Will Nadal be Favourite to win Wimbledon? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Will Nadal be Favourite to win Wimbledon?

Tennister
04-21-2009, 05:34 AM
Come on let's face it guys, he's the best out there at the moment on all types of surfaces, no one can even get close to him. I think Roger's time is over, especially after he lost last year's Wimbledon, so I think it will be all Nadal this year even on the grass, What do u think?

rafa_maniac
04-21-2009, 05:35 AM
Is the Pope Catholic?

vamosinator
04-21-2009, 05:43 AM
I don't think it will surprise anyone if Nadal wins the Wimbledon final in straight sets, regardless of who he plays:o

heartbroken
04-21-2009, 05:43 AM
The favorite? I would say yes. Overwhelming favorite? I would say no.

A five time champ and a (potentially) dangerous Andy Murray will be waiting in the draw. But there is no reason to doubt Nadal at this point on the grass. He has proven himself on the surface, and he's the defending champ.

delpiero7
04-21-2009, 07:42 AM
1) He's the defending champion, and reached the final 3 years in a row
2) He's the number 1 ranked player in the world
3) His main rival on the surface is nowhere near his peak level

It would be pretty fishy if Nadal wasn't favourite for Wimbledon. Massive favourite like Federer used to be? No chance.

robiht
04-21-2009, 07:45 AM
I would say yes too.He has 50% chance at least :)
Roger has about 35%.
All the other players has 15%.

kingfederer
04-21-2009, 08:02 AM
just drop it alright, u just want to jinx rafa so that he wont win wimbledon! i have noticed lately the rafa haters have been saying he will win everything just to jinx him! rafa will win whatever he wants and his fans will enjoy that when he does!!! as a rafa fan i dont expect him to win everything, when he wins im happy but i would say he has a good chance as any other player to win wimbledon!! no one is favourite in any tournament, murray was favourite at the aussie and look what the curse and jinx did to him!! so please no more nadal will win this and that!!! obviously his fans would love to see such a humble guy win every tournament but that doesnt happen in pro sports!

finishingmove
04-21-2009, 08:06 AM
Is the Pope Catholic?

who gives a fuck?

this is sparta, not vatican.

federernadalfan
04-21-2009, 08:38 AM
yes he is the favorite to win wimbly

vamosinator
04-21-2009, 08:40 AM
Nadal just has to win every Wimbledon till he's age 30 and he'll overtake Sampras record of 7 Wimbledon crowns!

finishingmove
04-21-2009, 09:03 AM
Nadal just has to win every Wimbledon till he's age 30 and he'll overtake Sampras record of 7 Wimbledon crowns!

OMG

i didn't know he was that close.

Ackms421
04-21-2009, 09:27 AM
Up until Miami I thought he was a strong favorite. I'm not sure what's going on with him now. Although he has always had bad patches of play here and there but always brings it for the big occasions. I hope and think he will do so at Wimbledon. He needs at least a couple more of those to add to his slam repertoire to have chances of getting to 13-14 and hard court slams will always be the toughest for him.

HeretiC
04-21-2009, 10:12 AM
who gives a fuck?

this is sparta, not vatican.

So, is Cassius of Clay the king of Sparta?

finishingmove
04-21-2009, 10:18 AM
So, is Cassius of Clay the king of Sparta?

he is an honorary citizen

HeretiC
04-21-2009, 11:44 AM
he is an honorary citizen

Dissapointed... the future 20 and something gran slam winner, holder of all records on all surfaces and just an honorary citizen?:confused: Who is the king then?

ORGASMATRON
04-21-2009, 11:47 AM
Of course he will! 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in the final!

ORGASMATRON
04-21-2009, 11:48 AM
OMG

i didn't know he was that close.

:haha::haha::haha:

tennis2tennis
04-21-2009, 01:43 PM
I'll say well find out in the next couple of weeks...it will depend on how much he exerts himself in the run up to RG...but i think we shouldn't rule out roger, there's less pressure on him this time, if everyone thinks nadal is the favourite maybe Roger will relax and play more of a fluid game...

