Remove this Banner Ad

Wimbledon (part 1)

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Wimbledon

CanonNo1 said:
Agree, I won't not watch the GF because i dislike a team. For that matter, if Usain Bolt is about to run sub 9 seconds, will i turn off the TV because I don't like him?

Being a massive tennis fan, which we are all (else we wouldnt be on this board). Imagine in 20 years if someone asks if you watchd Federer win his 15th slam title and you answer "ah .. umm... nah ... i switched it off"???

Now back to the topic.

Fed winning the French could work in 2 ways :-
A) He becomes super relaxed and just enjoys his tennis and plays god like tennis.
B) He becomes super relaxed, enjoys his tennis, but drops his intensity and drive.

IMO, I think he's got too much on the line ...he knows the only way to be remembered as the best player (which he definetly wants so he can feed the ego) is to win 3/4 more slas.

WINNER - R. Federer
RUP - Del Potro
Click to expand...

Considering Nadals dominant record against Roger, I dont really see how he can be considered the greatest ever. (even though in general I regard such debates as being futile)

One of the greatest of his time, definitely. But how can one say that Federer is better than Laver? Too many variables to consider.
 
Re: Wimbledon

matt_897 said:
Tomic got a qualifying WC.
Click to expand...

The kid is a waste of space, he will be the next Guccione.

Cant believe that Tennis Australia wasted their wildcard on him at the French. The kid could only win a couple matches in the juniors event ffs.

Let him develop at his own rate, keep him out of ATP events for now. Last thing he needs is to go down the Donald Young path.
 
Re: Wimbledon

alinghi said:
Considering Nadals dominant record against Roger, I dont really see how he can be considered the greatest ever. (even though in general I regard such debates as being futile)

One of the greatest of his time, definitely. But how can one say that Federer is better than Laver? Too many variables to consider.
Click to expand...

Plenty of threads to debate that. Lets try and keep this to Wimbledon.
 
Re: Wimbledon

CanonNo1 said:
Plenty of threads to debate that. Lets try and keep this to Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Indeed and especially so given that the "dominance" Nadal enjoys is wholly down to results on a surface which is not found at Wimbledon. On grass Federer is 2-1 V Nadal. Off clay he is 5-4. Outside the European clay season, where he has been phenomenal, Nadal enjoys nothing like dominance - indeed doesn't enjoy parity - with Federer.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Re: Wimbledon

gaelictiogar said:
Indeed and especially so given that the "dominance" Nadal enjoys is wholly down to results on a surface which is not found at Wimbledon. On grass Federer is 2-1 V Nadal. Off clay he is 5-4. Outside the European clay season, where he has been phenomenal, Nadal enjoys nothing like dominance - indeed doesn't enjoy parity - with Federer.
Click to expand...

Tennis players are remembered for winning slams, right?

In grand slam finals: Nadal leads 5-2
In masters series finals: Nadal leads 5-3

Surface is not the reason why Federer struggles with Nadal, it is purely a match-up (and has also become a mental) issue. Granted, the match-up is the worst for Federer on clay, a 17 year old Nadal murdered Federer on a Miami hard court (6-3 6-3). In this match, Federer won only 12 points off the Nadal serve (which was considerably weaker back then in comparison to now). Federer just struggles to deal with the high top spinning balls to his backhand.
 
Re: Wimbledon

CanonNo1 said:
Plenty of threads to debate that. Lets try and keep this to Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Well based on his Roland Garros form, I don't think Federer will win it.

Murray would be my #1 candidate for the title, along with Nadal (if he plays). Djokovic was awful in Halle, and I can't see him winning many matches on that form. No idea what happened to him, after that epic Nadal semi in Madrid, I thought he was set for big things at Roland Garros and Wimbledon. :confused:

Outside of the top 4, Verdasco rates a small chance if he can re-find his Aussie Open form, Tsonga likewise (AO 2008 form), Soderling on his French Open form and that's about it.
 
Re: Wimbledon

alinghi said:
The kid is a waste of space, he will be the next Guccione.

Cant believe that Tennis Australia wasted their wildcard on him at the French. The kid could only win a couple matches in the juniors event ffs.

