Bud Collins:Federer's loss is tennis' loss [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Bud Collins:Federer's loss is tennis' loss

WhataQT
06-12-2006, 05:18 AM
Federer's loss is tennis' loss
World No. 1 has dream of calendar Grand Slam dashed by nemesis Nadal

Roger Federer lost a chance at making history when his bid for a calendar Grand Slam was ended by a loss to Rafael Nadal in the French Open men's singles final, and so what could have been the year's biggest story in tennis has gone away, writes Bud Collins of MSNBC.com.

COMMENTARY
By Bud Collins
NBC Sports
Updated: 4:34 p.m. CT June 11, 2006


Bud Collins

PARIS - The French Open men's singles final could have been a magical moment for Roger Federer and the game of tennis -– as had he beaten Rafael Nadal, he would have won all four majors in a row, and if he had done that, he would have had a very good shot at winning a calendar Grand Slam this year.

A summer dream dashed
But it was not meant to be for Federer, at least not this year. So his name will not go down in history with the likes of Andre Agassi, Don Budge, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver, and Fred Perry as the only men to win all four majors at least once in their careers.

I’m certainly not going to take anything away from Nadal and his exceptional 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6 (7-4) win over Federer. And to be sure, it was a very nice moment for Spain and for Nadal, but it wasn’t a great moment for tennis.

There was the dream of a chase for the Grand Slam, and that would have brought great attention to the game. And Federer would have finally found his feet here on the clay which would have enabled him to do all those great things that a No. 1 player in the world is supposed to do.

All full credit to Nadal, but if this summer we would have been watching whether Federer could become the first player since Laver in 1969 to win the Grand Slam, it would have made for a very interesting summer.

I believe the Federer's loss in Paris is a big loss to the game as far as public attention for the sport.

Approach, errors spell defeat
Federer was very disappointing today. I saw him play in the clay final in Rome just a few weeks ago, and he had two match points on Nadal. He played the Spaniard aggressively in that Italian Open title tilt, and he came so close to winning.

I believed that Federer could repeat that kind of play at Roland Garros, and that the bigger stage and his experience would have worked in his favor.

But he didn’t attack Nadal in the match today. And just look at the amount of errors he posted in the match -– 51. That’s nearly double the 28 errors that Nadal had in the three hour, two minute match.

The crowd was virtually praying and pleading with Federer to come through. At one point when he broke even to 5-all in the fourth set, the crowd even stood trying to urge Federer to continue his success.

Pressure tough to deal with
I think this loss is very demoralizing for Federer because I have no doubt that he had his sights set on the Grand Slam. He wasn’t shy about talking about it, Laver was talking about; everybody was talking about it.

I actually think that put too much pressure on Federer, and he was hopeless out there against Nadal -– he was shanking balls everywhere on the court.

The key game where the world No. 1 lost it all was the fourth game of the third set. Federer had Nadal down 0-40 on his serve, but couldn’t convert on that opportunity.

And to make matters worse he allowed Nadal to break his serve in the very next game. That was basically the end of Federer at this Roland Garros. But that said, Federer will certainly go into Wimbledon as the favorite, and he’ll go into the U.S. Open as the favorite.

But his presence at those two majors won’t have the tingle it could have had if Federer had in Paris.

As for Nadal, what can I say but the kid is wonderful -– what an incredible player he truly is, and what a personality.

Paths may cross in next two majors
While we won’t see a Federer-Nadal match on clay until next year, we could have other encounters between these two during the remainder of this year.

Nadal has a 6-1 record over Federer lifetime, and he’d like to keep building on that. Now I doubt that we’d see them in the final at Wimbledon although the kid says he wants to win Wimbledon one day.

And you have to admire that since most of the Spanish and Latin players only show up at Wimbledon to play the grass out of duty.

I do see a possibility that Federer and Nadal could play at the U.S. Open if the draw falls right for Nadal.

The casual sports fan sees Nadal’s record over Federer, and that he’s beaten him all four times they’ve played this year, and says, “To heck with the rankings, if this kid keeps beating Federer, he’s the No. 1 player in the world."

I actually think that has some merit -– it’s hard to argue against that theory. Coming off the French Open, Nadal is the best player in the world, even though he's ranked No. 2.

Of course, when the surface changes, things are more than likely to shift Federer's way. I believe Federer will win Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. But I also think this Spanish kid is a dynamo, and just an extraordinary player and so pleasant.

You can tell he really enjoys everything about playing the game and living his life. And not only is that great for him, it's great for tennis.

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

atheneglaukopis
06-12-2006, 05:28 AM
“To heck with the rankings, if this kid keeps beating Federer, he’s the No. 1 player in the world."

I actually think that has some merit -– it’s hard to argue against that theory.
*sigh* Not really.

admiralpye
06-12-2006, 05:44 AM
It's almost as if he's saying Nadal should have rolled over and let Federer win it. :D lol! I found this article surprisingly "fanboy" for someone of Bud Collins' caliber.

I appreciate he's a Federer fan, but this sounds more like a depressed diary entry than a sports article. What's with the woulda-coulda-shoulda?

