The Tennis Thread

[NemesiS]

Thats his main problem; his knees! He plays at such an unbelieveable level charging round the court that i think an injury at some point is inevitable. He won't be able to keep that up playing that level of punishing tennis. His fitness routine is frightening.

Regarding federer tho, i hope he does get the 2 more slams he needs but any final he gets to is more than likely going to feature Nadal as well and even if Nadal plays below his best, the chances are, federers gonna be beaten in his head before he even steps on court. Which i would have thought impossible a year ago.

Like you said though i hope Nadal does get the US open to complete the set, and i also wouldn't put it past him winning all this year if he avoids injury.

[Anpanman]

Saw it too, they are both fantastic to watch, wanted Federer to win and it's a shame he missed out.

I think he can beat Nadal but he needs to get his unforced errors sorted, it's what cost him the game yesterday 71 v 40 plus needs to take his chances, had a bucketload to get the first set.

He won't beat Nadal in France but I hope he can come good again at Wimbledon, felt for him yesterday looked a really gutted and in some ways broken by Nadal.

[Finsbury Girl]

I think it proves how rubbish the men's game is at the moment. There's no depth at all - look at some of the jokes who made the last 16 in every slam the past couple of years.

As far as I'm concerned no-one comes close to the Rockhampton Rocket.

[Nu-Eclipse]

I think it proves how rubbish the men's game is at the moment. There's no depth at all - look at some of the jokes who made the last 16 in every slam the past couple of years.

Not wanting to make this a "Battle of the Sexes" debate, but I think you'll find that the Men's game unquestionably has FAR more depth than the Women's game.

Case in point: Until the Australian Open, Jelena Jankovic was Women's World #1 despite the fact that she has never won a Major, whereas Rafael Nadal has had to win 5 majors (4 French, 1 Wimbledon) before getting the top spot in the men's game.

So if (by your logic) the Men's game is rubbish, the Women's game must be even worse, no?

[NemesiS]

Not wanting to make this a "Battle of the Sexes" debate, but I think you'll find that the Men's game unquestionably has FAR more depth than the Women's game.

Case in point: Until the Australian Open, Jelena Jankovic was Women's World #1 despite the fact that she has never won a Major, whereas Rafael Nadal has had to win 5 majors (4 French, 1 Wimbledon) before getting the top spot in the men's game.

So if (by your logic) the Men's game is rubbish, the Women's game must be even worse, no?

Agree'd. The mens game now is arguably the strongest it has ever been, with the top 4 players all well able to win slams (3 of which have). Like Nu-Eclipse said, it took Nadal 5 slam wins before he overhauled an admittedly super dominant federer. But even outside the top 4 there are about another 10 players who could very easily make the step up to challenge that quartet.

Verdaco's performances made a mockery of his world ranking.

I would also say the womens game while not weak is certainly no where near the level of competition in the mens. For example; Serena Williams can go away for a year injured and come back at world no 90 and still win pretty much any competition she enters as she did last year before wimbledon, as can Venus. With the retirement of Henin, there is no threat to them at the moment. Sharapova, Safina et al all blow too hot and cold.

Laver wouldn't have lived with todays players even had he had the same access to the facilities for training the top players have today. He was great in an era when tennis was still a hobby more than a blue riband sport.

[Extra Terrestrial]

Oh, I didn't know there was a tennis thread on here! Thanks goes to the search feature.

Anyway, I watched the Miami Masters when I was in St Lucia!

Murray played very well - he is playing some great anti-tennis at the moment - however, his opponents (lately) are either injured, non-competitive compared to their Grand Slam play style or they do not turn up altogether and deliver a below par performance.

Murray needs some tough matches and he isn't getting many of them lately.

He is doing well at the moment as he is in the Monte Carlo semi-final.

Let's hope he challenges Nadal if he wish to make it to the final - it would be great if Nadal lost a set on clay just to test his nerves but then again, he is almost unstoppable on his favourite surface.

Tennis has been good this year so far.

Has anybody got any Wimbledon tickets? I've got two.

YAY!

[Nu-Eclipse]

The impossible has finally happened.

A well below-par Rafael Nadal beaten for the very first time at the French Open by an in-form Robin Soderling in four sets.

What price Roger Federer to now win the French Open, complete the Grand Slam and equal Pete Sampras' 14 major wins?

[yesteryeargames]

A damn good chance I'd say!

Excellent match that was ( Nadal v Sodderling ) Sodderling played near perfect tennis and deserved to win.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Excellent match that was ( Nadal v Sodderling ) Sodderling played near perfect tennis and deserved to win.

No question that Soderling was excellent and a worthy winner, but that was easily Rafa's worst-ever performance on a clay court anywhere. The amount of unforced errors from the Spaniard beggared belief.

All the more staggering when you take into account the facts that Rafa thrashed Soderling 6-1, 6-0 at the Rome Masters Event a few weeks back and that he STILL hasn't ever been taken to five sets by anybody at Roland Garros.

[ezee ryder]

Yeah Federer will win it now unless Murray suddenly steps up to the challenege. Imagine that, Federer's best chance to win the French open and Murray wins it instead.

[TonyDA]

Incredible match - and I think i've just switched my traditional 'support the British guy' mentality to supporting Federer. It's going to be his best chance of winning it, and the guy is a legend of the game - if anyone deserves to retire having done a lifetime Grand Slam, he certainly does.

[Nu-Eclipse]

and the guy is a legend of the game - if anyone deserves to retire having done a lifetime Grand Slam, he certainly does.

Not sure that I agree with that last part.

"Deserving" a lifetime Grand Slam is one thing, but you've still got to go out and earn it - Sampras, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Borg, Edberg & Wilander are all legends of the game and "deserved" to complete the Grand Slam too but none of them were quite good enough in the end to actually achieve it.

If Federer does now go all the way at the French, some people will question the achievement and perhaps even dismiss it for the fact that he didn't beat Nadal to do it. While that admittedly wouldn't be entirely fair to Federer, it is worth remembering Nadal beat Federer in the finals at Wimbledon (last year) and the Australian Open (earlier this year) - two tournaments that Federer dominated, along with the US Open.

This defeat may actually be a blessing in disguise for Nadal in terms of defending his title at Wimbledon and going for the Grand Slam himself at the US Open later on this year.

[Plough Boy]

All the more staggering when you take into account the facts that Rafa thrashed Soderling 6-1, 6-0 at the Rome Masters Event a few weeks back and that he STILL hasn't ever been taken to five sets by anybody at Roland Garros.

The set thing is a moot point when you lose though isn't it? Soderling didn't need 5 sets. He beat him in 4.

[Nu-Eclipse]

The set thing is a moot point when you lose though isn't it? Soderling didn't need 5 sets. He beat him in 4.

Fair point.

Maybe "peculiar" is more the expression that should be used to describe it than anything else.

[NemesiS]

At the end of the day, you can only beat who is in front of you. Nadal got knocked out because he wasn't good enough today to beat Soderling.

So if Federer does win the French Open, which i still think is highly unlikely regardless of Nadal not being in the mix, i still think it will elevate him to legendary status as being one of a select few to have won the grand slam.

Federer can only beat who is over the net. The fact it won't be nadal shouldn't devalue it in any way should he win imo. I hope he does it, but i just can't see it.

I agree this is his best chance to do it with Nadal out of the way but sods law says someone else will beat him now, possibly Murray or Djokovicor some other clay courter.

Also he will be nervous as well now knowing it may be finally in his grasp.