Australian Open Day 2: Nadal’s Cakewalk Draws at Slams Continue

I said in my last post that Marcos Daniel is a joke player, but even I was surprised to see how bad he was when I watched him play. I have no doubt he is the worst player in the draw. But not only that, he withdraw with the score at 6-0, 5-0 to Nadal. It was so boring to watch that it was painful. I’m amazed at the draws Nadal gets in grand slams, but when he gets one tough guy in a smaller event he gets trampled 6-3, 6-2. He also got bageled by Lacko, the guy that Roger made look awfully average in his first round match. It just leaved a disgusting taste in the mouth to see a player get such cakewalk draws, no matter who it is. Literally anyone in the draw would have been delighted with Nadal’s draw. Isn’t it enough that he got virtual walk overs to win his last three slams? You would think that they would make it at least hard for him when he goes for winning 4 consecutive slams.

But there may after all be no cheating in the draws and it may all be just chance, however hard that is to to believe. We don’t have evidence to the contrary so we have to accept it. Nadal now plays another joke player called Sweeting, and then the winner of two more joke players in Lopez and Tomic. None of these players even have the ability to test Nadal. So he may find himself in the fourth round of a slams without having been tested at all. I’m sorry if I am ranting but this is just hard to swallow for me. In the fourth round he could face Cilic perhaps, the guy who hasn’t done anything in tennis for the last year and has one of the worst forehands on tour. And guess who is the highest seed he is likely to face in the quarter finals? None other than his Spanish buddy and whipping boy David Ferrer. I just can’t stand it.

I just hope David Nalbandian can somehow recover from his gruelling 5 set match against Hewitt in the first round and make it through to the quarter finals. At least Nalbandian has a good record against Nadal and has the ability to test him. I’m not asking for much. Simply for Nadal to be tested and not being handed another slam on a silver platter. David Ferrer doesn’t have the ability to test Nadal as far as I’m concerned. He is Spanish and he is basically a pusher. Nadal loves it. You have the situation where the top seed is getting his first test in the semi-finals of a slam. It could be Soderling or Murray. At least you would expect one of those two to give him a decent test. Hopefully it would be Murray who has a decent hard court record against Nadal, but his mental instability doesn’t make him an automatic semi-finalist at all.

The more I think about it the more it will come down to Roger to end this joke of a grand slam run Nadal has been on. Nadal’s draw could come back to haunt him anyway if he is to face R0ger in the final. The lack of competitive matches could leave him vulnerable. I’m not even gonna hope for anyone else to test Nadal. That would just be setting myself up for disappointment. I will pin all my hopes on Roger to avenge the 2009 final which would make it all the sweeter anyway. Lets face it. The last three slams have been a disappointment in terms of drama and tennis. It was dull. And lets face it, Nadull had a lot to do with that. His brand of anti-tennis is just a killer to the sport. I can’t stress enough how important it is for me and for tennis that Nadal does not win this slam. If he does then tennis may just head into the dark ages.

Source

It sort of already is. But if Roger wins the Oz Open at least it would shed some much needed light on the game and stop Nadal from totally taking over. Can you imagine a 6-slam domination by Nadal’s moonballing? It is just too much to bare. I will personally lose interest in the game at least until Roger wins another slam. But there is a great opportunity for Roger here. If he wins the Oz Open it means Nadal’s chances of entering the record books is over and he may well get the number one ranking back later in the year as well. It is just so much better for us fans and for tennis as a whole to have someone charismatic and interesting at the top of the sport. Nadal is utterly dull both in his personality and game, while Roger is someone people can identify with and whose tennis can be marveled at and drooled over.

You see for Nadal it is all about the personal ego and satisfying his own selfish desires. He couldn’t care less about the game as a whole. As long as he wins everything and gets all the recognition he couldn’t care less about the state of the game. Roger on the other hand has always tried to entertain and have cared about the overall state of the game. He realizes the sport is bigger than one player, no matter how good they are. The fans and everything is important to him. If Nadal cared about the game he wouldn’t complain about stricter drug testing methods but would encourage it, knowing how bad it is for the game to keep the fans in the dark and always left to play a guessing game. I have endured Nadal for a long time because I know his rivalry with Roger have been interesting and good for the game, but I am getting very tired of him indeed.

