What are the odds that Rafa will win all 4 Grand Slams this year? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What are the odds that Rafa will win all 4 Grand Slams this year?

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-28-2009, 03:35 PM
I would say about 60% probability.

Rafa hasn't lost a set at the AO and will be winning.

RG on clay he is the best ever.

Wimbledon should be easy as there are no grass players

US is the only tough one and the reason I dont give a 80% probabily.

What probability do you assign to Rafa winning all 4 GS?

Collective
01-28-2009, 03:37 PM
0%

groundstroke
01-28-2009, 03:38 PM
All depends on Federer, if he isn't such a pussy then Nadal will not win Aussie Open, Wimbledon or US Open.

Acer
01-28-2009, 03:39 PM
lol

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-28-2009, 03:40 PM
All depends on Federer, if he isn't such a pussy then Nadal will not win Aussie Open, Wimbledon or US Open.

Federer has normally been a pussy when he sees Nadal on the other side of the net.

tennizen
01-28-2009, 03:41 PM
Mods please delete this thread

q.j.
01-28-2009, 03:42 PM
he doesn't have Olympics this year
so USO will be good for taking :yeah:
wonderful thread RFK

i would say that your odds aren't fair enough
i'll give him 89% :clap2:

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-28-2009, 03:43 PM
Mods please delete this thread

Why, Nadal has the best odds of all the players to win all 4 GS. What is wrong with discussing those odds?

Please explain your illogical beliefs.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 03:44 PM
0,3%

GlennMirnyi
01-28-2009, 03:45 PM
Betfair odds: -85.45

Xristos
01-28-2009, 03:46 PM
0%

Feds is gana win AO and Wimbly for sure.

q.j.
01-28-2009, 03:47 PM
0,3%

+/- 0.3% of standard deviation, yes.

groundstroke
01-28-2009, 03:47 PM
Federer has normally been a pussy when he sees Nadal on the other side of the net.

All comes back to that match in 2004 in Miami when Nadal beat him 6-3 6-3, if only that didn't happen..

But then when you see a mug like Simon push Nadal around, you wonder about Verdasco... And what if Federer is in God-mode in the final?

marcRD
01-28-2009, 03:48 PM
Federer has normally been a pussy when he sees Nadal on the other side of the net.

No, it is just a bad matchup for Federer. When I think about how bad this matchup is and how he has faced him 10 times on clay I must say 12-6 is still a good record. Take that match in Rome 2006 or Miami and the 3 wimbledon matches. I think Federer has fought hard against someone whose strengths plays to Federers weakness and most of the time he needs to play it on Nadals best surface which is Federers worst surface.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-28-2009, 03:48 PM
All comes back to that match in 2004 in Miami when Nadal beat him 6-3 6-3, if only that didn't happen..

But then when you see a mug like Simon push Nadal around, you wonder about Verdasco... And what if Federer is in God-mode in the final?

Has Federer ever been in God-mode against Nadal :confused:

Henry Kaspar
01-28-2009, 03:49 PM
Small. Competition is too strong, and his knees too suspect.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 03:50 PM
Has Federer ever been in God-mode against Nadal :confused:

Yes, in Rome.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-28-2009, 03:51 PM
Yes, in Rome.

How can you call someone in God-mode when they lose. The statement seems illogical.

rofe
01-28-2009, 03:51 PM
Mods please delete this thread

Why? I think RFK has actually created a valid thread. Nadal is looking ominous after dispatching dangerous players like C. Rochus, R. Karanusic, Haas, Gonzalez and Simon. Verdasco will bend over for his God, Andy is too passive and Roger is washed up.

I think Nadal will derive courage from Laver watching his matches in the Rod Laver stadium and win his first of many AO titles. RG and Wimbly is already in the bag. The US Open is a lot tougher due to its poor scheduling in the later half of the year but after winning three majors, Nadal will get inspired and win the final in five tight sets.

groundstroke
01-28-2009, 03:51 PM
Has Federer ever been in God-mode against Nadal :confused:
For a set or two, last set of Wimbledon 2007 final, ATP Hamburg 2007 final last set, first set Wimbledon 2006, other than that... not much.

Question is how will Federer be able to handle Nadal's high forehand to his BH?

