Though i am a great fan of Federer, i must acknowledge that Nadal is phenomenal this year. After watching this epic match, i dont mind if Federer has won or Nadal.. Its the game of Tennis that won!! Hope this great rivalry will be carried forward to Flushing Meadows too..
RE:Bad light was there for Nadal aswell
by bharat on Jul 07, 2008 11:17 AM
Nadal is younger and has stronger eyes. Federer is old and has got cataract in his eyes!
RE:Bad light was there for Nadal aswell
by SaiSubramanyam Thoota on Jul 07, 2008 12:15 PM
This is not the complete interview. Go and see wimbledon website for the complete news...
RE:Bad light was there for Nadal aswell
by Narendra Kulkarni on Jul 07, 2008 05:49 PM
Mr Sai, I have just pasted the news from wimbledon site for your reference in which he complains about the light. This is unbecoming of a champ. If he was worried about light, he could have talked to the umpire rather than reacting afterwards in post-match conference.
After his epic five-set battle, Roger Federer was due in the press interview room at 9.55pm, with the newly minted champion Rafael Nadal next up at 10.20pm. Perhaps to make sure that he would only have to do the 10-minute minimum as the world waited for him to dissect his defeat, the beaten finalist eventually appeared, red-eyed and disconsolate, at 10.10pm on the dot. What followed was as much of a roller-coaster as the match itself.
"I thought we both played well," he said, before beginning a litany of lethargically raised eyebrows and shrugged shoulders. "The rain didn’t help me that much – I didn’t win the match, did I? I was struggling with the wind a little bit and the light was tough but that was not an excuse. This is probably the hardest loss of my career so far."
Once the conference moved into French, Federer suddenly became decidedly more blunt and to the point. "I couldn’t see who I was playing against by the end," he said with another shrug which he used as punctuation to make it quite clear that he had no intention of giving a more detailed answer.
When asked whether it was a consolation that it was a great player like Nadal who had put an end to his 65-match winning streak, Federer’s humour
Looking at a dejected Federer, somehow managing to stop tears, was a painful sight. I hope this crushing defeat rather than making him despondent and demotivated, will make him more resolute and make him work harder, to reassert himself on Nadal.
RE:Federer
by Maprayil Joseph Joseph on Jul 07, 2008 11:08 AM
What do you know about tennis, my dear A or B Singh? What, pray, is the meaning of "crushing defeat"? Did you watch the game. That was a battle of titans and in some what both were winners.
RE:Federer
by A Singh on Jul 07, 2008 01:54 PM
Dear Mr Joseph. You have desired to know if I know anything about Tennis, and yet your question actually accuses me of using an English word (Crushing) rather wrongly. I will explain. Crushing, to my mind is something that crushes. Roger Federer has himself termed this defeat as 'disaster', with the crushing (in real sense of the word) defeat at Paris last month being nowhere this defeat. According to his own words, the defeat at Paris had not affected him much, but this one has really numbed him. What else is 'Crushing', my dear Sir?
RE:Federer
by Ramanath Babu on Jul 07, 2008 06:08 PM
Mr. Singh,
There is only one meaning for 'crushing defeat' That is a defeat by a big margin. If Roger said it ws a disaster, that means it was such a gruesome match.
Perhaps we have not only witnessed an enthralling contest of two greatest players of our era but we have also been fortunate enough to witness greatest ever Wimbledon Final. Quite sad for millions of Federer fans that he lost. But he lost with grace and accepted the defeat graciously. Hats off to Nadal in the way he has moulded himself from a clay court specialist into a Wimbledon champion.
But let's not write-off Fedex. He is still the greatest-ever, not just in numbers but for the way plays and conducts himself both on and off the court. I would never consider Nadal's play as eye-catching because it is made up of brute power. While Federer's play is as smooth and as aesthetic like Da Vinci's art or Bethovan's music, Nadal is like a AK 47 firing. I am sure there are at least few like me who are bit traditionalist when it comes to tennis. Tennis game played by serve-volleyers such as Boris, great Stephen Edberg, Sampras is true tennis. Thatz why perhaps Williams' sisters never attract huge fans while Kim Clisters, Hingis, Steffi Graff's managed to take the entire audience to another world of total tennis.
Both Nadala and Federer have superb forehand. But while the former has brute forehand. the latter's forehand is like a knife slicing through butter. Baseline belongs to none other than Federer (Ask Hewitt or Roddick.
But having said this I don't want to take anything away from young Nadal because for long he has been the second best. If not Fedex, he is the great
RE:Fedex Derailed
by Nitrous Oxide on Jul 07, 2008 10:56 AM
just a point to note here - Graf was never a serve and volley player. She had a horrid volley all through her career
RE:Fedex Derailed
by gladson dalmeida on Jul 07, 2008 11:51 AM
Dude! I do agree with you that Steffi wasn't a great serve-volley player. In fact she used her topspin backhand only for passing shots, but as her number of net advances decreased, she even lessened this shot. She built her powerful and accurate serve up to 180 km/h (110 mph), making it one of the fastest serves in women's tennis, and was a capable volleyer, but was often criticized for not using her volley more often.
But what I meant to put forward was that the beauty of game that Steffi, Navratilova, even for that matter a few others like Sabatini, Hingis had in their play is not seen today in Williams sisters or someone like Amelia Mauresmo.
RE:Fedex Derailed
by Sumeet on Jul 07, 2008 11:03 AM
Well said Nitrous..same goes with Borg - not a great serve and volley player. Borg was one of the first top players to use heavy topspin on his shots. Nadal uses that style. The only difference in todays match was 52 Unforced errors to 27 - thats it!
Its good for tennis that we have a new champ. Nadal deserves it too. Honestly speaking in Fed's pure form the real score would have been 7-6 6-3 7-6 Fed wins! It was only the last 2 sets that Nadal overpowered Fed. Fed handed the first 2 on a platter..the whole world saw it. Just check the statistics. Fed had almost got the better of Nadal had not the 52 unforced errors versus Nadals 27. Nadal is in ominous form and he is connecting at will. Its good for roger he lost..He will come out of his comfort zone now and hit the practice sessions. Fed will bounce back next year for sure. Having said that Fed will never conquer France unless Nadal pulls out!
RE:Fed is the real champ. Nadal is the new force for sure!
by SaiSubramanyam Thoota on Jul 07, 2008 12:18 PM
Wimbledon court has become slow now a days... Thats the reason Nadal gave a tough fight for Fedex... Fedex will come up with a different game plan for Rafa next year for sure...
RE:Fed is the real champ. Nadal is the new force for sure!
by Ark on Jul 07, 2008 11:07 AM
Absoultely The first two sets were served on a platter by Fedex
Now Rafa Rafa is king NO..............in usual Nadal style. Fedex is no match to nadal...if fed had real talent he would have atleast won 50% of matches between them but infact he won about 33% matchs against nadal. Nadal = Fed power mental strength fighting attitude!!
If Fed is to be called as great champion or the best player he needs to dominate his era...at least Sampras had done that job...over the career...sampras won more head to head against Agassi!! and others are nowhere close to sampras..though he lost more matches than federer..he remained dominant..
RE:RE:re:wimbledon finals
by gladson dalmeida on Jul 07, 2008 11:02 AM
Seems to be lacking tennis knowledge! Out of 18 matches between Nadala and Fedex, 11 matches were on clay in which he wond 9. Obviously, if those 11 were on Grass or hardcourt, balance would tilted in Fedex favour and it would have read 11-7 in Fedex favour. Let me clarify about Sampras. He was great true. But not as great as Fedex obviously because, Fedex has been the best on Hardcourt, Grasscourt and has been the second best to Nadal on clay. If not Nadal, he would have won 3 French open titles too. (he lost 3 finals and one semi-final to Nadal). Sampras never reached this stage in French open. He was King of Grass while Roger is King of Tennis.
Strictly speaking, apart from the progressive rise of Nadal in Tennis, this year it was a psychological warfare unleashed by Bjorn Borg & others against Federer. His opponents said repeatedly that Federer would find it hard to progress even against his weaker opponents. Added to this he was down two sets. Despite all these he held his nerves till the end but his luck ditched him in the last game of the match. Hats off to Federer for showing his courage and fighting an epic battle that was the longest in the history of Wimbledon and probably the greatest till date.
This is not to underestimate the greatness of Nadal who richly deserved the victory. However, imagine when everyone was shouting that Federer was old, this young man had to fight tooth and nail to snatch the crown from federer.
RE:Federer Loses Wimbledon Crown
by Basheer on Jul 07, 2008 10:44 AM
I also felt there are some psycological warfare.Without discounting greatness of Borg,I felt taht man is frustrated about losing his record.
Nadal deserved and he looked more versatile tahn Federer by winning both in clay and grass
Obviously there was no light for both of them.... The match would have been over in 3 sets if the rain had not interrupted... Rain brought federer back in the match.. He needs to be happy atleast for that... stupid Fedex!!