His game is not good to watch. No one ever enjoyed moonballing unless you like women’s tennis. How much skill and genius does it take to moonball your opponents to death? It only takes fitness and the ability not to let up or get bored. It is as basic and fundamental as that and it entertains no one. Unless you are a Nadal fanboy who are utterly clueless about tennis and enjoy your big-budget brainless Hollywood action movies. There is nothing sophisticated or intelligent about it whatsoever. It is the death of tennis. It is that simple. Luckily my gut feeling has been telling me that Nadal is not going to win this slam. It s just a gut feeling but I trust it more than any current trend. I just think this is going to be one task to tough to complete for him. But most of all Roger is in Jesusfed mode again at one of his favorite slams.

He will be very hard to stop indeed. I believe he has learned from the past and is ready to adjust where he needs to when facing Nadal. I have said before that all he needs to do better from 2009 is to serve a higher first serve percentage and play more attacking tennis when it really counts. He did this at the Master Cup which was almost the perfect dress rehearsal for a possible final in Australian if you will. It was a different surface but it will serve as a sign post for Roger what to do in Australia. It is just a question of staying solid on his own service games and pressing Nadal on his own serve with attacking tennis. And if he can stop Nadal in Oz it just may trigger another slump from Nadal which would be fantastic for tennis indeed. Roger could go on to win at least one more slam this year and take back the number one spot, at which point tennis would well and truly be saved.

I don’t know how you all feel about this but I feel thing shave reached a point where something has to change. Something’s gotta give. Let me know what your thoughts are. All thoughts and comments welcome. And good luck to Roger against Simon today!

Photobucket


Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , .

38 Comments

  1. i think you are being very unfair towards Nadal

    Nadal had by far the toughest draw at wimbledon. He had to get past Soderling, Murray and Berdych in a row. Soderling and Murray are both top 10 players and Berdych was just outside of it. Please explain to me how exactly is this a “cakewalk” draw?

    As far as the french open is concerned, who exactly was going to beat Nadal? No one except Soderling. And Nadal beat him in the final. Djokovic was in nadal’s draw and he lost to Melzer, thats Djokovic’s fault, not Nadals. I dont think having Djokovic in your draw and then facing Soderling in the final is a cakewalk draw. Besides Nadal is 4-0 vs federer and 3-0 vs djokovic at the french open. I dont understand the cake walk draw thing here since there was only one man capable of beating him and Nadal thrashed him.

    Yes his US open draw was easy. Thats one slam. Its not like federer or any other greats have never gotten easy draws. If the ATP was really fixing his draws, why does Murray (who is a tough match for nadal) always ends up in nadals draw? In four out of the last five slams, Murray has been on Nadal’s end of the draw.

    I can completely understand rooting for your guy but this post is rather harsh and unfair. There is no way anyone can say his draw at wimbledon was “cakewalk”. And there was only one man who could beat him at the french open and he lost.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    The French doesnt matter as Nadal will beat anyone there anyway. At Wimbledon we all know that Berdych had a let down in the final. He was simply a shadow of teh player he was against Roger. In the semis Murray failed to step it up in the 3rd when he had his chances. Soderling is not know for his grass court exploits. And like you said, the Us Open was a joke draw. It was the one where he needed an easy draw and thats what he got. Same thing at the AO. He needs easy draws at the HC slams and thats where he gets them. Murray will probably lose before the semis again. Djokovic is definitely the more consistent one of the two. The draws are not as much my problem as the dullnes that Nadal brings to the game is. Its utterly boring and predictable the way he plays. Its shit for the game. If he loses to Sweeting tennis is saved.

