Who will win the Men's Single Wimbeldon 2011

First topic message reminder :

I am rooting for Andy Murray.

Judy Murray should be able to announce- King is dead after the tournament.

Tenez wrote:The season needs to be cut to 10 months or less with breaks between tournaments otherwise this will result in serious long-term damage to the sport and players.

I expect Tenez to start WUMming re Rafa somewhere on this board.
-------------------------

You certainly know how to wind me up. I don;t want to say but again, you are wrong thinking that a shorter season will be less damaging for the sport.

I'll just give one example. The cycling season! very short indeed!

Please no accusations of WUmming.

Please keep the chat and banter friendly and enjoy the forum.

I went with Djokovic he's in amazing form and I can only see Nadal stopping him from winning it.

Well, Liam I would like nothing better as Nole fan to agree with you. I think he has as good a chance as anyone. But I don't like the fact that he is going into wimby without any match practice on grass. You can exactly practice returning a 140 mph serve with the speed of grass, and the players don't get that much time on the grass courts. If Novak gets by the first couple of rounds I will like his chances a whole lot more as the tournament goes on and on.

Its gonna hugely depend on Draw, while Fed can beat the most might skittle down to Rafa again in the finals if happens, on the other hand Rafa can lose to any big servers if he gets some in his quarter, it would be interesting to see he vs Roddick [on form] in the quarters.

Murray seems like an outside bet, considering he is very good at grass than most expect of him, has the game to beat both Rafa on Nole on grass, however would prefer to be on Nole's side of draw.

Nole seems the weakest player of the 4 in grass, I am still not convinced he has the game for grass, may be he will show it this year that he is good at it, if he gets a rough draw with veterns like hewitt, roddick , haas etc,. he might lose to them [I still remember how he folded against Safin and Haas in previous years].

Outsiders to reach quarters and could be dangerous are Soderling, Tsonga, Ferrer, Verdasco, Raonic [if he gets his form back], Isner, Karlovic, Berdych.
So many dangerous floaters in this tournament.

luciusmann wrote:It's hard, wow, I'd say Nadal or Federer, but if they are respectively seeded #1 and #2 and seeds #3 and #4 are allocated randomly to either side of the draw then if Djokovic is drawn on Nadal's side of the draw, I think Djokovic has a shot of beating Nadal and I'm unsure how Murray would fair against Federer (probably lose, but not a cert) if it was the other way, I think Murray would lose to Nadal (probably, not sure) and the Feed/Djokovic game would be competitive but hard to predict (probably Fed)? That's on the basis that the top four seeds pull through to the semis. I have a feeling one of them might fall before then.

Haven't we already found that Fed will be seeded 3rd using the wimbledon seeding system?

If Murray plays as he did dismantling Roddick today then he must have a credible chance. Nadal is probably slight favourite but nothing between 1-4, cannot see anyone outside the 4 main guys winning.

Boston Exile wrote:If Murray plays as he did dismantling Roddick today then he must have a credible chance. Nadal is probably slight favourite but nothing between 1-4, cannot see anyone outside the 4 main guys winning.

Andy has to step up to the challenge irrespective of who he meets on the way.

If he can keep it all together then he has a great chance.

I really see it as being very equal between the top 4, with maybe a slight advantage to Fed and Nadal because of their pedigree. But murray is a good grass court player and has the home crowd in his corner, is playing well this season. Novak has made it to the semis of this tournament with virtually no serve and now that he is serving well I think if he gets a decent draw could go all the way, Nadal is the defending champ and world #1. And out of the big 4 Fed has the best serve, is in great form, and the most natural grass courter. I think if I was an odds maker i would say Nadal and Fed have a 25 percent chance of victory, Murray and Novak a 20 percent chance, and the rest of the draw a 10 percent chance.

If Murray plays as well in the final as he did today, the
title is his. Was it 2009 he won it ?

by the way when do the draws come out?

yummymummy wrote:If Murray plays as well in the final as he did today, the
title is his. Was it 2009 he won it ?

Won it in 2009 against James Blake.

socal1976 wrote:by the way when do the draws come out?

I think next Thursday 16th!?!?

Oooh-Er

BET Andy gets the worst draw !!!!!!!!!!!

Nadal
Djoko
Federer
Soderling
etc..................

That would be a harsh draw, but I can't see how he would go through the top 3 in one tournament though.

I know Legend

Doesn't it go 1 - 4
2- 3

Something like that ?

