| Yara 09.06.2008 18:55 |
Wow, Nadal knocked Federer out so easily that I couldn't believe it. I know Nadal is top notch, but Federer's playing is so bad, what happened to the guy? From an Iron Man to a third-rate tenist? I hope he recovers, he's very talented (and cute, ok, but talented also!), and I have always been impressed by the sheer force of his style. It's very engaging and exciting (I mean, within the context of tenis lol) to see him play. Like...he's cute, no doubt, but...well. Better stop here. Good tenist. lol |
| Music Man 09.06.2008 23:20 |
Nadal wins the French Open, Federer wins everything else. It's pretty much been this way for the past five years - nothing's changed and nothing's new. You really couldn't have been surprised...could you? |
| Charlie Brown 10.06.2008 00:13 |
Roger Federer is sort of like the Tiger Woods of tennis. People almost expect them to win every tournement in their respective sports. |
| Music Man 10.06.2008 00:21 |
Except the Roland Garros... How many times has he won it, again? That's right, never. And each time he's lost to Nadal, who is as much of a god on clay as Federer is on, say, every surface that isn't clay. |
| Charlie Brown 10.06.2008 00:32 |
^ Hi MusicMan. Michael Jordan comes to mind. He was the dominant player in his sport for years, but he didn't have much of a 3 point shot, except ofcourse for that NBA Finals game against Portland where he increadibly hit 3 point after shot effortlessly. Even superstars have weaknesses. |
| ***Marial-B*** 10.06.2008 02:01 |
The thing with Roland Garros is that Federer is a great player in every single kind of Tennis Stadium, except for the ones made of clay, like the Roland Garros, that's Nadal's speciality. And that's why he wins easily that cup. Still the kid is what... 21??? 22??? and as far as I know Federer is older than him, so the kid still has a long way to go :). |
| The Mir@cle 10.06.2008 02:49 |
Marial-B wrote: The thing with Roland Garros is that Federer is a great player in every single kind of Tennis Stadium, except for the ones made of clay, like the Roland Garros, that's Nadal's speciality. And that's why he wins easily that cup. Still the kid is what... 21??? 22??? and as far as I know Federer is older than him, so the kid still has a long way to go :).Well, Federer reached the final... He's not bad at clay but Nadal was just superb. Let's see what Nadal can do on the gras of Wimbledon. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 10.06.2008 04:19 |
yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon. Wimbledon will see Federer back on his fave grass surroundings and also means i wont have to water my tomatoes for the two weeks its going on and its the only 2 weeks of the year where you see young british kids on a tennis court with a racquet in their hands and not stabbing each other with knives. |
| The Mir@cle 10.06.2008 06:20 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.That was Ivanovic... was a pretty woman that is :D--- |
| Yara 10.06.2008 09:00 |
Music Man wrote: Nadal wins the French Open, Federer wins everything else. It's pretty much been this way for the past five years - nothing's changed and nothing's new. You really couldn't have been surprised...could you?I could, Music Man! Hahaha. It was just that...it was too easy, you know? Like, I expected Federer to give Nadal more...how do we say that, to be more challenging to Nadal! Ok, he's not good on clay, but...that easy? Nadal just walked over him! I knew it was unlikely Federer would win the tournament, given the way he had been playing ever since game 01 (lol), but I expected a close victory for Nadal, a close call, not that...man. It was knock out. Haha. |
| Micrówave 10.06.2008 13:05 |
Wow. People are throwing out names like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to compare Federer & Nadal? The only reason those two are always on top is that the field is bad. I think if you go back, and not too far, names like McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Sampras seem much closer to Jordan and Woods than what we have out there today.
And NADAL was killing everyone. Federer was struggling to get to the finals. Hardly entertaining. It's sad that Women's Tennis is more exciting, but fitting that Venus got the pay grade fixed.
Boy, that Ivanovic is quite fun to watch. From Serbia.
