EKE BBB Posted June 12, 2006 Author Report Posted June 12, 2006 Obviously, with his criticism on his selection for the Davis Cup 2004 Final, Dan has proved to be a great scouter... and forecaster! Quote
EKE BBB Posted June 12, 2006 Author Report Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Oh, and thanks to the French spectators for their help during all the tournament! And also thanks to the translator of the interview after the final, who turned Nadal´s generous praise of Roger Federer into pompous self-glorification. Maybe trying to prepare the public for next year´s tournament? Edited June 12, 2006 by EKE BBB Quote
LAL Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 Was rooting for the guy...but the grunts are a wee bit annoying no... Quote
Claude Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 I admire Nadal's power and speed, but I would have preferred to see Federer win Roland Garros, ... and then Nadal in Wimbledon Quote
brownie Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 Was rooting for the guy...but the grunts are a wee bit annoying no... I don't mind the grunts - as long as we keep Keith Jarrett out of this thread... Obviously helps Nadal to build up his amazing power! Same went with Monica Seles, she grunted even more than Nadal! That young man is always a pleasure to watch! I wish him luck at Wimbledon! Quote
EKE BBB Posted June 12, 2006 Author Report Posted June 12, 2006 I admire Nadal's power and speed, but I would have preferred to see Federer win Roland Garros, ... and then Nadal in Wimbledon Where do I have to sign for it? Quote
Dan Gould Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 The irresistable force (Federer in a Grand Slam final) met the immovable object (Nadal on clay) and the immovable object won. It would be nice if Nadal ever shows the same success on other surfaces, otherwise he will be remembered in the same way that Villas is remembered - great on clay, not much else - while Federer, whether he ever wins Roland Garros is clearly the greatest player of his generation and well on his way to beating Sampras' mark for Grand Slam titles. Quote
Dave James Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 Let's see. Men's tennis or watching paint dry? Sorry, I gotta go with the paint. And this is coming from someone who played pretty seriously for 10 years, so it's not that I don't like the game. Where are the John McEnroes and the Jimmy Connors, guys who acted like they really cared, not just serve and volley automatons? Even if I were willing to settle for someone with just a scintilla of personality, I'd be left seriously wanting. Just ask yourself, what are the chances in men's tennis of ever again seeing anything that even approximates Jimmy Connor's run through the U.S. Open at Flushing Meadows in 1991? Then you'll see what I mean. 'Nuff said. Up over and out. Quote
Dan Gould Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 Let's see. Men's tennis or watching paint dry? Sorry, I gotta go with the paint. And this is coming from someone who played pretty seriously for 10 years, so it's not that I don't like the game. Where are the John McEnroes and the Jimmy Connors, guys who acted like they really cared, not just serve and volley automatons? Even if I were willing to settle for someone with just a scintilla of personality, I'd be left seriously wanting. Just ask yourself, what are the chances in men's tennis of ever again seeing anything that even approximates Jimmy Connor's run through the U.S. Open at Flushing Meadows in 1991? Then you'll see what I mean. 'Nuff said. Up over and out. I'd suggest Sampras' run to his final Grand Slam. Of course, Pete was severely lacking in the personality department, but the odds of his winning the whole thing weren't very good going in. But the fact is that that was a unique moment by a completely unique player the likes of which will never be seen again. We've had this discussion before, Dave, but I have to say that it surprises me, you being a serious player at one point, only have appreciation for the histrionics and the BS and not the shot-making, which I assure you was on display at the French. In fact, given your stated disinterest in the serve-winner nature of the modern men's game, I'd think you'd appreciate the French Open at least, where players have to grind it out and set up their winners. Some of the shots hit by Nadal and Federer were truly amazing! And I have little doubt that Federer will go down as the greatest champion of all-time, certainly one of the top two-three. His game is a thing of beauty - even if his on-court demeanor is pretty bland. Quote
Dave James Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Dan, I'm with you 100% when it comes to the skills these guys bring to the table. The club I was in back in the day had the only clay court in city of Portland. I played on that surface whenever the opportunity presented itself. A different game for sure, one that slows things down enough that it puts a premium on placement, shotmaking ability and good footwork. Nope, my only beef is in the personality department. You have to admit that when McEnroe was playing, there was always that on the edge element...the very real possibility of one of those I can't believe he did that moments, that kept me coming back over and over again and made me a huge fan of his game and the attitude he packed along with it. I remember the Sampras win, but for sheer emotion and the ability to engage, mesmerize and elevate every butt that was in (or out) of a chair during his matches with Patrick McEnroe and Aaron Krickstein, Connors win in 1991 was the stuff of legend...one for the ages and the capstone of a brilliant career. And, lest we forget, he was 39 years old at the time. Up over and out. Edited June 12, 2006 by Dave James Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.