Rafael Nadal is beaten at the French Open, 2-6 7-6 6-4 7-6 by Robin Soderling. I believe it's the first defeat he has ever suffered at Roland Garros.

This removes the biggest obstacle to Murray reaching the final ...

aargh ... typo in the thread title!

Rafael Nadal is beaten at the French Open, 2-6 7-6 6-4 7-6 by Robin Soderling. I believe it's the first defeat he has ever suffered at Roland Garros.

This removes the biggest obstacle to Murray reaching the final ...

That's a massive shock and I too think it is the 1st time Nadal has lost at the French Open. Big chance for Murray now, hopefully he will do it.

That's a massive shock and I too think it is the 1st time Nadal has lost at the French Open. Big chance for Murray now, hopefully he will do it.

Nadal was always struggling today, and Soderling played extremely well.

On this performance I would be suprised if Soderling doesn't pose a threat to all the other players and that includes Murray.

There you go- title typo fixed ;)

I heard it was a tremendous performance from Soderling. Unfortunately, I was watching my horses run very, very slowly at various tracks round the British Isles so missed it.

Was it Nadal not turning up, or Soderling brilliance, or a mixture of the two?

I didn't watch the game. Consensus among those who did is that Nadal was a long, long way shy of his best; and even then, Soderling had to play above himself to register a victory. (Last time they met, Rafa beat him for the loss of a single game!)

We all know, of course, that sportsmen are only ever human and can have bad days, but sometimes one comes along who is so UTTERLY dominant that we almost forget. Nadal, at Roland Garros, was one such. It reminds me of Sampras getting turned over at Wimbledon; and of Wigan losing to Salford after what seemed like fifty-six consecutive Challenge Cup trophies.

I heard it was a tremendous performance from Soderling. Unfortunately, I was watching my horses run very, very slowly at various tracks round the British Isles so missed it.

Was it Nadal not turning up, or Soderling brilliance, or a mixture of the two?


Well I did watch the match from 1 set all to the end.

I have to say Soderling played really well and you could argue that Nadal was not able to dominate because of Soderling's play.

Nadal didn't play badly, but he just couldn't hurt Soderling.

I would say it was more that Soderling played so well rather than Rafa not playing at his best, after all we all know that great champions usually beat opponents even if they are not at their best.

As for their last match where Nadal beat Soderling 6-1 6-0, well it was interesting watching Soderling being interviewed by Anabelle Croft on Eurosport last night.

Annabelle asked Soderling, were you suprised you played so well against Rafa given the previous match score line.
Soderling replied that he wasn't too suprised as he said his last match was actually a close match even though the scoreline said otherwise, in other words most points were hard fought but Nadal must have won the important game points, thus the scoreline perhaps wasn't a true representation of the closeness of the tennis.

Let's also not forget Soderling has taken Nadal to 5 sets at Wimbledon before as well.

Nadal perhaps didn't play at his 100% best, but then again he really wasn't that bad either.
I'd say Soderling won the match more so than Nadal lost it.

I didn't watch the game. Consensus among those who did is that Nadal was a long, long way shy of his best; and even then, Soderling had to play above himself to register a victory. (Last time they met, Rafa beat him for the loss of a single game!)


Soderling has just destroyed Nikolay Davydenko 6-1 6-3 6-1, one of the few other players that has beaten Nadal on clay.

Soderling is now into the semi finals.

Proof, if further proof were needed that Soderling's win over Nadal was no fluke.

Ah but proper tennis is played on grass, not clay. If Soderling beats Federer at Wimbledon it would be a massive achievement, but clay tournaments are just warm-ups for the real thing.

Ah but proper tennis is played on grass, not clay. If Soderling beats Federer at Wimbledon it would be a massive achievement, but clay tournaments are just warm-ups for the real thing.

Ahh but beating Nadal who's never been beaten at Roland Garros before he met Soderling, and who holds the all time record for the most consecutive match wins at Roland Garros, beating Borg and Evert is already a massive achievement.

Federer has already been beaten at Wimbledon, so If anyone beats Federer at Wimbledon it won't be such a shock.

Ah but proper tennis is played on grass, not clay.

Proper tennis is played indoors. Lawn tennis is played on grass.

The Soderling success story continues he has just beaten Gonzalez (Murray's conqueror) in a brilliant 5 set match.

At least Nadal was truely beaten by the form player of the moment, Soderling is now in the final and will now face the winner between Federer and Del Potro.

Well done Soderling.

Well done to Roger Federer!

Finally winning the French Open to complete the set and also equaling Pete Sampra's all time Grand Slam record.

It's a shame though we never got to see another Nadal v Federer classic.

I'm sure Federer would have loved to have beaten Nadal in the French Open final more than anything.

Well done to Roger Federer!

Finally winning the French Open to complete the set and also equally Pete Sampras all time Grand Slam record.

It's a shame though we never got to see another Nadal v Federer classic.

I'm sure Federer would have loved to have beaten Nadal in the French Open final more than anything.

They are saying Federer is the greatest male player of all time now because he matched Sampras' record of Grand Slams but he (Federer) has won all 4 of them whereas Sampras didn't. Do you agree he is the best of all time as I'm not that into Tennis so couldn't really say myself? I generally just watch the latter stages of the grand slams although it is more interesting now with the Federer/Nadal rivalry looking pretty even and Murray being the number 3.

They are saying Federer is the greatest male player of all time now because he matched Sampras' record of Grand Slams but he (Federer) has won all 4 of them whereas Sampras didn't. Do you agree he is the best of all time as I'm not that into Tennis so couldn't really say myself? I generally just watch the latter stages of the grand slams although it is more interesting now with the Federer/Nadal rivalry looking pretty even and Murray being the number 3.

Well It's very difficult to judge different playes from different eras.

Federer has made a great tennis achievement today, but the only way you could truely answer the question is if all the greats played at their prime in the same era.
I.e If Federer at his peak played Sampras at his peak, would one player have dominated the other or would they have shared the spoils at Wimbledon and therefore halving both their Grand Slam tallies.

If Nadal was around a little earlier in Federer's career would Federer have won rather less grand slams than he has now.
Then again If Nadal was playing in an era without Federer he may have won Wimbledon 3 times in a row.

My personal opinion though is that on grass McEnroe, Borg & Sampas were better than Federer.

Like I said if all the greats played each other at their peaks then Federer was certainly good enough to be in the mix, I think Nadal still needs a few years to play out before we can put him in to that context,
With the records, yes Federer has to be considered as the greatest but one on one with other greats, Im not so sure.

They are saying Federer is the greatest male player of all time now because he matched Sampras' record of Grand Slams but he (Federer) has won all 4 of them whereas Sampras didn't. Do you agree he is the best of all time as I'm not that into Tennis so couldn't really say myself?


Another factor in the argument is that Federer has won considerably more career titles than did Sampras - or, indeed, anybody. Among other things, he's the first player in history to win at least ten titles, three years in a row.

Either way Federer seems a worthy champion and highly likeable, he doesn't appear big headed at all. If Murray doesn't win Wimbledon this year I hope Federer does as I think his legacy will be tainted slightly if he stops winning the grand slams now that Nadal has risen to the top. I am looking forward to Wimbledon this year and it's the most interested I have been in Tennis for a long time, close fought rivalries always make things more interesting.

Rafael Nadal is beaten at the French Open, 2-6 7-6 6-4 7-6 by Robin Soderling. I believe it's the first defeat he has ever suffered at Roland Garros.

This removes the biggest obstacle to Murray reaching the final ...

Apart from Gonzalez that is.;)

Apart from Gonzalez that is.;)

I did say "biggest," not "only." :cool:

I did say "biggest," not "only." :cool:

Since Gonzales prevented Murray from reaching beyond the 4th round, I'd say he was the biggest.:cool:

Since Gonzales prevented Murray from reaching beyond the 4th round, I'd say he was the biggest.:cool:

On that basis, if Murray drops a clanger in his first round match and goes out to Fred Nobody ranked #456, then Fred Nobody is a bigger threat to win the tournament than Rafael Nadal...

On that basis, if Murray drops a clanger in his first round match and goes out to Fred Nobody ranked #456, then Fred Nobody is a bigger threat to win the tournament than Rafael Nadal...

???:confused:

Gonzales wasn't a Fred nobody, many predicted that Gonzales forehand would prevail and be too strong for Murray on clay......and so it turned out to be......

and in any case nobody is saying that the person who beats Murray is the biggest threat to win the tournament.

???:confused:

Gonzales wasn't a Fred nobody

He wasn't a Rafael Nadal either. Just because he is a PRIOR obstacle to Nadal, doesn't make him a BIGGER one. If nine hurdles are five feet tall and the tenth is eight feet tall, and you fall at the sixth, the tenth is still the biggest hurdle. You just never reached it.

He wasn't a Rafael Nadal either. Just because he is a PRIOR obstacle to Nadal, doesn't make him a BIGGER one. If nine hurdles are five feet tall and the tenth is eight feet tall, and you fall at the sixth, the tenth is still the biggest hurdle. You just never reached it.

We could go around in circles, but let's not.;)

Essentially your prediction that Murray would have a good chance of making the final when Nadal fell to Soderling(Or the implication at least) came up short.

Do you think Murray will win Wimbledon now he has conquered Queen's?

I personally don't think he will...perhaps the semifinals at best.

Another factor in the argument is that Federer has won considerably more career titles than did Sampras - or, indeed, anybody. Among other things, he's the first player in history to win at least ten titles, three years in a row.

I think some of you have forgotten about Rod Lavers outstanding record. 2grand slams unmatched.