Not sure yummy. If the seeds are set in the draw like that, then Murray will need to go through Rafa

yummymummy wrote:Oooh-Er

BET Andy gets the worst draw !!!!!!!!!!!

Nadal
Djoko
Federer
Soderling
etc..................

If he were to beat the lot of them and win it I am sure they would let him keep the trophy

yummymummy wrote:I know Legend

Doesn't it go 1 - 4
2- 3

Something like that ?

It goes 1-2 opposite sides, then 3-4 random.

same in quarters - 1,2,3,4 get a quarter, then 5,6,7,8 get spread randomly 1 in each quarter.

I'm far from convinced of that, socal1976, if you look at Fed's record, the US Open offers just as good a chance of Fed winning a slam as Wimbledon, just look at his win rate, it's higher @ the US Open.

Also, what your saying is not dissimilar to what people where saying last year when he was knocked out at the quarter finals at the French & Wimbledon, yet most people here are agreed he has a more than realistic chance of winning Wimbledon, funny how things change in a year.

Also, I doubt Fed takes such a negative view of his own future chances of winning grand slams as you more or less say in your post, listening to his interviews would show this. Just judging by his record, yes, Wimbledon offers his best chance of his pick up, but so does the US Open (although it's more competitive). Just thinking logically, do you think Fed would really just carry on entering grand slams if he thought he'd lose? Every sports person enters a competition because they think they can win it, you have to, Federer is no different.

Football and tennis are COMPLETELY different.

Football match = 90 mins, every weekend, or perhaps twice per week. The 11 players share the load of the stress and are not in full action for the 90 mins with a 15 min break halfway through the game.

Tennis matches = players play every day for 250/500/Masters events over 3 sets, or every other day at slams but over 5 sets. Sometimes events are back to back weeks. The players can play for up to 4-5 hours for slams, or 2-3 hours for other events then have to come back the next day. The range of movement and stress to joints far exceeds that of football. Sometimes the players have to play matches late at night, going to bed late, little sleep the back the next day for more 'punishment' for winning. Do you know the damage lack of sleep has on the repairing ability of the body?

Hence why we see guys playing top level football from 17-37, not the same for tennis player who have a prime window of around 7 years. The wear due to constant tennis is huge on the players. Why do they need back to back events - do they think the human body can take 2-3 hrs per day for 14 days with travel inbetween, often late night matches and daily practice? Its a grind, it really is. The tour should be about sustaining quality tennis, not who can survive the scheduling the best.

Tennis is much more brutal than football, and the scheduling during the season is frankly pathetic and damaging to the players. Its not about the length of the season (although I think it is too long), its about the scheduling within it. Something needs to change...for the good of ALL players and tennis as a whole. Do we want weeks where players are either pulling out of events or half-heartedly playing because they're knackered from the previous weeks event? If you want back to back tennis weeks then I'm very surprised....

Lucius, it isn't that I think Fed doesn't have a chance at the USO or other slams he certainly is a threat at any slam that he enters for the next couple of seasons. But as you indicated in your post other players are better at the hardcourt events as most of the top players' best surface is hardcourt. Djokovic, Murray, Delpo, Sod, Berdych all these guys play better on hardcourt. Now on grass i think Roger is still the most naturally gifted grass court player and his serve and attacking game translate real well on the grass while the competition is maybe not quite as strong.

Lydian I disagree that the wear and tear of tennis is greater than football. I have played both sports and maybe I am Rogeresque in my elegant strokes and therefore my body isn't under as much pressure, but I don't feel a tennis match the same way you feel a real competitive football match with tackling. Not to mention the elbows and headbutts you receive every time the ball goes in the air. And the modern football match at the highest levels most all of the players are running for close to 90 minutes. Especially in the bigger leagues. In tennis you get a 20-30 second break between each and every point, changeovers, breaks in between sets. I have played 3 hours of tennis at a fairly high level and it gets tiring, but it isn't anything like a 90 minute football match. Plus in tennis nobody leg whips you or kicks you.

I agree though that the biggest problem is the back to back nature of the events, but players again are only ranked based on 18 events. They can very easily schedule better. The players want prize money, want appearance fees, want ranking points and they push themselves hard maybe too hard. But 18 events with only 4 of them being 2 week events equals 22 weeks of tennis in a 52 week year. 80 matches a year in a 365 day year equals to one match every 4.5 days. Most of the guys play more than the 18 or 19 events they are required to play, well that is on them. In fact the schedule allows for many of the to play well paying exhibitions, to dabble in a little doubles and to play in Davis Cup. If the players were only playing in qualifying tournaments and they were getting grinded down that is one thing, but most of them enter too many tournaments voluntarily and then at the same time demand the season be shortened.

