Roland Garros

Wow, Nadal knocked Federer out so easily that I couldn't believe it. I know Nadal is top notch, but Federer's playing is so bad, what happened to the guy? From an Iron Man to a third-rate tenist? I hope he recovers, he's very talented (and cute, ok, but talented also!), and I have always been impressed by the sheer force of his style. It's very engaging and exciting (I mean, within the context of tenis lol) to see him play. Like...he's cute, no doubt, but...well. Better stop here. Good tenist. lol

Nadal wins the French Open, Federer wins everything else. It's pretty much been this way for the past five years - nothing's changed and nothing's new. You really couldn't have been surprised...could you?

Roger Federer is sort of like the Tiger Woods of tennis. People almost expect them to win every tournement in their respective sports.

Except the Roland Garros...

How many times has he won it, again?

That's right, never. And each time he's lost to Nadal, who is as much of a god on clay as Federer is on, say, every surface that isn't clay.

^ Hi MusicMan. Michael Jordan comes to mind. He was the dominant player in his sport for years, but he didn't have much of a 3 point shot, except ofcourse for that NBA Finals game against Portland where he increadibly hit 3 point after shot effortlessly. Even superstars have weaknesses.

The thing with Roland Garros is that Federer is a great player in every single kind of Tennis Stadium, except for the ones made of clay, like the Roland Garros, that's Nadal's speciality. And that's why he wins easily that cup. Still the kid is what... 21??? 22??? and as far as I know Federer is older than him, so the kid still has a long way to go :).

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME][/QUOTE] Well, Federer reached the final... He's not bad at clay but Nadal was just superb. Let's see what Nadal can do on the gras of Wimbledon.

yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.
Wimbledon will see Federer back on his fave grass surroundings and also means i wont have to water my tomatoes for the two weeks its going on and its the only 2 weeks of the year where you see young british kids on a tennis court with a racquet in their hands and not stabbing each other with knives.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: [/QUOTENAME]yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.[/QUOTE]

That was Ivanovic... was a pretty woman that is :D---

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]

Wow. People are throwing out names like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to compare Federer & Nadal? The only reason those two are always on top is that the field is bad. I think if you go back, and not too far, names like McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Sampras seem much closer to Jordan and Woods than what we have out there today.

And NADAL was killing everyone. Federer was struggling to get to the finals. Hardly entertaining. It's sad that Women's Tennis is more exciting, but fitting that Venus got the pay grade fixed.

Boy, that Ivanovic is quite fun to watch. From Serbia.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Charlie Brown wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Michael Jordan comes to mind. He was the dominant player in his sport for years, but he didn't have much of a 3 point shot, except ofcourse for that NBA Finals game against Portland where he increadibly hit 3 point after shot effortlessly.[/QUOTE]

Michael Jordan was a career 32.7% 3 point shooter. His playoff career average was 33.2%. That's hardly a "weakness". Mike didn't play in today's 3-point heavy game.

Let's compare guys from Mike's era:
Reggie Miller 39% (was their main 3pt shooter)
Larry Bird 38% (was their co-main 3pt shooter, Ainge)
Magic Johnson 30%
Julius Erving 26%
and the Bulls' MAIN 3pt shooter, John Paxson, had a career average of 36%.
...and if given the chance to drive to the whole or take the 3, what would Mike do?

Bring back MacEnroe.

Federer is a good player. I expected him to give Nadal more trouble. That he wasn't going to win the tournament, I suspected; but that he'd play so badly and be defeat so easily, wow, I didn't.

Yes, I root for Federer! Hahaha.

Now, Michael Jordan, please, GOD. Like, no comparison with anyone, I feel personally offended by it. lol

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: [/QUOTENAME]yep,Nadal was awesome but its his speciality surface.i was quite impressed with the Serbian womens winner [Djokovic?] on saturday,she might be worth a few pennies down the bookies for Wimbledon.[/QUOTE] That was Ivanovic... was a pretty woman that is :D--- [/QUOTE] -.-'... *prepares foot*

You could argue that the field is mediocre in today's game, but it's still difficult to deny the complete dominance that Federer has over the game (except clay). I mean, Federer is still competent in clay, but Nadal owns it. Tennis on clay is almost a completely different sport.