could it be your fear your champion Federer slipping behind in the race? Nadal is within spitting distance of Federer in the race and he seems likely to overtake Federer. From there things get very interesting, Federer could well be kissing that no.1 spot goodbye.
could it be your fear your champion Federer slipping behind in the>
race?>
Nadal is within spitting distance of Federer in the race and he seems>
likely to overtake Federer. From there things get very interesting,>>Federer could well be kissing that no.1 spot goodbye.>
He may be close to overtaking Fed in the race, but he has a long way to> go to getting close in the Entry System. I doubt Fed is sweating just> yet.>
Oh I think he is. The race is the best indicator of 'current' performance. Federer keeping his ranking assumes he defends a lot of titles, specifically Wimbly and USO. I think he has a fair chance at Wimbly, but I will be suprised if he wins it. USO is much much less likely a win for Federer. People saying federer is favorite for FO is a huge strech, especially given his previous performances there, hardly earth shattering.
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:> could it be your fear your champion Federer slipping behind in the race? > Nadal is within spitting distance of Federer in the race and he seems > likely to overtake Federer. From there things get very interesting, > Federer could well be kissing that no.1 spot goodbye.
You really know your tennis ranking system, doncha?
could it be your fear your champion Federer slipping behind in the >> race? Nadal is within spitting distance of Federer in the race and he >> seems likely to overtake Federer. From there things get very >> interesting, Federer could well be kissing that no.1 spot goodbye.>
You really know your tennis ranking system, doncha?
Indeed I do. The race eventually becomes the entry ranking and federer has a lot of work to do, you all assume he is going to do it, I am suggesting that he won't and nadal will pass him by.
pedrodias@snip.net wrote:> Everyone I've seen posting about Nadal skipping Hamburg was concerned> about him having time to rest and heal the blister he supposedly has on> his racquet hand. Given how Federer's Spring has gone so far, I don't> think he's got all that much to worry about, even if he doesn't win> Wimbledon.>
LOL, you are joking right? If federer fails to win Wimbly, he will be well on his way to a slamless 2005.
the race is meaningless. The FO, W, and USO are all that matter from
here on> > out and so far Nadal hasn't won any of them.> >
Nor has Federer *this year*, what's your point?
.. that there's no reason for fed fans to care whether nadal misses hamburg or not.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
Hamburg is going to be pivotal in the overall race. Federer is coming> off a clay loss and is playing a tough leftie in the first round. He> has his work cut out for him. Let us see what he is made of.
Hamburg wont show us what Fed is made of whether he loses in the first round or wins every match in straight sets. FO/W/USO will. And the race is meaningless until late in the year (After USO), I mean Hrbaty is usually 1st at start of year.
"Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message newsJufe.27903$G8.4875@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...> could it be your fear your champion Federer slipping behind in the race? > Nadal is within spitting distance of Federer in the race and he seems > likely to overtake Federer. From there things get very interesting, > Federer could well be kissing that no.1 spot goodbye.
I think most folks urging Nadal to drop out of Hamburg say so out of genuine concern. They don't want him to burn out of the French Open early.
I hope he plays and and takes a week off just to rest, get massages and get mentally prepared.
Even a loss in Hamburg shouldn't dampen his spirits, just lift his confidence, as he'll get more cracks at the big guns in a non-slam -- like Roddick should they meet in the QFs.
could it be your fear your champion Federer slipping behind in the >>> race? Nadal is within spitting distance of Federer in the race and he >>> seems likely to overtake Federer. From there things get very >>> interesting, Federer could well be kissing that no.1 spot goodbye.>>
You really know your tennis ranking system, doncha?>
Indeed I do. The race eventually becomes the entry ranking and federer > has a lot of work to do, you all assume he is going to do it, I am > suggesting that he won't and nadal will pass him by.
Nadal is on fire & will win a bunch of USO tune-ups as well, if not USO to boot....
At this point one would have to give the edge to Nadal to finish No.1.
If Rafa feels he can sweep every clay tournament, he should go for it.> It has probably never been done before.>
Let's see how he does on other surfaces, too. This is his chance to> get as many points as possible before we move on to surfaces not> exactly to his liking...yet.>
He's almost as good on H/Cs - barring injury he'll be equal fave at USO.