Let him develop at his own rate, keep him out of ATP events for now. Last thing he needs is to go down the Donald Young path.
Click to expand...

The next Guccione :eek: At least he'll make two ATP finals then.

No but seriously, that's a tough call. Clay isn't his best surface obviously, much more suited to the hard stuff. But they really had no choice with this year's French Open WC, Pete has only hit good form in the last couple of weeks otherwise it's been a tough year for him and everyone else :eek: Usually our young ones spend too much in juniors, i think the WC was a fair enough choice. Getting expreience won't harm him.

The draw for the men's qualy singles is out, and yes, Klein has pulled out to play in Eastbourne, wonder if he thought that through:

Guccione vs. Levy, Chris lost to him earlier this year, wouldn't be surprise dif it happened again
Tomic vs. Bogomolov Jr., Solid draw for Bernard, have no expectation really though
Luczak vs. Pospisil, Winnable first round, has beaten in a 3 setter ina challenger a few years back but after that he would have either Dent or O.Rochus, both very good grass court players and rochus just made the semis in Halle
Smeets vs. Kavcic, not even going to look at that one, smeets got spanked by the same guy Klein was able to beat in eastbourne qualies
Sirianni vs. Snobel, Beat him easily a long time ago, can win this match but a 2nd round match against Devvarman should be too much.
Matosevic vs. Evans, Marinko beat him easily this year but i'm fairly sure Evans is a decent grass court player, has a chance of making the final round of qualies, we'll see.
Groth vs. Levine, This was my big hope coming into the grass season considering he won an ATP grass match last year but hasn't shown a lot this small grass season, tough match but winnable, the same goes for his section, he could upset and qualify but alo bomb out first round, bloomfield/kindlmann in the 2nd, maybe flock in the 3rd

All starts tonight with Marinko and Tomic's matches starting at 8pm
 
Re: Wimbledon

matt_897 said:
The next Guccione :eek: At least he'll make two ATP finals then.

No but seriously, that's a tough call. Clay isn't his best surface obviously, much more suited to the hard stuff. But they really had no choice with this year's French Open WC, Pete has only hit good form in the last couple of weeks otherwise it's been a tough year for him and everyone else :eek: Usually our young ones spend too much in juniors, i think the WC was a fair enough choice. Getting expreience won't harm him.
Click to expand...

Juniors are not the answer either. He needs to work his way up through futures and challengers. That way he can progress at a natural rate.

Luczak is a much better player on clay, WC should have been his.
 
Re: Wimbledon

alinghi said:
Juniors are not the answer either. He needs to work his way up through futures and challengers. That way he can progress at a natural rate.

Luczak is a much better player on clay, WC should have been his.
Click to expand...

Luczak is turning 30 this year and wasn't showing any signs of form, there was no way they should of given it to him. If he had been winning matches like he like the last 2 weeks then you'd have a point. Tomic was an understandable call and probably the only one. You can't blame him for wanting WC's, more money and expreience to see where he is at. I agree challengers and futures will be more of a help to play consistantly in but a few times a year in Grand Slams and the aussie warm-up tournaments isn't goign to hurt him. It's not like the US and Donald Young where they have a million ATP tournaments they can give WC's to.
 
Re: Wimbledon

matt_897 said:
Luczak is turning 30 this year and wasn't showing any signs of form, there was no way they should of given it to him. If he had been winning matches like he like the last 2 weeks then you'd have a point. Tomic was an understandable call and probably the only one. You can't blame him for wanting WC's, more money and expreience to see where he is at. I agree challengers and futures will be more of a help to play consistantly in but a few times a year in Grand Slams and the aussie warm-up tournaments isn't goign to hurt him. It's not like the US and Donald Young where they have a million ATP tournaments they can give WC's to.
Click to expand...

Well Luczak can play on the surface - Tomic can't, Luczak is an average challenger level player - Tomic is not even that yet.

Tomic lost in the juniors in straights to a kid with no ranking, who hasn't even registered a futures level win. So that's how well Tomic is travelling.

