Wimbledon Preview

I know it's early, so everything is coloured by the recent French Open, however, let's begin in earnest: who are the top contenders and how far will each go?

So far, I think we can say the top four are definite contenders to make the quarter finals, with Federer, Nadal & Djokovic as definites for the semis (but you never know, especially how losing to Federer might affect Djokovic).

The big question is, who will win?

Federer
He appears back on form and a key indicator will be if he wins in Halle, anything less, is worrying (every time he's won in Halle, he's usually gone on to win Wimbledon). It's probably fair to say Federer needs Wimbledon the most, grass is his favourite surface and he has something to prove and to be fair, if he wants to stay relevant, he needs a bit more than a cameo in the final (like at the French).

Nadal
Just fresh from another French Open suggests Nadal is on fire, regardless of the laboured victory (this was his closest final ever), however, grass is a different prospect and he did say himself he struggled on clay and that's his favourite surface. Will he struggle on grass too? Queens won't tell us that much and we might only get a flavour once he starts and even then, perhaps only in the second week might we really know what his chances are.

Djokovic
An unknown is how Djokovic will perform, we all know he's a consistently good player this year and he's definitely going to be world number 1 in the next month or two, the question is how he deals with his loss to Federer. Besides his loss, he's only ever got to the semis of Wimbledon and no further so the question is will he go one better and get to the final? It would be fascinating to see how he does and at the moment, we don't know where he's heading.

Overview
While the French Open had few surprises if we think about it (another Federer loss to Nadal, on his favourite surface clay), Wimbledon is a different prospect completely, as this is Federer's favourite surface. Both Nadal and Federer need it for different reasons: Nadal can hardly claim to be the greatest ever when most of his slams still are and were accumulated at Roland Garros (60% of them, -by way of comparison, Federer has won 37.5% of his slams are Wimbledon, a lot less). This only proves he is the greatest clay courter, a few slams at Wimbledon and one a piece at the others only underlines this. For Federer, he needs Wimbledon badly, not only is it his favourite slam and where it all began for him but it also offers his best chance of picking up a slam this year (perhaps alongside the US, but which is likely to be more competitive). If he were to show up short here, I'm sure it would dent his confidence somewhat, not by much, but a little dent makes all the difference, look at the US Open semi final last year and how he squandered match points. Djokovic needs a boost although I'm unsure Wimbledon is realistically going to provide it, although a good run is useful for him. I think Djokovic is and will be more interested in the US Open, but he won't go on record and say that.

What is everyone else's view? I'm a new poster btw, so always interested in what others have got to say about my posts.

Good post lucius a very good breakdown of various factors. I think Novak with his improved serve and volleys will help him this year at wimby. I personally at the start of this year picked Federer to win this tournament. I believe that he is still the most natural grass court player on the tour. Andy Murray I think will be very dangerous as well with the home crowd and his first serve is better than people give him credit for. Nadal I think will need to be at his best to win wimby, this year I think he will have to be at top form on grass he doesn't have the luxury of playing slightly off form and winning like he does on clay. Outside of the big 4 I don't see anyone that really stands a chance. I am going to stick to my early season pick and I see Fed winning the tournament. I see Novak getting to the semis or finals. And really I give any of the big 4 an almost equal chance of winning and I can't see anyone else having any chance.

I would have to say Rafa's chances of retaining his Wimbledon title are pretty good. He has made four Wimbledon finals, winning this event twice, so he has proven himself on grass, as well as on clay.

There is life after the top three albeit not a lot for a potential winner at Wimbledon.

I would say Murray has to be in with a shout, twice a semi finalist and an improved game over the last month or so, plus a home crowd, but possibly offset by media pressure to some extent.

But he would have to beat two of the top three seeds in order to achieve it so a tall order.

I don't really see Djokovic getting to the final here because of possible burnout after his great run.

As for someone outside the top ten, Del Potro and a rejuvenated Roddick possibly but can't think of anyone else.

sportslover wrote:There is life after the top three albeit not a lot for a potential winner at Wimbledon.

I would say Murray has to be in with a shout, twice a semi finalist and an improved game over the last month or so, plus a home crowd, but possibly offset by media pressure to some extent.

But he would have to beat two of the top three seeds in order to achieve it so a tall order.

I don't really see Djokovic getting to the final here because of possible burnout after his great run.

As for someone outside the top ten, Del Potro and a rejuvenated Roddick possibly but can't think of anyone else.

I would think Roddick but he hasn't played a whole lot of tennis for a long time now so it might be a bit difficult for him. Would love to see him have one last run at Wimbledon though. Del Potro though I don't think will go far here because he just doesn't move well enough on grass.

Personally i think Nadal or Fed. I think Djoko R2/R3 burnout likely.
Murray ultimately to be undone by ridiculous media pressure even if he does reached the final.

Outside the top 4 No one is good enough bar possibly roddick, who has drifted since that amazing 09 final.

Sod/Berdy - not on good enough form unless something changes, not sure Potro likes grass enough.

there literally isn't anyone who stands out as an outsider

kemet wrote:I would have to say Rafa's chances of retaining his Wimbledon title are pretty good. He has made four Wimbledon finals, winning this event twice, so he has proven himself on grass, as well as on clay.

Kemet, he's made four finals and never successfully defended his Wimbledon title on any occasion. Losing two of those finals is hardly 'proving' himself. Yes, Nadal is good on grass but he's better on clay and his clay court performance was less than convincing and on every occasion Nadal has lost a set at the French Open to Federer, he's gone onto to lose EVERY (without exception) Wimbledon (this is a fact, 2005, 2006 & 2007).

