Why I will be supporting Nadal on Sunday

First topic message reminder :

I've never done it before. I've never yet rooted for Rafa Nadal to in a tennis match, but I will be on Sunday.

Throughout 2011 I was pleased to see Djokovic put Nadal to he sword repeatedly. I took pleasure in seeing the guy who wore people down being worn down. What goes around comes around, I felt.

But this Sunday I'm going to be cheering on Nadal, and not half-heartedly either because there's a lot of reasons for it.

1. Because he deserves his 7th French. That achievement is no flash in the pan, no rush of form, it's because he's got the best game, by miles, for this surface. Fair play, I want him to get his 7.

2. Because it would be bull for the harmonisation of the courts to usher in another Holy Grail type record (look at the routine French/Wimbledon doubles now...). I'm fed up of this development eroding one of the unique aspects of this sport - that to rule on all surfaces meant conquering the specialists on their chosen ground. I don't want this done until the courts have diverged again.

3. Because Djokovic appears to have become a focus for a peculiar type of tennis fan afflicted with nationalism and aggression. It's tough on those who aren't like that but too many are and I don't wish to witness their antics.

4. Speaking of antics, I don't want to witness Djokovic's either. What on Earth is possessing the man who will applaud opponents shots and make calls against himself to celebrate in this way? Doesn't he realise how ridiculous and offensive it is? I don't want to see that on Sunday.

5. Because it means Federer retains a decent chance of getting to #1. He will, remarkably, have lost virtually no ground to Djokovic (2580 to ND, 2080 to RF) through the clay season, and given he only played three events that's pretty handy. A Nadal win keeps the target feasible until after Shanghai.

So Vamos Rafa! (feels very weird doing that)

I never said he hasn't slowed but he is capable still physically of a high level of accomplishment. A great many older players have had success in their 30s, if Ferrer can do it at the same age or Agassi can reach #1 at 33 well then Fed can still have success in his thirties. I think his serve is better now than it has ever been. I also think he is better now at coming over the backhand return than he has ever been. Of course he has lost a half step but other great champions have found away to be competitive at a much, much older age than fed. Even in the modern era.

Only reason I could laugh at Djokovic tomorrow is that he doesn't get to win the career slam. Oh and Socal will be crying himself to sleep.

socal1976 wrote:I never said he hasn't slowed but he is capable still physically of a high level of accomplishment. A great many older players have had success in their 30s, if Ferrer can do it at the same age or Agassi can reach #1 at 33 well then Fed can still have success in his thirties. I think his serve is better now than it has ever been. I also think he is better now at coming over the backhand return than he has ever been. Of course he has lost a half step but other great champions have found away to be competitive at a much, much older age than fed. Even in the modern era.

In an era of endless rallies, unprecedented physicality and slow courts?

I think not.

Give the USO a slick surface, or have the grass of Wimbledon low biuncing and fast and you'd have a point. Sand it up in the US, or have big slow balls on high bouncing grass and were back to the type of attrition that saw two super-fit guys broken after three sets last year.

I like both - Djokovic for his crisp shots and daring approach on crucial points, and Nadal for his tenacity. On Clay, however, Nadal is the undisputed king. Tomorrow, I will root for Rafa as he deserves to have a record of his won and 7th RG would be perfect. I reckon Rafa will win 3-1.

I come to the tennis boards only during majors. I recall there was so much hot air blowing here about Rafa's big lungs. You can't win ten titles in tennis with big lungs as your only weapon. As a Fed fan, I did not enjoy Rafa's style at first, but have since grown to like his fighting spirit, his unique skills, and the way he conducts himself.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Only reason I could laugh at Djokovic tomorrow is that he doesn't get to win the career slam. Oh and Socal will be crying himself to sleep.

Buzz off JM, tennis is my pastime I won't be crying win or lose tomorrow, makes no impact in my life. If anything Novak should be loose because no one expects him to win. I think he will play a great match tomorrow and win a close one. Win or lose at least he sent surly press conference boy (aka Federer) home minus about 500 less ATP points from this year's edition of RG.

Personally, I think Nadal has much more to lose in any case. Sure Djokovic will miss out on doing the Grand Slam if he loses but his stronger surfaces will lie ahead. However, if Nadal loses it torpedos his last stronghold and his invincibilty on clay (a surface he has owned for years) will be blown to smithereens and what it would do to his state of mind god only knows especially considering the stranglehold Djoko has had over Nadal of late.

Honestly socal, relax, your comments are tainted with spite 'press conference boy (aka Federer)', I don't think many of us Fed fans, certainly not me would resort to such abuse of players and then says he doesn't actually care who wins or loses tomorrow. If that's so, why make such petty remarks? Clearly it does matter to you, why would you otherwise make such spiteful remarks?

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I never said he hasn't slowed but he is capable still physically of a high level of accomplishment. A great many older players have had success in their 30s, if Ferrer can do it at the same age or Agassi can reach #1 at 33 well then Fed can still have success in his thirties. I think his serve is better now than it has ever been. I also think he is better now at coming over the backhand return than he has ever been. Of course he has lost a half step but other great champions have found away to be competitive at a much, much older age than fed. Even in the modern era.

In an era of endless rallies, unprecedented physicality and slow courts?

I think not.

Give the USO a slick surface, or have the grass of Wimbledon low biuncing and fast and you'd have a point. Sand it up in the US, or have big slow balls on high bouncing grass and were back to the type of attrition that saw two super-fit guys broken after three sets last year.

Agassi reached the final of the USO in 2005 on slowed down courts and conditions at nearly 36 years old. He won the AO at 33 in 2003. The courts were slowed down in the late 90s and early 2000s and luxilons came out around the same time. Laverfan produced a post that the USO admitted to slowing the courts between 2001 and 2002 and then the same official stated that the courts have been consistent since 2003. Therefore yes Agassi managed a final with slowed down conditions at over 4 years older than Roger. And he took a set and should have taken 2 sets off of Roger at his absolute best playing on his ideal surface.

luciusmann wrote:Honestly socal, relax, your comments are tainted with spite 'press conference boy (aka Federer)', I don't think many of us Fed fans, certainly not me would resort to such abuse of players and then says he doesn't actually care who wins or loses tomorrow. If that's so, why make such petty remarks? Clearly it does matter to you, why would you otherwise make such spiteful remarks?

Lucius federer's surly nature in post Novak grandslam losses is established now after the USO. I only resorted to lashing out because of Josiah's comments. I don't single out any poster when their player loses or wish a loss on their favorite player and say things like "socal will be crying himself to sleep". Of course I care if Novak wins or not. But win or lose I will feel that he had a successful tournament. He topped last years performance, got to the final, had some nice comebacks and he beat Roger. I try to focus on the positive. Of course I care a great deal if Novak wins tomorrow but if he loses I still feel good about how he performed in the tournament especially if he gives Rafa a real fight on his ideal surface.

luciusmann wrote:Honestly socal, relax, your comments are tainted with spite 'press conference boy (aka Federer)', I don't think many of us Fed fans, certainly not me would resort to such abuse of players and then says he doesn't actually care who wins or loses tomorrow. If that's so, why make such petty remarks? Clearly it does matter to you, why would you otherwise make such spiteful remarks?

You have to make allowances; the whole Djokovic fan thing is built on some silly siege mentality cr@p plus he's understandly really tense for tomorrow.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I never said he hasn't slowed but he is capable still physically of a high level of accomplishment. A great many older players have had success in their 30s, if Ferrer can do it at the same age or Agassi can reach #1 at 33 well then Fed can still have success in his thirties. I think his serve is better now than it has ever been. I also think he is better now at coming over the backhand return than he has ever been. Of course he has lost a half step but other great champions have found away to be competitive at a much, much older age than fed. Even in the modern era.

In an era of endless rallies, unprecedented physicality and slow courts?

I think not.

Give the USO a slick surface, or have the grass of Wimbledon low biuncing and fast and you'd have a point. Sand it up in the US, or have big slow balls on high bouncing grass and were back to the type of attrition that saw two super-fit guys broken after three sets last year.

Agassi reached the final of the USO in 2005 on slowed down courts and conditions at nearly 36 years old. He won the AO at 33 in 2003. The courts were slowed down in the late 90s and early 2000s and luxilons came out around the same time. Laverfan produced a post that the USO admitted to slowing the courts between 2001 and 2002 and then the same official stated that the courts have been consistent since 2003. Therefore yes Agassi managed a final with slowed down conditions at over 4 years older than Roger. And he took a set and should have taken 2 sets off of Roger at his absolute best playing on his ideal surface.

That must be why the finalists used to be crawling into a fourth set back then. Or maybe they weren't.

Jeez, haven't you noticed that physicality is now so dominant a feature of the game, more than any time in history?

So what BB, tennis is a physical sport. I don't have a problem with the role of fitness and strength in tennis. i want the strongest and fittest athletes we can get.

Of course not doped up but the best athletes we could get otherwise.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Personally, I think Nadal has much more to lose in any case. Sure Djokovic will miss out on doing the Grand Slam if he loses but his stronger surfaces will lie ahead. However, if Nadal loses it torpedos his last stronghold and his invincibilty on clay (a surface he has owned for years) will be blown to smithereens and what it would do to his state of mind god only knows especially considering the stranglehold Djoko has had over Nadal of late.

If Nadal loses tomorrow of course it will be shocking but those that think he will be destroyed are being melodramatic to say the least. Nadal knows about loss and recovery. He has lost in RG before and to Soderling of all people. He came back the next year and straight setted Soderling in the final. He had that loss to Federer at Wimbledon in 2007 and came back and beat Federer in the final the next year. He was thrashed by Tsonga at the AO one year and came back and won it the next. He was even beaten by Djokovic in 7 straight finals and then won both Monte Carlo and Rome by beating Djokovic.

No tennis player wins all matches. The trick is not to get destroyed after a loss. Nadal appears to be able to do this.

socal1976 wrote:So what BB, tennis is a physical sport. I don't have a problem with the role of fitness and strength in tennis. i want the strongest and fittest athletes we can get.

Neat change of topic. If you recall, you were trying to pretend that it was possible for a 33 year old to compete in today's conditions, not defend fitness.

With all due respects a loss against Soderling is nothing compared to a loss against your biggest rival. Soderling was never going to be a threat to Rafa but Djokovic most certainly is.

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Personally, I think Nadal has much more to lose in any case. Sure Djokovic will miss out on doing the Grand Slam if he loses but his stronger surfaces will lie ahead. However, if Nadal loses it torpedos his last stronghold and his invincibilty on clay (a surface he has owned for years) will be blown to smithereens and what it would do to his state of mind god only knows especially considering the stranglehold Djoko has had over Nadal of late.

If Nadal loses tomorrow of course it will be shocking but those that think he will be destroyed are being melodramatic to say the least. Nadal knows about loss and recovery. He has lost in RG before and to Soderling of all people. He came back the next year and straight setted Soderling in the final. He had that loss to Federer at Wimbledon in 2007 and came back and beat Federer in the final the next year. He was thrashed by Tsonga at the AO one year and came back and won it the next. He was even beaten by Djokovic in 7 straight finals and then won both Monte Carlo and Rome by beating Djokovic.

No tennis player wins all matches. The trick is not to get destroyed after a loss. Nadal appears to be able to do this.

Take it from me, a loss tomorrow will see Nadals legacy fundamentally challenged. A h2h advantage over Federer, based as it is on a clay dominated history is nothing compared to four straight losses at each of the Slams to one person.

Trust me, I have the article prepared in draft! . (joke, btw)

For once we agree on something bogbrush.

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Personally, I think Nadal has much more to lose in any case. Sure Djokovic will miss out on doing the Grand Slam if he loses but his stronger surfaces will lie ahead. However, if Nadal loses it torpedos his last stronghold and his invincibilty on clay (a surface he has owned for years) will be blown to smithereens and what it would do to his state of mind god only knows especially considering the stranglehold Djoko has had over Nadal of late.

If Nadal loses tomorrow of course it will be shocking but those that think he will be destroyed are being melodramatic to say the least. Nadal knows about loss and recovery. He has lost in RG before and to Soderling of all people. He came back the next year and straight setted Soderling in the final. He had that loss to Federer at Wimbledon in 2007 and came back and beat Federer in the final the next year. He was thrashed by Tsonga at the AO one year and came back and won it the next. He was even beaten by Djokovic in 7 straight finals and then won both Monte Carlo and Rome by beating Djokovic.

No tennis player wins all matches. The trick is not to get destroyed after a loss. Nadal appears to be able to do this.

Take it from me, a loss tomorrow will see Nadals legacy fundamentally challenged. A h2h advantage over Federer, based as it is on a clay dominated history is nothing compared to four straight losses at each of the Slams to one person.

Trust me, I have the article prepared in draft! . (joke, btw)

So if he had lost in the 4 semis it would have been better for his reputation? That makes no sense.

It Must Be Love wrote: So if he had lost in the 4 semis it would have been better for his reputation? That makes no sense.

The issue is that losing 4 slams in a row, all to your biggest rival more or less discredits the notion that you can be the GOAT, especially when the said player already has 6 less slams then another contender and has never successfully defended any of his slams off clay successfully. I'm not by any means saying Nadal is awful or isn't a great player but after so many years of some militant Nadal fans throwing out the H2H ad nausea and insisting that it's not an issue of match ups with Fed then furthermore all collectively being in denial about Djokovic's threat to Nadal @ Wimbledon last year, it does seem sweet that Nadal is being properly challenged on his home turf as we all knew he wouldn't be by Fed last year @ RG. We've come full circle and it's interesting that only a few of these Nadal fans are left a year later compared to so many of them being around last year. Apparently tenez was the main cause they left but seems rather dubious, the timings were perhaps coincidental (just after Wimbledon)!

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:So what BB, tennis is a physical sport. I don't have a problem with the role of fitness and strength in tennis. i want the strongest and fittest athletes we can get.

Neat change of topic. If you recall, you were trying to pretend that it was possible for a 33 year old to compete in today's conditions, not defend fitness.

It absolutely is possible and Fed is proving right now as Agassi proved it on similar conditions and with similar athletes and technology. I don't see what it is you are being so obtuse about. What is so damned special about Ferrer and his success? Some athletes maintain their game well into their 30s. And it is more than possible for Mr. GOAT even in today's era.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Personally, I think Nadal has much more to lose in any case. Sure Djokovic will miss out on doing the Grand Slam if he loses but his stronger surfaces will lie ahead. However, if Nadal loses it torpedos his last stronghold and his invincibilty on clay (a surface he has owned for years) will be blown to smithereens and what it would do to his state of mind god only knows especially considering the stranglehold Djoko has had over Nadal of late.

If Nadal loses tomorrow of course it will be shocking but those that think he will be destroyed are being melodramatic to say the least. Nadal knows about loss and recovery. He has lost in RG before and to Soderling of all people. He came back the next year and straight setted Soderling in the final. He had that loss to Federer at Wimbledon in 2007 and came back and beat Federer in the final the next year. He was thrashed by Tsonga at the AO one year and came back and won it the next. He was even beaten by Djokovic in 7 straight finals and then won both Monte Carlo and Rome by beating Djokovic.

No tennis player wins all matches. The trick is not to get destroyed after a loss. Nadal appears to be able to do this.

Take it from me, a loss tomorrow will see Nadals legacy fundamentally challenged. A h2h advantage over Federer, based as it is on a clay dominated history is nothing compared to four straight losses at each of the Slams to one person.

Trust me, I have the article prepared in draft! . (joke, btw)

So if he had lost in the 4 semis it would have been better for his reputation? That makes no sense.

No just that clay is Nadal's final stronghold at the moment - the place he has been guaranteed a slam over the last few years even if his game has been in turmoil a slam win at Roland Garros is virtually guaranteed. Djokovic has recently had the upper hand in their matches and so Nadal will be banking on his clay superiority guaranteeing him a slam win here. If that doesn't happen it will shatter his confidence surely as he has owned Roland Garros since he first started playing there.

CaledonianCraig and Bogbrush.

Mmmm... Well according to that theory Nadal may as well hang up his raquet now or rather he should have hung it up after the AO this year having lost to Djokovic in seven straight finals. But he didn't. Also if one match can make such a difference why is Djokovic still considered a threat when Nadal has comprehensively beaten Djokovic in the last two masters finals?

Of course if Nadal does win tomorrow it doesn't mean he has solved Djokovic either. Djokovic is a great player and will still be a huge threat for whenever they next play.

And bogbrush Nadals legacy isn't fundementally about his H2H with Federer it's about his 10 slam titles, I've forgotton how many masters titles and all the amazing matches he's played that will live in peoples memory. Federer's legacy is also safe despite his H2H with Nadal too. If only some of his fans could understand that Nadal has added to Federer's legacy (and vice verca) because of the memorable matches these two great players have played against each other...

Hawkeye no you must remember this is clay a surface that Nadal has owned since he starting playing tennis. If it were on any other surface it would still be a blow but not as scarring as one on his favourite surface which he has never had to deal with in his career at RG against his closest rivals. You cannot deny that would rock his foundations down to the roots and blow that aura of invincibility he has on this surface at RG.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hawkeye no you must remember this is clay a surface that Nadal has owned since he starting playing tennis. If it were on any other surface it would still be a blow but not as scarring as one on his favourite surface which he has never had to deal with in his career at RG against his closest rivals. You cannot deny that would rock his foundations down to the roots and blow that aura of invincibility he has on this surface at RG.

Whole heartedly agree with you there CC, underplaying it won't diminish the significance if Nadal loses tomorrow. It would be akin to Fed's loss to Nadal on his beloved grass @ Wimbledon in 2008, there's no denying it. Back then Fed was going for something that had never been done in the open era, winning 6 in a row @ Wimbledon. Nadal tomorrow is doing something that hasn't been done in the open era, winning 7 RG crowns. In the same way that Fed still won 4 more slams after that shattering blow @ Wimbledon '08, I'm sure Nadal will too, however, Nadal may not benefit from an injured Djokovic as Fed benefited from an injured Nadal in '09. Under such a situation, Nadal may perhaps win another 2 or 3 slams, that's if he loses tomorrow and we certainly can't be sure of that.

You're making me really nervous

luciusmann wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hawkeye no you must remember this is clay a surface that Nadal has owned since he starting playing tennis. If it were on any other surface it would still be a blow but not as scarring as one on his favourite surface which he has never had to deal with in his career at RG against his closest rivals. You cannot deny that would rock his foundations down to the roots and blow that aura of invincibility he has on this surface at RG.

Whole heartedly agree with you there CC, underplaying it won't diminish the significance if Nadal loses tomorrow. It would be akin to Fed's loss to Nadal on his beloved grass @ Wimbledon in 2008, there's no denying it. Back then Fed was going for something that had never been done in the open era, winning 6 in a row @ Wimbledon. Nadal tomorrow is doing something that hasn't been done in the open era, winning 7 RG crowns. In the same way that Fed still won 4 more slams after that shattering blow @ Wimbledon '08, I'm sure Nadal will too, however, Nadal may not benefit from an injured Djokovic as Fed benefited from an injured Nadal in '09. Under such a situation, Nadal may perhaps win another 2 or 3 slams, that's if he loses tomorrow and we certainly can't be sure of that.

No question Lucius, this is the most significant tennis match since wimby 08. Like Federer losing on his beloved grass. It would be gigantic, Novak in away is expected to lose.

Also think how both men would think after the match. If Rafa wins he'd be crowned the greatest clay courter of all-time but would it really change his mindset on Djoko's hold over him? I am not so sure as he realises this is clay - his surface. A defeat for him is too bad for him to even contemplate and if it happend he'll feel where does he go from here?

If Djoko wins he becomes the first man since Rod Laver to win the Grand Slam and would instill belief that he can take Nadal out on ANY surface - yes even Nadal's beloved clay. A loss and he'll realise clay is not his greatest surface and take solace that he has strengthened his No.1 ranking and reached his first final at RG.

Only a loser would support a player that has lost the past 3 slam finals in a row,ffs.

jersey wrote:Only a loser would support a player that has lost the past 3 slam finals in a row,ffs.

So you just switch winners then?

bogbrush wrote:

jersey wrote:Only a loser would support a player that has lost the past 3 slam finals in a row,ffs.

So you just switch winners then?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:a poor quality era of men tennis, very difficultly can be topic of debate.

10 years ago, Tommy Haas reached No.2 in the world, so if this is a poor quality era - goodness knows what 2002 was

I think people have short memories - I was almost begging Fed to 'grow up' and please don't let the next 5-10 years be dominated by Hewitt and Roddick

Thankfully he listened!!

banbrotam wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:a poor quality era of men tennis, very difficultly can be topic of debate.

10 years ago, Tommy Haas reached No.2 in the world, so if this is a poor quality era - goodness knows what 2002 was

I think people have short memories - I was almost begging Fed to 'grow up' and please don't let the next 5-10 years be dominated by Hewitt and Roddick

Thankfully he listened!!

Fed as God listens to people

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I never said he hasn't slowed but he is capable still physically of a high level of accomplishment. A great many older players have had success in their 30s, if Ferrer can do it at the same age or Agassi can reach #1 at 33 well then Fed can still have success in his thirties. I think his serve is better now than it has ever been. I also think he is better now at coming over the backhand return than he has ever been. Of course he has lost a half step but other great champions have found away to be competitive at a much, much older age than fed. Even in the modern era.

In an era of endless rallies, unprecedented physicality and slow courts?

I think not.

Give the USO a slick surface, or have the grass of Wimbledon low biuncing and fast and you'd have a point. Sand it up in the US, or have big slow balls on high bouncing grass and were back to the type of attrition that saw two super-fit guys broken after three sets last year.

I'm with BB on this. In the same way that Mac never truly adapted to the change of the game in the mid-80's, I don't think Fed wants to or should or can even if he wants to. In some ways we're all getting cheated/ Let's be honest the only way we'll have a different final as SW19 is if the promised good weather arrives and stays without a drop of rain - a ridiculous state of affairs

I suppose if the court based dominance of these two continues, maybe just maybe there will be a subtle change to a faster game a The US Open, but don't hold your breathe

At Dubai (and Paris) Fed showed he is the best on the fast hard courts. It is grossly unfair, that we don't see them at the Slams anymore

And yes, not least because Murray also has a far better chance (look where he's beaten Nole - rarely loses to him on a fast hard court, since he got in the Top 8)

banbrotam wrote:

10 years ago, Tommy Haas reached No.2 in the world, so if this is a poor quality era - goodness knows what 2002 was!

Was Tommy Haas ranked #2 in 2002?

2002 Wimbledon seeded players were:
1. Lleyton Hewitt (Champion)
2. Marat Safin (Second Round)
3. Andre Agassi (Second Round)
4. Tim Henman (Semifinals)
5. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (Third Round)
6. Pete Sampras (Second Round)
7. Roger Federer (First Round)
8. Thomas Johansson (First Round)
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero (Second Round)
10. Guillermo Cañas (Second Round)
11. Andy Roddick (Third Round)
12. Jiří Novák (Second Round)
13. Younes El Aynaoui (First Round)
14. Thomas Enqvist (Second Round)
15. Andrei Pavel (Third Round)
16. Nicolas Escudé (Third Round)

banbrotam, You may be right. Tommy Haas was seeded #3 at the French and US Open that year. Maybe he skipped Wimbledon.

The year when Cedric Pioline was in Wimby finals was bad year too.

Go Novak! He has a slightly less boring game than Nadal so I really hope he does it. He looks smooth, Nadal looks ugly and shouts when he hits the ball. Can't understand how anyone could find him entertaining.

Banbro I disagree, the courts were slowed before Roger ever won a single slam. He is the biggest beneficiary of slower surfaces which he has won 16 slams on. Roger won his first slam in 2003 the courts were slowed in the early 2000s. Why is ferrer at the same age able to play as well as ever. Agassi played on pretty much the same conditions and technology even against a lot of the same players. He was successful at a much older age than federer. Look at connors he had to adjust way more to changing conditions. When he came up the racquets were wood and most of the tournaments were on grass. He coped with changing conditions that far exceeded the changes Federer absorbed and he kept winning till he was nearly 40.

Leff wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

10 years ago, Tommy Haas reached No.2 in the world, so if this is a poor quality era - goodness knows what 2002 was!

Was Tommy Haas ranked #2 in 2002?

2002 Wimbledon seeded players were:
1. Lleyton Hewitt (Champion)
2. Marat Safin (Second Round)
3. Andre Agassi (Second Round)
4. Tim Henman (Semifinals)
5. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (Third Round)
6. Pete Sampras (Second Round)
7. Roger Federer (First Round)
8. Thomas Johansson (First Round)
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero (Second Round)
10. Guillermo Cañas (Second Round)
11. Andy Roddick (Third Round) 1
2. Jiří Novák (Second Round)
13. Younes El Aynaoui (First Round)
14. Thomas Enqvist (Second Round)
15. Andrei Pavel (Third Round)
16. Nicolas Escudé (Third Round)

To be fair I have never said 2002 was an exceptional year for tennis. I don't buy you argument anyway: Haas has been in his prime an exceptional tennis player with outstanding technical capabilities: I am in fact surprised he reached the top only for such a short while and without injuries he no doubt would have stayed there for a lot longer.

Anyway, watching the list provided courtesy to Leff, I can identify at least 8 world class champions, 6 of them bacame multi slam winners. Those are important stats and not just hot air era debate.

If you think this is a most incredible period you just need have a look at the dire situation in which the USA tennis has been over the last two - four years, and I am talking about the leading country in the sport, just in case.......

socal1976 wrote:Banbro I disagree, the courts were slowed before Roger ever won a single slam. He is the biggest beneficiary of slower surfaces which he has won 16 slams on. Roger won his first slam in 2003 the courts were slowed in the early 2000s. Why is ferrer at the same age able to play as well as ever. Agassi played on pretty much the same conditions and technology even against a lot of the same players. He was successful at a much older age than federer. Look at connors he had to adjust way more to changing conditions. When he came up the racquets were wood and most of the tournaments were on grass. He coped with changing conditions that far exceeded the changes Federer absorbed and he kept winning till he was nearly 40.

Nope, Federer changed to adapt; if you watch him at 19 he purely serves & volleys against Sampras. He'd have won shed loads whatever and it's only the combination of age and slowness that's now brought him back to the field.

Ok BB, conditions changed on federer. Guess what that is what has happened to virtually every tennis player who has played long enough. Many people state that the end of the wood racquet era really hurt borg. Probably hurt Mcenroe as well. Is Federer the only player that deserves a gold star for playing with changing conditions or technology, the guy who should really complain is Andy Roddick with his power and his movement like a pregnant sow.

Great, we're making progress. It only took about 3 months before you got that so well done.

Correct on the other points too; generally they do change. And you're now really close to understanding how it's helped Djokovic & Nadal.

It's been a long road but I hope worth it.

Hey I never stated the courts weren't slowed down BB. So I don't know what you are so congratulatory about. By the way how do you know how playing with different conditions could have changed Djoko's game. The guy has pretty decent hands and return skills. Takes the ball very early and has won basically all of the quicker tournaments on tour. When he first came on the tour Novak wasn't this fit and didn't hit with as much spin. He also had to adjust to the conditions but his natural game is aggressive. I think you lose the force of your argument when you lump both of them togehter.

banbrotam wrote:10 years ago, Tommy Haas reached No.2 in the world, so if this is a poor quality era - goodness knows what 2002 was

I think people have short memories - I was almost begging Fed to 'grow up' and please don't let the next 5-10 years be dominated by Hewitt and Roddick

Thankfully he listened!!

In 2009 a close to 30 year old Tommy Haas beat Novak Djokovic twice in a row in grass, so if Tommy Haas at his prime is considered as a rubbish player, then I am sorry current state of tennis is even out of question .

Tommy if not for his injury would have been a regular top 10 player in any era.

Yeah, Tommy is not lacking in talent and ability the guy just was injury snake bitten. Great hands, has a much better one handed backhand than federer.

I will be supporting Nadal as well. Court surfaces have a lot to do with the performance, and I think Nadal still has a lot of potential left to show his talent.

tammywilson52 wrote:I will be supporting Nadal as well. Court surfaces have a lot to do with the performance, and I think Nadal still has a lot of potential left to show his talent.

I can assure you that Nadal will not be affected by the surface on Sunday at all!

I was baffled to see this thread re-emerge.

Upon checking the resurrecting post, I'm even more baffled.

bogbrush wrote:I was baffled to see this thread re-emerge.

Upon checking the resurrecting post, I'm even more baffled.

Ha ha! You have no sense of imagination or belief. If Nadal gets to the final it would be a brave man who would put a bet on Federer to beat him... I would fully understand though if you choose to switch alliance.