Throwing a junior in the deep end will often hinder their development. It would be like throwing an average 18 year old draftee straight into the starting line-up of an AFL team, and despite him struggling in every match, you continue to leave him there.

At the height of the Donald Young hype, he received 7 wildcards to ATP level events in 6 months, and did not win a set (it's not like he was meeting Federer and Nadal, he didn't even face a guy in the top 70). During this period, the only other event he played was 1 futures event, where he beat 2 players outside the top 1000, and lost to #400+. Donald Young's confidence dropped and his game fell apart. That's what you get for trying to jump straight up to the top level. The experience of playing guys at the top level did not help Young one single bit. The only happy person was Young's father cashing his cheques.

The best thing for Tomic is to forget about the money for now (tennis australia and the ais will support him in any case), and concentrate on building his game. Many of the better youngsters around opt for the Nadal path to the top these days - playing your way up through futures and challengers rather than competing in weak junior events (no depth at all in the juniors these days, and hardly any of them are coming through to the top level). And this is what Tomic should do (ganted a few wildcards to top events won't hurt him during the Australian summer).

I hope he can prove me wrong, and I hope tennis australia (and the media) don't put too much pressure on him.
 
Re: Wimbledon

Tomic has won a challenger and made a QF appearance (I think) earlier this year before his ITF ban kicked in. After the ban he has played all his competitive matches on clay, a surface due to his body and his inexperience he has struggled on. He beat Klein, Matosevic and Sirianni to win his challenger in Melborune. Two of these Three have managed to qualify for ATP events so far this year. Take his results on clay as an anomoly due to his developing game. Maybe the FO WC was a bit of a bad decision, but with the performance of the other Australian challenger players, you can hardly blame TA for going with a youth policy, it seemed to work in the womens, with Rogowoska doing well despite having no previous results, and an even poorer performance in the juniors.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: Wimbledon

There was nobody else to choose from for the RG WC. TA are not going to give a WC to a guy nearly turning 30 who looked like he was on the homeward stretch, hopefully these last two weeks aren't a fluke and he can keep playing as well as he has been.

I was the first one who thought Luczak not getting an AO WC was harsh, he had the best challengers results coming into the slam, albeit on clay, but still had proven a lot more than anyone else had. But coming into the French Open was a different story. No one had soon anything, you might as well give the promising young junior a go. Look at Rogowska, she won a round and was a game away from round 3.

Why wouldn't Bernard want to have a go at Wimby qualies, if anyone was given the opportunity for a WC at a slam, wouldn't you take it? Surely, after Wimby go ahead and play future/challenegr events a round the place but I can't see the harm of having a go in a slam. He hasn't played many ATP MD matches anyway. Think he lost to Verdasco in Brisbane (tough ask), beat Starace and took a set off Muller at AO and then lost to Kohli at RG. Not that much if you ask me.

We'll see how he goes in a few hours.
 
Re: Wimbledon

Tomic won his first round qualy match 7-6, 7-6 :thumbsu: Clutch in the TB's again.

Matosevic lost his match in straight sets disappoiningly while Groth is in the 3rd set battling with levine to get through to the 2nd round.
 
Re: Wimbledon

Guccione loses 7-5 6-7 (0) 3-6.


Pretty pathetic in that 2nd set tiebreak.:thumbsdown:

At least Sirrianni won, 6-4 3-6 6-1.

Edit: Klein won his first round match against Gabashvili 6-3 5-7 6-1
 
Re: Wimbledon

Luczak has to finish his match tonight, he was a set up in that one.

For the women's qualies we have:
Rogowska vs. Klaschka
Ferguson vs. Oudin
Adamczak vs. Gullickson
 
Re: Wimbledon

CanonNo1 said:
gaelictiogar you should know by now that you can't say anything controversial, even if true, suggesting Nadal doesn't have a 'great' tennis game.

Agree, he's game is very bloody good, but to me its an evolution of Michael Chang and Lleyton Hewitt - baseliner with an incredible ability to retrieve, fight, defend.... however with a big forehand and a few more strings (better volleyer and server)

I wouldn't say its 'genius' because there are lot of things he can't do which a lot of players can with a tennis racquet. Look at some of the things Fabrice Santoro does, Federer and the half volleys of the baseline, Sampras with the running forehands.

