[Tennis] 2009 French Open

I know tennis doesn’t have a lot of support here on the SDMB, but I figured I’d start a thread on it anyways. :stuck_out_tongue:

So, whatcha guys think?

A big topic today was about none other than God Himself, I mean Rafael Nadal. There are supposedly some murmurs that he might be ousted this year. These murmurs are fueled largely in part by Federer having beaten Nadal just a week or two ago in Madrid, I think it was. Another clay court tourney, which Nadal isn’t supposed to lose. Ever.


P.S. Am I the only one who doesn’t care about the Williams sisters?


Just me? Okay then. :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, I’m a big tennis fans and I think there are others here on the Dope who like it.

I think Nadal will most likely win. Federer won their last matchup on clay, but that’s a minor instance.

I think after watching Federer cry at the Australian Open, I actually want him to win. It will only count if it is over Nadal(in terms of signifigance, I mean). I feel for him. He really is the best of all time, but Nadal just has his number.

Actually, Bees, I’d write off pretty much all women’s tennis at this point. I loved women’s tennis back in the early 1990’s, but it’s just an inferior version of the men’s game now. It used to be that men’s was the power game and women had the finesse game, but now the women’s game has become just a pale imitation of the men’s.

So, yes, I don’t care about the Williams’

Though I only have been interested in tennis for about a year and a half, I have to agree that the women’s game is just meh.

When Justine Henin abruptly cut her own career short, it went way downhill for me there. I liked her and I don’t know why. Either way, she retired after being the pretty solid #1 and now it’s just a bunch of mediocre players all passing #1 around. Meh.

I really wish Ivanovic would step up and be #1 again. She was very easy on the eyes and I wouldn’t mind seeing her get the #1 spot back so the media can focus on her more. :wink:

Good man. I like your style. :smiley:

Don’t care about the Williams sisters either, although they’re tremendous athletes, the sort of people you look at and know that they’d be superstars in any sport. And I did enjoy watching them against some of the other top women (such as Henin) 'cause I always enjoy clashing styles.

I don’t buy all the roi-est-mort stuff about Federer, but I don’t think Nadal is going to lose either. If Nadal does win, he’ll be the first to win five straight in the Open era.

Federer did beat Nadal on clay two years ago in Hamburg, but he didn’t translate it to the French that year either. If he plays him more aggressively throughout it could happen but the odds are long.

I’m in the middle of a move, so I haven’t have much time to watch this year. Andy Murray looked good early but had a surprising amount of trouble with Potito Starace - he lost the second set and was down 1-5 in the third before remembering he’s Andy Murray and the other guy was Potito freakin’ Starace. Federer and Nadal have taken care of business so far. I noticed just now that Gulbis found a way to lose to Nicolas Almagro. On clay maybe that’s not such a big surprise, but Gulbis did very well at the French last year and has lost 2/3rds of his matches so far this year.

I do like watching the Williams sisters because they’re great players, and also among the few women who do not constantly choke in big matches. Serena looked awful the other day, but she’ll probably get it together.

The idea that women used to play finesse until the Williamses showed up… I’m sorry, but no. Seles and Capriati and Graf were not finesse players. Neither was Henin, really, she just had more variety. There are a lot of women who try to hit too hard and I’ve said many times that a lot of the top players are boring to watch, but the Williamses are not among them. Speaking of top players, though, it’s weird to see Sharapova as an unseeded player.

None of those women could hold a candle to the Williams sisters in the power game, though. Venus’ 129 mph serve is more than 10mph more than Graf, Seles of Capriate ever managed.

Five straight French Opens, that is. Roger Federer has won five straight Wimbledons and US Opens.

That’s what I meant, sorry.

Yes, but they were absolutely not finesse players. It’s not just about serve speed, it’s about the groundstrokes, and all three of them hit very hard. Capriati won three slams while the Williams sisters were playing.

Do you guys think Roger will break Sampras’ record of 14 slams? If so, when?

No. I think he’s done. He won’t be winning this French Open. He lost to Nadal in last year’s Wimbledon. Roger may win this year’s Wimbledon, but with that baby on the way, I am predicting Wimbledon will be his last Slam win, if Nadal doesn’t take it away from him.

The point in my OP was that Federer beat Nadal mere weeks ago on clay.

He’s also won the last five U.S. Opens, you know. I still hope he can get it done.

And my point was that Federer beat Nadal on clay prior to the 2007 French Open as well, and we know what happened then. I’d love to see him win but it’s hard to imagine. The clay in Madrid plays differently than Paris and Nadal was coming off a four-hour match.

Yes I know and I still maintain my position that he’s finished.

He used to own Wimbledon but that’s Nadal’s now. So I guess we’ll see what happens, but he’s finished. Only room for one sheriff and Andy Murray doesn’t seem happy with the third place ranking. He wants sheriff also. so Federer has to keep Murray from overtaking him and Nadal from completely dominating all the Slams.

It should all be very interesting at least. :smiley:

You crazy. Nadal’s game is fundamentally unsuited to grass. He beat Federer last year, but Federer had his number on grass before that just as surely as Nadal had Federer’s on clay. I think Nadal has improved to the point where he’s Federer’s equal if not better on hard courts, but I still think Federer has the advantage on grass.

I think he’ll end up with 16-17 Slam wins. He’s only 27, for chrissakes. He’ll certainly break Sampras’ record; he could do it this year, even.

Does anyone else miss Goran Ivanisevic? I do. Like crazy. Total man-crush.

He’s going to have to win more than one hardcourt major to prove that, as far as I’m concerned. Federer should have won in Australia: he beat Nadal in sets two and four, when he played more aggressively, and backed off in the other three sets, which is why he lost. He’s made the same tactical mistake on clay, but grass and hardcourts fit his game better than clay does.

For the record, though, Nadal’s improved his non-clay game a lot by flattening out his forehand, serving and playing more aggressively and even coming to the net on occasion. (It doesn’t hurt that the grass courts are playing less like grass than ever.) He’s made the Wimbledon final twice in a row, so calling his game unsuited to grass is like saying Federer can’t win on clay. The record shows otherwise.

Maybe not that much, but yes. By the end of his career I warmed up to him a lot, to the point where I was rooting for him against Pat Rafter at Wimbledon even though I’d always liked Rafter’s game. Safin was way more talented than Ivanisevic and just as much of a mental case, but he was never as much fun.


Nadal had to literally play the greatest match of all time to beat Federer in 5 sets on grass. I don’ think the tournament belongs to Nadal. He may win it again, but Federer is king there, even if someone else has the championship right now.

Completely. I would rank his match against Rafter at Wimbledon as one of the all time greats. It was a Monday final due to rain, and the crowd was primarily composed of young crazy people who paid very little to get in.

The fact that “the old man” actually won the thing was amazing. I think that was his fourth attempt at winning the Wimbledon final.

I miss Todd Martin, too. Just a nice, decent, guy who never won a major.

He lost to Agassi in '92, which was the first match I really sat down and watched from start to finish, he lost to Sampras twice. I forgot one of the losses to Sampras, but I remembered that he said (before winning) that he was determined to win Wimbledon once, even if he had to keep playing until he was in the seniors events.

Martin never won a slam, but he had a very good career. Tim Henman was the same way, although he suffered some really gut-wrenching losses and had that whole British Man at Wimbledon thing. By comparison, Martin won the most dramatic matches he ever played. I should’ve been at that US Open match against Moya. I thought I was over that. Serves me right for having a coach who was such a flake. :stuck_out_tongue:

Saying his game is unsuited to grass isn’t the same as saying he can’t win on grass. Obviously, he can. What I’m saying is that he isn’t as good on grass as he is elsewhere; he’s still clearly better than everyone else, though (except Federer).

I agree. I wish there was more of a grass court season, and not just because I like Federer. I guess grass is harder to care for, but I think it’s unbalanced and dull that there are extremely longer hardcourt and clay seasons, and then one week on grass before Wimbledon even though it’s the best-known and most prestigious tournament. I think the players ought to be pushing for several more weeks on grass, but they don’t because they “can’t play on grass.” No shit, Sherlock, you’re bad on grass because you don’t practice on it and only play a handful of tournaments on it - Queen’s, which is the week after the French anyway, Halle and ‘s-Hergotenbosch or whatever, which I think are simultaneous, and then Wimbledon. Oh, and there’s the Hall of Fame tournament in the middle of the summer, which most of the top players don’t bother with because it’s during hardcourt season, and “we can’t play on grass.” It’s frickkin’ stupid to the point that even Safin, who could’ve won Wimbledon with with serve alone if he tried, often didn’t bother.