The Tennis Thread

[Extra Terrestrial]

I have been watching the tennis at Melbourne Park since last Monday and as the tickets are now unfortunately too dear, I watched the Murray v Nadal match at Federation Square last night, on Australia Day too, which made it an even more special occasion!

I have never seen Nadal look so... angry and wild as he did last night; he was almost laughing and smiling in disbelief at times too - a sure sign that Murray was getting to him. Murray always looked like winning despite a tight second set but unfortunately, Nadal was unable to carry on...







It has been quite a while since I have been on here; Happy (belated) New Year everyone!

[Extra Terrestrial]

I can barely watch this... It is just too nail-biting!

Federer is two sets up but Murray is doing his damn best to comeback.

Federation Square is PACKED tonight!

It is 6-6 now in the third set; Federer could possibly win this in moments.

[Extra Terrestrial]

Oh well...



That was a rather special tie-break though.

[Paulos G]

It was a good match. That third set tie-break was indeed splendid.

[Anpanman]

Glad Federer won, can't stand Murray but credit where it's due think it's only a matter of time before he lifts the first of a few Grand Slam's.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Murray's got a fair run at Major Tourney success during the season, that's for sure.

Nadal = Battling niggling injuries and poor form.
Djokovic = Has done nothing of note since AO success in '08. Fitness over five sets questionable.
Del Potro = Has to prove that he can push on and take his Tennis to another level on a regular basis. Did his surprise US Open win last year (much deserved) come too early?

The guys left after those three (Tsonga, Davydenko, Roddick, Cilic, Soderling, etc.) have the talent but don't have the consistency or weapons to regularly harm the guys above them on the big stages, imo. Murray is a more complete player than all of them.

A Major win for Murray in the very near future is definitely on the cards. Why not Wimbledon (with a bit of luck along the way) or the US Open (his favourite Grand Slam event) this year?

[ezee ryder]

A Major win for Murray in the very near future is definitely on the cards. Why not Wimbledon (with a bit of luck along the way) or the US Open (his favourite Grand Slam event) this year?

The answer to that question is Roger Federer.

[Nu-Eclipse]

The answer to that question is Roger Federer.

As awesome as he was today, The Fed isn't as out-and-out untouchable as he has been in recent years, as daft as that might sound right now. Del Potro did it last year at the US Open Final, and came back from a set down (I believe). Nadal did it to Fed in last year's AO Final (before it all went wrong for him) and famously made him cry afterwards - Nadal has a winning record against Fed in Grand Slam finals, BTW. Andy Roddick should've beaten Federer in last year's Wimbledon final, and was desperately unlucky not to do so.

When's he on form, Federer is irresistible, no doubt. But he can be beaten in a Grand Slam Final. The two guys I mentioned have done it. Roddick should've been the third man to do it. Why can't Murray?

[ezee ryder]

Thing is though all the players you mention will have to play at their ultimate best to beat Federer whereas he doesn't have to be.

All those occasions you mention above with Nadal, Del Potro and Roddick, it took 5 sets to beat him or almost beat him. It just reiterates my point that even a below par Federer can turn up and win a Grand Slam, you can't say that about the others.

[Nu-Eclipse]

All those occasions you mention above with Nadal, Del Potro and Roddick, it took 5 sets to beat him or almost beat him. It just reiterates my point that even a below par Federer can turn up and win a Grand Slam, you can't say that about the others.

Wrong - Rafa has played Roger in three French Open finals, beating him in four sets in two of them. The last one in 2008 was a straight-sets win for Rafa, with him winning the third and final set 6-0.

Regardless, number of sets needed to defeat Roger (or any player, for that matter) in a final is somewhat of a moot point where Grand Slam finals are concerned. History will only show who got the required three sets and won the trophy as a result. Therein lies my point: Roger Federer is super-tough to beat in a Slam Final, but he is by no means unbeatable these days.

[ezee ryder]

I did say "in the occasions you mentioned above", so I would suggest reading before completely dismissing someone as "wrong". I also didn't say anything about Federer being unbeatable or the others having no chance, dunno where you got that notion from. Jeez!

Everyone knows Federer doesn't really favour the clay courts but he has also improved greatly over the years and it ultimately resulted in him winning it last year. It was slightly "tainted" by Nadal not being able to play but hey he still won it.

Why is the number of sets it takes to beat someone a moot point?! It is a good indication of how close the match was, is it not?! Like I said, it shows that even a below par Federer was immensely hard to beat in the three occasions you mentioned.*

*In bold for your benefit.

[Nu-Eclipse]

I did say all those occasions you mention above so I would suggest reading before completely dismissing someone as "wrong". I also didn't say anything about Federer being unbeatable or the others having no chance, dunno where you got that notion from. Jeez!

Everyone knows Federer doesn't really favour the clay courts but he has also improved greatly over the years and it ultimately resulted in him winning it last year.

Why is the number of sets it takes to beat someone a moot point?! It is a good indication of how close the match was, does it not?! Like I said, it shows that even a below par Federer was immensely hard to beat in the three occasions you mentioned. (Highlighted for your benefit!)

What's the problem? - just having a good Tennis debate (or so I thought)...

You did state "All those occasions I mentioned", which (unless I'm writing in Swahili to you) covered all of Rafa's wins against Roger. Ergo, you were wrong when you stated that they all took 5 sets to decide, because CLEARLY they didn't, did they? Also, Federer couldn't have been that "immensely hard" to beat at the '08 French if he was crushed in three sets, the third being 6-0, could he? Maybe you should try the whole "reading first" thing yourself?

Also, as I mentioned, the Number of Sets IN A GRAND SLAM FINAL (see - I can bolden my text too, for YOUR benefit!) IS a moot point because the winning of A GRAND SLAM TROPHY tends to be the bottom line for many in the game. I seriously doubt that taking Fed to five sets at Wimbledon last year is of any consolation to Andy Roddick in a match where Federer could only break his serve ONCE.

Jeez!

[ezee ryder]

We were until you arrogantly told me I was wrong.

Del Potro did it last year at the US Open Final, and came back from a set down (I believe). Nadal did it to Fed in last year's AO Final (before it all went wrong for him) and famously made him cry afterwards - Nadal has a winning record against Fed in Grand Slam finals, BTW. Andy Roddick should've beaten Federer in last year's Wimbledon final

That text doesn't suggest to me that you are talking about all of Nadal's wins over Federer at all. You only mentioned three occasions and I replied in kind.

You don't need to capitalise or bold the text for me, I read what you said correctly. It's not a moot point at all really because as I said it shows us how close the match was between the players. I didn't imply that it matters to the players (can't imagine it does) and I also didn't suggest that Roddick or any one else would have taken solace in taking Federer to five sets but losing in the end.

[Nu-Eclipse]

We were until you arrogantly told me I was wrong.

Apologies if I didn't sugar-coat it beforehand, but you were wrong, and I called it. Sorry if that grates (*shrugs*)...

That text doesn't suggest to me that you are talking about all of Nadal's wins over Federer at all. You only mentioned three occasions and I replied in kind.
You don't need to capitalise or bold the text for me, I read what you said correctly.

With the greatest of respect, it looks very much like you didn't. How can I be sure of this?

Del Potro did it last year at the US Open Final, and came back from a set down (I believe). Nadal did it to Fed in last year's AO Final (before it all went wrong for him) and famously made him cry afterwards - Nadal has a winning record against Fed in Grand Slam finals, BTW. Andy Roddick should've beaten Federer in last year's Wimbledon final.

Admittedly, I might only have implied Rafa's finals against Federer, but the bold text (benefits again!) shows that I put them there in my post. If you weren't able to deduce or perceive that, then that's on you, I'm afraid.

Oh, and likewise for me about reading posts properly and the bold text - I did read your posts correctly and I don't need text emboldened either - I just responded in due fashion.

Let me make my myself crystal-clear. I love this Forum, but I make no apologies whatsoever for calling somebody out with facts if I honestly feel that they are wrong about an opinion that they air on here. Likewise, I'd fully expect that to be the case vice-versa. This is a Forum, after all. There are at present too many people on here who think that they can just post whatever they want and not be held accountable for it (*cough*Team Andromeda*cough*).

[ezee ryder]

Yeah man, you're always correct. If you say I'm wrong, I must be. Everything thing I said made no sense at all and I was just babbling on. You're the authority on everything tennis.

Meh. One of the reasons I stopped posting in the football thread, people with tunnel vision. I will leave it at that and move on. Hilarious stuff.

Good luck with the Europa League.