Australian Open 2017

Rjd2

Stevecw wrote: »

It seems to work for her. Very impressive win there, thought Konta would be a serious test for her, but won it easily. Flying along still at 35 & no signs of slowing down.... can't see anyone beat her now.

Aye very impressed with Serena so far, its been a pretty tricky draw bar one or two lightweights.

Today I fancied Konta, but that was a beatdown. Lucic probably beats her now:pac:

Coco if she clicks could push her, but she is very volatile.

Floppybits

Raonic loses 3 break points to win the set.

Gwynplaine

Nadal playing very well. I don't think we'll ever see him back to his very best.
2 sets up on Raonic.
Why is Nadal wearing hotpants? Surely he can afford a bigger shorts, and one that the lining doesn't ride the arse off him after every point. His pre shot routine is painful, how has nobody pulled him up on it? He takes forever to take a shot.
His got a good job done with the plugs too.

Jan_de_Bakker

Nadal saved about 19 set points there.

Jesus ... he will just never ever go.

Ever.

NoviGlitzko

Rafa is reverting back to his old moonballing tactics this match and it's working against Raonic who seems to be imploding a bit. A DF on set point on your own serve and missing an easy forehand straight after is just not good enough.

Burial.

Great to see Rafa playing at a high level again. Fedal would appear to be still on.

SlickRic

Straight sets.

Brilliant big match tennis. Won all the major points.

Just brilliant stuff.

walshb

Nadal wins...Super stuff. It's Dimitrov now. He has to be favoured here. Love to see Nadal go all the way now. What a freaking competitor. Fed, if he makes it should pull out of the final vs. Nadal. He hasn't a hope.

Floppybits

Wawrinka will win this tournament now. He has the all round game to beat those left in the tournament. If Federer wins and don't think he will, then I would be hoping that Dimitrov beats Nadal because I just cant see Federer beating Nadal.

walshb

Floppybits wrote: »

If Federer wins and don't think he will, then I would be hoping that Dimitrov beats Nadal because I just cant see Federer beating Nadal.

The bookies feel the same as they now (probably rightfully) have Nadal as the tournament favourite.

walshb

The ATP site is crap....They don't have the schedule of play for the semis in the men's.

Floppybits

Thats because it is an Open. You have to go to the Aussie site. Can't believe Federer is favorite to beat Wawrinka?

NoviGlitzko

All OHBH's left in the draw, Nadal probably can't believe his luck.

How the remaining matches are now:

Nadal >> Dimitrov - Nadal will just serve out wide and moonball to to the OHBH.

Nadal > Federer - Will be closer but same result as above and should they meet will have had perfect practice in the match-up vs. Grigor.

Wawrinka >> Nadal - Better baseliner, & moonballs won't effect the backhand rhythm.

So basically if Wawrinka makes it to the final he's a big favourite in my eyes and if Federer wins Nadal is. I would place it 55-45 in favor of Nadal between the latter. Roger will have a real shot if the courts remain fast & are unaffected by the weather. If they are slow he hasn't a hope because Nadal will revert to the wall defense and push his way to victory.

walshb

Floppybits wrote: »

Thats because it is an Open. You have to go to the Aussie site. Can't believe Federer is favorite to beat Wawrinka?

Thanks, got it. Fed/Stan tomorrow not before 1930 hrs local time. So morning time for us tomorrow.

NoviGlitzko

walshb wrote: »

Thanks, got it. Fed/Stan tomorrow not before 1930 hrs local time. So morning time for us tomorrow.

8:30am here

qwabercd

Floppybits wrote: »

Thats because it is an Open. You have to go to the Aussie site. Can't believe Federer is favorite to beat Wawrinka?

If you just google Australian open 2017, the google homepage has the schedule.

Chivito550

Had Zverev not got cramp at Advantage up in that very long service game at 2-2 in the 5th in the third round, he may well have won and we'd all be taking about the further demise of Rafa. Now I can't see him failing to win the thing. Small margins.

I want Roger to win the tournament but don't want Rafa to, so I'm a bit torn for tomorrow's semi final, knowing a Wawrinka win is the only way Nadal won't win the title. I'm torn.

Threw 20 on Rafa a couple days ago at 7/2 to soften the blow in case the unthinkable happened. Worst case scenario pints are on Rafa.

Burial.

Would be great if Rafa won after all the sh*t he's gone through in recent years. It's a win win for tennis that Murray or Djokovic won't win the first slam of the year anyway. Things were looking awful ominous for a while. Wawrinka quietly doing his thing on course for a slam win in four successive years.

Chivito550

Burial. wrote: »

Would be great if Rafa won after all the sh*t he's gone through in recent years. It's a win win for tennis that Murray or Djokovic won't win the first slam of the year anyway. Things were looking awful ominous for a while. Wawrinka quietly doing his thing on course for a slam win in four successive years.

I don't believe a Rafa win is ever a good thing for the sport, in the same way Carmelita Jeter winning a 100m race is never a good thing for athletics.

walshb

If Roger does get to meet Rafa let's hope we don't get another shameful display should he lose like in 2009, crying like someone had wiped out his whole family.

NoviGlitzko

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don't believe a Rafa win is ever a good thing for the sport, in the same way Carmelita Jeter winning a 100m race is never a good thing for athletics.

+1

Nadal will do what he does best, grind high percentage moonballs to Federer's BH and wait for the error. This style of play winning over attacking tennis is something that I can't celebrate.

I think Federer will have a good shot should they meet though. Just depends on how he is timing the ball on the day, his serve on crucial points, and not to have a brainfart game where he is broken to love or something with no first serves in which he has been doing in his later years.

Chivito550

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

+1

Nadal will do what he does best, grind high percentage moonballs to Federer's BH and wait for the error. This style of play winning over attacking tennis is something that I can't celebrate.

I think Federer will have a good shot should they meet though. Just depends on how he is timing the ball on the day, his serve on crucial points, and not to have a brainfart game where he is broken to love or something with no first serves in which he has been doing in his later years.

His style of tennis wasn't what I was referring to.

WickIow Brave

Chivito550 wrote: »

His style of tennis wasn't what I was referring to.

People always refer to this, and while I would be pretty sceptical of him myself, the thing I can't understand is if it is true is why do Federer, Murray etc. not treat him with utter contempt? Federer went to Mallorca for the opening of Nadal's tennis academy. Would you do that if that person had denied you multiple Grand Slams through unethical means? Surely the mere mention of his name would make you sick? Strange one.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don't believe a Rafa win is ever a good thing for the sport, in the same way Carmelita Jeter winning a 100m race is never a good thing for athletics.

Back to your paranoid nonsense.

SlickRic

The hate Rafa gets is ridiculous.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

If Roger does get to meet Rafa let's hope we don't get another shameful display should he lose like in 2009, crying like someone had wiped out his whole family.

That comment says more about a douchebag like you than it does about Federer.

walshb

SlickRic wrote: »

The hate Rafa gets is ridiculous.

Most because he kicks Roger's ass 8/10 times, and almost always on the big stage.

walshb

WickIow Brave wrote: »

People always refer to this, and while I would be pretty sceptical of him myself, the thing I can't understand is if it is true is why do Federer, Murray etc. not treat him with utter contempt? Federer went to Mallorca for the opening of Nadal's tennis academy. Would you do that if that person had denied you multiple Grand Slams through unethical means? Surely the mere mention of his name would make you sick? Strange one.

Because there is no actual evidence to say Nadal is acting wrong. There's a lot of talk and suspicions and links to this article and that article, but isn't there always with some folks. Usual BS. I have always said that Nadal is not doing things that humans like him cannot do. He's no different than several other great athletes. If anything Roger would be more on my radar, and I think Roger is a stand up honest competitor.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Most because he kicks Roger's ass 8/10 times, and almost always on the big stage.

Head to head is 23-11, and skewed by Rafa's dominance on clay. Away from clay he holds a slender 10-9 lead. Federer actually punished himself in this head to head by consistently being the number 2 player in the world on clay, making clay finals constantly and losing to Rafa.

Rafa on the other hand was never consistently number 2 on other surfaces. He never made the US Open final (and many other hard court finals) during Federer's dominance from 2005-2008 (2005 being the year Rafa emerged and 2008 being Fed's last US Open victory. in fact Rafa couldn't make the final in 2009 either when Roger was lurking again). Roger was deprived of victories during this time against Rafa because of Rafa's inability to make hard court finals.

People also forget that there's 5 years between them. I'm not sure they ever played each other, both at their prime.

Failure to look past head to head is a fools game. Fabrice Santoro was 7-2 against Safin, and one of Safin's wins was a retirement at 1 set all. Who is the greater overall player, with the more impressive career?

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Because there is no actual evidence to say Nadal is acting wrong. There's a lot of talk and suspicions and links to this article and that article, but isn't there always with some folks. Usual BS. I have always said that Nadal is not doing things that humans like him cannot do. He's no different than several other great athletes. If anything Roger would be more on my radar, and I think Roger is a stand up honest competitor.

Just for context, Walshy also believes King Carl Lewis never did any wrong. Make of that what you will.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Head to head is 23-11, and skewed by Rafa's dominance on clay. Away from clay he holds a slender 10-9 lead. Federer actually punished himself in this head to head by consistently being the number 2 player in the world on clay, making clay finals constantly and losing to Rafa.

Rafa on the other hand was never consistently number 2 on other surfaces. He never made the US Open final (and many other hard court finals) during Federer's dominance from 2005-2008 (2005 being the year Rafa emerged and 2008 being Fed's last US Open victory. in fact Rafa couldn't make the final in 2009 either when Roger was lurking again). Roger was deprived of victories during this time against Rafa because of Rafa's inability to make hard court finals.

People also forget that there's 5 years between them. I'm not sure they ever played each other, both at their prime.

Failure to look past head to head is a fools game. Fabrice Santoro was 7-2 against Safin, and one of Safin's wins was a retirement at 1 set all. Who is the greater overall player, with the more impressive career?

Spin it what way you want. Rafa has beaten Roger consistently, and he did it across all surfaces and at 3/4 slams, and he would have done it at Flushing Meadow too.

They contested 8 slam finals and Rafa leads 6-2. Yes, 4 on clay. So what...

One on grass and one on hard. Roger has two wins on grass only..

I don't know how many slam matches they have had, probably not more than 11, and I think Rafa won all those that were not finals.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Just for context, Walshy also believes King Carl Lewis never did any wrong. Make of that what you will.

Go back to bed, friend.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

That comment says more about a douchebag like you than it does about Federer.

Tone it down, mickey!

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Spin it what way you want. Rafa has beaten Roger consistently, and he did it across all surfaces and at 3/4 slams, and he would have done it at Flushing Meadow too.

They contested 8 slam finals and Rafa leads 6-2. Yes, 4 on clay. So what...

One on grass and one on hard. Roger has two wins on grass only..

I don't know how many slam matches they have had, probably not more than 11, and I think Rafa won all those that were not finals.

What makes you think Rafa would have beaten Roger at the 2005, 2006 or 2007 US Open? Nadal was a poor hard court player back then. He regularly went out in the early rounds. He didn't make a semi until the 2008 Australian (and still lost to Tsonga). By the time he figured out how to play hard court, Federer was past his best. There's no doubt the head to head is scewed by the lack of hard court matches at this time of Federer's dominance. Anybody who understands the sport knows this.

Federer is ahead of Nadal in almost every comparison you can make in the game except head to head.

Some very telling ones:

41-24 in slam semi finals
49-30 in slam quarter finals
23-5 in consecutive slam semi finals
36-11 in consecutive slam quarter finals

Sorry pal.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

What makes you think Rafa would have beaten Roger at the 2005, 2006 or 2007 US Open? Nadal was a poor hard court player back then. He regularly went out in the early rounds. He didn't make a semi until the 2008 Australian (and still lost to Tsonga). By the time he figured out how to play hard court, Federer was past his best. There's no doubt the head to head is scewed by the lack of hard court matches at this time of Federer'a dominance. Anybody who understands the sport knows this.

Federer is ahead of Nadal in almost every comparison you can make in the game except head to head.

Some very telling ones:

41-24 in slam semi finals
49-30 in slam quarter finals
23-5 in consecutive slam semi finals
36-11 in consecutive slam quarter finals

Sorry pal.

I am not comparing what they did against others.

Aesthetically speaking Roger is one of the most graceful athletes in history. I have cheered him for 10 + years. But unfortunately at tennis he was "always" second best to Nadal when they met. Yes, he got some wins, but he wasn't better than Nadal when it really counted.

Overall career wise Federer is greater. Not debating that. Man to man on a tennis court against each other he comes up a little short against Nadal.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I am not comparing what they did against others.

Aesthetically speaking Roger is one of the most graceful athletes in history. I have cheered him for 10 + years. But unfortunately at tennis he was "always" second best to Nadal when they met. Yes, he got some wins, but he wasn't better than Nadal when it really counted.

Overall career wise Federer is greater. Not debating that. Man to man on a tennis court against each other he comes up a little short against Nadal.

Don't disagree there. But it's not as simple as many think. I've no doubt Roger would have beaten him more often than not over 2005-2007 on hard court. Sure he beat him in back to back Wimbledon finals at this time so I have no doubt he'd have done likewise in Oz and US during this time given the chance. Also if Roger sucked on clay, Rafa wouldn't hold such a strong head to head record.

I still maintain they never played each other when both were in their prime. 2005-2007 Nadal was on the up. 2008 Fed had mono. 2009 onwards Fed was on the way down.

Burial.

God I hope Nadal wins even more now reading some of the excrement here.

EagererBeaver

Chivito550 wrote: »

Head to head is 23-11, and skewed by Rafa's dominance on clay. Away from clay he holds a slender 10-9 lead. Federer actually punished himself in this head to head by consistently being the number 2 player in the world on clay, making clay finals constantly and losing to Rafa.

Rafa on the other hand was never consistently number 2 on other surfaces. He never made the US Open final (and many other hard court finals) during Federer's dominance from 2005-2008 (2005 being the year Rafa emerged and 2008 being Fed's last US Open victory. in fact Rafa couldn't make the final in 2009 either when Roger was lurking again). Roger was deprived of victories during this time against Rafa because of Rafa's inability to make hard court finals.

People also forget that there's 5 years between them. I'm not sure they ever played each other, both at their prime.

Failure to look past head to head is a fools game. Fabrice Santoro was 7-2 against Safin, and one of Safin's wins was a retirement at 1 set all. Who is the greater overall player, with the more impressive career?

Translation: Rafa is younger.

Chivito550

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Translation: Rafa is younger.

I don't see Nadal performing to the level Federer has the past few years when he is 33-35 to be honest.

NoviGlitzko

SlickRic wrote: »

The hate Rafa gets is ridiculous.

As a person he seems like a really nice fella and I don't mind some of the stuff people criticise him over such as time violations, but that added with his style of tennis bores me to tears.

EagererBeaver

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don't see Nadal performing to the level Federer has the past few years when he is 33-35 to be honest.

I didn't say I did. Merely pointing out the daftness of your statement that effectively said "Nadal couldn't beat him on non-hard courts until he peaked". Shocking news altogether, I know.

Chivito550

EagererBeaver wrote: »

I didn't say I did. Merely pointing out the daftness of your statement that effectively said "Nadal couldn't beat him on non-hard courts until he peaked". Shocking news altogether, I know.

I'm just making a statement as to why the H2H is skewed.

walshb

Nadal has beaten Fed in Fed's prime. He's beaten him over the past 12 calendar years. Nonsense to suggest they never met in Roger's prime. Utter nonsense.

Federer had a "success" prime in 2006 and 2007, but he was arguably a deadlier and more complete player in 2008 and 2009. And who was beating him during all those years? Nadal..Federer had some wins, but to imply that Nadal wasn't meeting and beating a "prime" Federer is nonsense.

Burial.

So Federer entered decline aged 25? Cool f*cking story bro but it needs more dragons and sh*t.

RosyLily

Bit of personal sniping today. Let's try to keep it civil everyone.

Thanks.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Nadal has beaten Fed in Fed's prime. He's beaten him over the past 12 calendar years. Nonsense to suggest they never met in Roger's prime. Utter nonsense.

Federer had a "success" prime in 2006 and 2007, but he was arguably a deadlier and more complete player in 2008 and 2009. And who was beating him during all those years? Nadal..Federer had some wins, but to imply that Nadal wasn't meeting and beating a "prime" Federer is nonsense.

Federer had glandular fever in 2008. Utter nonsense to suggest he was deadlier that year than in previous years. Federer's best years were 2004-2007. Hard to debate that. 11 out of 16 slams, 2 final loses (Nadal at RG), 2 semi final loses (Nadal at RG, Safin in Oz). Beat Nadal in 2 Wimbledon finals and would have no doubt beaten him in Oz and US during this time but they were always on other sides of the draw, and Nadal always fell early. These are facts.

Also I never said Nadal never beat Fed in Fed's prime. Clearly he has, but only at RG, not in the other slams. Anyway what I said was the 2 of them never played each other when BOTH were in their prime.

Burial.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Federer had glandular fever in 2008. Utter nonsense to suggest he was deadlier that year than in previous years. Federer's best years were 2004-2007. Hard to debate that. 11 out of 16 slams, 2 final loses (Nadal at RG), 2 semi final loses (Nadal at RG, Safin in Oz). Beat Nadal in 2 Wimbledon finals and would have no doubt beaten him in Oz and US during this time but they were always on other sides of the draw, and Nadal always fell early. These are facts.

Opinions aren't facts, soz.

Chivito550

Burial. wrote: »

Opinions aren't facts, soz.

True, that part is more an educated opinion based on the fact Nadal was losing to lesser ranked players early in those competitions during that time. Hard court was his weakest surface for a good while.

mickmackey1

17 is greater than 14, fact. Everything else is opinion.

Chivito550

Also there's about 5 times as many clay tournaments as there are grass ones. Be interesting to see a head to head if there was only 1-2 clay events per year, and about 8-9 grass ones.

Simply put Nadal is the greatest on clay (9-1), Federer is streets ahead everywhere else (Grass 7-2, Hard 9-3).