Needs a couple yrs experience before he can have a good crack at Wimbledon, but given right circs can win it this yr....
could it be your fear your champion Federer slipping behind in the>>>
race?>>>
Nadal is within spitting distance of Federer in the race and he>
seems>
likely to overtake Federer. From there things get very interesting,>>>>Federer could well be kissing that no.1 spot goodbye.>>>
He may be close to overtaking Fed in the race, but he has a long>
way to>
go to getting close in the Entry System. I doubt Fed is sweating>
just>
yet.>>>
Oh I think he is. The race is the best indicator of 'current'>>performance. Federer keeping his ranking assumes he defends a lot of>>titles, specifically Wimbly and USO. I think he has a fair chance at>>Wimbly, but I will be suprised if he wins it. USO is much much less>>likely a win for Federer. People saying federer is favorite for FO is>
huge strech, especially given his previous performances there, hardly>
earth shattering.>
he is a strong fav for W.>
I wouldn't say strong at this stage - he can be mentally brittle. He's top 4....
Everyone I've seen posting about Nadal skipping Hamburg was concerned>> about him having time to rest and heal the blister he supposedly has on>> his racquet hand. Given how Federer's Spring has gone so far, I don't>> think he's got all that much to worry about, even if he doesn't win>> Wimbledon.>>
LOL, you are joking right? If federer fails to win Wimbly, he will be > well on his way to a slamless 2005.
Not to mention into a dark depression he may never come out of.....
Federer could well be kissing that no.1 spot goodbye.>
Nadal in his post-match interview in Rome seems to have said that he is> going to go to Hamburg tomorrow and then see if he is going to play or> not. Even if he chooses not to play, he could still overtake Federer by> winning RG. I am assuming, of course, that Federer will do as well in> RG this year as he has in the past!>
Nadal v Fed FO final would be fitting - passing the torch....
Nadal will win a bunch of USO tune-ups (and the USO itself) based on> what? A hunch? Pulling things out of the air? Are you predicting> he's going to become the next Lendl, who had the ability to dominate on> both clay and HC?
Don't be stupid - Nadal can beat the best at peak . Lendl dominated in transition periods... that's a fact - look it up.
Even though Sampras finished #1 six times, it's not like he always held> the top spot from start to finish. In fact, this is usually the time> of season he got overtaken for the short-term, not unlike Fed.
This statement has no meaning. What matters is who won the most points in the yr - & Sampras did that 6 yrs straight.
And speaking of 2003, we all know who the best player was that year. 8> titles, wim + YEC.
Depends how you look at it. Both won 1 slam (split 2 biggest titles), Roddick made S/F at 3 of the 4 slams, Fed only at 1.
Nobody won more than 1 slam so let the points decide it - at any rate it's not a convincing No.1 for either guy.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:ziGfe.328$h13.3061@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> coop-a-loop wrote:>
I thought the FO is a lame dirt slam?>>
If Nadal beats Federer at Wimbledon, then the "passing the torch">> statement has some meaning. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of hot air,>> B.S.>>
I can see Nadal with 2 slams this & yr-end No.1 ranking, & Fed possibly no > slams...
Oh, yes you also saw Roddick with 12 grand slams, Fed never win a slam after his 2003 Wimbledon and would never beat Roddick after their 2003 Canadian Master semi final match. I will be very surprise that Nadal will win a slam this years and he is doing what Federer was doing before Monte Carlo playing far too much before FO, it is wise that he is not play Hamburg but the damage is already done he has peaked too early but I still expect him to go deep into the 2nd week in FO but he won't win. Nadal will not win slam from Wimbledon or US Open this year, for a player who continue to run around to hit a forehand, the court speed in both Wimbledon and USO will be too fast for him to do that, the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Federer and Safin will take him out quite convincingly on the fast court.>
Proclaiming Fed the real no.1 in that scenario is pissing in the wind....>
"Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:Zywfe.28041$G8.2679@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...> pedrodias@snip.net wrote:> > Everyone I've seen posting about Nadal skipping Hamburg was concerned> > about him having time to rest and heal the blister he supposedly has on> > his racquet hand. Given how Federer's Spring has gone so far, I don't> > think he's got all that much to worry about, even if he doesn't win> > Wimbledon.>
LOL, you are joking right? If federer fails to win Wimbly, he will be> well on his way to a slamless 2005.
