French Open 2008 - Men

DiskuteraTennis, Anyone?

Bara medlemmar i LibraryThing kan skriva.

French Open 2008 - Men

Denna diskussion är för närvarande "vilande"—det sista inlägget är mer än 90 dagar gammalt. Du kan återstarta det genom att svara på inlägget.

1karenmarie
maj 19, 2008, 1:16 pm

Being a serious Roger Federer fan, I'd like him to finally win his lifetime Grand Slam (just watch - he'll win the French after not winning the Australian!) and trounce Nadal.

Rafa? Roger? Djokovic?

What'cha think?

2citygirl
maj 19, 2008, 1:22 pm

I hope it's Roger's year, but I haven't been following the clay court season closely. What's been going on?

3littlegeek
maj 20, 2008, 9:18 pm

Roger lost Hamburg to Nadal.

citygirl! I'm so psyched about the French. We should chat it up again, like we did the Aussies.

4littlegeek
maj 20, 2008, 9:20 pm

oh, and btw, I love Roger but he hasn't been the same since he had mono. Unless Nadal sustains some kind of injury, I just don't see Roger beating him on clay.

*sigh*

5karenmarie
maj 21, 2008, 11:03 am

Roger was doing so well at Hamburg - had a set point in the first set! but then Nadal had the medical time out, Roger started thinking too much, then went down for the count.

Roger's lost almost as many matches this year so far as he lost in all of 2007, so I guess it's still some fallout from the mono.

Can't wait for the French to start. What'cha think of Andy Roddick pulling out because of the shoulder injury? Not that he's done well at the French at all......

6littlegeek
maj 21, 2008, 1:16 pm

Roddick is a poser. Dude does not have enough game to really threaten the big guys.

7karenmarie
maj 21, 2008, 3:13 pm

Hi again, littlegeek!

Well, I agree. I don't think he's ever been as serious as he should be and I do get tired of his two-handed backhand and slamming from the baseline ALL the time. 'Course I get tired of most players two-handed backhand.... Roger and Henin are in a league of their own. And now only Roger...

It is unfortunate for Andy that he came along at the same time as Roger, though.... if he'd come along a little earlier he might have won more than one major.

Now Djokovic is another story. I think he's become a big guy very quickly. Last year's beating of Nadal AND Roger one day after the other got my attention, for sure. Plus his little brothers are cute cute cute.

8littlegeek
maj 21, 2008, 3:36 pm

What's up with Djokovic's hair tho? It's kinda weird.

I have hated baseliners since the days of Chris Evert. Unfortunately, the equipment allows for such people to thrive. *sigh*

How I miss a well-executed volley. Where are the Stephans and Martinas and Boris's and Johnny Macs of today? Gone the way of the dodo.....

9karenmarie
maj 21, 2008, 3:51 pm

It may be a Serbian thing.... my daughter's band director's wife was in the audience the other night and she looked like Djokovic to me - same thick nappy hair, same shaped eyes and long face. It took me about half an hour to think "Ah ha!!! Djokovic!"

My daughter even noticed - thought that she looked like some tennis player or another and as soon as I said Djokovic she said "Oh yes, that's the one."

Regarding slamming from the baseline - it is unfortunate that it tends to surprise us now when people come to net a lot. I love looking at the old Wimbledon matches and seeing the wear in the service boxes and not behind the baseline like it is now. Even Roger doesn't hardly come to net any more unless forced to.

10Jargoneer
maj 21, 2008, 3:53 pm

The problem Federer now has is that the other players know is beatable. For the past couple of years only Nadal really believed that. He may be seeded 1 for the French but he's third favourite behind Nadal and Djokovic on form (and in the ATP race). On the other hand, both Nadal and Djorkovic may struggle to sustain fitness at the French.

You can disregard Hamburg - the clay courts they are slower and have less bounce than Roland Garros; that's why Federer has done so well there over the past 6 years.

11karenmarie
maj 23, 2008, 2:26 pm

#10 hey jargoneer - I must admit that I have never really understood how the different surfaces affect play and how different player skills help or hinder them by surface.

Roger is best at hard surfaces and grass. Why is the slower clay surface so hard for him to play well on? Is it that he has to take the shots higher (shoulder level)? Or is it something else? Or is it just Nadal since he has been getting into more finals on clay lately? And why is Nadal, who is so incredibly fast, not able to win any titles on grass and only 5 on hard court?

Inquiring minds need to know!

And I agree that other players are seeing Roger lose - to Canas last year twice early, to Djokovic, almost lose the US Open to Djokovic, and actually not get to the final of the Australian this year. They see him as vulnerable now.

12Jargoneer
maj 23, 2008, 2:55 pm

Federer's problem with clay, or more specifically with Nadal on clay, is that the ball is kicked up to his backhand making it hard for him to come open the top of it. (In Hamburg the court plays with a lower bounce hence his success there). This makes his decision not to run round the ball or use slice more often quite unusual but he may feel that in pursuing either of those tactics he is too open to attack. Interestingly, although everyone talks about his weaker backhand, it has actually been Federer's forehand that has broken down more often in recent months. Federer probably puts himself under more pressure thinking that he needs to win the point early against Nadal because, if not, it will be his game that breaks down.

Nadal on faster courts has two major problems - his serve doesn't have the same penetration as the other top players and can be attacked - if you look at the stats of last year's Wimbledon final Nadal hit more winners than Federer but Federer's serve was far more effective. Secondly, his ground shots are loaded with spin which makes them every effective on clay as they kick up but on faster courts he can't get the same kick, and the spin means that they don't shoot through with the same pace as the other players with flatter shots.

The draw has been favourable to Federer - putting Djokovic in Nadal's half - and not much major opposition until he (should) meets Wawrinka in the QF.

13littlegeek
maj 23, 2008, 3:17 pm

Very well put jargoneer.

I've always wondered why someone as skilled as Federer would choose to run around to the forehand so often. His backhand really isn't bad, and if he had just played it more, it would be even better. He does seem to miss more when the ball kicks up, from either side.

The other reason Fed has more trouble with Nadal is that he's a lefty, so his ball off the forehand side to Roger's backhand has more pop.

Not sure whether the spin thing really applies so much. Remember Borg? No one had more spin, and no one won so many Wimbledons in a row, and against real grass court players like MacEnroe. He definitely had a bigger serve than Nadal, tho, so to me that's Nadal's problem on grass.

14karenmarie
maj 23, 2008, 3:22 pm

Thanks for the explanation, jargoneer. I sorta knew about the kick up being a factor, but you explained it well.

Roger is very fast, so running around or backhanding the ball shouldn't be a problem for him. He was quite wild at Hamburg and seems to go through phases of missing wide (more than missing long).

I'm surprised that Nadal can't flatten his strokes out on other surfaces based on what you describe. Perhaps that's where Roger has the edge - able to try lots of different types of shots, some with spin, some without. And Roger's service game is usually underestimated. Especially when he's in a hole and NEEDS that ace, he frequently comes through.

Yes, I saw the draw. I bet Roger's (secretly) relieved at not having to face Djokovic in the semifinals. The bottom half of the draw looks heavier than the top half, although I admit that I don't know too many of the clay court specialists and they could be lurking up there to bite Roger.

I'll pull out my authenticated signed photo of Roger at Wimbledon and my Feder-bear for luck when he plays. 'Course that didn't help at Hamburg, but you never know.

15Jargoneer
maj 23, 2008, 3:58 pm

>13 littlegeek: - you can't really compare the Borg era with now at Wimbledon - everything has changed: the balls, the grass, the racquets, and, perhaps most importantly, tactics. It is ironic that Federer is seen is as a great grass-court player when all these changes have killed the grass-court (serve-and-volley) player. The courts at Wimbledon are now probably slower than hard courts, certainly slower than carpet. (On the other hand, the courts at Roland Garros are faster than they used to be).

I've always wondered about the left-hand idea - doesn't it also mean that Federer's forehand should be powering down on Nadal's weaker backhand?

Nadal does flatten his strokes out on other sources but not enough - it's not as easy as it sounds because on the type of hold that the player uses.

Having looked at Federer's half, there aren't that many threats there - just the usual suspects like Daydenko in the semis. Sam Querrey could give Federer a good work-out in the 1st round - he's definitely a player on the up, may lack some mobility due to his height though.

No thread for the women? Unlike the men, with no Henin (what was going on there?), that draw is wide open.

16littlegeek
maj 23, 2008, 4:06 pm

Yes, everything has changed in a relative sense. But spin is spin and grass is still a faster and skiddier court than clay.

The thing is if you are lefty you are used to playing against righties, but righties are not used to you. Same idea applies to left handed pitchers in baseball. And the spin is slightly different than what you're used to, so if you have more spin, more reason your balls look weird to opponents.

Nadal is not even left handed, but his brother/coach told him to try playing left handed because it offers such an advantage. Lucky for him, he can do it. I wonder how good he is with his dominant hand?

17karenmarie
Redigerat: maj 23, 2008, 7:36 pm

Hi littlegeek - Some time last year Roger had a bunch of lefties for practices. It seems to have helped some, I guess, but obviously not enough on clay. And it was too close at Wimbledon. I like Roger to get a serious lead and hold it. No messing around. No 5-setters. 4-setters are okay.

Davydenko - isn't he still under suspicion for match fixing?

Hey jargoneer - I made a women's thread a little while ago. But you're right, even though Sharapova is now #1, I don't think she's got it in her to win on clay. It is wide open. (maybe Mauresmo?) I'll have to make a thread to discuss Henin's retirement. ETA citygirl beat me to it.

18littlegeek
maj 28, 2008, 12:38 pm

Why isn't this tournament on tv? Very annoying.

19citygirl
maj 28, 2008, 1:36 pm

Tennis channel very early a.m. and ESPN2 for most of the day, I think.

20littlegeek
maj 28, 2008, 8:31 pm

The day??? No repeat during a time when responsible adults can watch it?

21karenmarie
maj 28, 2008, 8:59 pm

We have Dish network and "French Open Tonight" is on channel 400 - The Tennis Channel, right now. I don't know if there's anything on cable or not.

I just zoomed over to www.thetennischannel.com and it appears that you can see some of the matches there, but if you don't have high speed internet, it won't do you much good.

There have been some seeded players out, it doesn't look like any in the top 10. Moya, Canas, Tipsaravic...

Roger plays tomorrow, but I'll be at work when he plays. Maybe I can see some tomorrow night...

22Jargoneer
maj 29, 2008, 9:23 am

Living in the UK, Eurosport are showing the tennis every day 1000-1930. Normally I would be at work but I've just been made redundant so I can watch it all - unfortunately it has rained a lot (good for Federer) so there has been a lot of airtime with no tennis.

The big shock happened early today with Nalbandian going out to Chardy, an unseeded Frenchman, after being 2 sets up. Don't know what exactly happened to him but he just fell apart. The big 3 look comfortable so far.

23karenmarie
maj 31, 2008, 7:41 pm

I had a crisis today - was waiting for Roger to play after Monfils/Melzer but then they stopped showing Chartrier on DISH network! A quick emergency call to out-of-town husband informed me that it would probably have switched to NBC, so I got to watch the last two sets of Roger/Ancic. Whew! I had spent all morning waitiing, too.

I might get up at 5 am tomorrowto watch - don't even know who's playing early.

24Jargoneer
jun 1, 2008, 6:11 am

Following on from a couple of conversations from above -

Nadal having advantage over right-handers. He has played 3 left-handers so far and in the 4th round he is playing - a left-hander. What are the odds of that?

Re - the courts. Eurosport has Mats Wilander doing commentary and he was talking about Roland Garros and Wimbledon. He reckons that the courts at both have radically - he was saying that the courts at Wimbledon now would suit players like Lendl and himself because they are now slower and the bounce is much higher and truer - that serve-volleyers struggle now because the ball doesn't skid through. Conversely the French has gotten faster and Sampras of 12 years with his serve and volley game would have had more of a chance now.

Federer is demolishing the opposition but I wonder if this is bad - his matches have been so easily that it might be a shock when he ends up in a match.

Great tournament for the French men - 5 of the last 16, and that's with their top two players missing. I love the way the French produce so many stylish players instead of the run-of-the-mill.

The dark horse to watch at present is Gulbis, a young Latvian player - won't win (yet) but could cause real problems for the top players.

25karenmarie
jun 2, 2008, 2:54 pm

Gulbis plays Djokovic next - I'd really like to see that one.

I watched Nadal play Verdasco yesterday - awful match. You know the matches where there's no magic, nothing really seems to be happening and you can just SEE in a player's eyes that he'd rather be having teeth pulled than playing right now? That's how I felt about Verdasco until he got the massage and pain killers. He woke up, but not in time.

Nadal didn't look really impressive out there either - I guess the blisters were hurting and he didn't have to play too hard to beat Verdasco.

Last US player is out - Ginepri. Ah, well, we lasted longer than we have in quite a while.

I loved watching Monfils play Saturday - he won again today, too. Good for him. I liked watching Llorda play although he lost. I always love watching serve and volley. He had emotion and style.

Roger won today but lost serve several times apparently - once again work gets in the way of real life. Maybe I can watch some of the highlights tonight since my daughter has to study for a French final.

And, although I don't usually watch too much doubles, Bryan/Bryan were playing Isner/Querrey. That was fun to watch. B&B won, but if Isner and Querrey were to play together enough, they might become quite a challenge.

26Jargoneer
jun 2, 2008, 3:36 pm

US tennis is heading for a very bleak period - none of the younger players (men and women) look top 10 material. Does US tv show the doubles instead of singles just because the players are American?

Federer is in an awkward situation - he is winning without much pressure (his serve was broken today but only when he was a already a break ahead) so it's hard to know at what level he is really playing at. I can't see any of Gonzalez, or Monfils or Ferrer, troubling him either. Therefore he could reach the final without a real match. I'd like to see Monfils reach the semi.

Interesting you said that about Nadal - Verdasco and he dislike each other hence Nadal wanting to thrash him - as Mats Wilander said yesterday that he is already playing beyond the other players, and nothing is going to stop him. Nadal-Almagro could be interesting - if Nadal demolishes him then the others should be worried.

Gulbis has a great serve and really murders the ball but at 19 he may not be ready to step to the challenge of Djorkovic.

27karenmarie
jun 4, 2008, 8:59 am

You were right, jargoneer! Gulbis couldn't beat Djokovic. But, he came pretty close.

So do you want Nadal or Djokovic to win? And do you want Roger to beat Gonzales?

And what about Monfils? Amazing. I didn't see the match, but now he'll have to face David Ferrer.

I personally want Roger to beat Gonzalez, although whether it should be an easy or hard win, I don't know. Easy lets him be rested, hard puts him on his mettle.

And I don't know if I want Nadal or Djokovic to win either - Nadal so Roger can beat him, Djokovic so Roger can actually win the French, although then people would say that he would have lost to Nadal. So difficult.

What'cha think, guys?

28Jargoneer
jun 4, 2008, 9:43 am

I watched some of the Gulbis-Djokovic and it was terrible - it reminded me of the Williams sisters playing: all pit-a-pat stuff, more like a training match than a Grand Slam QF. (The two are very good friends).

Almagro should be fined for his display against Nadal.

I put Federer as third favourite - unless Djokovic beats Nadal in a 5 hour epic: there is still a doubt over his ability to recover from hard matches. I just think otherwise - Nadal has mentally crippled Federer on clay, and a fit Djokovic would be so confident that he would just run Federer down. Bjorn Borg, on the other hand, thinks Federer will win the French and Nadal Wimbledon. (BTW I expect Federer to defeat Gonzalez, he can't play consistently enough over 5 sets to win - may win a set though).

