[Archived] French Open Tennis

[benhben]

Anybody been watching the tennis lately? Andy Murray through today vs Cilic in straight sets.

A big shock in the making, No 1 seed and winner of the last 4 french opens is getting spanked by no 23 seed Soderling. Still hope nadal comes through, Soderling is abit of an arse.

[T4E]

Nadal is gone, the biggest surprise since Kraijcek beat Sampras at Wimbledon.

Murray will never have a better chance at Roland Garros.

On the other hand, I'd be pleased to see Federer complete his set of grand slams. He'll never get a better chance either.

[benhben]

That nadal soderling watch was crazy. How can such a low ranked player with no previous history at any major tournaments, hit the ball so hard and accurate for so long. mental.

Hell never play like that again I bet

[Eddie]

Soderling has troubled Nadal a bit in the past, he's not a great clay court player, but Nadal just wasn't at the races.

[benhben]

have you seen the video clips of Soderling winding up nadal at wimbledon a couple of years ago. Made fun of his pre game rituals and pulling his shorts out of his ass. Nadal wasnt impressed.

[bellamy11]

Soderling is, by many accounts, a bit of a nob. I think the commentators called him 'fiery, but with a reputation for just losing out in the big matches', which means 'WUM but a complete bottle job'. Fair play to him yesterday though, he was superb.

Texted T4E after the Nadal match saying I thought Verdasco had a pretty good shot now, so no surprise to see him immediately taken out easily by Davydenko.

Not sure what to think about Andy Murray's chances. His route from now on is likely to be - Gonzalez, Davydenko, Federer. He doesn't have a losing record against any of them, and has only played one of them on clay (to the best of my memory), where he beat Davydenko earlier this year. However, I'd say he's the underdog in every matchup. You'd have got good money on the French Open being Muzza's first Grand Slam, but he might not get a chance as good as this for a while now.

[Tris]

Federer a set down after losing the tie break in the 1st ... although Haas failed to win a single point against the Federer serve on the way to 6-6!!

[Big A]

I'd say del Potro would be a decent outside bet as well, seems to be doing fairly well currently.

[T4E]

You'd have got good money on the French Open being Muzza's first Grand Slam, but he might not get a chance as good as this for a while now.

If I was forced to decide either way I'd have bet against him EVER winning the French, being around the same age as Rafa and Djoko who are both far better on clay.

Fed is a break up in the second.

[Presty On Tour]

Federer has pulled it back to 2-2 in sets, the 4th being 6-0 and he still hasn't broke into a sweat yet!

[benhben]

Federed through.

Soderling has just thumped Davydenko to carry on his good form.

Any Murray in action soon

[b12_simon]

Caption this:

[T4E]

Murray is currently 2 set to 1 down to Gonzo. He lost the 3rd heavily after playing very well in the 2nd.

Great thing about Murray is he's never down and out - I still fancy him to win this.

[T4E]

Murray is currently 2 set to 1 down to Gonzo. He lost the 3rd heavily after playing very well in the 2nd.

Great thing about Murray is he's never down and out - I still fancy him to win this.

Shows what I know.

He went a break down at 3-5 in the 4th set, then with Gonzo serving for the match he broke to love. Then got broken to love to hand it to Gonzalez.

Disappointing, big missed opportunity.

[benhben]

That gonzalez had a MASSIVE forehand. Never seen anyone hit the ball as hard and accurately as that, including Federed and Nadal. Winners from everywhere, against one of the quickest players on the tour. They were saying before the game his backhand was weak, looked pretty strong to me. He also defended very well. Saying that Murray didnt have his best game, dont know what happened to that 3rd set. He seems to sulk for a period in games, then regains his focus again.

If Gonzales plays like that every game, I will tip him to win the tournament this year.

[grizfoot]

Gonzo is a clay court specialist and that showed against Murray today. Be an interesting match-up in the Semi's with him playing the impressive Sordling. Still think the path is made for Federer to take the title though.

[ihtd]

Fernando can do that to anyone when he's in the mood for it. He's extremely talented but he lacks the focus to beat the likes of a Federer or Nadal.

Hopefully should Roger make the final, he'll beat whoever is infront of him, it would be a travesty for probably the best player to ever step onto the court not to cement his legacy without a career grandslam. Last season he was plagued with Scarlett Fever and was not the same player, whilst the rest of the pack began to catch him and gain confidence when playing him. Would love to see Federer win it, just to cement his legacy as possibly the best player ever.

[T4E]

Good post, couldn't agree more.

[Eddie]

Federer won't get the best player ever tag until he's beaten Nadal in a final. Nadal is his route to greatness; if he beats Nadal in a final few will argue, if he beats Nadal at the final in Paris then he'll certainly be it.

