What are they talking about anyone know? Djokovic i'm picking but Nadals good and then Federer is no slouch. Don't even watch tennis but these guys are as good as it gets and like rugby players they're real athletes.
Brycy
I happen to be a tennis faanatic as well. has been to Roland Garros to watch the French Open - would like to go again. Djokovic is obviously the number 1 player in the world on certain types of courts - especially hard and grass - but he is not so hot on clay. There I give Nadal the better chance to beat him 80% of the time.
So does Federer - he thinks Nadal would win the French Open. Do you know that Federer's mother is an Afrikaans speaking lady - and that when he goes on holiday - he has a home near Knysna and his favourite relaxation is deep sea fishing with his fishing boat at Knysna? He is very popular in SA. However, i do think he was the greatest tennis player ever and there can be no doubt about it. The second candidate for that honour is in fact Nadal.
Djokovic won an astounding number of torrunaments last year - but this year he has not done so well - and lost both the Monte Carlo Masters and Italian Masters ( both clay court surface) to Nadal. His points differnce with Nadal and Federer has as a result been reduced massively and if he does not win at Wimbledon or at the US Masters he is going to lose his number 1 ranking.
Doks did beat Nadal a number of times on clay and other surfaces last year - in fact I think it was seven in a row.
Nadal is excellent on clay but do not write off Doks who is as Nadal himself has said is a very special player. Doks had an incredible win agains Tsonga and showed what a superb fighter he is. I cant see Feds winning but its not impossible.
The next greatest player to Feds is Sampras but one wonders about Laver who of course did not get the same opportunities.
Nadal is probably the favourite right now. David Ferrer could have beaten Nadal at Mone Carlo but didn't quite keep his nerve. Nevertheless he is capable of causing an upset in the semis.
Moorie crumbled like a wet blanket against Ferrer yesterday. Not sure whther his back and his leg is gving him troubles - one moment he is moving well the next its a problem.
Ferrer a small old guy, beat Murray a big young guy. Federer a small old guy, beat del Potro a big, menacing, young guy.
Seems in other sports being old and small maaks niks. I doubt Heineke would have taken the Federer coaching job when Paul Annacone did though.....how could a small guy like Federer play a 6' 6" giant like del Potro?
Tennis is a bit different to rugby is my wild guess! Doks is tall and young and rules the roost!
Del Potro is not fit - knee problems. Ferrer is a clay court specialist. Murray should beat him if fully fit on other surfaces. etc etc
Handsome is as handsome does.
One thing about Ferrer - as a kid his ambition was to become a bricklayer, but I do not think bricklaying would realise the type of money he won thus far as a tennis player = $13 300 000. He said of Nadal that it extremely hard to take a set of him - but virtually impossible to get three sets . Ferrer is probably right - he cannot beat Nadal unless Nadal is injured.
I heard Sharapov has a $70 million swimsuit deal and Docs has signed a $10 million per year for 5 years.
The tournament wnnings are petty cash for the top players. Sharapove has to be a billionaire at 25. She is now world number one and on expects her to win the GFrench Open on Saturday, playing very well an looking great!!
The mens semis today are going to be very good matches. Ferrer can win if Nadal has an off day probably about a 20% chance. The mental toughnes of Doks should see him through. He is realistically the only guy who can beat Nadal on clay.
Federer may have a chance on grass court. Love watching him play.
Beeno - Sharapova - nicest thing to look at playing tennis. I call her "legs and tits" when discussing her with anybody. Yes the players earn about three times more than their game winings in sponsorships. That means that the sponsorship value for Federer over a ten year period probably amounts to $2,1 billion and Nadal is probably in the vicinity of $1,8 billion
Ferrer's sponsorship is somewhere in the vicinity of $300 million over a ten year period.
Yes - they probably will be billionaires over the next decade - but I still like "Legs and Tits" No - I agree with Federer and Ferrer - it is very, very hard to beat Nadal on clay Last year Nadal was carrying a knee injury and his performances were affected by that. This year he won at Barcelona, Monte Carlo and Rome - all clay court tournaments. i think the crunch match that will determine whether Djokovic remains as number one in the world will not be at Roland Garros - but at Wimbledon.
Anyway the good bookmaker Mike Aufrigtig - who never loses a bet - says its Nadal on Sunday. :)
The odds have to b eon Nadal, but it is not cast in stone.
As I said Ferrer came very close to beating him. He lost the final rather than Nadal wining it. Doks is not to be dismissed lightly. I would not be in any way shocked if he won. It often depends on small things and how guys go on the day. Docs is going for the slam - holding all 4 majors at once.
Beeno - Sharapova - nicest thing to look at playing tennis. I call her "legs and tits" when discussing her with anybody. Yes the players earn about three times more than their game winings in sponsorships. That means that the sponsorship value for Federer over a ten year period probably amounts to $2,1 billion and Nadal is probably in the vicinity of $1,8 billion
Ferrer's sponsorship is somewhere in the vicinity of $300 million over a ten year period.
Yes - they probably will be billionaires over the next decade - but I still like "Legs and Tits" No - I agree with Federer and Ferrer - it is very, very hard to beat Nadal on clay Last year Nadal was carrying a knee injury and his performances were affected by that. This year he won at Barcelona, Monte Carlo and Rome - all clay court tournaments. i think the crunch match that will determine whether Djokovic remains as number one in the world will not be at Roland Garros - but at Wimbledon.
Anyway the good bookmaker Mike Aufrigtig - who never loses a bet - says its Nadal on Sunday. :)
Beeno - Beeno - Beeno
Did not Mike Auftigtig - the bookie who never loses a bet - forecast the Nadal win over Ferrer? He beats Ferrer 6-2, 6-2, 6-1. Important to remember Ferrer is the number 6 player in the world - that shows how good nadal really was.
Now for the forecast of the other semi. Think that Federer will beat Djokovic to reach the final - but will not give odds or lay a bet on that one. Reason - Djokovic was poor on clay this year - did not win a single clay court tournament this year - and has not been up to his performances of last year.
Listen to the bookie - who will really provide top advice. Don't waste your money on Djokovic and avoid Federer as well. Even-stevens - this one. However, in the final - I suggest generous odds of 5/10 on Nadal winning against either of the other two semi-finalists.
I am just taking the following treble : Junior Boks by more than 10 today - Boks by more than 7 tomorrow and Nadal to win the French Open. Waiting for the suckers to phone me back on that one.
The bookie phoned back - they are too afraid to take that bet. See what I told you lot.
Brycy...this is a .rugby forum for your information.
Sorry Kiwi.
sorry Arse King , i made a comparison between rugby players and great tennis players so rugby was mentioned...
AJ a little tennis adds some variety in due course we may have another tab for tennis but not needed for now.
Beeno1....no offence meant, but thanks for the cordial response.
Brycy.....you have to get out of the slums mate, as well as taking your meds on time.
Not everything revolves around around an a..e, but then we understand!!!!!
Shams, Shame, Shame.
Congrats to Maria on briliant French Open win. She now has completed the slam, is ranked number 1 in the world and ready to make another Rbillion!
Now its Docs versus Nadal with everyone thinking Nadal is invincible on clay. We shall see - ou Doks is not going to be a push over for sure. Federer suffered from his service being of song and not having a two fisted backhand so needed on clay - an old issue which is puzzling as he should have addressed this. Cant believe for moment he could not have done so.