I have played both sports and maybe I am Rogeresque in my elegant strokes and therefore my body isn't under as much pressure, but I don't feel a tennis match the same way you feel a real competitive football match with tackling.
---------------------------------------
Even if you play table tennis or squash...at the professional level, you are going to give 100% of what you have to win a match. So the exhaustion after a tennis match or a football match should roughly be the same.

The difference is that in tennis you have to do it day in day out and week in week out....well if you are of the winning breed.

The scheduling is pretty ok in tennis as it is. There are a couple of "stress time" in the year, again, only for the very best players but it's no big deal. Look at Murray, because he did not play the FO final, he is ok in Queens despite his ankle injury. So often it's down to one too many match. It would be absurd to change the schedule because there are chances that one player plays "one too many matches". Tournament organisers in Queens or Halle have a bad but exciting schedule..they just need to make do with it and pray that their champion doesn't reach the FO final...simple really.

Roger in hey days could play the FO final, win Halle and Wimbledon without too much stress. But that was when his recuperation time was quicker and the game less physical. I completely disagree though that Halle had weaker players. They had Gasquet (yes a semi finalist of Wimbledon, only beaten by the winner), Safin, Djokovic, Hewitt, Berdych...it's only since they signed a 5 year contract with Federer in 2010 that they were happy to have less names.

"Look at Murray, because he did not play the FO final, he is ok in Halle despite his ankle injury."

I think you got your tournaments mixed up Tenez.

He is playing in the final at Queens today!

No I didn't! ...the joy of editing.

Shoudl be an interesting final....wherever they play!

Tenez, I didn't mean that tennis can't be as exhausting as football what I said is you don't feel a tennis match like you feel a football match. I should have been more specific what I meant was charley horses, bruises and bumps the physical more than the cardiovascular wear and tear. And football at the highest levels since there are less stoppages can't be measured merely as 90 minutes of running compared to a 3 hour tennis match. In tennis after every point there is a significant stoppage, plus changeovers and in between sets.

Having played both Football and Tennis, the requirements are so much different. A tennis match is very demanding and it takes its toll on the body as you have to make sure you have the correct body position when executing shots. In football it is different as the physical demands are so different. Both sports offer opportunities to gain a breather.

I agree with some of what you say socal1976. The US Open has always been more competitive in my view, if you look at the 6 finals Federer played at the US Open, he played a different opponent each time, that tells you how strong (and competitive) the field has always been, yet Federer has always maintained an excellent record. Whereas @ the French Open, it's always been Nadal (bar 2009) and at Wimbledon it's been primarily Nadal and Roddick (who feature in 6 of the 7 finals).

Of course Federer represents a threat at all grand slams, just I think his threat is greatest not only at Wimbledon but the US Open too (slightly less so @ the Aussie Open) regardless of the current crop of players. I mean, if you look at both of his losses @ the US Open recently, both went to 5 sets and both were very close and in the recent one, he had match points. I reckon that even if Federer reached the Wimbledon final this year and lost, I still think he'd be a favourite to win the US Open (certainly one of the favourites).

But is it Nadal's fault that he is so damned good on clay? Surely, it is up to other players to strive to reach his level. Just because he is so far ahead of the opposition on clay does that necessarily mean that this era is full of poor clay court players? I'd beg to differ and prefer to look at it as Nadal just being so good on that surface.

I've not suggested the era is full of poor clay court players, if you referring to my post! I've simply said that there's a strong/competitive field at the US Open compared to other slams like Wimbledon/French. The fact Fed has dominated the US Open doesn't suggest that there's lots of weak hard court players, I'm simply reflecting on why he's faced so many different opponents.

I'd say that the reason that hard court slams are more competitive (in terms of strong contenders) is that it is the most widely used and likely the surface a lot of the players are brought up on. Also throughout the season the majority of the tournaments are hard court whilst clay is not so popular in terms of the amount of tournaments played on it and the grass courts season lasts even less (a mere three or four tournaments). So you see it is only to be expected hard court slams are more competitive.

Good points lucius and craig. I think Roger is one of the favorites at the USO but I would take Djokovic if he keeps playing near his current form over Roger on a hardcourt. I feel like that at the french pressure of playing for the #1, the layoff, and the pressure of the streak kind of gave him a rusty two sets. Fed played great and deserved the win. But i think Novak would be my #1 favorite at the USO. And lets remember that Del Potro is also going to have had a few months to round into shape and he is a monster on the American hardcourts. At the USO I would rate the favorites in this order:

1. Novak
2. Roger
3. Rafa
4. JMDP
5. Andy Murray

Although earlier this year I did predict that Murray would win the USO.

socal1976 wrote: Lydian I disagree that the wear and tear of tennis is greater than football. I have played both sports and maybe I am Rogeresque in my elegant strokes and therefore my body isn't under as much pressure, but I don't feel a tennis match the same way you feel a real competitive football match with tackling. Not to mention the elbows and headbutts you receive every time the ball goes in the air. And the modern football match at the highest levels most all of the players are running for close to 90 minutes. Especially in the bigger leagues. In tennis you get a 20-30 second break between each and every point, changeovers, breaks in between sets. I have played 3 hours of tennis at a fairly high level and it gets tiring, but it isn't anything like a 90 minute football match. Plus in tennis nobody leg whips you or kicks you.

Sorry socal I dont agree with pretty much any of that. I have also played both sports at a decent level, but I'm sure neither of us have played them at pro level - and top pro level at that. The top tennis players are having to play for hours every day for sometimes seemingly weeks on end. Elbows and headbutts is neither here nor there...I dont see why that is a relevant discussion - you dont get players careers on average shortened by elbows, heads, etc. I also disagree players are chasing the ball for 90 mins - if you've ever used the Skysports PlayerCam to watch a single player for 15mins at a time, or watch many live matches at the grounds, you see many players pretty much stood still for long periods of time as they watch the game in the next segment up or down the pitch, they are often just trotting into position as the ball moves around them with the odd flourish when they were on the ball and move up or down.

For me it comes down to how long can each type of player stay at the top?
In tennis - usually 22-29
In football - usually 20-35
Its not just physical - tennis wears the players out much more mentally than football. They dont have team mates to share the mental weight, plus they are not constantly under pressure like a tennis player is from point to point, match to match, day to day.

I guess this site has more Murray fans than Djokovic fans? Current Betting trends have Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray at (roughly) 29%, 28.5%, 22% and 13%. The poll here has them at 29%, 26%, 12% and 24%.

http://odds.football-data.co.uk/tennis/wimbledon-men%27s-singles/winner/

Hello hawkeye and welcome to the forum.

Enjoy

There is no way that football players are running for 90 minutes. The intensity follows the football around the pitch, but only 2-5 people are involved with that intensity at any one time and so the down time at pro level is far more than for pro tennis players. Yes in tennis you get the break, but in between those breaks you are working at maximum intensity,running flat out using full body motions. Youre also stretching your joints to greater levels of flexibility and strain during a typical tennis point, be it service or lunging for a shot. Couple that significantly with full multi-hour matches on consecutive days and the levels of stress are exaggerated by the lack of time to recover.

A minor indicator for me is that you find some of the best footballers have time to drink and party, yet the top tennis players are ALWAYS watching their hydration and energy levels, because it makes so much difference over the course of a match. Whereas with football, if a player starts flagging after 70 minutes, on comes Mr Subby to replace him and make the drink the had the other night less significant to the outcome of the match.

"Mr Subby"

Tenez wrote:The season needs to be cut to 10 months or less with breaks between tournaments otherwise this will result in serious long-term damage to the sport and players.

I expect Tenez to start WUMming re Rafa somewhere on this board.
-------------------------

You certainly know how to wind me up. I don;t want to say but again, you are wrong thinking that a shorter season will be less damaging for the sport.

I'll just give one example. The cycling season! very short indeed!

I was expecting some more 'physical' comments, but good to see a bit more balance.

Re Cycling, I was advocating a 10-month Tennis season, the top guys can play a 'shorter' than that, if allowed by the rules. Too short a season results in too much pressure to win, which is the other extreme.

lydian wrote:Football and tennis are COMPLETELY different.

Football match = 90 mins, every weekend, or perhaps twice per week. The 11 players share the load of the stress and are not in full action for the 90 mins with a 15 min break halfway through the game.

