Once Again, Cricket Rules
Well, the weekend of convergence didn't really set the world alight. England won their opening game but in a very unconvincing fashion - if they continue to play like that they won't go far. Federer limped to a loss against Nadal after ripping through the first set 6-1. The turning point was in (I think) the third game of the second set where Federer was 40-0 up on his serve. Nadal returns the next one and it is called out but Federer in an almost instinctive act of fair play reckons it was in and the point is replayed. I said to Shadi while we were watching that he would really kick himself if Nadal went on to win that game and break serve - which is exactly what he did. Federer lost the next five games in a row and the match with it. He wasn't playing his best and made too many mistakes so you couldn't even say it was a great match to watch (unlike their 5 hour final in Rome a month or so ago).
I know people hate Nadal - the comments from Manu and Sandy in the previous post is proof enough - but I really like him. He hasn't got as many shots in the book as Federer but he moves around the Court soo fast and has a pretty kick ass forehand. As for being arrogant, I would say two things. First, after beating Federer for the fourth time this year (and being the only person to have beaten Federer for some time) he said that Federer was still far and away the best player in the world. Second, he has only just turned 20. I remember what I was like at 20, having completed the major feat of getting into university and passing the first year. God knows what I would have been like had I been the best clay court tennis player in the world...
Anyway, the only satisfying sporting moment this w/e was the opening session of the West Indies v India. Virender Sehwag hit a magnificent 180 runs, going to 84 of something like 47 balls. For a test match that was absolutely unprecedented and a complete joy to watch.
Oh yeah, Mexico beat Iran 3-1 as expected....
I know people hate Nadal - the comments from Manu and Sandy in the previous post is proof enough - but I really like him. He hasn't got as many shots in the book as Federer but he moves around the Court soo fast and has a pretty kick ass forehand. As for being arrogant, I would say two things. First, after beating Federer for the fourth time this year (and being the only person to have beaten Federer for some time) he said that Federer was still far and away the best player in the world. Second, he has only just turned 20. I remember what I was like at 20, having completed the major feat of getting into university and passing the first year. God knows what I would have been like had I been the best clay court tennis player in the world...
Anyway, the only satisfying sporting moment this w/e was the opening session of the West Indies v India. Virender Sehwag hit a magnificent 180 runs, going to 84 of something like 47 balls. For a test match that was absolutely unprecedented and a complete joy to watch.
Oh yeah, Mexico beat Iran 3-1 as expected....
posted by Akash at 8:13 AM
9 Comments:
Oh, no. I don't hate him at all. If you lok back at my comments, i was defending him against Manu's vitriol. His movement is outstanding, and he is a pretty stylish player. But you know my thoughts on the current state of the game.
Of course i don;t want him to beat Roger, but in the way that Woods now needs to best Mickelson again, Federer needs to do the same to Nadal.
The shadow of clay will now follow Federer for the rest of his career sadly. We shouldnt get too hung up though on whether he wins there or not. It never seemed to affect how people regarded Sampras, and he was hopeless on clay. He never even challenged the then clay supremo, Gustavo Kuerten, whereas you still feel Federer should be able to beat Rafa there. Anyway, roll on the US Open, where Borg never won, losing numerous finals.
Left handers eh? Bloody annoying bunch....
it doesn't really take that much skill to win the French Open - just stamina . Clearly, the longer you have to hit the ball the less skillfull you need to be - you just need to move well, and have power - if you look that some of the most the most skillfull and notoriously talented players, they have never won the french - well apart from Borg - but McEnroe, Becker, Sampras - all failed - Mcenroe failed at 2 sets to love up and 5-2 up, i think against Lendl in his glorious year in 1984. As for Nadal, well mark my words he will never win another grand slam - by the way, all the fellow tennis stars really dont like him that much . Anyone see the Brazil game last night - disappointing - apart from the Kaka goal and a few displays of Ronaldinio brilliance -
As a famous man once said Manu, you cannot be serious......Nadal is awesome in his own way, Mcenroe has said that he would give away one of his other majors for a french, guess Sampras would say the same, and probably Edberg too.
Winning on all surfaces is one sign of the complete player, like it or not. Its not a precondition to greatness, but it is a differentiating factor. Borg and Agassi both are regarded in the highest light, precisely because they won the extremes, clay and grass. Borg is let off never winning the US Open, and Agassi gets a slight pass for a 4-1 losing record to Sampras in slam finals.
It does require solid groundstrokes off both sides. And painful though it is to admit, Federers backhand was not up to the extreme examination applied by Nadal.
Is clay any more idiosyncratic than grass? One rewrads power too much, one too little in my humble.
Personally its always been the major i have traditonally had the least time for. I'm beginning to warm to it a bit now though, i see that it's a very different game. I like that you have to have a good drop shot, and i like how tactically different it can be. That said playing shots up above head height is not what tennis should be about.
Back to Nadal, i'll take any amount of your money on him winning another slam. Fitness allowing, he will win at least another 2 french opens, will reach 4 to 5 finals on the other surfaces, and win his share of them.
No-one gets more emotionally involveed when Federer plays than i do, believe me, but there has been much lazy commentary that Nadal only has a chance over him on clay.
This is plain wrong, and doesn't reflect their hard court head to head record. In fact Rogers one win against him on hard court was from macth point down last year, and he lost to Nadal in one of the Masters series finals on hard courts.Its not on grass or clay that their key clashes are to be had
In the same way that Mickelson annoys me in golf, Nadal annoys me, but largely because he got in the way of Federers history moment. But i'd rather they were both around, as dominance alone can take the edge off their legacy. Mcenore, Borg and Connors had each other, and Nicklaus had Watson, Palmer, Player and Trevino. I say bring it on, and as Tiger always says, its time to show what you've really got.
And here we may detect the marginal differemce between Woods and Federer, in that Woods mental strnegth cannot be doubted, and is at least his greatest asset, whereas i have a very slight doubt about Federer.
But no-one come as off well compared against Woods.
Sandeep, i will buy you a ticket to Amsterdam (easy jet of course) if Nadal wins a slam other than the French -
Manu, I have to say that Nadal is likely to at least one of the US open and/or the Australian Open given that he is only 19/20 at the moment. I remember when Agassi started and people said he would only win on clay but managed to confound his critics. Also, didn't you point out to me that perhaps the most famous Wimbledon champion did it by playing from the baseline?
hey dont discourage him, i'm looking forward to my free flight....
Sandy, I tell you what, sometime early next year when (possibly) we'll be back in London for good, you and I will take a trip to Amsters but ONLY via your car...
I'll spring for the chunnel.
It's a deal....are you angling for the pilots seat?
well, if you get tired I am happy to take over...
Post a Comment
<< Home