What his game is ... is exceptionally good and far more effective than many before him. But 'genius' ... not in my book.
Click to expand...

I never realised that chang or hewitt consistently outwitted Sampras or Agassi :confused: .So the sign of a genius is only when you hit cracking forehands and passing shots? mental ability to completely get federer off his game and force him into errors is not a sign of a genius? you name another guy in the world who can do that to federer, consistently? He also had success on ALL surfaces, unlike the players you mentioned.

You will be surprised to find that longer the rally goes, majority goes in favour of Nadal, cause he is able to exploit feds weakness like no one else can. Sign of a genius really, doesnt matter if you think so or not.Boris Becker was on euro sport today in a pre wimbledon analysis and he mentioned the exact same thing.Comparing Nadal to Chang is like comparing Federer to Courier.Chang or Hewitt was never able to dominate their generation depending on strategy only and thats where Nadals gameplan kicks in.Ask Federer, he will agree with everything i have said above..if not just look at the head to head count.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Re: Wimbledon

Can someone ban that Total Power c***head, he's polluting this forum with his rubbish.

On a different note, Gooch, what the????? The bloke has one of the great serves in the game, yet he can't even get through the quallies at Wimby????

Time to retire big fella
 
Re: Wimbledon

Total Power said:
I never realised that chang or hewitt consistently outwitted Sampras or Agassi .So the sign of a genius is only when you hit cracking forehands and passing shots? mental ability to completely get federer off his game and force him into errors is not a sign of a genius? you name another guy in the world who can do that to federer, consistently? He also had success on ALL surfaces, unlike the players you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Nadal used to be quite similar to Hewitt and Chang in that he was primarily a defensive minded player, but Nadal has adapted his game and his offensive skills now rival almost anybody's. He can hit pretty much every shot in the book, he has developed his serve into a weapon as well rather than the 'forehand to start play' that it used to be . I don't know if genius is the correct word to use in regard to Nadal, I'd think warrior was more appropriate ;). Nadal is almost always completely switched on during ANY match (slam lever or minor atp tourney) and off-court, he constantly works at improving his game (which he has successfully managed to adapt to win a hard and grass court slam).

Federer on the other hand at times, seems to believe that he deserves to win and he almost takes offence when other players show signs that they believe they can beat him. His "my shit don't stink" attitude and his sooking antics when things don't go his way are quite tiresome.

You will be surprised to find that longer the rally goes, majority goes in favour of Nadal, cause he is able to exploit feds weakness like no one else can. Sign of a genius really, doesnt matter if you think so or not.Boris Becker was on euro sport today in a pre wimbledon analysis and he mentioned the exact same thing.Comparing Nadal to Chang is like comparing Federer to Courier.Chang or Hewitt was never able to dominate their generation depending on strategy only and thats where Nadals gameplan kicks in.Ask Federer, he will agree with everything i have said above..if not just look at the head to head count.
Click to expand...

What is this weakness of Federer's that you refer to? He has had quite a complete all-court game since he was 18. It is merely a match-up issue that makes him struggle against Nadal - he simply struggles to deal with Nadal's heavily top spun forehand on his backhand. Take away this factor, and the head to head between the two would look completely different.

Chang never dominated a generation, wtf are you on about? Chang was EXTREMELY lucky to win ONE grand slam title over a dozen odd year career, and never made it to #1.

Hewitt was more dominant, although I put this down to the weak period during the post-Sampras pre-Federer era (I am biased against Hewitt and think that he is the luckiest guy in the world to have won 2 slams with his shitty game).
 
Re: Wimbledon

Drummond said:
If Adamczak doesn't win she would retire. Gullickson is one of the worst players I've seen. :eek:
Click to expand...

euh? As bad as Gullickson is, she's certainly no worse than Adamczak.

It's been a long time since Adamczak beat a player in the top 200.

Adamczak is coming off a loss to a girl ranked outside 500, while Gullickson recently qualified for the main draw at Roland Garros.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top