 2 in row
- Federer has made the semi finals 16 out of 18 tournaments .... Nadal has made the semis 5 out of 15

TOURNAMENTS WON SINCE 2003
Roger Feder - 47 (32 Hard, 9 Grass, 5 Clay, 1 Carpet) / Lost 10
Rafael Nadal - 23 (5 Hard, 18 on Clay) / Lost 5

NOTE
- Rafa is 21 and Federer 26. So for arguments sake, if Federer retired today. Rafa would have 5 years to achieve the following :-
- Make 9 Slam Finals across all surfaces
- Win 7 more slams (35% compared to his current career average of 20%)
- Win 24 more tournaments across all surfaces
- Remain Number 1 ranked player till 2011

To me thats seems like a tough ask, especially given the likes of Djokovic, Roddick, Baghdatis and Murray are bound to snatch slam here and there.


Now I don't propose to be a statistical expert, but these seem to be pretty easy to comprehend. Roger Feder has easily been a more consistent performer, across a longer period, over all surfaces. There also doesn't seem to be a downward trend in terms of Grand Slams. Statisically, he has been equal of 2006 (4 finals, 3 wins, 1 loss). Conceded, that he hasn't performed as well in regular tournaments, however i'd be surprised if there have been too many players who have been as consistent across all surfaces. In fact, Nadal has declined in terms of tournament wins since 2005 (11 in 2005, 5 in 2006 and 6 in 2007). How can we explain this downward trend?

I don't think anyone is suggesting Nadal can't play the game, but as it stands him and the remaining players are miles behind Federer's achievements. Of course they can beat him and of course they should win future grand slams, but they're hypotheticals and predictions. At this point in time of their (roddick, nadal, djokovic, federer) the swiss master is miles ahead.

The competition is clearly getting better, but as yet, no one has consistently challenged him in Grand Slams. In fact of the 14 finals he has played, he has faced 9 different opponents. With the only other 'multiple' finalist since his 2003 Wimbledon Victory being Nadal (5 finals) and Roddick (3 finals). Further analysis reveals that only 3 players have reached the final on 2 different surfaces during this time (Federer, Nadal, Roddick). To me this suggests that the other players have yet to reach the consistency of Federer.

For the statistically minded this is a great site :-

http://www.tennis.matchstat.com/player_stats.phtml?ID_Player=19

 

[Total Power]

can you read that? it was saracastic when i said, i COULD say he would have beaten fed but MEH.... geez, some people need to learn to read

 

[red+black]

how is this thread still a topic of discussion?

 

[Thrawn]

can you read that? it was saracastic when i said, i COULD say he would have beaten fed but MEH.... geez, some people need to learn to read

Haha rubbish.

You got convincingly owned.

 

[Total Power]

Haha rubbish.

You got convincingly owned.

That was sarcasm,what does but meh means? means its not worth it.So dont believe me if u dont want to, no need to jerk off hard on a champions prediction but i didnt even read the rest of his post to be honest.

 

[Thrawn]

That was sarcasm,what does but meh means? means its not worth it.So dont believe me if u dont want to, no need to jerk off hard on a champions prediction but i didnt even read the rest of his post to be honest.

Right. Whatever.

You just couldn't counter him when he convincingly pointed you out, and beat you.

 

[Total Power]

Right. Whatever.

You just couldn't counter him when he convincingly pointed you out, and beat you.

Beat me at what?? who is trying to argue that rafa will equal 13 slam record?? all i was arguing is that rafa is a big chance at wimbledon this year which is true as per this years performance.So you reckon federer is wrong as well when he said he is trying to win it before rafa starts winning it all? way to drag an argument offtopic.Plus you might be bothered about "beating" someone in an internet forum, i am not.If i am wrong i am wrong, but i am yet to see where exactly i am wrong though, he just argued aimless at something which i was not debating

 

[gaelictiogar]

I disagree re: injuries.Boris becker said a few years ago, that federers wrist action on forehand can lead to serious injuries in the future, it was well analyzed by doug spreen the ATP trainer and he agreed with him. Look federer is not the only guy in the atp who has a free flowing style of gameplay, theres been others in the past as well and they had injuries.The tennis schedule makes everyone injury prone, afterall it takes toll on his body

Anyway, so you disagree federer is not on the decline? just prior to the US open you were posting that federer is on the decline. Oh so you are back on the bandwagon now? how typical

Roger Federer IS is RELATIVE decline. It is in my view unlikely he will again have 8,000 points. But that does not mean Nadal is inevitably ever going to be No.1. A Federer in relative decline is still the best player in the world and conceivably coule be for 2 or 3 years to come. Even after a stellar year for Nadal he remain the equivalent of 4 and half Masters series wins behind Roger. It is a gulf in class that will require a serious decline from Roger for Nadal to pass him beofre Djoko passes him which could happen as early as Melbourne

 

[Geddy Lee]

He might have a shot if he avoids Nalbandian. OWNED.

 

[Syd Kennets]

Haha, hah, haha...oh dear.

1 and 2, is he serious, ahahah. haha...ha oh dear!

Bahahahahaha...oh dear.

 

[Geddy Lee]

Haha, hah, haha...oh dear.

1 and 2, is he serious, ahahah. haha...ha oh dear!

Bahahahahaha...oh dear.

Nalbandian >>>>>>>>> Djokovic, Nadal on an indoor court.

SF at Madrid four years in a row, now into the final.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Haha, hah, haha...oh dear.

1 and 2, is he serious, ahahah. haha...ha oh dear!

Bahahahahaha...oh dear.

TBH I think that is very unfair. He is coming off an injury and was pushed by Murray. we all know that rafa relies to an excessive extent on his ability to basically impose his fitness on the game. We all know he is exposed and vulnerable when he cannot impose his fitness and has to rely on shotmaking instead but even at that he rarely if ever suffers like he did in that match. It was a once off.

his natural ability is enough to get him to quarters but no further when not on clay. Occasionally he will make a semi or a final and occasionally he will fall earlier but both will be occasional. Djokovic could well be world No.2 by the start of the clay season when Nadal will take it back....as for No.1 well clearly that is beyond argument. Federer has copperfastened his lead over both of them even if the remarkable happens and he loses to Nalbandian in the final which frankly would be a surprise. Nalbandian has played well but the final is a huge leap in class.

 

[Geddy Lee]

. . . and that's how you best Federer on a fast surface.

 

[Syd Kennets]

TBH I think that is very unfair. He is coming off an injury and was pushed by Murray. we all know that rafa relies to an excessive extent on his ability to basically impose his fitness on the game. We all know he is exposed and vulnerable when he cannot impose his fitness and has to rely on shotmaking instead but even at that he rarely if ever suffers like he did in that match. It was a once off.

his natural ability is enough to get him to quarters but no further when not on clay. Occasionally he will make a semi or a final and occasionally he will fall earlier but both will be occasional. Djokovic could well be world No.2 by the start of the clay season when Nadal will take it back....as for No.1 well clearly that is beyond argument. Federer has copperfastened his lead over both of them even if the remarkable happens and he loses to Nalbandian in the final which frankly would be a surprise. Nalbandian has played well but the final is a huge leap in class.

Yeah, it was a rash outburst.

Nalbandian has always had a good run against Roger. Cudos to Dave.

Nadal suffers bigtime late in the season because of his hard work through the clay tournements.

 

[Drummond]

Fire away at Borg now trolls... Borgs opinion > yours


http://www.rafaelnadal.com/en/articles/article_311.html

That's one heck of a call.

 

[red+black]

Some people thought that Port would win the AFL Grand Final last year.

Some guesses come off, some don't.

 

[apollo_creed]

How many of the experts in this thread will apologise to Total Power & Bjorn Borg?

 

[Ricketts]

Some people thought that Port would win the AFL Grand Final last year.

Some guesses come off, some don't.

Geelong > Roger Federer.

 

[aaronm46]

Like the opening post said, Borgs opinion > Yours

 

[Total Power]

And Nadal has? Don't give me the rubbish about more winners rubbish, Nadal hasn't won a grass tournament either!

lol me > you