Federer's hints about his poor form....

First topic message reminder :

Federer: But you find a way to win when maybe someone is not playing so well or when your opponent is playing well, and that's what the beauty is of this game, I think, is trying to find a way when you're not feeling great That's what I maybe was able to do today.

That, imo, kind of confirms he is not 100%.

Fed seems to have lost some explosiveness in his footwork....but it is also the fact that everybody else is so much faster that 5 years ago (Just watch Fish now and Fish then) that we are not as impressed as we used to be. But on the other hand he gained on strategy, composure and certainly steadier on his BH. I still think his peak game today is better than his peak game in his hey days, or certainly woudl not have got away with his relative weakness of then. He simply is less consistent day in day out and more importantly he is more challenged phsyically than then.

We tend to forget that even in his best years he was losing sets in slams v guys like Kiefer, Roddick, Blake, Nalabandian, Hewitt, Bagdhatis, Haas etc....and we still thought he was extremely dominant. But now if he does lose a set to Cilic we tend to think he is going down. One thing for sure is that the game gets tougher every year and only him has managed to keep up with the most solid players of the tour.

After 10 years of watching him, many of us are not seeing the woww factor anymore, but how often do you see a standing ovation for a short, one sided 3 setter with the crowd delighted to have seen a match worth every penny of their ticket?

I think he's lost an awful lot in the footwork. You watch some stuff from 5/6 years ago and it's ridiculous how fast he was.

He can still hit the ball great but he's jus not so manoevreable

bogbrush wrote:I think he's lost an awful lot in the footwork. You watch some stuff from 5/6 years ago and it's ridiculous how fast he was.

I just did on youtube (USO 04 final v Hewitt). He was quick and the courts were much faster. It's like a shooting contest. Great varied game to watch wth volleys and smart rallies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKETvVqxTmk

I can't believe they changed te conds so much.

bogbrush wrote:I think he's lost an awful lot in the footwork. You watch some stuff from 5/6 years ago and it's ridiculous how fast he was.

He can still hit the ball great but he's jus not so manoevreable

This.

Fed's forehands at the start of part 2/2 and his movement around it: wow. Wow in general.

There seems to be a general concensus that the slowing down of the courts at the US Open and Wimbledon has favoured Federer's rivals more than he. However, it's also agreed that Fed's movement at thirty is not what it was in his mid twenties. Fed fans can't have it both ways.

Who's to say, for instance, that his chances would be so much improved by faster conditions at these slams? Returning bullet serves and forehands four or five sets into a match can take it out of you and if you haven't got the footwork speed or mental endurance levels of a younger man then you're in just as much trouble as you would be having to run 30 metres every point.

Good points emancipator....lets face it, he's not a tennis spring chicken anymore. The question is like Pete, can he squeeze one last post-30 slam and then end on that high point? If he goes without a slam say until this time next year and then won USO12 I could see him like Pete retiring...and how weird that would be to mirror Pete given their careers are a decade apart (10 year age gap...Pete won USO02, Roger wins USO12...).

Its going to take a good run of consistency and a bit of luck (as always). I dont see him winning more than 1 slam now though...when you look at him playing in 04 the difference in speed of movement is nopticeable as it is for any of these guys who get over 30...they're still as fit as ever but you cant replicate that explosive movement of youth...and for some it may start earlier than others...for example I think its starting with Nadal already - after all he 's moving at top pro level for nearly 10 years now...

That's spot on Lydian; what he needs (like Pete got that time) is that Slam where the draw falls out for him; one where he gets the bunny in the quarters (not the monster he's got here and at Wimbledon), the "right" opponent in the semi (say Nadal here, or Djokovic at the French) and hope for Murray to have done the other one in the other half.

It's too much to take out all these guys in one Slam, if nothing else because they're younger and it's like asking a heavyweight to fight two opponents back to back.

Back to Pete, I know he got Agassi in the final but they were contempories and he knew how to beat him; had Hewitt beaten Agassi in that semi the final would have been another beating for Sampras.

Jarvik wrote:There seems to be a general concensus that the slowing down of the courts at the US Open and Wimbledon has favoured Federer's rivals more than he. However, it's also agreed that Fed's movement at thirty is not what it was in his mid twenties. Fed fans can't have it both ways.

Who's to say, for instance, that his chances would be so much improved by faster conditions at these slams? Returning bullet serves and forehands four or five sets into a match can take it out of you and if you haven't got the footwork speed or mental endurance levels of a younger man then you're in just as much trouble as you would be having to run 30 metres every point.

I don't think you're right there. What matters isn't that it gets harder for Fed as it gets faster, but who's performance is degraded the most.

Right now Djokovic can more or less reach every single ball. Fed can't. If it gets faster Fed still can't, but now Djokovic can't reach everything either.
Add to this that Federer has the heavier weight of shot, and arguably plays the more attacking shot, and the faster condition benefits him more.

I'm well aware that this doesn't work if he draws someone like Tsonga who gets an even bigger kick (Fed would destroy JWT on a slow court) but at this stage in his career we're not talking about Federer walking out there like he would at 25 and beating these guys up regardless, it's about things falling for him now.

So yes; faster courts would tilt the balance towards Federer against the other top 3 because it would hurt them more than him.

BB, I don't disagree with what you say here. I do think the slowing of some courts on the tour has hurt the players like Fed who look for winners at the first opportunity rather than the % players in the Murray mould. But when the slowing of Federer is added to the lament of the slowing of the courts then that rather lessens the original complaint rather than compounds it.

It's a side issue anyway. Federer is no longer favourite to win any slam he enters, principally because his shot making has more margin for error than his main rivals and the fact that he doesn't seem to have the focus to play at his highest level as consistently as he used to. But you'll find no disagreement from me that slower courts and a larger number of dangermen to face in tournaments compound those two basic issues.

Fed would destroy JWT on a slow court

I agree with your post in general but that quoted bit, I don;t. The reason Federer loses against the firepower guys is because he plays them on slow courts actually. Like he lost v Sod at the FO when it rained and the court was dead slow. The reason is that his shots certainly become slow and give that extra time to his opponents he usually rushes up. However the big hitters are less affected by the slow conds cause it gives them time to get on the ball and pull big shots. Those big shots, though slower, are still very big and impossible to handle. Nadal experienced the same problem v Sod in the 2009 FO. Slow courts can certainly favour big hitterscause they can simply pull winners there where the others find it harder.

Wimbledon is pretty slow the second week. However Tsonga serve and ground shots were still powerful enough to shoot through Fed while Fed had his weaponery cut out.

Fed's movement around the court has been noticeably worse for the last 2 or 3 years. One of the reasons is FH was so great was that he got into position for it so quickly - almost like he was moving to where the ball would be before his opponent even hit the shot.
Whether it's a loss of anticipation, reaction time, or the 'explosive speed' already mentioned, or a combination of all three, who's to say exactly. But it was bound to happen with age and mileage - over 1000 matches.

JuliusHMarx wrote:But it was bound to happen with age and mileage - over 1000 matches.

That's way I believe Nadal won't go much further from where he is now. He has run more miles than nearly anyone else.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Whether it's a loss of anticipation, reaction time, or the 'explosive speed' already mentioned, or a combination of all three, who's to say exactly. But it was bound to happen with age and mileage - over 1000 matches.

It certainly looks like it but it seems it still in him. The way he played both semis in London O2 (And the whole week there) and FO, he was so quick at anticipating and taking things in his own hands. That's why I think healthy he still has teh quickest hands out there. He still isn't being dictated by anybody. However he certainly tires as the match goes on and the long rallies tire him. He seems to be the only top player lacking stamina. THta was his weakness in pre-2003 and it is now cause despite him working very hard....the top players have pushed the bar much higher than Hewitt ever did.

THis is why it's so clear that a faster court with short rallies would favour him as it ALWAYS did.

Good observation Jeremy, Nadal relies on his speed more than Fed and even more than Novak and Andy. Especially since he runs around so many forehands. I think if Nadal wants to be a dominant force in the future he needs to start working on his plan B right now because the style he currently plays will be much harder to replicate once he loses a step. I think he needs to really work on stepping in the court and hitting a few more balls up the line and flatter, incorporating it in with his base game of defense and heavy spin shots. Borg and Wilander couldn't keep this style up for very long and it is doubtful Rafa will be able. This is a real good test
for him to see if he can develop more variety and another way to skin the cat.

Plan B? Serve and Volley? Taking time to his opponents? Now we are going to have fun. The idea of a plan B did not occur to him the last 9 times he played Davydenko and Djoko.

We'd better rely on his team to find him a "plan B"! Bionic knees maybe?

Well, I think Nadal has grown a great deal from when he first broke onto the tour with 100 mph serve. He has improved a lot of areas in his game since 05, you may not want to acknowledge that but it is clear as his results have gotten better on faster surfaces. I am not suggesting he go S and V. But that he takes the initiative a bit earlier in points and mixes his game up more. He actually is a pretty good volleyer and has a good flat forehand when he uses it. His flat forehand at AO 2009 was terrifying, yet he seems to pull it out very infrequently. His serve was very impressive in securing free point at the USO last year. It seems this year he has reverted to playing more of his old style of strictly just counterpunching, which he is great at but he will find that the returns on this style will continue diminish if he doesn't break out and use more aggression.

Nadals plan will always remain the same; and he needs to be fast as hell to execute it. At the minute the main reason he is being quite competitive is due to his strong mentality and concentration, not that his game is developing nicely, cause he was quite lucky against Golubev and should have lost 2 of those 3 sets. Sadly Muller will also fall victim to the lack of mental strength, just the way it is.

Well JM for his sake I hope he does start playing differently. I think we saw glimpses that Nadal can be a good attacking player at AO 09 and USO 10 but he needs to mix up his game more to continue to have the same success. Lets see if it happens.

socal1976 wrote:Well JM for his sake I hope he does start playing differently. I think we saw glimpses that Nadal can be a good attacking player at AO 09 and USO 10 but he needs to mix up his game more to continue to have the same success. Lets see if it happens.

It's not about mixing...it's about being able to dictate instead of being dictated. Very simple. This requires to take the ball earlier and hit flatter while keeping the UEs down. Strategy is very simple but the execution is what those 1000s players are trying to achieve day in day out when they cannot out run their opponents. This is what some of us call "being really talented". Not topspinning a ball at 4 or 5krpm. Anybody can do that. It's the running that comes with it that can't be done by everybody else except Nadal.

That is pretty silly Tenez, you really believe anyone can hit a forehand with 4 or 5 thousand RPM? That means the ball spinning at 80 times a second, you don't think that takes ability? I don't know why you persist with this argument because it doesn't go anywhere and nobody except a few rabid fed apologists (different from ordinary fed fans) accept your thesis. I certainly, find it really ridiculous.

I will have to do a thread on the brilliant ball striking of Nadal again, when I get a break in my schedulue. Then we can really have it out on this subject. Not anyone can become world #1, not anyone who is fast and fit can win grandslams, it is ludicrous to even argue it.

Plan B's I think are concepts thrown around at will. Various adjustments are made in players games. A baseliner trying S&V is disaster. Nadal will always find a way around his recent loses. History has shown no player that matters in slams has ever dominated him. He has been doing the domination. Remember he has still beaten Djokovic 16 times and also 5 straight times before. I feel Nadal should only start digging up answers should they meet at USO and he loses again. In terms of slam domination, he still has been the most dominant over his main rivals.

Had Nadal been nurtured by a typical American/French coach, I do think he would play more on the front foot, but ultimately not have the strength of mind to pull through against decent opponents. He has been quite lucky that his uncle doesn't follow other's training methods, otherwise he would just be another Verdasco.

There seems to be a dual edged problem for Federer...on slow courts his opponents can line up their power shots betters, on fast courts his movement is becoming slightly exposed against the best. Personally actually disagree with Tenez and think his best chance of a slam is actually at the French because his movement is more of an issue on the faster surfaces but which are now slower, so he has to move really quickly in the ralleys if you know what I mean. Also, FO is slightly faster (but still loads slower than SW19 and USO despite what people say) too which plays into his serve better. After all, he beat Nole when Djoko was on top form at the French, and played well in patches against Nadal but we know he cant really beat Nadal on any surface now - he needs Nadal to be out of the picture at any slam as its just a bad matchup for him. So if Nadal could be taken out of FO, I can see Fed still winning there....after all isnt the FO amongst where he's done the best for the past 3-4 years say in terms of reaching finals? Plus he did really well at slow Hamburg many years ago when movement wasnt as big a factor - he still has the shots, as long as he doesnt have to move explosively side to side and the shanking ensues (he needs to get that Prostaff racquet re-bored out to 95sq in too).

So I agree BB, to win a slam, any slam, Fed now needs to be the beneficiary of a good draw plus still needs a huge weapon - what is that, maybe find a way to crank his serve more? After all Pete's serve even 7-8 years after retiring was rated as still being a top 5 serve in the current game by Roger. I guess Roger doesnt have quite the same weight of shot where he can just simply outmuscle the top guys now. Pete had THAT serve and USO in 2002 was a much faster surface making Pete's serve simply unplayable for large parts of the match...after all Pete's record at USO wasnt half bad, even at the end of his career he was reaching finals and semi's there against guys 10 years - yep 10 years - younger than him.

Anyway....at least Roger is still giving us matches to savour and show what he's still capable of - the match against Monaco was sublime, a joy to watch. If he can string 3-4 matches like that together he would surely be a strong contender for the title. However - the problem is that Monaco's game. like Roddick's, is a nice 'gimme' for Roger.
Nole's and Nadal's isnt and they know how to hurt him and get inside his head - Roger knows that his current peak tennis against those guys on balance probably cant do it anymore, and that must be a hard thing for him to live with now. But you never know...it only takes him to have a great day and them to have a less than 100% day and anything could happen.

Again, it comes down to the draw and luck of form on the day...

socal1976 wrote:That is pretty silly Tenez, you really believe anyone can hit a forehand with 4 or 5 thousand RPM? That means the ball spinning at 80 times a second, you don't think that takes ability? I don't know why you persist with this argument because it doesn't go anywhere and nobody except a few rabid fed apologists (different from ordinary fed fans) accept your thesis. I certainly, find it really ridiculous.

I will have to do a thread on the brilliant ball striking of Nadal again, when I get a break in my schedulue. Then we can really have it out on this subject. Not anyone can become world #1, not anyone who is fast and fit can win grandslams, it is ludicrous to even argue it.

Of course most top players can do it...more or less. What's so special of having a ball rotating that much if at the end of the day it lands in the middle of the court. It can only benefit someone who can run for ever. THat's why players don;t use it especially that they will tire much quicker doing so. Can't you see you are contradicting yourself?

"Nadal has the best FH out there but still needs the best legs and stamina to chase the balls his opponents can hit out out of his FH".

THINK! You really are credulous if you think only Nadal can do it. A light frame and special strings and there you go. It's what comes with it that is really tough to do and what probably injured him all along his career.

Lol, any player who attempts to hit the ball with as much RPM per minute as Nadal will simple rip their arms off. More fool then if they actually could and refuse to . After, hit a few of those to Federer's backhand and winning the set is guaranteed. Hit a few of those consistently and you win 10 slams. Clearly then Murray wasn't thinking properly in his two finals against Federer, he could just hit as much rpm as Nadal. Clearly more idiot the rest of the tour then as well

lydian wrote:- Roger knows that his current peak tennis against those guys on balance probably cant do it anymore, and that must be a hard thing for him to live with now. But you never know...it only takes him to have a great day and them to have a less than 100% day and anything could happen.
.

Typical of Lydian "subtle" slaying of Federer. The facts are actually showing the opposite. On the day he is still the best player out there. It's being able to deliver consistently and days in a row that is clearly his weakness now.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol, any player who attempts to hit the ball with as much RPM per minute as Nadal will simple rip their arms off. More fool then if they actually could and refuse to . After, hit a few of those to Federer's backhand and winning the set is guaranteed. Hit a few of those consistently and you win 10 slams. Clearly then Murray wasn't thinking properly in his two finals against Federer, he could just hit as much rpm as Nadal. Clearly more idiot the rest of the tour then as well

Correct, if any player could do it, and they witness the success Nadal had against Federer, why wouldn't Murray who has the speed and fitness not hit 4-5000 rpm forehands to fed's backhand in all their matchups? Why wouldn't Novak do the same, or any of the top pros. If it is so easy to hit like Nadal, and Nadal has had the most success of anyone on tour against Fed then every top player would go out there and duplicate Nadal's gameplan and crank up the RPMs on his forehand.

socal1976 wrote:Correct, if any player could do it, and they witness the success Nadal had against Federer, why wouldn't Murray who has the speed and fitness not hit 4-5000 rpm forehands to fed's backhand in all their matchups? Why wouldn't Novak do the same, or any of the top pros. If it is so easy to hit like Nadal, and Nadal has had the most success of anyone on tour against Fed then every top player would go out there and duplicate Nadal's gameplan and crank up the RPMs on his forehand.

Murray is not LH and certainly han;t got Nadal's mobility in terms of pace, agility and stamina. SA is your ally. Do I need to say more?

SA isn't my ally, I don't have allies or enemies on this site, it really isn't all that important to me. This isn't the Napoleanic wars. If you say something that makes sense I agree with you, even BB who annoys me greatly at times, if he makes a comment I agree with, and it happens every now and again I agree with him.

Lol more comedy. To hit at that much RPM you also have to be left handed. This gets better. Never knew Bruguera was left handed either
Tenez, how many times must i make mockery of your arguments? You make it too easy, they full of holes.

Yes Lydian; I suppose another way to look at it is this:

1. Chance of not getting the few players outside the top 4 who bother him - 80% (draw avoids and/or they get knocked out earlier).
2. Chance of not having to play both the top 2 - 70%
3. Chance of beating one of them when they meet, taking into account some surface match-ups - 35%.

Compound probability = .8 x .7 x .35 = 20%

Number of Slams left to him = 9 (to end of 2013)

Expected Slams = 9 x 20% = 1.8 Slams

He might take that if offered!

When I say something that makes sense you comes with an absurd argument and ignore the argument is supported. I have explained why not everybody does it. They simply cannot as much as Nadal. But you fail, purposedly I guess, to explain why Nadal is doing so much running despite having a great FH? When Federer had a great FH, it was the other who were doing the running.

Federer needs to go back to number 2 if he really wants to up his chances to win more slams. So far he has lost grounds...but things coudl change.

You mean so he gets a chance of Murray instead of Djokovic/Nadal?

It could easily happen: if Nadal were not to make the final and Federer win this there'd be hardly anything in it.

Yes....though Murray will be a tough cookie too but as a rule less likely to reach the semi in good shape than the other 2. The main difference is that I feel though Murray is a physical player like Djoko and Nadal his shots are not frustrating Roger as much and you feel that Federer has a better chance of dictating than having to battle long rallies.

Yeah but Federer has a lot to defend after the USO..too whereas Nadal hardly anything. More likely to happen next spring.....but how will Federer be in 6 months? Not good is, it?

No, tends not to be too great when you approach your 31st, as he will be doing then.

Then again, what do you make of my calculation of expected Slams? He must get a couple of good draws/runs in say 9 more.

bogbrush wrote:No, tends not to be too great when you approach your 31st, as he will be doing then.

Then again, what do you make of my calculation of expected Slams? He must get a couple of good draws/runs in say 9 more.

I want 4 more! nothing less!


It's changing too fast out there to really bother about the top 2 or 3 only. If anything guys like Dimitrov, Young, Harrison, Dolgo might quickly turn into banan skins for any top player in the next few months. Djoko, Murray and Nadal can get injured as it happened so many times before.

Look at Nadal's draws last year. He only met 2 top 5 in his 3 slam victories and one as you mentioned was completly knackered!!! So sure anything can happen.

Tenez wrote:Look at Nadal's draws last year. He only met 2 top 5 in his 3 slam victories and one as you mentioned was completly knackered!!! So sure anything can happen.

That is a bit of a shocker isn't it?

That's nothing - Sampras won 3 of his 7 Wimby's without meeting a top 15 player.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Look at Nadal's draws last year. He only met 2 top 5 in his 3 slam victories and one as you mentioned was completly knackered!!! So sure anything can happen.

That is a bit of a shocker isn't it?

Yep with Davydenko and Delpo both his "betes noires" injured, Federer injured in Wimby, Djoko going througha crisis and Murray injured at the USO. When people say Nadal's form this year dropped from last year, I am not convinced at all. He woudl have 2 slams again, more TMS than ever, had he not met Djoko so many times. If anything he has improved....but still an injury is always around the corner with him...or even in the press room nowadays.

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's nothing - Sampras won 3 of his 7 Wimby's without meeting a top 15 player.

WOW!!! You come with good info today JHM! Though I think you mean top 10.

I guess at that time grass was a very peculiar surface and anything could happen..unless you had a first class serve. I must say I read the list of players he played in his 14 slams and many I could not remember despite having pretty tight matches, (ex Braasch in 4 tight sets?) .

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's nothing - Sampras won 3 of his 7 Wimby's without meeting a top 15 player.

WOW!!! You come with good info today JHM! Though I think you mean top 10.