    [Reply]

    Ed Reply:

    “Gotta live with it.” It was painful to read your long post, Ru-an, for as others have said, at least one should be fair if one wants to be taken seriously. Slamming Nadal as the “end of tennis as we know it,” is bizarre and unnecessary and is an injustice to Nadal’s game, which is a lot more than “moonballing.” Tennis is big enough for different styles; that’s part of its genius, and if Roger had 10% of the fire that Rafa carries we wouldn’t have had the embarrassing near debacle all of us just witnessed in the Simon match. That I love Roger’s game doesn’t mean I have to hate Rafa’s, for the difference brings out the respective genius of each, and in doing so deepens our understanding and appreciation of what the sport is capable of producing. The sport, because of those who play it, changes, revealing what we hadn’t seen before in talent, speed, techniques, heart.
    Nadal is bad for the game because of his style and because he’s the monster at the end of the labyrinth? I certainly didn’t complain (and I know you didn’t) when Roger was that monster that everybody who was left standing after seven matches had to face. But to say that Roger IS tennis, while Rafa is some kind of grotesque mutant, and to reach for the “doping” smear as an “explanation” is not only simply unfair but hysterical.
    I hope you’ll reconsider this corner you’re backing yourself into.

    [Reply]

    Yolita Reply:

    Mike, I agree with everything you say about Nadal’s draws for RG and Wimbledon.

    But then you say: “Yes his US open draw was easy. Thats one slam…”.His draw may have been easy, but let’s not forget that he did defeat Djokovic in the final, something Federer couldn’t do in the semis. It wasn’t easy to defeat Novak, otherwise Federer would have done it.

    It’s not nice to minimise other players’ achievements. Isn’t it enough to admire a player? It feels better to be fair.

    [Reply]

  2. I agree with Mike. I’m no Rafa fan and I’ve always harped on about how he gets such easy draws, but I do think you’re being very unfair. He’s lucky with his draws, you cant hold that against him. He HAS had his fair share of tough draws, as stated by Mike above.
    I dont think its right to discount someone’s achievements just because you dont like them.
    The way he plays tennis is AWFUL, yes. But whatever, its his prerorgative and its working for him clearly. When his knees give way we can sit and point at him and laugh if we want, but right now there’s nothing anyone can do.
    And again to reassert, I’m a diehard Roger fan, but that doesnt mean I want to be going around saying mean and untrue things about Rafa all the time.
    This is the first time I’ve disliked one of ur articles.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well it was a rant post. Gotta deal with it.

    [Reply]

  3. well ruan we need change desperately…thats for sure…and we dont like the taxing game style nadal has,no doubt not a delight to watch…well i would’nt say you are being harsh on the rabbit because thats what i feel too but i think we should give some space and credit to nadal aswell…
    and yes ramblings do give a clear idea about what exactly you think of smone/smth :-P

    [Reply]

  4. Murray failed to step in the third but thats his fault and no one else’s. Soderling had taken Nadal to five sets at wimbledon before. That doesnt mean it wasnt a hard draw. When you have two top 10 players and then a player just ranked outside the top 10, it is a tough draw.

    [Reply]

  5. I feel the same way too Ruan, it’s not that we dislike Nadal but imagine when Roger retires tennis will be really boring because there is no more competition.

    It’s not his fault that he’s really good that he can beat anybody. He can win 30 GS if he wants to but, the question is, can he carry the banner, can he bring the same excitement to tennis as Roger did.

    Even a hardcore Nadal fan would know the answer.

    [Reply]

  6. I used to enjoy this blog when it was a place for Federer fans.Remember when I said “Nadull” and you were hard on me. You know what I think and I hate injustice
    acts probably I´m the only one who made a contact with the ATP, AOPEN,ESPN complaining for Nadal´s draws,we aren´t kids.So is the world people complaining but doing nothing.That´s all.But be faithful the winner is
    ROGER FEDERER.