Another thing to note will be the speed of the grass this year, there's talk within the The All England Club of returning the surface back to 1990's speed, (see LTA magazine)

Clay Death
04-21-2009, 02:45 PM
who gives a fuck?

this is sparta, not vatican.


:drink::drink::drink::drink::drink::drink::drink:

HeretiC
04-21-2009, 03:15 PM
I'll say well find out in the next couple of weeks...it will depend on how much he exerts himself in the run up to RG...but i think we shouldn't rule out roger, there's less pressure on him this time, if everyone thinks nadal is the favourite maybe Roger will relax and play more of a fluid game...

Another thing to note will be the speed of the grass this year, there's talk within the The All England Club of returning the surface back to 1990's speed, (see LTA magazine)

Maybe FWF petition worked. :eek:

Joao
04-21-2009, 03:21 PM
Every defending champion is a favourite to win it again. So yes, he's one of the favourites.

Bazooka
04-21-2009, 03:24 PM
He is now, but it's too soon: he can stop being the favourite before Wimbledon starts.

Imagine that Roger makes an excellent RG reaching the final again, this time winning one set and getting no bagel, then wins Halle easily, while somehow Rafa struggles in Queens and loses there.

Vida
04-21-2009, 03:47 PM
if he wins RG and at least one 1000 prior, than absolute - if not than not.

NadalSharapova
04-21-2009, 04:06 PM
Every defending champion is a favourite to win it again. So yes, he's one of the favourites.

Wrong.

But yes, Nadal is THE favourite to win wimbledon. Not one of the.

Arkulari
04-21-2009, 04:58 PM
Roger and Rafa are the favorites, no one comes close to them on grass ;)

NadalSharapova
04-21-2009, 04:59 PM
Roger and Rafa are the favorites, no one comes close to them on grass ;)

You are very close but I shall correct you:

Nadal is the favourite. Federer is the 2nd favourite.

Igaarg
04-21-2009, 07:23 PM
Of couse, even though he will deny it saying that Brian Dabul is more favourite than him, Nadal is the favourite in every surface right now. He has to lern to live with that, no?

morningglory
04-21-2009, 08:50 PM
Yes, probably, although Murray and Djoko have a shot. Federer is clearly not the favorite at ANY slam given the way he is right now (not to mention his mental blocks against his main rivals) Murray has yet to win a GS but he'll have the crowd going crazy on his side. Djoko might challenge him a bit if he plays well.

Har-Tru
04-21-2009, 08:56 PM
Right now:

Nadal

Djokovic
Federer
Murray

richie21
04-21-2009, 09:05 PM
A dark horse will win Wimbledon this year,mark my words.
I quite like Tsonga's chances there.
His serve and volley game will be lethal on that surface.

Joao
04-21-2009, 09:55 PM
Wrong.

But yes, Nadal is THE favourite to win wimbledon. Not one of the.

Once a player has won a GS, he knows what it takes and could do it again. So no, I'm not wrong.

And yes, Nadal is ONE of the favourites. There are many players who could beat him on grass. He could have as easily lost it last year; Gulbis took 1 set off him, Kiefer and Beck (and even Schuttler:o) took him to a tiebreak ... at Queens the week before, he barely scratched by Karlovic (3 tiebreaks) and Djokovic played him tough in the finals ... so it's not like he's cruising through to the finals on grass. Really, all you need is one off day .... and bye bye.

NadalSharapova
04-21-2009, 10:34 PM
Once a player has won a GS, he knows what it takes and could do it again. So no, I'm not wrong.

And yes, Nadal is ONE of the favourites. There are many players who could beat him on grass. He could have as easily lost it last year; Gulbis took 1 set off him, Kiefer and Beck (and even Schuttler:o) took him to a tiebreak ... at Queens the week before, he barely scratched by Karlovic (3 tiebreaks) and Djokovic played him tough in the finals ... so it's not like he's cruising through to the finals on grass. Really, all you need is one off day .... and bye bye.

