Wilander: Fed can't beat Rafa [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wilander: Fed can't beat Rafa

tennis2tennis
04-19-2007, 11:28 AM
Wilander: Fed can't beat Rafa

More stories
Rafa dismisses Chela
Monte Carlo scorecentre
Draw and resultsThree-time French Open champion Mats Wilander told Eurosport that world number one Roger Federer cannot beat Rafael Nadal on clay and that the Spaniard should retain his Monte Carlo title for a third-straight year. Click on the scorecentre or the red LIVE bar for full coverage of Monte Carlo.

"Nadal hasn't really lost a claycourt match since I can't remember when, so nobody can beat Rafael Nadal on clay," the two-time Monte Carlo winner Wilander said.

"Federer does not have the good combination style game to play against Nadal, he does not suit him at all in fact. And you can see it much easier on clay that it's just a bad combination for Roger Federer."

Nadal, who has now won 63 consecutive matches on the surface after easing past Argentine Juan Ignacio Chela on Wednesday, is the twice-defending champion at the Monte Carlo Masters and the French Open.

The number two ranked Spaniard has beaten Switzerland's Federer six times and lost to him three times, including defeats in their previous two matches in last year's Wimbledon final and Masters Cup semi-final.

"Nadal is left-handed he is able to find Federer's backhand all the time in the serve and it's not a good mix," Wilander said.

"Apart from the fact, Rafael Nadal is one of those young guys who really is not afraid of anybody, it doesn't matter if his name is Roger Federer and he has won 10 majors or what, Nadal is just not afraid."

Despite his belief that Federer cannot beat the 20-year-old Mallorcan on clay, Sweden's Wilander says that the Swiss star is the favourite to complete his Grand Slam collection at Roland Garros this year, just so long as he doesn't face Nadal.

"I think on paper he might be the favourite actually, because I think he will be really focused on winning Roland Garros," Wilander said.

"He knows time is running out to win Roland Garros. He is not going to win it three times and I think he knows that. He's going to win it once, maybe twice, and I think this is the year to do it."

The 42-year-old Wilander, who like Nadal won his first French Open as a teenager, says that if Federer has to face a rematch of last year's final against Nadal, the Swiss star will fail.

"Is Rafael Nadal able to come through the draw again after winning clay court tournament after clay court tournament? That's the problem for Roger Federer," he said.

"If Nadal does not go through, Federer will win the French Open."

Malul
04-19-2007, 11:30 AM
all true,wille is still the king:worship:

Loremaster
04-19-2007, 11:34 AM
Totally agree with Mats he knows what he is talking

tennis2tennis
04-19-2007, 11:35 AM
Sure Roger hasn't beaten Federer in Clay but his performance in Rome illustrated he's close, remember that Federer beat Nadal in Wimbledon and Shanghai so he's coming from the back of two successive victories against his main rival and although it wasn't clay, its a big mental advantage to go into RG with....

I think Roger wants to face Nadal he told Swiss Radio winning is important but dethrowning the champion whilst doing so is sweeter.

marcRD
04-19-2007, 11:37 AM
Thats what I have been saying....

Action Jackson
04-19-2007, 11:38 AM
Where's the link? It's not hard to provide a link to an article.

bokehlicious
04-19-2007, 11:40 AM
Those tennis doctors are so funny... Right after the AO they were all talking about the calendar Slam, and yet they wonder if Federer is gonna win a match again... :rolleyes: :zzz:

marcRD
04-19-2007, 11:41 AM
Federer will not lose in RG against anyone not named Nadal, he wont win against anyone named Nadal aswell.

tennis2tennis
04-19-2007, 11:41 AM
Where's the link? It's not hard to provide a link to an article.

anything else? (http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/sport_sto1154342.shtml)

mallorn
04-19-2007, 11:41 AM
Sure Roger hasn't beaten Federer in Clay but his performance in Rome illustrated he's close, remember that Federer beat Nadal in Wimbledon and Shanghai so he's coming from the back of two successive victories against his main rival and although it wasn't clay, its a big mental advantage to go into RG with....

I think Roger wants to face Nadal he told Swiss Radio winning is important but dethrowning the champion whilst doing so is sweeter.
Many Fedtards would disagree with you on this - they claim that Roger in fact did beat Federer in Rome. :p

bokehlicious
04-19-2007, 11:43 AM
Many Fedtards would disagree with you on this - they claim that Roger in fact did beat Federer in Rome. :p

Sources ? :confused:

:retard: :zzz:

mallorn
04-19-2007, 11:44 AM
Sources ? :confused:

:retard: :zzz:
You canNOT be serious. :haha:

tennis2tennis
04-19-2007, 11:46 AM
Many Fedtards would disagree with you on this - they claim that Roger in fact did beat Federer in Rome. :p

wow Roger and Federer are not the same person!...Further evidence that some nadal fans think only of Federer

bokehlicious
04-19-2007, 11:47 AM
You canNOT be serious. :haha:

I am serious honey :)

But I can clearly recall some rafatards gloating that Rafa schooled Roger that day and was never under pressure... :rolleyes:

Loremaster
04-19-2007, 11:50 AM
I am serious honey :)

But I can clearly recall some rafatards gloating that Rafa schooled Roger that day and was never under pressure... :rolleyes:

Because he(Rafa) schooled Roger that day it was hard lesson for Federer Subject : mental toughness

tennis2tennis
04-19-2007, 11:50 AM
How would Wilander react if Federer did beat Nadal?

mallorn
04-19-2007, 11:52 AM
I am serious honey :)

But I can clearly recall some rafatards gloating that Rafa schooled Roger that day and was never under pressure... :rolleyes:
Honey?! :lol:

Don't you remember Fedtards claiming that Roger choked, sweetie? :lol:

Kolya
04-19-2007, 11:53 AM
Go Wilander!!! :lol:

tennis2tennis
04-19-2007, 11:57 AM
Go Wilander!!! :lol:


yeah Go away...

mallorn
04-19-2007, 11:58 AM
wow Roger and Federer are not the same person!...Further evidence that some nadal fans think only of Federer
Ok, my comment went over your head. :lol: Nevermind. :wavey:

Rogiman
04-19-2007, 11:59 AM
Wilander is probably right :shrug:

Hard to base any opinion over today's match with Lee, who's a good matchup for Federer, but I'd say his forehand isn't consistent enough at the moment to give him any advantage in the rallies playing Nadal, and the 1st serve % isn't helping either.

On the bright side, I'd give his backhand 10 out of 10 right now.

Tomorrow's match with Ferrer is going to be a serious grind.

Action Jackson
04-19-2007, 11:59 AM
How would Wilander react if Federer did beat Nadal?

Very happy actually.

adee-gee
04-19-2007, 12:01 PM
People were also saying Federer was unbeatable on hard, yet Canas did it twice in a couple of weeks.

Of course Rafa is going to lose at some point, it's not possible for him to play incredibly well every single match. If he has a slight drop in his level there are many players who are able to take advantage.

Kolya
04-19-2007, 12:20 PM
Federer can beat Nadal on clay but his chances are low though.

Federer will beat him one day but when???

Puschkin
04-19-2007, 12:22 PM
How would Wilander react if Federer did beat Nadal?

Stop talking about current tennis forever, I hope. :p

neme6
04-19-2007, 12:27 PM
I would have agree if Wilander said that last year, but Roger has improved his backhand since then, he improved it to play against Nadal, and as far as I am concern, I would never say that Roger has no chance of doing something.

Sunset of Age
04-19-2007, 12:35 PM
With Raf being in his top form he's probably right.

I wouldn't mind Mr. Matts taking his head out of Raf's ass for a bit, though. It's getting boring.

Himura
04-19-2007, 12:37 PM
I would have agree if Wilander said that last year, but Roger has improved his backhand since then, he improved it to play against Nadal, and as far as I am concern, I would never say that Roger has no chance of doing something.

