Wednesday, June 06, 2007


I always knew Michael Stich was evil, but I had no evidence (other than the fact he beat Boris Becker at Wimbledon once) till now. Stich and Wayne Ferreira (who everyone has always known is evil) had a little dialog explaining how Nadal rules and Federer sucks:
Ferreira: "I think Nadal will win on the grass before Roger wins the French Open. He came close to winning Wimbledon last year, he wasn't far from beating Roger. Until Rafa either falls over, gets injured or quits, Roger is not going to win the French Open."

Stich: "I agree, I think Rafa will win Wimbledon before Roger wins the French because he is improving his game so intensively on other surfaces..."

Ferreira: "I think that if Rafael wins the French and Wimbledon this year, he will be the real number one player."
Ugh. If Nadal wasn't far from winning at Wimbledon then he must think that Federer wasn't far from winning the French last year. So why does his "point" favor Nadal?

Winning both the French and Wimbledon will make him the top player and this outcome is reasonably likely. The fact that Nadal has the momentum at the moment makes this outcome seem even more likely. However, another outcome is about as likely; Federer winning the French this year. If he does he would have played in the last 8 grandslam finals winning 7 of them. His dominance would be more complete than ever and discussion about "the greatest player" would shift into the present tense rather than speculating about a few years from now. He would have won 4 of the last 5 times against Nadal with Wimbledon and the US open to come (of which he has won each of the last 7).

It's easy to spin cool (and plausible) Nadal visions, but Federer visions are much grander.

I give Federer about a 25% chance of winning on Sunday, so I'm not getting carried away, but I mean come on guys.

No comments: