US Open 2007

[LukeParkerno1]

Nadal I feel will struggle for the rest of the year UNLESS he takes a good month off. He needs it. If he kills himself by playing these tournaments it could hurt him next season again. He has already played too many tournaments this year!

 

[Ricketts]

So Nadal is defending 345 points and Djokovic 330 points for the remainder of the year. And given Djok is likely to perform better over the rest of the year then he will close the gap on Nadal.

Rog has 1750, what a man!

 

[Total Power]

So Nadal is defending 345 points and Djokovic 330 points for the remainder of the year. And given Djok is likely to perform better over the rest of the year then he will close the gap on Nadal.

Rog has 1750, what a man!

So roger has nothing to gain and they will both close in on roger. Roger is gone by the end of 2008

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Roger will still be no1 at the end of 2008, he'll win the AA, next year is his best chance by far to win the French and Wimbledon should be a formality. The US Open is the only one I see him possibly losing next year.

 

[Total Power]

Roger will still be no1 at the end of 2008, he'll win the AA, next year is his best chance by far to win the French and Wimbledon should be a formality. The US Open is the only one I see him possibly losing next year.

we will know by the end of the year where novak and rafa is at compared to roger.If they challenge roger seriously in masters cup, i think roger is in trouble next year.From 2 great players its now to 3 great players, roger has 1 more year before they overtake him.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Roger has at least 2 years barring injury of course. And that is pretty crucial as he has been relatively injury free his whole carrer. He is only 26 though. I'd expect Novak and Nadal to fight it out for the no2 spot next year, Federer will still be no1 at season's end though.

 

[gaelictiogar]

we will know by the end of the year where novak and rafa is at compared to roger.If they challenge roger seriously in masters cup, i think roger is in trouble next year.From 2 great players its now to 3 great players, roger has 1 more year before they overtake him.

3 great players? Who are these guys? I only see one great player. The guy with 12 majors who has just become the most consistent US Open player for over 80 years.

Nadal and Djokovic have a grand total of 0 weeks at no.1 between them....very good both of them but great? Mcenroe is great. Borg, Laver, Sampras, Federer all of whom spent years at number 1 and have bags of titles. That is great. Success whilst failing to get within shouting distance of no.1 is merely good. Nadal and Djoko are good, very good but great? lets see them win 10 or so majors and spend a few years at no.1 before we diminish the meaning of the word by including wannabes without the achievement to merit it.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Well what i meant is the masters series (the remaining 2), not the masters cup. He has no points to defend there.Plus semi final points equates to only 120 ATP tour points (since he won 2 matches only)

Do you ever ask yourself WHY he doesn't have a bag of points to defend in these tournaments? it is because he consistently faild to perform. your argument could app;y to anyone. it could appley to murray or Nole or anyone.

Basically you are saying what is Nadal wins lots of titles and Roger doesn't. if that happens Nadal will be no.1 but the pertinent word is if. You consistently pooint out that roger has points to lose. of course he does. The way the systemm is if you win more or less everything you have points to lose. that is why he is No.1.

You made the exact same predictions last year when nadal singularly failed to perform at all. He won't win a tournament until they return to clay.

 

[gaelictiogar]

your comments are way off i am afraid. A straight set win and he is closer than anyone else? your one eyed hatred of rafa is making you type the more ridiculous comments ever. i can guarantee you if it was rafa it wouldnt be straight sets.You wanna bet on it that next time they face in an off clay grand slam , it will go to 5 sets again?? federers game doesnt match well against rafa and i have told you the reasons for that

IF it was Rafa....IF...It wasn't rafa as it so very rarely is on hards at slam semis and finals. i wonder why....

 

[Heisenberg_]

3 great players? Who are these guys? I only see one great player. The guy with 12 majors who has just become the most consistent US Open player for over 80 years.

Nadal and Djokovic have a grand total of 0 weeks at no.1 between them....very good both of them but great? Mcenroe is great. Borg, Laver, Sampras, Federer all of whom spent years at number 1 and have bags of titles. That is great. Success whilst failing to get within shouting distance of no.1 is merely good. Nadal and Djoko are good, very good but great? lets see them win 10 or so majors and spend a few years at no.1 before we diminish the meaning of the word by including wannabes without the achievement to merit it.

Djokovic and Nadal are both well on their way to being great players.
Just wait until they are both in their prime.
But Djokovic will be the better of the two IMO

 

[Back Pocket Rocket]

As GT said there is only one reason why Fed has points to defend. He actually wins tournaments. And who cares if they narrow the gap. Fed is bound to drop some points because unlike the past couple of years it is quite impossible to win every freaking tournament he goes in.

Also have a look at the chicks rankings. Number 1 is Correct but you can't tell me the Grunter, Kuznetsova and Chadztwhatever anre better then the rock apes.

Who cares about rankings. It all comes down to grand slams and the GOAT has 12 and counting

 

[Total Power]

3 great players? Who are these guys? I only see one great player. The guy with 12 majors who has just become the most consistent US Open player for over 80 years.

Nadal and Djokovic have a grand total of 0 weeks at no.1 between them....very good both of them but great? Mcenroe is great. Borg, Laver, Sampras, Federer all of whom spent years at number 1 and have bags of titles. That is great. Success whilst failing to get within shouting distance of no.1 is merely good. Nadal and Djoko are good, very good but great? lets see them win 10 or so majors and spend a few years at no.1 before we diminish the meaning of the word by including wannabes without the achievement to merit it.

how old are nole and nadal? i can assure you that they will be in double figures by the time they are 27 . Fed is already on the decline and he has or 1 or 2 (at max) more years to get whatever he can.Rafa has 3 and will win atleast 3 more french opens, taking his tally to 6.

Rafa is a great player, just ask roger.Maybe not as great as federer but imagine tennis world without rafa and nole...federer will win everything without losing a game virtually

 

[Total Power]

Do you ever ask yourself WHY he doesn't have a bag of points to defend in these tournaments? it is because he consistently faild to perform. your argument could app;y to anyone. it could appley to murray or Nole or anyone.

Basically you are saying what is Nadal wins lots of titles and Roger doesn't. if that happens Nadal will be no.1 but the pertinent word is if. You consistently pooint out that roger has points to lose. of course he does. The way the systemm is if you win more or less everything you have points to lose. that is why he is No.1.

You made the exact same predictions last year when nadal singularly failed to perform at all. He won't win a tournament until they return to clay.

you wanna pm me with a little wager??????

This is the most disgraceful post i have read on bigfooty.So rafa won 2,700 points off clay...you are saying thats not a lot of points? those points are still good enough to get him into top 5 in the world. Its because of the his schedule that he suffers in the 2nd half of the year. Go get a clue

 

[Total Power]

IF it was Rafa....IF...It wasn't rafa as it so very rarely is on hards at slam semis and finals. i wonder why....

2 slam finals this year, 1 masters series championship...so in your opinion clay achievements counts for nothing? then i can say that grass achievements counts for nothing then since grass is only 3 week event and no one gives a ****.

 

[Syd Kennets]

If they played on grass as much as they do on clay the gap would be even bigger though wouldnt it TP...

 

[Total Power]

If they played on grass as much as they do on clay the gap would be even bigger though wouldnt it TP...

come back when federer on clay comes as close as nadal does on grass. Rafa was actually outplaying federer till that last set.

 

[Corrosion]

come back when federer on clay comes as close as nadal does on grass. Rafa was actually outplaying federer till that last set.

What match are you talking about? Wimbeldon Final? If so........LOL, you know nothing.

Also, why do you despise Federer so much? Jealous your clay court mate isn't in his league?

 

[Ricketts]

Also, why do you despise Federer so much? Jealous your clay court mate isn't in his league?

Yeah, you've just summed up the billion trillion posts on the tennis board.

 

[Syd Kennets]

come back when federer on clay comes as close as nadal does on grass. Rafa was actually outplaying federer till that last set.

Rankings dont bother with sets TP. A wins a wins a win

And your losing this argument, you've lost all composure with your selective facts and blatent lying in this thread.

 

[Total Power]

What match are you talking about? Wimbeldon Final? If so........LOL, you know nothing.

Also, why do you despise Federer so much? Jealous your clay court mate isn't in his league?

ok so lets compare, groundstroke winners, unforced errors, first serve percentage, break points received total points won etc etc? i can tell you rafa was ahead in all of them till that final set. But dont let the facts get in your way.


Federer Nadal (after set 4)
Winners (groundstrokes only) 37 40
Unforced errors 31 22
First serve % 68 73
Break points 1/3 4/6

He broke rafa ONCE...in the entire match till that final set.Maybe the stats lie as well.So tell me mr corrison, where exactly do you see roger better than rafa in those statts?

 

[Total Power]

Rankings dont bother with sets TP. A wins a wins a win

And your losing this argument, you've lost all composure with your selective facts and blatent lying in this thread.

being competitive does matter, it shows how close you are to federer. Unlike others who are miles off federer on grass, rafa can actually beat federer on grass next year. He was this close to win...he choked under pressure had 5 break points to break federer in that set.

Where did i lie? ok i forgot that masters series event last year but 350 ranking points is nothing compared to 1750 that federer is defending. Rafa will reach 6,000 points by the time season ends.

And finally what is selective facts? your comments like he is a dud off clay is rubbish, even federer admits that nadal is now a serious challenger on all surfaces, but obviously you know more than federer keep digging

 

[Syd Kennets]

being competitive does matter, it shows how close you are to federer. Unlike others who are miles off federer on grass, rafa can actually beat federer on grass next year. He was this close to win...he choked under pressure had 5 break points to break federer in that set.

Where did i lie? ok i forgot that masters series event last year but 350 ranking points is nothing compared to 1750 that federer is defending. Rafa will reach 6,000 points by the time season ends.

And finally what is selective facts? your comments like he is a dud off clay is rubbish, even federer admits that nadal is now a serious challenger on all surfaces, but obviously you know more than federer keep digging

Selective facts is listing the winners and not counting Aces. When you know it makes your statistic far less relevent.

 

[Total Power]

Selective facts is listing the winners and not counting Aces. When you know it makes your statistic far less relevent.

how about federer unable to get a break point after breaking rafa in the first game of the match??? still selective???? Considering rafa style of play, if i count the number of aces, federer had 4 more winners than rafa...which is almost equal. Keep digging.

 

[Syd Kennets]

if i count the number of aces, federer had 4 more winners than rafa...which is almost equal. Keep digging.

TP, In the Wimbledon Final,
Winners (including service) 65 to 50

Including 24 aces to 1.

Thats 15 more winners- Where are you getting your stats from?

And why wouldnt you count Aces? surely they are winners?

 

[Total Power]

TP, In the Wimbledon Final,
Winners (including service) 65 to 50

Including 24 aces to 1.

Thats 15 more winners- Where are you getting your stats from?

And why wouldnt you count Aces? surely they are winners?

I said upto set number 4 why cant you read?? thats the root of this debate i had with corrosin