Wimbledon 2008 Thread

Another vote for a Nadal v Federer final. It would be a historical moment either way: Federer losing in the final (the beginning of a new era?), or winning his 6th consecutive title- that would crown him has the best player ever- at least on grass: he even beat Sampras on center court! (even though a "not on his prime"one...)

As for Safin... Nah, too inconsistent. Power server, like Ivanisevic, but lacks concentration...

For the girls, everything BUT Venus and Serena... I hate the way they play- not based on looks, here. Its all about power, but no finesse.

I miss Hingis- now that was a brilliant female tennis player... Shame about her career...
 
Both Federer and Nadal were less than stellar in their 2nd round matches; a lot of relative kids coming out of nowhere to challenge the top seeds all around. Funky vibes. Gotta say, it's an exciting air.
 
Yeah, but Nadal didn't really lose that first set. He get screwed on a really bad call when the point meant he'd have broken Gulbis and taken the first set. (The ump said the ball bounced twice before he hit it; every replay shows it didn't.)

In any case, apparently they're giving all these challengers the good Gatorade.
 
That's what I would consider an "own," too. I think neither one of you will have to pay; it should be a pretty competitive match. Assuming they both get there, of course, and if this year proves anything, it's that there are no guarantees.
 
I'm calling it.

This is Rafa's time.

The 07 Wimby was in Rafa's hands. He is ready.

-

Blake is out, ARod is out. - Not terribly surprised. Blake is one of the most overrated tennis players ever and Roddick is, well, just done.

Masha is out. This is an upset. (I loved her outfit).
 
So, has that Federer heart tattoo healed up yet, Barry? :)

As a matter of history, when the greats drop, they drop fast. Not saying it's happening here; just saying it wouldn't be the first time.

Sampras says it's a temporary lull. Borg says it's the end. Interestingly, Sampras is usually pretty generous, and I think Borg is an exceptionally vain guy who has a lot at stake in not having his record broken, so the truth is probably somewhere in between.

But Fed hasn't had the fire this year. Nadal has. And remember that Federer is still 5-10 against Rafa.

So, I dunno. I do agree with John that Rafa had it in his hands to lose last year, and he lost it. He might well do the same again this year, but it isn't gonna be a beat-down.
 
I don't see the fire. He never got kicked before the final in a slam before Djoko dismissed him in Australia, either, but he didn't get all Medieval after that . . .

(You've been goading me into this the whole thread, so now I'm bringin' it. :) )
 
I dunno, dude. You'd think if he's that gung-ho, you'd see him blazing. But he let that d-bag Soderling break him, and through the match, he wasn't setting anything on fire.

He might BE bored. It's an old story. He might also be distracted, with all the endorsement contracts, hanging with rock stars, worrying about his clothing line, etc.. No one lasts forever. Pete had a longer run, be also paced himself more.

So sure, all the talent is still there. It could be just a dip. But I'm not seeing seething desire to avenge a spanking.
 
I didn't say he was done by any means. I'm not making sweeping predictions here. I'm just not seeing the burning desire for payback. I like Rafa's chances.

Any player has a stack of wins until he doesn't anymore. I dunno; to say "he's won everything for the last X years" could also mean he's due to lose, don't you think? Anyone who looks invulnerable does so until he loses.

Winning everything all the time is hard -- it's hard physically, it's hard mentally. That's why it doesn't last forever. Everyone's human. While I'm not saying that Federer's reign is over (though there's no way he keeps #1 if he doesn't win this tournament), I don't think it's ludicrous to say it might be.

You could have said (and probably did) "no WAY he'll be out before the final in Australia," for all the same reasons you just gave. But he was. You could have said, based on what's happened before, "no WAY Rafa's gonna spank him in the final" (hey, didn't you predict he'd take the French this year?), for all the same reasons, but Rafa did.

I just don't buy inevitability in anything. Everyone's human; everyone can fail. Everyone does, eventually. He's not ordained to win six in a row. If he does, then he does, but it's not in the stars.

(But you know what? I'll venture a solid prediction here. He isn't gonna make 8. He might not make 7. And I don't mean in a row; I mean total.)
 
Well, maybe I'm wrong about the ATP points.

But I think you're not acknowledging a gigantic factor here -- how badly does Rafa want this? He knows he had it last year, but let it slip away. He knows he can have it again this year.

And who's to say that right now, Rafa isn't the better player, and that Roland Garros wasn't some fluke?

