Review of the Year; a Federer fans perspective

First topic message reminder :

So it's all done and what do I think about 2012? How do I mark it?

Well it has to get 9/10 against a "par" score of 5. I fancied he might recapture the #1, maybe, but I didn't dream he'd have it done by Wimbledon. My idea was that maybe by the US Open he could have got it back; instead he went into that tournament already assured of exiting it as the top player. To get past the 300 weeks mark was even better; there's a reason why cricketers raise their bats at the one extra run that clicks over another set of three figures, and it applies here too.

He also secured his 17th Slam, and 7th Wimbledon. There's no question that this was the one he'd have most wanted - it brought him level with Pete Sampras as the most successful Wimbledon champion ever. The manner of victory would be just as satisfying, taking out his two in-prime challengers in the semi and final. Wonderful stuff.

Anyway, how did the year pan out?

He started with a depressingly familiar loss to Nadal at the Australian. While not what he'd wanted, the AO is a far cry from the fast surface it was until 2007 and nobody was too shocked at that. At least no ranking points were lost.

The first sign of things to come came at Rotterdam where he was slipping to defeat against Davydenko until pulling out the first good turnaround of the season; something that became a feature of the year. In Dubai he got the better of Andy Murray in the final and then headed to Indian Wells to make a hat-trick of tournament wins. There we got a real look at his level when he defeated Nadal en route to the win. An early loss to Roddick in Miami (Andy thereby securing bragging rights as the winner of their final professional match!) wasn't so smart, and then he skipped Monte Carlo in favour of an abbreviated clay campaign. This was hugely successful as his superior adaptability allowed him to win on the slippy blue clay of Madrid, followed by semi appearances in Rome and Roland Garros.

Onto grass where he experienced his only defeat against a 30+ year old player in a zillion years, to Tommy Haas in Halle. The sound clay effort, combined with Djokovic losing three times to Nadal on clay in a big turnaround from their 2011 form meant that he could get the #1 position by winning Wimbledon, so long as Djokovic fell before the final. The draw made these two birds hittable by one stone, by putting them in the same half. The omens weren't good as Federer was striken with back problems in barely scraping past Benneteau from two sets down, then literally limped past Malisse in the next round. However he recovered with a beat-down on perrenial punching bag Youzhny before a semi-final appointment with Djokovic, who had looked dominant through the event until then. Their semi-final simmered for two sets but then Federer was able to sprint awat from 4-4 in the 3rd set. The final followed and the records were set to tumble.

The Olympics may, in retrospect, have been a bridge too far; certainly the Del Potro semi-final can't have helped, but Murray gave him a bit of a pasting in the final, and he pulled out of Toronto (which was more or less a walkover for Djokovic sans top 4 rivals) missing out on another chance to extend his lead at the top of the rankings.

Cincinnatti saw a return to resurgence and he set a remarkable new record; the first Masters Trophy won without dropping serve throughout the tournament (and not many break points either), including a bagel set over Djokovic in the final. In hindsight this was the last high point of the season as a disappointing US Open was ended in the quarters by Berdych, followed by poor showings in Shanghai and Basel. He pulled out of Paris to muster resources for a 7th year-end event but came up short by the narrowest of margins.

So he ends the year with not much left to go for in terms of records; an 8th Wimbledon is probably the only realistic mark left. He does end the year looking a bit knackered, but that's understandable after the big push for #1; 2013 should see a less extravagent schedule, including no Olympics to mess things up, and a few key events skipped.

2012 was a great year for the 31 year old, coming back after Djokovic's dominant 2011 to head the rankings for a while and get a share of the Slam pie plus three more masters events. It could have been even better, but not by much. I think 2013 could still be worth turning up for.

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why does anyone have to "buy who is the best/greatest" Its only the history books that will tell you that and even then the historians will bring it down to statistics. There is far too much biased opinion whilst they are still active players. As has been asked already are you making judgement on their achievements ( because that is still work in progress ) or their style of play ..the tennis purist will have a different opinion about Federer .. than he does of Nadal. Whilst Nadals game is by far the best to those who are not attracted by Federers style.
The arguments made for both sides each in their own way are valid. But who will emerge the best/or the greatest will be in the memories of those who watched their careers unfold. Who was the best the greatest, Laver ?? Connors ?? McEnroe ?? Borg? Sampras ? Those of us who watched them will still have our opinion no matter what the statistics say .

I agree about statistics. What I tried to do was introduce some which are fairly compelling.