Well, yeah. By definition, having lost two. Still, I think all the idiots predicting total collapse if he *does* lose all the Slams this year (which I don't think will happen) are forgetting that Federer's 2004 was an exceptionally amazing year. He's not likely to match it every year.
a prediction of 12 slams for Roddick? When was that made? And what> was that based on? Nothing but hot-air, B.S. Of course when called> out on it, he hides from accountibility.>
It's simply being bullish on his favorite players and hating on those> he doesn't like (no different than most other people). It's ok and> brilliant for him to predict 12 Slams for Roddick.>
Fed's "not mentally tough enough" to dominate for more than another> year. But Roddick obviously will be able to for the long haul. Yea,> ok...whatever.>
Roddick < Courier when it's all said and done. Of course, a prediction> like this (since it's one of his faves) has no credibility. Only his> own...>
<crickets>>
I'm not as far off Roddick as you seem to think. Dig just below the surface & you'll see, if not for Fed, Roddick would be 2-time defending Wim champ. He'd probably have 5 slams by now with the added confidence.
Keep in mind my predictions were made when Roddick was nothing (won 1 tune-up), much like my Nadal predictions - now everyone's on the bandwagon.
My predictions re: Fed are easily accountable by; 1) I never saw much of him when I was bagging him early on, & 2) most importantly, I never realized what a freakish wrist action he had (90% responsible for his success) until after he won '04 AO, & 3) tough to see a game not based on solid bum-rooting being dominant in today's slams.
Everyone jumps on every one of my predictions that don't come true, completely ignoring the 90% that do. Everyone else here makes predictions after the event.... yawn.
IMO, Fed wouldn't be much different if he was around 20-30 years ago.> Most people say & see that his game has as much to do with artistry,> finese, and creativity as it does power. Exchange his Wilson graphite> for a wooden racquet, his game and philosophy wouldn't change much.> His game would be least affected.>
I still think his movement is his greatest strength. That is where his> genius lies. It's how Fed evaluates his own game, many analysts do,> and even the great Sampras has done so (on tv and in magazines).>
I think modern rackets certainly add a huge dimension to Fed's game. He wouldn't be able to flick so many winners with wood.
Guys like Sampras/Mac/Edberg are least effected & would play same in any era....
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:_fHfe.337$h13.3616@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> coop-a-loop wrote:>
a prediction of 12 slams for Roddick? When was that made? And what>> was that based on? Nothing but hot-air, B.S. Of course when called>> out on it, he hides from accountibility.>>
It's simply being bullish on his favorite players and hating on those>> he doesn't like (no different than most other people). It's ok and>> brilliant for him to predict 12 Slams for Roddick.>>
Fed's "not mentally tough enough" to dominate for more than another>> year. But Roddick obviously will be able to for the long haul. Yea,>> ok...whatever.>>
Roddick < Courier when it's all said and done. Of course, a prediction>> like this (since it's one of his faves) has no credibility. Only his>> own...>>
<crickets>>>
I'm not as far off Roddick as you seem to think. Dig just below the > surface & you'll see, if not for Fed, Roddick would be 2-time defending > Wim champ. He'd probably have 5 slams by now with the added confidence.
If that is how you define your accuracy in your prediction then Raja is not far off in suggesting Lendl was the best player ever only if Lendl won those other 11 GS finals he was in, he would be 19 time grand slam winners ahead of Sampras by a mile.>
Keep in mind my predictions were made when Roddick was nothing (won 1 > tune-up), much like my Nadal predictions - now everyone's on the > bandwagon.
Let me remind you when you made some of those predictions, 1. Federer will never win a grand slam again, this was straight after he won the Wimbledon in 2003. 2. Federer would never beat Roddick again, this came after Roddick beat Federer in 2003 Canadian Master, two years on no less than 4 more times against Roddick. 5 if you included some exhibition in Kooyong. 3. Roddick would be a potential 12 slam winner and should win a minimum of 9 grand slams, this came after his US Open victory in 2003. 4. Roddick would win grand slam, this was back in end of 2003.
My predictions re: Fed are easily accountable by; 1) I never saw much of > him when I was bagging him early on, & 2) most importantly, I never > realized what a freakish wrist action he had (90% responsible for his > success) until after he won '04 AO, & 3) tough to see a game not based on > solid bum-rooting being dominant in today's slams.>
Everyone jumps on every one of my predictions that don't come true, > completely ignoring the 90% that do. Everyone else here makes predictions > after the event.... yawn.>
I'm not as far off Roddick as you seem to think. Dig just below the >>surface & you'll see, if not for Fed, Roddick would be 2-time defending >>Wim champ. He'd probably have 5 slams by now with the added confidence.>
If that is how you define your accuracy in your prediction then Raja is not > far off> in suggesting Lendl was the best player ever only if Lendl won those other > 11 GS> finals he was in, he would be 19 time grand slam winners ahead of Sampras > by> a mile.
No, as Raja can only make predictions in hindsight, which means he's of no value to this ng - not only that but has no idea how to value established achievements....
Keep in mind my predictions were made when Roddick was nothing (won 1 >>tune-up), much like my Nadal predictions - now everyone's on the >>bandwagon.>
Let me remind you when you made some of those predictions, 1. Federer will > never> win a grand slam again, this was straight after he won the Wimbledon in > 2003.
My revised prediction was 3 slams for Fed - he's exceeded that by 1 at this stage.
2.> Federer would never beat Roddick again, this came after Roddick beat Federer > in 2003> Canadian Master, two years on no less than 4 more times against Roddick.
I don't make predictions of that nature. Hope you're enjoying yourself at least...
if you included> some exhibition in Kooyong. 3. Roddick would be a potential 12 slam winner > and should> win a minimum of 9 grand slams, this came after his US Open victory in 2003.
No, that's not my style. Woulda been a range (eg 5-12), with many qualifiers included. What I'm assessing is tennis potential - the mind/mood/luck of a player is something we can't predict....
4. Roddick> would win grand slam, this was back in end of 2003.
Again not my style. Woulda been something like 'potentially can win a calendar slam given x factors' etc
If Nadal beats Federer at Wimbledon, then the "passing the torch"> > > statement has some meaning. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of hot air,> > > B.S.> > >
I can see Nadal with 2 slams this & yr-end No.1 ranking, & Fed possibly> > no slams...> >
Proclaiming Fed the real no.1 in that scenario is pissing in the
In article <slJfe.373$h13.4913@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>, beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
No, that's not my style. Woulda been a range (eg 5-12), with many > qualifiers included. What I'm assessing is tennis potential - the > mind/mood/luck of a player is something we can't predict....
Just for fun, here are the fruits of a Google search. I have cut down on quoted material and headers to make it easier to read. It in fact agrees with your claim that you said 5 to 12 (although 12 is what gets repeated). On the other hand, it *also* shows how consistently you have underrated Federer.
wg --- Local: Thurs,Aug 14 2003 7:06 am Subject: Re: Predicting Future Slam Wins - men
I don't think I'm being too hard on Fed. Take away the Wimbledon win, & there's not much there. From what I see he can lose to just about anybody,& could easily go out in first couple rounds at USO.....
Of course he's outachieved Roddick to this point, but that's not going to last long....
--- Local: Tues,Aug 12 2003 5:52 am Subject: Re: Federer vs Roddick
Yes, but as you know there are many variables in tennis. eg had Roddick won that set point v Fed in 1st set I reckon he woulda won Wimbledon (Fed not great when down)... also probably woulda won USO '01 had he got past Hewitt...
So it's a very fine line sometimes. I'm assessing potential here. Someone with Roddick's game can win 5 to 12 slams. The variance is attributed to such things as luck, injuries, bad line calls, good/bad draws etc. By now Roddick coulda won 3 slams - the fact he hasn't won one is due to 1) bad luck, & 2) bad coach...
In article <slJfe.373$h13.4913@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>, > beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:>
No, that's not my style. Woulda been a range (eg 5-12), with many >>qualifiers included. What I'm assessing is tennis potential - the >>mind/mood/luck of a player is something we can't predict....>
Just for fun, here are the fruits of a Google search. I have cut down on > quoted material and headers to make it easier to read. It in fact agrees > with your claim that you said 5 to 12 (although 12 is what gets repeated). > On the other hand, it *also* shows how consistently you have underrated > Federer.>
I don't think I'm being too hard on Fed. Take away the Wimbledon win, &> there's not much there. From what I see he can lose to just about > anybody,& could easily go out in first couple rounds at USO.....>
Of course he's outachieved Roddick to this point, but that's not going to> last long.... >
Yes, but as you know there are many variables in tennis. eg had Roddick > won that set point v Fed in 1st set I reckon he woulda won Wimbledon (Fed > not great when down)... also probably woulda won USO '01 had he got past> Hewitt...>
So it's a very fine line sometimes. I'm assessing potential here. > Someone with Roddick's game can win 5 to 12 slams. The variance is > attributed to such things as luck, injuries, bad line calls, good/bad > draws etc. By now Roddick coulda won 3 slams - the fact he hasn't won one > is due to 1) bad luck, & 2) bad coach...>
--
I think all that stands up - 5 if everything goes badly, 12 if he gets all the breaks. So far he's missed quite a few breaks.
To a certain extent I'm still underrating Federer today - sounds ludicrous given the evidence, but I sense a fragility about him, & I can't see him getting anywhere near Sampras as far as long term domination goes....
Yes, people should bear that in mind. It would be a perfectly> reasonable year if Fed finished up with W and no other slams, but it> wouldn't have been the follow-up to his domination in 2004 that some> people expected.>
If he wins his 3rd straight Wimbledon I'd put this yr on a par with last, in terms of legacy boost..... if he only wins USO then that would constitute a slight drop....
To a certain extent I'm still underrating Federer today - sounds> ludicrous given the evidence, but I sense a fragility about him, & I> can't see him getting anywhere near Sampras as far as long term> domination goes....
Yeah, i still sense that about him too. It's not backed up by objective evidence, it's just my "tennis sense" tingling...
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"cinicke" <cinicke@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1115660964.780990.269190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> Nadal did pull out of Hamburg with a blister.>
Good for him. Why risk the confidence factor by playing injured? Now he> will be really fresh for RG and he will be coming in on an enviable> clay record.
Roddick has to be pissed he didn't take advantage of this opportunity.
He was slated to meet Nadal in the QFs.
Nadal has nothing to prove at this point. He'll be fine for RG.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:dXQfe.411$h13.6007@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:>> In article <v_Efe.240$h13.2710@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,>> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:>>
He's almost as good on H/Cs - barring injury he'll be equal fave at USO.>>
Because people like Roddick and Hewitt not a factor on hard courts? I>> didn't realize you'd finally given up on Roddick.>>
equal fave with Roddick/Fed.
who made the last two HC slam finals? It wasn't Roddick.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:v2Ife.347
I'm saying I'm the best judge of tennis potential in rst - eg picked Nadal> to be r/up at '04 AO when he was 16. Didn't happen, but most were 'Nadal> who?'...>
Hops is pretty good, but he's a pro & watches much more tennis than I do.> Even so he's still marginally behind...
nice try. I'm up 8-1. or is that 9-1? I've lost track.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:v2Ife.347>
I'm saying I'm the best judge of tennis potential in rst - eg picked Nadal>>to be r/up at '04 AO when he was 16. Didn't happen, but most were 'Nadal>>who?'...>>
Hops is pretty good, but he's a pro & watches much more tennis than I do.>>Even so he's still marginally behind...>
nice try. I'm up 8-1. or is that 9-1? I've lost track.>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:FGIfe.359$h13.4161@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> coop-a-loop wrote:>
IMO, Fed wouldn't be much different if he was around 20-30 years ago.>> Most people say & see that his game has as much to do with artistry,>> finese, and creativity as it does power. Exchange his Wilson graphite>> for a wooden racquet, his game and philosophy wouldn't change much.>> His game would be least affected.>>
I still think his movement is his greatest strength. That is where his>> genius lies. It's how Fed evaluates his own game, many analysts do,>> and even the great Sampras has done so (on tv and in magazines).>>
I think modern rackets certainly add a huge dimension to Fed's game. He > wouldn't be able to flick so many winners with wood.>
Guys like Sampras/Mac/Edberg are least effected & would play same in any > era....
once again another stupid and typical Whisper post, Federer in early 2000 was using the same Wilson frame as Samrpas or Edberg.
