Men's Final - FO 2018

naxroy wrote:if if if

You know I'm right, no?

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:Tenez may not like the thought, but Fed made a pretty good decision skipping clay.

If he had had Nadal's draw he could've breezed through it.

Well, maybe he could have made the final.

He would have lost to Rafa though.

noleisthebest wrote:

naxroy wrote:if if if

You know I'm right, no?

absolutely

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:Djokovic is a smarter player....he doesn;t over do it.

Djokovic did not need to overdo it.  He could rally with Rafa indefinitely.  Nobody else can.

I think a few can ...but they don't know it...they are bluffed. We coudl see today for instance that Thiem was fresher at the end....but did not know have the composure.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:Tenez may not like the thought, but Fed made a pretty good decision skipping clay.

If he had had Nadal's draw he could've breezed through it.

Well, maybe he could have made the final.

He would have lost to Rafa though.

Not necessarily.
Fed's got a lot more game than Thiem and Thiem made Nadal quite uncomfortable before he ran our of ideas.

summerblues wrote:Tenez may not like the thought, but Fed made a pretty good decision skipping clay.

If anything he must be furious. Frankly, Fed could have beaten this Nadal today. Fed has now a better BH, better FH and a better placed serve with a much higher serve percentage but more importantly plays the big points better than Thiem or anyone else Nadal faced.

The only reason Fed did not enter RG is that he did not want to arrive tired v Nadal in that final.....bit with such a poor field he would have had a good chance this year. Real shame!...Now watch him lose Wimbledon for lack of play!

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:Tenez may not like the thought, but Fed made a pretty good decision skipping clay.

If he had had Nadal's draw he could've breezed through it.

Well, maybe he could have made the final.

He would have lost to Rafa though.

real weird you think that!

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:Tenez may not like the thought, but Fed made a pretty good decision skipping clay.

If he had had Nadal's draw he could've breezed through it.

Well, maybe he could have made the final.

He would have lost to Rafa though.

real weird you think that!

Its not weird, its the truth and the most likely result. The weird is you being a tennis follower for so many years and yet you haven't seen what makes Nadal keep winning on clay. You think its 'fitness', 'hoping for errors', 'cheating using the time rule'.... anything but not Nadal's game on clay.

Fed played his best RG match in 2011 and still came short. He played a blinder in Rome 2006 and still fell short by a whisker. 

If they met, Fed may get closer perhaps take it to 5 sets, but thats all. Nadal's game on clay is the most perfect  'clay court game that can be'. Only a peak, inform and confident Djoko can beat him, and that too is not certain but he is the best bet.

Others will have to hope Nadal declines either due to injury/aging/boredom. Else he will keep winning RGs as long as he wants to.

I dont see Nadal winning many more RG to be honest, maybe one more... but thats about it

Even though he won the tournament losing just one set, he was broken lots of times, and I do agree with some other posters in the fact that he seems to get tired sooner now

yesterday he was really looking tired in the last part of the third set, but that could also be he was worried about the hand.

anyway, much more than another RG I would love to see him winning any of the others, specially Australia, and I think its  a little late for that, but who knows.

Anyway, 17 is a huge number and I as a fan am pretty ok with it if it doesnt grow anymore.

in the end it reflects the career of an incredible champion, with an unheard record at RG and a record in the other slams similar to that of mcenroe, becker, edberg, lendl, agassi...

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:Tenez may not like the thought, but Fed made a pretty good decision skipping clay.

If he had had Nadal's draw he could've breezed through it.

Well, maybe he could have made the final.

He would have lost to Rafa though.

real weird you think that!

Its not weird, its the truth and the most likely result. The weird is you being a tennis follower for so many years and yet you haven't seen what makes Nadal keep winning on clay. You think its 'fitness', 'hoping for errors', 'cheating using the time rule'.... anything but not Nadal's game on clay.

Fed played his best RG match in 2011 and still came short. He played a blinder in Rome 2006 and still fell short by a whisker. 

If they met, Fed may get closer perhaps take it to 5 sets, but thats all. Nadal's game on clay is the most perfect  'clay court game that can be'. Only a peak, inform and confident Djoko can beat him, and that too is not certain but he is the best bet.

