|
Day 15.
Sept 8, 2008 18:29:47 GMT -5
Post by Calico on Sept 8, 2008 18:29:47 GMT -5
I didn't notice Enberg saying anything senile this Open. Maybe I was just lucky with timing, but congrats to whoever upped his Haldol. What's Haldol? I wonder if Federer can win 5 Australian Open titles to match his 5 Wimbledon's and 5 U.S. Open's. That would be an amazing feat.
|
|
Ceca
Full Member
All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
Posts: 223
|
Day 15.
Sept 8, 2008 18:52:24 GMT -5
Post by Ceca on Sept 8, 2008 18:52:24 GMT -5
I wonder if Federer can win 5 Australian Open titles to match his 5 Wimbledon's and 5 U.S. Open's. That would be an amazing feat feet. Fixered! ;D Fed combined brilliance with blahness (losing seven straight points on serve ), but he really came out firing at the start of the 3rd set
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 8, 2008 19:09:27 GMT -5
Post by Calico on Sept 8, 2008 19:09:27 GMT -5
I wonder if Federer can win 5 Australian Open titles to match his 5 Wimbledon's and 5 U.S. Open's. That would be an amazing feat feet. Fixered! ;D Fed combined brilliance with blahness (losing seven straight points on serve ), but he really came out firing at the start of the 3rd set Why Ceca? Why? Why did you change the way I spelled feat to feet? I think doing that is against Becca's law. And what does Fixered mean? Is that about the USTA or something?
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 8, 2008 19:41:03 GMT -5
Post by janie on Sept 8, 2008 19:41:03 GMT -5
What is a real Scottish accent? You know, like Hamish Macbeth!
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 9, 2008 0:03:28 GMT -5
Post by The Chloe on Sept 9, 2008 0:03:28 GMT -5
What is Becca's Law? It's not like she changed your original post.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 9, 2008 4:33:58 GMT -5
Post by The Chloe on Sept 9, 2008 4:33:58 GMT -5
Toronto - W Cincy - SF Olympics - W USO - SF
Nadal might never have a better summer hardourt season than that.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 9, 2008 4:39:53 GMT -5
Post by lexpretend on Sept 9, 2008 4:39:53 GMT -5
I think he'll definitely have better hard court seasons! At least one which involves winning the USO, anyway.
I'm pleased with the result, anyway. Two more Slams and I can stop cheering for Fed. Though really, I'd only stop cheering for him out of boredom, because purely in terms of aesthetic appeal, his game at its best is still my favourite.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 9, 2008 5:59:12 GMT -5
Post by The Chloe on Sept 9, 2008 5:59:12 GMT -5
I was considering the possibility that he might never win the USO. I certainly consider it possible that he could... but it could go either way. So, we'll see. It was a pretty bloody good summer hardcourt season, so it wouldn't be so tragic if he failed to top it.
As for Fed, you might be able to stop rooting for him as early as next year. God willing!
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 9, 2008 6:39:20 GMT -5
Post by Calico on Sept 9, 2008 6:39:20 GMT -5
What is Becca's Law? It's not like she changed your original post. He. I'm not sure what Becca's Law is but it sounds good. I wonder if Nadal has a better chance to win the career grand slam than Federer does even though Nadal still needs to win 2 of the 4 grand slams while Federer only needs to win one. But it's a tough one for Roger to win.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 9, 2008 9:44:49 GMT -5
Post by The Chloe on Sept 9, 2008 9:44:49 GMT -5
Unless he can avoid Nadal, I don't see Federer winning Roland Garros. And who can challenge Nadal over 5 sets on clay? Yet, I can see Nadal taking out Murray, Djokovic, or Federer on hardcourts. He's going to win at least some of those matches. So, I'd say Nadal is more likely. But I don't think that either will do it.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 9, 2008 20:36:11 GMT -5
Post by Calico on Sept 9, 2008 20:36:11 GMT -5
Unless he can avoid Nadal, I don't see Federer winning Roland Garros. And who can challenge Nadal over 5 sets on clay? Yet, I can see Nadal taking out Murray, Djokovic, or Federer on hardcourts. He's going to win at least some of those matches. So, I'd say Nadal is more likely. But I don't think that either will do it. I agree Nadal is more likely to win the career grand slam than Federer is. But he still needs to win 2 grand slams while Federer needs only one. And it's possible a tough clay court player like Andreev could shock Nadal at Roland Garros some year to open the door for Federer. And then you add in the injury factor. Federer hardly bever gets hurt while Nadal seems to be much more injury prone even though he's almost 5 years younger than Federer.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 10, 2008 6:10:49 GMT -5
Post by The Chloe on Sept 10, 2008 6:10:49 GMT -5
I agree Nadal is more likely to win the career grand slam than Federer is. But he still needs to win 2 grand slams while Federer needs only one. And it's possible a tough clay court player like Andreev could shock Nadal at Roland Garros some year to open the door for Federer. And then you add in the injury factor. Federer hardly bever gets hurt while Nadal seems to be much more injury prone even though he's almost 5 years younger than Federer. If Nadal lost early or pulled out of RG due to injury, Federer would probably be the favourite next season, and perhaps the one after that. But for somebody who is always busted, Nadal's never really crapped out of a slam due to injury, has he? Aside from pulling out of the 2006 Australian Open, I mean. A player like Andreev could possibly challenge Nadal. But, in order for that to happen, you need Andreev on the ball and in Nadal's section of the draw. The odds of both of those things happening is unlikely. Even if it did happen, Nadal would still be the favourite in that matchup. There really just aren't that many guys that can hang with him on clay, these days. Damn them for speeding up the clay.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 10, 2008 6:12:01 GMT -5
Post by The Chloe on Sept 10, 2008 6:12:01 GMT -5
(let us all remember that post, so that Leena can bump it up next year when he loses to Davydenko. Or somebody)
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 10, 2008 20:16:15 GMT -5
Post by Calico on Sept 10, 2008 20:16:15 GMT -5
Yes Nadal is usally healthy for the grand slams even though some people think he's injury prone. That really isn't the case. Perhaps it's all that tape on his knees that throws people off thinking he has bad knees. I think Andreev would be a stiff test for Nadal at Roland Garros in the first week especialy before Rafa gets grooved. But Igor would need to be in Iafa's section of the draw which is what a 25% chance? I guess the odds are against that match happening at the 2009 French Open. I agree Nadal is more likely to win the career grand slam than Federer is. But he still needs to win 2 grand slams while Federer needs only one. And it's possible a tough clay court player like Andreev could shock Nadal at Roland Garros some year to open the door for Federer. And then you add in the injury factor. Federer hardly bever gets hurt while Nadal seems to be much more injury prone even though he's almost 5 years younger than Federer. If Nadal lost early or pulled out of RG due to injury, Federer would probably be the favourite next season, and perhaps the one after that. But for somebody who is always busted, Nadal's never really crapped out of a slam due to injury, has he? Aside from pulling out of the 2006 Australian Open, I mean. A player like Andreev could possibly challenge Nadal. But, in order for that to happen, you need Andreev on the ball and in Nadal's section of the draw. The odds of both of those things happening is unlikely. Even if it did happen, Nadal would still be the favourite in that matchup. There really just aren't that many guys that can hang with him on clay, these days. Damn them for speeding up the clay.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 10, 2008 22:34:49 GMT -5
Post by sasha on Sept 10, 2008 22:34:49 GMT -5
Kolya is finished. I think Federer has a much more realistic chance at winning all 4 slams. Let's not forget, he's been the 2nd best player on clay for the last 4 years. All it takes is one Rafa slip up and Roger is the favorite. As for Nadal, even with how much he improved this year, he remains screwed if he faces a hard hitter or young gun on his game. I think he has 2-3 years tops left of this high level of tennis, so odds are against Rafa.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 10, 2008 23:31:20 GMT -5
Post by DBBN on Sept 10, 2008 23:31:20 GMT -5
I agree with Leena. Roger has one Slam that he likely won't win, while Rafa has two Slams which he probably won't win. Probability always confuses me, but I think mathematically Roger's odds are better.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 11, 2008 11:53:06 GMT -5
Post by janie on Sept 11, 2008 11:53:06 GMT -5
Why couldn't Rafa win the USO in a non-Olympic year -- he really just ran out of steam at the end there this year. Not to say he would for sure have beaten Murray or Fed, but he might have if he had had his usual energy.
And why couldn't he ever win the AO, where the surface is slower than in Arthur Ashe stadium?
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 11, 2008 11:57:58 GMT -5
Post by DBBN on Sept 11, 2008 11:57:58 GMT -5
He can, but he...you know, might not.
He has two Slams left where he has to dodge a bunch of people who can beat him. Roger has one Slam left where he has to dodge ONE person. Math.
|
|
|
Day 15.
Sept 11, 2008 21:22:32 GMT -5
Post by Calico on Sept 11, 2008 21:22:32 GMT -5
He can, but he...you know, might not. He has two Slams left where he has to dodge a bunch of people who can beat him. Roger has one Slam left where he has to dodge ONE person. Math. It's hard to disagree with that match. The main problem for Nadal is that he never plays his best tennis at the U.S. Open because a little he's tired after a grueling spring and summer of tennis. And I don't know if Nadal will ever play the U.S. open as fresh and strong as he is for the French Open and Wimbledon.
|
|