Wimbledon Running Thread. *Updated--Isner wins 70-68 in 5th*

Edberg was pretty good. He would have owned Roddick.

But Andy can still go home to the lovely Mrs. Roddick.

 

The question was ridiculous, I don't blame Roddick at all

 

By and large, press conference quesitions suck. And it goes far beyond "Talk about . . . "

Especially considering those who ask them have 3+ hours to come up with usually just one or 2 decent ones.

Ask something that you're genuinely curious about and not something that you already know the fucking answer to ("How do you feel? Will you be pissed tomorrow?" Where does this title rank among your others?").

 

Big Edberg fan, loved his S&V game, but he got fat on titles during a weak stretch for the ATP. The starts of the 70s and 80s were on their way out and the Sampras types hadn't quite got there yet.

My point is Roddick could have the heart, we really don't know because Federer and Nadal aren't being beaten by anyone on any surface. It's hard to judge how good the 3rd, 4th and 5th best players in the world are when the top two are so far ahead of them.

Could Lendl or Borg beat Nadal on clay? Hard to say. Could Sampras beat Federer on grass? He didn't the last time they played.

Del Potro sadly is pretty much done for the year with a wrist injury and who knows his future. Andy Murray crumbles like a stale cookie any time he's presented with a slam opportunity. It would be hard to see Djokovic breaking through again.

 

Edberg forehand was amazing to watch.

Amazing, as in "How the hell did this guy ever win six majors with THAT."

I guess the answer was, "Serve and volley so you don't have to hit forehands."

 

On Edberg's weak forehand. McEnroe didn't hit anything hard. Technique, skill and strategy (and smarts and heart) won out during those years.

In a Slam final, Edberg would still beat Roddick.

 

Sorry. I got interrupted.

Edberg beat Wilander, Cash, Courier, Sampras and Becker (twice) to win Slams finals. Pretty good list of W's for a guy with no forehand during a weak period for tennis, huh?

 

Sure if you take out Pat Cash .

I'm a huge Edberg fan. I thought his concentration was second to none. But it was a weak period of tennis. Sampras wasn't the player he became at the time and Becker tended to have brain farts in men's finals -- i.e. a straight sets loss to Michael Stich

 

I think you're underrating Edberg. (Based on the guys he's beaten, you could say Federer's dominated in a weak period, too.) All of the guys Edberg beat in major finals -- except Cash -- were No. 1 in the world at some point and won multiple majors themselves. And I'd argue that Edberg was a better player than all of them except Sampras. He won three of the four majors and once got to the fifth set of the finals of the French, the one he didn't win. He made one of the all-time runs to a title at the '92 U.S. Open, when he won five-setters in the fourth round (against Krajicek), quarters (Lendl) and semis (Chang, in the longest match in U.S. Open history) before beating Sampras in the final.

That's pretty impressive stuff. I like and respect Roddick, but he's not in the same class as Edberg, in my opinion. It's a fun argument to have, though.

Anyone else think Berdych can give Federer all sorts of problems tomorrow? I actually think Federer is the most vulnerable of the favorites in the four quarterfinals.

 

As for, you know, this year's Wimbledon, Venus got thrashed by someone none of us has heard of, Clijsters lost in three sets to Zvonareva, a woman none of us has heard of won a thrilling match against another woman none of us has heard of and Serena beat Li Na in a match that was loaded with powerful groundstrokes.

Oh, and Kournikova still looked quite lovely playing in the legends doubles with Hingis.

 

Quakes: Great points, all of them. I still remember the five-set match against Chang. That was some great stuff. I think they had a combined 10 aces between them. Every point was a sick rally.

John: How does Kournikova qualify for "Legends" status