[T4E]

Federer won't get the best player ever tag until he's beaten Nadal in a final.

He's already it, Eddie. Who is better? The only one that comes close is Sampras, and Federer has already achieved far more than him at RG.

[Eddie]

Depends whether you consider best to be purely based on titles or not. Personally I don't, so Federer's early legacy is limited by his lack of any true rival, which is what makes players great in individual sports. Federer's dominance fitted in nicely with the decline of Sampras and Agassi and before Nadal hit the scene. Personally I'd put Borg as the best ever still until Federer shows that he can beat his rival when it really matters. I've not seen much of Rod Laver, but I certainly know that every serious tennis player I've ever known who saw him play says he would have been a match for anyone since. If Federer were to retire tomorrow I'd rank Laver and Borg ahead of him, probably even Sampras. The next year or two will be crucial to his legacy.

[T4E]

Depends whether you consider best to be purely based on titles or not. Personally I don't, so Federer's early legacy is limited by his lack of any true rival, which is what makes players great in individual sports. Federer's dominance fitted in nicely with the decline of Sampras and Agassi and before Nadal hit the scene. Personally I'd put Borg as the best ever still until Federer shows that he can beat his rival when it really matters. I've not seen much of Rod Laver, but I certainly know that every serious tennis player I've ever known who saw him play says he would have been a match for anyone since. If Federer were to retire tomorrow I'd rank Laver and Borg ahead of him, probably even Sampras. The next year or two will be crucial to his legacy.

Hey, good response. Federer DID have a lack of a serious rival in his earlier successful days, the sort of criticism that can't be aimed at the likes of Sampras, Borg, Laver, Agassi and McEnroe. Federer did however take Hewitt who looked like a contender to dominate for years and beat him so regularly that he never recovered.

Its debatable - was Federer that dominant because of the lack of top class rivals, or did he just make everyone else look second rate? Hard to say, but the emergence of Nadal suggests that you may be on to something.

[Eddie]

It is a mix of both, Federer would cream most players from most of the eras and Hewitt was developing into a good player as Federer emerged, but clearly lost his way at the same time that Federer found his feet. Federer is a very good comparison to Sampras in that they have dominated a tournament and done well on hard courts but struggled to adapt to clay. What made Borg special was how he dominated both clay and grass although he failed to win a hard court grand slam (I think, although he lost in the final of the US Open a few times). It's all about beating your rivals though. It's what pushes athletes to the next level and I think Federer should be grateful for the opportunity Nadal creates, it's an opportunity that Woods isn't truly getting in golf and presents similar problems when you look at the Nicklaus v Woods comparison (I don't know anywhere near enough about golf to discuss that particular issue).

[neekoy]

It is a mix of both, Federer would cream most players from most of the eras and Hewitt was developing into a good player as Federer emerged, but clearly lost his way at the same time that Federer found his feet. Federer is a very good comparison to Sampras in that they have dominated a tournament and done well on hard courts but struggled to adapt to clay. What made Borg special was how he dominated both clay and grass although he failed to win a hard court grand slam (I think, although he lost in the final of the US Open a few times). It's all about beating your rivals though. It's what pushes athletes to the next level and I think Federer should be grateful for the opportunity Nadal creates, it's an opportunity that Woods isn't truly getting in golf and presents similar problems when you look at the Nicklaus v Woods comparison (I don't know anywhere near enough about golf to discuss that particular issue).

Agassi thinks Federer is the best, and he was Sampras biggest rival.

Was Agassi, Rafter, Edberg, Chang, Becker and Courier better then the current crop of Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten and Kafelnikov?

Different generations of players I suppose, Grand Slams will be the final marker though.

[Eddie]

I'd say that group was better, yes. What Nadal provides is key though, he is a challenger who may go down in the group of one of the best ever and Federer needed that. As good as Roddick, Safin and Hewitt have been at various points of their careers they will never come into that debate. Agassi, Becker and Courier do, clearly not as the best, but they make the shortlist for the best 20-30 (higher in the case of Agassi and Becker). That is what allows you to see how good Sampras was. So far Roddick and Nadal are the only players Federer has had to face twice in a grand slam final, that is saying something. Sampras met Pioline, Agassi, Rafter and Ivanisevic all at least twice in grand slam finals. You can also throw in a few more greats who were coming to the end of their careers as Sampras came up and then of course the fact that he stayed relevant even as the likes of Hewitt, Roddick and Federer began to emerge. It was also the era of true clay court specialists (which seems to be quickly dying), making his lack of achievement on clay more acceptable.

Grands Slams shouldn't be the only maker, the eras have to be put into context. Although tennis is rapidly improving right now few of them have proven themselves on the biggest stage, that wasn't the case in the 90's or in previous eras.