Jump to content

Wimbledon: Federer v Nadal


Boaby Ewing

Recommended Posts

That was awesome.

 

Two evenly matched guys slugging it out for five hours.

 

These two are SO far ahead of the other male competitiors out there it's not even funny.

 

Superb sporting occassion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply
chester copperpot
D Mcg and Maxi are right!

 

It is a bit confusing, but it is all in the wording. Wimbledon is A Grand Slam. All 4 is THE Grand Slam

 

 

 

No winning Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world, but it aint winning the grand slam mate. You have to win all 4 to win the grand slam. I may be wrong, but its very rare, ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chester copperpot
That was awesome.

 

Two evenly matched guys slugging it out for five hours.

 

These two are SO far ahead of the other male competitiors out there it's not even funny.

 

Superb sporting occassion.

 

 

 

Nadal / Federer

 

 

Djokovic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest. Just IMO mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to be Mr Pedant mate, but winning one is a Major. Winning all 4 in one season is the Grand Slam.

 

Thus meaning that neither Federed or Nadal has won a Grand Slam as yet.

 

I am right, so no need to answer back. ;) Trust me I'm right.

 

Your wrong, that is only true in the very traditional meaning of the word.

 

In tennis, if somebody wins one of the said tournaments, ie Wimbledon they are said to have won one of the Grand Slams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chester copperpot
Your wrong, that is only true in the very traditional meaning of the word.

 

In tennis, if somebody wins one of the said tournaments, ie Wimbledon they are said to have won one of the Grand Slams.

 

 

 

But surely the grand slam is winning all 4 majors, no? That was my point all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But surely the grand slam is winning all 4 majors, no? That was my point all along.

 

Yeh, winning all four majors is completing THE Grand Slam.

 

However the majors are called Grand Slams individually.

 

Today, Nadal won a Grand Slam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chester copperpot
Yeh, winning all four majors is completing THE Grand Slam.

 

However the majors are called Grand Slams individually.

 

Today, Nadal won a Grand Slam.

 

 

 

Fair play. I dont really follow tennis except Wimbledon, so my knowledge is rather limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked the lovely, Mrs. Mcallan, to face the tv on all fours, to enjoy the climax.

 

Sadly, it wasn't to be...:sad:

 

 

Shaping up to be quite a game.

 

There's been some beautiful tennis played so far.*

 

* I know dick all about tennis, but I'm enjoying this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
Are they :confused:

 

Sorry mate, they're majors, winning them all in one season contemplates a grand slam. I might be wrong, but thats my take on it.

 

Sorry. I'm taking this from Golf, as I know that better, but I bet its the same in the tennis world. :P

 

You're possibly confusing the terms between the golf & tennis.

 

The tennis players all call the AO, French, Wimbledon & USO the "slams" and the ATP, who run tennis, report Nadal to have a "fifth Grand Slam title to his name" - so I guess that's it. Each two-week tourney is a Grand Slam title. But, perversely, you don't have a Grand Slam until you win all 4 consecutively.

 

In golf, there are four "majors" and if you win the four in one year you have a Grand Slam. If you hold all four at the same time, won over 2 calendar years, you apparently have the "Tiger Slam".

 

Steffi Graf didn't have a Grand Slam 'cos that's ladies' tennis so it doesn't count. She did have a lovely pair of pins on her, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Crane
You're possibly confusing the terms between the golf & tennis.

 

The tennis players all call the AO, French, Wimbledon & USO the "slams" and the ATP, who run tennis, report Nadal to have a "fifth Grand Slam title to his name" - so I guess that's it. Each two-week tourney is a Grand Slam title. But, perversely, you don't have a Grand Slam until you win all 4 consecutively.

 

In golf, there are four "majors" and if you win the four in one year you have a Grand Slam. If you hold all four at the same time, won over 2 calendar years, you apparently have the "Tiger Slam".

 

Steffi Graf didn't have a Grand Slam 'cos that's ladies' tennis so it doesn't count. She did have a lovely pair of pins on her, though.

 

Steffi achieved the grandslam in 1988.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on it is that tennis folk will call it a grand slam title/event/tournament and just refer to it as such - or, as seems to be the case, more often contract the terminology to grand slam.

 

I'm agreeing with Chester in that THE grand slam is achieving all 4 in a season.

 

Nadal has just won his 5th Grand Slam Tournament - not gonna achieve the grand slam this year (unless he won the Aus...don't think he did?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rossi_1983
Have never really shown that much interest in tennis in recent years. In many ways it has become very much like football : it's not really about skill or technique but if you're fit and strong and can out last your opponent you'll usually win.

 

And that is Nadal.

 

I can't remember a winner at Wimbledon who choked from the baseline and didn't have the skills or the guts to go for a win.

 

Federer is absolute class and came within a whisker of setting a modern day record of 6 straight wins (OK , some other bloke did it in the days of sepia phots).

 

Today will be written up as some sort of classic but it never was. It was nowhere near being a tennis match. just two guys , for the main part, slugging it out like two heavyweight boxers that can't move around the ring.

 

I can't say I'm relishing the thought of Nadal winning anything in the near future. He looks like a caveman and plays like it too.

 

While the tennis was different from the traditional serve volley style of Wimbledon, I don't see how you can say the skill level was less

 

The number of incredible passing shots played by both players was unbelievable. Just take the 4th set tie break, where Nadal played the shot of the tourny to get a match point, passing Federer when he onlhy had the narrowest of margins to play with, before Federer played another pass which was almost as good to save the match.

 

The nature of sport nowadays is always going to mean players are better physically, and this has forced tennis players to play more conservatively earlier on in points, and set up the point from the baseline, rather than the ultra aggressive serve volley tactic. I don't think it makes the sport any less of a spectacle, and would argue that that final was better than any the best serve volleyer of recent times, Sampras, was involved in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rossi_1983
My take on it is that tennis folk will call it a grand slam title/event/tournament and just refer to it as such - or, as seems to be the case, more often contract the terminology to grand slam.

 

I'm agreeing with Chester in that THE grand slam is achieving all 4 in a season.

 

Nadal has just won his 5th Grand Slam Tournament - not gonna achieve the grand slam this year (unless he won the Aus...don't think he did?)

 

Djokovic won the Aussie Open

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
Steffi achieved the grandslam in 1988.

 

You missed my point.

 

That's ladies' tennis.

 

It doesn't count.

 

I even tried watching some of the Williams' brothers' game on Saturday to see whether my prejudices should be put aside but, no. They were hitting it hard alright but keeping it within a 10 degree angle of the centre line at whatever speed does not count as proper tennis.

 

Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have never really shown that much interest in tennis in recent years. In many ways it has become very much like football : it's not really about skill or technique but if you're fit and strong and can out last your opponent you'll usually win.

 

And that is Nadal.

 

I can't remember a winner at Wimbledon who choked from the baseline and didn't have the skills or the guts to go for a win.

 

Federer is absolute class and came within a whisker of setting a modern day record of 6 straight wins (OK , some other bloke did it in the days of sepia phots).

 

Today will be written up as some sort of classic but it never was. It was nowhere near being a tennis match. just two guys , for the main part, slugging it out like two heavyweight boxers that can't move around the ring.

 

I can't say I'm relishing the thought of Nadal winning anything in the near future. He looks like a caveman and plays like it too.

 

Can't disagree more.

 

The skills levels yesterday were phenomenol, it was great to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WestcoastJambo
Have never really shown that much interest in tennis in recent years. In many ways it has become very much like football : it's not really about skill or technique but if you're fit and strong and can out last your opponent you'll usually win.

 

And that is Nadal.

 

I can't remember a winner at Wimbledon who choked from the baseline and didn't have the skills or the guts to go for a win.

 

Federer is absolute class and came within a whisker of setting a modern day record of 6 straight wins (OK , some other bloke did it in the days of sepia phots).

 

Today will be written up as some sort of classic but it never was. It was nowhere near being a tennis match. just two guys , for the main part, slugging it out like two heavyweight boxers that can't move around the ring.

 

I can't say I'm relishing the thought of Nadal winning anything in the near future. He looks like a caveman and plays like it too.

 

 

 

I will have bow to your superior knowledge on troglodytical matters.

 

Out of interest, who is a better player than Nadal now?

 

Your comments sound like those of someone who just doesn't understand what they have just watched.

 

 

 

 

WestcoastJambo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was there yesterday, having managed to get a ticket at the last minute.

 

In terms of an occasion, it was something else. The quality of tennis, the rain delays and for once the atmosphere inside Centre Court was really good. As a venue, it is a very special place and it's a bit like Tynecastle in the fact that the stands are sloped, so the crowd are almost on top of the players.

 

As a huge Federer fan, he deserves so much credit for fighting back because he could have given it up after the second set, especially as he chucked it away. The first rain break did help him though and if he'd played like that from the start, he would have won it. I have to say though, it was virtually dark when he got broken and I think that may have played its part too because Federer's game has less margin for error than Nadal's.

 

There is a huge contrast in styles, you can even tell due to the sound the ball makes after contact. Federer is just a naturally gifted player, where as Nadal in a way is brute force, coupled with ridiculous athletic ability. Nadal's will to win though is extremely scary.

 

It was great to be part of it because it will go down in history, but having seen many nearly efforts from Hearts over the years, that's how it felt yesterday when Nadal eventually won it.

 

It is a cliche in sport to say that it was a shame someone had to lose, but in this case it was true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

The men's final was the perfect example as to why men and women at Wimbledon should not receive the same amount of prize money.

 

 

 

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...