Forums > Personal > Roland Garros

forum rss feed
Author

Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Jun 08, 18:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wow, Nadal knocked Federer out so easily that I couldn't believe it. I know Nadal is top notch, but Federer's playing is so bad, what happened to the guy? From an Iron Man to a third-rate tenist? I hope he recovers, he's very talented (and cute, ok, but talented also!), and I have always been impressed by the sheer force of his style. It's very engaging and exciting (I mean, within the context of tenis lol) to see him play. Like...he's cute, no doubt, but...well. Better stop here. Good tenist. lol




Yara
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Jun 08, 23:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Nadal wins the French Open, Federer wins everything else. It's pretty much been this way for the past five years - nothing's changed and nothing's new. You really couldn't have been surprised...could you?


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
Charlie Brown user not visiting Queenzone.com
Charlie Brown
Bohemian: 462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 00:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Roger Federer is sort of like the Tiger Woods of tennis. People almost expect them to win every tournement in their respective sports.

Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 00:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Except the Roland Garros...

How many times has he won it, again?

That's right, never. And each time he's lost to Nadal, who is as much of a god on clay as Federer is on, say, every surface that isn't clay.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
Charlie Brown user not visiting Queenzone.com
Charlie Brown
Bohemian: 462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 00:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

^ Hi MusicMan. Michael Jordan comes to mind. He was the dominant player in his sport for years, but he didn't have much of a 3 point shot, except ofcourse for that NBA Finals game against Portland where he increadibly hit 3 point after shot effortlessly. Even superstars have weaknesses.

***Marial-B*** user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mrs. Meijer
***Marial-B***
Deity: 2285 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 02:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The thing with Roland Garros is that Federer is a great player in every single kind of Tennis Stadium, except for the ones made of clay, like the Roland Garros, that's Nadal's speciality. And that's why he wins easily that cup. Still the kid is what... 21??? 22??? and as far as I know Federer is older than him, so the kid still has a long way to go :).


Barcelona, October 22nd 2008
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 02:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Marial-B wrote:

The thing with Roland Garros is that Federer is a great player in every single kind of Tennis Stadium, except for the ones made of clay, like the Roland Garros, that's Nadal's speciality. And that's why he wins easily that cup. Still the kid is what... 21??? 22??? and as far as I know Federer is older than him, so the kid still has a long way to go :).


Well, Federer reached the final... He's not bad at clay but Nadal was just superb. Let's see what Nadal can do on the gras of Wimbledon.


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
JoxerTheDeityPirate user not visiting Queenzone.com
JoxerTheDeityPirate
Deity: 6272 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 04:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.
Wimbledon will see Federer back on his fave grass surroundings and also means i wont have to water my tomatoes for the two weeks its going on and its the only 2 weeks of the year where you see young british kids on a tennis court with a racquet in their hands and not stabbing each other with knives.


isnt innuendo an italian suppository?

im gonna ride the wild wind!

its_a_hard_life wrote:you nutcase you rule!

joxer replies: but in a nice way :-]

The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 06:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote:

yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.


That was Ivanovic... was a pretty woman that is :D---


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 09:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Music Man wrote:

Nadal wins the French Open, Federer wins everything else. It's pretty much been this way for the past five years - nothing's changed and nothing's new. You really couldn't have been surprised...could you?


I could, Music Man! Hahaha. It was just that...it was too easy, you know? Like, I expected Federer to give Nadal more...how do we say that, to be more challenging to Nadal! Ok, he's not good on clay, but...that easy? Nadal just walked over him!

I knew it was unlikely Federer would win the tournament, given the way he had been playing ever since game 01 (lol), but I expected a close victory for Nadal, a close call, not that...man. It was knock out. Haha.


Yara
Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 13:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wow. People are throwing out names like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to compare Federer & Nadal? The only reason those two are always on top is that the field is bad. I think if you go back, and not too far, names like McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Sampras seem much closer to Jordan and Woods than what we have out there today.

And NADAL was killing everyone. Federer was struggling to get to the finals. Hardly entertaining. It's sad that Women's Tennis is more exciting, but fitting that Venus got the pay grade fixed.

Boy, that Ivanovic is quite fun to watch. From Serbia.

Charlie Brown wrote:

Michael Jordan comes to mind. He was the dominant player in his sport for years, but he didn't have much of a 3 point shot, except ofcourse for that NBA Finals game against Portland where he increadibly hit 3 point after shot effortlessly.


Michael Jordan was a career 32.7% 3 point shooter. His playoff career average was 33.2%. That's hardly a "weakness". Mike didn't play in today's 3-point heavy game.

Let's compare guys from Mike's era:
Reggie Miller 39% (was their main 3pt shooter)
Larry Bird 38% (was their co-main 3pt shooter, Ainge)
Magic Johnson 30%
Julius Erving 26%
and the Bulls' MAIN 3pt shooter, John Paxson, had a career average of 36%.
...and if given the chance to drive to the whole or take the 3, what would Mike do?

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 13:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bring back MacEnroe.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 14:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Federer is a good player. I expected him to give Nadal more trouble. That he wasn't going to win the tournament, I suspected; but that he'd play so badly and be defeat so easily, wow, I didn't.

Yes, I root for Federer! Hahaha.

Now, Michael Jordan, please, GOD. Like, no comparison with anyone, I feel personally offended by it. lol


Yara
***Marial-B*** user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mrs. Meijer
***Marial-B***
Deity: 2285 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 16:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The Mir@cle wrote:

JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote:

yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.


That was Ivanovic... was a pretty woman that is :D---


-.-'... *prepares foot*


Barcelona, October 22nd 2008
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 18:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You could argue that the field is mediocre in today's game, but it's still difficult to deny the complete dominance that Federer has over the game (except clay). I mean, Federer is still competent in clay, but Nadal owns it. Tennis on clay is almost a completely different sport.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 18:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Actually, yes you can argue against Federer.

How many Wimbledon titles does he own? 4. How many finals has he lost? 0.

So 4 years.

Now lets look at my guys:
1974 Connors beats Rosewall
1975 Ashe beats Connors
1976 Borg beats Nastase
1977 Borg beats Connors
1978 Borg beats Connors again
1979 Borg beats Tanner
1980 Borg beats McEnroe (Proving resistance IS futile!!!)
1981 McEnroe beats Borg
1982 Connors beats McEnroe
1983 McEnroe beats Lewis
1984 McEnroe beats Connors
1985 Becker beats Curren
1986 Becker beats Lendl
1987 Pat Cash beats Lendl with my Prince racquet
1988 Edberg beats Becker
1989 Becker beats Edberg
1990 Edberg beats Becker


Those were players: Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg.

Federer has about 1/2 the career of a Becker or a Sampras, but will never reach the level of Connors, McEnroe, or the greatness of Borg.


Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 18:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sampras=God

We're not talking about Gods.

Federer is a very good player on his own, provided you don't compare him to God.

I think he's stil very young and will still give a lot of headache to his adversaries.

Wonder why Agassi didn't make into your list but Becker did?


Yara
its_a_hard_life 26994 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 11046 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 08, 19:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Marial-B wrote:

The Mir@cle wrote:

JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote:

yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.


That was Ivanovic... was a pretty woman that is :D---


-.-'... *prepares foot*


XD

Charlie Brown user not visiting Queenzone.com
Charlie Brown
Bohemian: 462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jun 08, 01:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Micrówave wrote:

Wow. People are throwing out names like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to compare Federer & Nadal? The only reason those two are always on top is that the field is bad. I think if you go back, and not too far, names like McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Sampras seem much closer to Jordan and Woods than what we have out there today.

And NADAL was killing everyone. Federer was struggling to get to the finals. Hardly entertaining. It's sad that Women's Tennis is more exciting, but fitting that Venus got the pay grade fixed.

Boy, that Ivanovic is quite fun to watch. From Serbia.

Charlie Brown wrote:

Michael Jordan comes to mind. He was the dominant player in his sport for years, but he didn't have much of a 3 point shot, except ofcourse for that NBA Finals game against Portland where he increadibly hit 3 point after shot effortlessly.


Michael Jordan was a career 32.7% 3 point shooter. His playoff career average was 33.2%. That's hardly a "weakness". Mike didn't play in today's 3-point heavy game.

Let's compare guys from Mike's era:
Reggie Miller 39% (was their main 3pt shooter)
Larry Bird 38% (was their co-main 3pt shooter, Ainge)
Magic Johnson 30%
Julius Erving 26%
and the Bulls' MAIN 3pt shooter, John Paxson, had a career average of 36%.
...and if given the chance to drive to the whole or take the 3, what would Mike do?
Michael Jordan was a multiple regular season NBA MVP, he was a multiple time playoff MVP, he lead the NBA in scoring average in multiple seasons AND he was also a member of the all defensive team more than once, so comparatively speaking his 3-point shot was his weakness. To paraphrase our dear Yara, he was the god of basketball. I just used him as a universal example of greatness, i don't think many if any of todays atheletes compare to him actually.

JoxerTheDeityPirate user not visiting Queenzone.com
JoxerTheDeityPirate
Deity: 6272 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jun 08, 04:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Micrówave wrote:

Actually, yes you can argue against Federer.

How many Wimbledon titles does he own? 4. How many finals has he lost? 0.

So 4 years.

Now lets look at my guys:
1974 Connors beats Rosewall
1975 Ashe beats Connors
1976 Borg beats Nastase
1977 Borg beats Connors
1978 Borg beats Connors again
1979 Borg beats Tanner
1980 Borg beats McEnroe (Proving resistance IS futile!!!)
1981 McEnroe beats Borg
1982 Connors beats McEnroe
1983 McEnroe beats Lewis
1984 McEnroe beats Connors
1985 Becker beats Curren
1986 Becker beats Lendl
1987 Pat Cash beats Lendl with my Prince racquet
1988 Edberg beats Becker
1989 Becker beats Edberg
1990 Edberg beats Becker


Those were players: Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg.

Federer has about 1/2 the career of a Becker or a Sampras, but will never reach the level of Connors, McEnroe, or the greatness of Borg.


*claps*
[shows age]
those WERE great players.the robots we have in tennis now wouldnt stand a chance against them in their prime.Borg was just a genius.even Navratilova in her prime would probably beat most of the blokes today


isnt innuendo an italian suppository?

im gonna ride the wild wind!

its_a_hard_life wrote:you nutcase you rule!

joxer replies: but in a nice way :-]