    [Reply]

  7. Ruan, I had to laugh when I read your latest post. It wasn’t an attempt at objective analysis of the game but a passionate protestation about where it is headed: Tennis – Death By Moonball. I loved it!
    I have to agree with you that Nadal has had some soft draws at the recent slams, particularly the USO last year and this year’s AO. That said, it was Marcos Daniel who made Nadal work very hard for his first round win at the ’09 FO, suggesting to me that Nadal was not the player he was in ’08 and had become vulnerable on his favorite surface. (True, as it turned out.) But this latest result shows us once again the ‘reborn’ Nadal of ’10, against whom only 1 or 2 players have a chance – and here, probably not until the final.
    What gets me about Nadal in the slams however is that he plays nowhere as well in the first week as he does in the second. Remember, he was in danger of losing to Petzschner in the 3rd round at Wimbledon? (He was down 2 sets to 1 before his controversial MTO.) In the second week at the slams Nadal has typically been crushing the higher ranked players – it’s as though he moves into a kind of game ‘over-drive’. To me, it’s not as though he simply plays better; he just seems to get faster and more powerful. His game then becomes unplayable and his ‘moonballs’ crushing winners. It’s almost like watching two different players. (Just as he is similarly unimpressive in the warm-up tournaments.)However, as you say, the basic pattern of play remains the same, and can be very tedious to watch. A lot of running and winners struck from impossible positions while his opponent melts down physically and mentally: death by moonball. And then there are the fist-pumps, grunts and innumerable tics. Awful. Roger, please save us!

    [Reply]

  8. I don’t know. It wouldn’t shock me if it turned out that the draw had been “adjusted” at USO to facilitate Nadal’s triumphant completion of the career Slam. He was only broken twice before the final and lost only one set along the way. Part of that was that he was playing well, but part of it was that he didn’t face any substantive opposition until the final.

    And now with the much-hyped “historical Rafa Slam,” perhaps they decided to give history a nudge by filling his draw with mugs who could be relied on to roll over for him.

    I have to agree with Mike, though, it doesn’t seem to me that the Wimbledon draw was deliberately slanted in Nadal’s favor. Then again, that wasn’t as “historic” an occasion.

    I imagine the tournament directors set the draws with an eye towards producing blockbuster matches that will drive TV ratings up. They have to make it look good, so they don’t have total freedom. But they can still tweak it quite a bit.

    I have speculated here that some players may be secretly doped without their knowledge by coaches and trainers. This happened in the former East Germany.

    One of the few other victims to have spoken publicly about her plight is the swimmer Rica Reinisch, who at the age of 15 won three gold medals in the 1980 Olympics. “The worst thing was that I didn’t know I was being doped,” she told the Guardian. I was lied to and deceived. Whenever I asked my coach what the tablets were I was told they were vitamins and preparations.”

    Maybe it goes even further, maybe some secret doping is done in collusion with tournament directors, media, and corporate sponsors, in order to produce particular outcomes that will make a good story in the media: an unknown player upsets several higher-ranked players in a Grand Slam, for instance.

    Maybe they use this as a tool along with rigged tournament draws in order to set up the scenarios they want.

    To sketch a scenario: perhaps that was the secret behind Verdasco’s miracle run at AO a couple years back: he was being given some “special help.” And then at USO last year maybe they cut off his “help” temporarily, because they didn’t want him getting in the way of Nadal finishing the career Slam.

    I hasten to add that this is pure speculation, and that I don’t have even circumstantial evidence for this particular case.

    Perhaps the corruption isn’t as blatant as this, but even if it were, I doubt we would know.

    A lot of players now might be secretly juiced up when the ruling powers of tennis decide they need to win, and, more sinisterly, secretly slipped a mickey when those powers decide they have to take a dive. Just as is done to racehorses.

    Let’s not kid ourselves: there is a lot of money in professional tennis, many hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. Whatever they can do to enhance profits, they’ll do. If that means turning players into commodities, to be exploited ruthlessly and then tossed away when they’re no longer useful, so be it.

    Tennis might well become like pro wrestling is today: pure, gaudy spectacle where the “matches” are scripted in advance for the amusement of the gullible masses. No actual competition or sport.