I guess at that time grass was a very peculiar surface and anything could happen..unless you had a first class serve. I must say I read the list of players he played in his 14 slams and many I could not remember despite having pretty tight matches, (ex Braasch in 4 tight sets?) .

You'll probably find that quite a few RG winners in the 1980's and 1990's did not have to play many top 10 players for similar reasons - tennis really was played on 3 very different surfaces in those days.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Look at Nadal's draws last year. He only met 2 top 5 in his 3 slam victories and one as you mentioned was completly knackered!!! So sure anything can happen.

That is a bit of a shocker isn't it?

Of course it is a shocker for the presenting of facts. If you actually stop gossiping and concentrate on tennis facts, you'll learn a thing or two

Nadal slams 2010

French Open

No.5 Soderling

Wimbledon

No.5 Soderling (Seeded 6th as per Wimbledon), No.4 Andy Murray

USO

No.3 Djokovic

Could be laughable for example Federer playing 1 top 5 for 2 slams in 2009. Del Potro at the FO. Well if not for Roddick at No.6 at Wimbledon and that's me assuming Roddick is a top player *wink*, he would basically have played just 1 top 10 player for both slams, incredible!

Compare that to Djokovic who at AO this year beat 2 top 5's and 1 top 5 at Wimbledon for 2 slams.

The chances of one top 5 player playing others in a top 5 for each slam is 2. For all his 3 slams last year, Nadal played at least 1 top 5. Logic tells us this is not a disaster but logic is the strongest point of Federer fans is it? Haven't met one with it yet

Simple_Analyst wrote:The chances of one top 5 player playing others in a top 5 for each slam is 2. For all his 3 slams last year, Nadal played at least 1 top 5. Logic tells us this is not a disaster but logic is the strongest point of Federer fans is it? Haven't met one with it yet

What does that mean? "The chances of one top 5 player playing others in a top 5 for each slam is 2"? It's not English.

If you meant that the most one can play is 2 then you're wrong, because they can play 3 but I can't say for sure until you rephrase it.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's nothing - Sampras won 3 of his 7 Wimby's without meeting a top 15 player.

WOW!!! You come with good info today JHM! Though I think you mean top 10.

I guess at that time grass was a very peculiar surface and anything could happen..unless you had a first class serve. I must say I read the list of players he played in his 14 slams and many I could not remember despite having pretty tight matches, (ex Braasch in 4 tight sets?) .

You'll probably find that quite a few RG winners in the 1980's and 1990's did not have to play many top 10 players for similar reasons - tennis really was played on 3 very different surfaces in those days.

Indeed. It's the introduction of the larger graphite racquets that made those 2 surfaces play so differently.

Bogbrush, grammar has never been SA's strongest point. Nor his attempts @ pretending that he's anything other than a Federer basher.

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:The chances of one top 5 player playing others in a top 5 for each slam is 2. For all his 3 slams last year, Nadal played at least 1 top 5. Logic tells us this is not a disaster but logic is the strongest point of Federer fans is it? Haven't met one with it yet

What does that mean? "The chances of one top 5 player playing others in a top 5 for each slam is 2"? It's not English.

If you meant that the most one can play is 2 then you're wrong, because they can play 3 but I can't say for sure until you rephrase it.

The greatest comeback ; Write English.
Seems you understand what has been written that 1 top 5 player has 2 chances of playing other players in the top 5 especially for Nadal who is seeded either 1 or 2, you get that sherlock?

Infact, in detail, it's more like 2 and half depending on whether the player is seeded 1 or 2. If Nadal is seeded 1, he has a chance to play No.2 in finals and No.3 or 4 in semi finals. Unless you want to tell me then that in the quarter finals, he is scheduled to play No.5 seed as well. Being a 2nd seed, he will have a chance to play a No.1 in a final or a No.3 or 4 in the semi finals. Can't see whats hard to understand then then he can play 2 top 5 players per slam.

So tell us Bogbrush, where is the shocker here? Was Nadal supposed to ask the slam organisers to allow him to play all the top 5 in every slam?

He's started pretending? I must have missed that.

luciusmann wrote:Bogbrush, grammar has never been SA's strongest point. Nor his attempts @ pretending that he's anything other than a Federer basher.

Blame the British Education system. Being Italian/French who spent some time in that education system of yours, your verdict as a renown grammar teacher on 606v2 has made me realise it was simply a waste of time

Now get back to gossipping and leave tennis to me.