|Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 1076340 members, 1264366 topics. Date: Wednesday, 19 June 2013 at 01:51 AM
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by dinozzo(m): 12:35pm On Jul 09, 2007|
drink , I was down throughout yesterday because Nadal lost, he was so close. I can still remember those missed opportunities to break Federer in the final set. It was just sad. He is only 21. He will win it at some stage of his career thats for sure.
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by viee(f): 12:47pm On Jul 09, 2007|
u r right fola,
though he lost, i truly enjoyed d game and real proud of Rafa
comom, dino, at least we were not expecting such display on grass from him naw
we can take solace in that
still cant take anything away from Fedex
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by dinozzo(m): 1:34pm On Jul 09, 2007|
No slam tennis till August 27 viee thats when the us open begins I think.
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by RuuDie(m): 10:47pm On Jul 09, 2007|
Don't thnk fed will make 14 g-slams, d opposition's closin in fast. . . Baghdatis & djoko are a sure threat; youzny ain't a bad prospect & d latinos are beginnin 2 get a grip on grass.
Bottom line, d fear of king fed's reduced some. . .
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by folanusi(m): 10:58pm On Jul 09, 2007|
Totally agree with Ruddie. 14 grandslams is a far cry away considering the level of tennis the oposition is paying. but we never, u need to take it 1 grandslam at a time Init?
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by dinozzo(m): 11:36pm On Jul 09, 2007|
He has 11 thats 3 left for him, do you guys seriously think he won't win 3 more between now and like 5 years from now at the earliest, don't forget he's still 25.
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by doyin13(m): 4:27am On Jul 10, 2007|
I am pretty sure he is going to win 14 and surpass it as well. Unlike you guys i dont think he is as great as you say he is. In another era he wouldn't win five wimbledons. I dont know what is wrong with the players on grass now playing from the baseline. If Edberg or Becker were still around, or Ivanisevic might have had more than the one. The grass is still thesame and the serve and volley is still most suited for it.
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by folanusi(m): 10:39pm On Jul 10, 2007|
if all the greats played in the same era, none of them would have won that many grand slams. rather the spoils would have been shared.
everyone has his time. just like Borris Becker, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, John Nwcombe etc all had there days, this is Roger Federer's time. three more grand slams are still very much possible for him.
if he does get it, this will not be due to Luck
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by kitaun(m): 3:31am On Jul 11, 2007|
why wouldnt Federer surpass the 14-mark?
even Sampras tips him to go all the way!!
King Fedex is da bomb jare
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by RuuDie(m): 9:28am On Jul 11, 2007|
king Fed might make 14 eventually but surpass that by a margin, i have my doubts - my reasons, the French and just concluded Brit Open have taken away a lot of the psychological edge the swiss had in the recent past. some of the very best tennis we saw in this tourneys didn't come from him + the clay court specialists are upping their game on grass but the grass guys don't seem to be showing the same appetite for mastering clay and that could be very important in the long run + there's always the Diminishing Returns factor!
|Re: Tennis: Wimbledon 2007 by doyin13(m): 5:57pm On Jul 12, 2007|
as long as clay players continue to play from the baseline, they wont win nothing
grass is strictly serve and volley
so much so that Sampras is considering coming back
tell me how many clay courters will beat him including Nadal
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health