Yeah that is true, at the end of the year his backhand was fireing but this year it looks the same as always...not that it`s a bad shot

anon57
04-19-2007, 12:40 PM
"I think on paper he might be the favourite actually, because I think he will be really focused on winning Roland Garros," Wilander said.

If Mat think Federer is the favourite on paper for Roland Garros, but he can't defeat Nadal. I would like to know who Mat thinks is going to take out Nadal because I haven't seen anything that show that this clays season is going to be any different that 2005 or 2006. At the moment it doesn't seem like there anything stopping Nadal from another dominant season and imo he's clear favourite for RG unless someone proves otherwise

leng jai
04-19-2007, 12:41 PM
Roger's backhand has never fired and probably will never fire against Nadal. Nadal's topspin forehand into Federer's backhand is simply a poor match up that is exemplified on clay.

Castafiore
04-19-2007, 12:53 PM
I wouldn't mind Mr. Matts taking his head out of Raf's ass for a bit, though. It's getting boring.
Mats probably figures that it's a bit too crowded up Roger's ass.
:p ;)

HOWEVER, contrary to popular belief, Wilander is not a Federer hater at all.


I would like to know who Mat thinks is going to take out Nadal because I haven't seen anything that show that this clays season is going to be any different that 2005 or 2006
We're only a couple of matches into the clay season so it's too early to say IMO. Last year, Rafa scraped through a couple of his clay court matches as well. Nobody is invincible. The streak is going to end some day...later rather than sooner as far as I am concerned but we'll see.

mangoes
04-19-2007, 12:56 PM
Oh, shut up Wilander:rolleyes: .................I'm tried of reading Wilander's speculations during the clay season. I swear he rubs his hands with glee at the prospect of writing about Roger's weaknesses during the clay season.

bokehlicious
04-19-2007, 12:59 PM
HOWEVER, contrary to popular belief, Wilander is not a Federer hater at all.


You sure know which players Wilander actually likes or not, don't you ?

Beforehand
04-19-2007, 01:05 PM
Surely Mats Wilander should have more to do and be more mature than to spend his spare time randomly antagonizing Roger Federer.

alfonsojose
04-19-2007, 01:06 PM
:yawn: :rolleyes:

Kuddos to Lendl :worship: and sucessfull players who can find a real life beyond tennis

Himura
04-19-2007, 01:13 PM
Roger's backhand has never fired and probably will never fire against Nadal. Nadal's topspin forehand into Federer's backhand is simply a poor match up that is exemplified on clay.

it was fireing quit well in the shangjai match....first time they produced great rallies. Okey it`s not clay but still...he did improve that shot, but as I said before, this year it looks the same as always

tennis2tennis
04-19-2007, 02:02 PM
Ok, my comment went over your head. :lol: Nevermind. :wavey:

If you were insinuating that Federer beat himself it was poorly executed attempt at wit…

tennis2tennis
04-19-2007, 02:03 PM
"I think on paper he might be the favourite actually, because I think he will be really focused on winning Roland Garros," Wilander said.

If Mat think Federer is the favourite on paper for Roland Garros, but he can't defeat Nadal. I would like to know who Mat thinks is going to take out Nadal because I haven't seen anything that show that this clays season is going to be any different that 2005 or 2006. At the moment it doesn't seem like there anything stopping Nadal from another dominant season and imo he's clear favourite for RG unless someone proves otherwise

the smartest statement I read all day!

Himura
04-19-2007, 02:09 PM
If you were insinuating that Federer beat himself it was poorly executed attempt at wit…

I feel for`ya mallron....hahaha people don`t know or remember what they said.

pistolmarat
04-19-2007, 02:20 PM
If Rogi's gonna be playing like he's had recently, I can't see him winning RG, even if Rafa is not there to stop him in the final.
But there are significant symptoms that Fed's really preparing himself for the RG campaign in a different way. I won't be surprised, if he doen't do particualry well in all the leadups. He seems to be totally focused on this one goal - the FO crown. It all depends on how fit and determined he'd be in 5 weeks time. Remember, Fed can play a perfect match even vs Rafa. That can happen anyday. Sooner, or later it'll happen on clay.

ExpectedWinner
04-19-2007, 02:26 PM
"I think on paper he might be the favourite actually"

How many COCKtails did he drink this time?

I agree with his analysis about the FedeRafa match up though.

guga2120
04-19-2007, 02:31 PM
Especially in a 3 set match, if Federer is really on he can beat anybody on clay. Now whether he can beat him in Paris, in a 5 set match, well, not too sure about that.

Metis
04-19-2007, 02:37 PM
I think that Federer fans are still upset with what Wilander said last year about Roger lacking the balls to beat Nadal (get over it people! :rolleyes: ). However, in this article I don't see anything that shows Wilander has something against Roger. On the contrary!

Is it unreasonable to say that in a best of 5 final on RG clay Roger's chances against Rafa are slim? Or that no one could stop Federer if he doesn't have to face Nadal (possible injury, surprise loss to a red hot player while having a bad day)?

The only thing I might disagree about is the possibility of Federer beating Nadal in a best of 3 match (especially in Rome).

CyBorg
04-19-2007, 03:03 PM
Roger needs to serve and volley against Nadal on clay. It's risky but it's worth trying.

scoobs
04-19-2007, 03:13 PM
So Wilander says Nadal is unbeatable on clay, that Roger cannot beat Rafa on clay, and that Roger will win Roland Garros this year in his view (which implies that someone else or Roger will defeat Nadal)

Unless he's enough of an Oracle to predict that Rafa will be injured come Roland Garros, something in here's got to give :)

FedFan_2007
04-19-2007, 03:16 PM
Perhaps Fed's Rome performance + 1st set @RG final is the high-water mark vs Nadal and he'll never duplicate it again.

mashamaniac
04-19-2007, 03:19 PM
i completely do agree with mats! you are right!

rofe
04-19-2007, 03:59 PM
I agree with Mats to an extent. Since it is a match up issue that is aggravated on clay, Fed has to play at his very best and Nadal needs to be off for Fed to have a have a chance. If Nadal is playing at his very best, I don't think Fed can win.

I am hoping Fed can surprise me but I am not holding my breath.

Loremaster
04-19-2007, 04:16 PM
Mats is right especially right now , the level of game on clay of both is totally different, Nadal is playing awesome tennis , when Federer struggles a bit

mallorn
04-19-2007, 04:29 PM
I feel for`ya mallron....hahaha people don`t know or remember what they said.
:shrug: :lol:

GlennMirnyi
04-19-2007, 04:37 PM
Wilander is a great person when he keeps his mouth shut.

tangerine_dream
04-19-2007, 04:42 PM
We should merge all of the Wilander threads into one Matts the Mouth thread to put all of his silly bigmouth comments in there. This guy's worse than Johnny Mac sometimes. :lol:

Fed-Express
04-19-2007, 04:43 PM
Wilander: Fed can't beat Rafa

"Nadal hasn't really lost a claycourt match since I can't remember when, so nobody can beat Rafael Nadal on clay," the two-time Monte Carlo winner Wilander said.



:haha: Great deduction, he should take some lessons in basic logic.

Sunset of Age
04-19-2007, 04:46 PM
We should merge all of the Wilander threads into one Matts the Mouth thread to put all of his silly bigmouth comments in there. This guy's worse than Johnny Mac sometimes. :lol:

Good idea, indeed. "Matts the Mouth", :lol:

trixtah
04-19-2007, 05:19 PM
Ok, my comment went over your head. :lol: Nevermind. :wavey:

hahaha I was about to quote and bold the same thing! Waaaaay over the heads of jmpower and tennis2tennis :haha:

If you were insinuating that Federer beat himself it was poorly executed attempt at wit…

shutup and read your second post!