Look back at what you said, you said defending champs are always a fav to win next year, thats not true. Check gaudio FO 2004, Safin AO 2005.

Nadal is the top favourite, doesn't mean he can't lose but he is THE favourite.

Joao
04-21-2009, 11:11 PM
Look back at what you said, you said defending champs are always a fav to win next year, thats not true. Check gaudio FO 2004, Safin AO 2005.

Nadal is the top favourite, doesn't mean he can't lose but he is THE favourite.

I said that defending champions are always among the favourites to win it again. But that doesn't mean that they always do. As a matter of fact most defending champs don't (unless you're Nadal or Federer). This is even more true in the WTA.

Djokovic was one of the favourite to win the AO this year, even though he was not playing his best.

In general being a favourite doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to win. It only means that the odds of you winning it are better than the odds for the average player. And that's what I said.:wavey:

MrChopin
04-21-2009, 11:15 PM
Depends on who you ask. In my opinion, only MTF and the British press matter, and we know where their money will lie... certainly not with the recently-confounded world #1.

Pfloyd
04-22-2009, 12:51 AM
Sure he is, but it largely depends on how well he is physically arriving to this tourney.

vamosinator
04-22-2009, 01:37 AM
Once a player has won a GS, he knows what it takes and could do it again. So no, I'm not wrong.

And yes, Nadal is ONE of the favourites. There are many players who could beat him on grass. He could have as easily lost it last year; Gulbis took 1 set off him, Kiefer and Beck (and even Schuttler:o) took him to a tiebreak ... at Queens the week before, he barely scratched by Karlovic (3 tiebreaks) and Djokovic played him tough in the finals ... so it's not like he's cruising through to the finals on grass. Really, all you need is one off day .... and bye bye.

Actually Nadal wasn't even supposed to win Queens, he hadn't even practiced on grass before his first match there, so that was an incredible result.

Your main hope is Federer, beyond that there are no contenders for Nadal's Wimbledon.

ORGASMATRON
04-22-2009, 01:42 AM
Isnt it crazy how a clay court specialist is the favorite to win Wimby these days? How things have changed :zzz:

JoshDragon
04-22-2009, 01:53 AM
Come on let's face it guys, he's the best out there at the moment on all types of surfaces, no one can even get close to him. I think Roger's time is over, especially after he lost last year's Wimbledon, so I think it will be all Nadal this year even on the grass, What do u think?

Nadal is the favorite to win Wimbledon but it's not a guaranteed thing like the French Open is.

christallh24
04-22-2009, 02:07 AM
I don't think we should assume the French is a guaranteed thing either. And as for Wimbledon, I'll still have give to Roger as THE favorite with Rafa second.

casabe
04-22-2009, 02:18 AM
A player that has lost only one match on the surface in the last 5 years is the favorite for me...he is the second one.

dusk
04-22-2009, 03:18 AM
who gives a fuck?

this is sparta, not vatican.
:haha:

I quite like Tsonga's chances there.
His serve and volley game will be lethal on that surface.
I wish, but I don't think he'll even go to the second week.
Isnt it crazy how a clay court specialist is the favorite to win Wimby these days? How things have changed :zzz:

No it isn't crazy. This "clay court specialist" has improved more than anybody else. You work on your game, you see the results.

Har-Tru
04-22-2009, 03:32 AM
Isnt it crazy how a clay court specialist is the favorite to win Wimby these days? How things have changed :zzz:

LOL

Har-Tru
04-22-2009, 03:35 AM
Also, I find it extremely funny how people think Federer can beat Rafa on a slam again and consider him the favourite, citing reasons like "he's only lost one game on grass in the last five years".

christallh24
04-22-2009, 03:56 AM
It's a valid enough point that Roger's only lost once. And to the man that would take his place as No. 1.

However, I wish people would quit with this "Nadal is only a clay court specialist." crap. Has he not by now, accomplished enough outside of clay that you Rafa haters can't, at least, acknowledge it?

Har-Tru
04-22-2009, 04:01 AM
It's a valid enough point that Roger's only lost once.

On paper, it would be. To anyone who has seen the development of events, it isn't.

christallh24
04-22-2009, 04:19 AM
I've seen the development of events and cringed at all the loses that weren't against Rafa and that one in Miami against Nole. Yet, something still won't let me bet against Roger.

ORGASMATRON
04-22-2009, 04:20 AM
No it isn't crazy. This "clay court specialist" has improved more than anybody else. You work on your game, you see the results.

Thats not the point, a clay court specialist would never have been the favorite to win Wimby of old. No matter how much he improved.

dusk
04-22-2009, 04:26 AM
Thats not the point, a clay court specialist would never have been the favorite to win Wimby of old. No matter how much he improved.

How much do you know about tennis before Roger?

Frank Winkler
04-22-2009, 04:35 AM
I think at Wimbledon.
All of these four guys have an equal chance.
Nadal
Federer
Roddick
Murray
and
Djokovic is there as well
Roddick has great chance as long as he is not close to Federer in the draw.

guptaji
04-22-2009, 04:59 AM
How much do you know about tennis before Roger?

He doesn't know much of the facts; he is just bitter. Nadal has put him in his place -- time and again -- and yet here we go again with some ridiculous conspiracy theories of how grass is now like clay and so are hard courts. And how the world is out there to get Federer. Please wake up when you get a chance. No, Bush didn't plan 9/11 -- he just wasn't that smart.

Having said that, in my opinion Nadal is only marginally favored over Murray and Fed (and the born-again Djokovic?) to win Wimbledon.

Winners take all
04-22-2009, 05:03 AM
Thats not the point, a clay court specialist would never have been the favorite to win Wimby of old. No matter how much he improved.
Hey Sh!t Lord, don't u know that Bjorn Borg won Wimbledon 5 times?

vamosinator
04-22-2009, 05:04 AM
Thats not the point, a clay court specialist would never have been the favorite to win Wimby of old. No matter how much he improved.

But Nadal is a grasscourt specialist, he's made 3 straight Wimbledon Finals and beaten the 2nd greatest grasscourt player of all-time in 2008, and almost in 2007 too. So he is a claycourt specialist and a grasscourt specialist, much like Borg (and Nadal is the first player since Borg to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year).

ORGASMATRON
04-22-2009, 05:53 AM
How much do you know about tennis before Roger?

As much as i feel like.

Hey Sh!t Lord, don't u know that Bjorn Borg won Wimbledon 5 times?

Yes. Your point?

But Nadal is a grasscourt specialist, he's made 3 straight Wimbledon Finals and beaten the 2nd greatest grasscourt player of all-time in 2008, and almost in 2007 too. So he is a claycourt specialist and a grasscourt specialist, much like Borg (and Nadal is the first player since Borg to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year).

Only reasonable post. Although i must say grass is not what it used to be. Its almost laughable to think of Nadal in terms of a grass court specialist. Just shows how much the game has changed. Oh well.

vamosinator
04-22-2009, 06:42 AM
Well theres no other "claycourt specialists" doing well at Wimbledon, is there? So its not like today's grass is being made to suit claycourters.

Anyway, if you are The Greatest in the world then of course you'll always win Wimbledon and Roland Garros because your all-surface skills are the best in the world.

ORGASMATRON
04-22-2009, 06:54 AM
Well there isnt many clay court specialists around today. Nadal is basically theonly one i can think of. The game has changed in that sense as well, there used to be many clay court specialists. There isnt different surfaces anymore. Its al the same these days which makes things boring. Grass and clay was always supposed to be different from hard but there isnt much of a difference anymore. So a guy like Nadal can dominate without much variation in his game. I think tennis is sliding backwards. Its going back to the days where 3 out of the four slams was played on the same surface. They need to bring some variation back again to make things interesting once more. I dont think this is a great era for deciding on a GOAT. Maybe thats why Laver also did so well, everything was pretty much the same.

vamosinator
04-22-2009, 07:02 AM
Yeah a "guy like Nadal" can win both RG and Wimbledon, and the Aust Open, there is no other guy that can do it. So that doesn't suggest the 3 surfaces are playing all the same.

Otherwise Roddick would be going deep into the French Open the way he does at Wimbledon and US.

Otherwise Murray would be making Finals at Wimbledon. Djokovic would have made a slam Final on something other than hardcourt.

Point is, the surfaces are playing entirely different and making top players look nowhere near as versatile as Nadal. So ever stop to think that Nadal is actually doing this rather than the surface?

ORGASMATRON
04-22-2009, 07:13 AM
I wouldnt say the surfaces are playing entirely diferent. Everyone knows the surfaces are more the smae these days then it used to be. Roddick is a clay court mug cos he is American. Murray will soon do better at Wimby and the FO and Djoker have already made semis of both the FO and Wimby. Nuff said.

vamosinator
04-22-2009, 07:33 AM
If anything what Nadal is doing is harder than in the 90s when the Aust Open was very slow (and claycourt specialists did great every year and Sampras did noticeably worse than at other slams) and now it is a lot more similar to the US Open.

Winners take all
04-22-2009, 07:35 AM
@ Sh!t Lord:
Looks like Rafa's wins have damaged your tiny Fedchoker-haunted-brain. You bullsh!tted: "Thats not the point, a clay court specialist would never have been the favorite to win Wimby of old. No matter how much he improved." And I replied: "Hey Sh!t Lord, don't u know that Bjorn Borg won Wimbledon 5 times?" So what is there hard to understand? My point is very clear: how the fcuk could u say "a clay court specialist would never have been the favorite to win Wimby of old. No matter how much he improved." when Borg won 5 Wimbies and prior to his Wimby domination he had been a clay specialist with a couple of RGs and a dozen of clay titles? Did Borg not improve/evolve from a clay-courter into a clay-and-grass-terminator? I don't think so. In the past 3 years Nadal has been doing the same thing Borg did but has yet to reach Borg's level.

Venle
04-22-2009, 07:42 AM
It's kind of open.

Wouldn't be surprised though if Rafa wins.

ossie
04-22-2009, 08:42 AM
Thats not the point, a clay court specialist would never have been the favorite to win Wimby of old. No matter how much he improved.
unless your name is rafael nadal :cool:

finishingmove
04-22-2009, 08:50 AM
murray will win wimbledon

casabe
04-22-2009, 01:10 PM
Also, I find it extremely funny how people think Federer can beat Rafa on a slam again and consider him the favourite, citing reasons like "he's only lost one game on grass in the last five years".

And he lost it 9-7 in the fifth, he could have won it. For me Federer is still the player to beat on grass.
See it the other way...if Rafa loose in RG final in a long fifth set he would be the player to beat in the next edition, only loosing one match since 2005.

TheBoiledEgg
04-22-2009, 01:33 PM
what do you expect when he gets more topspin from grass courts than he does on clay :rolleyes:

he wouldnt have lasted a round in the 90's

guptaji
04-22-2009, 01:46 PM
And he lost it 9-7 in the fifth, he could have won it. For me Federer is still the player to beat on grass.
See it the other way...if Rafa loose in RG final in a long fifth set he would be the player to beat in the next edition, only loosing one match since 2005.

Federer would be in a better shape mentally had he lost last year's final in straight sets. What you're saying may make sense on paper but a narrow loss such as a fifth set 9-7 does more harm in the long run. I mean look at Guillermo Coria. He was such a promising player overall before he went completely downhill after unexpectedly losing the 2005 FO final in 5 sets. In that match, he had comfortably won first 2 sets and was leading in the third against a relatively unknown guy.

Bazooka
04-22-2009, 02:24 PM
This discussion is stupid.

The players that have made to the final rounds of Wimbledon in last years are fast court players, and rarely the same players that win in clay. Except Nadal and Federer.

Nadal knows how to slice, changes his footing in grass, and while not a natural volleyer, he's efficient at the net and maybe has the best passing shots ever. He's just good in grass. No matter how much you cry. It's true the bounce is a little higher and more regular than before, but this is still a fast surface.

vamosinator
04-22-2009, 03:51 PM
How do we define a natural volleyer? I see Nadal making freakish reflex volleys more than Federer, its hard even to remember the last time Federer made an impressive volley. Nadal is so sharp technically that his net game could well be the best in the world.

nkhera1
04-22-2009, 04:07 PM
what do you expect when he gets more topspin from grass courts than he does on clay :rolleyes:

he wouldnt have lasted a round in the 90's

You're being too generous.

Chris Seahorse
04-22-2009, 04:20 PM
Yes, Nadal is the favourite to win Wimbledon. But he is not an overwelming favourite. If Nadal lost at RG it would be one of the most shocking sporting results of the last decade, in any sport. If Nadal lost at Wimbledon it would be a surprise but nothing huge.

Or to put it another way, providing Nadal is healthy at the start of RG, the engraver can put his name in as the 2009 champion before the tournament even starts. The Wimbledon trophy engraver on the other hand will have to wait until after the tournament Final is has been completed and the players have shaken hands.

vamosinator
04-22-2009, 05:38 PM
^^ I agree Nadal is a heavier favorite at Roland Garros (as happens when you've only dropped one set in the last 2 years), but that doesn't mean he isn't the overwelming favorite at Wimbledon. Clearly only Nadal and Federer have a chance at Wimbledon, and recently Federer has been playing the worst tennis of his career (or worst since he reached the top 5). So if Federer can't get into decent form then it means Nadal is a lock to win Wimbledon. Wimbledon is a lot more predictable than the US or Australian Open, as there are only 2 great grasscourt players today:o

NadalSharapova
04-22-2009, 05:46 PM
Nadal is the overwelming favourite (biggest favourite of all time at any major) at RG.

Nadal is not as overwelming fav at wimbledon but still the solid favourite.

miura
04-22-2009, 05:57 PM
How do we define a natural volleyer? I see Nadal making freakish reflex volleys more than Federer, its hard even to remember the last time Federer made an impressive volley. Nadal is so sharp technically that his net game could well be the best in the world.
:haha:

ORGASMATRON
04-22-2009, 06:03 PM
:haha:

Seconded

Clay Death
04-22-2009, 06:07 PM
How do we define a natural volleyer? I see Nadal making freakish reflex volleys more than Federer, its hard even to remember the last time Federer made an impressive volley. Nadal is so sharp technically that his net game could well be the best in the world.

negative:

1. his technique/mechanics stink on volleys. he almost always tries to push the ball at the net rather than punching it confidently.

2. all those attempts at drop volleys is another indication that he cannot volley. he is somewhat adequate and that is the best i can say for his play at the forecourt.

for a top player, he is relatively weak at the net.

i am afraid i would have to fail him at the net. he gets a C and that is failing from my vantage point.

maki925
04-22-2009, 06:09 PM
NO!It's only one Christmas in a year:)

BaselineSmash
04-22-2009, 06:28 PM
Fed+Sleeveless=14th GS title.

Sapeod
04-22-2009, 06:52 PM
He will probably be favourite :rolleyes: Murray will win it :D

BTW I'm trying not to be biased :banghead:

ImmzB
04-22-2009, 06:54 PM
Dont forget Qureshi lol

NadalSharapova
04-22-2009, 06:54 PM
He will probably be favourite :rolleyes: Murray will win it :D

BTW I'm trying not to be biased :banghead:

Good to see you trying :), but not yet succeeding:sad:

Sapeod
04-22-2009, 06:58 PM
Good to see you trying :), but not yet succeeding:sad:
:sad:

Nichele Hull
04-22-2009, 07:12 PM
No

freestyler
04-22-2009, 07:18 PM
Surely yes

HattonWBA
04-22-2009, 08:56 PM
Yes. Nuff Said

ORGASMATRON
04-22-2009, 09:10 PM
5>1

Matt01
04-22-2009, 09:10 PM
That "claycourt-specialist" has overtaken King Federer even on hardcourts now. :haha:

Don't be bitter about it, Ruanz :hug:

NadalSharapova
04-22-2009, 09:13 PM
5>1

well 7 > 5. Whats your point?

so you think if sampras got a wildcard, he would be the fav? :rolleyes:

ORGASMATRON
04-22-2009, 09:14 PM
well 7 > 5. Whats your point?

so you think if sampras got a wildcard, he would be the fav? :rolleyes:

No, but he would beat NAdal.

NadalSharapova
04-22-2009, 09:16 PM
the scoreline last year at wimby flattered federer. this year should fed make it far enough, nadal will dismantle him in straights.

nadal is a grasscourt expert

finishingmove
04-22-2009, 09:19 PM
nadal is a grasscourt expert

this is true.

FedFan_2007
04-22-2009, 09:20 PM
Nadal is the favorite at ALL events from now on, so can we stop with these useless threads?

ORGASMATRON
04-22-2009, 09:22 PM
this is true.

And sad.

finishingmove
04-22-2009, 09:22 PM
Nadal is the favorite at ALL events from now on, so can we stop with these useless threads?

put your old avatar back. i miss it.

Bazooka
04-22-2009, 09:35 PM
negative:

1. his technique/mechanics stink on volleys. he almost always tries to push the ball at the net rather than punching it confidently.

2. all those attempts at drop volleys is another indication that he cannot volley. he is somewhat adequate and that is the best i can say for his play at the forecourt.

for a top player, he is relatively weak at the net.

i am afraid i would have to fail him at the net. he gets a C and that is failing from my vantage point.

In a typical match, his net points won stat is something like 8/10. Not many points, but a good percentage. He's not natural volleyer, but is smart and skilled enough to know what to do. Certainly above average, I would never rate him C nowadays, but yes, historically he can't be compared to true volleyers.

MalwareDie
04-22-2009, 09:50 PM
Mugboar will make a "shock" exit courtesy of Muller in the first round.

Ackms421
04-22-2009, 09:55 PM
Mugboar will make a "shock" exit courtesy of Muller in the first round.

If Muller gets through quallies...

PiggyGotRoasted
04-22-2009, 09:57 PM
If Muller gets through quallies...

And if he doesnt, King Oscar will beat nadal.

nkhera1
04-22-2009, 10:17 PM
And if he doesnt, King Oscar will beat nadal.

Yeah but that's not fair because we all know he could beat anybody. That's why we usually keep him out of the discussion. It's like saying well god could beat all of them. ;)

Greatness
04-22-2009, 10:19 PM
I see him as the favorite for Wimbledon.
Nadal defends better on grass than he does on hardcourts, so I don't see anyone hitting many winners against him.

To win against Nadal, you need to play aggressive tennis and be consistent. How many players on tour can do that? Federer & Djokovic & Murray. Both Federer and Djokovic are not at their best right now and unless that changes, Nadal is my favorite for any slam.

I don't see anyone else troubling Nadal right now.

It's going to take a monumental effort for any of those 3 to take out Nadal.

bobbynorwich
04-23-2009, 12:08 AM
Nadal is the favorite at ALL events from now on, so can we stop with these useless threads?

:confused:

Sapeod
04-23-2009, 12:10 AM
Nadal is the favorite at ALL events from now on, so can we stop with these useless threads?
Yes. Stop these useless threads. We don't need another Nadal thread. It's clogging up MTF :o