(As a matter of trivia, has there been a case in the past where the #1 player was 33% against the #2 player?)
 
In no way would I ever compare their records. You keep bringing up Federer's record as irrefutable evidence of what's going to happen tomorrow, next week, over the next ten years. If you want to talk about "faulty logic," that's it. Borg was an unbeatable machine until the "thorn in his side," one Johnny Mac, beat him. (Which is actually a pretty decent historical parallel.)

What a player has done, and what a player has yet to do, isn't the same as how good a player is right now.

Why is it inconceivable that a player on his way up may have eclipsed a player that made his ascent years ago -- in terms of playing ability, not of record? Any player who comes up through the ranks and challanges a great for his crown is NECESSARILY going to have a less impressive record when he does it, else the great . . . wouldn't be the great.

Unless you're making the wholly unsupportable argument that Federer is somehow the cosmic greatest player that ever possibly could be, which, I gotta say, is kind of baffling fanboyism. Are you arguing that in order to beat Federer, in order to outplay Federer, you have to have a record as impressive as Federer's?

Pete's record is still better. If the two of them played, who'd win? After all, no one else has ever won 14 majors. No one else has ever won 7 Wimbeldons. No one has ever held #1 for longer. So, from what I'm seeing here, Pete should tromp. Do you think he would?

How about another historical parallel? From what you're saying here, it should have been impossible for Steffi Graf to eclipse Navratilova. But she did. And when she did, she had a record no more impressive than Nadal's, compared to Navratilova's legendary one. How'd that happen?
 
Barry_Green said:
It seems like you're trying to say "well, yeah, in the past he wasn't bad, but what about today?" Seriously? Today, as in leading the ATP tour by 1100 points? Today as in 9 straight sets in Wimbledon so far? Today as in being a Semifinalist at Australia, a Finalist at the French, and having a clear path to the finals at Wimbledon? He's the REIGNING Wimbledon champion (and has been since 2003). He's the REIGNING US Open champion (and has been since 2004). He's the REIGNING Tennis Masters Cup champion (and has been since 2003, except for a blip in 2005). He is the current #1 ranked player in the world, and has been (continuously) since 2004. How much more TODAY can someone get?
Click to expand...

Like I said, ask Steffi Graf about Martina in 1988.

There are some things which are irrefutably, objectively true:

1) As good as Federer is, it's possible for someone to be better.

2) It is impossible for that person to come pre-packaged with a record as impressive as Federer's.

So, when/if that person comes along, you can make all the arguments in the world about Federer's record vs. the challenger's record; if the challenger truly has achieved a greater ability, then he'll win. (Just like Steffi.)

I don't think it's impossible that Nadal has reached that point. He has yet to show that he has, but I don't think it's impossible.
 
Barry_Green said:
Why the Federer bashing though? You've been anti-Fed since -- well, ever. I used to say "no way, he's just a flash in the pan" a couple of years ago, but -- over the last couple of years, he's proven quite conclusively that he's the best, so why not give him that due?
Click to expand...

I never said he was a "flash in the pan." What I did say was that it was stupid for the press/commentators to have crowned him the "greatest ever" when he wasn't even a quarter of the way there, when there's so much that could happen on the way, when we've seen a lot of people rise and fall quickly and challengers from nowhere KOing the King. I always said that he might do it, and that he certainly showed the talent for it.

And I'm not Fed-bashing here. I'm trying to convey a clear-eyed assessment of what's happening on the ground, right now, today. (Today, when Fed cruised through his third round.) I'm making the argument that it may be the beginning of Rafa's time, because wheels turn. If it ain't, it ain't, and if Fed dominates for another five years, then he does, and all hail Caesar, 'coz no one could argue he wasn't the greatest thing in flat-soled shoes that ever was.

True, I'm trying to deflate a little of what I see as undue Fed rah-rah, but I think I've been pretty clear-eyed in my arguments. I see a Rafa win next Sunday as probably a better-than-average possibility. But it isn't going to be a blowout either way.
 
But I'm not arguing he hasn't delivered the goods.

I'm saying that the astronomical record doesn't mean that a changing of the guard isn't in the works. Signs are there.
 
More upsets today.

This is a really entertaining tournament.

I wish I was more than a casual tennis fan so I could have something to say. :)
 
A lot of us are out playing. Hmmmm... let's see, the last time I was out playing tennis goes way, way, back to last night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top