Usain Bolt? That's random.
Usain Bolt? That's random.
I think the seeding should be set for the top 8 in such a way that 1 and 2 don't meet until finals. 1 and 4 in semis, 2 and 3 in the other. 1 and 8 in quarters. Etc. The only problem is that sometimes the tournaments pick their own seeds, right? So they could try to play favorites and seed people to get the best draws.
"Michelle would never be caught with sausage grease staining her Vera Wang." - rfisher
Has the seeding changed this year because my recollection is that it's always been #1 v #3 and #2 v #4?
The All-England Club sometimes adjusts seeds, within certain guidelines. I have a feeling they will do so this year and Nole will be seeded #1, Rafa #2. The French, and the other two Grand Slams, simply go with the rankings as they are a week or so before the tourney starts. There was a pretty big movement to bump Nadal up to #2 in the seedings this year but it didn't happen.
The seeding has generally always been a problem, particularly when you have a top player coming back who has been out for a time recovering from injury or illness.
IMHO, with Rafa's record on clay and at THIS tournament in particular (especially with the way he was playing leading up to Roland Garros since his recent comeback), there's no way Rafa should have been seeded third. At the least Rafa should have been the second seed.
Obviously, the Nole vs Nadal semifinal was the FINAL.
Congrats to Serena for coming back at this tournament so strong after going out surprisingly in the first round last year. She learned from that experience and didn't allow it to stop her. Kudos! However, I'm not sure why NBC thought it important to replay the women's final from yesterday after the anti-climactic men's final. I would have much rather preferred seeing a replay of some of the exciting points from the Nole/ Nadal semifinal that should have been men's FINAL match.
Seeing that crazy coming onto the court when Nadal and Ferrer were playing reminded me of the attack on Monica Seles in Germany. Certainly Graf would not have won 22 Grand Slam Championships if Monica Seles had not been stabbed.
Novak's comments prior to the semis about being ready to dethrone Nadal at Roland Garros, were clearly a way to convince himself and everyone else that he could do it this time. Nadal had other plans. Let your on court play do the talking, Nole.
Also, as usual the U.S. commentators are annoying and often boorish. During the Tsonga/ Ferrer match they were entertaining themselves by talking about French accusations of doping against Spanish players. Carillo had the nerve to say: "Well, the French were right about Lance Armstrong." What has that got to do with Spanish tennis players!? Rafa has won on heart, nerves, courage, talent, tenacity, single-minded hard work, and effin' awesome ability to never give up. Rafa has inspired all tennis players to hustle, hustle, hustle for every ball to the point where it's almost commonplace to see both men and women players making incredible gets, sometimes for winners!
I had actually missed seeing the Nadal/ Nole match live, so when I tuned in during the Ferrer/ Tsonga match and heard how listless and dejected Carillo and McEnroe sounded, I knew that Novak had lost. If Novak had won, Carillo and Mac would have been much more energized and upbeat since they clearly do not favor Rafa. Of course, their commentary today during the men's final was all sweetness and light ... Someone probably rapped Carillo and Mac on the knuckles a bit for some of their more biased comments on Friday.
Probably NBC would have preferred a Novak vs Tsonga or Federer final. Certainly the French wanted to see Tsonga in the finals. Don't know what happened to Tsonga's play on Friday against Ferrer. And too bad Ferrer was unable to rise to the occasion today vs his friend and countryman, Rafael Nadal.
Nadal, The Fierce Forever Champion!
McEnroe LOVES Nadal! It's Roger he doesn't favor. He let out a huge, gleeful YES! when Tsonga broke Roger in the 1st set during their match. And, he always makes the ludicrous claim that Nadal is the GOAT.
I assumed the final would be one-sided, which is why any of the other final possibilities (Novak/Ferrer, Novak/Tsonga, Nadal/Tsonga) would have been more interesting.
In regards to the seeding, #1 faced #3 just last year at RG. And, I don't think Wimbledon will seed Nadal #2. Perhaps #4, but definitely not #2.
I can't find any logic in calling Nadal the GOAT. Not unless Nadal matches Rogers other records. He is clearly the greatest on clay but Roger is clearly the greatest on grass and has more of the other Slams besides the French.
"Michelle would never be caught with sausage grease staining her Vera Wang." - rfisher
As far as Mac being in love with Nadal. I do believe Mac likes Nadal more than Carillo. And they both have shown Nadal grudging respect over the years. But seriously, in the early years of Federer vs Nadal, they completely favored Federer over Nadal. The favoritism and dismissiveness toward Nadal has been very obvious over the years. I think Mac couldn't help but begin to respect and like Nadal because of Nadal's true grit and the way Nadal has never given up, and because Nadal has proven time and time again that he's a champion with heart. Still there have been plenty of dismissive comments by both Mac and Carillo (especially Carillo) toward Nadal. Mac is just a little bit less biased than Carillo.
Last year Carillo was doing a lot of silly talk about Nadal not being elegant enough. Usually when Carillo makes such dufus remarks, Mac takes the high road. Still, they both clearly favor Novak over Nadal, now that Federer is no longer at the height of his elegant dominance.
Perhaps Mac isn't as enamored of Roger the way he used to be because Mac's critical of the way Roger has not worked very hard on adapting and changing his game in order to stay on top. Seems to me that Mac and NBC were interested in seeing Tsonga make the final because of the occasion and venue, and also because they may have felt if Novak got past Nadal, the final would be entertaining but not necessarily that difficult for Novak to win. Novak is the current apple of their eyes.
It would have been entertaining to see a final with either Novak/ Federer, or Novak/ Tsonga, or Rafa/ Federer, or Rafa/ Tsonga, but obviously Novak vs Nadal was the EPIC final that happened in the semis.
I am a Nadal fan, but Federer is the GOAT. McEnroe is a huge proponent of Nadal, always has been, but his habit of bringing up Nadal's winning record over Fed is misleading. The reason it's so lopsided (20-10) is that half of their meetings have been on clay, usually in finals (Rome, Monte Carlo, Roland Garros); Nadal is the best clay courter of all time and, until relatively recently, Federer was the second-best clay courter around. They competed less on hard courts, simply because Nadal did not reach as many hard court finals as Fed. Had a prime Fed met Nadal on hard courts more often, for example at the US Open 2006-2011, the record would be closer. Fed's mastery of every other player on clay, save Nadal, is what "hurt" him.
i am not crazy about john mcenroe as a commentator. he spends so much time trying to be right. if he ever said you were going to be "the next great x" or something, he will try to make you happen and every little thing including how you towel off proves his point.
I feel like I'm in a dream. But it can't be a dream because there are no boy dancers!
Personally, I think the whole GOAT argument is ridiculous. The whole argument is so forced, and does nothing but benefit the world of sports commentating that functions so much on pure hyperbole these days. To base the GOAT argument completely on Slams seems a bit ridiculous. But, also, even to do that (base it all on Slams) assumes a "with everything being equal" attitude, and things are never equal (competition, circumstances, technology, expectations, etc.). Had the 90s not been as competitive as it was, probably Sampras would have more Slam titles. Had the early 2000s not seen so many injuries and retirements, probably Federer would have less. Had Rafael Nadal not been 5 years younger than Federer, probably Federer would have still fewer titles. Had Rafael Nadal not been injured in 2009, probably Federer would not have the career slam, and would, therefore, have a weaker claim to the GOAT. And it goes on and on and on...
I am a ridiculous fan of Rafa, but I couldn't care less about the GOAT argument. He's my personal GOAT, and whether or not people recognize that doesn't affect my ability to appreciate his playing, nor to appreciate other players' accomplishments.
FREAKY protests in the Ferrer/Nadal match. Dudes running around with fireworks and crap. I'd be scared out of my mind.
BARK LESS. WAG MORE.
To nylynnr, we can all claim and ride whatever goat we please. ITA with reve that arguments surrounding who's the GOAT are pointless. It used to be Sampras vs. Laver bandied about all the time. What are they now? Chopped liver?
It's not really about GOAT. It's about those epic moments of great play with the best of the best pushing each other to the limits with their hearts on fire, and our hearts in our throats cheering them on. I will never forget Borg vs. McEnroe 1980 Wimbledon. I will never forget Federer vs. Nadal 2008 Wimbledon. I will never forget Ivan Lendl at his best and Andre Agassi at his greatest. I will never forget the Evert vs Navratilova battles and Graf vs. Seles, and the way the Williams sisters took the women's game to new heights. I won't ever forget Arthur Ashe cool as a cucumber taking brash Jimmy Connors apart at Wimbledon 1975, thus changing the historic course of the men's game. And I won't forget Connors strutting his last hurrah at the U.S. Open in 1991.
Speaking of EPIC, there's a 2011 book by that title re Borg vs McEnroe:
BTW, Federer is a magical artist on the tennis court in a class by himself, and he holds some amazing records. The fact that Nadal has aspects to his game that have given Federer trouble goes beyond the court surfaces factor, although hard and grass surfaces have obviously been a neutralizer more favorable to Fed in their head to heads. Certainly Nadal will go down in history as the greatest ever on clay until and unless someone else comes along to match his records. Also to Nadal's credit is how he has been able to raise and adapt his game to win Grand Slams on other surfaces, and of course his lasting legacy will be the 110% never-say-die effort he always gives. To be honest, however, Nadal did not become such a great champion because he's concerned about any GOAT title claims by fans.
I don't think Federer's losing record to Nadal (mostly on clay) has "hurt" Fed. It doesn't take anything away from Fed's records or his championship mettle. Clay is not Federer's best surface, but he learned how to master it, just as Nadal learned how to improve enough to win on grass. There are no what ifs, only what is.
I think the fact that Federer has accomplished everything under the sun and then some in tennis makes him not quite as hungry, even though he still loves and respects the game and he can still make magic on the court.
Last edited by aftershocks; 06-11-2013 at 04:41 AM.
The ratings system needs some sort of overhaul as how can Nadal drop below Ferrer after beating him so convincingly on Sunday. Yes I know Nadal only defended his points and Ferrer did better than last year but still its pretty silly really.
Watching some Queens club tennis (around rain showers) and the grass courts look so much smaller than the clay ones - weird as I know they are the same size but it just looks smaller to me!!