Tennis matches = players play every day for 250/500/Masters events over 3 sets, or every other day at slams but over 5 sets. Sometimes events are back to back weeks. The players can play for up to 4-5 hours for slams, or 2-3 hours for other events then have to come back the next day. The range of movement and stress to joints far exceeds that of football. Sometimes the players have to play matches late at night, going to bed late, little sleep the back the next day for more 'punishment' for winning. Do you know the damage lack of sleep has on the repairing ability of the body?

Hence why we see guys playing top level football from 17-37, not the same for tennis player who have a prime window of around 7 years. The wear due to constant tennis is huge on the players. Why do they need back to back events - do they think the human body can take 2-3 hrs per day for 14 days with travel inbetween, often late night matches and daily practice? Its a grind, it really is. The tour should be about sustaining quality tennis, not who can survive the scheduling the best.

Tennis is much more brutal than football, and the scheduling during the season is frankly pathetic and damaging to the players. Its not about the length of the season (although I think it is too long), its about the scheduling within it. Something needs to change...for the good of ALL players and tennis as a whole. Do we want weeks where players are either pulling out of events or half-heartedly playing because they're knackered from the previous weeks event? If you want back to back tennis weeks then I'm very surprised....

I perfectly agree to almost everything said, but what you forgot to mention his injuries and workout to other parts of body, for instance take Del Boy, the power he generates from wrist is unmatchable and doing it on daily basis puts him on injured list,

Finally workout for 90 mts is more than possible than 3 -4 hrs marathon at top level of tennis, certainly the intensity will wear out most physical parts and cannot be done at pro level by everybody beyond 30's, only selected few have done it.

Lydian, football is a contact sport and that contributes hugely to injuries that can shorten careers. In tennis, I agree one player is under much more pressure mentally. And cardiovascularly a tennis player has to be even fitter because while a small percentage of matches go over 3 and 4 hours there is not timelimit for how long he has to be out there. This whole football comparison is ancilliary to my main argument. The tennis season as scheduled by the AtP could be scheduled better, but I don't think we need to shorten the season more than a week or two tops. The players themselves over extend themselves. By ATP rules the top players are only required to play 22 weeks a year. If you choose to play exhos, if you choose to enter more tourneys for prize money and appearance fees, if you choose to play davis cup, doubles, and to play a lot of non-mandatory events; well then that is on the player. I do agree that the travel of a tennis player is brutal but there is no getting around that as it is a global tour. But the schedule in and of its self is not so bad that it grinds a player down. Especially, now that Monte Carlo is not mandatory. You have to play 18 tournaments, 19 if you qualify for the year ender.

socal1976 wrote:I do agree that the travel of a tennis player is brutal but there is no getting around that as it is a global tour. But the schedule in and of its self is not so bad that it grinds a player down.

I looked at the 2011 calendar and drew it on a map of the globe. It is absolutely brutal. For the Top players, who can afford private transportation, it is a bit easier, but in general, it is very stressful.

socal1976 wrote:Especially, now that Monte Carlo is not mandatory. You have to play 18 tournaments, 19 if you qualify for the year ender.

I cannot find a link now, but there is also an exception for having played 500 (or 600?) tour level matches.

Well that is another difference with footballers. I mean they play matches (but the majority) don't mean a great deal of travel time especially for domestic matches. Tennis players though have to contend with numerous long flights with jet lag involved (not pleasant) to all corners of the world - energy sapping in itself.

laverfan, the ATP ranks you based on 4 grandslams (2000 points), 8 ATP 1000 (formerly Master's, Mercedes Cup, Grand Prixs), 4 ATP 500 point events, and 2 ATP 250s. That is for a player ranked in the top 30. That means a top 30 player has to play 18 events in a 52 week year and the vast majority of them are one week long. If you are in the top 8 you have one extra event the ATP year end championship (1000 points for a champ, 1500 points I believe for an undefeated champion). The ATP schedule is nowhere near as bad as lets say the Nba schedule in American basketball. They play 82 regular season games, exhibition games, and for the eventual champion 15-25 postseason games.

But we need to compare the brutality of what happens within the schedules. Yes NBA may have more matches but the games themselves are hardly that stressful, the pitch is pretty small too. I dont think we can compare sports. Again NBA is team based too, and I dont really see where the mental strain comes in vs tennis. Besides some of the tennis players play around 90 matches, exhos and other events so its not that much different. I really dont see how these nationally based team sports are comparable to the toughest levels required for global tennis singles tours.

The problem is the best of 18 approach. It should be best of 14 like it used to be, or best of 16 - compromise. Top players tend to attend 22-24 events per year, thats almost 1 per fortnight through the whole year, excpet they dont play the whole year so its compressed even more - and as we know there are at least 3 instances when players are playing back to back weeks, e.g. durin clay, FO-Queens/Halle and the perennial farce of Canada/Cincy played in usually blazing heat.

The tour is a grind, there's no other word for it. It has become survival of the fittest in many ways. I would like to see them reschedule the calendar properly, a good off season (football generally gets mid-May to early August), and no back to back weeks for the major events. Its ok for guys who rarely make finals, but for those who do (the top 5), it makes life unbearable for them really - the tour seems to penalise those who do best. Something needs sorting...

Lydian, again I don't want to get into a sports per sport comparison because that isn't my main point. You mentioned yourself the biggest argument against shortening the schedule. Only 18 tournaments are required and most of the players play voluntarily 22-24 tournaments, exos, davis cup, some play doubles. Therefore it isn't the required tournaments that are doing them in. There are a couple of months here and there were the guys have back to back masters. But if playing 22 or 24 tourneys is too hard, just play 18 that is all you are required to play, and we don't need to change the tour, drop tournaments, rearrange things. If you want an extra month off then just don't sign up for as many tourneys, no act of congress is required.

I bet if we reduced the number of compulsory tournaments, the vast majority of the guys would still play the same number of events, you know why? Because if you could make 50,000 grand for showing up for a week you would do it.

I'm surprised so many have voted before the seedings are out for Wimbledon, having said that, the poll for the top two contenders is pretty close to what I'd have put it for both Federer and Nadal.

Well put it this way I will be gobsmacked if someone outwith the top four wins Wimbledon. Favourite in my eyes Roger Federer, followed by Rafael Nadal then Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic.

Now the draw's decided, I feel confident enough to vote on who I think will win. It was hard, but has to be Federer, an easy draw with more tricky finals matches should give him the perfect preparation for the final.

I think the voting percentages are pretty close to my own view of their respective chances, apart from Murray's, which I think is a bit high and Djokovic's, which is a bit low.

Lucius
I agree with you, especially in view of the draw. On paper, you'd say Nadal and Murray have the slightly tougher draws, so whoever comes out of the top half of the draw may be a bit more fatigued.

Pre-draw I made Rafa and Federer equal, but RF definitely has an easier path to the semi-finals (although an in form Tsonga could make an interesting QF opponent), so must now edge ahead as favourite.

I always had Djoko as third favourite, because he must still have some good confidence from the streak, and Murray as 4th. I've pretty much dismissed the chances of a winner from outside this top four.

dummy_half wrote:Lucius
I agree with you, especially in view of the draw. On paper, you'd say Nadal and Murray have the slightly tougher draws, so whoever comes out of the top half of the draw may be a bit more fatigued.

Pre-draw I made Rafa and Federer equal, but RF definitely has an easier path to the semi-finals (although an in form Tsonga could make an interesting QF opponent), so must now edge ahead as favourite.

I always had Djoko as third favourite, because he must still have some good confidence from the streak, and Murray as 4th. I've pretty much dismissed the chances of a winner from outside this top four.

Agree there. Last year at the FO, Berdy had already popped his head up as a form player. This year there hasn't really been anyone who has put there hand up a a form player with good potential on grass, so its very difficult to look beyond the top four without a lot of speculation.

Federer chances have increase imo. However in one respect if he does get through to the SF without being tested and is just allowed to play his own game then potentially Djokovic has a slightly increased chance of shocking Federer when he realises he can't play his own way. I do find it hard to see Djokovic beating Fed on grass though, really hard.

One player i didn't notice was Inser in Feds 1/8th. Have to say he played very well against Nadal in the FO even if Nadal wasn't firing all 64 cylinders. Not sure how much impact his serve will have at wimbledon

Tom_____ wrote:
One player i didn't notice was Inser in Feds 1/8th. Have to say he played very well against Nadal in the FO even if Nadal wasn't firing all 64 cylinders. Not sure how much impact his serve will have at wimbledon

Fed can handle big servers. He beat Dr Ivo in W 09. He has beaten Isner @Shanghai 2010 (on HC though).
Isner has a tough time handling low slices and drop shots.