Oz Open Tennis 2009

Rafa a big chance at the Grand Slam this year I reckon.

Imagine the pressure if he goes into the US Open having won the first 3.

Paul Keating wrote:Well done Rafa.

JGK, what are you watching that has a superfast broadcast? You are well ahead of my HD Channel 7 broadcast.

I'm watching 7HD too.

JGK wrote:Rafa a big chance at the Grand Slam this year I reckon.

Imagine the pressure if he goes into the US Open having won the first 3.

Not sure if Courier has changed his mind since, but around 2004/5 when everyone thought Fed might be able to do it, Courier said that a modern grand slam is impossible in today's era. The amount of personal, peer, media and historical pressure coming into the last slam of the year at Flushing Meadows would be too much for anyone.

Prime and Win are usually 4-5 seconds behind Seven and Nine.

Paul Keating wrote:

JGK wrote:Rafa a big chance at the Grand Slam this year I reckon.

Imagine the pressure if he goes into the US Open having won the first 3.

Not sure if Courier has changed his mind since, but around 2004/5 when everyone thought Fed might be able to do it, Courier said that a modern grand slam is impossible in today's era. The amount of personal, peer, media and historical pressure coming into the last slam of the year at Flushing Meadows would be too much for anyone.

Still, Rafa is mentally the strongest player in the game so if anyone can handle it he can.

The French is of course a no brainer. I think a Wimbledon repeat will be tough for him though.

Nadal must be the fittest tennis player of all time. He just doesn't get tired.

Yep he and Muster are the two fittest I have seen.

Federer is cracking up in front of everyone. I feel sorry for the guy.

I'm not watching. What's happening?

He started his runner's up speech, the crowd started cheering, Fed was speechless and then started crying a river.

Sook.

That was sad to see at the end, i'm sure he can come back from this, it's not like he lost in straight sets. I think his first serve let him down a lot, if he could have got 10-15% extra of his first serves in he prob would have won.

Saying that though Nadal was amazing, never took the foot off the gas.

Makaveli wrote:That was sad to see at the end, i'm sure he can come back from this, it's not like he lost in straight sets. I think his first serve let him down a lot, if he could have got 10-15% extra of his first serves in he prob would have won.

Saying that though Nadal was amazing, never took the foot off the gas.

He will continue to lose to Rafa who owns him mentally but that's not to say he can't win more majors (like the US last year).

Nadal really holds the edge now over Fed. And seriously, Fed's probably the best player I've ever seen, but he just is too close to tears, so close it's really irritating.

First GS win for Sania and the nth for Hesh, and also a junior win for Yuki Bhambri. Add that to Hesh's finals appearance in the doubles, and this has been a decent tournament for India.

Firstly. What a match.

Simple analysis: Nadal held his nerve, Federer choked.

I think Federer wanted to win this match more than any other match in his life. Beating Nadal in a Grand Slam Final was a driving factor, but equaling Sampras' record was clearly on his mind.

It wasn't that Federer wasn't hungry or willing to fight. He was too hungry to the point of immobilisation.

When Federer broke down during the presentation Nadal knew why, telling him, "Don't worry, just remember you are a great Champion and I'm sure you're going to match Sampras".

Admittedly this does nothing to support my point about Federer being cool under pressure, but I don't think it was a lack of heart or stomach.

As for Nadal - what a machine. He gets greater and greater with every tournament he plays.

Bring on the French Open!

Salim.

I wrote out this response while catching the train home from work on Friday. In the interest of fairness I'm posting it now unedited.

---------------------

By bringing up those names (Lendl, Edberg etc) it suggests Sampras compiled his awesome record while all these great players were challenging him.

They may have delayed his rise to greatness, but the fact is he didn't come into his own until they had passed on or passed their best.

I don't say that as a slur on Sampras - I think it is just a co-incidence of timing.

Courier did indeed get some slam runs cut short by Sampras, but I still think he wasn't the force he was in '91, '92, '93. I think he had a very similar career trajectory to Hewitt. Both players were able to outrally and blast opponents off the court from the baseline at their peak, but just dropped off a fraction and that slight drop cost them in the years that followed. For the record, Courier was better than Hewitt.

As for Chang, Krajicek, Martin etc, compared to Djokovic, Roddick, Ferrero etc.

These players struggle to carve out a reputation because they are being compared to Federer and Nadal, who between them have the market sewn up. There have been 22 slams since Federer won his first major. In that time someone other than Federer or Nadal has won only four times. They are Roddick in 03, Gaudio in 04, Safin in 05 and Djokovic in 08.

I put that down to Federer and Nadal being in their own orbit, not due to a lack of class from the challengers. Sampras and Agassi never shut up the opportunities for others to that extent. I think the second-tier standard is just fine and compares well against the second-tier (ie. non Sampras or Agassi) of the mid-to-late 90's. As you say, it's all ifs and buts. It would appear that I say if and you say but.

Going back to the five-setter point.

I liken it to the Australian cricket team. During their reign as No. 1 they usually lost the close ones. Not because they were poor under pressure, but because the other teams could only beat them narrowly.

If Australia weren't busy beating teams in three-days their close-match record would look markedly better.

I look at last year's Wimbeldon Final as an example of Federer under the pump. That match goes down as a great because of Federer's amazing fighting spirit in the fourth set tiebreaker. His performance under pressure was amazing.

Nadal emerged the winner, but only because he was better on the day, not because "Federer isn't willing to sweat it out".

As I wrap up this long post I realise I've said nothing much that directly compares Federer and Sampras. It's all been side issues. But that's the way these discussions tend to go.

-----------------------

After tonight Sampras' stocks are probably on the rise. But there's still plenty of history to be written and I'm backing the Fed to get there in the end.

After tonight Sampras' stocks are probably on the rise. But there's still plenty of history to be written and I'm backing the Fed to get there in the end.

I'm backing Fedrer to better Sampras's 14 slams record. Despite today's loss, I'm certain that he'll get that.

Nadal= My favorite sportsman since Pete and Imran.

Sans Souci wrote:Those horrible ferking Williams sisters, I'm sick of the sight of them.

erm why? what they have achieved in women's tennis is nothing short of remarkable.

Chandan wrote:

After tonight Sampras' stocks are probably on the rise. But there's still plenty of history to be written and I'm backing the Fed to get there in the end.

I'm backing Fedrer to better Sampras's 14 slams record. Despite today's loss, I'm certain that he'll get that.

if i am not mistaken he is NOT talking about the 14 slams record...

Does anyone else feel that Federer comes across these days as a less sympathetic figure? He used to be quite likeable, but now his hand has slipped off the number 1 spot he's starting to get a bit annoying. The comment on Djokovic was - I think - uncalled for. And the comment about people making Murray a favourite for the Aus Open was again unnecessary.

I also thought Federer's final press conference was not very gracious. He pretty much indicated that he lost it - nadal did not win it - by blaming his poor serving. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7863797.stm). We all know that Nadal played an unbelievable game and thoroughly deserved his victory. Everything Federer threw at him he took and came back with major answers.

The Australian Open has always struck me as very dull for a Grand Slam event, apart from the occasional flurry of excitement involving at least one Serb.

Nadal was very gracious in victory.

OP Tipping wrote:Nadal was very gracious

he always is...both in defeat and victory

Federer cried...Fail.