Even as he's analyzing what went wrong, there's a pervading sense of a fan's bitter disappointment at his favorite's loss. I almost want to pat him on the shoulder and say, "There, there."

Plus, this is hardly a catastrophe for Federer. His ranking is solid as ever. And he owns the grasscourt circuit. And isn't everyone saying how he has more years of dominance left in him yet?

admiralpye
06-12-2006, 05:45 AM
And I think as a tennis fan, I appreciate the rivalry and "shared dominance" between Roger and Rafa. It gives it more dimension and it's better for the game. There will be time yet for both players to break other records.

Phunkadelicious
06-12-2006, 05:48 AM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y18/svein_sveynsson/whine.gif

admiralpye
06-12-2006, 05:49 AM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y18/svein_sveynsson/whine.gif

LOL!

Phunkadelicious
06-12-2006, 05:50 AM
I believe the Federer's loss in Paris is a big loss to the game as far as public attention for the sport.


what a load of crap. Nadal has brought just as many new fans to the sport as Federer, if not more.

Allez
06-12-2006, 05:53 AM
I'm not so sure Wimbledon and the US Open are done deals for Federer this year. All depends on how quickly he can really move on from his first GS loss ever. Halle suddenly becomes a very important tournament. It will tell us a lot about Rogi's state of mind.

Mechlan
06-12-2006, 05:53 AM
There will be time yet for both players to break other records.

I think it's the failure to complete the Grand Slam (or Roger Slam) that Bud is mourning. Yes, other records will be broken, but I doubt achieving the Grand Slam will be one of them.

There, there, Bud. :angel:

16681
06-12-2006, 05:56 AM
Bud Collins wrote an article before the French Open and it said Roger would win. So that is Mr. Collins' problem he was wrong. I don't know why any writer would want to come right out and say a certain player is going to win a Final. It makes the writer look bad later if that certain player doesn't win so you get the type article that was quoted at the start of this thread.

Allez
06-12-2006, 05:57 AM
It can only get harder for Federer from here on out. He'll be 26 next year. He's racing against the clock. This year was a big opportunity missed.

Lourdes
06-12-2006, 06:06 AM
As a tennis fan, I won today.

khryss_20
06-12-2006, 07:19 AM
what a load of crap. Nadal has brought just as many new fans to the sport as Federer, if not more.

well said

blosson
06-12-2006, 07:40 AM
I’m certainly not going to take anything away from Nadal and his exceptional 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6 (7-4) win over Federer. And to be sure, it was a very nice moment for Spain and for Nadal, but it wasn’t a great moment for tennis.

A record breaking youngster stopping the best player in the world of breaking his own record wasn't great for tennis? :scratch:

khryss_20
06-12-2006, 07:54 AM
A record breaking youngster stopping the best player in the world of breaking his own record wasn't great for tennis? :scratch:


i know yea...i see tis as adding more excitement to tennis...and just how much fun wud it be if we only hav one guy winning it all....i personally dont lyk seeing one name over and over again as a winner in every tournament..for me nadal winning FO is great for tennis

connectolove
06-12-2006, 08:15 AM
posted by Almiralpye : "I appreciate he's a Federer fan, but this sounds more like a depressed diary entry than a sports article. What's with the woulda-coulda-shoulda?"

Well said


Originally Posted by Phunkadelicious
what a load of crap. Nadal has brought just as many new fans to the sport as Federer, if not more.

Right on!

Nadal has changed tennis for the better, not only by bringing lots of fans into it but also providing some "rivalry" (on clay clear dominance) with Fed. If Nadal was not around, the difference between Fed and the rest would be completely ridiculous. Now let´s hope that Nadal starts improving on other surfaces as well.

Bibberz
06-12-2006, 08:20 AM
I don't mind Federer getting the French Open--one day. Not to sound like a jerk, but I want it to be a long-term goal, like it was for Sampras, Becker, and Agassi (who was 29 when he finally got it). It's not the end of the world for Roger. As a tennis fan--not as a Rafa fan--I'm glad Roger didn't win Sunday. Besides, every "great one" should have a foil against whom his greatness can be measured. Borg had McEnroe and Sampras had Agassi. Without McEnroe and Agassi we might not fully understand the greatness of Borg and Sampras.

jmp
06-12-2006, 08:48 AM
Thank you for posting this article, WhataQT.

I'm surprised and mildly irritated with the U.S. media/commentators' reaction to this match. :( All the negativity from Bud, JohnnyMac, and Wertheim can't possibly help the sport with casual U.S. viewers who are already turned off because no Americans make it to the second week of the FO. So far Mary C. stands out in her ability to be objective and professional about the match. She made one cheeky comment near the end of the match. But, for the most part she seemed to show respect for both players throughout the match and during the aftermath.

I would like to read/hear more positive spins. I think Bud could have written an article praising both men for reaching the final. He could have touched on Rafa's improvements in his game and how that will effect his ability to compete on grass. This is a great victory for Rafa. But, Bud shouldn't fuel the myth that Rafa is the #1 player in the world. He could have reminded readers of Roger's vast accomplishments in the game. Roger should be lauded as a superior athlete who is still human. He has to conquer the clay and Rafa while taking on all other comers on other surfaces. There's hope and challenge for the future and I'm excited about it.