Charlie Brown wrote: Michael Jordan comes to mind. He was the dominant player in his sport for years, but he didn't have much of a 3 point shot, except ofcourse for that NBA Finals game against Portland where he increadibly hit 3 point after shot effortlessly.Michael Jordan was a career 32.7% 3 point shooter. His playoff career average was 33.2%. That's hardly a "weakness". Mike didn't play in today's 3-point heavy game. Let's compare guys from Mike's era: Reggie Miller 39% (was their main 3pt shooter) Larry Bird 38% (was their co-main 3pt shooter, Ainge) Magic Johnson 30% Julius Erving 26% and the Bulls' MAIN 3pt shooter, John Paxson, had a career average of 36%. ...and if given the chance to drive to the whole or take the 3, what would Mike do? |
| john bodega 10.06.2008 13:18 |
Bring back MacEnroe. |
| Yara 10.06.2008 14:04 |
Federer is a good player. I expected him to give Nadal more trouble. That he wasn't going to win the tournament, I suspected; but that he'd play so badly and be defeat so easily, wow, I didn't. Yes, I root for Federer! Hahaha. Now, Michael Jordan, please, GOD. Like, no comparison with anyone, I feel personally offended by it. lol |
| ***Marial-B*** 10.06.2008 16:37 |
The Mir@cle wrote:-.-'... *prepares foot*JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.That was Ivanovic... was a pretty woman that is :D--- |
| Music Man 10.06.2008 18:00 |
You could argue that the field is mediocre in today's game, but it's still difficult to deny the complete dominance that Federer has over the game (except clay). I mean, Federer is still competent in clay, but Nadal owns it. Tennis on clay is almost a completely different sport. |
| Micrówave 10.06.2008 18:20 |
Actually, yes you can argue against Federer. How many Wimbledon titles does he own? 4. How many finals has he lost? 0. So 4 years. Now lets look at my guys: 1974 Connors beats Rosewall 1975 Ashe beats Connors 1976 Borg beats Nastase 1977 Borg beats Connors 1978 Borg beats Connors again 1979 Borg beats Tanner 1980 Borg beats McEnroe (Proving resistance IS futile!!!) 1981 McEnroe beats Borg 1982 Connors beats McEnroe 1983 McEnroe beats Lewis 1984 McEnroe beats Connors 1985 Becker beats Curren 1986 Becker beats Lendl 1987 Pat Cash beats Lendl with my Prince racquet 1988 Edberg beats Becker 1989 Becker beats Edberg 1990 Edberg beats Becker Those were players: Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg. Federer has about 1/2 the career of a Becker or a Sampras, but will never reach the level of Connors, McEnroe, or the greatness of Borg. |
| Yara 10.06.2008 18:43 |
Sampras=God We're not talking about Gods. Federer is a very good player on his own, provided you don't compare him to God. I think he's stil very young and will still give a lot of headache to his adversaries. Wonder why Agassi didn't make into your list but Becker did? |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 10.06.2008 19:18 |
Marial-B wrote:XDThe Mir@cle wrote:-.-'... *prepares foot*JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.That was Ivanovic... was a pretty woman that is :D--- |
| Charlie Brown 11.06.2008 01:36 |
Micrówave wrote: Wow. People are throwing out names like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to compare Federer & Nadal? The only reason those two are always on top is that the field is bad. I think if you go back, and not too far, names like McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Sampras seem much closer to Jordan and Woods than what we have out there today. And NADAL was killing everyone. Federer was struggling to get to the finals. Hardly entertaining. It's sad that Women's Tennis is more exciting, but fitting that Venus got the pay grade fixed. Boy, that Ivanovic is quite fun to watch. From Serbia.Michael Jordan was a multiple regular season NBA MVP, he was a multiple time playoff MVP, he lead the NBA in scoring average in multiple seasons AND he was also a member of the all defensive team more than once, so comparatively speaking his 3-point shot was his weakness. To paraphrase our dear Yara, he was the god of basketball. I just used him as a universal example of greatness, i don't think many if any of todays atheletes compare to him actually.Charlie Brown wrote: Michael Jordan comes to mind. He was the dominant player in his sport for years, but he didn't have much of a 3 point shot, except ofcourse for that NBA Finals game against Portland where he increadibly hit 3 point after shot effortlessly.Michael Jordan was a career 32.7% 3 point shooter. His playoff career average was 33.2%. That's hardly a "weakness". Mike didn't play in today's 3-point heavy game. Let's compare guys from Mike's era: Reggie Miller 39% (was their main 3pt shooter) Larry Bird 38% (was their co-main 3pt shooter, Ainge) Magic Johnson 30% Julius Erving 26% and the Bulls' MAIN 3pt shooter, John Paxson, had a career average of 36%. ...and if given the chance to drive to the whole or take the 3, what would Mike do? |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 11.06.2008 04:27 |
Micrówave wrote: Actually, yes you can argue against Federer. How many Wimbledon titles does he own? 4. How many finals has he lost? 0. So 4 years. Now lets look at my guys: 1974 Connors beats Rosewall 1975 Ashe beats Connors 1976 Borg beats Nastase 1977 Borg beats Connors 1978 Borg beats Connors again 1979 Borg beats Tanner 1980 Borg beats McEnroe (Proving resistance IS futile!!!) 1981 McEnroe beats Borg 1982 Connors beats McEnroe 1983 McEnroe beats Lewis 1984 McEnroe beats Connors 1985 Becker beats Curren 1986 Becker beats Lendl 1987 Pat Cash beats Lendl with my Prince racquet 1988 Edberg beats Becker 1989 Becker beats Edberg 1990 Edberg beats Becker Those were players: Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg. Federer has about 1/2 the career of a Becker or a Sampras, but will never reach the level of Connors, McEnroe, or the greatness of Borg.*claps* [shows age] those WERE great players.the robots we have in tennis now wouldnt stand a chance against them in their prime.Borg was just a genius.even Navratilova in her prime would probably beat most of the blokes today |
| Yara 11.06.2008 07:27 |
Sampras = God That aside, why doesn't Agassi feature in the list? I don't know for sure, but Agassi has quite a good record of grand slam wins (he won them all!), he was not a robot - he didn't play the robot-style - and was damn good!!!!!! Where's Agassi? Agasssssssiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii? |
| The Mir@cle 11.06.2008 09:14 |
I think it's a misunderstanding that Sampras, Borg, Becker, etc were stronger than Federer is nowadays. That's based on what? |
| Yara 11.06.2008 10:35 |
On nothing. I have the religious belief that Sampras is God. And, plus, Federer is my favorite tenist and I think he may well turn out to be another God, like, there are place to two Gods, the Holy Trinity is one God, but actually three, so... But, now, Agassi, I still wonder why he wasn't even mentioned? Now, ok, "Yara, you're bringing up the Agassi issue just because he's cute". No. It's not true. The guy has a tremendous record. He was good - MusicMan, correct me if I'm wrong - he was good on every kind of field, nicht wahr, Barbara? And, now, where is he? I think he was neglected! Agassi! Agassi! Agassi! Though I still prefer Federer many times. |
| Micrówave 11.06.2008 11:11 |
The Mir@cle wrote: I think it's a misunderstanding that Sampras, Borg, Becker, etc were stronger than Federer is nowadays. That's based on what?On the fact that we're talking about guys with YEARS of dominance, not a 5 year run. Plus, if you play or watch Tennis at this level, you can kinda tell that Tim Hinman is no Ivan Lendl. I mean really, do you seriously believe that those other names in the tournament compare? Plus, look at the interest level in Men's tennis. Name one other sport where the Women's competition level has superceded the men's? More people are watching women's tennis. More people are buying their endorsed products. Today, you're lucky if you can name another men's player besides Federer & Nadal. And yes, it was wrong of me to leave Andre off the list. And "based on what?" Well, how about the speed of Sampras' serve? Has anybody topped that? |
| Music Man 11.06.2008 19:07 |
Micrówave wrote:Your logic is quite flawed. I don't see anyone on your list with anything greater than a 5-year run. Additionally, Federer still has several years of dominance ahead of him. In all sports, skill typically builds upon itself. It's much more likely that the dominant player of the future will be better than the dominant player of the past, which I certainly believe is the case of Federer.The Mir@cle wrote: I think it's a misunderstanding that Sampras, Borg, Becker, etc were stronger than Federer is nowadays. That's based on what?On the fact that we're talking about guys with YEARS of dominance, not a 5 year run. Plus, if you play or watch Tennis at this level, you can kinda tell that Tim Hinman is no Ivan Lendl. I mean really, do you seriously believe that those other names in the tournament compare? Micrówave wrote: Plus, look at the interest level in Men's tennis. Name one other sport where the Women's competition level has superceded the men's? More people are watching women's tennis. More people are buying their endorsed products. Today, you're lucky if you can name another men's player besides Federer & Nadal.I don't have any proof or anything, but this just seems false to me. Micrówave wrote: And yes, it was wrong of me to leave Andre off the list. And "based on what?" Well, how about the speed of Sampras' serve? Has anybody topped that?Uh, Andy Roddick...who is far inferior to Federer, by the way. So really, based on what? |
| Micrówave 12.06.2008 15:07 |
Did you not see Jimmy Connors from 1974 to 1984? That's ten years. Plus, if you remember, those Connors / Borg / McEnroe / Lendl matchups went on for years. If you're looking at my list and see Borg beats McEnroe, you can bet Connors and Lendl were in the semifinals. And proof for the decline of Men's Tennis? Uh, dude, that's been going on for years. I didn't just make that up. When was the last time you saw an all-day tourney broadcast on CBS or NBC? Sorry, they're gone. Now all we get is the finals. Look at the numbers on that. That will give you the proof. |
| Music Man 12.06.2008 18:40 |
I also only see Connors winning twice. That's not much of a run. If you wanted to show me a real run, you should have presented Sampras. I was only referring to men's tennis vs. women's tennis. They seem rather comparable to me. If anything, men's tennis is more prominent. As far as the game goes in general, I can't deny a decline...much like another of my favorite sports: ice hockey. |
| Charlie Brown 13.06.2008 00:12 |
The gospel according to Yara ... Pete Sampras = God ... Andre Agassi = The Son ... Roger Federer = The Holy Spirit ... Anna Kournokova = Mary Magdelene ... |
| Yara 13.06.2008 00:44 |
Charlie Brown wrote: The gospel according to Yara ... Pete Sampras = God ... Andre Agassi = The Son ... Roger Federer = The Holy Spirit ... Anna Kournokova = Mary Magdelene ...Hahahaha. Great! :-))) Touché, again. You're fun. :op Thanks. :-) I believe in all this. All. Freddie Mercury is/was God? Not at all. Sampras? Yes. Michael Jordan? Yes. Jordan, the Father, created the world, and then God the Father took on the shape of Sampras and rules the world up until today. One can see that God, The Father, does change in personality here and there in the Bible: it's because of this Michael Jordan->Sampras transition, which is considerable taking into account that the sports are different. So, God does have many aspects and shades. |
| Micrówave 13.06.2008 11:15 |
Give me Mary Magdelene. Great discussion, by the way... Yara, MM, Charlie, we need more of these. Good to have a nice mix of old school fans (like me) and current fans. However gay or goofy, this has always been my favorite sport to play and used to be one of my favorite to watch. |
| Music Man 13.06.2008 18:36 |
The true conclusion of this thread is that tennis rocks. I have no idea how or why I became a fan, but it's such a great sport, it's a shame how often it's overlooked. |
| Charlie Brown 14.06.2008 02:05 |
Yara wrote:I must differ with you dear Yara. Have any of us ever seen a photo of Freddie and Michael together in the same place and time!? Answering my own rhetorical question, no! Why, because Freddie became Michael who became Pete. The three faces of god.Charlie Brown wrote: The gospel according to Yara ... Pete Sampras = God ... Andre Agassi = The Son ... Roger Federer = The Holy Spirit ... Anna Kournokova = Mary Magdelene ...Hahahaha. Great! :-))) Touché, again. You're fun. :op Thanks. :-) I believe in all this. All. Freddie Mercury is/was God? Not at all. Sampras? Yes. Michael Jordan? Yes. Jordan, the Father, created the world, and then God the Father took on the shape of Sampras and rules the world up until today. One can see that God, The Father, does change in personality here and there in the Bible: it's because of this Michael Jordan->Sampras transition, which is considerable taking into account that the sports are different. So, God does have many aspects and shades. |
| Charlie Brown 14.06.2008 02:10 |
Micrówave wrote: Give me Mary Magdelene. Great discussion, by the way... Yara, MM, Charlie, we need more of these. Good to have a nice mix of old school fans (like me) and current fans. However gay or goofy, this has always been my favorite sport to play and used to be one of my favorite to watch.Thanks buddy. I would say Maria Sharapova = The Virgin Mary but i don't think those Russian chicks stay virginal for very long. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 14.06.2008 06:43 |
Charlie Brown wrote:she wouldnt with me around ;-]Micrówave wrote: Give me Mary Magdelene. Great discussion, by the way... Yara, MM, Charlie, we need more of these. Good to have a nice mix of old school fans (like me) and current fans. However gay or goofy, this has always been my favorite sport to play and used to be one of my favorite to watch.Thanks buddy. I would say Maria Sharapova = The Virgin Mary but i don't think those Russian chicks stay virginal for very long. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 14.06.2008 06:52 |
Music Man wrote: I also only see Connors winning twice. That's not much of a run. If you wanted to show me a real run, you should have presented Sampras. I was only referring to men's tennis vs. women's tennis. They seem rather comparable to me. If anything, men's tennis is more prominent. As far as the game goes in general, I can't deny a decline...much like another of my favorite sports: ice hockey.Connors was consistant for nearly a decade.he was there or there about in every tournament and on on every surface.his battles with McEnroe were legendary in the early to mid 80's and it wasnt just a 'serve/volley' game either,there were great rallies in the matches. as Microwave has said,if it was McEnroe and Borg in the final you would guarantee that the semis would feature Connors. Lendl was the 'nearly man' of Wimbledon.he was the one we all wanted to win it [a bit like Jimmy White in the snooker] but who never did. the modern mens game doesnt do it for me.its all power shots and who can hit the fastest aces.theres no 'art' to it,no psychology.its 'wham,bam thankyou mam'. ps,it must be tennis season in the UK,its pissing down with rain here! |