    Not that it’s that bad now, but it sure seems like it’s headed in that direction. Even in the past three years I have noticed that tennis coverage has become ever more sensationalistic and commercialized. The commentators remind me more and more of carnival barkers urging people to come into the tent and check out the freakshow.

    (On that subject, an article on Mary Carillo’s sudden departure from ESPN, and all the conflicts of interest that arise for tennis commentators).

    Federer has God-given genius, he has an independent mind and heart, he’s nobody’s puppet, but even he still has to work within this corrupt system. Like Ines, I still have faith that he can beat the machine and avoid being crushed in its cogs. They cannot touch such beautiful tennis, no matter how hard they try.

    Go Roger!

    [Reply]

    angouleme Reply:

    Do you have nothing more original to say about Nadal other than the incessant claims of “special help” and of easy draws? If Nadal’s victories are predicated on rigged draws, then surely Federer’s sixteen have also been similarly affected- after all he has had no dearth of historic victories. Harping on Federer as some sort of savior of tennis is simply a self serving fantasy of yours. Now that his physical performances are not up to par with his achievements of previous years, trying to shore up his legacy with some myth of saving tennis simply makes it more apparent that his era is slowly but surely passing.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Federer is the savior of tennis as long as Nadal is around. It doesnt even matter if he can play at prime level anymore, which he clearly still can.

    [Reply]

    angouleme Reply:

    Federer is not the savior of anything- he is simply a player with a graceful game. As far as I know, tennis was never predicated on the stipulation that it should be played in an aesthetically pleasing way. Just because you prefer his style does not make his game the ultimate savior of tennis. He is simply another one of Nadal’s opponents – it’s kind of hard to be the savior of anything when you cant even overcome your greatest opponent.

    [Reply]

  9. Oh no! I was very worried about having to play Simon in the 2nd round and it looks like my concerns were justified. Roger was on fire for the 1st 2 sets but has gone back into passive mode and is now in a 5 set epic! I am praying he wins. If he can survive this he has a couple of easy matched to come. But recently Roger hasn’t been doing so well in 5 setters and his mindset must be shot to pieces after cruising early on.

    I can barely watch :-(

    [Reply]

  10. that is simply excruciating…cant watch now…relying on live scores at the website…

    [Reply]

    Jiten Reply:

    Muhammad,

    That’s exactly what I did too. Wow, what a scare? I guess it was not the evil Federer twin, but Jesus Simon in the 3rd and 4th set. Eagerly waiting for Ru-an’s analysis though.

    Come on champ. You can still do it.

    [Reply]

    Andrew Reply:

    Oh God! That was too tense.

    Simon is exactly the kind of player that can trouble the ‘big four’- similar to Warwinka and Melzer. Nadal never runs into these players at slams these days.

    Jiten- I agree with you. Roger played very well!! Have a look at the stats. Simon his 55 winners to 40 unforced errors whilst playing very high risk tennis. That’s just insane! It’s an indication about how well Roger is playing at the moment that he won that match. 6 months ago he would of lost. Roger’s stats were also awesome. 63 winners to 53 unforced errors! He also won 21 more points than Simon but yet only just squeezed through the 5th set with one break.

    Can’t wait for Ru-an’s analysis to see whether he thinks Roger underperformed or just had a bad draw. I’m so happy Roger is through! Should be an easy path to the semis now

    Andrew

    [Reply]

  11. Fed wins! But what a match it was! I had no idea Simon is such an excellent player. He got to virtually every shot and fought increadibly hard until the very end! Congrats, Roger and all his fans here nonetheless!!!

    [Reply]

    Ilya Reply:

    adds nicely to the discussion of who has an easy draw :-)

    [Reply]

    Ilya Reply:

    And what a fighter this guy Simon is! Saving 4 match points! Fed closing with an ace! a pleasure to watch, after he has been so shaky for two sets, with a mountain of unforced errors and generally, it seemed, his confidence dropped significantly. Where was the attacking Fed after the first 1 1/2 sets? Totally passive, missing a lot of his forehand shots, the evil twin has shown its face more than enough here. It was definitely Simon’s game, too, though, as Fed has never won against him before. I do hope that was the toughest match for Fed before the quarterfinal!