I believe that Bud was too hard on Roger and too dismissive of Rafa in this article.

Armada~121
06-12-2006, 09:21 AM
I respect Bud Collins and his legacy, and I knew that he has been around tennis for much more than the time I have been here on this earth, so it might be arrogant of me to criticize him. But if I had not known that these recent articles were written by him, I would have thought that it was some amateur fanboy's attempt on journalism.
IMHO, the logic in his RG articles is a bit off. For the most part, it seems more like wishful thinking than logical, well-supported analysis.

His mind and hope had been so single-mindedly focused on Federer and his "Grand Slam" mission that Mr. Collins lost sight on other things.

He first predicted that Federer would beat Nadal the next time they played. His logic was that, because Federer came so close to winning Nadal in Rome, he must be on the right track and would definitely overcome the Spaniard next time they meet. My first reaction to that line of thinking was that Mr. Collins seemed to underestimate Nadal and overlooked the fact that Nadal was a learning creature, too. Although Federer CAN definitely beat Nadal, it must be remembered that Nadal is not some kind of math equation passively waiting for Federer to resolve. On the other hand, the last time Nadal also saw what was it that made Federer came so close to beating him, and this time he must prepare the answer for that.
To me, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize that he cannot just stay still and let Roger use the same tactics to eventually beat him.

I can understand Bud's feeling. I think he particularly feels so disappointed because he has this "script" in his head which is pretty much Tolkien. Something like "the legend must be fulfilled by one man named Roger Federer, who would bring greatness back to ATP Middle Earth". When the script didn't play out like he had hoped, he thought it was a loss of tennis. His attempt to give Nadal credits at the end seems just like a PC crap that doesnt really mean anything.

I think if Bud has been more open, he might be able to see that there are also other dramatic scripts that make tennis as great and as interesting and his epic script for Federer. Like other posters have stated here, it can be a script of "Nadal ... Roger Federer's Achilles Heel" or "the battles of the extremes" etc. etc. If there aren't more things to tennis than The Grand Slam, there wouldnt be tennis as we know it today at all.

Deivid23
06-12-2006, 09:46 AM
Another example why many of the commentator´s opinions these days are worthless.

Viva Alex Corretja :lol:

Scotso
06-12-2006, 11:18 AM
I wish some of these people would at least try to hide their disappointment that their golden boy lost.

Tom_Bombadil
06-12-2006, 11:22 AM
I respect Bud Collins and his legacy, and I knew that he has been around tennis for much more than the time I have been here on this earth, so it might be arrogant of me to criticize him. But if I had not known that these recent articles were written by him, I would have thought that it was some amateur fanboy's attempt on journalism.
IMHO, the logic in his RG articles is a bit off. For the most part, it seems more like wishful thinking than logical, well-supported analysis.

His mind and hope had been so single-mindedly focused on Federer and his "Grand Slam" mission that Mr. Collins lost sight on other things.

He first predicted that Federer would beat Nadal the next time they played. His logic was that, because Federer came so close to winning Nadal in Rome, he must be on the right track and would definitely overcome the Spaniard next time they meet. My first reaction to that line of thinking was that Mr. Collins seemed to underestimate Nadal and overlooked the fact that Nadal was a learning creature, too. Although Federer CAN definitely beat Nadal, it must be remembered that Nadal is not some kind of math equation passively waiting for Federer to resolve. On the other hand, the last time Nadal also saw what was it that made Federer came so close to beating him, and this time he must prepare the answer for that.
To me, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize that he cannot just stay still and let Roger use the same tactics to eventually beat him.

I can understand Bud's feeling. I think he particularly feels so disappointed because he has this "script" in his head which is pretty much Tolkien. Something like "the legend must be fulfilled by one man named Roger Federer, who would bring greatness back to ATP Middle Earth". When the script didn't play out like he had hoped, he thought it was a loss of tennis. His attempt to give Nadal credits at the end seems just like a PC crap that doesnt really mean anything.

I think if Bud has been more open, he might be able to see that there are also other dramatic scripts that make tennis as great and as interesting and his epic script for Federer. Like other posters have stated here, it can be a script of "Nadal ... Roger Federer's Achilles Heel" or "the battles of the extremes" etc. etc. If there aren't more things to tennis than The Grand Slam, there wouldnt be tennis as we know it today at all.

Thank you very much for that great post. That pretty much expresses my opinion.

Neely
06-12-2006, 11:25 AM
Sure, the script would have been already written for Federer and a great moment of tennis history got denied by Nadal yesterday and very clear that some people have to moan about it ;)

joeb_uk
06-12-2006, 11:30 AM
Its no loss, everyone knew federer will have the hardest time of his life trying to win RG. I think these continual defeats will make it more interesting, and make federer work harder and want it even more. Because le So its probably a plus for tennis and makes it more interesting, I doubt roger is happy being owned and getting rinsed by nadal every time :devil:

connectolove
06-12-2006, 11:41 AM
posted by Armada 121 : "I respect Bud Collins and his legacy, and I knew that he has been around tennis for much more than the time I have been here on this earth, so it might be arrogant of me to criticize him. But if I had not known that these recent articles were written by him, I would have thought that it was some amateur fanboy's attempt on journalism.
IMHO, the logic in his RG articles is a bit off. For the most part, it seems more like wishful thinking than logical, well-supported analysis.

His mind and hope had been so single-mindedly focused on Federer and his "Grand Slam" mission that Mr. Collins lost sight on other things.

He first predicted that Federer would beat Nadal the next time they played. His logic was that, because Federer came so close to winning Nadal in Rome, he must be on the right track and would definitely overcome the Spaniard next time they meet. My first reaction to that line of thinking was that Mr. Collins seemed to underestimate Nadal and overlooked the fact that Nadal was a learning creature, too. Although Federer CAN definitely beat Nadal, it must be remembered that Nadal is not some kind of math equation passively waiting for Federer to resolve. On the other hand, the last time Nadal also saw what was it that made Federer came so close to beating him, and this time he must prepare the answer for that.
To me, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize that he cannot just stay still and let Roger use the same tactics to eventually beat him.

I can understand Bud's feeling. I think he particularly feels so disappointed because he has this "script" in his head which is pretty much Tolkien. Something like "the legend must be fulfilled by one man named Roger Federer, who would bring greatness back to ATP Middle Earth". When the script didn't play out like he had hoped, he thought it was a loss of tennis. His attempt to give Nadal credits at the end seems just like a PC crap that doesnt really mean anything.

I think if Bud has been more open, he might be able to see that there are also other dramatic scripts that make tennis as great and as interesting and his epic script for Federer. Like other posters have stated here, it can be a script of "Nadal ... Roger Federer's Achilles Heel" or "the battles of the extremes" etc. etc. If there aren't more things to tennis than The Grand Slam, there wouldnt be tennis as we know it today at all."

What a great post! I could not have put my thoughts in better words!

FSRteam
06-12-2006, 12:26 PM
I respect Bud Collins and his legacy, and I knew that he has been around tennis for much more than the time I have been here on this earth, so it might be arrogant of me to criticize him. But if I had not known that these recent articles were written by him, I would have thought that it was some amateur fanboy's attempt on journalism.
IMHO, the logic in his RG articles is a bit off. For the most part, it seems more like wishful thinking than logical, well-supported analysis.

His mind and hope had been so single-mindedly focused on Federer and his "Grand Slam" mission that Mr. Collins lost sight on other things.

He first predicted that Federer would beat Nadal the next time they played. His logic was that, because Federer came so close to winning Nadal in Rome, he must be on the right track and would definitely overcome the Spaniard next time they meet. My first reaction to that line of thinking was that Mr. Collins seemed to underestimate Nadal and overlooked the fact that Nadal was a learning creature, too. Although Federer CAN definitely beat Nadal, it must be remembered that Nadal is not some kind of math equation passively waiting for Federer to resolve. On the other hand, the last time Nadal also saw what was it that made Federer came so close to beating him, and this time he must prepare the answer for that.
To me, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize that he cannot just stay still and let Roger use the same tactics to eventually beat him.

I can understand Bud's feeling. I think he particularly feels so disappointed because he has this "script" in his head which is pretty much Tolkien. Something like "the legend must be fulfilled by one man named Roger Federer, who would bring greatness back to ATP Middle Earth". :haha: When the script didn't play out like he had hoped, he thought it was a loss of tennis. His attempt to give Nadal credits at the end seems just like a PC crap that doesnt really mean anything.

I think if Bud has been more open, he might be able to see that there are also other dramatic scripts that make tennis as great and as interesting and his epic script for Federer. Like other posters have stated here, it can be a script of "Nadal ... Roger Federer's Achilles Heel" or "the battles of the extremes" etc. etc. If there aren't more things to tennis than The Grand Slam, there wouldnt be tennis as we know it today at all.

Great post, honestly!!! :)

I'm a huge fed fan and I'm very dissaponted with the RG final result! I don't like nadal's game but I must admit this kid is amazing and totally deserves the title and everything he has achgived!!! Credit to him also for getting through hard times such as all the injures he suffered and to be back where he belongs! :worship:

I hope other players will come and be part of that in order to make other great tennis history chapters!

It'd be great if some of the new guns (gasquet, djokovic, monfils, del potro, korolev, monfils, wawrinka, etc, etc, etc...) as well as "old guns" (safin, hewitt, roddick, nalbandian, etc...) or even much older guns (henman, moya, agassi, etc...) could also get more attention in the tennis world and really start to compete with the N°1 and N°2... AGAIN!!!

star
06-12-2006, 01:55 PM
Bud Collins wrote an article before the French Open and it said Roger would win. So that is Mr. Collins' problem he was wrong. I don't know why any writer would want to come right out and say a certain player is going to win a Final. It makes the writer look bad later if that certain player doesn't win so you get the type article that was quoted at the start of this thread.

Bud analyzed the players well in the article where he predicted Federer's win, but the problem is that the match takes place between two men on a court. It those two players, how they are feeling, if one can impress his will on the other, small things, the way one handles either bad or good fortune. Those things can't be analyzed in advance. Although, in retrospect, Bud should have given Nadal the mental edge in the match.

Bud loves tennis history, and he wanted to be a witness to tennis history once again. He's disspointed for himself, I think, and not because he Federer's fan.

thrust
06-12-2006, 02:12 PM
I think Nadal^s win, especially after been crushed in the first set, was GREAT for tennis!! Many were getting bored with men^s tennis because of Roger^s dominance. Finally there seems to be another player with the physical and mental abilities of Roger. Until Nadal, Roger had second rate players, mentally at least,to defeat. Agassi, at 35, was his toughest competition at last years USO. Andre was tired after 3 five set matches and just ran out of gas after winning the second set. Andere giving Roger so much trouble is an indication the level of men^s tennis before Nadal got to the point of being able to defeat Roger. The same was true of Hingis when she was winning her slams. A healthy Graf and Seles would have dominated her, As the Williams sisters, Davenport, and Capriati did when they reached their peak.

DDrago2
06-12-2006, 02:23 PM
I don't agree with this article at all. I don't think that "Roger Slam" would make tennis anymore "in" than it is already, and I also don't think it is such a tragedy for Federer and tennis history that it didn't happen. I expecially don't feel that Federer would have some greater aura if he did it - we all know that he can do it, so it is more a matter of "happening". And when we are at it, maybe the most romantic would be that success to came in the late of his carrier.

Whatever, I expecially don't agree the part about Federer-Nadal rivalry. It is mostly happening on clay, since Nadal can't progress on faster surfaces, and therefore still doesn't have legitimacy as a rivalry between two best players. Nadal has a long way to go to be proclaimed for Fed's main rival. Is is unfair to froget so many other dangerous players who can trouble FEderer on faster courts.

Lady Natalia
06-12-2006, 02:29 PM
I don't agree with this article at all. I don't think that "Roger Slam" would make tennis anymore "in" than it is already, and I also don't think it is such a tragedy for Federer and tennis history that it didn't happen.


I agree, Roger winning RG would not boost tennis' status, esp. in the US. Nothing but an American winning the SLAM would do that. If Roger won RG it would be great him, his fans and tennis fans around the world were tennis is already either the most popluar or second to football (soccer). Roger will amaze non believers over the next few majors. What I wonder is will these morons like, Bud Collins, still be saying Nadal is the real number 1 after walks in to RG 2007 holding another 2 or 3 slams.

thrust
06-12-2006, 03:45 PM
Roger is the better hard court player, however, the two times they played on hard courts they split the wins. It took Roger 5 sets to beat Nadal in Miami last year, Rafa beat Roger in three sets in Dubai this year. Like it or not, Nadal gives Roger more trouble than any other player today and has the potential to overtake him in the near future.

admiralpye
06-12-2006, 04:18 PM
DDrago, Armada: agree with you both. I'm still scratching my head as to why he thinks this was a "loss" to tennis.

I'm sure Roger didn't think so. He's just 25, not 35...it's not as if this was his last shot!

gillian
06-12-2006, 05:02 PM
I must say that my estimation of Bud and his "commentary" has really gone down in the last 2-3 years. He used to objective. He used to make sense.

Alas, no more.

Take, for instance, his pedantic rant before the men's final about how it's wrong to refer to Majors as Grand Slams. First, I was thinking, technically, it's fine to refer to them as such, since each major is a component of the Grand Slam.

Then, I just thought, wow, this blowhard really needs to zip it.

My only comments on the above piece are these:

Saying Nadal's win was not a great moment for tennis was

a) wrong
b) uncalled for

So Federer won't win the Grand Slam. BFD. For one thing, he's going to keep trying. And more than that, he's not the first and won't be the last to try. So, Bud, shut it and deal.

Pressure tough to deal with
I think this loss is very demoralizing for Federer because I have no doubt that he had his sights set on the Grand Slam. He wasn’t shy about talking about it, Laver was talking about; [B]everybody was talking about it.

Psst, Bud, maybe you and everyone else should shut up about the GS until Roger actually wins it.

tangerine_dream
06-12-2006, 05:13 PM
Poor Rafa. He can't get any respect from the media.

I'd love to know how the commentators from Eurosport, BBC., etc. reacted to Nadal's win. On NBC, during the last two sets it was like a funeral procession listening to Johnny Mac and especially Mary Carillo: too busy mourning for Roger's loss and completely forgetting about Rafa's incredible win. When Rafa hit that last winner to clinch the title you could hear a pin drop. Mary even made a snippy comment during Rafa's acceptance speech.

Their crummy attitude (including Bud Collin's) is bad for tennis, if you ask me.

connectolove
06-12-2006, 05:20 PM
Great opinions here.

Allez
06-12-2006, 05:25 PM
Had Roger won RG and followed it up with a win @ Wimbledon, the build up to the US Open would have been phenomenal. Tennis would be grabbing headlines in the US summer hard court swing. That's what Bud is talking about. That and the fact that in our lifetime we'd have a player who has achieved a non calender grandslam. Unless you were around when this feat was last achieved, you cannot say how the media would have played such an historic event. I wasn't around when this last happened so I cannot objectively question Bud's opion. Personally I agree. Federer's loss is a loss for tennis. I would say the same thing if Rafa had won the USO, AO, RG and lost to Federer @ Wimbledon. This has got nothing to do with Nadal. It could have been anyone else.

MisterQ
06-12-2006, 05:28 PM
Poor Rafa. He can't get any respect from the media.

I'd love to know how the commentators from Eurosport, BBC., etc. reacted to Nadal's win. On NBC, during the last two sets it was like a funeral procession listening to Johnny Mac and especially Mary Carillo: too busy mourning for Roger's loss and completely forgetting about Rafa's incredible win. When Rafa hit that last winner to clinch the title you could hear a pin drop. Mary even made a snippy comment during Rafa's acceptance speech.

Their crummy attitude (including Bud Collin's) is bad for tennis, if you ask me.

Rafa had a record win streak on clay to keep alive. It is odd how his own great accomplishment was not exactly lauded by the American commentators.

nobama
06-12-2006, 06:41 PM
This was a loss to Bud Collins (and John McEnroe) who predicted Roger to win on Sunday.

alfonsojose
06-12-2006, 07:03 PM
:yawn: get over it, Buddy ;)

Federerhingis
06-12-2006, 08:26 PM
I'm not so sure Wimbledon and the US Open are done deals for Federer this year. All depends on how quickly he can really move on from his first GS loss ever. Halle suddenly becomes a very important tournament. It will tell us a lot about Rogi's state of mind.

Yup in fact his first match at Halle will be very revealing.

bandabou
06-12-2006, 09:22 PM
Not a loss to me. everybody gets what they deserve. I guess Nadal deserved it more than Roger..and clearly is Roger's achilles heel right now, specially on clay. Roger remains the more complete player because he can do it year in year out on ALL surfaces. But h2h Nadal owns Roger.

But I don't think we should start dismissing Roger this soon ( Wertheim even went so far as saying that Roger ain't even the best of his own era)...guy still remains dominating...has reached the final of the past FOUR majors, came within a match of winning a non-calendar grand slam..sure, Nadal has his number right now, but it remains to be seen that Nadal will ever post such amazing feats away from clay.

thrust
06-12-2006, 10:13 PM
The McEnroes and other American commentators have already annointed Roger as the greatest player of all time, which is now in doubt even to them due to the fact that he has such a losing record to Nadal. Roger has a great and stylish game, but to declare him the greatest of all time now is wrong. People, like McEnroe, should know better as Roger has a way to go to achieve the accomplishments of Sampras, Laver, Budge, or Borg. Rosewall, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Gonzales, among others have records equal to or superior to Roger^s.

dEcu_RF
06-12-2006, 10:33 PM
it's kind of sad to see history in the making being halted by some dirtballer who's so far failed to reach the second week at the other majors. I think the French Open deserve a true champion. Except Agassi in '99, the past winners in Paris haven't gone on to lift any of the other majors trophies, most of them even getting knocked out early.

mdhallu
06-12-2006, 10:35 PM
McEnroe was kissing up to Federer way too much during the French Open Final...during the whole first set he was building him up saying how he's the greatest and how Nadal can't handle the pressure of this big moment...haha i guess he spoke too soon. The thing about tennis is thats one of the few sports which requires you to be a fighter until the end...in other sports (soccer, basketball, football, baseball) if you are losing badly early on then it is pretty much apparent during the last 15 minutes of the game that you will lose, but not in tennis..Tennis requires no fear and in my opinion is one of the most psychological of all the sports because it requires you to actually beat your opponent until the very end...

denisgiann
06-12-2006, 11:00 PM
Far west:Federer against the ball retreaving machine.I really like Nadal and his fighting spirit.This guy fights for everything and plays with so much intensity.Thats why i think injuries will take toll of his game.Its inevitable.You cant trashing yourself like that and expect to last long.So Fed fans dont worry so much about Nadal.After maybe two years he would be like JCF.

amierin
06-12-2006, 11:27 PM
Poorly written, thinly disguised sour grapes and just plain horrid little article. Time for ol' Bud to go sit on a beach somewhere along with his pants and sip drinks with little umbrellas in them.

Yappa
06-12-2006, 11:35 PM
It can only get harder for Federer from here on out. He'll be 26 next year. He's racing against the clock. This year was a big opportunity missed.

Huh? He isnt even 25. He is still 24 AFAIK (too lazy to check his date of birth right now). Anyways, he has plenty of time left (at least 5-6+ years). Why shouldnt he be able to keep this level for those next years? Many others can (especially in other sports). Sure, there could be new good players. But as of now, theres nobody who could challenge him apart from Nadal this or next year.

I have the same opinion as many other ppl: its actually a good thing for the sport that he lost. He may win the Golden Slam instead in 2008. ;)

Bibberz
06-13-2006, 01:12 AM
The McEnroes and other American commentators have already annointed Roger as the greatest player of all time, which is now in doubt even to them due to the fact that he has such a losing record to Nadal. Roger has a great and stylish game, but to declare him the greatest of all time now is wrong. People, like McEnroe, should know better as Roger has a way to go to achieve the accomplishments of Sampras, Laver, Budge, or Borg. Rosewall, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Gonzales, among others have records equal to or superior to Roger^s.
To be fair, John McEnroe didn't say Federer was definitely the greatest ever:

"I was ready to put him at the top if he were to win this," seven-time Grand Slam winner John McEnroe said during the NBC telecast. "But he's got some work to do."

That was all Bud needed to say, but no, he had to write a whole damn article about "tennis' loss." Still, Bud's article wasn't half as bad as his interview with Nadal after the match. Bud's Spanish made me appreciate Nadal's English.

admiralpye
06-13-2006, 05:25 AM
Had Roger won RG and followed it up with a win @ Wimbledon, the build up to the US Open would have been phenomenal. Tennis would be grabbing headlines in the US summer hard court swing. That's what Bud is talking about. That and the fact that in our lifetime we'd have a player who has achieved a non calender grandslam. Unless you were around when this feat was last achieved, you cannot say how the media would have played such an historic event. I wasn't around when this last happened so I cannot objectively question Bud's opion. Personally I agree. Federer's loss is a loss for tennis. I would say the same thing if Rafa had won the USO, AO, RG and lost to Federer @ Wimbledon. This has got nothing to do with Nadal. It could have been anyone else.

I hear what you're saying. At some level, what you say makes sense.

But Bud Collins certainly wasn't saying these things in particular. He was more focused on how "great tennis could be" IF his favorite, Roger Federer, had completed his NCGS.

I'm sorry, but one person dominating the whole circuit is not exciting for the sport. People who aren't interested in tennis will glance at the rankings and the matches, and take it for granted because there's not much of a challenge with only one man winning it ALL.

It would be historic and great for ROGER FEDERER, for sure, if he had won his NCGS, but certainly not for tennis as a sport, as it will only reinforce other people's perceptions that this sport doesn't have mcuh room for exciting challenges and rivalries.

(Even as a Rafa fan, I wouldn't want TOTAL dominance for Rafa as well, because that would mean the playing field has not raised its standards to face current challenges.)

Bud Collins trying to rationalize his fanboy disappointment by talking about tennis history and its greatness as a sport was thinly veiled and disappointing, to say the least.

Volley Art
06-13-2006, 05:35 AM
Bud's point that Roger's bid for the calendar GS is a loss for the game is well taken.

However, it's hard to argue that the confirmation of Nadal as a force in the game of tennis and a true foil to Federer's dominance is anything but great. How can anyone say tennis is boring and stuffy after watching his flying fist pumps? Tennis is a sport that thrives on rivalries, and these two have the makings of a great one.

Are you telling me the promise of Roger and Rafael in Flushing Meadows doesn't excite you, Bud? Sure, the anticipation of the first calendar GS in our lifetimes would be amazing. But is that one-time shot or a long-term deal ultimately better? I he's a little shortsighted here.

niko
06-13-2006, 05:58 AM
Bud Collins and Mats Vilander are full of shit, they must have lost a chunk of money on betting.

Allez
06-13-2006, 06:03 AM
Huh? He isnt even 25. He is still 24 AFAIK (too lazy to check his date of birth right now). Anyways, he has plenty of time left (at least 5-6+ years). Why shouldnt he be able to keep this level for those next years? Many others can (especially in other sports). Sure, there could be new good players. But as of now, theres nobody who could challenge him apart from Nadal this or next year.

I have the same opinion as many other ppl: its actually a good thing for the sport that he lost. He may win the Golden Slam instead in 2008. ;)
Uhm...Federer was born in 1981. 8th of August to be exact. So in 2007 he'll be turning 26 :eek: :eek: :eek: As you get older you get slower and your timing goes. Sure won't happen next year, but next year Rafa will only be 21 :eek: :eek: :eek:

The Golden Slam!!! Don't even get me started on that!! :D That would right so many wrongs (last Sunday included) :D

ExpectedWinner
06-13-2006, 06:29 AM
How can anyone say tennis is boring and stuffy after watching his flying fist pumps? Tennis is a sport that thrives on rivalries, and these two have the makings of a great one.



The naive part in me wants to believe that people are not watching tennis because of fist pumps. Besides, there's no rivalry at the moment.

Volley Art
06-13-2006, 07:01 AM
The naive part in me wants to believe that people are not watching tennis because of fist pumps. Besides, there's no rivalry at the moment.

My point was that Nadal is exciting to watch, that his energy is infectious. It's like Tiger in golf; people love to see him throw that fist after a putt. It's part of the package. And there is a rivalry. It's not a competitive one, but it's there. Federer-Nadal is a match that people want to see, that people get excited for. That, to me, is a rivalry, even if the record is about 500-1 currently.

CmonAussie
06-13-2006, 07:41 AM
I don't mind Federer getting the French Open--one day. Not to sound like a jerk, but I want it to be a long-term goal, like it was for Sampras, Becker, and Agassi (who was 29 when he finally got it). It's not the end of the world for Roger. As a tennis fan--not as a Rafa fan--I'm glad Roger didn't win Sunday. Besides, every "great one" should have a foil against whom his greatness can be measured. Borg had McEnroe and Sampras had Agassi. Without McEnroe and Agassi we might not fully understand the greatness of Borg and Sampras.
:wavey:
David :cool: mate, this is an excellent post :worship: .Your spot on! I really would like to see Federer win the French Open at some point in his career but if he can pull it off a couple of years later then it will just add to legacy of the achievement. Agassi finally finally pulling it off in 1999 is a defining moment in his career & the respect for him grew from that. If he`d done it in the 1990 or 1991 finals then it wouldn`t have been the same. Seeing Roger struggle to overcome the final hurdle makes for intriguing viewing :angel: .Likewise eveyone anticipates the day that Nadal will either lose at the FO &/or win one of the other Slams. Having two great players in a given era~ ie. a duopoly, as a opposed to a monopoly, can only be a good thing for tennis :D !

admiralpye
06-13-2006, 08:21 AM
The naive part in me wants to believe that people are not watching tennis because of fist pumps. Besides, there's no rivalry at the moment.

Not on grass and hard courts yet, I'm afraid. But on clay the Fed-Rafa rivalry has been great for the game. :)

J. Corwin
06-13-2006, 08:47 AM
Cry me a fuckin Reine river.

nobama
06-13-2006, 11:07 AM
Not on grass and hard courts yet, I'm afraid. But on clay the Fed-Rafa rivalry has been great for the game. :)Um, Roger has lost to Nadal all 4 times they played on clay. What kind of rivalry is that?

adee-gee
06-13-2006, 12:26 PM
Bud Collins : If I shutup, it would be tennis' gain.

MariaV
06-13-2006, 12:28 PM
Um, Roger has lost to Nadal all 4 times they played on clay. What kind of rivalry is that?
Naah. :hug: It's still a rivalry. And it's good for tennis IMO. Hopefully they'll meet more on hard courts soon too.

nobama
06-13-2006, 01:10 PM
Naah. :hug: It's still a rivalry. And it's good for tennis IMO. Hopefully they'll meet more on hard courts soon too.Is Roger being 10-1 against Roddick a rivalry? The only reason it's called a rivalry and "good for tennis" is because finally someone is beating Fed and he's not dominating all the time. It is good for Fed because it will motivate him to keep improving. But prior to the rise of Nadal there was one player dominating and now we have two. I guess two is better than one, but if you're not really a Fed or Nadal fan would you consider it "good for tennis"?

admiralpye
06-13-2006, 01:11 PM
Um, Roger has lost to Nadal all 4 times they played on clay. What kind of rivalry is that?

Sorry, I thought that the wonderful rallies and show of skill from either player in Monte Carlo and Rome have upped the ante for the sport. Imagine, two players consistently reaching the finals, and challenging each other in gripping 5-setters! (except for RG, anyway).

This is way more exciting than, say, Nadal pummeling a hapless finalist from start to finish. Roger has really given the fight of his life during the claycourt season and showed dimensions to his game previously unseen.

Both players are challenged by each other and have both improved mainly because of each other. These are the things great rivalries are made of. But it's just beginning.

star
06-13-2006, 01:41 PM
Far west:Federer against the ball retreaving machine.I really like Nadal and his fighting spirit.This guy fights for everything and plays with so much intensity.Thats why i think injuries will take toll of his game.Its inevitable.You cant trashing yourself like that and expect to last long.So Fed fans dont worry so much about Nadal.After maybe two years he would be like JCF.

Well, yes! There's the bright ray of optimism and cheer. Maybe in two years Nadal will be injured and sick just like JCF. That should make every Fed fan's day. :p :p :p

admiralpye
06-13-2006, 02:49 PM
Is Roger being 10-1 against Roddick a rivalry? The only reason it's called a rivalry and "good for tennis" is because finally someone is beating Fed and he's not dominating all the time. It is good for Fed because it will motivate him to keep improving. But prior to the rise of Nadal there was one player dominating and now we have two. I guess two is better than one, but if you're not really a Fed or Nadal fan would you consider it "good for tennis"?

Of late, the Roddick-Federer matches haven't been exciting because Federer has gotten to the level where he doesn't need to worry about Roddick so much on grass. But this isn't the case with Fed-Rafa on clay. Fed has seriously raised his game on clay, and posed a serious challenge to Rafa for their past few matches.

I think that's what makes it exciting; that's what makes it a rivalry.

ExpectedWinner
06-13-2006, 03:12 PM
Of late, the Roddick-Federer matches haven't been exciting because Federer has gotten to the level where he doesn't need to worry about Roddick so much on grass. But this isn't the case with Fed-Rafa on clay. Fed has seriously raised his game on clay, and posed a serious challenge to Rafa for their past few matches.

I think that's what makes it exciting; that's what makes it a rivalry.

Heh. Imagine that Nadal's monkey Blake starts making finals on all surfaces and beats him 5 times in a row. I doubt that it would have been seen as a rivalry by many people here. When players trade wins, then it's a rivalry. Pigeons don't make it. Besides, I don't think that the overall level of clay court tennis has been greatly improved this year. Fed makes an astronomical amount of forced/unforced errors in every match with Nadal. Sure, tennis at its best. I've seen far more exciting match ups on clay.

And yeah, Nadal is not worried about Federer on clay (his PR friendly statements can't fool me). In fact, we all know that Nalbandian is his most dangerous rival. ;)