[Zerforax]

Federer

Round 1: Won 3-0
Round 2: Won 3-0
Round 3: Lost first 2 but came back to win 3-2
Round 4: Won 3-1 (won first 2)
QF: Won 3-0
SF: Won 3-1 (lost the 2nd set)
Final: Won 3-1 (lost first set)

So Federer only lost 5 sets and won 21 sets. Obvious blip where he had to dig deep in Round 3.

Imo he's probably the most in form of all the players, playing with the most confidence and it's being played at Wimbledon, which is his best surface.

Although admittedly Djokovic breezed through until he faced Federer..

[davhopkins]

Federer has got to be favourite. If the matches were being played indoors on a hard surface, I would defeinately say Murray would have a great shot at winning- he's beaten Fed many a time on there!

But it's Federer, back at Wimbledon playing on his favourite surface, having just beaten Sampras's record and claiming another grand slam.

Saying that, I'll still be cheering on Andy per usual, him being my favourite player and all that.

[Hopple]

Yeah, you'd back Federer. He's just won the exact same tournament quite comfortably with a ton of pressure and maybe his back playing up. The only things that might mess him up are the court being more dusty (not sure who's favour that swings in though) and Nadal's form being somewhat a mystery.

[HurricaneDominic]

(Original post by TheMagicRat)
An Olympic gold is something special but I don't quite feel it when it comes to tennis. I'd rank Miami, Indian Wells and the Masters Cup above it.

I definitely wouldn't, and I'm sure the players wouldn't. Those Masters events happen every year giving them 4 shots at the title compared to only 1 shot at the Olympics every 4 years.
I probably would have agreed a little more a few Olympic Games ago but not now, the players take the games very serious nowadays.

[HurricaneDominic]

(Original post by Hopple)
What are the routes to the final? For all we know the Olympics people could rig it so Nadal, Roger and Novak are in one half, with Murray in the other to give him a great shot at the silver.

That's impossible if the rankings are as follows:

#1 - Federer
#2 - Djokovic
#3 - Nadal
#4 - Murray

Federer and Djokovic WILL be in opposite sides of the draw and cannot meet until the final.

[HurricaneDominic]

(Original post by Hopple)
Odd they haven't released the matches though. The Olympics website only says what days and times the matches will be.

I think they release the draw like any other tournament, the weekend just before the tournament, so we will probably know the draw 3 or 4 days in advance.

[Hopple]

(Original post by HurricaneDominic)
That's impossible if the rankings are as follows:

#1 - Federer
#2 - Djokovic
#3 - Nadal
#4 - Murray

Federer and Djokovic WILL be in opposite sides of the draw and cannot meet until the final.

Could do it by Wimbledon final positions (being the most relevant competition to the Olympics at Wimbledon ), so Murray and Federer are in opposite halves. Then Djokovic and Tsonga would be in opposite halves, and Nadal could be put in with Djokovic and Federer

[HurricaneDominic]

(Original post by notnek)
Does anyone know which Mixed Doubles teams will be representing GB, if any?

Team GB - Tennis

Men’s singles: A Murray
Women’s singles: A Keothavong, E Baltacha.
Men’s doubles: A Murray/J Murray, R Hutchins/C Fleming.
Women’s doubles: H Watson/L Robson.
Mixed: TBA on July 31.

I'd assume it's only 1 team in the mixed for GB as the draw is fairly small. I think Heather Watson may pair with Ross Hutchins and I highly doubt Andy Murray will participate as he is playing in the singles and men's doubles, so like Serena Williams, he may have doubts about playing all 3 events due to the risk of over-doing himself and jeopardising his chances in the other 2 events.
I really can't see any other combination, unless they do some kind of play off between teams. I know Robson played with Inglot at Wimbledon and also Skupski/Marray are good British doubles players but I think the team is between those stated above.
Jamie Murray has a mixed doubles GS title, Wimbledon in 2007 with Jelena Jankovic, so he could be an option and Fleming won the mixed doubles Gold at the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi so this style of event isn't new to him either, it's just a bigger scale.

[HurricaneDominic]

(Original post by Hopple)
Could do it by Wimbledon final positions (being the most relevant competition to the Olympics at Wimbledon ), so Murray and Federer are in opposite halves. Then Djokovic and Tsonga would be in opposite halves, and Nadal could be put in with Djokovic and Federer

They would never seed Nadal 5th below Tsonga. Nadal's accomplishments are far too grand. The draw will see either Nadal or Murray placed in Federer or Djokovic's half of the draw. Murray would probably find it easier playing Federer in the Semi-Finals than in a Final due to the lack of pressure and probably against Djokovic too. He's done better against both players in GS Semi-Finals over Finals. I think Nadal would probably prefer to play Djokovic in the Semi-Finals as he's won his last few matches against him and Federer is on such a high from Wimbledon and beat Nadal in 2 of their last 3 matches.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by Hopple)
Could do it by Wimbledon final positions (being the most relevant competition to the Olympics at Wimbledon ), so Murray and Federer are in opposite halves. Then Djokovic and Tsonga would be in opposite halves, and Nadal could be put in with Djokovic and Federer

No they couldn't. They will use the ATP rankings. (And there's also some additional rule in the Olympics Tennis for keeping players from the same country separated in the draw, but that won't affect the top 4.)

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by HurricaneDominic)
I definitely wouldn't, and I'm sure the players wouldn't. Those Masters events happen every year giving them 4 shots at the title compared to only 1 shot at the Olympics every 4 years.
I probably would have agreed a little more a few Olympic Games ago but not now, the players take the games very serious nowadays.

I don't think something happening less often automatically makes it more important though. I mean, using that reasoning, the Olympic Gold would rank over a slam, and that clearly isn't the case.

[HurricaneDominic]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
I don't think something happening less often automatically makes it more important though. I mean, using that reasoning, the Olympic Gold would rank over a slam, and that clearly isn't the case.

Slams are a different story. When people look back on a players career you hear the commentator saying how many Grand Slams they won not how many Indian Wells titles. You also hear of the 'Golden Slam', winning all 4 majors and Olympic Gold in 1 year. I do agree that they are BIG tournaments on the calendar but they are not a players priority, especially top players who focus almost always on Grand Slams. This year you have heard many players saying they will treat the Olympics like a 5th Grand Slam. Quite a few players will also retire after the US Open as they wanted to play the Olympics and as the US Open is so close and it's a Grand Slam they will retire after that (i.e. Clijsters).

[internet tough guy]

does anyone know if tickets are still avaliable?

[TheMagicRat]

(Original post by HurricaneDominic)
I definitely wouldn't, and I'm sure the players wouldn't. Those Masters events happen every year giving them 4 shots at the title compared to only 1 shot at the Olympics every 4 years.
I probably would have agreed a little more a few Olympic Games ago but not now, the players take the games very serious nowadays.

I only place the likes of Indian Wells and Miami above it because they have more history and when they first started they were meant to rival the slams, so they had best-of-5 from the quarter-finals stage.

While many of the top players take it seriously, it is difficult to rank a tournament so highly when, as it stands, the likes of Fish, Dolgo, Granollers, Lopez, Ramos, Benneteau, Paire, Anderson, Mayer and Haas aren't there. That's 20% of the top 50. Some out of choice, some thanks to the rules of qualification and Haas is the victim of an idiotic German Olympic Committee. All of those guys would be in some Masters events and they make the overall field stronger.

[davhopkins]

(Original post by TheMagicRat)
I only place the likes of Indian Wells and Miami above it because they have more history and when they first started they were meant to rival the slams, so they had best-of-5 from the quarter-finals stage.

While many of the top players take it seriously, it is difficult to rank a tournament so highly when, as it stands, the likes of Fish, Dolgo, Granollers, Lopez, Ramos, Benneteau, Paire, Anderson, Mayer and Haas aren't there. That's 20% of the top 50. Some out of choice, some thanks to the rules of qualification and Haas is the victim of an idiotic German Olympic Committee. All of those guys would be in some Masters events and they make the overall field stronger.

The Masters also hold more weight in terms of ranking points than the Olympics too. But it's not just about rankings; the Olympics is about competing for your nation in the biggest sporting event in the world.

Also, though I'm not certain, that the top 50 in the rankings qualified to the Olympics? A round of 64 (for an event which is only supposed to house the very best anyway) seems competitive enough for me!

[HurricaneDominic]

(Original post by TheMagicRat)
I only place the likes of Indian Wells and Miami above it because they have more history and when they first started they were meant to rival the slams, so they had best-of-5 from the quarter-finals stage.

While many of the top players take it seriously, it is difficult to rank a tournament so highly when, as it stands, the likes of Fish, Dolgo, Granollers, Lopez, Ramos, Benneteau, Paire, Anderson, Mayer and Haas aren't there. That's 20% of the top 50. Some out of choice, some thanks to the rules of qualification and Haas is the victim of an idiotic German Olympic Committee. All of those guys would be in some Masters events and they make the overall field stronger.

I understand but that's the policy of the Olympics and the draw is half the size of a Grand Slam draw. I'd agree with your argument if it were the top players not playing but it isn't. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Ferrer, Del Potro etc are all playing. The names you mentioned are decent and it's a shame some are missing out but it's the same for men and women and the same for other sports. Some of the players just aren't ranked high enough or have more compatriots ranked higher. I know that Fish is not playing out of will and he has a Silver medal from the 2004 Olympics in Athens so it's not such a big deal for him and he will be playing a tour event over in the USA.

[HurricaneDominic]

(Original post by davhopkins)
The Masters also hold more weight in terms of ranking points than the Olympics too. But it's not just about rankings; the Olympics is about competing for your nation in the biggest sporting event in the world.

Also, though I'm not certain, that the top 50 in the rankings qualified to the Olympics? A round of 64 (for an event which is only supposed to house the very best anyway) seems competitive enough for me!

Top 56 qualify, 8 wildcard places to give a more even distribution of nations involved or to give to the home nation.

[samanthaaaa]

Sorry if this has already been asked but what surface will the Olympics Tennis be played on?

Can't wait to watch Federer play again. Can't touch this.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by samanthaaaa)
Sorry if this has already been asked but what surface will the Olympics Tennis be played on?

Can't wait to watch Federer play again. Can't touch this.

grass

[.eXe]

Lol I love how everyone is putting Djoko for gold. I guess you have all missed the Wimbledon that just went by.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my Galaxy Nexus