And since the roof is closed and it is very humid, it makes flat hitting more efficient, and top spin is less effective.

safinafan
01-28-2009, 03:52 PM
Why not? Everything is possible and i believe in miracles! :lol:

Henry Kaspar
01-28-2009, 03:57 PM
Mods please delete this thread

Why do people go whining to the mods whenever they read something that doesn't please them? This is disgusting.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-28-2009, 04:01 PM
Why do people go whining to the mods whenever they read something that doesn't please them? This is disgusting.

Federer fans normally dont like it when another player has a chance to do well.

Never really understood why :confused:

marcRD
01-28-2009, 04:07 PM
How can you call someone in God-mode when they lose. The statement seems illogical.

God would also struggle against Nadal on clay.

Sebby
01-28-2009, 04:09 PM
I would say 60% too. The guy is a fucking beast.

miura
01-28-2009, 04:09 PM
I would say about 60% probability.

Rafa hasn't lost a set at the AO and will be winning.

RG on clay he is the best ever.

Wimbledon should be easy as there are no grass players

US is the only tough one and the reason I dont give a 80% probabily.

What probability do you assign to Rafa winning all 4 GS?
60%? Are you nuts? That's just wishful thinking. If you do an mathematical assessment of the odds with variables like Rafa's form and h2h records against probable title-contender I can guarantee you a substantial lower odds than 60%.

Andi-M
01-28-2009, 04:11 PM
(1/128)^3 x 0.25 = 0.0000001186

scarecrows
01-28-2009, 04:11 PM
Yes

Albop
01-28-2009, 04:11 PM
1.01

Commander Data
01-28-2009, 04:14 PM
What are the odds that you are an idiot? Your signature says Quittovic is a Spartan. Hence, the odds that you are an idiot are close to 100 %



BTW: An objective estimation on Rafa winning all Slams would likely be under 10 %.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 04:15 PM
0,05 (USOPEN) x 0.25 (Wimbledon) x 0,98 (French Open) x 0,5 (Australian open)= ca 0,006=0,6%

Federers odds are:

0,6 (USOPEN) x 0,65 (Wimbledon) x 0,01 (French Open) x 0,4 (Australian Open)= ca 0,0016=0.16%

Just for fun:

Roddicks odds are:

0,04 (Australian Open) x 0,01 (US OPEN) x 0,01 (Wimbledon) x 0,00001 (French Open)=0,00000000004= 0,000000004%

A_Skywalker
01-28-2009, 04:15 PM
8-9% . Somewhere around there.

adingh
01-28-2009, 04:19 PM
Rafa hasn't lost a set at the AO and will be winning.

But he still hasn't met any decent player on hard ;) I mean Federer or Murray.

Bazooka
01-28-2009, 04:21 PM
The chances are,

Winning the AO= 90% of reaching final, 70% of winning final = 63%

Winning RG = 99%

Winning Wimbledon = 50%

Winning USO = 15%

So multiply it all and there you have it. A whooping 4,6% chance, given that you believe the completely made up numbers above.

However many studies have proved that made up numbers work just as well as real numbers.

Exactly 57 studies in case you wonder. (yeah, from Dilbert...)

marcRD
01-28-2009, 04:25 PM
The chances are,

Winning the AO= 90% of reaching final, 70% of winning final = 63%

Winning RG = 99%

Winning Wimbledon = 50%

Winning USO = 15%

So multiply it all and there you have it. A whooping 4,6% chance, given that you believe the completely made up numbers above.

However many studies have proved that made up numbers work just as well as real numbers.

Exactly 57 studies in case you wonder. (yeah, from Dilbert...)

You gave him good odds.

Bazooka
01-28-2009, 04:27 PM
You gave him good odds.

Good made up odds, yeah.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 04:31 PM
Good made up odds, yeah.

He wouldnt beat Tsonga or Murray this year in wimbledon and probably not even Federer. So 50% is just overestimating his chances, I gave him 25% because I think he has 50% in the final against Federer and 50% to get to the final.

15% for him to win USOPEN is also kind of absurd, he is less of a favorite than Djokovic, Murray, Federer and maybe even Tsonga and should get tired when he gets to semifinal in that tournament and has to face these players. I would say he has a 15% chanse to get to a final and 5% to win the whole thing

superslam77
01-28-2009, 04:39 PM
:hysteric: if this happens you have permission to end my misery :wavey:

The_Nadal_effect
01-28-2009, 04:45 PM
Why? I think RFK has actually created a valid thread. Nadal is looking ominous after dispatching dangerous players like C. Rochus, R. Karanusic, Haas, Gonzalez and Simon. Verdasco will bend over for his God, Andy is too passive and Roger is washed up.

I think Nadal will derive courage from Laver watching his matches in the Rod Laver stadium and win his first of many AO titles. RG and Wimbly is already in the bag. The US Open is a lot tougher due to its poor scheduling in the later half of the year but after winning three majors, Nadal will get inspired and win the final in five tight sets.

Ditto. :worship:
I also believe he'll get Wimbledon done in straights this time. Besides, 4 additional stars on his babolat bag would look classy.

Diprosalic
01-28-2009, 04:49 PM
Has Federer ever been in God-mode against Nadal :confused:

never seen the match but 6-4 6-1 in shanghai in 2007 souns not bad.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 04:50 PM
never seen the match but 6-4 6-1 in shanghai in 2007 souns not bad.

He was better in rome IMO.

Henry Kaspar
01-28-2009, 04:51 PM
0,05 (USOPEN) x 0.25 (Wimbledon) x 0,98 (French Open) x 0,5 (Australian open)= ca 0,006=0,6%

Federers odds are:

0,6 (USOPEN) x 0,65 (Wimbledon) x 0,01 (French Open) x 0,4 (Australian Open)= ca 0,0016=0.16%

Just for fun:

Roddicks odds are:

0,04 (Australian Open) x 0,01 (US OPEN) x 0,01 (Wimbledon) x 0,00001 (French Open)=0,00000000004= 0,000000004%

Assuming that these probabilities are independent.... ;)

The_Nadal_effect
01-28-2009, 04:53 PM
never seen the match but 6-4 6-1 in shanghai in 2007 souns not bad.

Not forgetting that TMF bageled Nadal in Wimbly 2006:cool:

marcRD
01-28-2009, 04:54 PM
Assuming that these probabilities are independent.... ;)

I like to make my own odds, but you should not think I invent odds from thin air. I play alot and win alot of money in tennis and soccer by making my own odds and then playing against the odds in betfair.

I overestimated Roddicks chanses in French Open I should add. His chances are less than 0,00001. His chances in a potential final against Nadal is already 0,001 and in a semifinal against Federer his odds would be less than 0,01 so only to win these 2 matches you have odds around 0,00001. His odds to get to a semifinal should be less than 0,01 and in total his chanse to win RG is less than 1 in 10 milion. Kind of like winning the lottery.

Primus
01-28-2009, 05:01 PM
He wouldnt beat Tsonga or Murray this year in wimbledon and probably not even Federer. So 50% is just overestimating his chances, I gave him 25% because I think he has 50% in the final against Federer and 50% to get to the final.


Why wouldn't he exactly?

marcRD
01-28-2009, 05:03 PM
Why wouldn't he exactly?

I said wrong, I think he is not the favorite in a match against either Murray or Tsonga in Wimbledon. He could beat them, but I would bet on Tsonga and Murray. Federer-Nadal is 50-50 in wimbledon.

ORGASMATRON
01-28-2009, 05:06 PM
<0

rofe
01-28-2009, 05:08 PM
Ditto. :worship:
I also believe he'll get Wimbledon done in straights this time. Besides, 4 additional stars on his babolat bag would look classy.

As much as it pains me to say this, you may be right. :sad:

GlennMirnyi
01-28-2009, 05:12 PM
The chances are,

Winning the AO= 90% of reaching final, 70% of winning final = 63%

Winning RG = 99%

Winning Wimbledon = 50%

Winning USO = 15%

So multiply it all and there you have it. A whooping 4,6% chance, given that you believe the completely made up numbers above.

However many studies have proved that made up numbers work just as well as real numbers.

Exactly 57 studies in case you wonder. (yeah, from Dilbert...)

70% of winning the final? :lol:

Wimbledon 50%? A lightning bolt doesn't fall in the same place twice.

USO is more like 0%.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 05:17 PM
Wimbledon 50%? A lightning bolt doesn't fall in the same place twice.



3 times it has fallen in the Wimbledon final. So, your allegory fails.

The_Nadal_effect
01-28-2009, 05:21 PM
As much as it pains me to say this, you may be right. :sad:

After he does 5 consecutive RGs, lets hope he gets a purse.:devil:

ORGASMATRON
01-28-2009, 05:32 PM
Look i dont wana burst your bubble but we might just see a different Fed yhis year. And im not talking about the old Fed, im talking about a Fed that wants to break all the records and that is going to show a lot of fight and desire. I might be wrong but if he takes the AO look out. Then he might be the one that wins all 4 majors...

groundstroke
01-28-2009, 05:33 PM
never seen the match but 6-4 6-1 in shanghai in 2007 souns not bad.

try to watch it somewhere, federer's serving in that match was unbelievable

GlennMirnyi
01-28-2009, 05:36 PM
3 times it has fallen in the Wimbledon final. So, your allegory fails.

He shouldn't be in any of them. What's your point?

groundstroke
01-28-2009, 05:37 PM
Look i dont wana burst your bubble but we might just see a different Fed yhis year. And im not talking about the old Fed, im talking about a Fed that wants to break all the records and that is going to show a lot of fight and desire. I might be wrong but if he takes the AO look out. Then he might be the one that wins all 4 majors...

No matter how good Federer is, it would take something exceptional to win the French Open. Aussie, Wimbledon and US Open - he is favourite to beat Nadal, but at the French Open, Federer would have to... change his personality and his game when he faces Nadal.

ORGASMATRON
01-28-2009, 05:38 PM
try to watch it somewhere, federer's serving in that match was unbelievable

Good point. If Fed serves like he did against DP and he ends up laying Rafa in the final it will be straights in favor of Fed.

rofe
01-28-2009, 05:38 PM
Wimbly is basically a slow-medium HC nowadays.

Henry Kaspar
01-28-2009, 05:41 PM
Wimbly is basically a slow-medium HC nowadays.

And you conclude this from...... exclusively the fact that Nadal did well there, I guess?

marcRD
01-28-2009, 05:42 PM
He shouldn't be in any of them. What's your point?

My point is that you should find a better allegory. A lighting bolt doesnt fall in the same place 3 times, no matter how it "should be". If a lighting bolt hits your head 3 times you should be worried it could hit you again.

groundstroke
01-28-2009, 05:42 PM
Good point. If Fed serves like he did against DP and he ends up laying Rafa in the final it will be straights in favor of Fed.
fed's backhand has to be solid, he must handle nadal's forehand, lucky for federer the match will be in the night when it's very humid, so hitting flat is better while topspin isn't as effective as it is in the day. federer must hit a hard, but reliable backhand against nadal

and that would be enough to beat him, everything else federer has over him

Arkulari
01-28-2009, 05:47 PM
Rafa will win RG and probably Wimby, AO is a possibility, but I don't really see him taking the USO ;)

rofe
01-28-2009, 05:52 PM
And you conclude this from...... exclusively the fact that Nadal did well there, I guess?

No, everything is not about Nadal. Wimbly introduced a different mix of grass in 2001 and with that came a different kind of soil that over the years has resulted in a truer bounce.

This means that as time passed, slices on this surface have become less effective. Grass used to be a completely different surface with unpredictable bounce and slices that had a lot of bite. It used to reward players that could deal with the strange bounce and with effective slices. That is no longer the case and that is shame.

GlennMirnyi
01-28-2009, 05:52 PM
My point is that you should find a better allegory. A lighting bolt doesnt fall in the same place 3 times, no matter how it "should be". If a lighting bolt hits your head 3 times you should be worried it could hit you again.

Lightning bolt = winning in that case.

ORGASMATRON
01-28-2009, 05:56 PM
fed's backhand has to be solid, he must handle nadal's forehand, lucky for federer the match will be in the night when it's very humid, so hitting flat is better while topspin isn't as effective as it is in the day. federer must hit a hard, but reliable backhand against nadal

and that would be enough to beat him, everything else federer has over him

Well actually the day is faster conditions but id prefer them playing at night. About the backhand i agree, but i think that falls into place when the serve is doing well. Bottom line is if he plays like he did againts DP s over for Rafa, cos his serve and backhand was on fire.

Henry Kaspar
01-28-2009, 05:58 PM
No, everything is not about Nadal. Wimbly introduced a different mix of grass in 2001 and with that came a different kind of soil that over the years has resulted in a truer bounce.

This means that as time passed, slices on this surface have become less effective. Grass used to be a completely different surface with unpredictable bounce and slices that had a lot of bite. It used to reward players that could deal with the strange bounce and with effective slices. That is no longer the case and that is shame.

Thanks. Nice reply.

Mansave_75
01-28-2009, 06:58 PM
Nadal can win AO, RG is 100% of him in next 2-3 years, and Wimby is the second most properly stage to his game, I'm agree with others US Open it's probably the most difficult Slam for him to win it.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 07:04 PM
Lightning bolt = winning in that case.

In that case I am a genius because I knew exactly where the lighting bolt would fall last year at Wimbledon.

Magus13
01-28-2009, 07:06 PM
What are the odds that RFK is and idiot. I put that at 100%

marcRD
01-28-2009, 07:09 PM
What are the odds that RFK is and idiot. I put that at 100%

Nothing is 100%, maybe he is intelligent but has the strange hobby of playing an idiot in tennis forums. I think Glenn is that kind of person, he says so much stupid shit that he himself doesnt belive at all.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-28-2009, 07:09 PM
What are the odds that RFK is and idiot. I put that at 100%

If I called another poster idiot, I would be banned. Dont be hypocrites mods, dont let your Fedtard bias mess up your judgement.

Arent you one of the people who said Fed would win the Golden Slam last year, ladies and gentlemen you have your idiot.

My intellectual capabilities are so much greater than you lowly Fedtards. Bow down to the light.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 07:13 PM
If I called another poster idiot, I would be banned. Dont be hypocrites mods, dont let your Fedtard bias mess up your judgement.

Arent you one of the people who said Fed would win the Golden Slam last year, ladies and gentlemen you have your idiot.

My intellectual capabilities are so much greater than you lowly Fedtards. Bow down to the light.

Well, intellectual capabilities my ass. You call Djokovic a spartan, now that is like calling Scarlett Johansson fugly. Except that even a blind man knows Djokovic is no spartan while he cant possibly know if Scarlett is beautiful or not.

Ivanatis
01-28-2009, 07:13 PM
50 % Aussie Open
45 % Wimbledon
90 % French Open
30 % US Open

means roughly 6 %

Magus13
01-28-2009, 07:15 PM
If I called another poster idiot, I would be banned. Dont be hypocrites mods, dont let your Fedtard bias mess up your judgement.

Arent you one of the people who said Fed would win the Golden Slam last year, ladies and gentlemen you have your idiot.

My intellectual capabilities are so much greater than you lowly Fedtards. Bow down to the light.

I didn't call you and idiot, I just was asking for the odds. I was mistaken and I stand corrected. I put it at 150%.
And by the way I don't "bow down". Thats what the Spartans did to eachother in the barracks if you know your history.

FedFan_2007
01-28-2009, 07:21 PM
Mods please delete this useless thread.

FedFan_2007
01-28-2009, 07:22 PM
Well, intellectual capabilities my ass. You call Djokovic a spartan, now that is like calling Scarlett Johansson fugly. Except that even a blind man knows Djokovic is no spartan while he cant possibly know if Scarlett is beautiful or not.

She's ok in a "meh" kind of way. Not stunning by any means. Very plain looking.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 07:25 PM
She's ok in a "meh" kind of way. Not stunning by any means. Very plain looking.

I kind of question a man's heterosexualism when he talks like that about stunning women.

FedFan_2007
01-28-2009, 07:27 PM
I kind of question a man's heterosexualism when he talks like that about stunning women.

If you saw her w/o all the makeup and glorification in "Lost in Translation", you'd know she's a very plain looking woman.

marcRD
01-28-2009, 07:32 PM
If you saw her w/o all the makeup and glorification in "Lost in Translation", you'd know she's a very plain looking woman.

Ok, you decide what girl I should have used instead of Scarlett who looks stunning without makeup and everything. I cant wait to hear who you would have chosen. I first wrote Laetitia Casta, but then I think most dont know her, so it must be someone really famous.

nobama
01-28-2009, 07:36 PM
http://ui08.gamespot.com/1735/failed_2.jpg

MalwareDie
01-28-2009, 07:47 PM
http://ui08.gamespot.com/1735/failed_2.jpg

:yeah:

So much fail... Nadal has less than 0% chance of winning all four slams.

gmak
01-28-2009, 07:57 PM
he won't win all 4 slams this year, but I'm 100% sure he will have all 4 slam titles soon, something Roger will never have :shrug:

kinda like Pete and Andre ;)

Pete won multiple slams (bar RG) and Andre fewer but 4/4 ;)

RagingLamb
01-28-2009, 11:38 PM
what's the point of this thread? He hasn't even made it to the final of AO yet.

GlennMirnyi
01-28-2009, 11:58 PM
In that case I am a genius because I knew exactly where the lighting bolt would fall last year at Wimbledon.

How much money did you get betting on that? I'm sure that you cashed on your geniality, right?

Nothing is 100%, maybe he is intelligent but has the strange hobby of playing an idiot in tennis forums. I think Glenn is that kind of person, he says so much stupid shit that he himself doesnt belive at all.

:rolleyes:

As if saying Nadull should win Wimbledon EVER is a sign of intelligence.

It was just luck beyond description and Federer being completely dumb and useless.

philosophicalarf
01-29-2009, 12:10 AM
Odds say: 2.2*2.65*1.44*3.5 = 29.38

In other words, a fraction under 3% (after juice).

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 12:33 AM
< Nole :)

peterparker
01-29-2009, 12:40 AM
Odds say: 2.2*2.65*1.44*3.5 = 29.38

In other words, a fraction under 3% (after juice).


Not bad at all, pretty soon we will be able to drop the 2.2!

juninhOH
01-29-2009, 01:33 AM
Looooooollllllllllllllllllllllllll Quittovic Ahhaueiorroasdforokrofroflroflorl

Ivanatis
01-29-2009, 01:36 AM
Looooooollllllllllllllllllllllllll Quittovic Ahhaueiorroasdforokrofroflroflorl

you ok mate? :scared:

Sebby
01-29-2009, 02:02 AM
you ok mate? :scared:

MTF overdose.

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 02:11 AM
<you :lol:

marcRD
01-29-2009, 06:02 AM
How much money did you get betting on that? I'm sure that you cashed on your geniality, right?

I didnt want to bet because I cant watch a match with conflicting interests. I want Federer to win, but bet on Nadal? This way I would be sad with whatever the outcome of the match would be.



:rolleyes:

As if saying Nadull should win Wimbledon EVER is a sign of intelligence.

It was just luck beyond description and Federer being completely dumb and useless.

Predicting tennis results doesnt take that much intelligence, only some common sense and knowledge of the game. I also predicted that Nadal would go to semifinal in the US open and the year before that in Wimbledon 2007 I predicted he would be defeated in 5 sets against Federer.

So, I made some good predictions with Nadal involved over the years. I consider myself good at betting in sports, but for me to consider myself intelligent would require other qualities than beeing good at predicting tennis results.

nsidhan
01-29-2009, 06:17 AM
100% chance that it will be 0% ;)

habibko
01-29-2009, 07:49 AM
the odds are pretty much the same odds Nole had to win his golden slam last year.

Has Federer ever been in God-mode against Nadal :confused:

to name a few:
Hamburg 2007 final set
TMC 2007 all match

FedFan_2007
01-29-2009, 08:36 AM
Roger has been in god-mode:

2005 Miami final - 4th and 5th sets
2006 Dubai final - 1st set
2006 Rome final - 1st set
2006 French final - 1st set
2006 Wimbeldon - 1st & 4th sets
2006 TMC semi
2007 Hamburg - final set
2007 Wimbledon - final set
2007 TMC semi - 2nd set

habibko
01-29-2009, 11:09 AM
Roger has been in god-mode:

2005 Miami final - 4th and 5th sets
2006 Dubai final - 1st set
2006 Rome final - 1st set
2006 French final - 1st set
2006 Wimbeldon - 1st & 4th sets
2006 TMC semi
2007 Hamburg - final set
2007 Wimbledon - final set
2007 TMC semi - 2nd set

:yeah:

marcRD
01-29-2009, 11:16 AM
Roger has been in god-mode:

2005 Miami final - 4th and 5th sets
2006 Dubai final - 1st set
2006 Rome final - 1st set
2006 French final - 1st set
2006 Wimbeldon - 1st & 4th sets
2006 TMC semi
2007 Hamburg - final set
2007 Wimbledon - final set
2007 TMC semi - 2nd set

You missed Rome 4th set, that is one of the greatest sets I have seen from him.

FedFan_2007
01-29-2009, 11:23 AM
Unfortunately no god-mode for Roger in 2008. :sad: