Wimbledon 2010

[Raees]

Grass is treated too shabbily. Not even having ONE masters series tournament and outside the Slam the most important Grass tournament is Queens and that too with just 250 ATP points is a real shame. It's a disgrace really.

You have the hard court season for the first 3.5 months. You have it for the 2nd entire half of the year. And just 3 weeks for grass?

Aye its wank... I wish there was a 4th surface and the tour was equally divided, would be so much fairer.

Says it all about Nadal's talent that the tour is so heavily biased against him i.e. Hardcourt centred and yet he's still so successful, Australian Open win is testament to his talent.

 

[Raoul]

I don't think anyone is slighting Nadal's accomplishments at such a relatively young age. He's just not Federer. Once Rafa gets to 16 slams, we can put him in the same league as Fed. That's if Fed doesn't win any more. I'm inclined to think he may get to 20 before he's done.

 

[wr8_utd]

I don't think anyone is slighting Nadal's accomplishments at such a relatively young age. He's just not Federer. Once Rafa gets to 16 slams, we can put him in the same league as Fed. That's if Fed doesn't win any more. I'm inclined to think he may get to 20 before he's done.

Well 8 slams on 3 different surfaces is not bad for someone called as a "one dimensional" player by Federer after Fed lost to him in the 2006 semis at RG eh?

And Nadal already is almost as good as Fed. Bjorg is considered a legend and uttered in the same breath as Fed so why not Nadal (who also btw owns Federer)

 

[Nearco]

A player like McEnroe would take Nadal apart on an 80s grass court.

No he wouldn't. John's biggest weapon was his serve outwide to right hander's which Nadal would crush. McEnroe would probably beat him, but it would be close - a lot closer than a match on clay between the two would have been.

 

[Nearco]

That's just says that the standard of men's tennis on grass is at an all-time low.

Er, Michael Stich? Richard Krajicek? Some awful turds have managed to win Wimbledon in it's time. The problem with you Peter is you're a nostalgia monkey. Everything new is shite and everything from the 60s and 70s was great. I know this from your music posts and your username. I wonder where you put Sea the Stars in the pantheon of champions?

 

[peterstorey]

I'm not a nostalgia monkey I just get fed up with people who haven't seen Ali, Best, Laver or Piggott telling me one of today's overhyped monkeys is better (Sea the Stars is as good a Derby winner as I've seen up there with Mill Reef, mind you I always rate the ones I back).

 

[dumbo]

It's harder to win on clay than to win on grass.

That's bullshit to be fair.

Nadal is one of the best players of the game and seems a genuinely nice guy but his tedious, attrition style is perfectly suited to the slow. And particularly against Federer. Remembering back to the clay final a few years ago when Federer played 'winner' after 'winner' against him only for Nadal to scamper and chip a high ball back. It was like watching Federer play a wall, waiting for Fed's impatience and unforced errors, rather than good tennis to settle the point. (parasite tennis if you're Mic McCarthy).

If anything it's the quicker courts that separate the wheat from the chaff - even if they do slightly reward brute power - as they favour shot making and invention (and forced errors), over mindless defense (and unforced errors).

Nadal can switch it up and has become a better attacking player over the years but he's no Federer or Sampras in their prime.

 

[peterstorey]

He barely got out of second gear against Berdych. If it was against Fed or any of the other top five, he'd have had to bring more variety to the table.

Or he might have shown some of his repertoire against a weak opponent he was beating comfortably. All he did was keep the ball away from Berdych's forehand and that was enough to win. Pure tedium. Contrast the Stan Smith v Ilie Nastase final of 1972, serve and volley against a virtuoso all-court player - a great contest not a borefest.

 

[wr8_utd]

Or he might have shown some of his repertoire against a weak opponent he was beating comfortably. All he did was keep the ball away from Berdych's forehand and that was enough to win. Pure tedium. Contrast the Stan Smith v Ilie Nastase final of 1972, serve and volley against a virtuoso all-court player - a great contest not a borefest.

Fed vs Nadal 2 years back was one of the best matches ever.

And imo Roddick vs Fed around 4-5 years back when Fed won in straight sets was just as bad as this.

And the swirling wind did not exactly help. It was difficult for both to hit their shots.

 

[wr8_utd]

That's bullshit to be fair.

Nadal is one of the best players of the game and seems a genuinely nice guy but his tedious, attrition style is perfectly suited to the slow. And particularly against Federer. Remembering back to the clay final a few years ago when Federer played 'winner' after 'winner' against him only for Nadal to scamper and chip a high ball back. It was like watching Federer play a wall, waiting for Fed's impatience and unforced errors, rather than good tennis to settle the point. (parasite tennis if you're Mic McCarthy).

If anything it's the quicker courts that separate the wheat from the chaff - even if they do slightly reward brute power - as they favour shot making and invention (and forced errors), over mindless defense (and unforced errors).

Nadal can switch it up and has become a better attacking player over the years but he's no Federer or Sampras in their prime.

Fed, Agassi and Sampras, 3 legends, have 2 French Opens between them.

It's more difficult to adapt your game to clay and big servers can maybe win Wimby but that's ineffective on clay. So yeah imo it IS harder to win on clay than grass.

Just because Nadal is an absolute beast on clay and probably the greatest ever does not mean it's easy.

 

[wr8_utd]

That's bullshit to be fair.

Nadal is one of the best players of the game and seems a genuinely nice guy but his tedious, attrition style is perfectly suited to the slow. And particularly against Federer. Remembering back to the clay final a few years ago when Federer played 'winner' after 'winner' against him only for Nadal to scamper and chip a high ball back. It was like watching Federer play a wall, waiting for Fed's impatience and unforced errors, rather than good tennis to settle the point. (parasite tennis if you're Mic McCarthy).

If anything it's the quicker courts that separate the wheat from the chaff - even if they do slightly reward brute power - as they favour shot making and invention (and forced errors), over mindless defense (and unforced errors).

Nadal can switch it up and has become a better attacking player over the years but he's no Federer or Sampras in their prime.

Which final are you talking about btw? 2008 when Fed when a total of 4 games in the entire final? I don't remember Nadal playing defensive that day. He destroyed Fed with winners all over the court.

Even the matches before that Fed has never hit his shots good enough. And being defensive and being able to return everything is an art in itself.

Did you think United were shit and us winning the title 2 years back thanks to our run of clean sheets made it any lesser or easier an achievment?

 

[Peasplease]

Fed, Agassi and Sampras, 3 legends, have 2 French Opens between them.

And contrasting with that you'd have far lessor players (then the 3 mentioned) that have won the French Open many times between them. It's different, not harder.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Oh look some clueless turds trying to downplay Rafa's achievements. Surprise Surprise.

 

[Nani Nana]

Oh look some clueless turds trying to downplay Rafa's achievements. Surprise Surprise.

His decision to not take part in a decisive Davis cup round for Spain certainly is quite an achievement.

 

[wr8_utd]

His decision to not take part in a decisive Davis cup round for Spain certainly is quite an achievement.

He's having treatment on his right knee. He had the same treatment on his left knee pre Rolland Garros.

It's very rare that Nadal pulls out of playing for his country.

 

[peterstorey]

Oh look some clueless turds trying to downplay Rafa's achievements. Surprise Surprise.

Some 'Rafa' fanboi adding nothing to the debate except an embarrassing girliness.

 

[Count Duckula]

Oh look some clueless turds trying to downplay Rafa's achievements. Surprise Surprise.

It's ridiculous, isn't it? It's as if somehow admitting that Nadal is probably the best ever makes you a "bad" tennis fan.

 

[Peasplease]

Oh look some clueless turds trying to downplay Rafa's achievements. Surprise Surprise.

You're not talking about me are you? My argument is that the French Open is not harder to win then the others. If that's downplaying Rafa's achievements, then fine, I'm downplaying Rafa's achievements.

 

[wr8_utd]

It's ridiculous, isn't it? It's as if somehow admitting that Nadal is probably the best ever makes you a "bad" tennis fan.

Noo. He's rubbish.

Everyone in their prime (Fed included) would have beaten him.

 

[Nani Nana]

why do people put a slant on determining the best ever player each time someone sticks its neck out above the rest

it's like they can't enjoy the show unless they hold the belief that what they see was previously unseen

 

[Count Duckula]

Noo. He's rubbish.

Everyone in their prime (Fed included) would have beaten him.

I assume you're being sarcastic here. Given that everyone blew smoke up Federer's arse and said he was the best who ever lived, and Nadal consistently beats him on every single surface, I don't see how it can be argued against?

In fact, I'll go one further and say that Nadal is the best tennis player who ever lived. A couple more years of this and there'll be absolutely no doubt as to that, though I'm sure there'll still be plenty of Federer fanboys claiming this and that in a desperate attempt to make it seem like their guy didn't just get smashed by the Spaniard.

Were it not for the fact that his injuries will probably force him to retire from the game at an earlier age than normal, I think Nadal could go down as not just the best tennis player of all time, but one of the best sportsmen in general.

 

[Count Duckula]

why do people put a slant on determining the best ever player each time someone sticks its neck out above the rest

it's like they can't enjoy the show unless they hold the belief that what they see was previously unseen

What? That doesn't even make sense.

Name me another sport where we're seeing the best ever, and people are trumpeting that? Football? Nah. Messi is fantastic, but absolutely no one is calling him the best ever, just saying that he's superb. Basketball? Maybe, but I don't think so, people like Kobe and LeBron are regarded as superstars who will go into that pantheon, but not the best ever. Formula One? Well, we are seeing the best ever, but that's only because he's come out of retirement and is currently making a fool of himself at the back of the grid.

Come on, NN. I challenge you.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

You're not talking about me are you? My argument is that the French Open is not harder to win then the others. If that's downplaying Rafa's achievements, then fine, I'm downplaying Rafa's achievements.

No. I agree with your view. The FO isn't harder. It is just different.

 

[wr8_utd]

I assume you're being sarcastic here. Given that everyone blew smoke up Federer's arse and said he was the best who ever lived, and Nadal consistently beats him on every single surface, I don't see how it can be argued against?

In fact, I'll go one further and say that Nadal is the best tennis player who ever lived. A couple more years of this and there'll be absolutely no doubt as to that, though I'm sure there'll still be plenty of Federer fanboys claiming this and that in a desperate attempt to make it seem like their guy didn't just get smashed by the Spaniard.

Were it not for the fact that his injuries will probably force him to retire from the game at an earlier age than normal, I think Nadal could go down as not just the best tennis player of all time, but one of the best sportsmen in general.

Yes I was most certainly being sarcastic

Well I won't say he's the greatest ever ( I don't think anyone can take that away from Rod Laver) but he's certainly already one of the all time greats.

And yes Federer is yet to beat Nadal on clay whereas Nadal has done that. Nadal's also beaten on Fed's other favorite surface, the hard courts of Australia. So I don't know where the talk of "fed being much better than nadal" comes from.

How can Fed be the greatest ever when he's not even capable of beating his greatest challenger from the same era? Sampras had a winning record against Agassi. Fed does not against Nadal.

Laver>>Sampras>>Fed imho.

 

[wr8_utd]

What? That doesn't even make sense.

Name me another sport where we're seeing the best ever, and people are trumpeting that? Football? Nah. Messi is fantastic, but absolutely no one is calling him the best ever, just saying that he's superb. Basketball? Maybe, but I don't think so, people like Kobe and LeBron are regarded as superstars who will go into that pantheon, but not the best ever. Formula One? Well, we are seeing the best ever, but that's only because he's come out of retirement and is currently making a fool of himself at the back of the grid.