Oh, and I think Craig, bantroban, Murdoch and socal may argue about the highlighted passage.

Amazingly enough BB has me sussed out!! But what exactly do you mean 'Haddie-nuff'? What is "the best"? If you mean Nadal in full flow is one of the most effective players ever, then I agree, but it's still way way behind Federer or McEnroe in terms of jaw dropping ability to play ever shot

I like Nadal, but if I could choose to watch him or Miloslav Mecir in his heyday it would be the mercurial Czech/Slovakian every time. Contrary to what people think, I like Murray because when he's at his best (i.e. not moping around for an hour) he also plays a lovely game that is full of variety - as we saw at The Olympics

I emphasise I like Nadal and like watching him play, but he's lower on my list

Hence, these discussions are objective - nobody is right or wrong. I had no time for Sampras's game but loved Agassi's. Each to their own

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not mocking him - I was a huge fan. Much more so than any of today's players.

No I wasn´t suggesting you were mocking him in the real sense JM.. I actually had a lot of time for Tim
albeit so frustrating to watch... a little less of a gentleman and more of a killer he might have won bigger spoils than he did.

Disagree, he only lost out because he had peak Sampras to contend with, and then they slowed the courts.

BB. I'm getting worried here, becasue I couldn't agree more with this comment Henman was grossly underestimated. Significantly not by the two greats who sandwiched him, Sampras and Federer have nothing but high praise for him and it's not just because they are being patronising. If there'd been a roof in 2001, he'd probably have won Wimbledon

Well that is I think what I am saying am I not ???? I agree with your comments as I said "its in the eye of the beholder" and your last sentence says it all for me.. I had no time for Pistol Pete either, that doesn´t mean to say I didn´t realise his ability or his achievements. What I actually said was "the best" will only be the player that each tennis enthusiast believes them to be... statistics wont mean a fig in the final analysis. When the final book is written it will have a bias depending on who writes it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:For me no-one will ever be as good as Henman.
C'mon Tim!

If it hadn't been for Sampras, Hewitt, Ivanisevic and possibly a few others, he'd have won 8 Wimbledons!

Henman was of course the perennial crowd favourite at Wimbledon, but I don't think he's always had the credit he deserves in the wider tennis world.

He is always self-deprecating whenever his fine record v Federer is mentioned - saying modestly that Federer was "around 14 at the time." But the reality is somewhat different. Quite apart from taking out Fed at Wimbledon just after he (Fed) had memorably defeated the then grass king Sampras, he also chalked up wins against him in 2003 and 2004, by which time Federer was either already number one or at least very close to it.

lags72 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:For me no-one will ever be as good as Henman.
C'mon Tim!

If it hadn't been for Sampras, Hewitt, Ivanisevic and possibly a few others, he'd have won 8 Wimbledons!

Henman was of course the perennial crowd favourite at Wimbledon, but I don't think he's always had the credit he deserves in the wider tennis world.

He is always self-deprecating whenever his fine record v Federer is mentioned - saying modestly that Federer was "around 14 at the time." But the reality is somewhat different. Quite apart from taking out Fed at Wimbledon just after he (Fed) had memorably defeated the then grass king Sampras, he also chalked up wins against him in 2003 and 2004, by which time Federer was either already number one or at least very close to it.

If you beat Federer in 2004, then you are some player

banbrotam wrote:

If you beat Federer in 2004, then you are some player

Indeed.

Just six defeats suffered all year and that was one of them

I still think he was one of the three best pure volleyers I've ever seen; McEnroe and Edberg included. He was miles better than Sampras, who came in behind a killer serve for a put-away more often than not.

The volley always seemed so very 'natural' for Tim.

Henman got underestimated simply because of the old inverted snobbery, which at times was on a par with what Murray has to put up with due to the old Scottish thing

It's noticeable that Tim was highly rated by true Tennis fans and away from these shores

I have to agree (once again!!) with BB in as much sometimes Nationalism can get in the way of the big picture

banbrotam the reality is that Henman wasn't as good as those who believed he would win Wimbledon believed (remember he didn't win Queens either and that was always considered a step down from the big one). On the other hand he wasn't that bad either 4 x Wimbledon semis and 1 each (was it?) at the French and the US. He deserved at least one final shot (even Rusedski managed that for heaven's sake!)

What let Tim down (and separates the likes of Sampras and Federer from him) is the lack of a real weapon. Nice serve, real good volleys but no killer shot.

Henman always overachieved at Wimbledon because of his crazy support. Come on Tim! Underneath the mild exterior he was a big show off.

Henman was a fabulous fast court player...Federer really struggled to beat him (and Rafter) when courts were quicker, think Tim had a 6-1 lead. So a great volleyer as people suggest, right up there with the very best.

Disagree about Sampras, you have to look at the dynamics to see his game wasnt the same as Edberg or Mac's. Those 2 relied on 2nd volleys alot more than Pete. As their 1st serve was slower they had more time to get to net, that also meant the returner had more time to dip the ball. So they would often have to play lower volleys, more often, punched into the corners for a weaker reply then put away the 2nd volley. McEnroe is a great volleyer no doubt, but he struggled more to cope with the modern power of guys like Agassi who got the ball back to him much sooner and further down the court producing a weaker volley which they picked off for passing shots.

Sampras' game was different. All about power. THAT serve was a blessing and a curse. If it came back it had speed meaning he had little time to get near the net. Because of this he was often playing fast half-volleys - had the best half-volley of all time in my book, playing clean winners off the shot often. He also had to produce a great first volley given how far back he was. That said, his 2nd volley wasnt quite as strong as theirs, so that 1st volley had to count. For me, guys like Edberg, Rafter and Mac excelled as 2nd-shot volleyers....Sampras (and Henman to a slight lesser degree) as a 1st and half-volleyer. Different types of games but all great, great players - and volleyers.

Watch the deftness on display here from both players...a bygone set of skills: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo3TGQNYk20

hawkeye wrote:Henman always overachieved at Wimbledon because of his crazy support. Come on Tim! Underneath the mild exterior he was a big show off.

Whatever, Hawkeye

JuliusHMarx wrote:If Nadal hadn't played tennis, then he wouldn't have accumulated any stats.

If Agassi hadn't lost interest for a while he might have won more slams than Sampras.

I could go on for days about things that didn't happen, but none of them really mean anything.

lol julius.
You come across like a type of guy who, if in a country where a rigged election has taken place to ensure the current president stays in power, would defy the infuriated public by saying, with the election results in hand, 'I see nothing wrong with this process, it is the only solid stat I have. President Xylomo (or whatever) has clearly won with 98% of the vote, so that's what has been decided.'

The public scream 'But Julius, our good leader Mr.Peacedove would have been elected if not for the rigging!!!'
To which you would reply 'If? Would? All hypotheticals my dear public. If Mr.Peacedove had lost interest in the election campaign President Xylomo may have won anyway. All this hypothetical supposition doesn't mean anything really.'

JuliusHMarx wrote:If Nadal hadn't played tennis, then he wouldn't have accumulated any stats.
If Borg had played the AO, then he might have won 15 slams.
If Connors had played the FO Borg might have only had 3 FOs
If Agassi hadn't lost interest for a while he might have won more slams than Sampras.

If JHM hadnt stopped his Cryptic Thread...

BTW and back to OP, does anyone think after a great 2012 that Federer will reach a slam final again?

No reason why he shouldn't, he is the world number two after all.

Write him off at your peril.



emancipator

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If Nadal hadn't played tennis, then he wouldn't have accumulated any stats.

If Agassi hadn't lost interest for a while he might have won more slams than Sampras.

I could go on for days about things that didn't happen, but none of them really mean anything.

lol julius.
You come across like a type of guy who, if in a country where a rigged election has taken place to ensure the current president stays in power, would defy the infuriated public by saying, with the election results in hand, 'I see nothing wrong with this process, it is the only solid stat I have. President Xylomo (or whatever) has clearly won with 98% of the vote, so that's what has been decided.'

The public scream 'But Julius, our good leader Mr.Peacedove would have been elected if not for the rigging!!!'
To which you would reply 'If? Would? All hypotheticals my dear public. If Mr.Peacedove had lost interest in the election campaign President Xylomo may have won anyway. All this hypothetical supposition doesn't mean anything really.'

That's a very poor analogy, as I'm sure you realise. If only you'd done a better one, I would have taken it more seriously. Or would I?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If Nadal hadn't played tennis, then he wouldn't have accumulated any stats.

If Agassi hadn't lost interest for a while he might have won more slams than Sampras.

I could go on for days about things that didn't happen, but none of them really mean anything.

lol julius.
You come across like a type of guy who, if in a country where a rigged election has taken place to ensure the current president stays in power, would defy the infuriated public by saying, with the election results in hand, 'I see nothing wrong with this process, it is the only solid stat I have. President Xylomo (or whatever) has clearly won with 98% of the vote, so that's what has been decided.'

The public scream 'But Julius, our good leader Mr.Peacedove would have been elected if not for the rigging!!!'
To which you would reply 'If? Would? All hypotheticals my dear public. If Mr.Peacedove had lost interest in the election campaign President Xylomo may have won anyway. All this hypothetical supposition doesn't mean anything really.'

That's a very poor analogy, as I'm sure you realise. If only you'd done a better one, I would have taken it more seriously. Or would I?

No places for ifs here Julius

Was I too subtle there?

hawkeye wrote:Henman always overachieved at Wimbledon because of his crazy support. Come on Tim! Underneath the mild exterior he was a big show off.

So then, there we have it. An overachiever and a big show-off.

No further evidence necessary.

The definitive assessment.

Oh dear .......

Strong words indeed by hawkeye!

Just as well they have renamed "Henman Hill" to "Murray's Mound" lol

sportslover wrote:Strong words indeed by hawkeye!

Just as well they have renamed "Henman Hill" to "Murray's Mound" lol

Legend has it that hawkeye himself - being such an ardent Murray fan - campaigned long & hard for the change.

Wimbledon is no place for overachievers and showoffs ........ (not to mention crazy supporters)

lags

He is a She, but either way who really cares lol

Ah yes, SL, you're right. I was already aware actually, but momentarily forgot.

I guess these lapses happen when you're a "crazy supporter"

Absolutely emancipator, I would never write him off, but I wonder the chances realistically. AO12 and RG are slower so that's will be tougher...Wimb and USO are better chances for him but I just feel it's going to be really hard for him here on in to reach another final.

Henman a show-off? What? He wouldn't say boo to an emancipator, er...a goose.

I don't think the very slow courts will be a hinderence, he can win enough points
with the backhand, which he has more time to yield

The very fast hard courts, of course help him as well

It's just those medium ones, which happen to take up about three quarters of the calendar, compromise him

Ha ha! Of course Henman is a show off. He could work that crowd like a trouper.

Incidentally I've got nothing against Henman. I didn't see him play that much but from what I did see his style of play was attractive if a little functional. The only time I can remember watching a whole match of his was his last at Wimbledon in 2007. I cheered him on for sentimental reasons. Judging from the effect of my cheering it's probably for the best that I never sat on Henman hill...

Well as emancipator says, it's hardly an outlandish notion to suggest that a player who is currently World No. 2 (and with a fairly impressive track record.... ) could get to another Slam Final. But for me there were many signs during this past season - most notably towards its closing weeks - that the prospects are beginning to diminish.

In his best years it was movement and near-perfect footwork that set him apart. Rarely if ever, would he be caught off balance. But time marches on and in the final against Delpo in Basel, and then again at the WTF with Djokovic there were spells when you sensed that his speed and positioning around the court had dropped, albeit by maybe just one or two degrees but of course vital degrees at this level of the sport. And the knock-on effect is that the timing is no longer as reliable as once was.

In the first half of 2012 he conceded several opening sets outside the Slams which in days past he might well have won with relative ease. I think it was a combination of supreme overall talent (which of itself is still very much in evidence), the occasional wondrous shot, and simply 'digging deep' that saw him come through to win many of those matches in three.

Whilst his work is very probably done in terms of major titles, he will continue to frustrate many less accomplished contenders and will be a serious threat at all B03 events in 2013. In the 'Top 6 Predictor' thread for next season I placed him at 5, and I also feel it could be his last appearance at the WTF.

I would just caveat my own negativity by adding that perhaps, perhaps, a lighter schedule could be the key to harnessing sufficient reserves of energy and motivation for maybe one last triumph on a big stage.

lags72 wrote:In his best years it was movement and near-perfect footwork that set him apart. Rarely if ever, would he be caught off balance. But time marches on and in the final against Delpo in Basel, and then again at the WTF with Djokovic there were spells when you sensed that his speed and positioning around the court had dropped, albeit by maybe just one or two degrees but of course vital degrees at this level of the sport. And the knock-on effect is that the timing is no longer as reliable as once was.

In the first half of 2012 he conceded several opening sets outside the Slams which in days past he might well have won with relative ease. I think it was a combination of supreme overall talent (which of itself is still very much in evidence), the occasional wondrous shot, and simply 'digging deep' that saw him come through to win many of those matches in three.

I fully agree. He's definitely lost a step or so, and also seems to conserve himself slightly more often, as though he's not prepared to go haring around the court at all times like he used to. I wonder whether, say in a slam final, he could pour all his effort in and stretch his body without the fear of having to play a match the next day and come close to the movement levels of old? We'll have to see. I do get the sense every so often that he's keeping his powder dry - out of necessity, I hasten to add. Not detracting from the wins of others versus Federer! Regardless, concerning signs at the end of the year, as lags said.

He did have plenty of comeback wins this year, which is an underrated aspect of his game. Many fans see the flair and the athleticism, but overlook Federer's will to win - he's always a danger. He's not seen as a supreme competitor, possibly because of Nadal's unbelievable prowess in that department, but he's hardly a flake. In a way it's been nice to see his defensive powers and footwork more highlighted by commentators and fans in recent years; it wasn't really focused on when he was smashing most people off the back of the court in his halcyon years.

The draws are going to be vital this year, but for what it's worth...I think he'll make 1-2 finals. Oddly I think his best opportunity might be at Roland Garros, particularly if Nadal is #5 and the Fedal QF is avoided. I also think he'll make the USO final, but not Wimbledon.

Silver

Interesting last comment . I would like to ask you do you really believe that Rafa cannot win RG if he is not seeded in the top 4. ? I am curious as to your reasons for that

I think Silver is saying Fed has more of a chance of getting to the final as better chance of missing him in the QF than SF probability wise.
We'll see I guess but I think he'll struggle to get to the semis in most of them outside USO (agree that's his best bet). Dont forget at RG12 he was relatively fortunate that DelPotro got a bad knee after being
2-0 sets up. But hey, luck always plays its part. Its hard to see beyond a Nadal-Djokovic final at RG but alot will depend on Nadal's ranking...and how the other top guys do as well up to RG, if points are shared more evenly Nadal has a better chance of climbing rankings, but he probably needs to be 8,000 pts+ to get to #2...There just arent enough events for him to do that.
If he got the semis of all events pre-clay then around 2,500 points on clay pre-RG that's still only around 4,500 I reckon...probably enough to keep him at #5 position...he's going to be some "floater" at RG...and elsewhere.

lydian wrote:...I think he'll struggle to get to the semis in most of them outside USO...

Interesting - I thought you were previously arguing that Fed was as good, if not better than ever (apologies if I got that wrong), yet you think that 1/4 finals are the realistic best he can expect these days in a GS.

He is better than ever, he just lacks the all court skills and attacking prowess of players like Nadal and Djokovic so QF is a good result for him. If he had more variety then he'd do better.

Its just that Im not too knowledgeable about the rankings and how they work within the GS draws . but it is my thinking that we are all aware that Rafa has a long haul to drag himself up to the top even given his knees are 100% ok.
If he cannot ,because of his lower ranking, be expected to have more than a good chance of winning RG it doesn´t bode good for him.. Because I have always believed that he will win RG or die in the attempt. I am probably the only one on this forum that is actually dreading him playing the AO .. and I confess I have a bad feeling about it. He has not yet said anything that convinces me "he is back" Which is why I feel more positive about him playing clay at the moment.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Silver

Interesting last comment . I would like to ask you do you really believe that Rafa cannot win RG if he is not seeded in the top 4. ? I am curious as to your reasons for that

Sorry, should've explained myself better. I guess I meant that if he stays at #2 and Nadal is on the other side of the draw with Novak (this would be key, as I think Nadal will win the whole deal at RG), then I can't see either Murray or Ferrer taking Federer down on clay. Strange logic and very draw dependant, but it's just a feeling I have, I suppose! But lydian mentions Delpo who I'd forgotten about, he could upset the applecart there. The 'dangerous floater' argument is really interesting this year since both Nadal and Federer have a feasible chance at being #5 at various points in the year. Can't say I agree that Federer's going to struggle to reach the SF of slams though, it still usually takes an almighty performance from someone outside the other big guns to dump him out of a slam early. Fascinating either way, though.

Federer needs more variety in his game, break_in_the_fifth? Hmm.

Haddie-nuff, I also hope Rafa only returns after the AO if he's not quite match-sharp, for his own sake. There'll be plenty more tournaments in his career, and at his best he can beat virtually anywhere so he won't fear a lower ranking over the clay season. The last thing any of us want is for him to crash and burn with injury, I also have a nasty feeling about an AO entry on his behalf.

bitf : I’m a little confused by your assertion that “Federer is better than ever” – not just because I myself don’t find it at all credible, but more because it would seem to directly contradict your own comments earlier in the thread in response to a post by summerblues when discussing the Fed/Rafa match at AO 2012.

I won’t re-quote the full exchanges (they can be found on page 3) but the key points were these:

from summerblues :

" There will always be stretches where he executes well enough so that Rafa will not have any answers and it is tempting to view those stretches as Roger's best play and conclude that if only Roger could sustain his best level he would win "

and then from yourself, in response

"I saw Fed on several occasions missing the lines by feet with his forehand. Those so called stretches were maintainable for much longer than 3 games when he was at his best" (my bold)

As regards Federer lacking the “all court skills and attacking prowess of players like Nadal and Djokovic” I’m really not sure that’s a balanced assessment. His all-court skills and attacking prowess were good enough to beat Rafa in straights earlier this year and to topple an in-form Djokovic at Wimbledon and then again in straights (inc. a bagel) at Cincy.

I think the problem for Federer looking ahead, as outlined in my previous post, is not so much about any lack of attacking prowess but more the ability to reproduce the speed of movement and footwork (allied to what is now less-than-perfect timing and hence inconsistency) that were once the key elements of his armoury. And that’s why I have serious doubts about him getting through seven rounds of a Slam in the way that he managed for a period stretching several years with almost routine efficiency.

Thank you for that Silver. Maybe my glass is half empty but Im feeling very very uneasy.. I think if Rafa returns for the AO its because he is being urged to return from all quarters. I think if he does we will see a very nervy Rafa.. he may even go out early. It is a HUGE test of both mental and physical stamina for him on HC- Even given that he will surely have doubts as to whether his knees will hold up for two weeks under normal circumstances but in a slam, on hc, in Australian heat. oh dear need I say more. His future depends on it not just his rankings or his career. Like you I suspect I wish he would give it a miss. Let his detractors say what they will as to what his reasons are.. Im more concerned for the man than the tennis player.

Yep, I'd rather Nadal sat out AO to be honest and just headed for the South American clay season...build up a few wins, court speed, match fitness, leg strength and groove his shots. I'm not so worried about his long term future in terms of walking, etc, the injury wasnt THAT bad but coming back too soon on sticky AO surface could tweak the knees before he's had chance to really build up muscles around them through match play.

phew... well at least I dont feel like a mother hen then
He actually has not officially said he will as far as I know.. but I can keep wishing.

I'd be surprised if he doesnt enter...but he doesnt really need it given his chances of winning it must be minimal.

lydian wrote:I'd be surprised if he doesnt enter...but he doesnt really need it given his chances of winning it must be minimal.

Yes and he has been quoted as saying he will not enter a tournament unless he feels he has a good chance of winning... and frankly I think we know he doesnt

Obviously break is being sarcastic, come on people get with the programme



emancipator

We are just fine ep...hang on in there

Assuming he enters I can guarantee that the bookies will see Rafa's AO chances as a lot more than 'minimal' and they will set their odds accordingly. More's the pity in a way, because I for one will be placing a little wager.

I just don't go with the notion that he will take weeks and weeks to get back into the groove. Quite the opposite.

It's been a long time since Rafa put in anything less than a strong performance at the Slams. Even in his losses (yes, inc Rosol) he has more often than not played very well but just been beaten by a better opponent on the day.

I am convinced he will be a threat just as soon as any exhos and minor early season warm-ups are done.

lags Believe me I would be more than delighted to see you right and me wrong

I would be surprised if Rafa wasn't top 4 by the French assuming he does return uninjured. He may well drop below Ferrer after Oz but he should then re-take that spot if matters go to plan in Acapulco.

If he were at 5 for RG he will still be favourite. However, a QF against Djoker would make matters very interesting with potentially Murray and Fed still to get through. Even for Rafa that would be a tough run.

Well, that's my honest opinion H-n ; although I know it would seem to be a minority one.

Either way, not much longer to wait before we find out ......

I think if Rafa's knees hold up he's gonna be challenging hard for all the major honours next year.

Actually, I think this break could prove to be a blessing in disguise. He's gonna be fresh, motivated and will have practised hard prior to the start of next year.

If I'm not mistaken the bookies have already installed him as third favourite alongside Federer - they don't miss a trick.

Oh no, now we've done it; expect Henman Bill to wade in with latest odds any minute now.



emancipator

Interestingly lags, I saw general odds the other day that had Nadal as tied-third favourite for the Australian (with Federer), which shows the regard in which he's held more than anything else! Hopefully you can find some decent odds with certain bookies though

Edit: ninja'd by the ghostly emancipator, good work sir. Am I the new Henman Bill?

Hehe I was first