Judging by the way Monfils and Ferrer play - that match could last for about 16 hours. I don't really understand Monfils - he is so passive in his play that he makes Andy Murray look aggressive - it just puts so much pressure on him, especially as he has the game to be aggressive - big serve, good groundstrokes and volleys.

29littlegeek
jun 4, 2008, 10:21 am

Monfils is very similar to Murray, you're right. Seems like "5-tool" players like that take longer to mature. Learning all the strategy of where to put the ball and how to vary the shots takes more time than just getting the ball back.

I like Borg's idea. It would kind of be cool. I don't know how many more chances Roger can have to win the French; it's a young man's tournament. I don't see Nadal winning Wimbledon yet, but who knows? I could see Djokovic before Nadal for Wimbledon, myself.

30littlegeek
jun 4, 2008, 4:10 pm

I got to watch the 2nd & part of the 3rd set of the Federer/Gonzales match on my lunch hour. Roger just needs to stay aggressive. As soon as he started coming in at every opportunity, he began to win easily.

This may be why Borg says he will win this year. This is not the same surface Borg won so many French Opens on.

Anyhoo, if he continues to come in whenever he gets a chance, he should be good against either Nadal or Djokovic. That's a very big IF, however.

31karenmarie
jun 5, 2008, 6:12 am

Yea Roger! If he can take his game up a notch against Nadal/Djokovic like he did against Gonzales then there's a chance. He's so beautiful to watch. Actually, he needs to come out strong and focused.

I saw some of the Monfils/Ferrer match last night on The Tennis Channel's French Open Tonight and as I looked at him he looked gawky, slow, and has such a strange serve. Yet he won point after point after point. I don't remember watching Ferrer before so don't know if Monfils played wonderfully or Ferrer didn't bring out his A game. Any opinions?

32Jargoneer
Redigerat: jun 5, 2008, 7:38 am

Monfils may look slow but according to the experts he's faster than Federer - he just plays in a languid manner. (He's certainly the most elastic man on the tour). His nickname is 'the rat' for the way he just nibbles away at players. I don't think he will beat Federer, he will probably be too passive, but he can beat him - he has a similar game to Murray who has beaten Federer twice. (It's worth remembering that when Monfils, Murray, Djokovic, et al were all juniors, Monfils was head and shoulders above everyone - winning the Australian, French & Wimbledon in the same year).

I think it's too late for Federer against Nadal on clay - Nadal has effectively destroyed him mentally. Even when Federer demolishes Nadal in a set it doesn't matter, Nadal just waits and then at the first sign of a comeback Federer panics.

I'm going to be controversial here and suggest that Federer is actually a little over-rated - he has dominated men's tennis against nobody. His one challenge has been Nadal on clay and he has flunked that test.

33littlegeek
jun 5, 2008, 10:31 am

Federer is not overrated. He's kicked everyone's ass for 4 solid years. He's had plenty of tough competition. He has just coming to the end of his dominance. It has to happen. Tennis is a young man's sport.

I want to take the day off tomorrow just to watch Monfils vs Fed.

34karenmarie
jun 5, 2008, 11:28 am

I would love to be off tomorrow to watch Federer/Monfils.

Brava, littlegeek! I totally agree with you. Johnny Mac doesn't think he is either; neither do most of the commentators. They all say that this has been the best 4 years of tennis ever. And, I agree. Who else has made it to 16 straight semi-finals? Who else, who else who else? So many records, so many consistent years. He may be coming to the end of his total dominance, but there's still some very good tennis left in Roger. I hope he gets at least 3-4 more grand slams to truly surpass Sampras. And, if he can win the French..... heaven.

35littlegeek
jun 5, 2008, 11:53 am

However, I do think jargoneer is right that Roger has a mental block about Nadal. But I do believe it's a mental block. He has the potential to overcome it. (And I would venture to say that coming in and being aggressive is the best way to do that. Take the damn thing on the volley and you can forget about those damn high bounces, duh.)

36Jargoneer
jun 5, 2008, 12:53 pm

Who has been challenging Federer for the last four years? Hewitt & Roddick were the World No.1's before Federer took over and no-one would say they are great players. The best era of tennis ever? That's the problem with commentators is that they always have to say this is the best whatever. I'm not saying that Federer is not a talented player, I'm just saying that his competition over most of the last 4 years has been mediocre.

Here's an interesting stat - if Nadal wins this French Open he will have won 4 GS's at the same age Federer had won 1.

Re Federer and Nadal tactics - I agree that Federer has to be more aggressive and he knows that but what's interesting is that when he has lost recently it has been by being aggressive and his forehand has broken down. What he needs to do is be aggressive and consistent: the question is whether he can manage that over 4/5 sets.

I'm not sure that Federer will break Sampras record - I can see him winning another 1 or 2 but there are finally a bunch of players at 19-22 who are ready to take him on. But more important than that, I think Federer may put himself under too much pressure.

An odd suggestion - if Djokovic wins the French he will do the Grand Slam.

37littlegeek
Redigerat: jun 5, 2008, 1:22 pm

Here's an interesting stat - if Nadal wins this French Open he will have won 4 GS's at the same age Federer had won 1.

Human backboards win the French and win it early. Those with a more all-around game come out slower, but end up with more wins overall, on more surfaces.

ETA: I do commend Nadal for trying hard to broaden his game. He can even do a creditable job at net these days.

I think the competition has been plenty difficult, but even if it hasn't, all those ex-professionals raving about him have more to do with watching his footwork, his shot selection, etc. and thinking to themselves, "I would never get that shot" or "Wow, great idea, I wouldn't have thought of that" than it is seeing how many wins he's had. Remember when Fed beat Sampras in the US Open 2nd round, he said right then, "this is the next guy." The professionals know whereof they speak. Hell, even Laver has said he's the best player ever.

38littlegeek
jun 5, 2008, 1:25 pm

I love the irony of being so good that you make everyone else in the world look bad, thereby making people think you had no decent competition.

39littlegeek
jun 6, 2008, 4:25 pm

What happened to Djokovic today? Forgot to eat his Wheaties, apparently. I saw a bit and he just couldn't deal. Nadal's shots didn't look that potent to me, at least no more than usual for him.

Wish I had seen Roger's match.

40Jargoneer
jun 6, 2008, 5:20 pm

This is what the experts were saying - Nadal is faster, stronger, and fitter than last year, and there is more pace and spin on his shots. Djokovic had no chance until Nadal eased up and he started swinging at everything - the third set was great fun for that reason. Djokovic hit 20 odd winners in that set and still lost it.

If Federer plays like he did against Monfils he will not just lose, he will be thrashed. He just doesn't look the same player as 12 months ago - for every great shot there was a basic error: one point he would hit a brilliant drop shot and then the next he would dump an easy volley into the net. His serve seemed to lack a little zip as well - despite getting 70% of 1st serves in he only served 3 aces, was broken 4 times, and should have lost the fourth set - Monfils missed break points in 3 consecutive games. At one point Mirka had her head in her hands unable to watch. Perhaps he thought he was going to win anyway and forgot to concentrate properly.

41littlegeek
jun 6, 2008, 6:06 pm

hmmm....maybe Fed is still affected by the mono. Either that or he's just getting old.

Nadal is pretty formidable, but I still think I've seen Djokovic play better. He didn't seem on his game at all. I only saw bits of the second set.

sounds like Nadal shouldn't have any trouble. *sigh* I guess I'll have to get up at the butt crack of dawn tomorrow to watch Safina & Ivanovic.

42Jargoneer
jun 6, 2008, 6:46 pm

>41 littlegeek: - I wondered about that, I thought he looked a little rough. He was quite vocal at various times during the match - I've never seen him do that before.

Djokovic from 3-0 down in the third set was great - hitting winners right left and centre: even had a set point at 6-5. In the tie-breaker however Nadal hit 6 winners in a row to go up 6-0 and it was match over. One of the most interesting stats of the match shows what Federer has to do - Djokovic won more points than Nadal if the rally was 4 shots or less, after that the points went to the Spaniard.

43littlegeek
jun 6, 2008, 6:56 pm

That's why Roger has to just come in if he can. And that's a big if. Just trading shots fromt he baseline or worse, trying for too much from back there, will fail. Nadal is just too gnarly.

Should be interesting.

44karenmarie
jun 7, 2008, 4:05 am

Yesterday was soooo stressful. I took it off to watch tennis - then they only showed the Nadal-Djokovic match! I only watched the first two sets then went to pick up our daughter and go to lunch. Finally at 4 p.m. they showed Federer/Monfils and re-showed N-D.

And, my mother called at 5-5 in the 4th set. I watched Fed break Monfils to win the match with the volume down.

Roger did look rough. Too many net shots, but quite a few brilliant clay shots. I really enjoyed the match, although you're right, jargoneer, Roger should have lost the 4th set.

Unfortunately, unless Nadal is off his game AND Roger steps up like hasn't ever stepped up before in any match in any major, Nadal will win again. Fed really needs to get out of his comfort zone. Do something radically different that throws Nadal off his stride, like Ashe did to Connors at ... Wimbledon?

littlegeek - it shows at 9 a.m. here on the East Coast, so I guess that means 6 ack emma for you.



45Jargoneer
jun 7, 2008, 7:08 am

Wimbledon 1975 - Ashe out-thought Connors completely by basically playing with no pace, constantly slicing the ball back (the sliced ball in those days could keep very low) and Connors lost the plot a little, making lots of errors attempting to force the match.

Re the backhand slice - it's odd that Federer possesses the best backhand slice in the game but almost never plays it anymore, except when returning the serve. I have heard commentators suggest that what Federer needs to do against Nadal is not slice the serve back (then he is always on the defensive) but use the slice in the rallies, keep the ball lower and make Nadal having to hit more under the ball reducing his ability to create topspin.

Saw interview with Borg last night and he still thinks that Federer will win.

46karenmarie
jun 7, 2008, 11:27 am

I was watching the women's final this morning and heard Johnny Mac say that Borg says that if Federer wins tomorrow he, Borg, will consider him the best player of all time.

47littlegeek
jun 8, 2008, 11:08 am

WEll, that was definitive. Nadal is just unbelievable. Wow.

48karenmarie
Redigerat: jun 8, 2008, 11:20 am

blech. 4 games. poor roger. i'm not even watching the awards ceremony. too painful.

I'll start the Wimbledon thread and wait a while to get over this disappointment.

49Jargoneer
jun 8, 2008, 11:48 am

I'm not sure what to say - I didn't expect Federer to win but that was humiliating: the second worst final defeat in open era at Roland Garros. Federer looked completely lost mentally and tactically. What I found shocking however was the way Federer capitulated in the end - no fight, just total acceptance.

50littlegeek
jun 8, 2008, 6:54 pm

Ya know, he did try. He came in, he stayed back, no matter what he tried, Nadal had an answer. Nadal was near perfect.

Oh well, on to the grass.

51citygirl
jun 9, 2008, 2:16 pm

It seemed like Fed's head just wasn't in it. It was almost as if he didn't want to be out there.

Don't know what to think. Maybe he needs a vacay.

52karenmarie
jun 9, 2008, 6:38 pm

I think Fed's so spooked by Nadal that he can't even get going. Too much was on the line, too much was expected.

Apparently Borg's saying Nadal will win Wimbledon? Just saw a brief line on some website or another today.....

53littlegeek
jun 9, 2008, 7:08 pm

But Borg said Roger would win the French so what does he know?

Djokovic looked as bad as Roger, so I'm giving all the credit to Nadal. He was just gnarly. Gnadal?