Come on, NN. I challenge you.

Watching him struggle into 12th and 14th is quite amusing actually

 

[Nani Nana]

What? That doesn't even make sense.

Name me another sport where we're seeing the best ever, and people are trumpeting that? Football? Nah. Messi is fantastic, but absolutely no one is calling him the best ever, just saying that he's superb. Basketball? Maybe, but I don't think so, people like Kobe and LeBron are regarded as superstars who will go into that pantheon, but not the best ever. Formula One? Well, we are seeing the best ever, but that's only because he's come out of retirement and is currently making a fool of himself at the back of the grid.

Come on, NN. I challenge you.

golf

 

[Nani Nana]

Er, Michael Stich? Richard Krajicek? Some awful turds have managed to win Wimbledon in it's time. The problem with you Peter is you're a nostalgia monkey. Everything new is shite and everything from the 60s and 70s was great. I know this from your music posts and your username. I wonder where you put Sea the Stars in the pantheon of champions?

sorry but the 1960s and 1970s were quite clearly the two richest decades in the history of music, you cannot argue with that

1967 alone is still inspiring millions of youngsters today

The summer of 1967 is "The Summer of Love" in San Francisco. It also became an important year for psychedelic rock, with releases from The Beatles (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Magical Mystery Tour), Small Faces ("Itchycoo Park"), Eric Burdon & The Animals (Winds of Change), The Doors (The Doors and Strange Days), Jefferson Airplane (Surrealistic Pillow and After Bathing at Baxter's), Pink Floyd (The Piper at the Gates of Dawn), Love (Forever Changes), Cream (Disraeli Gears), The Rolling Stones (Their Satanic Majesties Request), The Who (The Who Sell Out), The Velvet Underground (The Velvet Underground & Nico), Procol Harum (Procol Harum), and The Jimi Hendrix Experience (Are You Experienced? and Axis: Bold As Love).​

 

[Count Duckula]

golf

So Tiger Woods isn't the best ever? Fair enough if you believe that, but that's also one sport. Your post implied it's happening constantly, in all disciplines.

Come on, name more.

 

[Nani Nana]

So Tiger Woods isn't the best ever? Fair enough if you believe that, but that's also one sport. Your post implied it's happening constantly, in all disciplines.

Come on, name more.

well so far we have tennis, golf and formula 1.

In basketball and football, the comparisons used to assess LeBron James and Leo Messi's abilities are part and parcel of my argumentation. Have you never come across pundits likening the latter to Maradona ?

It is exactly what I'm talking about.. Who cares about Messi or Maradona. We have both. Stop measuring them like people do under Youtube videos where each song is compared to Like a Rolling Stone and each band to The Beatles.

 

[Nani Nana]

the bedrock of my argumentation is that whenever a record is beaten does not mean the record breaker is better than all those before him.

it can mean he was more lucky, better prepared thanks to modern infrastructures et al.

Imagine a guy in Egypt who said in 750 BC that it was 7 AM when in fact it was 8 AM and his sundial is flawed. Today I look at my watch and see it is 5 PM in Paris France. Does it mean I am better than this Egyptian at assessing the hour? perhaps at that time the sundial I'd have constructed would have been worse than his.

 

[Count Duckula]

well so far we have tennis, golf and formula 1.

In basketball and football, the comparisons used to assess LeBron James and Leo Messi's abilities are part and parcel of my argumentation. Have you never come across pundits likening the latter to Maradona ?

It is exactly what I'm talking about.. Who cares about Messi or Maradona. We have both. Stop measuring them like people do under Youtube videos where each song is compared to Like a Rolling Stone and each band to The Beatles.

No, you were talking about people wanting to claim that whoever is the best at this current moment is the best in the history of the sport. You've since changed your argument merely to rail against the comparison of any players at all, which is a totally different - and moronic - issue. Of course people will want to compare players; it's human nature.

But your issue was that people want to claim the current star is the best ever, which is simply not true. The two fields where such chest-thumping is taking place (tennis and golf) are probably the two fields where it's justified. I can't think of another sporting discipline where people are claiming that the guy they're watching is the best who ever lived, and neither, it seems, can you.

 

[Count Duckula]

the bedrock of my argumentation is that whenever a record is beaten does not mean the record breaker is better than all those before him.

it can mean he was more lucky, better prepared thanks to modern infrastructures et al.

Imagine a guy in Egypt who said in 750 BC that it was 7 AM when in fact it was 8 AM and his sundial is flawed. Today I look at my watch and see it is 5 PM in Paris France. Does it mean I am better than this Egyptian at assessing the hour? perhaps at that time the sundial I'd have constructed would have been worse than his.

No one has said that at any point in this thread. You're just making stuff up now; fighting straw men, if you will.

And what the hell? Seriously, is this how you retreat from a losing argument? Spout a metaphor that makes no sense in the context of the argument (or in this case simply no sense at all) and waltz off triumphant like the hyper-reactive drama queen you are?

 

[dumbo]

Which final are you talking about btw? 2008 when Fed when a total of 4 games in the entire final? I don't remember Nadal playing defensive that day. He destroyed Fed with winners all over the court.

2007 I think, maybe 2006. Federer played some spectacular tennis for an hour or so before losing the will and Nadal just picked him off. It was the most negative, ugly tennis I've ever seen. But fair play to Nadal he did what he had to and I think Nadal has had a psychological edge over Federer since that day. And no doubt it played it's part during the whitewash a couple of years ago.

As for the value of winning over playing entertaining tennis point, it's the same way I view Mourinho's football. I credit him for the results and titles but I'm not going to praise him for the dog shit spectacle. Which is part of the reason as to why I rate Federer because not only does he play some of the best winning tennis he also plays inspirational and majestic tennis. (interestingly enough table tennis introduced rules years ago to try and combat ultra defensive, attritional styles, which were stifling skill).

It's not even a fanboi thing, I think Fed has become a bit of a pompous arse really and Nadal shows greater humility.

 

[Nani Nana]

I've not really changed my argument, you have. You are simply justifying your position by arguing it is human nature and not a gross exaggeration of things due to people always wanting exclusivity, which it is.

But your issue was that people want to claim the current star is the best ever, which is simply not true. The two fields where such chest-thumping is taking place (tennis and golf) are probably the two fields were it's justified. I can't think of another sporting discipline where people are claiming that the guy they're watching is the best who ever lived, and neither, it seems, can you.

Formula 1 is an undisputable one that you conveniently took out of your list.

Football :

CNN World Sport: Blog Archive - Is Messi better than Maradona? « - CNN.com Blogs

http://www.mmail.com.my/content/31132-messi-better-maradona

Is Lionel Messi the Best Player in History? | Bleacher Report


Basketball

LeBron James: The Best Ever? | Bleacher Report

LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan, LeBron best ever? - NBA

 

[wr8_utd]

This "tennis" thread has veered a bit off topic and track since Nani Nani came in

 

[Nani Nana]

This "tennis" thread has veered a bit off topic and track since Nani Nani came in

the tournament is over.

 

[Count Duckula]

NN dragging a thread off-topic with overly-verbose replies and nonsensical arguments? Never!

 

[Nani Nana]

NN dragging a thread off-topic with overly-verbose replies and nonsensical arguments? Never!

count duckula losing an argument and acting like he never entered it? never.

 

[Raoul]

Let's keep this on topic before i start deleting posts.

 

[wr8_utd]

Let's keep this on topic before i start deleting posts.

Well the topic is long over. Just make this the tennis thread