Just by way of comparison, Federer has, in the past successfully defended grand slams titles at the Australian Open (2007), Wimbledon (2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007) and the US Open (2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008). Nadal has only ever successfully defended his title at one grand slam (albeit successively in 2006, 2007 & 2008) and that's it. I will agree, if there is any other title he is likely to defend successfully, it will be Wimbledon (certainly not the US Open) but I remain to be convinced, if he wins Queens, maybe I might be consider him differently.

luciusmann wrote:

kemet wrote:I would have to say Rafa's chances of retaining his Wimbledon title are pretty good. He has made four Wimbledon finals, winning this event twice, so he has proven himself on grass, as well as on clay.

Kemet, he's made four finals and never successfully defended his Wimbledon title on any occasion. Losing two of those finals is hardly 'proving' himself. Yes, Nadal is good on grass but he's better on clay and his clay court performance was less than convincing and on every occasion Nadal has lost a set at the French Open to Federer, he's gone onto to lose EVERY (without exception) Wimbledon (this is a fact, 2005, 2006 & 2007).

Just by way of comparison, Federer has, in the past successfully defended grand slams titles at the Australian Open (2007), Wimbledon (2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007) and the US Open (2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008). Nadal has only ever successfully defended his title at one grand slam (albeit successively in 2006, 2007 & 2008) and that's it. I will agree, if there is any other title he is likely to defend successfully, it will be Wimbledon (certainly not the US Open) but I remain to be convinced, if he wins Queens, maybe I might be consider him differently.

I agree that Federer's record is very impressive. I was just trying to point out how well Rafa has done on grass, which seems to be an overlooked fact by many, even in the tennis media. Roger's record of five French Open finals, losing four of them to clay court phenom Rafa is also equally impressive in his tennis resume. In fact, he would have beaten any other player not named Nadal in the final yesterday. But then again, that is why Nadal is Nadal.

I think the problem with Roger is that his psyche has been affected by losing to Rafa in so many finals. All those clay meetings have skewed the H2H statistics touted by so many as a mark against his place in tennis history and Roger's weakest surface, comparatively speaking (He is actually a pretty competent clay courter with Masters titles and a grand slam title to his name). Also, Roger has been very stubborn, trying to beat Rafa from the back of the court. That is simply not going to happen. He is going to have to try coming into net and ending points quicker, EVEN if it means that Rafa burns him with the crosscourt forehand or backhand. Trying to slug it out from the baseline is going to have him coming up second best, even on grass.

kemet wrote:I agree that Federer's record is very impressive. I was just trying to point out how well Rafa has done on grass, which seems to be an overlooked fact by many, even in the tennis media. Roger's record of five French Open finals, losing four of them to clay court phenom Rafa is also equally impressive in his tennis resume. In fact, he would have beaten any other player not named Nadal in the final yesterday. But then again, that is why Nadal is Nadal.

I think the problem with Roger is that his psyche has been affected by losing to Rafa in so many finals. All those clay meetings have skewed the H2H statistics touted by so many as a mark against his place in tennis history and Roger's weakest surface, comparatively speaking (He is actually a pretty competent clay courter with Masters titles and a grand slam title to his name). Also, Roger has been very stubborn, trying to beat Rafa from the back of the court. That is simply not going to happen. He is going to have to try coming into net and ending points quicker, EVEN if it means that Rafa burns him with the crosscourt forehand or backhand. Trying to slug it out from the baseline is going to have him coming up second best, even on grass.

Rafa has done well on grass, very well in fact. I too think that Roger mentally is scared of Nadal now whenever they play, and who would not if you've lost to the same person time and time again in the final it's bound to make you weak and possibly even fear them, especially when you've lost to them on your home turf before (Wimbledon). Add in the fact that Roger's game does not in any way match up to Nadal's also makes a big factor.

I agree with you Kemet, the psyche aspect has impacted Federer in the past and it was on display yesterday too, when Fed lost the first set and then went into the second set, Nadal seemed unstoppable and Fed looked dejected and lost, completely forlorn. It was painful to watch, I felt even more sorry for those people who paid good money to watch it on the centre court!

I think if Federer is up to his best form, as he appears to be and wins in Halle, he will face Nadal with confidence in a final. Fed will know he could have beaten Nadal just a month earlier @ the French. What was insightful about Fed is what he said after the Djokovic match, he said he remembered how he squandered his opportunities @ the US Open last year and I have no doubt he will think the same @ Wimby if he faces Nadal. He won't let Nadal escape like he did @ the French Open, he will know with painful experience, what the cost is: defeat. Until Wimby is over, I think the psyche debate is hard to advance. We only know if Fed's constant losses to Nadal (mainly on clay) have affected his play until after Wimby because Fed has a good shot of making the final this year (unlike last year, when it was plain to all he didn't have it in him) and if he plays Nadal, we can then see if he can win the re-match or not. One thing is for sure, if he does, it will certainly re-affirm the notion Nadal is mainly a clay courter, unless he holds onto the US Open, which I rate as unlikely.

kemet wrote:

luciusmann wrote:

kemet wrote:I would have to say Rafa's chances of retaining his Wimbledon title are pretty good. He has made four Wimbledon finals, winning this event twice, so he has proven himself on grass, as well as on clay.

Kemet, he's made four finals and never successfully defended his Wimbledon title on any occasion. Losing two of those finals is hardly 'proving' himself. Yes, Nadal is good on grass but he's better on clay and his clay court performance was less than convincing and on every occasion Nadal has lost a set at the French Open to Federer, he's gone onto to lose EVERY (without exception) Wimbledon (this is a fact, 2005, 2006 & 2007).

Just by way of comparison, Federer has, in the past successfully defended grand slams titles at the Australian Open (2007), Wimbledon (2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007) and the US Open (2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008). Nadal has only ever successfully defended his title at one grand slam (albeit successively in 2006, 2007 & 2008) and that's it. I will agree, if there is any other title he is likely to defend successfully, it will be Wimbledon (certainly not the US Open) but I remain to be convinced, if he wins Queens, maybe I might be consider him differently.

