Running Wimbledon thread

It will be interesting to see if Rafa can put it together on hard courts. His ability to turn defense into offense is a huge advantage on clay and grass, where the ball takes funny bounces on almost every shot. On a hard court, where you get a truer bounce, he just has never been as effective.

 

I agree about NBC -- McEnroe's chest-bumping and handshaking post-match aside. But he's a tennis guy first, so I don't have too much a problem with it. The PBP guy fed and played off Mac well throughout.

What was amazing to me was the level of tennis in the opening games of the fifth set. Both guys could have shown mental downturns after the epic fourth tiebreaker, but they were out there slugging away at each other.

Watching the final hour or so reminded me (and if I deserve getting blasted for it, so be it ...) the 15th round of a Rocky Balboa title fight. Both guys, throwing EVERYTHING they have at each other. Federer said as much post-match, saying essentially "I tried everything".

rb

 

So, if Federer is one of, if not the, best players in tennis history, where does Nadal rank? Is he even on any short list?

I don't watch enough tennis to have an opinion, but Nadal seems like he'd have more championships were it not for Federer.

 

He probably would have. Nadal is so good, so exciting, and this rivalry has been so great, though, that it's easy to forget that Rafa only just turned 22 a month ago.

That makes him still too young yet to consider where he might rank in the overall scheme of tennis history.

 

That's why I never bought into the notion of Nadal as a "clay-court specialist." He earned his stripes on clay, but he's made it to three straight finals on the grass at Wimbledon. Then you see his age and you think, he's just getting better and the sky's the limit. I'll bet he does figure it out on the hard court soon.

As for McEnroe, I loved it today. I've always loved how much he appreciates the history of the game but also loves the current guys' power games. I thought it was genuine when he hugged Federer and thanked them both for the spectacle they put on. As I said earlier, when McEnroe, who played in arguably the greatest Wimbledon match of all time in 1980, says its the best match he's ever seen, I think that says a lot.

 

If Nadal can win the Australian or U.S. Open, yeah, he's got to be up there with the greats. That gives him wins on clay, grass and hard surface. That's an impressive resume.
If Federer can win even once at the French Open (and this year, it appeared he was farther (further?) than ever from beating Nadal on that stuff), than he would go automatically to the head of the GOAT line.

 

Sure.... but that isn't ever happening.

The results this year definitely offer proof that his decline has begun, even as great as that match was today.

 

In terms of just pure tennis ability, they're probably two of the top 10 ever.

Federer
Sampras
Laver
Borg
Tilden
Emerson
Connors
McEnroe
Agassi

I think Nadal is getting very close to that group. He's got 5 Slams. Becker, Edberg and Budge won 6. Wilander, McEnroe, Newcombe won 7. Lendl, Rosewall, Connors and Agassi won 8.

Hard to think of anybody who has brought more athleticism to the game than Nadal. Unless he just falls off the face of the earth, he should at least get to 8 or 9 Slams and will definitely be in the top 10.

 

Very true. It's the kind of thing Joe Morgan would never do on a baseball telecast.

 

A little too early just yet. Longevity counts for something (longevity in the tennis world means making it to age 28).

Nadal puts everything he has into every stroke. A wonder at 22, he could be broken down by 25.

 

Gotcha. I had no idea how old he even was until WriteThinking mentioned it.

I just threw it out there because it seems as if Federer is considered by some to be the best ever, yet Nadal always seems to be in the mix, as well. If Federer weren't around, I take it, Nadal would be cleaning house?