To the topic, I agree completely with Mats except that even if Rafa falls in one of these clay tournaments and we get a Roger-Rafa RG final, Rafa will pull through. Federer the favorite on all other surfaces though, of course :)

R.Federer
04-19-2007, 05:43 PM
Well, going by their head to head on clay, going by Rafa's streak on clay, his two Major titles on clay, this is so obviously where the smart money is. It is not a major revelation and I am sure the majority of pundits agree with that.

You could make a similar statement about Federer on grass against a great grass player like Roddick for instance, and there would be no surprise there.

Federerhingis
04-20-2007, 02:31 AM
Sure Roger hasn't beaten Federer in Clay but his performance in Rome illustrated he's close, remember that Federer beat Nadal in Wimbledon and Shanghai so he's coming from the back of two successive victories against his main rival and although it wasn't clay, its a big mental advantage to go into RG with....

I think Roger wants to face Nadal he told Swiss Radio winning is important but dethrowning the champion whilst doing so is sweeter.

Sure Roger cannot beat Federer as a matter of fact not just on clay but on any surface for this matter. :tape: I just thought it was funny, I know you meant Nadal it's happened to me before. Well Roger's sister did play tennis so Roger can beat a Federer if he were to play one of his family members. hehe ;)

kobulingam
04-20-2007, 04:08 AM
People were also saying Federer was unbeatable on hard, yet Canas did it twice in a couple of weeks.

Of course Rafa is going to lose at some point, it's not possible for him to play incredibly well every single match. If he has a slight drop in his level there are many players who are able to take advantage.


Yeah but Fed lost on an ultra slow high bouncing hard court twice to Canas.

Do you think Rafa is unbeatable on an ultra fast low bouncing clay court?

Anything is possible. Say at Rome, which at normal speed is a fast clay court, we have a very hot, dry morning and Rafa has to play Berdych who is really "on" and spanking every ball deep and fast. Then what?

Action Jackson
04-20-2007, 05:47 AM
Awwwwwwww, poor people Federer gets criticised for a poor performance in the RG final and they still can't get over it. Oh, this means Wilander must hate Federer, wah, wah, wah, wah. If he plays well, then take the praise, when he doesn't, then the deserves to be criticised.

alfie, oh yeah Wilander not getting paid for captaining the Swedish DC team and putting some back into the game that helped him, is such a horrible thing.

jazar
04-20-2007, 06:51 AM
at this precise moment in time mats is right, but as federer gets his clay form going again, then he will be able to do it. he has the variety needed to beat nadal, he has started to find the right tactic.

dont forget mats still said he thinks federer will win RG

Action Jackson
04-20-2007, 07:02 AM
at this precise moment in time mats is right, but as federer gets his clay form going again, then he will be able to do it. he has the variety needed to beat nadal, he has started to find the right tactic.

dont forget mats still said he thinks federer will win RG

You are going against the mantra here. Mats doesn't rim Federer's arsehole everyday, therefore he must hate him and he sucks, though he has said countless times in the past that Federer can win RG.

soraya
04-20-2007, 07:02 AM
How would Wilander react if Federer did beat Nadal?

He will eat his balls:tape:

Jaffas85
04-20-2007, 07:26 AM
The only way Federer will win the French Open is if he returns to the form that saw him crush Roddick in the semis of the Australian Open this year and also, and importantly, Nadal needs to be defeated by someone before the final (such as a Berdych, Canas etc.) as Federer cannot do it.

Castafiore
04-20-2007, 08:53 AM
Wilander said on Eurosport.fr:

Mats Wilander : Qui va gagner ? "C'est l'année où je voudrais voir Federer gagner les quatre tournois du Grand Chelem, et Roland-Garros est le plus dur pour lui, mais il doit se montrer agressif." Ses deux défaites face à Guillermo Cañas ne l'influenceront pas."

Translated:
Mats Wilander: "Who's going to win? This is the year I would like to see Federer win all four Grand Slam tournaments and Roland Garros is the toughest for him but he has to be aggressive. His two defeats against Guillermo Cañas won't be of any influence to him."


Isn't it obvious that Mats can't stand Roger? :p


It's from here:
http://ace2007.blogs.eurosport.fr/archive/2007/04/19/en-route-vers-roland-garros-2.html

bokehlicious
04-20-2007, 08:54 AM
Wilander is just another Fedtard in disguise... :o

Forehander
04-20-2007, 10:01 AM
Wilander is just another judgemental prick (he's on top actually), just like all the other "greats" that makes retarded judgemental comments and don't realise how different the game is today. I hate him seriously. Anyway it's most obstinant when these what we call "past greats" comes back out and try to make comments about modern tennis - they just want to be REMEMBERED. They always trying to send a message to everyone "If we were here today we would be even better than Federer blah blah". Sampras is already the best example, who is another thick-headed shit talking loser. The reason being for them to be making stupid comments about today's tennis? It's all because of one single person, Roger Federer, a guy who seem to be fogging them all past greats of tennis due to his super talents and graceful tennis. Why don't these old losers who talks about their great achievements in a past slow game of tennis just silently piss off back into their retired life? So sick of them. The worst problem is some of them don't even have such a great achievement in the past and they're talking. F**king hell.

Anyway, to tell the truth I don't think Federer will stand a chance again Nadal if they play. Nadal's style on clay is virtually close to perfection and unbeatable. His backhand, due to his strong right arm is so insanely effective on clay it's like a hack lol. His Defense is without a question the best ever on this surface. His forehand, so defensive plus now he's raised even more offensive power into it. I understand people might be looking back at the game in Rome master series how Federer forced Nadal down to two match points. But that game people have got to recall how well Federer played - that was beyond his limits. He won 80% of first serves and had some other very good statistics (i think it was net points or something). But what you'll realise is that these high level statistics are hard to maintain. I don't know, to me Nadal is simply invincible on clay lol. But don't get me wrong guys, though I rate Nadal so highly I am a big Roger Federer Fan and i like him much more than Nadal. So in conclusion I really hope to see Federer suddenly raise his game to a whole new level again and show us some of his magic once again =)

trixtah
04-20-2007, 10:26 AM
Wilander is just another judgemental prick (he's on top actually), just like all the other "greats" that makes retarded judgemental comments and don't realise how different the game is today. I hate him seriously. Anyway it's most obstinant when these what we call "past greats" comes back out and try to make comments about modern tennis - they just want to be REMEMBERED. They always trying to send a message to everyone "If we were here today we would be even better than Federer blah blah". Sampras is already the best example, who is another thick-headed shit talking loser. The reason being for them to be making stupid comments about today's tennis? It's all because of one single person, Roger Federer, a guy who seem to be fogging them all past greats of tennis due to his super talents and graceful tennis. Why don't these old losers who talks about their great achievements in a past slow game of tennis just silently piss off back into their retired life? So sick of them. The worst problem is some of them don't even have such a great achievement in the past and they're talking. F**king hell.

Anyway, to tell the truth I don't think Federer will stand a chance again Nadal if they play. Nadal's style on clay is virtually close to perfection and unbeatable. His backhand, due to his strong right arm is so insanely effective on clay it's like a hack lol. His Defense is without a question the best ever on this surface. His forehand, so defensive plus now he's raised even more offensive power into it. I understand people might be looking back at the game in Rome master series how Federer forced Nadal down to two match points. But that game people have got to recall how well Federer played - that was beyond his limits. He won 80% of first serves and had some other very good statistics (i think it was net points or something). But what you'll realise is that these high level statistics are hard to maintain. I don't know, to me Nadal is simply invincible on clay lol. But don't get me wrong guys, though I rate Nadal so highly I am a big Roger Federer Fan and i like him much more than Nadal. So in conclusion I really hope to see Federer suddenly raise his game to a whole new level again and show us some of his magic once again =)

holy shit?!

DDrago2
04-20-2007, 11:43 AM
Ha ha

Willander is pretending to give objective analysis, where you can say he is a passionate Rafa supporter anxious to see him beating Federer. He gives Nadal confidence-supporting words "I don't remember when he lost last time", "he will not loose to Federer...". He ties to mount pressure on Federer: "on paper he is the favourite...", "he has to win RG this year or never..." and to cripple his self-confidence: "he has no chance against Rafa".
He hates Federer and worries he will win RG ("If Nadal doesn't reach the final, Federer will win it") . So he worries Nadal will loose before RG finals and advices him not to try too hard in other clay events ("it will be dificult for Nadal after all those clay-to-caly victories"). So Rafa knows he still has a faitfull supporter in Mats Willander, as Federer knows Willander is still relishing the prospect of him going down

But as for Mats Willander, you can only say one thing: he's got bad taste. Let's hope it improves with time

Andre'sNo1Fan
04-20-2007, 11:44 AM
Wilander is just another Fedtard in disguise... :o
Why, because he doesn't kiss his ass all the time and can appreciate other players?! :rolleyes:

bokehlicious
04-20-2007, 11:46 AM
Why, because he doesn't kiss his ass all the time and can appreciate other players?! :rolleyes:

He does actually kiss Roger's ass as you can see :o :

"Mats Wilander: "Who's going to win? This is the year I would like to see Federer win all four Grand Slam tournaments and Roland Garros is the toughest for him but he has to be aggressive. His two defeats against Guillermo Cañas won't be of any influence to him.""

Castafiore
04-20-2007, 11:58 AM
Ha ha

Willander is pretending to give objective analysis, where you can say he is a passionate Rafa supporter anxious to see him beating Federer. He gives Nadal confidence-supporting words "I don't remember when he lost last time", "he will not loose to Federer...". He ties to mount pressure on Federer: "on paper he is the favourite...", "he has to win RG this year or never..." and to cripple his self-confidence: "he has no chance against Rafa".
He hates Federer and worries he will win RG ("If Nadal doesn't reach the final, Federer will win it") . So he worries Nadal will loose before RG finals and advices him not to try too hard in other clay events ("it will be dificult for Nadal after all those clay-to-caly victories"). So Rafa knows he still has a faitfull supporter in Mats Willander, as Federer knows Willander is still relishing the prospect of him going down

But as for Mats Willander, you can only say one thing: he's got bad taste. Let's hope it improves with time

:cuckoo:


***
This thread is entertaining. :)

Veronique
04-20-2007, 12:43 PM
Sampras is already the best example, who is another thick-headed shit talking loser.

Pete can be called many things, but loser?:rolleyes:

Forehander
04-20-2007, 12:50 PM
he lost to Federer and his arrogance nowadays aims straight at Federer. Always pointing out to the media about if he had done this if he had done that.... you don't seen nowadays people doing this.... that.... omg man too much to list. I use to like him but now he's just totally ruined his own reputation for me.

Veronique
04-20-2007, 01:07 PM
i he lost to Federer and his arrogance nowadays aims straight at Federer

Federer lost to Nadal several times last year and 2x in row to Canas recently, yet in light of what he's been able to accomplish already in his career, no one can possibly call him a loser. I just feel it's a poor choice of word to call somebody of Sampras' stature a loser, 14 GS and all. Even Federer wouldn't agree.

marcRD
04-20-2007, 01:09 PM
Wilander is one of the most intelligent tennis players of all time, he was such a tactical genius and read the game so well in his days. There is no reason to dismiss his thoughts about modern tennis, he sure as hell knows alot more about tennis than anyone in these forums.

tennis2tennis
04-20-2007, 01:39 PM
Wilander is one of the most intelligent tennis players of all time, he was such a tactical genius and read the game so well in his days. There is no reason to dismiss his thoughts about modern tennis, he sure as hell knows alot more about tennis than anyone in these forums.

there are reasons to 'dismiss' anyones thoughts. We can be judgemental about a commentator just like we can be judgemental about players who are all better than us..otherwise this forum wouldn't exist!

Veronique
04-20-2007, 02:08 PM
i he lost to Federer and his arrogance nowadays aims straight at Federer

Federer lost to Nadal several times last year and 2x in row to Canas recently, yet in light of what he's been able to accomplish already in his career, no one can possibly call him a loser. I just feel it's a poor choice of word to call somebody of Sampras' stature a loser, 14 GS and all. Even Federer wouldn't agree.

bandabou
04-20-2007, 02:20 PM
then the next question comes in: what's likelier to happen.
Roger beating Nadal on clay to win RG or Nadal beating Roger on grass to win Wimbledon...wonder what Mats has to say about that.

Andre'sNo1Fan
04-20-2007, 02:26 PM
He does actually kiss Roger's ass as you can see :o :

"Mats Wilander: "Who's going to win? This is the year I would like to see Federer win all four Grand Slam tournaments and Roland Garros is the toughest for him but he has to be aggressive. His two defeats against Guillermo Cañas won't be of any influence to him.""
:retard: That is no kissing his ass, its saying what he would like to see happen. At the same time he is intelligent enough to know that he may struggle against Rafa on clay. Big deal, check the past 2 years who Federer has lost to at RG, its not so much of an opinion, but a fact. The fact that he dare say anything against Federer is a sin to you :rolleyes:

t0x
04-20-2007, 04:07 PM
No question Nadal is a horrible match up for Federer....

But even though Fed hasn't beaten him on clay, surley he's done enough to prove he can challenge him? He's always taken at least a set, he pushes tie breaks a lot of the time. To say he won't beat Nadal just like that seems harsh.

No question about Rafa being the favourite - but Roger always has a chance, and a larger chance than most other players to be fair.

Apemant
04-20-2007, 04:58 PM
i he lost to Federer and his arrogance nowadays aims straight at Federer

Federer lost to Nadal several times last year and 2x in row to Canas recently, yet in light of what he's been able to accomplish already in his career, no one can possibly call him a loser. I just feel it's a poor choice of word to call somebody of Sampras' stature a loser, 13 GS and all. Even Federer wouldn't agree.

USO 2002 doesn't count? :eek: :devil:

Fedex
04-21-2007, 11:39 AM
Mats is really going out on a limb here. But in a way I like it if no one thinks Federer has a chance against Nadal, if he is the underdog.

swissfed
04-21-2007, 01:50 PM
contradiction??
Be patience

R.Federer
05-20-2007, 07:44 PM
"Nadal hasn't really lost a claycourt match since I can't remember when, so nobody can beat Rafael Nadal on clay," the two-time Monte Carlo winner Wilander said.

Mats is wrong. Imagine that.

Kolya
05-20-2007, 09:29 PM
Wilander's logic works in theory. In theory communism works.

El Legenda
05-20-2007, 09:30 PM
Wilander, what a :retard:

El Legenda
05-20-2007, 09:30 PM
Wilander's logic works in theory. In theory communism works.

speaking of theories, :wavey: Natas :D

Andre'sNo1Fan
05-20-2007, 09:36 PM
Wilander, what a :retard:
Why because he made a statement and it turned out not to be true. I think the :retard: is you, since when can you predict everything that happens :rolleyes:

neme6
05-21-2007, 12:49 AM
Why because he made a statement and it turned out not to be true. I think the :retard: is you, since when can you predict everything that happens :rolleyes:

then don't predict those kind of things, just say that you don't think fed can beat Nadal on clay, but don't say that he can't beat Nadal on clay. we all knew that the only one at the moment who could do it was him, even though Nadal didn't looked at his best, Fed humiliated him in the last 2 sets.

TennisGrandSlam
05-21-2007, 12:56 AM
Wilander is a FED hater, he always says that FED is always inferior to Sampras :o

tangerine_dream
06-02-2007, 08:41 PM
Mats the Mouth strikes again:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tennis/balls-in-their-court--mats-says-its-time-to-wipe-feet-on-roger/2007/06/02/1180205574001.html
Ball's in their court - Mats says it's time to wipe feet on Roger
Will Swanton
June 3, 2007

MATS Wilander believes Roger Federer's overawed rivals must take a leaf out of the book of Jimmy Connors by roughing up the world No.1 as he tries to finally win the French Open.