I agree that Federer's record is very impressive. I was just trying to point out how well Rafa has done on grass, which seems to be an overlooked fact by many, even in the tennis media. Roger's record of five French Open finals, losing four of them to clay court phenom Rafa is also equally impressive in his tennis resume. In fact, he would have beaten any other player not named Nadal in the final yesterday. But then again, that is why Nadal is Nadal.

I think the problem with Roger is that his psyche has been affected by losing to Rafa in so many finals. All those clay meetings have skewed the H2H statistics touted by so many as a mark against his place in tennis history and Roger's weakest surface, comparatively speaking (He is actually a pretty competent clay courter with Masters titles and a grand slam title to his name). Also, Roger has been very stubborn, trying to beat Rafa from the back of the court. That is simply not going to happen. He is going to have to try coming into net and ending points quicker, EVEN if it means that Rafa burns him with the crosscourt forehand or backhand. Trying to slug it out from the baseline is going to have him coming up second best, even on grass.

The rallying is not necessarily the problem though. In the FO final yesterday, Federer was 12-9 over Nadal in rallies that lasted over 10 shots. Its the way Federer plays the majority of medium rallies that makes the difference.

I think a big problem for Federer is he believes he is simply the best and so he tries to win by playing his 'best' game. This always lessens the percentages against Nadal because Nadal is so very good. Imo he needs to think of ugly ways to beat Nadal that don't necessarily fit in with his flamboyant game style.

For example, like net play, or like hitting middle court balls with little pace and not going for outright winners the majority of the time. Although Murray hasn't totally nailed nadal yet, i honestly think if you look at slam matches only since Nadal hit his peak in 2008, then Murray appears to be a player who visibly frustrates Nadal. Ok Federer pushed Nadal harder than Murray, but who made Nadal get tetchy on court? and who is renowned for not getting tetchy on court?

He appears to do this by not hit balls from sideline to sideline constantly and chucking the odd one 5ft inside the sidelines, back behind Nadal, or randomly taking pace off the ball for no apparent benefit. This always effects Nadal rythm. I think Nadal finds it hard to concentrate against Murray. Federer on the other hand might well be able to hit Nadal off court for 40% of points, but that doesn't win him matches. He always hits in such a way that even if Nadal is flying around the court to stay in points, he knows where Federer is going to go and gets into the zone to such an extent that he is often able to respond to Federer's best with his own best tennis. I think federer should be actively looking for shots that chip away at Nadal rythm and lower his level, so federer can effectively win ugly, rather than trying to fight fire with fire.

I think the mental ownership of federer would be complete if Nadal wins a slam Match against Fed at the USO - that would be loses on every slam surface. At the FO Fed gets a free run at Nadal from a mental viewpoint, because he knows currently he has an inferior slam record there. at every other slam, Fed is the guy with the better slam record and so the mental blistering takes more effect there.

Nole: huge factor now is the tendonitis on his knees, rafa knows how bad that situation can be - it stopped him defending his 2008 title - and who knws he may have won 3 in a row but for 2009. I still think Nole is vulnerable to danger men on grass - remember Safin anyone? It all depends on the draw for him I think - someone like Berdy/Sod could be a nightmare for him.

Nadal: Nole may be suffering burnout but so is Nadal...Nadal has played more matches that Nole this year and gone to the end of every tournament except AO. The effect of getting that deep and losing more than usual must have left him spent, he looked completely empty on those locker room shots yesterday. I wouldnt be surprised if he still pulled out of Queens (singles and doubles) but expect he wont. If he gets through the first week at SW19 then you have to feel his form will rise further. I can easily see another Fed-Nadal final and Fed may well be alot relatively fresher the next time.

Federer: Cant see him losing to a Falla or Berdy type player this year but you never know with Roger...he usually has one mare of a match at a slam these days so its pot luck who he meets when he does. His serve seems to be working better than ever and this could carry him all the way this year.

Murray: Seems much more solid now, and expect him to go deep - if its a Fed-Murray semi then expect it to be 5 tight sets. His only weakness on grass is his second serve which sits up to be hit at a nice height.

Cant see many others making the 5-6 match run...but early on guys like Isner and Ivo can be a nightmare. But I'm sure we'll have one guy we're not expecting to make a good run...

Perhaps Tom, although I think you're over playing this 'mental ownership' aspect. Nadal has the losing streak at Wimbledon to Federer, the key is will Nadal draw level or lose? I think there's more chance he'll lose judging by his performance yesterday. I remember in 2008 when my brother told me Federer was finished at Wimbledon because of how badly he was smashed at the French, and he was right, yes Fed pushed Nadal to 5 sets but at no point during that match did you think Fed was going to win.

This year has no resemblance to 2008 and I think this notion of mental ownership will be consigned to the dustbin should Nadal lose to Fed in the final. There's little evidence to suggest Nadal is going to smash Fed this year like 2008 and we know Nadal must be at his best to beat Fed at Wimby and the plain truth is he isn't. He not only lost a set @ the French, he also required a tie breaker to win a set against Fed, something he's never required against Fed in the French before. I disagree with your view that Fed was no affected yesterday by the psyche aspect yesterday, from the last games of the first set into the first half of the second set Fed was totally out of it and you could see he was totally affected and subservient to Nadal. Your analysis is just wrong, watch the match.

As I've stated elsewhere Tom, let's see if Nadal gets to the US Open final first before u talk about some strange mental 'ownership'. His post Wimby record is dreadful, Nadal has won just 3 major (ATP 1000 or better) titles in his entire career during this stretch. I think you need to look at Nadal's record, despite the hype, Nadal has just a single slam down under and at the US Open besides his two Wimbledon titles. Federer at this age was a more complete player, having won 4 Wimbledons, 2 US Opens & 2 Aussie Opens and a reaching French Open final. Nadal has won all four majors, but has won 2 of them just once, Federer at the same age had won 3 of them at least twice. So the record speaks for itself.

luciusmann wrote:Perhaps Tom, although I think you're over playing this 'mental ownership' aspect. Nadal has the losing streak at Wimbledon to Federer, the key is will Nadal draw level or lose? I think there's more chance he'll lose judging by his performance yesterday. I remember in 2008 when my brother told me Federer was finished at Wimbledon because of how badly he was smashed at the French, and he was right, yes Fed pushed Nadal to 5 sets but at no point during that match did you think Fed was going to win.

This year has no resemblance to 2008 and I think this notion of mental ownership will be consigned to the dustbin should Nadal lose to Fed in the final. There's little evidence to suggest Nadal is going to smash Fed this year like 2008 and we know Nadal must be at his best to beat Fed at Wimby and the plain truth is he isn't. He not only lost a set @ the French, he also required a tie breaker to win a set against Fed, something he's never required against Fed in the French before. I disagree with your view that Fed was no affected yesterday by the psyche aspect yesterday, from the last games of the first set into the first half of the second set Fed was totally out of it and you could see he was totally affected and subservient to Nadal. Your analysis is just wrong, watch the match.

As I've stated elsewhere Tom, let's see if Nadal gets to the US Open final first before u talk about some strange mental 'ownership'. His post Wimby record is dreadful, Nadal has won just 3 major (ATP 1000 or better) titles in his entire career during this stretch. I think you need to look at Nadal's record, despite the hype, Nadal has just a single slam down under and at the US Open besides his two Wimbledon titles. Federer at this age was a more complete player, having won 4 Wimbledons, 2 US Opens & 2 Aussie Opens and a reaching French Open final. Nadal has won all four majors, but has won 2 of them just once, Federer at the same age had won 3 of them at least twice. So the record speaks for itself.

I never said he wasn't affected at all at the French - clearly he is effected in all matches. i inferred that out of all slams, the French is perhaps the one where he is effected the least please read my post properly - i said the the other slams have more effect, not the the FO has none. Its plainly obvious that Wimby 08 and Aus 09 hurt more than any other the other 4 slam final loses to Nadal.

I stick behind my view that hitting multiple winners is not necessarily the only way to beat Nadal over 5 sets. I think Verdasco hit 95 winners against Nadal at aus 09, yet still lost. For me it appears these days that Nadal does not have to play his best to beat Federer, but federer does have to play his best to beat Nadal. i can't remember the last SF or F in a slam that Federer did not have a blip, its been happening for while now. To be honest, although it is likely i don't think its a given that Federer will reach the Wimbledon final and i think Nadal will find he can hit more consistent topspin with he balls at wimbledon a and so we might see his form notch up over the two weeks. Djokos a hard one to guage right now. Murray i think has a great chance

Nadal's form has been subpar this year so its no surprise Fed and others are closer to him or beating him. Its impossible to stay at the level he was at in 2008 forever. However, he's still winning slams whilst having to win ugly. If he can recover his true form then he'll still be the player to beat across most slams. Lets not forget Nadal was unlucky with the rain yesterday and should have wrapped up the 2nd set at 5-4 - Nadal always seems vulnerable to breaks in play as he builds up a head of steam, Federer is always quick out of the blocks. We dont have to compare the two players so closely yet, Nadal isnt finished yet, neither is Federer. Both players have different strengths. The fact Nadal has grown outside clay and can even be discussed in these ways across all areas shows the growth of the player. Re: mental ownership, he certainly used to have it severely, now I think time has allowed Federer to relax more - after all they hadnt played in a slam final for nearly 2 and a half years before yesterday which is a hell of a long time. The 5-2 lead from yesterday will eat him a little though and if they meet again there will be some degree of overhang in Federer's mind. The issue is when the match gets tight that's usually when the 'ownership' thing seems to take hold. If Federer can frontrun and hold the lead then he's hard to catch. But lets see, it might be another 2.5 years until they might again - and therefore maybe they'll never meet in a slam final again, maybe not even a slam semi either. A key question is also how long can Federer hold this current form for, and how long will Nadal's dip go on. Can Nole sustain his form and knees, can Murray break through or does he have mental ownership from the other 3...

Tom_____ wrote:For me it appears these days that Nadal does not have to play his best to beat Federer, but federer does have to play his best to beat Nadal.

I think that's a good insight Tom...you do feel that Nadal won yesterday at around 80% form. Federer just about threw everything he had at him through the course of the match and yet still came up short, and quite badly in the 4th set too. For patches, Federer is simply brilliant but he cant sustain it for long and Nadal doesnt panic when those patches come. He just waits for the brief storms to pass then surge forward again. Nadal also seems to be able to raise his game exactly when he needs it most whereas with federer you feel the purple patches come at any time and then disappear unpredictably again.

I'm afraid your post just sounds ridiculous, 'mental ownership'? What kind of silly term is that? Everyone else has referred to it quite properly as the psyche aspect or thereof. Most of what you've said is speculation, one can very easily argue that Nadal's performance at the Aussie Open and the US Open has been affected by the fact he knows there's a good chance Fed will be there and he has therefore on many occasions failed to get to the final before facing Fed. This 'mental ownership' theory is hard to test until we see a Wimby final between them, which is not a sure thing. I think it's more a given of Fed reaching a final than Nadal on current form, I think you're thinking more of last year than this year.

Of course Wimby 08 & the Aussie Open 09 affected Fed the most, prior to those years, Fed had been winning 3 grand slams a year (Nadal has done this only once) and as a result of losing Wimby, he was down to just holding one slam, I'm sure he would have been devastated, especially when Nadal made the transition from clay/grass to hard court.

I agree lydian, the issue for Fed is making sure he takes the first set against Nadal, outside the French, when Fed has taken the first set, Nadal has lost every time. So despite the non sense some posters are writing, the real issue is who wins the first set, if Fed wins it, he wins the match, if Nadal wins it, Nadal wins it. It's really that simple. There is no more psyche than that.

On the issue of form, Federer does need to be consistent but I think any player who plays Nadal knows how it's hard to come back against Nadal when you lost the first set to him. I think some of you were watching a different match, Nadal raised his game very clearly towards the end of the first set yesterday and Fed didn't close out the set, had he, I bet you Nadal would have lost. lydian, going on about Nadal playing at 80% is merely posturing, Nadal is playing as he is, he isn't as brilliant as he is 2008 but nor is Fed as brilliant has he was in 2006 or 2007. It's entirely speculative and a waste of everyone's time for posters to say 'oh, I think Fed has to play at his best to beat Nadal, whereas Nadal only needs to be @ 80%' No one will care once their records are looked at. If on current form, Nadal retired with most of his titles on clay and @ French, no one is going to call him the best ever, it's a fact. Nor is it going to matter if he won most of those titles @ playing @ 80% of his best. it might matter to you, but it matters to absolutely no one else.

If that's the preparation to make an excuse for Nadal losing Wimbledon or the US Open, it's a poor one. Federer never made any of those excuses when he's lost his titles, nor should you. It's a common complaint of Nadal fans that he isn't 'fully fit' when he loses, it's become so bad, even Nadal has had to disassociate himself from the damage caused to his reputation by these remarks. Not 'fully fit' or 80% form, or whatever excuses are made up won't cover a loss, no one in sports makes such complaints as loudly as Nadal and his fans and it's as bad as his time wasting, which incidently, none of his fans can explain if he's so brilliant. Anyone care to discuss his time wasting in calling the trainer in the first set, when clearly there was nothing wrong? If you consider this his 'mental ownership' of Federer, slowing the game down because he's doing badly, then yes, that really tells you how brilliant he really is.

Alot of good points in the above, however an important factor in Majors is, as always The Draw.

Until the draw is made, we all wonder who's half Federer will be in; where will Berdych be drawn, Del Potro, Roddick, Querrey, Isner, etc., etc.,

The great chamions, past and present, will all say that there is a little luck involved in winning a Major, along with of course, the regular attributes a Major Champion needs.

Wimbledon, has always been the one Major where it is more possible for a "wonder," to serve a top player off the court; this has become a little harder with the general "slowing down" of play with the conditions of the grass, balls, etc.,

"Pre-draw," one has to give a large "nod" to Federer, Nadal, and to a slightly lesser extend Djokovic and Murray.

Grass traditionally doesn't reward those players that take a longer, more exaggerated "wind up" to their groundstrokes - thinking Del Potro and to a lesser extent Djokovic. Short, abbreviated back swings, are rewarded, but then involve better timing.

First serve percentage, and also placement is extremely important on grass as the "delivery" often plays a large part of how the point is then played or constructed.

We have seen in the last few years, how a few pivotal points can make the difference in losing, winning and extending a match. In 2007, Nadal had four break points, two in each of Federer's 2nd and 3rd service games in the 5th set. He didn't manage to convert, and lost 2-6, but it could as easily have been a 6-2 win for him.

In Murray's last semifinal with Nadal, there were also a few key points that could have yielded a different result. Rafter had a point for a two sets to love lead versus Sampras; Ivanisevic was two points away from a two sets to love lead versus Federer, and failed to return two consecutive second serves from Sampras. Believe that these points represent the smallest of margins in some of the matches, and change irrevocably the course of the contest.

Whilst we can talk in general terms of the skills of certain players, their past history at Wimbledon, I think we first need to see how the draw "plays out," and then make some more specific and valid observations.

All the little additional "side comments," well, they are as yet, not applicable as until two players are able to get to those appointed places, there is no validity. What Federer, Nadal and Djokovic MIGHT do to each other, doesn't come into play until they make a match against each other; same for Murray.

We've seen Majors in the past where big upsets have occurred whether in the first two rounds, or round of 16 and quarters. Once the first two rounds have been played, then we see who's still in, who's drawn against whom, and go from there.

At this stage, Federer, Nadal are probably the two biggest favourites, just behind them Djokovic, then Murray - with those such as Roddick, Del Potro coming in the next "wave" of players; as above, Isner, Querrey, those players with huge serves - don't forget Karlovic's first round win over Hewitt, the defending champion at the time - in Round 1!

We saw recently Federer's journeyman opponent serve for it, and Nadal need 5 sets twice in the first week; point being, HOLD ON! Draw first, then two rounds completed, then we can get to thinking about who is on form, and who's still in the discussion for possibly champion in a months' time.

Remember George Bastl? Probably not, but 9 years ago, he took out Pete Sampras in Round two, on the "Graveyard of Champions - and Pete knew a thing or two about playing on grass!

Onwards to SW 19, but let's see "the eggs hatch, before we worry about who's going to lay the biggest egg!" Regards Roland Garros, there's already a name engraved beside the year 2011, nothing anyone thinks about how the match was played, what each player did, or might have done, changes that. It's history - Wimbledon is still ahead of us. Let's enjoy
"it's" unfolding, no?!!

Luciusman - "he also required a tie breaker to win a set against Fed, something he's never required against Fed in the French before."

1st Roland Garros final between them, 2006 - Nadal won 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6.

Not a big thing, but not correct.

If Rafa has fully recovered from his confidence crisis I feel he has a good chance of retaining his title. its a tournament he loves and I know would love to win again... but with Roger finding some of his old form Rafa will need to be right at the top of his game.. Roger comes "home" at Wimbledon and can always find that extra spark. So for me I see only one final again.. but the outcome for me is not so easy to predict.

I actually look at all of the top 4 of having about an equal shot to win it. I think Roger is the most natural grass courter of the four with the biggest serve so he is my pick to win it. Murray plays well on grass and has the homecourt advantage. Nadal is the defending champion, and Djokovic got to the semis last year when his serve was in the toilet now that he has worked out those problems he should be a bigger threat. Novak's game actually translates pretty well onto a grass court, it was the serve that let him down the last couple of wimby's.

luciusmann wrote:Federer
He appears back on form and a key indicator will be if he wins in Halle, anything less, is worrying (every time he's won in Halle, he's usually gone on to win Wimbledon).

Has it already been mentioned that he pulled out of Halle?
I actually expected this

Lucius,

I don't see any reason for you to bring up Nadal fitness - no one else mentioned it. As for being in poor form - who was making an excuse? Pesonally i'm just looking for reasons for this wimbledon to be very close with some great matches. Thats all i want to see. Ive said from my comments that i'm expecting rafas form to increase through wimbledon. So if he does lose, ive done the opposite of making excuses.

"Nadal's performance at the Aussie Open and the US Open has been affected by the fact he knows there's a good chance Fed will be there and he has therefore on many occasions failed to get to the final before facing Fed."

Can't see how you could reasonably argue that, when Nadal has beaten Fed in their only slam HC meeting.

I'm not sure sure your reading peoples posts properly

As for the comments on what people refer to as mental ownership or psyche effect. Does it really matter how people express themselves on a 'discussion board', if you quite clearly understand the point they are making?

gallery play wrote:

luciusmann wrote:Federer
He appears back on form and a key indicator will be if he wins in Halle, anything less, is worrying (every time he's won in Halle, he's usually gone on to win Wimbledon).

Has it already been mentioned that he pulled out of Halle?
I actually expected this

I'm a bit surprised by that as there will be a big appearance fee there and more importantly i thought it was quite a soft spot for him to play there. Hewitt will be happy!

Yep Hewitt would be happy...I'm surprised Nadal and Federer are playing this week really, particularly Nadal who looked completely spent at the end of FO (as anyone who has seen the locker room shots will know). When people talk about form, its not an 'excuse' its reflecting the very words that Nadal has used before and during FO, in the interviews he has been very dejected with his form and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. Only a blinkered watcher wouldnt recognise that Nadal was out of sorts most of the tournament, not just loss of form but mentally almost at crisis point. So, again - not excuses being made - its literally repeating what Nadal has stated.

Looking to SW19, this is of relevance because we need to see if he has time to recharge. I suspect he wont and if he plays Queens too then he's going to be mentally frazzled at this rate, I'm surprised he hasnt pulled out to focus on Wimbledon really. But we know he has this inbuilt desire to keep winning, hence he keeps playing Barcelona each year and it costs him at Madrid when he does.

Anyway...I expect Federer is the favourite, as others have said he has the biggest serve and most natural grass game. I'd then out Nole 2nd fave, Murray and then Nadal purely due to his lower 2011 form and mental burnout.

Dark horses are Delpo for the semi but no further, and Soderling if his top form returns too. Berdy I dont think so...but who is going to be the true dark horse of the event? Someone like Raonic with his big serve....?

Raonic has fired down a lot of aces this year.

I wonder if Nadal might play a couple of matches at queens and then lose interest of put in a tired performance. Was it Lopez who beat him last year? to be honest i remember thinking Nadal was not going to win Wimbledon last year after queens and then especially after the first 2 rounds of wimbledon. Then he turned it around hugely and to be honest played some of his best stuff, particularly against Murray in the SF. So form wise and tiredness wise i think its hard to call in advance.

I was close to putting money on Soderling to beat him at the FO and the guy who turned up to that match was totally different to the preceding rounds - its very hard to tell.

Tom, I could see Raonic taking well to the grass, Roddick and other big servers are also a threat on the grass. I actually don't like the fact that Nole has skipped out of Queens because you don't get much matchplay on grass and all of sudden in the first couple of rounds you could run into a big server who is hitting his spots and fall out of the tournament. I think the top seeds don't want any part of Raonic, Querrey, Isner, or Karlovic in the early rounds simply for their big serves. I think it is a virtual 98 percent certainty that one of the big 4 will win this thing. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if all 4 made the semis again like at RG.

Tom_____ wrote:

gallery play wrote:

luciusmann wrote:Federer
He appears back on form and a key indicator will be if he wins in Halle, anything less, is worrying (every time he's won in Halle, he's usually gone on to win Wimbledon).

Has it already been mentioned that he pulled out of Halle?
I actually expected this

I'm a bit surprised by that as there will be a big appearance fee there and more importantly i thought it was quite a soft spot for him to play there. Hewitt will be happy!

He had a very tough weekend physically, he's not the defending champion, it's a very weird draw (repeat of the final of last year) and he got injured last year in the Halle final which blew his chances at Wimbledon.
This withdrawal makes sense to me

socal1976 wrote:Tom, I could see Raonic taking well to the grass, Roddick and other big servers are also a threat on the grass. I actually don't like the fact that Nole has skipped out of Queens because you don't get much matchplay on grass and all of sudden in the first couple of rounds you could run into a big server who is hitting his spots and fall out of the tournament. I think the top seeds don't want any part of Raonic, Querrey, Isner, or Karlovic in the early rounds simply for their big serves. I think it is a virtual 98 percent certainty that one of the big 4 will win this thing. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if all 4 made the semis again like at RG.

Agree social, its a funny scenario you get in slams, whereby the early rounds are dangerous, then if the big players get through them R4 and the QF are seemingly far less likely to produce an upset, even thought the qualify of player increases on paper.

Even some one like Mardy Fish would usually be some one to avoid early on, although looking at it hes done incredibly well recently and is at a career high ranking of 9! - where did that come from, a bunch of 250s?

I also think its funny that some players you would actually not mind playing early on as a form developer, even though on paper they have had previous success, - for example Hewitt i would think would make you hit plenty of balls, but not ultimately really challenge for a win.

You're quite right, I discovered late last night Fed pulled out of Halle, perhaps a good idea for him to ensure he's fully fit for Wimbledon, so obviously he can't win it now!

Actually Tom, there are a couple of things:

a) It does matter how you refer to things, if we want a civilised discussion, we all need to use terms which are not liable to offend, and yours do (no one else has used the term 'mental ownership' and it does appear rude.
b) Using consistent terms makes most sense, everyone else has referred to psyche, apart from you, if you'd been following the thread, you'd have noticed and it's helpful to other readers, think of others, not yourself, it is after all, a discussion board, as you've pointed out.

Again, on the point about Nadal not being affected by a possible Fed match up in other finals, just because you can't see it doesn't mean anything. Your view is as much an 'opinion' as mine, there's no more validity in yours than mine, especially as yours have no evidence, besides the speculation you've added in. Actually, there's a lot to say Nadal fears a Fed match up outside the French, Nadal has only ever lost to one player in grand slams, and that's to Fed. Just on Sunday Nadal was clearly very nervous, but why? He's won the tournament 5 times and beaten Fed 4 of those times. Also, when they have met outside the French, most of their matches have gone the distance of 5 sets, Nadal knows he's got to work hard to beat Fed, because Fed won't give him a walkover. Look at the grand slam finals last year where Nadal didn't have Fed and quite simply all that the three of them could take off Nadal was a grand total of 1 set, yes one set, how lame is that? Fed took 1 set just a few days ago! The facts don't support what you're saying about Nadal somehow being comfortable with a set up with Fed or not being potentially affected by it, there's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Other posters have been referring to form and Nadal being only 80% fit, if you'd been reading other people's posts, you might have noticed. If anyone hasn't been reading, perhaps it's you? I hate to be direct, but all I want is a good positive discussion, without people using negative terms like 'mental ownership' (used by no one else) and supporting it with some evidence or at least strong evidence, which I haven't seen. Opinions are two a penny, it's those which are well reasoned and supported with good evidence that count.

Luciuc - did you post on 606? what was your pseudo there?

Hi Tenez, I didn't post on BBC 606, but I did read it.

Lucius- if you read back through other peoples posts you'll see the only reason i used the word mental was because 'I AM AWESOME' referred to Federer being 'mentally scared', so i kept to a similar term. In debates i tend to try to used similar terms to those previously to keep the continuity from the person i am referring to, thats all.

"Again, on the point about Nadal not being affected by a possible Fed match up in other finals, just because you can't see it doesn't mean anything. Your view is as much an 'opinion' as mine, there's no more validity in yours than mine, especially as yours have no evidence, besides the speculation you've added in. Actually, there's a lot to say Nadal fears a Fed match up outside the French, Nadal has only ever lost to one player in grand slams, and that's to Fed. "

There is no evidence that either Federer or Nadal have avoided each other in slams - as stated Nadal has beaten Federer in their only HC slam meeting and has beaten him on HC over 5 sets in masters, so he hasn't avoided Roger and i see no reason why he should want to? - do you? - Fed likewise has beaten NAdal on HC. So really there should be no reason the two would want to avoid each other on HC. On clay Federer has never beaten Nadal over 5 sets, yet still he tried to get to final after final with him. On grass Nadal lost two finals to Fed, yet tried with similar intensity to get to play the same guy again in 08. In 08 Nadal lost in the Aus SF, but then the next year he plays for 5 hours in the SF to make sure he plays Fed in the final. They never ever avoid each other in the slams, be it on HC, clay or grass.

The whole argument of them not wanting to win a slam match, because the other guy might be waiting in the next round is laughable really and not something i believe could ever be the case for these two players. I remember some people argued that Fed did not want to play Nadal in the USO last year, but thats poppycock in my mind as he had match points (did he not?) in the very close USO semi.

a quote form me:

" don't see any reason for you to bring up Nadal fitness - no one else mentioned it"

I said i don't see a reason to mention NAdals fitness. Lydian mentioned 80% form, not fitness, you're the only other person on this thread to mention 80% and the only person to talk about fitness. So again you might just find you're the person who is not reading posts properly as per my earlier post.

Semanatics, Tom, form and fitness? The difference? The line is very fine and very easily blurred so it's good if you want to talk semantics, but I prefer to avoid discussions which border with people who Cat foot around things. If you discuss things in that fashion, you never get any satisfying discussion, just non sense.

Mentally scared is very a different a term to 'mental ownership' and at no point did you refer to it as mental scarring which is fine as a term, but for the point of a discussion, it's better to keep terms consistent. There's no point in excusing your lapses, you didn't call it mental scarring and no one else besides you used the term, so there's no point pretending otherwise. Don't pretend the terms are similar, I have a good degree thanks and can tell the subtle differences of word meaning, thanks.

Actually, if you read my post carefully, there is plenty of evidence to suggest Nadal might not want to have a final with Fed outside the French but what player would admit that on the record? Exactly, of course there will never be any evidence for it, your point is silly.

You keep going on about there only HC slam meeting, it was just the one and there's no explanation for why Nadal has failed to reach many grand slam HC finals. I can understand why Nadal might find it hard to reach the US Open finals, as it's towards the end of the season, and as the season goes on, Nadal's results, 90% of the time, gets worse. Let's be clear though, he's reached just one final at the Aussie Open, just one. I find it odd, and I am perfectly entitled to question why he hasn't got a better record, given during much of that period, Federer was running away with many of those titles, appearing in 10 of those finals.

luciusmann wrote:Semanatics, Tom, form and fitness? The difference? The line is very fine and very easily blurred so it's good if you want to talk semantics, but I prefer to avoid discussions which border with people who Cat foot around things. If you discuss things in that fashion, you never get any satisfying discussion, just non sense.

Mentally scared is very a different a term to 'mental ownership' and at no point did you refer to it as mental scarring which is fine as a term, but for the point of a discussion, it's better to keep terms consistent. There's no point in excusing your lapses, you didn't call it mental scarring and no one else besides you used the term, so there's no point pretending otherwise. Don't pretend the terms are similar, I have a good degree thanks and can tell the subtle differences of word meaning, thanks.

Actually, if you read my post carefully, there is plenty of evidence to suggest Nadal might not want to have a final with Fed outside the French but what player would admit that on the record? Exactly, of course there will never be any evidence for it, your point is silly.

You keep going on about there only HC slam meeting, it was just the one and there's no explanation for why Nadal has failed to reach many grand slam HC finals. I can understand why Nadal might find it hard to reach the US Open finals, as it's towards the end of the season, and as the season goes on, Nadal's results, 90% of the time, gets worse. Let's be clear though, he's reached just one final at the Aussie Open, just one. I find it odd, and I am perfectly entitled to question why he hasn't got a better record, given during much of that period, Federer was running away with many of those titles, appearing in 10 of those finals.

Believe me Lucius, as some one who in the next 5-10 years will be getting a knee replacement i know the difference between form and fitness. I've been limping around terribly out of form the last decade.


"there's no explanation for why Nadal has failed to reach many grand slam HC finals. I can understand why Nadal might find it hard to reach the US Open finals,as it's towards the end of the season"

As with the fitness and form mixup I think you've confused yourself again here

Tom, the two are highly connected, so the line of difference is very thin. As I suspected, you are older which might explain why your so set in your opinions and your stubbornness, which is a shame of old age, but hey ho, better you than me.

I think the only person who is confused is yourself, going on and on won't make you any more right, just show how stubborn you are!

luciusmann wrote:Tom, the two are highly connected, so the line of difference is very thin. As I suspected, you are older which might explain why your so set in your opinions and your stubbornness, which is a shame of old age, but hey ho, better you than me.

I think the only person who is confused is yourself, going on and on won't make you any more right, just show how stubborn you are!

Preconceptions can be an interesting source of flawed opinion. Do you think need in a knee replacement automatically means i'm old? does limping for a decade make someone old?

im barely out of my 20s. Damage can occur to joints for many reasons other than age.

Limping? Pretty usually yes, wrong to assume, quite true! Bad lucky I guess!

I cannot really see what's happened to your joints! I've run thousands of miles over the last 10 years and my joints are brilliant, not a limp at all, I'm rather bemused, as even now, I wouldn't say I'm totally fit!

So where is the Wimbledon preview chat lads?

I think those comments you're making about Tom are borderline insulting there luciusmann.

You're the one turning the argument into a fitness one when others have talked about form. Form and fitness can be connected but they dont have to be - that's just commensense. You're trying to solidly link the two to fit your argument.

You say: "he's reached just one final at the Aussie Open, just one. I find it odd"

Well Nadal was injured through most of 2009 and ended the year grossly out of form and then got injured again against Murray at AO2010 having to retire, and this year he was injured whilst playing Ferrer. So whats odd about that? Before 2009, his hardcourt game was still evolving. Yes you are entitled to question players, we all are, but for someone new to the forum yesterday you seem quite hellbent on questioning his record...

Personally i think that even though Federer lost the FO final, he will feel very confident with his form coming into Wimbledon. I know i have him down as favourite.

Well lydian, what Tom has written on other parts have been actually insulting, so what I've got up there is fairly tame.

Well yes, I think they are connected, it isn't to make my argument stronger, just my view. It's foolish to say that fitness would not affect form, you could argue that form does not affect fitness, and I might concede that, but there is a correlation.

Nadal had a career prior to 2009 lydian, as a hardcore Nadal fan, you might not wish to acknowledge it, but he does. Just to note, I do think Nadal is a great player, I just want to see greater consistently from him and more slams on hard courts, especially if his fans want him to considered as the best ever. If he were to win double of each of the slams he has now, many might be somewhat unsure, 12 French Open and 4 Wimbledon, and 2 of the others wouldn't really satisfy most.

Yes, eirebilly, this preview has got side tracked by conversation unrelated to Wimbledon, so let's get back on topic!

luciusmann wrote: as a hardcore Nadal fan, you might not wish to acknowledge it

You joined the forum yesterday, how would you know that - and besides which I'm not a hardcore fan of any player.

Okay lydian, just an ordinary fan, does that please you?

I joined yesterday, I've been reading for the past week regularly and infrequently before.

I can't see beyond Nadal for Wimbledon.

it will be interesting to see how he performs this week at Queens though

luciusmann wrote:Limping? Pretty usually yes, wrong to assume, quite true! Bad lucky I guess!

I cannot really see what's happened to your joints! I've run thousands of miles over the last 10 years and my joints are brilliant, not a limp at all, I'm rather bemused, as even now, I wouldn't say I'm totally fit!

I think you've broken your own thread with that comment

luciusmann wrote:Okay lydian, just an ordinary fan, does that please you?

I joined yesterday, I've been reading for the past week regularly and infrequently before.

Yes of course you have

That was a bit unkind, that wasn't my intention, no one deserves bad joints, it makes life that bit harder.

I am curious how Nadal will do Steveo77, I agree, Queens will give us some indication. A poor run there would be concerning but I'd have Nadal down as joint favourite with Federer, seems like a fair estimation. We'll only know towards the end of the second week where things are heading, so basically in 3 1/2 weeks time, I can't wait!