Peter Bodo.. Finally some resemblance of Sanity and objectiveness [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Peter Bodo.. Finally some resemblance of Sanity and objectiveness

SetSampras
02-10-2010, 07:36 PM
by Pete Bodo

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2010/02/tk-4.html

Homeless Rafa:


I see that the news out of the Rafael Nadal camp, via uncle Toni, is good: Rafa is getting insoles to wear, which is a good thing. I learned the hard way (three foot surgeries) that very few people really walk properly, and almost everyone can avoid some measure of discomfort or injury by using custom orthopedic insoles. Sure, they're a pain to move around from shoe to shoe, and impossible to wear with certain kinds of footwear, but you figure it out. And you can skip wearing them altogether at reasonable intervals. There's my PSA for today.

But back to Rafa. One of my big takeaways from the Australian Open and the performance Roger Federer put on was that no matter what he or anyone else said, Rafa was in his head - as deeply embedded as a piece of shrapnel - until the unexpected events of last spring, starting at Madrid. For as Rafa has appeared to become vulnerable and suddenly less than picador perfect, Federer seems to have flourished. It's almost like the guy can breath deeply and freely again, or like a judge has just thrown out a legal action that had been brought against him. Since Federer won the French Open last June, he's looked like a man with a new lease on life. Is it coincidence that this occurred at the same time that Rafa hit the first serious roadblocks in his career?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Federer spent last winter and spring sitting around, picking his cuticles, fretting over the threat represented by Nadal. And Roger always bridled at the idea that Rafa was in his head. That wasn't surprising; Federer is the greatest player of all time, do you imagine a guy in that position has no pride?

But the way Federer has looked - not just as a ball-striker, but as a presence and personality - suggests that Rafa definitely had a pied a terre somewhere between Roger's ears, even if it wasn't his official permanent residence. Federer has looked nothing less than liberated. Until Rafa comes back and hurts Federer again, he's going to be just another rival (and even if he does hurt Federer again, Roger probably will continue to describe him that way), and one who's run into serious obstacles in pursuit of his goals for the first real time. It's a pity. Helluva player, that Rafa. Nice guy, too. Phew!!!

All of this makes a certain amount of sense, for the Federer vs. Nadal rivalry has many more layers and complications than did, say, the Laver-Rosewall, McEnroe-Borg, or the even Sampras-Agassi competition. It's all pretty nicely summed up by that oh-so-deceptive head-to-head advantage enjoyed by Nadal.

That 13-7 edge may be the most un-representative H2H figure ever generated by by two great players, although that doesn't at all diminish the truth of it. Nine of those 13 wins by Nadal have been on clay, the surface on which he's not only overshadowed Federer, but towered over him in a way that Federer cannot match on any surface of his choice. Remove those nine "gimmes" and Federer is 7-4, a statistic that may give him a no less a significant edge than the actual H2H, but one that also underscores the true danger that Nadal represented even without his clay-court advantage - a menace that was only coming to full bloom when Nadal was laid low by injury.

That nine-match advantage had enormous repercussions - among them, Federers's failure to secure a clay-court Grand Slam title until 2009. If tennis history stopped right now, this much could be said: the only man who was able to win a title at Roland Garros during the Nadal era was Federer, but he was only able to do it with Nadal absent from the draw. That was a good effort by Federer. The guy can play on clay, but let's face it, he's no Adriano Panatta. You may recall that Panatta was the only man ever to beat Bjorn Borg at Roland Garros, and he did it twice - including a quarterfinal in 1976, after which Panatta went on to take the title. There's no real or imagined asterisk alongside that one, as there is beside Federer's Roland Garros triumph.

I'm not trying to yank the chain of Federer fans here; I just want to add another argument to the case that the Federer vs. Nadal rivalry is curiously and in some ways irritatingly asymmetrical. Until 2008, it could hardly even be called a rivalry in any meaningful sense, beyond the fact that it featured the top two players in the world. Nadal owned clay, Federer owned everything else. It was less a rivalry than the division of the empire - three parts to Federer, one to Nadal. It's too bad that Nadal had to come up lame just when things were getting interesting.

Nadal's recent difficulties have thrown this emerging narrative into utter confusion, and there's a real chance that the glory days of Federer vs. Nadal are a thing of the past - a half-finished masterpiece that's as intriguing and suitable for launching furious debate as the half-finished movie of some famous director, or an incomplete painting. Let's face it, we didn't even come close to having a good Federer or Nadal? brawl during the Australian Open. Everyone watched, holding his or her breath, not quite believing that we could be so lucky once again.

And we weren't.

The big question going into the spring clay-court events in Europe (personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal takes a pass on at least one of the big upcoming hard-court events) will be whether Nadal can recapture anything close to the form he showed at those events through most of his career. You know that if Nadal plays anywhere close to the level of which he's shown himself capable, the Federer vs. Nadal theme will be re-ignited, and whatever happens at the French Open will really just be a table-setter for an ultimate showdown at Wimbledon.

Given the quality of the rest of the field, you'd have to be crazy to take it for granted that we can get back to where we once were in this rivalry. But the herky-jerky performance Andy Murray offered in Melbourne suggests that maybe this handful of promising contenders - Murray, del Potro, Djokovic, Cilic - are not as ready as some of us may think to challenge the two leading men.

I have a funny feeling none of those guys is looking forward to meeting a healthy Nadal on clay, and that nicely sets up a Rafa resurgence. Before you know it, we could find ourselves back where we left off in the early spring of 2009, although Nadal must be wondering if that space he so liked living in is still for rent.

serveandvolley80
02-10-2010, 07:37 PM
Sampras would have beaten those two handily.

rofe
02-10-2010, 07:43 PM
Bodo ghost wrote Sampras' autobiography. That information should tell you how objective he is. Hint: Not much.

Keep on trolling SetSampras.

SetSampras
02-10-2010, 07:45 PM
There was a direct correlation and coincidence between the two events. Obviously credit to Federer for taking advantage of it. But its not as though Fed scaped and clawed and overtook Nadal to grab the top spot and the slams back. It was Nadal going out injured. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong

scarecrows
02-10-2010, 08:09 PM
Finally some resemblance of Sanity and objectiveness

yes,
Federer is the greatest player of all time

martinatreue
02-10-2010, 08:58 PM
Ojectivity ;):p

-Valhalla-
02-10-2010, 09:32 PM
Overall a good piece by Bozo, but his insight into the Fed-Nadal injury dynamic isn't a revelation or anything new. Anyone with half a brain can see what Nadal does to the GOAT, and this is what makes their rivalry so fascinating and unique.

Let's hope a healthy Rafa can re-ignite The Rivalry :boxing: :yeah:

Sjengster
02-10-2010, 09:55 PM
There was a direct correlation and coincidence between the two events. Obviously credit to Federer for taking advantage of it. But its not as though Fed scaped and clawed and overtook Nadal to grab the top spot and the slams back. It was Nadal going out injured. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong

He had to win two Grand Slams to do it, and with a much tougher road to the titles than Nadal had when he did the RG-Wimbledon double the year before. He earnt them, and if Nadal at five years younger is more physically fragile than Federer, that's nothing the latter should feel guilty about.

Skyward
02-10-2010, 09:59 PM
:shrug:

16>14

16>6

Arkulari
02-10-2010, 10:50 PM
Bodo ghost wrote Sampras' autobiography. That information should tell you how objective he is. Hint: Not much.



AHA!!!! :devil:

SetSampras says it is sane and objective because it fits his agenda, if it wasn't then he would say that "anyway is not like he has much credibility" or something of the sort :o

Corey Feldman
02-10-2010, 11:31 PM
this much could be said: the only man who was able to win a title at Roland Garros during the Nadal era was Federer, but he was only able to do it with Nadal absent from the draw

what a f'in idiot this plonker is, absent from the draw?

its amazing how Nadal fanboys all have the same selective memory

Skyward
02-10-2010, 11:35 PM
what a f'in idiot this plonker is, absent from the draw?

its amazing how Nadal fanboys all have the same selective memory

Nadal losing in the QF/SF= absent from the draw

Federer losing = decline

marcRD
02-10-2010, 11:36 PM
I have nothing against Peter Bodo, most of MTF seem to have a deep disliking for his writting but I can enjoy his articles from time to time. I cant see him beeing wrong about anything in this article, the Nadal-Federer rivalry has been strange from the very start, 1st of all beautiful tennis is not the outcome of their meetings most of the time and 2nd the outcome used to be overly dependend on the surface they were playing. From 2008-2009 the rivalry started to take a different route where Nadal really belived he could take what belonged to Federer (Wimbledon, nr1 ranking, hardcourt slams) and Federer stopped believing he could take what belongs to Nadal (Roland Garros) and then like every good movie there was a new turn in Roland Garros 2009 where it turned out Nadal had been working too hard to challenge Federer for the nr1 spot and the big non-clay tournaments. As I previously said, strange thing this rivalry, where the 5 years younger upcoming contender gets burned out before the old veteran.

SaFed2005
02-10-2010, 11:39 PM
" If tennis history stopped right now, this much could be said: the only man who was able to win a title at Roland Garros during the Nadal era was Federer, but he was only able to do it with Nadal absent from the draw. That was a good effort by Federer. The guy can play on clay, but let's face it, he's no Adriano Panatta. "

I did not realize that Nadal was ABSENT from the draw, but okay.

luie
02-10-2010, 11:42 PM
Nadull absent from the draw.There goes bozo's credibility.
BTW he is a samprass fanboy go figure.

Sjengster
02-10-2010, 11:44 PM
Regardless of which fanbase he's annoying at any one time, Bodo's articles are just badly written, featuring some bizarre opinions and turns of phrase - I used to read his stuff quite regularly back in 2006, but then he started saying things like how Nadal represents the quiet but determined mentality of The Islander, or more recently how Nadal needed defeat at RG to turn him from a boy into a man, and other such cliched, nonsensical pap.

barbadosan
02-10-2010, 11:47 PM
]Nadal losing in the QF/SF= absent from the draw
[/B]
Federer losing = decline

lol. Seems poor Fed has not only to make sure he gets to the finals, but he's also supposed to play Rafe's games for him to make sure he gets there too. If there's going to be an asterisk over Federer winning without meeting Nadal, why bother with the other 6 rounds of the championship? Just send all the rest of the players home for a 2 week vacation, and hold one single match. :rolleyes:

SaFed2005
02-10-2010, 11:47 PM
2008 which was Nadal's best year was also Federer's worst year. Was it because Nadal was better or did he take advantage of the fact that Federer had mono? Was there a correlation there? Did Nadal only make it to #1 and won Wimby because Federer was having a bad year?

This kind of stupid argument can go vice-versa.

luie
02-10-2010, 11:51 PM
2008 which was Nadal's best year was also Federer's worst year. Was it because Nadal was better or did he take advantage of the fact that Federer had mono? Was there a correlation there? Did Nadal only make it to #1 and won Wimby because Federer was having a bad year?

This kind of stupid argument can go vice-versa.
Sadly its the younger guys who get cut all the slack with injuries & stuff but not the old man daddy fed. However one just has to read a few of his articles to reveal his agenda. PROTECT his idol from the big bad swiss.:rolleyes:

Corey Feldman
02-10-2010, 11:52 PM
he is a complete moron

he was slamming Henin comeback performance in reaching the Brisbane final because she is supposed to have had an easy draw and then ripped her for WD'ing from Sydney because she may have met Williams in 2R

this is the nonsense he comes out with

and stay tuned coz he usually saves some good shit for the Dubai tournament every year

marcRD
02-10-2010, 11:55 PM
Regardless of which fanbase he's annoying at any one time, Bodo's articles are just badly written, featuring some bizarre opinions and turns of phrase - I used to read his stuff quite regularly back in 2006, but then he started saying things like how Nadal represents the quiet but determined mentality of The Islander, or more recently how Nadal needed defeat at RG to turn him from a boy into a man, and other such cliched, nonsensical pap.

Yeah you are right, some of the things he writtes are just beyond silly but it just doesnt come in every article and he does make some valid points from time to time. Well, I mean I still think he is better than Wertheim, Reed and the rest of the guys you dont know how they got their jobs, if anyone knows a really good writter please mention it to me because I enjoy reading even the worst pieces about tennis (god should know, I read tardwars in MTF...)

Sjengster
02-10-2010, 11:56 PM
he is a complete moron

he was slamming Henin comeback performance in reaching the Brisbane final because she is supposed to have had an easy draw and then ripped her for WD'ing from Sydney because she may have met Williams in 2R

this is the nonsense he comes out with

and stay tuned coz he usually saves some good shit for the Dubai tournament every year

I must admit, I did get a little chuckle out of him transforming Henin's nickname from The Little Backhand That Could to The Little Backhand That Quit after the infamous AO 06 final, but he does seem quite a snippy character on a lot of issues - I suppose in one sense that's what you want from a good journalist, it's just that most of his writing lacks coherence.

Hurley
02-10-2010, 11:57 PM
Ojectivity ;):p

And semblance.

marcRD
02-11-2010, 12:00 AM
The worst tennis writter I have ever come across is Stefan Holm from swedish papper aftonbladet, he is worse than Reed as he only talks about Söderling all the time and he has been predicting Söderling will be nr1 for almost 5 years now. He thinks Söderling can beat anyone anywhere and its only a question of time before Söderling wins his 1st grand slam.

luie
02-11-2010, 12:00 AM
Regardless of which fanbase he's annoying at any one time, Bodo's articles are just badly written, featuring some bizarre opinions and turns of phrase - I used to read his stuff quite regularly back in 2006, but then he started saying things like how Nadal represents the quiet but determined mentality of The Islander, or more recently how Nadal needed defeat at RG to turn him from a boy into a man, and other such cliched, nonsensical pap.
Nadulls defeat at RG turned him from spartan to pansy.:sad:

Sjengster
02-11-2010, 12:03 AM
The worst tennis writter I have ever come across is Stefan Holm from swedish papper aftonbladet, he is worse than Reed as he only talks about Söderling all the time and he has been predicting Söderling will be nr1 for almost 5 years now. He thinks Söderling can beat anyone anywhere and its only a question of time before Söderling wins his 1st grand slam.

I don't suppose he also tagged Verdasco as The Future last year, did he, or happens to be the brother of the actor Ian Holm in the same way that Si is related to the late Oliver Reed? Just a thought.

Action Jackson
02-11-2010, 12:05 AM
Bozo hasn't written anything decent since the mid 80s.

marcRD
02-11-2010, 12:14 AM
I don't suppose he also tagged Verdasco as The Future last year, did he, or happens to be the brother of the actor Ian Holm in the same way that Si is related to the late Oliver Reed? Just a thought.

I really dont read him that much, but he reminds me of Simon Reed in the way he only likes to write about Söderling. Much like swedish "newspappers" (tabloids) imitate english tabloids, maybe he found inspiration in Simon Reeds writting. I cant decide which of them is worse, I laught alot more reading Reed so that gives his writting some value.

Persimmon
02-11-2010, 12:21 AM
I have nothing against Peter Bodo, most of MTF seem to have a deep disliking for his writting but I can enjoy his articles from time to time. I cant see him beeing wrong about anything in this article, the Nadal-Federer rivalry has been strange from the very start, 1st of all beautiful tennis is not the outcome of their meetings most of the time and 2nd the outcome used to be overly dependend on the surface they were playing. From 2008-2009 the rivalry started to take a different route where Nadal really belived he could take what belonged to Federer (Wimbledon, nr1 ranking, hardcourt slams) and Federer stopped believing he could take what belongs to Nadal (Roland Garros) and then like every good movie there was a new turn in Roland Garros 2009 where it turned out Nadal had been working too hard to challenge Federer for the nr1 spot and the big non-clay tournaments. As I previously said, strange thing this rivalry, where the 5 years younger upcoming contender gets burned out before the old veteran.


Fed-Nadal is the strangest/weirdest rivalry ever because Fed has won TEN more slams than Rafa:eek: Meanwhile the past rivalries were something else. Laver(11 slams) only won 3 more slams than his nemesis Rosewall(8 slams). Borg(11 slams) just won 4 more slams than his rival McEnroe(7 slams). Sampras(14 slams) won 6 more slams than rival Agassi(8 slams). So there was a difference of 3/4/6 slams between the previous rivals in tennis. Never a lopsided difference of 10 slams :o

Ariadne
02-11-2010, 12:30 AM
Fed-Nadal is the strangest/weirdest rivalry ever because Fed has won TEN more slams than Rafa:eek: Meanwhile the past rivalries were something else. Laver(11 slams) only won 3 more slams than his nemesis Rosewall(8 slams). Borg(11 slams) just won 4 more slams than his rival McEnroe(7 slams). Sampras(14 slams) won 6 more slams than rival Agassi(8 slams). So there was a difference of 3/4/6 slams between the previous rivals in tennis. Never a lopsided difference of 10 slams :o

Not to mention the only rivals with a 5-year age differential.

Persimmon
02-11-2010, 12:40 AM
Not to mention the only rivals with a 5-year age differential.

Exactly.

BigJohn
02-11-2010, 12:59 AM
But its not as though Fed scaped and clawed and overtook Nadal to grab the top spot and the slams back. It was Nadal going out injured. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong

Pretty much like a year earlier when Federer was diminished physically and Nadal got to #1.

federersforehand
02-11-2010, 12:59 AM
yeah weird, still fed is WAYYYY ahead of nadal, even on an age differential, nadal would have to win half the slams he entered from now till when he is 28 to even match federer XD

victory1
02-11-2010, 02:00 AM
what a f'in idiot this plonker is, absent from the draw?

its amazing how Nadal fanboys all have the same selective memory


I know. It was not Nadal at French Open draw last year or the Australian Open draw this year. So I keep hearing how he was absent from the tournament!;) :p

Poor Fed, not only he have to make sure he makes slam finals as that was not hard enough, but he need also to play Nadal's draw to make sure he gets there too!:rolleyes: Or it does not count!:p

wackykid
02-11-2010, 03:01 AM
AHA!!!! :devil:

SetSampras says it is sane and objective because it fits his agenda, if it wasn't then he would say that "anyway is not like he has much credibility" or something of the sort :o

i see...! so SetSampras = Bodo...!


regards,
wacky

RogerFan82
02-11-2010, 03:07 AM
Fuckin Bodo - Worser than some trolls on MTF.

Castafiore
02-11-2010, 08:20 AM
I see that the news out of the Rafael Nadal camp, via uncle Toni, is good: Rafa is getting insoles to wear, which is a good thing. I learned the hard way (three foot surgeries) that very few people really walk properly, and almost everyone can avoid some measure of discomfort or injury by using custom orthopedic insoles. Sure, they're a pain to move around from shoe to shoe, and impossible to wear with certain kinds of footwear
:rolleyes:
Good to see that Bodo still doesn't let a bit of research get in the way of his blog. Rafa has been wearing insoles for years.

Sunset of Age
02-11-2010, 08:28 AM
Bozo. :haha: At least get your facts right, buddy.
Completely losing it, but it's been like that for a while already.

Sophocles
02-11-2010, 12:50 PM
Frustrating thing about Bodo is that he seems to know nothing about the game. It's all pseudo-literary psychological speculation, scarcely any technical analysis.

And what's this bollocks about Federer being no Panatta? Err, okay, he had a beautiful game & I know he's the only man to beat Borg at R.G., but is that *in itself* decisive? Soderling's the only guy to have beaten *Nadal* at R.G., but would anybody in his right mind say Federer is no Soderling? Panatta won 7 clay titles including 1 R.G. (in which he beat Borg). He never reached another R.G. final. Federer has 9 clay titles including 1 R.G. & made 3 other finals at R.G. So surely Panatta is no Federer?

Federer=God
02-11-2010, 12:58 PM
Calling this article objective? LOL.

Neither objective nor remotely accurate.

Vida
02-11-2010, 05:16 PM
dodo.

lessthanjake
02-11-2010, 09:30 PM
There was a direct correlation and coincidence between the two events. Obviously credit to Federer for taking advantage of it. But its not as though Fed scaped and clawed and overtook Nadal to grab the top spot and the slams back. It was Nadal going out injured. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong

Nadal needed to play at an unsustainable level to be able to overshadow Federer. When other all time greats must destroy their bodies in order to get up to a level to beat you, you are still the GOAT even if you lost some matches.

delpiero7
02-11-2010, 10:29 PM
He had to win two Grand Slams to do it, and with a much tougher road to the titles than Nadal had when he did the RG-Wimbledon double the year before. He earnt them, and if Nadal at five years younger is more physically fragile than Federer, that's nothing the latter should feel guilty about.

Now that's just complete BS.

Nadal 2008

RG
QF: Almagro
SF: Djokovic
F: GOAT

Wimbledon
QF: Murray
SF: Schuettler
F: GOAT

Federer 2009

RG
QF: Monfils
SF: Del Potro
F: Soderling

Wimbledon
QF: Karlovic
SF: Haas
F: Roddick

At best you can say that their draws were equally easy. Nadal tards would argue that he had to beat 2 direct title contenders in both of his GS victories in 08 (Djoko and Fed in RG and Murray and Fed at Wimbledon). Although a Wimbledon semi-final featuring Schuettler was probably the biggest non-event in history.

In Federer's GS runs, the real main contenders had been cleared out of his way (Nadal and Djokovic in RG and Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and King Oscar at Wimbledon). Of course Federer could only beat who was in front of him, and credit to him that he did. But to suggest Federer had much tougher draws is laughable.