Rain & Roggie at Roland Garros and Wimbledon 2001
Roggie Won, as usual. I ve been reading on few tennis sites and discussion forums that people find this boring. I ask WHY ? I ve heard same questions and such concerns back in 2005 when schumi won everything in F1 . Or when Aussies win in cricket. I dont know, but i think if you`re winning just about everything you particiapte in - its sign of greatness and above all, consistency than anything else. Whats bad in that ? Why cant people accept that ? I mean, if Godforbids, Rog fails to win French this will be like a stigma for the rest of his life , just like sampras. But no one will look at the fact that he has lost less than 10 matches in 3 years.
Anyhow, Mr. Falla was no match to king fed, and he won quite easily, albeit with few weather related interruptions and man, they are so bad. I mean, we the audience hate the break, what would go in mind of a player ? Sidrah mentioned Nadal writing a blog which btw is quite an interesting read and gives an insight into the mind of world's no.2 player who is gunning to get his 2nd slam .. its great to see him take time out to write a blog. So yeah, point was, i ll expect to read something from nadal regarding the same that what does players do when they are on a rain break.
This reminds me one of the most cherished tennis memories ever, related to rain break. Back in 2001 Wimbledon, Goran Ivanesivic was playing his last wimbledon. For the past decade the giant croat was doing his level best to somehow win the slam he cherished most, Wimbledon. He was denied most of the time by Pete Sampras, or at times by some other random players but he was always there deep in the 2nd week. But in 2001, sampras lost to a certain, 18yr old Roger Federer and right then tournament was thrown open. Tim Henman was carrying british hopes and everybody thought THIS is his time. Semi final time, henman faced Goran and it was all Henman, infact 3rd set mein he wiped goran with 6-0. Fourth set, goran down 2-4 and staring at the barrel ....... and then came the rain ! It rained continously and the smie had to bde delayed for next day. With weather forecasting sunny and bright day, Goran came back, all guns blazing and roared back into the match. Broke henman right back , snatched the tie breaker and went onto win the match and wimbledon later on, making it 4th time lucky for him. It was among one of the greatest wimbledon stories ever !!
posted by bono-fan @ 11:04 PM
5 Comments:
they say that in a rain delay they usally stay in the locker room, keep on moving to keep the body warm, talk to coaches, rethink strategies etc.
many a man has come back renewed after a rain break :D
and i don't think roger will be stigmatized as sampras is. Roger is great on clay, he's won a handful of clay master series tittles (before a littl known spaniard came along). he's GREAt on clay, he's not afraid to explore and hone his clay court. it's just that the clay has been so utterly and devastatingly dominated by rafa, kai buss.
sampras on the other hand would consider clay as impossible. he wouldn't train much, since he knew he'd be out of R.G. early on - basically - he never EMBRACED clay. that 'acha? chalo chaddo' attitude led to his never performing well at that one grandslam he could have if only he didn't avoid it so much.
VERY unlike federer, who, this year especially, if you've noticed, is getting good matchplay into RG and was one of the earliest to arrive there to get used to the conditions. so there - even if roger fails to win, it is NOTHING like what the world thought of sampras' failing to win!
I beg to differ over there Sidrah. Sampras worked immensely hard on his clay game between 1994 and 1998, those particular 4 years when he went to clay season constantly, played all the TMS tournament in between and other major clay court tournament like barcleona open, estoril and the like.
Sampras tried his best to actually embrace the clay but he could not. I ll cite the reason - u have to understand that being in europe, rog was more exposed to clay than sampras during his career building days. Also, sampras made it to QFs at french and once Semi final as well and losing to eventual winner. All i ll say is that Sampras was a bit unlucky in his quest for R.G and above all, might sound sacrilige, considering the fact that i am such a huge sampras fan but the truth of the matter is that Rog is just couple of notches above sampras.
he tried to embrace YET he gave up, cursed the surface (figuratively ofcourse) and thats that. he didn't explore himself fully enough on clay - he could have done good if only he made his mental thinking, and only if he had practised more pre-RG. the reports tell me he was always reluctant to pick up a racquet pre-RG weeks.
and that is just not the case with Roger. you just said keh nah, the stigma is shared by both - i'm trying to let you see, it's not the case with roger! he's pretty much the second best player on caly, out there. it's just that he's far behind the first best :P
He is not FAR behind the first best, let me tell u that. He came close in Rome, and in monte carlo, he was JUST there ... almost ....
:P
waisay, if it's a fed vs nadal final this time - it MIGHT be different, so i won't argue with you :P
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home