Wilander says feisty Spaniard Rafael Nadal is the only player who troubles Federer because he shows no signs of intimidation.

Chest puffed out like Roger Ramjet, muscle shirt showing off his guns, the evil eye on permanent display, and every grunt filled with intent, Nadal - the dual defending champion and conqueror of Federer in both finals - looms as the only player between Federer and his first triumph on the Roland Garros clay.

"It's a bad trend," Wilander says. "The only guy who beats Federer regularly is Rafael Nadal - and it's clearly only in attitude.

"How the other players don't see that, I don't know. They work as hard as Roger, so how can they allow themselves not to think they're a chance? There's definitely a lack of self-belief in many players, which is the only complaint I have about men's tennis. Players of my generation wouldn't have folded that way."

Wilander isn't advocating a king-hit of Federer at the change of ends. But he hates the air of resignation from most of the maestro's opponents.

Nadal is the biggest exception. Lleyton Hewitt is another. Most of the others are happy enough to lose, as long as they don't lose too badly.

So, how do you stop the machine?

"By using the rules as far as you can," Wilander, the last player to win three slams in a year before Federer, tells Inside Sport magazine.

"It's a matter of winning a tennis match. It doesn't have to be pretty."

Recalling a practice session as a 17-year-old at Roland Garros with Connors, Wilander said: "I'm saying, 'Holy smoke'. We warm up for half an hour. We start playing games. I'm up 4-1 when we go past each other on the changeover and he goes, 'You beep, beep, beep'. He just swore me down. I couldn't hit a ball after that. That was my introduction to the seniors.

"Jimmy was like that on the court when you played matches. John McEnroe was like that. With Connors, Ilie Nastase and McEnroe, that's about as dirty as tennis has ever been."

The problem is that nobody seems willing, or capable, of hating Federer. After losing the 2005 Wimbledon final, Andy Roddick told him: "I'd love to hate you - but you are really nice."

James Blake once said: "It's human nature to cut down those at the top. But no one wants to cut him down. He's just too nice."

It makes Wilander's blood boil. :lol:

"Sport is about balls and about heart, and you don't find too many champions in any sport without balls or heart," he said at the French Open last year. "Federer might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size."

He stands by those comments as Federer and Nadal head towards an epic showdown next weekend.

"Maybe the language was a little wrong and I could have rephrased it, but I was kind of upset because I'd like to see Roger win the grand slam," he says. "To see someone in a fourth grand slam final in a row [last year] and to not see one fist pump, that was very disappointing.

"He's since beaten Nadal twice, so great, maybe he's now bringing his . . . Wilanders to the court."

Andre'sNo1Fan
06-02-2007, 08:46 PM
Wilander is a very intelligent guy. I respect him alot, he speaks so much sense.

stebs
06-02-2007, 10:04 PM
I know that Wilander knows what he's talking about and obviously the nature of journalism is to write what they want to write and thats the way it is. What it means though is that the view of someone like Wilander is kind of twisted. From hearing him speak about tennis he clearly doesn't think quite like it says in the article but oh well.

The real idiocy comes when people talk about sport as if it is 90% about your guts and your mind. In reality it is 99% about how good you are and only a tiny aspect is about your heart etc... Of course this seperates two great players on some days but most of the time Federer is just better than his opponent. An example is the Starace match, until 4-0 in the third he was trying his best and only managed to win what? 5 games in two and a half sets. That's not having no guts, that's being outplayed and the truth is Federer can outplay every player on every surface apart from Nadal on clay.

nobama
06-02-2007, 10:36 PM
The real idiocy comes when people talk about sport as if it is 90% about your guts and your mind. In reality it is 99% about how good you are and only a tiny aspect is about your heart etc... Of course this seperates two great players on some days but most of the time Federer is just better than his opponent. An example is the Starace match, until 4-0 in the third he was trying his best and only managed to win what? 5 games in two and a half sets. That's not having no guts, that's being outplayed and the truth is Federer can outplay every player on every surface apart from Nadal on clay.Someone asked Jack Nicklaus the other day if golf would be better off if Tiger Woods had a rival. Nicklaus said 'if somebody can play that good, it's as simple as that'. Andy Roddick was playing well and feeling good about his chances going in to the AO semis. Then Roger just wipes the floor with him. That had nothing to do with Roddick missing his 'wilanders', but that he was totally outclassed from the second set on.

elessar
06-02-2007, 10:47 PM
"Wilander isn't advocating a king-hit of Federer at the change of ends. But he hates the air of resignation from most of the maestro's opponents.

Nadal is the biggest exception. LLEYTON HEWITT is another."

Yeah not fearing Federer really helped him big time during the last five times he was baggeled by him...

Andre'sNo1Fan
06-02-2007, 10:49 PM
The real idiocy comes when people talk about sport as if it is 90% about your guts and your mind. In reality it is 99% about how good you are and only a tiny aspect is about your heart etc... Of course this seperates two great players on some days but most of the time Federer is just better than his opponent. An example is the Starace match, until 4-0 in the third he was trying his best and only managed to win what? 5 games in two and a half sets. That's not having no guts, that's being outplayed and the truth is Federer can outplay every player on every surface apart from Nadal on clay.
I don't agree with that statement. Wilander is not talking about some crap player like Starace, who, lets face it, would be thrashed by anyone half decent. He's talking about the real top players such as David Nalbandian, who if he had more nerve, could have beaten Federer more when they've played.

Lleyton Hewitt is a great example of a player who has got where he is through heart. Now don't get me wrong, he has fantastic ability, amazing speed etc, but he would have never had his achievements without his determination. There are so many players out there with more ability than him, but because he has a never say die attitude, and doesn't give in til the last point he wins so many matches he's not supposed to. But I guess, thats partly due to the fact that there are so many players out there with so much talent, but so little mental resolve. Look at Matheiu, Malisse, Safin, Nalbandian, Gaudio.....these players should have won so much more than they have. Although not everything is about the mental side, its a lot more than 1%. I would say at least 10%.

Andre'sNo1Fan
06-02-2007, 10:59 PM
"Wilander isn't advocating a king-hit of Federer at the change of ends. But he hates the air of resignation from most of the maestro's opponents.

Nadal is the biggest exception. LLEYTON HEWITT is another."

Yeah not fearing Federer really helped him big time during the last five times he was baggeled by him...
Well I don't think Hewitt was bagelled by Federer the last few times, I remember a match in the US Open a couple of years ago being quite close.........anwyays they haven't played for a while.

At least in Lleyton's case he never walked away from a challenge, he always gave it his best shot. I think thats what Wilander means is that some people admit they're beaten by Federer before they stop on court. Look at Gaudio's comments before the Masters Cup semi final 2005 :rolleyes: that is really the attitude of a top tennis player.

Neely
06-02-2007, 11:01 PM
The real idiocy comes when people talk about sport as if it is 90% about your guts and your mind. In reality it is 99% about how good you are and only a tiny aspect is about your heart etc...
That's difficult to explore, but at the same time an interesting statement, even though I don't share it completely.

My view is that tennis is clearly more than only the physical ability to move well in order to perfectly stroke a ball that wins you the point. And I firmly think that many matches are decisively won in your mind, by consistent right attitude (if not consistent, then in the very right moments) and the mental department. Not only in the match, also before the match you need these factors in practice, work-outs and preparation.
The problem IMO is that when we speak of "99% are about how good you are", that the heart, the fighting ability, your mental toughness, stamina, ability to win big points, your mind (making changing in your game plan, tactics, recognizing own difficulties and weaknesses of the opponent) ..., ...all would be already included in "overall how good you are".

elessar
06-02-2007, 11:12 PM
Well I don't think Hewitt was bagelled by Federer the last few times, I remember a match in the US Open a couple of years ago being quite close.........anwyays they haven't played for a while.

At least in Lleyton's case he never walked away from a challenge, he always gave it his best shot. I think thats what Wilander means is that some people admit they're beaten by Federer before they stop on court. Look at Gaudio's comments before the Masters Cup semi final 2005 :rolleyes: that is really the attitude of a top tennis player.

Well Hewitt won only two out of the last thirty or so sets they played and ate 5 bagels so I hardly think that using gamesmanship or not being afraid of Federer is enough to beat him. :rolleyes:

What I find most amusing is that people never make those kinds of comments about Nadal on clay. I mean people face him on the red stuff with the exact same attitude that they have, when facing Federer on other surfaces. And yet Nadal often gets all the credit while Federer only benefits from a clown era with players afraid to take it to him...

Eden
06-02-2007, 11:14 PM
I know that Wilander knows what he's talking about and obviously the nature of journalism is to write what they want to write and thats the way it is. What it means though is that the view of someone like Wilander is kind of twisted. From hearing him speak about tennis he clearly doesn't think quite like it says in the article but oh well.


Exactly my thoughts.

It's really getting old to hear all these comments that the other players are already giving up before meeting Roger. Who claims for example that the players don't believe in their chances when they have to play against Nadal on clay?

It's all about matchup and Blake is an excellent example for this. He is a perfect matchup for Roger, but a bad one for Nadal. And the ability to show mental weaknesses comes with a match you don't feel so comfortable in. Just remember the encounter between Nadal and Blake in Shanghai were Blake came back from 4 games down in the second set and was able to take the tiebreak with 7:0. Does anyone think that Nadal would allow something like this on a surface he feels more comfortable at?

Neely
06-02-2007, 11:24 PM
It's all about matchup and Blake is an excellent example for this. He is a perfect matchup for Roger, but a bad one for Nadal. And the ability to show mental weaknesses comes with a match you don't feel so comfortable in. Just remember the encounter between Nadal and Blake in Shanghai were Blake came back from 4 games down in the second set and was able to take the tiebreak with 7:0. Does anyone think that Nadal would allow something like this on a surface he feels more comfortable at?
I don't necessarily disagree if you say that the match-up is important and that you are more vulnerable if you are playing a match on a surface on which you are not so comfortable.
But even in this example, it needs more than a "theoretically good tennis player", and it needs more than being a good match-up only. It still needs the mind and all the mental components to hold your game together and to execute. Coming back to your example: Blake needed to do that and deliver some of these "intangible" components.

marcRD
06-03-2007, 12:36 AM
Roddick fckng belived he would finaly beat Federer in the australian open, Federer humiliated him by his game and not by intimidating Rddick or something. Nadal is such a spartan and blahblahblah, look at how he fought in the last set against Youzhy in USOPEN, look at how he let Blake back to the match when 4-0 up and giving almost up in the tiebreak. Agaist Gonzalez in AO he was like a lost little boy out there. Ofcourse when you play at your favorite surface where you destroy anyone even the likes of Gonzalez and Berdych you act more cofident. Mentality is completely overrated, maybe Hewitt is the only true fighter in the game right now. Still he got bagelled 5 times by Federer and he never stopped beliving he could beat him, but he just DOESNT HAVE THE WEAPONS TO BEAT FEDERER. Only Nadal has that ability and that has nothing to do with FEderers balls.

Ofcourse I understand what Wilander meant, Federer just didnt play good enought in important moments in that final, but most often the one who belives better in his ability on the surface wins the important points. Federer did that in wimbledon, Nadal did that in RG. Lets see if Federer has more belief in his clay court game this year...

Sofyaxo
06-03-2007, 12:46 AM
You can't compare the Andy Roddick Federer thing to the Nadal Federer thing.

They are totally different situations. Even if you just take into account that Andy beat Roger at an expo that Roger uses as practice only. Roger normally doesn't give his all there and used that match with Andy as a serve volley lesson for himself.

R.Federer
06-03-2007, 12:56 AM
"He's since beaten Nadal twice, so great, maybe he's now bringing his . . . Wilanders to the court."


He has beaten him 3 out of the last 4 times they have played now (3 out of the 4 times since the French Final).

nobama
06-03-2007, 12:59 AM
What I find most amusing is that people never make those kinds of comments about Nadal on clay. I mean people face him on the red stuff with the exact same attitude that they have, when facing Federer on other surfaces. And yet Nadal often gets all the credit while Federer only benefits from a clown era with players afraid to take it to him...What you just said. Where is Mats complaining about anyone other than Federer not having the "wilanders" against Nadal on clay?

Bremen
06-03-2007, 01:07 AM
What you just said. Where is Mats complaining about anyone other than Federer not having the "wilanders" against Nadal on clay?

I've noticed this too....what a weird double standard.

Why is Wiliander always talking about Fed and Nadal anyway? Is he that desperate to be in the limelight?

Kolya
06-03-2007, 01:11 AM
I've noticed this too....what a weird double standard.

Why is Wiliander always talking about Fed and Nadal anyway? Is he that desperate to be in the limelight?

He works for Eurosport... just analysing the FO.

calvinhobbes
06-03-2007, 01:24 AM
Guts or balls are needed to win in any sports. But if you are fighting against a rival technically, mentally and physically better than yourself, what should you do? To show anger? To show desperation or blind fury? To hit the ball harder? No way. In tennis the only rational approach is to show that serene poise that so much hates Wilander and so much demonstrates Federer when in disadvantage. By the way, it is easier to intimidate a rival by giving no importance to our own errors or to the rival´s winners. This kind of nonchalance is taken by Wilander as cowardice or resignation, but it needs lots of temper and balls. IMHO it is the only logical and correct attitude. . . . .:eek: :eek: :eek:

R.Federer
06-03-2007, 01:39 AM
"Wilander isn't advocating a king-hit of Federer at the change of ends. But he hates the air of resignation from most of the maestro's opponents.

Nadal is the biggest exception. LLEYTON HEWITT is another."

Yeah not fearing Federer really helped him big time during the last five times he was baggeled by him...
Yes, but that's his point. He included Hewitt in that group of non-fearing players to show that he (mats) does not care if the eventual score against your name is a "L", as it has been with Hewitt, so long as the player goes there with the intention to win.

Myself, I agree that this is true of some players. But I don't think it is generally true of "most" of the players. They would all like a win against a top player, and do try.

rofe
06-03-2007, 02:40 AM
Guts or balls are needed to win in any sports. But if you are fighting against a rival technically, mentally and physically better than yourself, what should you do? To show anger? To show desperation or blind fury? To hit the ball harder? No way. In tennis the only rational approach is to show that serene poise that so much hates Wilander and so much demonstrates Federer when in disadvantage. By the way, it is easier to intimidate a rival by giving no importance to our own errors or to the rival´s winners. This kind of nonchalance is taken by Wilander as cowardice or resignation, but it needs lots of temper and balls. IMHO it is the only logical and correct attitude. . . . .:eek: :eek: :eek:

:worship:

ExpectedWinner
06-03-2007, 02:18 PM
So, how do you stop the machine?

"By using the rules as far as you can," Wilander, the last player to win three slams in a year before Federer, tells Inside Sport magazine.

"It's a matter of winning a tennis match. It doesn't have to be pretty."

Recalling a practice session as a 17-year-old at Roland Garros with Connors, Wilander said: "I'm saying, 'Holy smoke'. We warm up for half an hour. We start playing games. I'm up 4-1 when we go past each other on the changeover and he goes, 'You beep, beep, beep'. He just swore me down. I couldn't hit a ball after that. That was my introduction to the seniors.


These little tricks might work with boys. For grown up men such behaviour is the sign that an opponent feels insecure.

DDrago2
06-03-2007, 02:55 PM
As I already stated many times: Mats doesn't want to see Federer winning RG and is a great Raffa suporter. It's a matter of taste. He simply doesn't like Federer and his game. That's all.

The_Nadal_effect
06-03-2007, 03:22 PM
Never seen Mats play.
But can't see why he doubt's Fed's chances on clay. Fed can finish Nadal anytime soon. He only has to want it. Fed is superior than Nadal in both, his innate talent and tennis skills. Nadal largely depends on his will to win. He is neither born great nor extra-ordinarily talented. He is only a supreme example of how far ordinary people can stretch their abilities if they want to.
Does Rafa want the RG more, or does Ol' FEd really want it bad, that is the question, no?

Castafiore
06-03-2007, 03:37 PM
He doesn't doubt his skills, The Nadal Effect. Quite a few people should perhaps properly read or listen to what Wilander tends to say. The "HE HATES FEDERER :hysteric: " cries are vastly exaggerated. He doesn't tend to use poetry when talking about Federer but he doesn't dislike him either.

In fact, he thinks that Federer is going to win this edition of Roland Garros which is quite a change from what he said a few weeks ago.


Furthermore, Nadal's fighting skills are a huge part of his success, that's true. More so on clay than on other surfaces because he does tend to get a bit insecure against certain other players (you can see the body language change for example) but at the same time, he's working on that. However, saying that Nadal "largely" depends on his will to win is exaggerated.
Sorry, but the average, ordinary player can't get these results based on sheer "will".

stebs
06-03-2007, 03:59 PM
I don't agree with that statement. Wilander is not talking about some crap player like Starace, who, lets face it, would be thrashed by anyone half decent. He's talking about the real top players such as David Nalbandian, who if he had more nerve, could have beaten Federer more when they've played.

Nalbandian is a real bad example seeing as he actually beat Federer a bunch of times and had a big mental advantage over him at one stage. Also, in the TMC '05 Nalbandian beat Federer from being two points away from defeat so he has the belief. Federer has turned round that H-2-H due to more consistency and the fact that on a fast surface he is equal in rallies but better on serve ergo better overall.

Rest of the top 10:

Roddick: Huge belief going into AO '07 and got spanked completely.

Davydenko: If he has the nerve then he could beat Roger on clay given the right circumstances, will have to wait and see but the AO '06 showed that Roger had a mental edge with this one.

Gonzalez: Had the belief and said that everyone loses sometimes and he felt confident a few times vs Roger but the match-up is more important and Gonzo can't beat Roger.

Djokovic: One of the most confident players on tour, no-one could say this guy doesn't believe in himself and yet his record vs Federer? 0-4.

Ljubicic: Again, Roger does probably have a mental edge over Ljubo. maybe a case of too much respect in this one but frankly Roger should be beating him 10/10 on every surface anyway.

Blake: See above. A little more belief could get Blake closer but Roger nullifies Blake's weapons completely so it is tough to see Blake getting victories belief or not.

Robredo: I am not too knowledgable on the subject of this match-up but for sure Robredo was playing well and fighting etc... at the Ao this year and got beat in straights. Lets see what happens in the QF match of RG.

Haas: Had the belief to battle from two sets down against Roger at AO '06 but still lost. Another case of not being good enough.



This mini analysis kind of shows that only Ljubo and Blake are really hugely effected by the mental issue of the top 10 and yet Roger owns most of the others too. His skill level is more important than the belief. He is just better than these guys.

Lleyton Hewitt is a great example of a player who has got where he is through heart. Now don't get me wrong, he has fantastic ability, amazing speed etc, but he would have never had his achievements without his determination. There are so many players out there with more ability than him, but because he has a never say die attitude, and doesn't give in til the last point he wins so many matches he's not supposed to.

Yeah exactly, you're proving my point for me. Huge belief, probably equal with anyone on tour and yet Roger has won the last 9 encounters and once won 17 sets in a row vs Lleyton. This is entirely down to the simple facts of the matter, Fed is better than Hewitt on all surfaces. Belief alone is not enough to beat Roger.

Although not everything is about the mental side, its a lot more than 1%. I would say at least 10%.

If Nadal plays at 90% and Fed at 100% in the RG final then Rafa is getting crushed regardless of how hard he fights. Vice Versa and the same is true, once both players are pretty much even (within 1/2%) with how well they are playing then the mental stuff is important.

Johnny Groove
06-03-2007, 04:04 PM
If Nadal plays at 90% and Fed at 100% in the RG final then Rafa is getting crushed regardless of how hard he fights. Vice Versa and the same is true, once both players are pretty much even (within 1/2%) with how well they are playing then the mental stuff is important.

whoa whoa whoa, are you sure about that?

stebs
06-03-2007, 04:16 PM
whoa whoa whoa, are you sure about that?

I'm not sure about anything, it's a pretty bad idea of me to start talking percentages as well 'cos it's hard to put percentages on performances but in my own opinion yes and it's a pretty strong opinion of mine. I think it's pretty clownish when people talk about bad performances and say 'X was only playign at 50%'. In reality even a not so great performance from Roger today was probably around 90% level and for sure that would get smoked vs a full stregth Nadal. Another example would be Nadal in Hamburg vs Federer, I'd personally guestimate that to be around 90-95% performance and he got beat there.

maria87
06-03-2007, 04:27 PM
Yes, because Cañas will do it instead of Federer...look a the las stats

against Youznhy Federer commited 43 UE and fired 11 winners
against MOnaco Cañas commited 13 UE and fired 16 winners

Eden
06-03-2007, 04:33 PM
Yes, because Cañas will do it instead of Federer...

I really wonder what gives some of the Canas fans the believe that Willy would beat Nadal in a best of 5 match. What results against Rafa makes you so optimistic that Willy would have a chance to beat him? :scratch:

Lillith
06-03-2007, 07:03 PM
I don't necessarily disagree if you say that the match-up is important and that you are more vulnerable if you are playing a match on a surface on which you are not so comfortable.
But even in this example, it needs more than a "theoretically good tennis player", and it needs more than being a good match-up only. It still needs the mind and all the mental components to hold your game together and to execute. Coming back to your example: Blake needed to do that and deliver some of these "intangible" components.


But everyone in the top 20-30 has that belief. I really don't understand where this idea came from that ANY of the top players are mentally weak. You don't get or stay at the top of professional sport without the correct mental outlook. (don't mean you, but others in this thread)

I agree with you that stebs might have overestimated the percentages and that it's hard to quantify either way. The mental component (or intangibles, if you will) probably accounts for 5-10% of the top players' chances, but talent is *by far* the more important factor.

Eden
06-03-2007, 07:29 PM
As I already stated many times: Mats doesn't want to see Federer winning RG and is a great Raffa suporter. It's a matter of taste. He simply doesn't like Federer and his game. That's all.

There is an interview with Mats for the Swiss press today where he explains why he was critising Roger after last years RG final. He said that he was missing emotions from Roger in the match and that he believed that Roger was afraid from the big moment.

According to the Swiss-German interview Mats still sees more room for improvement in Roger than in Rafa. Mats mentioned that Tony Roche had taught Roger everything which he could, but that there would be noone who would know more about tennis than Roger himself.

Mats is astonished to see Roger improving every time he sees him. According to Wilander Roger doesn't have to win Paris to be the GOAT and there will never be someone again with the talent and ability of Roger.

Source of the interview: http://www.sonntagszeitung.ch/dyn/news/sport/757852.html

Adler
06-03-2007, 07:30 PM
against Youznhy Federer commited 43 UE and fired 11 winners
against Monaco Cañas commited 13 UE and fired 16 winners
this says nothing

nobama
06-03-2007, 07:55 PM
Yes, because Cañas will do it instead of Federer...look a the las stats

against Youznhy Federer commited 43 UE and fired 11 winners
against MOnaco Cañas commited 13 UE and fired 16 winnersWhere did you get those stats from? And anyway stats from one match mean nothing.....especially considering Federer and Canas both have to win their QF match to play each other.

bokehlicious
06-03-2007, 08:07 PM
There is an interview with Mats for the Swiss press today where he explains why he was critising Roger after last years RG final. He said that he was missing emotions from Roger in the match and that he believed that Roger was afraid from the big moment.

According to the Swiss-German interview Mats still sees more room for improvement in Roger than in Rafa. Mats mentioned that Tony Roche had taught Roger everything which he could, but that there would be noone who would know more about tennis than Roger himself.

Mats is astonished to see Roger improving every time he sees him. According to Wilander Roger doesn't have to win Paris to be the GOAT and there will never be someone again with the talent and ability of Roger.

Source of the interview: http://www.sonntagszeitung.ch/dyn/news/sport/757852.html


Of course Mats likes Fed as he stated many times. He just dares critisize him at times, which is good imo. Even if he doesn't sound like a Fedtard, he's in awe of the guy anyway.

tangerine_dream
06-03-2007, 08:30 PM
He just dares critisize him at times, which is good imo.
:spit: Says the thin-skinned Fedtard who jumps on everything and anything if he so much as catches a whiff of constructive criticism of "his" Roger by anyone. :haha:

WF4EVER
06-03-2007, 08:51 PM
Stebs, regarding your comments on the Rogi-Djoko H2H, in all fairness, Rogi has not played Djokovic since his "improvement" and subsequent breakthrough at both IW and Miami. Yes, Roger still owns the H2H, but Djokovic is still coming into his own skin and could very well pose some problems for Feds in the future.

stebs
06-03-2007, 10:09 PM
Stebs, regarding your comments on the Rogi-Djoko H2H, in all fairness, Rogi has not played Djokovic since his "improvement" and subsequent breakthrough at both IW and Miami. Yes, Roger still owns the H2H, but Djokovic is still coming into his own skin and could very well pose some problems for Feds in the future.

Djokovic was the same player at the AO as he was in IW and Miami.

WF4EVER
06-03-2007, 10:50 PM
Djokovic was the same player at the AO as he was in IW and Miami.


What's that? Fact or Opinion?

stebs
06-03-2007, 10:51 PM
What's that? Fact or Opinion?

I can edit the post and add 'in my opinion' if you like.

bokehlicious
06-04-2007, 12:06 AM
:spit: Says the thin-skinned Fedtard who jumps on everything and anything if he so much as catches a whiff of constructive criticism of "his" Roger by anyone. :haha:

Wrong. I only jump on retarded haters' statements. Wilander knows the sport, unlike the bunch of jealous haters on here...

soraya
06-04-2007, 04:21 AM
[QUOTE]There is an interview with Mats for the Swiss press today where he explains why he was critising Roger after last years RG final. He said that he was missing emotions from Roger in the match and that he believed that Roger was afraid from the big moment.

I wonder how he can be afraid of the "big moment" like he's never been in that position before.:confused:

sykotique
06-04-2007, 04:44 AM
I suppose there are some out there who believe if they put their minds to it, they can fly or bend spoons as in the Matrix.

Belief is one thing. Delusion is another. Having the belief to beat another player usually stems from knowing you have the ability to compete with that player, so the 2 are not at all exclusive. Federer may grab a win off of Nadal every now and then on clay, but Rafa is simply the better clay court player, hands down.

And the same applies to Federer on any surface against any opponent, 99% of the time. Everyone talks about players not believing they can beat Federer - do you think Federer ever believes he's going to lose (Nadal on clay being an exception, where Rafa is clearly a better clay court player)? What's more, Federer's belief is backed up by 10 Slams and 3 and a half years of utter dominance. It's hard to shake that kind of belief. He knows he's chasing history.

Eden
06-04-2007, 08:43 AM
I wonder how he can be afraid of the "big moment" like he's never been in that position before.:confused:

Well, I do think the RG final last year was an extra kind of "big moment" considering that it was Rogers first final there and he had the chance to become the first player since Agassi to win GS on every surface.

Action Jackson
06-04-2007, 08:49 AM
Of course Mats likes Fed as he stated many times. He just dares critisize him at times, which is good imo. Even if he doesn't sound like a Fedtard, he's in awe of the guy anyway.

Finally a Fed fan who sees the light of what Wilander actually said.

LeChuck
06-04-2007, 10:04 AM
I don't think that players have to hate Federer, but I think that they have to hate losing to him more than they do. James Blake is one of the worst offenders. When he was thrashed by Federer in the final of the Masters Cup last year, he was all smiles and practically thanked him for it. What a joke.

anon57
06-04-2007, 11:24 AM
There certainly are players who are to in awe of Federer to give him a proper match, Blake being one of those examples. But it seems to me that not all players are like that and that most of them don’t want to lose to him all the time but there is just little they can do about it. Believe alone is not going to win matches. It will certainly help in tight situations but if your opponent is outplaying you, all the will and believe aren’t going to win you the match unless his level drops.

blessed
06-04-2007, 11:40 AM
Tricky thing, chasing history. Never known it to slow down for anyone. For Federer this year is it. He won't have another chance to nail RG.

thesupreme
06-04-2007, 02:54 PM
^nonsense. back that up.

and dont try the age thing, he's nowhere near finished as a contender for RG...in an age where all we hear about are Nadals arms, Federer's physical conditioning in my opinion is *underarrated*

The_Nadal_effect
06-04-2007, 03:14 PM
I don't think that players have to hate Federer, but I think that they have to hate losing to him more than they do. James Blake is one of the worst offenders. When he was thrashed by Federer in the final of the Masters Cup last year, he was all smiles and practically thanked him for it. What a joke.

Blake is a gentleman. He also apologised to Gonzo at the AO this year when Gonzo thrashed the ball over the net and it hurt him:D (I've forgotten the exact incident but remember him apologising).

Bremen
06-04-2007, 03:15 PM
I don't think that players have to hate Federer, but I think that they have to hate losing to him more than they do. James Blake is one of the worst offenders. When he was thrashed by Federer in the final of the Masters Cup last year, he was all smiles and practically thanked him for it. What a joke.

That was kind of pathetic...

tangerine_dream
06-04-2007, 03:23 PM
I don't think that players have to hate Federer, but I think that they have to hate losing to him more than they do. James Blake is one of the worst offenders. When he was thrashed by Federer in the final of the Masters Cup last year, he was all smiles and practically thanked him for it. What a joke.
Ljubicic did the same thing in the 2006 Miami final. He couldn't wait to thank Roger for letting him lose. :lol:

The_Nadal_effect
06-04-2007, 03:32 PM
Andy relished it this year's AO, no? He was full of thanks for Roger. He gained a sense of humour after that match.

Marek.
06-04-2007, 03:34 PM
Andy relished it this year's AO, no? He was full of thanks for Roger. He gained a sense of humour after that match.

I don't think so. Roddick was visibly pissed off during the match (when he hit that ball out of the staidum) and afterwards he wasn't too happy with the reporters.

tangerine_dream
06-04-2007, 03:45 PM
Andy relished it this year's AO, no? He was full of thanks for Roger. He gained a sense of humour after that match.
:scratch: Don't think we saw the same match then. But Andy's always had a brilliant sense of humor. His post-match interview after losing to Andreev at Indian Wells 2006 is even better than the one he gave at AO.

blessed
06-05-2007, 07:02 AM
^nonsense. back that up.

and dont try the age thing, he's nowhere near finished as a contender for RG...in an age where all we hear about are Nadals arms, Federer's physical conditioning in my opinion is *underarrated*

What do I have to back up, that history never slows down for anyone?? :rolleyes: It just happens to be true. As for his age, I never mentioned that, you did. Is it worrying you maybe? Don't bother answering that, it is worrying you - ag shame man.

blessed
06-05-2007, 07:04 AM
:scratch: Don't think we saw the same match then. But Andy's always had a brilliant sense of humor. His post-match interview after losing to Andreev at Indian Wells 2006 is even better than the one he gave at AO.

He's had a lot of practice. :)