Others will have to hope Nadal declines either due to injury/aging/boredom. Else he will keep winning RGs as long as he wants to.

How close was Rome, FO07, FO11, you are referring to? So when you say now it might get closer ...how closer do you mean?

Sorry but I do not see the logic in your argument. Those matches were really close without Fed having a BH! Can't you see the difference now? Fed has a consistent BH. That takes away Nadal's only advantage he had. Proof is that he has not won a set in his last 3 encounters v Fed....but worse, he did not even get to a 7/5 or a TB. The most he got is 4 games but an average of 3 games!!! He has also lost his 5 last encounter to Fed!

With your logic, you would have never envisaged this reverse in trend cause you are referring to a time when fed was playing Nadal with an outdated tool. Some of us here knew that Federer would play better with that larger frame....even more crucial on clay where the high bounce makes it harder.

So I am asking you as you agree that Rome and their last FO encounter was close...how closer woudl Fed get to beating Nadal?

The only reason Fed did not enter teh clay season is that he wants to save himself for Wimbledon and doesn't want to tire himself versus 6 players before meeting Nadal. But in day I am pretty sure he woudl Nadal....convincingly.

I am sorry to say but my many years of watching tennis has often proved me right. Starting with the fact that Both Fed and Nadal are playing good tennis in spite of being over 30!

Tenez wrote:
I am sorry to say but my many years of watching tennis has often proved me right.

... Hope that's irony

Scoreline certainly not reflective with how well Thiem played in most parts of the match. He had the power and the stamina. Just not the composure when he needed most. 

Interestingly Zverev claimed a ball from Thiem felt much heavier than one from Nadal on clay.

Thiem is atrocious. Why did he play Lyon right before a slam? He nearly lost to Simon there. SIMON. He's not good enough to win in the big moments. Even a midget took a set off the Spaniard and had a break lead in the 2nd.. Federer took a set off Nadal in 3 different RG finals and that was when Nadal was much more of a force. Thiem is 0-6 in sets at RG vs a past his best Nadal. 

Generation USELESS

AceofDeath wrote:Thiem is atrocious. Why did he play Lyon right before a slam? He nearly lost to Simon there. SIMON. He's not good enough to win in the big moments. Even a midget took a set off the Spaniard and had a break lead in the 2nd.. Federer took a set off Nadal in 3 different RG finals and that was when Nadal was much more of a force. Thiem is 0-6 in sets at RG vs a past his best Nadal. 

Generation USELESS

What have you got against Simon!

He is a class player for 1d Thiem.

Thiem is a kiddo for Nadal...not cheeky enough.

noleisthebest wrote:

AceofDeath wrote:Thiem is atrocious. Why did he play Lyon right before a slam? He nearly lost to Simon there. SIMON. He's not good enough to win in the big moments. Even a midget took a set off the Spaniard and had a break lead in the 2nd.. Federer took a set off Nadal in 3 different RG finals and that was when Nadal was much more of a force. Thiem is 0-6 in sets at RG vs a past his best Nadal. 

Generation USELESS

What have you got against Simon!

He is a class player for 1d Thiem.

Thiem is a kiddo for Nadal...not cheeky enough.

Younger Simon was very good, true that, but he's well past his best now. Besides, he should never play Lyon with RG about to start. Couldn't even win a set against this Nadal who was way worse than last year.

Nadal was stuck in 2nd gear in the first set Thiem couldn't take advantage. Couldn't even take 5 games in any set. It is what it is.

I suppose Gillou is not his old self any more...

Yes, I don’t get Thiem either...must be sponsors and cash.

Interesting comment from Fed:

" I would like to once again have a battle against Nadal at Roland Garros.

But for the moment the focus is Wimbledon, for me, winning there is the biggest thing on the circuit.”

Does that mean he is going to say goodbye to Roland Garros next hear?

AceofDeath wrote:Thiem is atrocious. Why did he play Lyon right before a slam? He nearly lost to Simon there. SIMON. He's not good enough to win in the big moments. Even a midget took a set off the Spaniard and had a break lead in the 2nd.. Federer took a set off Nadal in 3 different RG finals and that was when Nadal was much more of a force. Thiem is 0-6 in sets at RG vs a past his best Nadal. 

Generation USELESS

this nadal may be slower than before, but plays better

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:Tenez may not like the thought, but Fed made a pretty good decision skipping clay.

If anything he must be furious. Frankly, Fed could have beaten this Nadal today. Fed has now a better BH, better FH and a better placed serve with a much higher serve percentage but more importantly plays the big points better than Thiem or anyone else Nadal faced.

The only reason Fed did not enter RG is that he did not want to arrive tired v Nadal in that final.....bit with such a poor field he would have had a good chance this year. Real shame!...Now watch him lose Wimbledon for lack of play!

That’s odd. Did him ok last year didn’t it?

Nadal has adapted his clay game like he adapted on the other surfaces. Shorter points. Certainly this year that was very noticeable. In the past he may have averaged 7-8 shots per rally on clay whereas this year he has probably reduced that to around 5-6 shots. I don't think he is quite the physical beast he used to be and this change is a huge difference in the five set format and one which allows him to remain competitive. Also looked to me to be standing closer to the baseline. 

However, whilst he is different player, he is also not as good as last year on clay (when he was immense) or as good as his peak years. The changes have been dictated by necessity, much the same as Federer. Neither move as well or for as long as previously. Despite not being as good as in the past he basically won RG at a canter this year. This suggests to me that he as further room for decline and yet still have the game to triumph.

Emancipator wrote:Nadal has adapted his clay game like he adapted on the other surfaces. Shorter points. Certainly this year that was very noticeable. In the past he may have averaged 7-8 shots per rally on clay whereas this year he has probably reduced that to around 5-6 shots. I don't think he is quite the physical beast he used to be and this change is a huge difference in the five set format and one which allows him to remain competitive. Also looked to me to be standing closer to the baseline. 

However, whilst he is different player, he is also not as good as last year on clay (when he was immense) or as good as his peak years. The changes have been dictated by necessity, much the same as Federer. Neither move as well or for as long as previously. Despite not being as good as in the past he basically won RG at a canter this year. This suggests to me that he as further room for decline and yet still have the game to triumph.

This is exactly right.  Great post.

noleisthebest wrote:Interesting comment from Fed:

" I would like to once again have a battle against Nadal at Roland Garros.

But for the moment the focus is Wimbledon, for me, winning there is the biggest thing on the circuit.”

Does that mean he is going to say goodbye to Roland Garros next hear?

He is right....and wrong!
Right cause it is the biggest tournament but wrong cause it is not "his" biggest thing...anymore. His biggest challenge is beating Nadal at the FO now that he has a proper racquet!

naxroy wrote:

AceofDeath wrote:Thiem is atrocious. Why did he play Lyon right before a slam? He nearly lost to Simon there. SIMON. He's not good enough to win in the big moments. Even a midget took a set off the Spaniard and had a break lead in the 2nd.. Federer took a set off Nadal in 3 different RG finals and that was when Nadal was much more of a force. Thiem is 0-6 in sets at RG vs a past his best Nadal. 

Generation USELESS

this nadal may be slower than before, but plays better

Of course he does. Not sure he lost a step either. The huge improvement is in his BH. In the past hardly ever hit it DTL now he does it regularly and his CC BH is way better than in the past (pacier and more consistent).

Emancipator wrote:Nadal has adapted his clay game like he adapted on the other surfaces. Shorter points. Certainly this year that was very noticeable. In the past he may have averaged 7-8 shots per rally on clay whereas this year he has probably reduced that to around 5-6 shots. I don't think he is quite the physical beast he used to be and this change is a huge difference in the five set format and one which allows him to remain competitive. Also looked to me to be standing closer to the baseline. 

Agree

However, whilst he is different player, he is also not as good as last year on clay (when he was immense) or as good as his peak years. The changes have been dictated by necessity, much the same as Federer. Neither move as well or for as long as previously. Despite not being as good as in the past he basically won RG at a canter this year. This suggests to me that he as further room for decline and yet still have the game to triumph.

Disagree. It's not all about Nadal and Federer. For instance Thiem is a much improved player this year than last year....yet his score is similar to last year. So Nadal has also learnt to play Thiem and control him.

Federer is certainly decliningg (overall now) but you cannot replace the experience of being coached by the more years on tour and exposing to the new generation. They are the best coaches in the world. Nadal still has that fitness to allow him to improve. As I said his BH is simply better now...and that 50% of his game!

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Interesting comment from Fed
" I would like to once again have a battle against Nadal at Roland Garros.
But for the moment the focus is Wimbledon, for me, winning there is the biggest thing on the circuit.”
Does that mean he is going to say goodbye to Roland Garros next hear?

He is right....and wrong!
Right cause it is the biggest tournament but wrong cause it is not "his" biggest thing...anymore. His biggest challenge is beating Nadal at the FO now that he has a proper racquet!

For Federer, it would only be the biggest physical challenge and a tick in the box.
The very fact he said he wouldn’t mind playing Nadal in RG says he thinks he would beat bim there. He may skip “sunshine double” next year and play one or two tournaments onclay...however ridiculous it may sound, and I can’t really it imagine it happen.

On the other hand, winning Wimbledon is just the best full stop.

Whoever’s felt the grass under their feet with the racquet in their hand can’t think any other way.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Interesting comment from Fed
" I would like to once again have a battle against Nadal at Roland Garros.
But for the moment the focus is Wimbledon, for me, winning there is the biggest thing on the circuit.”
Does that mean he is going to say goodbye to Roland Garros next hear?

He is right....and wrong!
Right cause it is the biggest tournament but wrong cause it is not "his" biggest thing...anymore. His biggest challenge is beating Nadal at the FO now that he has a proper racquet!

For Federer, it would only be the biggest physical challenge and a tick in the box.

Winning Wimbledon is just the best full stop.

Whoever’s felt the grass under their feet with the racquet in their hand can’t think any other way.

Imagine Fed beating Nadal at the FO now that he has that new racquet. It would strip Nadal of being the best clay courter overnight and sort this GOAT debate for ever. A 9th Wimbeldon won't do it.

Tenez wrote:
Imagine Fed beating Nadal at the FO now that he has that new racquet.

That would certainly be a great match to see and I am sure Fed would enjoy it.

Tenez wrote:
It would strip Nadal of being the best clay courter overnight

It would for people who understand tennis.
The likes of Amri and Naxroy would always find comfort in numbers.

Tenez wrote:
and sort this GOAT debate for ever. A 9th Wimbeldon won't do it.

GOAT debate does not exist for me, only for ex Sampras/Nadal fans. And media.

Does the most beautiful woman look more beautiful by wearing another dress?

noleisthebest wrote:
Does the most beautiful woman look more beautiful by wearing another dress?

Certainly without a dress, yes.

Vintage yazzoooooo

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Interesting comment from Fed
" I would like to once again have a battle against Nadal at Roland Garros.
But for the moment the focus is Wimbledon, for me, winning there is the biggest thing on the circuit.”
Does that mean he is going to say goodbye to Roland Garros next hear?

He is right....and wrong!
Right cause it is the biggest tournament but wrong cause it is not "his" biggest thing...anymore. His biggest challenge is beating Nadal at the FO now that he has a proper racquet!

For Federer, it would only be the biggest physical challenge and a tick in the box.

Winning Wimbledon is just the best full stop.

Whoever’s felt the grass under their feet with the racquet in their hand can’t think any other way.

Imagine Fed beating Nadal at the FO now that he has that new racquet. It would strip Nadal of being the best clay courter overnight and sort this GOAT debate for ever. A 9th Wimbeldon won't do it.

nadal would lose his king of clay status with one loss to fed at roland garros?

wow

For me it would. Like I am sure Fed would probably have never lost a match v Nadal had he learnt to play tennis with a modern tennis racquet. We will never know but the fact Fed at 36 has won his last 5 encounters v Rafa while clearly not at his prime while Nadal is more than seals the point to me.

Imagine if Fed had learnt and developped his game with that racquet on slow conds (opposite to the conds he did).

Those last 18months have completely reshaped their H2H. And I cannot see why it would be different on clay.

Tenez wrote:... had he learnt to play tennis with a modern tennis racquet...

but he didnt

history is written