    [Reply]

  12. I watched Federer for 2 sets. I don’t know who the other guy was for the next couple. Awful. So many unforced errors. Damn lucky to win in 5, as it turns out. But Simon is another one of those irritating players who runs and runs and gets everything back. In the 3rd set Simon raised his game, Federer lost confidence, fell back into his shell and allowed Simon to stay in the match and even dictate at times. Federer was often compelled to play Simon’s game of extended grinding rallies. Not a good sign if Federer eventually meets Nadal. He will need his ‘A’ attacking game for at least 3 sets.

    [Reply]

  13. Wow. That could’ve been the final!

    Simon just never gave up–even after being two sets down, he leveled the match and forced Federer to play his best. I have to take my hat off to him.

    Roger was presented with a seemingly intractable problem, and he had to really show fighting spirit, dig deep and produce some special stuff to solve it.

    This is the test he needed. He had trouble with close matches late last year, great that he was able to win this one.

    [Reply]

  14. 5 sets in the second round? I was not expecting that. Fed went back to his passive shit and it cost him 2 sets. If Fed is going to take Nadal in the final he’s going to have to man up and go for broke.

    Note: Passive shit only refers to his slice return when playing Nadal. This shot still helps him beat 99% of the players out there.

    [Reply]

  15. A very negative post Ruan. Nadal is not the one to blame for the draws and the media coronating him the new king. Keep it positive, it’s more healthy for you.

    Our world doesn’t revolve only around the sun anymore, it also revolves around money. It won’t be surprising at all if the draw was set in advance since a lot of money is involved.
    If we put ourselves in the sits of the people running the show and we want to make the tournament the best show around (and make more money for commercials, TV…) how would we set up the draw?
    Simple:
    1. Let Nadal have a real chance completing an historic achievment by setting him with an easy draw.
    2. To balance things, let Federer have a bit harder draw but not too hard and also let him play on the first day (and get two days rest before the final).
    3. Put Murray in Nadal’s half to have a chance for a good semi and a replay of the WTF2010.
    4. Put Soderling in Murray half so Murray can make it to the semi.
    5. Put Djokovic in Federer’s half so we have a chance for a replay of the USO2010 semi which was very interesting.

    There you have it. It’s all very logical. Just keep it balanced and still set it right to have a good chance for blockbuster matches.
    I do hope I’m wrong…

    [Reply]

    ines Reply:

    Loving your reply, that´s exactly what happens!

    [Reply]

  16. Hi Ru-an
    Sorry for turning ur blog into a live feed thingy earlier when Roger was in trouble- I was so worried!
    I hadn’t read ur article earlier and now that I have I notice a lot of people have had a go at u about being ‘negative’
    I agree with pretty much everything u said!! Watching Nadal is so so boring. It’s not a case of different styles or personal preference- it is simply a fact! Why would I want to watch some guy pick his arse for 3 hours!? He basically has one trick shot- a spinny type of shot that moonballs up- and it wins him all his points.
    It is exactly as u say- anti-tennis. At least Murray plays drop shots and expresses himself on court by skillful slices etc. How often have u seen Nadal hit a drop shot?
    Am watching Fed’s match now on tv- he was the better player for most of the 4th set and was just not quite there. If he’s taken his 2 break point chances in the 3rd game of the 4th set he would have been home a lot sooner! He got frustrated at 4-4
    I expected it to be 4 sets and it shud have been.

    Nadal is playing overnight and I know when I go to sleep that there is no way that Nadal is gonna lose a set!! The only thing I have to check in the morning is how easily he won? 3 breadsticks probably.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I havent been feeling well. Ive made a post but im still looking for the stats. I dont care what people think about my previous post. It made me feel better which is all that matters.

    [Reply]

  17. Ruan, I like one of your reply on top – ‘Well it was a rant post. Gotta deal with it.’ Of course, it’s your blog anyway and you can say what you want. And I share your view and frustration too!

    However, while I do not enjoy watching Nadal’s game as much as Roger, I have to say I have learned to appreciate and respect Nadal for what he is. He is indeed stronger than Roger both mentally and physically (well, he is younger, what do you expect?), but clearly no where near Roger in talent.

    Roger is such a sensitive person that he gets emotional easily, which does affect him sometimes. However, it is exactly this character that all of us, well at least for me, like him so much. He is not just another gladiator that the spectators cheer for from a distance. Roger is much more than that. He is like a sincere and easy going friend of ours, a guy next door, humble, humourous, sensuou; someone that we could relate to, someone that we feel for and someone that seems to live among us. He is the most unique sports person that I have come across to date, period.

    Sometimes, I was simply dumb founded to read some of the journalists’ (or fans’) comments that criticized Roger’s tears in the 2008 AO, lamenting that as weak and soft. I see it very different. In fact I think it brought us (or is it just me?) so much closer to his heart and inner self, making me love him just that little bit more…

    Anyway, I am now very very concerned over his performance yesterday. I am not sure how this struggle / victory will affect the course of his tournament hereon. Will this sap away some of his confidence that he has slowly built up over the last few months? Or will grinding out a result actually do him a world of good? I just do not know. I can only hope that it’s the later. But I think all of us, including Nadal, can now see that his game can still breakdown badly if he is pressed hard enough, and Nadal definitely has that ability to do so.

    I now look forward to his next game, to see if this game has any effect on him in any way… Good luck, Roger! Please win this, for all of us, and for your own legacy too!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I doubt its a big deal. We will find out in the next 3 matches.

    [Reply]

  18. I caught the Lopez-Tomic contest today. Contrary to the general expectations, Tomic won and that too with so much ease that it bordered on the eerie. The kid seems to have a decent game and I am actually quite excited at the prospect of Nadal facing someone ‘who isn’t a Spaniard’. Nadal will definiely not lose but I expect him to be tested by the young pretender. If Lopez had gone through then Nadal’s victory over him was a foregone conclusion. Tomic on the other hand has nothing to lose and the best part is , he has a cheeky attitude which will ensure that nerves at least will not hinder his game in a ‘major’ way.

    As for Roger, like what ONEFLY9 has written. I hope this match wasn’t another ‘Tipseravic episode’. Roger must tackle the remainder of the draw with ease and at a greater pace.
    Go Roger!!

    [Reply]

  19. Ruan,
    You have been too critical of Nadal. Of course midmatch coaching, trying to change momentum of opponents while losing and objecting to strict drug tests are some of his attributes I also dislike but a very strong player in Nadal cannot be denied. The first time I read your post and your assertion that Simon could not take a set was not at all convincing to me. He had not lost to Federer till this meet. And my apprehension turned out to be true. Simon played great from the third set onwards and when he evened the score at 2-2 I thought that Federer might be heading to a great upset. Thank God, Federer came through. I have been stressing all the time that the superlatives donot fit to anybody. Credit has to go to a good player. Let us hope that this match proves to be a turning point for Federer and he comes out winner at AO 2011.

    [Reply]

  20. Ru-an hope you are feelinf better,we know this is part of life but sometimes we can´t avoid to be a bit depressed.The media seems to be too critical of Roger.But it hails every effort by Nadal and justifies every loss.At Qatar Davydenko beat an “ailing Nadal”,then put an “*”to Nadal 6/0 against Lacko.The media won´t say “what a warrior peformance for Roger”,
    that´s what irritates, if he´s such a good player he doesn´t need easy draws.In all blogs people are talking
    about this, a god sign.Despite of that Fed is the greatest ever.Even if Nadal surpasses him in titles, the inspiration, style, elegance and popularity that Fed brings to the game is unmatched.So keep the POSITIVE VIBES GOING EVERYONE!!!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    There are many records of Roger that Nadal can never beat.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *