AndrewHill Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 (edited) I'm pretty sure there's no thread on Roland Garros, so...is anyone keeping up/watching the tournament? It looks like there's going to be a possible upset with the Djokovic/Patience match going on right now. Patience is up two sets to one. Djokovic is seeded 6 where Patience is unseeded and he's the only French player left. Edited for an updated score: 7-6 Djokovic, 6-2 Patience, 6-3 Patience, currently 3 all now. Edited June 2, 2007 by Holy Ghost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Goren. Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 I was watching earlier today how our Shahar Peer won Slovenia's Katarina Srebotnik. Shahar is an amazing player but now Kuznetsova is waiting for her and it's not going to be easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHill Posted June 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Peer is very good. Should be a good match. I have six channels of coverage and then it switches over to NBC and as a result I didn't get to see the conclusion of the Djokovic-Patience match. Sharapova is in trouble in the second set right now though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHill Posted June 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Change that. Sharapova regained control and has won the match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHill Posted June 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Looks like Djokovic advances. What a great game that was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHill Posted June 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Big semi-final matches coming up tomorrow: Federer v Davydanko; Nadal v Djokovic. Favorites have to be seeds 1 and 2 for yet another run for Federer to capture the one title that still eludes him. Have to give the nod to Henin on Saturday for her 3rd French Open Title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKE BBB Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownie Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Viva Espana! Nadal deserved to win. He still produces the most visually exciting tennis when he plays at the French open. You can't but feel story for Lederer who is the better equiped player and who has won everything except that Paris tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Nadal is a great clay court player. If he ever wins something on a different surface, let me know. In the meantime, whether he wins the French Open or not, Federer will go down as the greatest champion of all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Goren. Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 The Israeli pride of the French Open is Andy Ram, who along with his partner, Nathalie Dechy, won the Mixed Doubles competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKE BBB Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Nadal is a great clay court player. If he ever wins something on a different surface, let me know. In the meantime, whether he wins the French Open or not, Federer will go down as the greatest champion of all. Dan: Nadal has won 5 titles on a different surface (out of 22 in total), one of them against Federer: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal#...duales_.2822.29 BTW: I'm sure you'd be a good tennis scouter: From the 2004 Davis Cup Final thread: then you pick a surface that allows the other guy-you know, the one who isn't Moya-a great chance to beat a top five player. Any other surface-he dosn't have a chance in hell. Has the other Spaniard ever won a pro event? Five months later the one who isn't Moya is a top five player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Nadal is a great clay court player. If he ever wins something on a different surface, let me know. In the meantime, whether he wins the French Open or not, Federer will go down as the greatest champion of all. Dan: Nadal has won 5 titles on a different surface (out of 22 in total), one of them against Federer: Fewer than 20% of his titles, in other words. Basically he wins titles in a single, limited season and then mostly disappears for the rest of the year. I'll amend my comment to: when he wins something significant on a surface other than clay, let me know. BTW: I'm sure you'd be a good tennis scouter: From the 2004 Davis Cup Final thread: then you pick a surface that allows the other guy-you know, the one who isn't Moya-a great chance to beat a top five player. Any other surface-he dosn't have a chance in hell. Has the other Spaniard ever won a pro event? Five months later the one who isn't Moya is a top five player. Did anyone recognize what he would become - the best clay court player since Borg? Show me where other people predicted that, when he was 18. Otherwise, I stand by my comment at the time it was made. Edited June 12, 2007 by Dan Gould Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cayetano Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Nadal is a great clay court player. If he ever wins something on a different surface, let me know. In the meantime, whether he wins the French Open or not, Federer will go down as the greatest champion of all. 3 Master Series: Canada and Madrid two years ago, and Indian Wells this year, and the score vs. Federer in hard court is 2-2. But yes, you're right, he needs to win another Grand Slam to be number 1. Well, I think after your sentence, he will be the winner in the US Open this year... Edited June 12, 2007 by cayetano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Don't forget that Nadal reached the Wimbledon final last year. Not bad for a "clay court specialist". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Especially when the guy who beat him may be the greatest player of all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Seriously Dan, are you talking shit about Rafael Nadal? Unbelievable. I'm in agreement with the rest of these guys, and the rest of the tennis world, for that matter. He is a GREAT tennis player. He is very young. His rival competitor is arguably the best male tennis player to ever tour professionally. You cannot be serious. Are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Seriously Dan, are you talking shit about Rafael Nadal? Unbelievable. I'm in agreement with the rest of these guys, and the rest of the tennis world, for that matter. He is a GREAT tennis player. He is very young. His rival competitor is arguably the best male tennis player to ever tour professionally. You cannot be serious. Are you? Yes, I am. Until he wins a major on a different surface, I will not acknowledge that he is anything other than a great clay court player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceW Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Have to go along with Dan on this one. Federer is fantastic, so what, Lendl never won Wimbledon and he was great. Why do we feel the greatest has to win everything? That is next to impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cayetano Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 then you pick a surface that allows the other guy-you know, the one who isn't Moya-a great chance to beat a top five player. Any other surface-he dosn't have a chance in hell. The only time he play vs. Roddick after the Davis Cup match, Nadal won on hard court 6-4, 6-3 (Indian Wells this year, and he won the tournament). OK, not a major, do you know how much majors won Federer when he's just 21 year old? I know: nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Have to go along with Dan on this one. Federer is fantastic, so what, Lendl never won Wimbledon and he was great. Why do we feel the greatest has to win everything? That is next to impossible. Is that with Dan, or? Clay is arguably the most difficult surface to learn. I guess time will tell, but I'd say Nadal is one for the history books, as is Henin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceW Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Federer is great, Nadal is great They both have their niches; Federer can't win the French, Nadal can't win anythiing else but has three straight wins at the French. That is great Now, Anna Kournikova is a different thing...... :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHill Posted June 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 (edited) Federer is fantastic, so what, Lendl never won Wimbledon and he was great. Why do we feel the greatest has to win everything? That is next to impossible. Same goes for Pete Sampras-never won the French-and with 14 grand slam titles, he's also great. edited to take out that 'I'm with Dan' quote. It didn't make sense with my response. Edited June 13, 2007 by Holy Ghost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 I think the point that Dan is trying to make is that you have be strong on many surfaces to be considered great. And i do agree with him on that point. Where we do disagree is what kind of performance should we expect of someone to be considered good on any other surface. My feeling is that being a finalist on Wimbledon shows a strong command of that surface and you can take away the label one-dimensional at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 I think the point that Dan is trying to make is that you have be strong on many surfaces to be considered great. And i do agree with him on that point. Where we do disagree is what kind of performance should we expect of someone to be considered good on any other surface. My feeling is that being a finalist on Wimbledon shows a strong command of that surface and you can take away the label one-dimensional at that point. Thank you for identifying my main point. Where we part ways is the significance of being a finalist one time at Wimbledon. Kevin Curren was a runner-up once. Cedric Pioline, too (who reached exactly two Grand Slam finals in his career and was a top Ten player despite only winning five titles over all). Someone named Chris Lewis lost to McEnroe in the 83 finals - that proves he mastered grass? Win a Slam that isn't played on clay - then I'll give him credit as something other than a clay court master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 I understand the point, I just disagree. Some people play alto. Others play alto, flute, and bass clarinet. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Rafael Nadal is not going anywhere anytime soon. If he can master clay, the rest will most likely come. I'm not predicting that he will be Federer in London this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if he gave him a good run. I guess I just don't really understand the criticism, or the lack of credit/respect. Not really sure why I'm even getting involved. p.s. Roddick is not even in this league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.