Topic: ATP - 2009 Australian Open: Jan. 19 - Feb. 1

[TennisVeritas]

many have high hopes on murray but what i feel is, if the surfaces are going to play any slower, i think murray will struggle from round 3 itself.........

The AO surface, at least if we believe some AO managers' recent interviews, is expected to be slightly faster than last year due manly to the fact that now it has been used..

In any case, I am easily on the Muzza bandwagon: I hope a final for him and why not the title..

[Clay Death]

Depending on the draw, I think Federer or Djokovic will win the AO with Tsonga being the dark horse.

is Tsonga really that consistent. i realize he had a great tournament here last time around but the competition is vastly improved.

i give him an outside/slim shot at the semis at best. best possible prediction for him the quarters at best. he is capable of an upset or 2 early on but i dont think goes all the way to the final this time.

Just a dark horse choice - I don't think he'll win it, but I agree that he could be a spoiler that takes out one of the big 3 or 4.

D-Pot and Simon are also capable of some big scalps early on.

[swish]

This past year wasn't that surprising for Nadal, Djokovic lost his mojo and played poorly for months. Fed had the same problem for different reasons and still was able to make finals, besides that he did little.
With Fed and Djoko absent who did Nadal play that was worthy? Just think about it.

 

aah, look who's talking now..........a "fan of none"..........where were you this year when rafael edged out djokovic and demolished his psyche at hamburg, roland garros and queen's when djokovic was totally closing in on him rapidly?  where were you when nadal was on the edge of taking federer(who din't lose a set mind you reaching the final) out in straight sets at the wimbledon? you are just losing your respect with such cheap comments...........need i go on and tell you what nadal did to federer at RG final? the jealous is quite obvious..........even a player like nalbandian found some of his magic and took federer out not once, but twice late last year.........now was that something like pre-mono effect? get over it and start admitting the obvious..........they are not some clowns, federer and djokovic whom nadal over took in a heroic manner to become no.1...........and mind you, it's only after nadal ousted djokovic in a quite a few intense battles that he lost focus and started playing badly..........he just destroyed djokovic's confidence by taking him out in straight sets at queen's, a result which was unexpected for most, but not to me as i already said it was going to be a straight sets win............

That's how I see it, nothing more. I said he had a great year, if you want me to kneel down next to you it won't happen. I gave Nadal enough praise, what more is there to say, I can't overlook ALL areas and only focus on some that you want.

I can reply to many of your posts and argue about it but Nadal's your man, enjoy his success's but don't expect all others to follow, that would be unrealistic.

when did i? but you know, when you bring comments like  "With Fed and Djoko absent who did Nadal play that was worthy? Just think about it."   to the fore, it gets funnily serious............

Ok, maybe that came out as too harsh. It's just hard to give my honest opinion without upsetting some fans and to word it perfectly all the time.

[Clay Death]

This past year wasn't that surprising for Nadal, Djokovic lost his mojo and played poorly for months. Fed had the same problem for different reasons and still was able to make finals, besides that he did little.
With Fed and Djoko absent who did Nadal play that was worthy? Just think about it.

 

aah, look who's talking now..........a "fan of none"..........where were you this year when rafael edged out djokovic and demolished his psyche at hamburg, roland garros and queen's when djokovic was totally closing in on him rapidly?  where were you when nadal was on the edge of taking federer(who din't lose a set mind you reaching the final) out in straight sets at the wimbledon? you are just losing your respect with such cheap comments...........need i go on and tell you what nadal did to federer at RG final? the jealous is quite obvious..........even a player like nalbandian found some of his magic and took federer out not once, but twice late last year.........now was that something like pre-mono effect? get over it and start admitting the obvious..........they are not some clowns, federer and djokovic whom nadal over took in a heroic manner to become no.1...........and mind you, it's only after nadal ousted djokovic in a quite a few intense battles that he lost focus and started playing badly..........he just destroyed djokovic's confidence by taking him out in straight sets at queen's, a result which was unexpected for most, but not to me as i already said it was going to be a straight sets win............

That's how I see it, nothing more. I said he had a great year, if you want me to kneel down next to you it won't happen. I gave Nadal enough praise, what more is there to say, I can't overlook ALL areas and only focus on some that you want.

I can reply to many of your posts and argue about it but Nadal's your man, enjoy his success's but don't expect all others to follow, that would be unrealistic.

when did i? but you know, when you bring comments like  "With Fed and Djoko absent who did Nadal play that was worthy? Just think about it."   to the fore, it gets funnily serious............

Ok, maybe that came out as too harsh. It's just hard to give my honest opinion without upsetting some fans and to word it perfectly all the time.

actually the clay monster beat them all into submission. he pounded them into the ground everywhere and on all surfaces to race ahead.

most notably he had to deal with the top guns. there was no avoiding them anywhere and he took on the strongest fields everywhere. he didnt run ad hide. he faced the music and paid his dues to get what he was looking for.

80 match win season is no ordinary matter. he played 111 matches to be exact and was relatively successful in doubles as well. he took home a masters series title in doubles at Monte Carlo. he scored wins over some very tough teams in doubles.

this was definitley a season for the history books. the historic double (roland Garros and Wimby) alone is enough for the history books. whaen was the last time that happened in the open era?

all this from a guy who cannot fix his fitness, training, and scheduling and has a limited game. further, he has a relatively weak serve for a top player. there are no easy points for this guy.

[sid]

many have high hopes on murray but what i feel is, if the surfaces are going to play any slower, i think murray will struggle from round 3 itself.........

The AO surface, at least if we believe some AO managers' recent interviews, is expected to be slightly faster than last year due manly to the fact that now it has been used..

In any case, I am easily on the Muzza bandwagon: I hope a final for him and why not the title..

Should be good news for Murray if the court is faster & bad news for Nadal.Slower the court the less chance Nadal has,but when quicker its Roger,Djokovic & Murray.
 

[huntingyou]

many have high hopes on murray but what i feel is, if the surfaces are going to play any slower, i think murray will struggle from round 3 itself.........

The AO surface, at least if we believe some AO managers' recent interviews, is expected to be slightly faster than last year due manly to the fact that now it has been used..

In any case, I am easily on the Muzza bandwagon: I hope a final for him and why not the title..

Should be good news for Murray if the court is faster & bad news for Nadal.Slower the court the less chance Nadal has,but when quicker its Roger,Djokovic & Murray.
 

is not about speed but the ball reaction with the surfaces and the AO surface takes spin and slice extremely well........it allows all types of game styles to succeed which was the original purpose of the AO rebound ace.

I though when Nadal won Queens, Wimbledon, Toronto and Beijing the speed "myth" was put to rest....I guees he has to do more winning to convince the non thinking masses.

[Clay Death]

many have high hopes on murray but what i feel is, if the surfaces are going to play any slower, i think murray will struggle from round 3 itself.........

The AO surface, at least if we believe some AO managers' recent interviews, is expected to be slightly faster than last year due manly to the fact that now it has been used..

In any case, I am easily on the Muzza bandwagon: I hope a final for him and why not the title..

Should be good news for Murray if the court is faster & bad news for Nadal.Slower the court the less chance Nadal has,but when quicker its Roger,Djokovic & Murray.
 

you can keep praying that the clay monster will encounter difficulty there. just remember one thing:

there is only one person who can stop the clay monster. it is the clay monster himself.

did you forget how fast grass really is? let me refresh your memory since you have constant memory lapses:

1. grass is the fastest surface out there. Fed had 84 winners in that 2008 final. he had no less than 25 aces. can Fed produce those staggering numbers anywhere else? the answer is NO. he did that because grass is really fast.

oh by the way, Fed lost anyway.

now lets talk Queens: grass there is even slicker. Dr. Ivo had no less than 35 aces there. clay monster anyway.

hard courts at the olympics were very fast and the clay monster was at 70% capacity.

do i need to go on?

[Emma]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

[Clay Death]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

[Emma]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

[Clay Death]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

[Emma]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

[Clay Death]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some. queens grass is the same as it has always been. this may explain Roddick`s success there. he did run into red hot clay monster this year however who shut him down in straight sets.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma.

[Emma]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

[Clay Death]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

sampras has 14 slams. all on super slick surfaces. grass was slick back then. u.s. open surface has been fast hard courts for quite sometime now.

there is no doubt he was a great mover and a great athlete but his game was limited in scope. he knew he could not win at roland garros. he is not the only great one who could not pocket a title at roland garros. johhny mac, connors, newcombe, and so many others would never win the title at roland garros either. and now Fed is a casualty at roland garros. he will be without a title there as well.

there is a reason why French Open is considered the hardest slam to win. its just not that easy.

[sid]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

Grass @ wimby is not as quick as past years now,if it gets any slower it will be like a Clay court

[Emma]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

sampras has 14 slams. all on super slick surfaces. grass was slick back then. u.s. open surface has been fast hard courts for quite sometime now.

there is no doubt he was a great mover and a great athlete but his game was limited in scope. he knew he could not win at roland garros. he is not the only great one who could not pocket a title at roland garros. johhny mac, connors, newcombe, and so many others would never win the title at roland garros either. and now Fed is a casualty at roland garros. he will be without a title there as well.

there is a reason why French Open is considered the hardest slam to win. its just not that easy.

It is not when you are born and brought up on clay. Pete's attitude towards RG was more like, "hmm...I don't know if I can win but I am sure I don't care. " You do not seem to reckon the idea that many greats didn't care about RG as much as they cared about other slams. Look at the past winners at RG. What do you see? It's as always crowded by clay courters and won by clay courters most of the time. How many times were there exceptions? Most importantly, why hasn't Nadal won a hard court slam yet? What's keeping him? If clay is the hardest then shouldn't any other surface be a cakewalk?  But there's still hope for you herc, my dear friend.

[Emma]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

Grass @ wimby is not as quick as past years now,if it gets any slower it will be like a Clay court

But they should make it faster as it was. That's the beauty of grass after all. Nadal will struggle. Hence it will show his weakness on grass. Or better yet, make the clay as fast as possible and bring Pete back. Why not? Let's play all the scenarios possible since we are busy writing people off.

[sid]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

sampras has 14 slams. all on super slick surfaces. grass was slick back then. u.s. open surface has been fast hard courts for quite sometime now.

there is no doubt he was a great mover and a great athlete but his game was limited in scope. he knew he could not win at roland garros. he is not the only great one who could not pocket a title at roland garros. johhny mac, connors, newcombe, and so many others would never win the title at roland garros either. and now Fed is a casualty at roland garros. he will be without a title there as well.

there is a reason why French Open is considered the hardest slam to win. its just not that easy.

It is not when you are born and brought up on clay. Pete's attitude towards RG was more like, "hmm...I don't know if I can win but I am sure I don't care. " You do not seem to reckon the idea that many greats didn't care about RG as much as they cared about other slams. Look at the past winners at RG. What do you see? It's as always crowded by clay courters and won by clay courters most of the time. How many times were there exceptions? Most importantly, why hasn't Nadal won a hard court slam yet? What's keeping him? If clay is the hardest then shouldn't any other surface be a cakewalk?  But there's still hope for you herc, my dear friend.

Also has Nadal been in a hardcourt slam final??? i don't think he has yet.As far as i know in a hardcourt slam Nadal gone no farther than a SF.

[sid]

In one hand, I can't wait for AO. On another, I don't want it to come sooner.

can you be any more indecisive or is that pretty much it?

Then there's this desire of wanting neither.

not me. i just cant wait. my favorite is roland garros but i have come to enjoy the australian open as well. wimby is getting interesting too. i used to never care much for grass but the matches are getting more interesting.

But of course, as soon as Nadal won Wimby now you care about grass. How very shallow of you. Do you now see the greatness of Pete on grass?

sampras was limited in some ways. fast grass and fast hard courts. to each his/her own. i had gotten bored with tennis on grass back then. saw enough to know that it didnt really interest me that much.

i prefer longer matches that take endurance, physical and mental strength, strategy, tactics, and the use of every shot and angle imaginable into account.

none of this slam, bam, thank you you mam crap. i was not the only one evidently. the world really didnt give a damn about serving contests. that is why they slowed the grass down some.

now the matches are longer and we have some strategy and brilliant shot making from all over the court. this may be why they are calling the last Wimby final the greatest match ever played.

there is hope for you yet emma. so who is shallow again?

To each his/her own I suppose. Why do I get the feeling though, if Nadal had a bigger serve you would have been a happy puppy? Anyway, I didn't think the last Wimby final was the greatest match ever played. Again to each his/her own. But I am sure, Shankar, who you agree with 99% of the time, will strongly disagree. Pete wasn't all about serve and that's where you go so wrong.

Clay bores me. Grass is not yet as slow as it makes out to be.

Grass @ wimby is not as quick as past years now,if it gets any slower it will be like a Clay court

But they should make it faster as it was. That's the beauty of grass after all. Nadal will struggle. Hence it will show his weakness on grass. Or better yet, make the clay as fast as possible and bring Pete back. Why not? Let's play all the scenarios possible since we are busy writing people off.

Grass thay might well speed up,I'm sure there know it will help Murray's game.