PDA

View Full Version : Will Federer Ever win the French Open?


Pages : [1] 2

The balls in your court.
06-08-2008, 05:24 PM
Will Federer Ever win the French Open?

Morrissey
06-08-2008, 05:26 PM
What do YOU think? If yes, you are one stubborn fella.

The balls in your court.
06-08-2008, 05:30 PM
What do YOU think? If yes, you are one stubborn fella.

No way in hell. I think its obvious now.

zagor
06-08-2008, 05:37 PM
I'm his big fan but I think not.He had his best chance in 2006,didn't use it then and now I think his chances of triumphing at the French are gone.I think he'll win more slams but it will be Wimbledon,USO and maybe AO,not the French Open.

crawl4
06-08-2008, 05:45 PM
i say undecided..you cant rule out the possible goat

KRFLegal
06-08-2008, 05:48 PM
No -- Federer has peaked, Nadal and Djokovic are still to peak...and there may be some other threats around the corner...three strikes at the Final, and Federer has struck out...time for a new batter...

Probably shouldn't have had 'Undecided' in the poll...that's no fun for this type of question...

anointedone
06-08-2008, 05:51 PM
After today this question should be officialy put to bed forever. Even if Nadal suffered some horrible career ending injury (and no that wont happen, there is only a 0.1% chance of that happening or something) then there would be Djokovic there to spank him on clay in the future. In future years there will be a few more, even though they arent there now.

AM28143
06-08-2008, 06:09 PM
Probably not. Definitely not if Nadal doesn't get injured or something. Federer is good on clay (better than his performance today would indicate), but Nadal is just that much better. If Nadal remains healthy, he'll win at least 3 more FOs.

-Adam :)

Mick
06-08-2008, 06:19 PM
fededer's obstacle to winning the french open these past three years has been nadal. so, if nadal fails to compete in future french open due to some reason, federer will have a good chance of taking home the french open trophy.

bagung
06-08-2008, 06:19 PM
with the way nadal is playing, i doubt federer has a chance.....
VAMOS RAFA

Nadal_Freak
06-08-2008, 06:19 PM
Nope. Clay is a surface for young players. 20-25 is usually the best age for Clay.

anointedone
06-08-2008, 06:21 PM
fededer's obstacle to winning the french open these past three years has been nadal. so, if nadal fails to compete in future french open due to some reason, federer will have a good chance of taking home the french open trophy.

Please. Djokovic would have spanked Federer at the French Open the way both were playing. Federer is not the 2nd best clay courter at the moment, unless he re-raises his game drastically, and he only was in the final due to his joke draw of this years French. As todays final proved, he did not really even belong in that match.

Mick
06-08-2008, 06:30 PM
Please. Djokovic would have spanked Federer at the French Open the way both were playing. Federer is not the 2nd best clay courter at the moment, unless he re-raises his game drastically, and he only was in the final due to his joke draw of this years French. As todays final proved, he did not really even belong in that match.

i don't know what would be the outcome of a federer-djokovic match. not sure who would come out on top but i don't think it would result in a blowout.

in my view, federer likes the flat balls of djokovic much better then the high topspin balls of nadal. futhermore, nadal's a lefty and that bothers federer even more.

Legend of Borg
06-08-2008, 06:43 PM
i don't know what would be the outcome of a federer-djokovic match. not sure who would come out on top but i don't think it would result in a blowout.

in my view, federer likes the flat balls of djokovic much better then the high topspin balls of nadal. futhermore, nadal's a lefty and that bothers federer even more.

Maybe it's his intimidating physique?

Mick
06-08-2008, 06:46 PM
Maybe it's his intimidating physique?

haha. nadal is definitely a lot more muscular than djokovic :)

anointedone
06-08-2008, 06:48 PM
i don't know what would be the outcome of a federer-djokovic match. not sure who would come out on top but i don't think it would result in a blowout.

in my view, federer likes the flat balls of djokovic much better then the high topspin balls of nadal. futhermore, nadal's a lefty and that bothers federer even more.

Fair enough but in the past Federer was strong enough to take Nadal to 4 sets regularly in best 3-of-5s on clay, even with Nadal's superiority on clay and any potential matchup issues. I dont think any matchup problems explain away how much more competitive Djokovic was vs Nadal then Federer. Djokovic at this French Open was just alot stronger then Federer. Maybe if they played it wouldnt have been a blowout, but Federer wouldnt have won a single set. I would bet money on that if a time machine could make it happen somehow.

Legend of Borg
06-08-2008, 06:49 PM
haha. nadal is definitely a lot more muscular than djokovic :)

If Nadal had Ivanisevic's temper, he would be one frightening competitor.

Milano
06-08-2008, 07:18 PM
I think this year was Federers best chance to win it, now I think everything is going to go downhill for him (I still think he will take 2 more gs) but he may even lose wimbledon to nadal :shock: especially if you saw the replay of last years wimby today, nadal was shockingly close, a couple of points here and there and it would have gone the other way.

Morrissey
06-08-2008, 07:54 PM
I think this year was Federers best chance to win it, now I think everything is going to go downhill for him (I still think he will take 2 more gs) but he may even lose wimbledon to nadal :shock: especially if you saw the replay of last years wimby today, nadal was shockingly close, a couple of points here and there and it would have gone the other way.

I agree, back in 2006 I said that Fed would have 2 more chances to realistically win this thing. I think of his 4 matches with Nadal here this was so lopsided and non competitive that I can't imagine Fed doing anything to change the result in future encounters.

Let's just think for a second here. If Fed continues his "subpar" year into Wimby and US Open and doesn't win a GS he will not finish #1 this year. He has an awful lot of points to defend from here on in. Wimby, Montreal final, Cincy, US Open, Madrid final, Shanghai. There's alot of points he could lose from here on to the end. Nadal doesn't have many points to defend after this Wimby. So if he continues his excellent playing for 2008 so far he has a real shot at #1, or at least continue as #2.

whereisz
06-08-2008, 07:56 PM
He will when Nadal is injured or retired.

anointedone
06-08-2008, 07:57 PM
Nadal's biggest obstacle to the year end #1 is Djokovic. Djokovic is now the best hard court player in the world and most of the events remaining this year are hard courts. He is less then 100 points behind Nadal after the clay court season. To be honest Djokovic is a huge concern for Nadal for the year end #1, but it could go either way between them.

Morrissey
06-08-2008, 07:59 PM
He will when Nadal is injured or retired.

Fed will retire first. If he's injured who's to say Fed is a lock? Joker is a serious threat now and others will become threats in the future. Fed is declining as he gets older, this much we know. If Nadal gets injured I can bet it won't happen during the FO. Maybe the US Open or Aussie, but not during his beloved Roland Garros. He'll play with one leg if he has to. I'd still like his chances even then.

Mansewerz
06-08-2008, 08:01 PM
You never know. A lot of the other winners were very unexpected when they did win. However, it is hard to think about it now.

Morrissey
06-08-2008, 08:02 PM
You never know. A lot of the other winners were very unexpected when they did win. However, it is hard to think about it now.

With Nadal around you won't be seeing unexpected winners at the FO, maybe some unexpected finalists. Not for a few years.

anointedone
06-08-2008, 08:03 PM
Fed will retire first. If he's injured who's to say Fed is a lock? Joker is a serious threat now and others will become threats in the future. Fed is declining as he gets older, this much we know. If Nadal gets injured I can bet it won't happen during the FO. Maybe the US Open or Aussie, but not during his beloved Roland Garros. He'll play with one leg if he has to. I'd still like his chances even then.

Djokovic has surpassed Federer on clay ability wise this year IMO. Just look at the semi and final matches of Nadal at this years French. So Federer is not even the 2nd best on clay anymore IMO. Yeah he beat Djokovic at Monte Carlo, but since then Djokovic has impressed more each time out on clay then Federer has. In future years a few others could also surpass him on clay, particularly if he continues to decline, especialy on that surface which does not favor age. So you are right if Nadal is injured Federer would no longer be the one to win the French, even in that case.

Even if the haters who have been wrong on almost everything so far are miraceously right and Nadal suffers early burnout/retirement, etc.... it is still hard to believe Federer would be a huge force on clay by that point anyway. In the most extreme case scenario that would be 3 years from now, and Federer will be going on 30 then. Even if he is still at the top, he wont be on clay at that point.

NikeWilson
06-08-2008, 08:09 PM
today's match should put an end to this question.

also, Djokovic played better against Nadal than Federer did. therefore, Djokovic would've had the upper-hand against Federer too.

FuriousYellow
06-08-2008, 08:25 PM
I think this year was Federers best chance to win it, now I think everything is going to go downhill for him (I still think he will take 2 more gs) but he may even lose wimbledon to nadal :shock: especially if you saw the replay of last years wimby today, nadal was shockingly close, a couple of points here and there and it would have gone the other way.

After watching today's beatdown, I'm starting to think his first or second times playing Nadal were his best chances. Not only has he not figured out how to beat Nadal on clay, Nadal appears to have him completely figured out.

Morrissey
06-08-2008, 08:54 PM
After watching today's beatdown, I'm starting to think his first or second times playing Nadal were his best chances. Not only has he not figured out how to beat Nadal on clay, Nadal appears to have him completely figured out.

That's such a good observation of you, because it looked like Nadal knew where Fed's shots were going to land even before he hit it. He looked like he knew one or two shots ahead of Fed. Fed hasn't and won't figure out Nadal on clay, ever. Watch out for Wimby too. Nadal might be figuring it out too. We'll see.

edberg505
06-08-2008, 08:55 PM
Will Federer Ever win the Nadal Open?

There I fixed that for you.

BlahDow
06-08-2008, 08:56 PM
Yes....If Nadal is injured and doesn't play in the tournament.

Morrissey
06-08-2008, 08:57 PM
There I fixed that for you.

You're on a roll.

Morrissey
06-08-2008, 09:00 PM
It was music to my ears to hear 5,000 French people be silenced today.

Alejandro D
06-08-2008, 09:43 PM
I think he'll never beat Rafa at RG. He might win the french if Nadal gets injured. Otherwise, no way.

gj011
06-08-2008, 09:45 PM
No. The window is closed now.

TheTruth
06-09-2008, 12:42 AM
Please. Djokovic would have spanked Federer at the French Open the way both were playing. Federer is not the 2nd best clay courter at the moment, unless he re-raises his game drastically, and he only was in the final due to his joke draw of this years French. As todays final proved, he did not really even belong in that match.

I agree. Djokovic was way more convincing than Fed. Fed looked like he didn't want to be there from the first ball!

robin7
06-09-2008, 12:53 AM
No Way..... Sorry...

lovecr717
06-09-2008, 12:56 AM
He will when Nadal is injured or retired.

10 character

Rob_C
06-09-2008, 01:01 AM
today's match should put an end to this question.

also, Djokovic played better against Nadal than Federer did. therefore, Djokovic would've had the upper-hand against Federer too.

Didn't Fed just beat Djokovic at Monte Carlo this year?? Did Djokovic improve that much in the few weeks, and Fed regress that much???

I don't think you can put too much stock in one result, I think it's an aberration.

Until that last set, Djokovic was looking pretty helpless against Nadal also. He was down 2 breaks in the last set, managed to tie it up.

TheTruth
06-09-2008, 01:02 AM
It was music to my ears to hear 5,000 French people be silenced today.

They were quiet because they were in shock, but the music to my ears was when Ted Robinson said late in the match, how the people were chanting Rafa's name during the changeover! JMac and Carillo didn't even respond.

DarthMaul
06-09-2008, 01:07 AM
Nope. Clay is a surface for young players. 20-25 is usually the best age for Clay.

Was Agassi young when he won the FO? He was 29 years old, if I am not wrong!

Thor
06-09-2008, 02:32 AM
Nadal's biggest obstacle to the year end #1 is Djokovic. Djokovic is now the best hard court player in the world and most of the events remaining this year are hard courts. He is less then 100 points behind Nadal after the clay court season. To be honest Djokovic is a huge concern for Nadal for the year end #1, but it could go either way between them.

99 points ont the ATP RACE(which is 495 points in ranking points earned since the begining of the year).
Nadal still leads by 360 points.

crawl4
06-09-2008, 03:45 AM
Fair enough but in the past Federer was strong enough to take Nadal to 4 sets regularly in best 3-of-5s on clay, even with Nadal's superiority on clay and any potential matchup issues. I dont think any matchup problems explain away how much more competitive Djokovic was vs Nadal then Federer. Djokovic at this French Open was just alot stronger then Federer. Maybe if they played it wouldnt have been a blowout, but Federer wouldnt have won a single set. I would bet money on that if a time machine could make it happen somehow.

sorry but im pretty sure federer beat him during the season and he made the final..

daddy
06-09-2008, 03:55 AM
sorry but im pretty sure federer beat him during the season and he made the final..

Speaking about Djokovic ? I think Fed would switch place with Djokovic right now and take the performance in semis vs Nadal over his performance in finals any day in the week.

zagor
06-09-2008, 04:10 AM
Speaking about Djokovic ? I think Fed would switch place with Djokovic right now and take the performance in semis vs Nadal over his performance in finals any day in the week.

No question about that,in fact he would probably take Belucci's perfromance as well(although that was Nadal's first match this year at FO so I guess he wasn't fully in his clay machine mode yet).

daddy
06-09-2008, 04:13 AM
No question about that,in fact he would probably take Belucci's perfromance as well(although that was Nadal's first match this year at FO so I guess he wasn't fully in his clay machine mode yet).

Kid is underrated. He had a set point, he was playing excelent tennis and in the third set he fell apart which is expected ( Djokovic and Federer fell apart in the 2nd ). The fact that he went out in the very first round is killing the chance of people talking about him but if he was in any other part of the draw he'd go deeper.

zagor
06-09-2008, 04:18 AM
Kid is underrated. He had a set point, he was playing excelent tennis and in the third set he fell apart which is expected ( Djokovic and Federer fell apart in the 2nd ). The fact that he went out in the very first round is killing the chance of people talking about him but if he was in any other part of the draw he'd go deeper.

Yeah,Belucci has game I expect to see a lot more from him in the future along with Gulbis.

PimpMyGame
06-09-2008, 04:20 AM
I say undecided because given the right factors he can still do it.

Next year the pressure will be on Nadal to win 5 in a row. By the next FO it's a reasonable assumption to say Federer might just be on 13 GSs. I think Fed will adjust his training to accommodate more and more clay court practice and strategy, if he really wants this title.

In any case, I don't think Fed has to prove to anyone (apart from himself maybe) that he's the best tennis player of this generation, and one of the best (if not the best) of all time.

daddy
06-09-2008, 04:23 AM
I say undecided because given the right factors he can still do it.

Next year the pressure will be on Nadal to win 5 in a row. By the next FO it's a reasonable assumption to say Federer might just be on 13 GSs. I think Fed will adjust his training to accommodate more and more clay court practice and strategy, if he really wants this title.

In any case, I don't think Fed has to prove to anyone (apart from himself maybe) that he's the best tennis player of this generation, and one of the best (if not the best) of all time.

I do agree with the very first sentence, I think he's more than capable of winning the RG in couple of years to come. I dont agree with the sentence is bold as I strongly believe Fed will not be able to win if Rafa is in hos path - therefor the right factor for me is singular and it's the absence of Rafael.

zagor
06-09-2008, 04:27 AM
I say undecided because given the right factors he can still do it.

Next year the pressure will be on Nadal to win 5 in a row. By the next FO it's a reasonable assumption to say Federer might just be on 13 GSs. I think Fed will adjust his training to accommodate more and more clay court practice and strategy, if he really wants this title.

In any case, I don't think Fed has to prove to anyone (apart from himself maybe) that he's the best tennis player of this generation, and one of the best (if not the best) of all time.

Look,Nadal handles pressure of being the favourite probably better then any player I've ever seen and has reached another level on clay this year while Fed will be 28 next year.Fed's my favourite player of all time but let's be realistic here,I think Roger will equal or break Pete's record but his chances of winning FO are over IMO.

drive
06-09-2008, 04:31 AM
it seems people forget that Djokovic got steamrolled by Nadal as well and only came back in the third set because of Rafa was so relaxed, it's obvious. No chance in hell for Djokovic to beat Nadal on clay, at the moment he is million miles away.

zagor
06-09-2008, 04:35 AM
it seems people forget that Djokovic got steamrolled by Nadal as well and only came back in the third set because of Rafa was so relaxed, it's obvious. No chance in hell for Djokovic to beat Nadal on clay, at the moment he is million miles away.

Yes he is milliion miles away,so is Federer and the rest of the field.If Nadal plays at this level next year(although that's still far away) he will demolish the field again,his level of tennis at this year's FO was out of this world.

PimpMyGame
06-09-2008, 04:37 AM
Look,Nadal handles pressure of being the favourite probably better then any player I've ever seen and has reached another level on clay this year while Fed will be 28 next year.Fed's my favourite player of all time but let's be realistic here,I think Roger will equal or break Pete's record but his chances of winning FO are over IMO.

I really don't think Fed's chances of winning the FO are over. He still has a chance because he will be less prone to injury, there will be less expected of him and I think he can still improve his clay court game.

I will say that IMO his chances are less than 50% and dwindling from now on, but I'm not sure how you can write off a player of his calibre even with the spanking received yesterday.

guygee
06-09-2008, 04:48 AM
Was Agassi young when he won the FO? He was 29 years old, if I am not wrong!

Exactly...Remember in 1990 when 30 yr old Andrés Gómez held up the trophy after beating the young Agassi, and in 1999 when the 13th-seeded 29 yr old Agassi won the FO championship. Roger is no Pete Sampras on clay!

As long as Nadal stays in form it will remain extremely difficult, and the odds are getting longer in any case, but never say never, at least not yet ;~)

zagor
06-09-2008, 04:50 AM
I really don't think Fed's chances of winning the FO are over. He still has a chance because he will be less prone to injury, there will be less expected of him and I think he can still improve his clay court game.

I will say that IMO his chances are less than 50% and dwindling from now on, but I'm not sure how you can write off a player of his calibre even with the spanking received yesterday.

I sincerely hope you're right.

cueboyzn
06-09-2008, 05:09 AM
Federer is a better clay court player than Djokovic. Monte-Carlo proved this. And that was 3 sets not 5. All the people talking about Roger having no fight against Nadal. Well where was Djokovic's fight against Federer in that match? Oh sorry, i forgot, he retired due to sore throat.

Fact is, Federer is better than everyone on clay except Nadal.

guygee
06-09-2008, 05:22 AM
99 points ont the ATP RACE(which is 495 points in ranking points earned since the begining of the year).
Nadal still leads by 360 points.

Now on to the grass, then the long pounding hardcourt season in the heat of the North American continental summer. It will be interesting to see who holds up the best through the U.S. Open.

David L
06-09-2008, 08:47 AM
Will Federer Ever win the French Open?Anything can happen. The future is unpredictable.

Nadal_Freak
06-09-2008, 09:29 AM
Federer is a better clay court player than Djokovic. Monte-Carlo proved this. And that was 3 sets not 5. All the people talking about Roger having no fight against Nadal. Well where was Djokovic's fight against Federer in that match? Oh sorry, i forgot, he retired due to sore throat.

Fact is, Federer is better than everyone on clay except Nadal.
Strep throat is why Djokovic lost that match. Monte Carlo was also the slowest clay court tournament. Slower than Hamburg. I would like to see another match between Federer and Djokovic when Djokovic was 100%.

David L
06-09-2008, 09:33 AM
Strep throat is why Djokovic lost that match. Monte Carlo was also the slowest clay court tournament. Slower than Hamburg. I would like to see another match between Federer and Djokovic when Djokovic was 100%.Likewise on hardcourt when Federer is 100%.

eric draven
06-09-2008, 09:39 AM
At this point Federer is still as good as he was three years ago. The problem is that Nadal has gotten better. He's added more shots to his arsenal and improved his groundstrokes off of both sides. He can flatten out his forehand and has more versatility and offense off his backhand side. On top of that, physically Nadal appears to be approaching his physical peak as Federer is now on the downside of his. Even if Nadal doesn't play him in future French Opens it will be increasingly difficult for Federer to win five-set matches on clay over the course of two weeks. He's finally lost that air of invincibility that used to precede him out on court.

Kevin T
06-09-2008, 09:39 AM
Fed has fear when he plays Nadal on clay. I thought Fed's chances were slim last year but after watching this year's final, I don't think it's gonna happen. He ain't getting any younger and Joker probably has a better chance of taking RG if Nadal were to get injured/upset. The curse of the small head racquet strikes again! :) (sorry Pete :()

Morrissey
06-09-2008, 09:57 AM
Was Agassi young when he won the FO? He was 29 years old, if I am not wrong!

Agassi peaked late in his career. Fed has peaked from 2004-2007. Am I wrong?

daddy
06-09-2008, 10:06 AM
Agassi peaked late in his career. Fed has peaked from 2004-2007. Am I wrong?

Aparently he is a great champion and although you are correct about his peak no one can say for sure that he does not have a chance to win it past his peak.

The balls in your court.
06-09-2008, 10:54 AM
Fed has the wrong style to win at the FO. The only all courters to ever win the the FO were laver and Nastase.

daddy
06-09-2008, 11:00 AM
Fed has the wrong style to win at the FO. The only all courters to ever win the the FO were laver and Nastase.

?

Joking or want to draw attention and pick a fight ? Cause Im sure that at least a 1000 posters here will name at least a couple more guys of the top of their head, who would fit into your all-courter category like say Lendl or Wilander or Agassi or Courier or ...

beedlejuice22
06-09-2008, 11:08 AM
If rafa dies then federer will have a chance but if he doesnt then federer will never win.

Arafel
06-09-2008, 11:31 AM
?

Joking or want to draw attention and pick a fight ? Cause Im sure that at least a 1000 posters here will name at least a couple more guys of the top of their head, who would fit into your all-courter category like say Lendl or Wilander or Agassi or Courier or ...

All four of those players are baseliners. An all-courter is someone like Connors.

The balls in your court.
06-09-2008, 11:48 AM
?

Joking or want to draw attention and pick a fight ? Cause Im sure that at least a 1000 posters here will name at least a couple more guys of the top of their head, who would fit into your all-courter category like say Lendl or Wilander or Agassi or Courier or ...

Seriously I am not picking a fight.

Those are all examples of baseliners. Although Yanick Noah was a serve and volleyer!!! So maybe you can squeeze him in with Nasty and Laver . But thats it my friend.

All four of those players are baseliners. An all-courter is someone like Connors.

Connors never won the FO but he was an agressive baseliner anyway. All courter are Federer, Sampras, Nastase, Laver, Tilden, ....there are very few of them. (a lot of people will not agree with me on Sampras).

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
06-09-2008, 11:49 AM
No, I think he'll do a Lendl at Wimbledon.

The balls in your court.
06-09-2008, 11:53 AM
No, I think he'll do a Lendl at Wimbledon.

And Fed will come out and say that he is allergic to clay....and then be caught taking a class in pottery....lol.

(for those of you who dont know...Lendl claimed that he was alleric to grass and then was caught playing golf).

Q&M son
06-09-2008, 02:46 PM
One never knows..............

Arafel
06-09-2008, 02:54 PM
Connors never won the FO but he was an agressive baseliner anyway. All courter are Federer, Sampras, Nastase, Laver, Tilden, ....there are very few of them. (a lot of people will not agree with me on Sampras).

Have you ever watched Connors play? His whole strategy was to use his flat groundstrokes to set up volleys. He came in ALL the time.

Watch his famous match against Krickstein. He was at the net constantly. Watch his 76 US final against Borg, on clay. He was ALWAYS coming in.

Connors is WAY more of an all-court player than Federer. What reality would you consider Federer an all-court player in? He almost never comes in. Hell, at Wimbledon last year, Nadal of all people came more than Federer in their final.

Moose Malloy
06-09-2008, 03:18 PM
Have you ever watched Connors play? His whole strategy was to use his flat groundstrokes to set up volleys. He came in ALL the time.

Watch his famous match against Krickstein. He was at the net constantly. Watch his 76 US final against Borg, on clay. He was ALWAYS coming in.

Connors is WAY more of an all-court player than Federer. What reality would you consider Federer an all-court player in? He almost never comes in. Hell, at Wimbledon last year, Nadal of all people came more than Federer in their final.

arafel, have you seen the match stat threads that krosero & I have been starting in former pro player talk? The stats back up your description of Connors, many volley winners.

here are some threads that may interest you:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=198319

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=196950

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=193159

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173564

daddy
06-09-2008, 04:28 PM
All four of those players are baseliners. An all-courter is someone like Connors.

I agree to some extent but not 100%. They all made a fine use of their less powerfull weapons on all courts and to add to this, Federer althoug too often called an all round player ( which he is, make no mistake ) is playing / has been playing his baseline game in all RG's until now. He should have kept it that way, at least he was losing with dignity. Furthermore, to understand where i come from, Fed is not a natural volleyer which is pretty easy to check out - in his early juniors/pro years he was as hesitant to go to the net as Montanes is these days.

So what about borg, he's not an all courter ?

daddy
06-09-2008, 04:34 PM
arafel, have you seen the match stat threads that krosero & I have been starting in former pro player talk? The stats back up your description of Connors, many volley winners.

here are some threads that may interest you:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=198319

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=196950

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=193159

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173564

Moose, maybe you are qualified to back up some claims. I believe that not only couple or three all courter guys won RG. Do you support or deny the claim. In an argument I think there are more of them but then again they employ different tactics. Borg was an allcourter as much as Fe but played a different style on clay. I do believe Fed does not pull his all court trickery on clay also, he stays and plays from baseline unles he's to hit a sitter at the net. Until 08 and see what happened ?

Just your thought on this.

The balls in your court.
06-09-2008, 08:49 PM
Have you ever watched Connors play? His whole strategy was to use his flat groundstrokes to set up volleys. He came in ALL the time.



Connors was never a serve and volleyer. In fact his serve was pretty weak...maybe the weakest part of his game.

Federer and Sampras can both serve and volley. Connors was practically unable to serve and volley and this not an all courter.

Just because connors would hit an agressive ground stroke and then put away an easy volley does not make him an all courter...he was simply an agresive baseliner......

But it does not matter because Connors never won the French,.

"In an era where serve and volley was the norm, Bjorn Borg excepted, Connors was one of the few players to hit the ball flat, low, and predominantly from the baseline. Connors hit his forehand with a continental grip and with little net clearance. Some considered his forehand to be his greatest weakness, especially on extreme pressure points, as it lacked the safety margin of hard forehands hit with topspin. His serve, while accurate and capable, was never a great weapon for him as it did not reach the velocity and power of his opponents.

His lack of a dominating serve and net game, combined with his individualist style and maverick tendencies, meant that he was not as successful in doubles as he was in singles, although he did win Grand Slam titles with Ilie Nastase and Chris Evert and amassed 15 doubles titles during his career." from wikipedia

Lendl and Federer Fan
06-09-2008, 09:18 PM
Federer will probably not win the FO if Nadal continues to play like this, and I don't see how Djoker or anyone older than 21 will able to win one either, given Nadal is about the same age as Djoker. :twisted:

Arafel
06-09-2008, 10:41 PM
Federer and Sampras can both serve and volley. Connors was practically unable to serve and volley and this not an all courter.

Just because connors would hit an agressive ground stroke and then put away an easy volley does not make him an all courter...he was simply an agresive baseliner......

But it does not matter because Connors never won the French,.

"In an era where serve and volley was the norm, Bjorn Borg excepted, Connors was one of the few players to hit the ball flat, low, and predominantly from the baseline. Connors hit his forehand with a continental grip and with little net clearance. Some considered his forehand to be his greatest weakness, especially on extreme pressure points, as it lacked the safety margin of hard forehands hit with topspin. His serve, while accurate and capable, was never a great weapon for him as it did not reach the velocity and power of his opponents.

His lack of a dominating serve and net game, combined with his individualist style and maverick tendencies, meant that he was not as successful in doubles as he was in singles, although he did win Grand Slam titles with Ilie Nastase and Chris Evert and amassed 15 doubles titles during his career." from wikipedia

Oh jeez, you're quoting Wikipedia; I'm in trouble now. Not.

First, Connors could and did serve and volley. In fact, it was how he won Wimbledon in 82 over McEnroe. Connors took the net away from McEnroe.

Second, an all court player is someone who is effective from all areas of the court. That describes Connors far more than Federer. I still can't believe people here want to think Federer is an all-court player. "Oh, he can serve and volley." Well, the FACTS are that Federer RARELY serves and volleys. In fact, Federer rarely ventures to the net period. That so many people here think he is a good net player is a testament to how **** poor most of the current generation of players are at the net.

Third, Connors never won the French. Yeah, so what? Neither has Federer. However, Connors HAS won a Slam on clay, something Federer can't claim.

Fourth, an aggressive baseliner is someone like Agassi, or, in fact, Federer, who almost never come in, but like to dictate play from the backcourt.

I don't care what you actually think, but having actually watched both players extensively, I'll take Connors net game over Federer's any day. Further, Connors actually PLAYED from the net; Federer doesn't.

Nadal_Freak
06-09-2008, 10:44 PM
If rafa dies then federer will have a chance but if he doesnt then federer will never win.
Horrible to even imagine something like that happening. Keep your what ifs to yourself. You sound psychedelic.

iamke55
06-09-2008, 11:09 PM
It's not impossible for Nadal to get mono, though only the most obsessed *******s would hope for that to happen.

More pleasant: Roddick defeated Federer slightly more than a year after receiving the beating of his life, so that shows that getting annihilated in one match does not mean it will happen the next time. It will be more difficult for Federer though, since he doesn't have any weapon like Roddick's serve(Nadal almost never got the first serve back in play at Dubai).

jman
06-10-2008, 01:19 AM
I think if Federer really wants to win, he'll have to spend more time on clay fine tuning his game. He should at least spend 2 months preparation time before the clay court season starts. I think next year, he should fore go Indian Wells and Miami, and spend some quality time on the clay, getting his groove and sliding down pat.

At least he will not be rushed for time, like what he did this year with Higueras.

VamosRafa
06-10-2008, 01:42 AM
I think it depends more on Rafa than Roger. Rafa's been injured during Roland Garros before, and if it happens again, or if he has a bad day, Roger has a shot. If Rafa is fit and playing his best, it's going to be an uphill battle for anyone to beat him on clay, at least for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure there is anything Roger or anyone else can do to overcome that. Rafa just has a natural gift for clay that is nearly unprecedented.

carlos djackal
06-10-2008, 01:59 AM
No, unless Nadal and Djoker gets injured....

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 06:00 AM
Oh jeez, you're quoting Wikipedia; I'm in trouble now. Not.

First, Connors could and did serve and volley. In fact, it was how he won Wimbledon in 82 over McEnroe. Connors took the net away from McEnroe.

Second, an all court player is someone who is effective from all areas of the court. That describes Connors far more than Federer.

Third, Connors never won the French. Yeah, so what?

Fourth, an aggressive baseliner is someone like Agassi, or, in fact, Federer, who almost never come in, but like to dictate play from the backcourt.



Well I will take Wikipedias opinion over yours....who the hell are you?

Anyway....Dont like Wikipedia? How about this months Tennis magazine? See page 27 on the insert of the Borg Connors rivalry:

"The Borg vs. Connors clash was between two baseliners.".....Tennis magazine


1st-

Maybe Connors could serve and volley but so can Nadal and any atp pro can serve and volley. That does not make Nadal or the entire atp all courters.

2nd

In your opinion Connors is more of an all courter than Federer. You are entitled to your opinion....I dont think anyone else would agree with that statement...but be my guuest.

3rd

the point that Connors never won the French is the entire point of this thread!!! The point of this thread is that Fed does not have the style to win the FO as an all courter .

Connors' style of play has absolutely nothing to do with this thread as he never won the FO and his style of play is completely irrelevant.

4th

Both Agassi and Connors are agressive baseliners by most opinions. In fact Agassi and Connors have practically the same game!! Agassi would also venture to the net for an easy put away. He was no volleyer but he would set up an easy putaway just as connors.

Federer is an all courter by most of the worlds opinion. If you think that Federer is merely a baseliner then you are entitled to thant opinion....but again very few would agree with you.

NamRanger
06-10-2008, 06:12 AM
Well I will take Wikipedias opinion over yours....who the hell are you?

Anyway....Dont like Wikipedia? How about this months Tennis magazine? See page 27 on the insert of the Borg Connors rivalry:

"The Borg vs. Connors clash was between two baseliners.".....Tennis magazine


1st-

Maybe Connors could serve and volley but so can Nadal and any atp pro can serve and volley. That does not make Nadal or the entire atp all courters.

2nd

In your opinion Connors is more of an all courter than Federer. You are entitled to your opinion....I dont think anyone else would agree with that statement...but be my guuest.

3rd

the point that Connors never won the French is the entire point of this thread!!! The point of this thread is that Fed does not have the style to win the FO as an all courter .

Connors' style of play has absolutely nothing to do with this thread as he never won the FO and his style of play is completely irrelevant.

4th

Both Agassi and Connors are agressive baseliners by most opinions. In fact Agassi and Connors have practically the same game!! Agassi would also venture to the net for an easy put away. He was no volleyer but he would set up an easy putaway just as connors.

Federer is an all courter by most of the worlds opinion. If you think that Federer is merely a baseliner then you are entitled to thant opinion....but again very few would agree with you.



Statistically Connors came to net more then Federer did. Say what you will, but Bjorn Borg, Connors, and Lendl were all labeled baseliners, but were much closer to allcourt players. They consistently came to net 30-40 times if not more, which is a much bigger number then Federer comes in 2-3 matches.

daddy
06-10-2008, 06:19 AM
Both Agassi and Connors are agressive baseliners by most opinions. In fact Agassi and Connors have practically the same game!! Agassi would also venture to the net for an easy put away. He was no volleyer but he would set up an easy putaway just as connors.

Federer is an all courter by most of the worlds opinion. If you think that Federer is merely a baseliner then you are entitled to thant opinion....but again very few would agree with you.

We said no picking fights here, so let it stay like that. To further analyse this, let me know what do you consider an all-courter to be ? Federer is an all-court player exactly why in your opinion ? ( dont give me the everyone thinks so answer ) .. I agree with this but need to know where do YOU come from / how did you form your opinion.

Federer - the guy grew up on baseline, became famous for winning no less than a Slam in 2003 ( Wimbledon ) by serving and volleying but his regular play is baseline play the way I see it. I see him getting to the net as every other versitile baseline player does - after a big shot which enables him to. Moreso than others these days, agreed but in terms of history much less than Borg in Wimbledon for example.

Arafel
06-10-2008, 07:09 AM
Well I will take Wikipedias opinion over yours....who the hell are you?

Anyway....Dont like Wikipedia? How about this months Tennis magazine? See page 27 on the insert of the Borg Connors rivalry:

"The Borg vs. Connors clash was between two baseliners.".....Tennis magazine


1st-

Maybe Connors could serve and volley but so can Nadal and any atp pro can serve and volley. That does not make Nadal or the entire atp all courters.

2nd

In your opinion Connors is more of an all courter than Federer. You are entitled to your opinion....I dont think anyone else would agree with that statement...but be my guuest.

3rd

the point that Connors never won the French is the entire point of this thread!!! The point of this thread is that Fed does not have the style to win the FO as an all courter .

Connors' style of play has absolutely nothing to do with this thread as he never won the FO and his style of play is completely irrelevant.

4th

Both Agassi and Connors are agressive baseliners by most opinions. In fact Agassi and Connors have practically the same game!! Agassi would also venture to the net for an easy put away. He was no volleyer but he would set up an easy putaway just as connors.

Federer is an all courter by most of the worlds opinion. If you think that Federer is merely a baseliner then you are entitled to thant opinion....but again very few would agree with you.

Wikipedia is just a conglomoration of different opinions, none of whom necessarily does any research or has any credentials. It's one reason why many colleges won't allow students to cite Wikipedia in their papers.

Regarding Tennis magazine, that article makes the point also that players like Borg changed their game to win Wimbledon. They may have been baseliners, though Borg far more so than Connors, BUT, and I quote:

"It wasn't very long ago that the practice courts at Wimbledon's Aorangi Park and elsewhere in the vicinity of London's SW19 district were a hotbed of serious stroke - and attitude- adjustments in the weeks immediately before Wimbledon. Everywhere you looked men were practicing, among other things, the split step and chip backhand return with little or no backswing. Others were dialing in the hard, flat serve down the T or trying to add punch to their volleys."

Of Connors, the same article says, "Connors was a combative baseliner who was willing to follow his laserlike strokes to the net."

Of Borg, it says, "Borg, by contrast, was a baseliner who did what few players today feel is productive or necessary. He adapted his game to grass, mostly by playing a surprising amount of serve-and-volley tennis."

The whole point of the article is that even if you were a baseline player, you came to net always at Wimbledon. Lendl made two finals by serve-and-volleying on every point.

Federer, on the other hand, doesn't change his game and rarely comes to net. When he does, he often misses relatively easy volleys that players like Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Rafter would eat for lunch. Players like Connors were comfortable at net. Players like Federer aren't. THAT is what makes someone an all-court player.

daddy
06-10-2008, 07:28 AM
Of Connors, the same article says, "Connors was a combative baseliner who was willing to follow his laserlike strokes to the net."

Of Borg, it says, "Borg, by contrast, was a baseliner who did what few players today feel is productive or necessary. He adapted his game to grass, mostly by playing a surprising amount of serve-and-volley tennis."

The whole point of the article is that even if you were a baseline player, you came to net always at Wimbledon. Lendl made two finals by serve-and-volleying on every point.

Federer, on the other hand, doesn't change his game and rarely comes to net. When he does, he often misses relatively easy volleys that players like Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Rafter would eat for lunch. Players like Connors were comfortable at net. Players like Federer aren't. THAT is what makes someone an all-court player.

Thanks, I back this up.

luckyboy1300
06-10-2008, 07:36 AM
fed's chances on FO will be gone only on the moment he retires. i don't buy that "ooohh nadal crushed federer, and will continue to improve" and "fed's getting older, nadal's still young". i don't believe rafa could perform better than this tourney on the next FO. this is as good as a tennis player on his favorite surface can get. what happened in this year's final is simple: nadal entered god-mode, federer entered junior mode, we get one of the most lopsided finals in the open era history. so i don't buy much conclusions based on that single match. well that's just me.

pow
06-10-2008, 07:56 AM
Yes he can!!!




...if by some miracle he doesn't have to meet Nadal in the final.

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 11:40 AM
Statistically Connors came to net more then Federer did. Say what you will, but Bjorn Borg, Connors, and Lendl were all labeled baseliners, but were much closer to allcourt players. They consistently came to net 30-40 times if not more, which is a much bigger number then Federer comes in 2-3 matches.

Again you are entitled to any opinion you want..... But Borg , Connors and Lendl are all considered baseliners by most experts. While Federer is considered an all courter.

If you don't agree with that them take it up with the powers that be. I am merely a messenger.

In any event the point is that Federers has the wrong style of play to win the fo regardless of what Borgs, Connors' or Lendls style is.

In addition I think everyone would agree that Borg and Lendl were clearly baseliners at the fo. They were not all courters at the fo. On the other hand federer cam to net to often at the fo and does not have the patience of a grinder .

dh003i
06-10-2008, 12:04 PM
I think it depends more on Rafa than Roger. Rafa's been injured during Roland Garros before, and if it happens again, or if he has a bad day, Roger has a shot. If Rafa is fit and playing his best, it's going to be an uphill battle for anyone to beat him on clay, at least for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure there is anything Roger or anyone else can do to overcome that. Rafa just has a natural gift for clay that is nearly unprecedented.

What Federer can do to improve his odds against an in-form Nadal is improve his high backhand against topspin. If he can do that -- and if he can do it without harming him elsewhere -- is a difficult question to answer.

If he keeps giving himself chances, he'll probably get 1 FO; Nadal's style of play is hard on his body, and it's likely 1 year he'll either have an off day or be somewhat injured.

Arafel
06-10-2008, 12:23 PM
Again you are entitled to any opinion you want..... But Borg , Connors and Lendl are all considered baseliners by most experts. While Federer is considered an all courter.

If you don't agree with that them take it up with the powers that be. I am merely a messenger.

In any event the point is that Federers has the wrong style of play to win the fo regardless of what Borgs, Connors' or Lendls style is.

In addition I think everyone would agree that Borg and Lendl were clearly baseliners at the fo. They were not all courters at the fo. On the other hand federer cam to net to often at the fo and does not have the patience of a grinder .

Actually, Connors was always considered an all-court player. I remember that clearly. Every article about him talked about his all-court game.

In addition, most observers these days consider Federer a baseliner.

ksbh
06-10-2008, 12:31 PM
I don't see Roger Federer ever winning the French Open. So the answer is no.

Nadal_Freak
06-10-2008, 12:53 PM
What Federer can do to improve his odds against an in-form Nadal is improve his high backhand against topspin. If he can do that -- and if he can do it without harming him elsewhere -- is a difficult question to answer.

If he keeps giving himself chances, he'll probably get 1 FO; Nadal's style of play is hard on his body, and it's likely 1 year he'll either have an off day or be somewhat injured.
When did Djokovic fall out of the picture? If Nadal somehow has an off day or gets injured, Djokovic will take the French Open. Fed will never win it. :D

Morrissey
06-10-2008, 02:13 PM
What Federer can do to improve his odds against an in-form Nadal is improve his high backhand against topspin. If he can do that -- and if he can do it without harming him elsewhere -- is a difficult question to answer.

If he keeps giving himself chances, he'll probably get 1 FO; Nadal's style of play is hard on his body, and it's likely 1 year he'll either have an off day or be somewhat injured.

Who´s to say that will change everything? Joker has a backhand that can withstand Nadal´s heavy spin and he still loses in straight sets. To beat Nadal you can´t just rely on improving the backhand or have a good solid backhand. Joker´s backhand is clearly more suited to handle Nadal´s shots to it and yet still it´s only done nothing. Joker you can say even has more self belief when they step on the court, something that no matter what Fed say in press conferences he does not have when he faces Nadal on the clay court.

Lotto
06-10-2008, 02:53 PM
I made a very bad prediction at the start of the year. I said Federer would win all four GS's but I didn't know he was going to be in a mental slump and have a bout of Mono. The thing is, this mental slump will end by the end of the year and I'm going to make a prediction, bold maybe but a prediction none the less that Roger Federer will have the best year of his career in 2009. 2009 is the year Roger does everything. He'll win the Masters Series events he hasn't won, at Monte Carlo and Rome, he'll win the French. He'll win his 7th Wimbledon, he'll win any other MS event he hasn't won by then. Next years his year. I guarantee that. Bash me, call me crazy, whatever you want but that's my opinion. It's gonna happen.

oceanking
06-10-2008, 02:59 PM
feds wont win unless nadal is injured

federer envies me
06-10-2008, 03:10 PM
NO. nadal is too good and federer makes too many unforced errors on clay

Guamanian G
06-10-2008, 03:34 PM
as long as Nadal keeps healthy, heck no he wont win

dh003i
06-10-2008, 03:54 PM
When did Djokovic fall out of the picture? If Nadal somehow has an off day or gets injured, Djokovic will take the French Open. Fed will never win it. :D

Because Federer is a better player than Djokovic, period. He beat him at MC. There isn't a single type of surface that Djokovic is better on. And the ony part of his game that's in any way better than Fed's is high backhand.

dh003i
06-10-2008, 03:56 PM
Who´s to say that will change everything? Joker has a backhand that can withstand Nadal´s heavy spin and he still loses in straight sets. To beat Nadal you can´t just rely on improving the backhand or have a good solid backhand. Joker´s backhand is clearly more suited to handle Nadal´s shots to it and yet still it´s only done nothing. Joker you can say even has more self belief when they step on the court, something that no matter what Fed say in press conferences he does not have when he faces Nadal on the clay court.

I'm not saying it will change everything; but other parts of Federer's game are much better than Djokovics. Come on, no-body in their right mind would say Djokovic is anywhere near as talented as Federer.

The most key aspect of Federer's game that causes problems for him against Nadal is handling Nadal's high-bouncing balls with his backhand.

baek57
06-10-2008, 04:00 PM
generally when someone makes it to the finals year after year, they will eventually break through. of course rafa is his biggest obstacle, but anything can happen.

dh003i
06-10-2008, 04:05 PM
generally when someone makes it to the finals year after year, they will eventually break through. of course rafa is his biggest obstacle, but anything can happen.

Borg never did at the USO, Lendl never did at Wimbledon. Then again, Lendl did break through everywhere else, where early in his career he got to many finals to lost all.

anointedone
06-10-2008, 04:21 PM
I'm not saying it will change everything; but other parts of Federer's game are much better than Djokovics.

Federer does nothing better then Djokovic right now. Their serves and forehands are exactly equal considering Federer's serious decline in both (as well as every other area of his game). Djokovic currently hits backhand and return of serve much superior to Roger. Volleys about the same right now, and movement is much in Djokovic's favor right now too. Djokovic currently is showing much superior mental toughness and much better strategic play too.

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 05:00 PM
I made a very bad prediction at the start of the year. I said Federer would win all four GS's but I didn't know he was going to be in a mental slump and have a bout of Mono. The thing is, this mental slump will end by the end of the year and I'm going to make a prediction, bold maybe but a prediction none the less that Roger Federer will have the best year of his career in 2009. 2009 is the year Roger does everything. He'll win the Masters Series events he hasn't won, at Monte Carlo and Rome, he'll win the French. He'll win his 7th Wimbledon, he'll win any other MS event he hasn't won by then. Next years his year. I guarantee that. Bash me, call me crazy, whatever you want but that's my opinion. It's gonna happen.

judging by your past predictions.....I dont think you have much credibility.

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 05:02 PM
Actually, Connors was always considered an all-court player. I remember that clearly. Every article about him talked about his all-court game.

In addition, most observers these days consider Federer a baseliner.

Show me one article anywhere that says Connors was an all court player. Everything I have ever read on Connors says he was a baseliner...an agressive baseliner....but a baseliner nonetheless.

In any event even if you think Connors was an all courter (whe he was NOT), it is of no releveance as he never won the French. This proves my point that Federers all court style is the wrong style to win the FO.

tricky
06-10-2008, 05:06 PM
Question needs reframing.

It should be: will a healthy Nadal lose a French Open for at least the next 3 years? Considering that through the last 3 years, the gulf between him and everybody else has widened year to year, that doesn't seem likely.

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 05:10 PM
We said no picking fights here, so let it stay like that. To further analyse this, let me know what do you consider an all-courter to be ? Federer is an all-court player exactly why in your opinion ? ( dont give me the everyone thinks so answer ) .. I agree with this but need to know where do YOU come from / how did you form your opinion.



Why??? What does my little opinion matter to you so much?? Especially since you agree with me?


The bottom line is that its not important what I think...the experts agree that Fed is an all courter. This is not school and I am allowed to plagarize.

daddy
06-10-2008, 05:16 PM
The bottom line is that its not important what I think...the experts agree that Fed is an all courter. This is not school and I am allowed to plagarize.

The difference is Federer is all courter by todays standards but as someone mentioned before, compared to people like Connors and Borg for example - he is not that versatile. So all courters did win RG titles in the past which is contrary to your claim.

dh003i
06-10-2008, 05:43 PM
The difference is Federer is all courter by todays standards but as someone mentioned before, compared to people like Connors and Borg for example - he is not that versatile. So all courters did win RG titles in the past which is contrary to your claim.

He doesn't come in as much compared to them because of the surfaces today..but I assure you, he has a better all-court game than Connors or Borg did.

tkauffm
06-10-2008, 05:45 PM
It's been a tall order for Fed to win RG in the past and it's an even bigger hurdle now. He basically has to play lights out tennis for 3 perfect sets. It would have to be like the 07 Hamburg final, but better. But as many people have already said, never say never. I personally hope he wins it at some point, but it's not looking good

veroniquem
06-10-2008, 05:48 PM
I made a very bad prediction at the start of the year. I said Federer would win all four GS's but I didn't know he was going to be in a mental slump and have a bout of Mono. The thing is, this mental slump will end by the end of the year and I'm going to make a prediction, bold maybe but a prediction none the less that Roger Federer will have the best year of his career in 2009. 2009 is the year Roger does everything. He'll win the Masters Series events he hasn't won, at Monte Carlo and Rome, he'll win the French. He'll win his 7th Wimbledon, he'll win any other MS event he hasn't won by then. Next years his year. I guarantee that. Bash me, call me crazy, whatever you want but that's my opinion. It's gonna happen.
And this year might be the right year for you to stop doing drugs. Good luck with that!

Djokovicfan4life
06-10-2008, 05:52 PM
I think Fed's biggest chance of winning it will be Nadal getting injured or possibly getting upset in an earlier round (although that's obviously highly unlikely). He just seems to have no answer to Nadal's heavy ground strokes.

However, his best chance against Nadal would be to come in to net and not let Nadal play his grinding style that he likes so much. It would be better for him to win or lose quickly at net than to let Nadal slowly win, like he always does.

I guess I'm trying to say that Federer should play to win, instead of playing not to lose. (You just KNEW that cliche was coming)

daddy
06-10-2008, 05:53 PM
He doesn't come in as much compared to them because of the surfaces today..but I assure you, he has a better all-court game than Connors or Borg did.

This is a tough call and Im not ever going to accept this for granted. Borg had some stiff competition to face during his career and so did Connors, they came in a lot and played great at the net. Roger also does very well at the net and that's as far as Id go here.

I was just trying to prove the guy's statement wrong ( Roger will not win RG because he is an all-court player and none has ever won it ) and I think I did just enough.

veroniquem
06-10-2008, 05:54 PM
I think Fed's biggest chance of winning it will be Nadal getting injured or possibly getting upset in an earlier round (although that's obviously highly unlikely). He just seems to have no answer to Nadal's heavy ground strokes.

However, his best chance against Nadal would be to come in to net and not let Nadal play his grinding style that he likes so much. It would be better for him to win or lose quickly at net than to let Nadal slowly win, like he always does.

I guess I'm trying to say that Federer should play to win, instead of playing not to lose. (You just KNEW that cliche was coming)
He tried going to the net this year and he got crucified there.

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 05:56 PM
The difference is Federer is all courter by todays standards but as someone mentioned before, compared to people like Connors and Borg for example - he is not that versatile. So all courters did win RG titles in the past which is contrary to your claim.

Who cares???? At the FO Borg simply stayed 100 feet behind the baseline and grinded out point after boring point until he won....six times!!!

Federer as an all courter does not have that style and therefore can never win the FO.

I predicted this very fact 4 years ago and I was banned and my thread closed down. The bottom line is that I was right four years ago and I am right again today....Federer just does not have the style to win the FO.

Except now I am finally in the majority and everyone sees that I was right. I was like columbus saying the world was round and everyone laughed at me.

daddy
06-10-2008, 05:57 PM
He tried going to the net this year and he got crucified there.

Arguably he had a very bad day at the office. You got to admit that much, he missed a ton of easy forehands hitting the bottom of the net and made a ton of silly errors. Go figure - his backhand was the best shot in the final, did not brake down at all. He just fell apart with the rest of his game and got crucified.

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 05:59 PM
Arguably he had a very bad day at the office. You got to admit that much, he missed a ton of easy forehands hitting the bottom of the net and made a ton of silly errors. Go figure - his backhand was the best shot in the final, did not brake down at all. He just fell apart with the rest of his game and got crucified.


we have been hearing the forehand shank excuse and unforced erros excuse for four years. I think its time to admot that Fed simply has been outplayed now for four years.

In fact this time I could have done almost as good as fed did. I would have lost 6-0,6-0.6-0. ...Fed only got four more games than I would have!!!!

veroniquem
06-10-2008, 06:00 PM
What I meant is no strategy from Fed is gonna work against Nadal on clay (neither baseline nor volley). He could have had a better day, he still wouldn't have won the match IMO

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 06:01 PM
What I meant is no strategy from Fed is gonna work against Nadal on clay (neither baseline nor volley). He could have had a better day, he still wouldn't have won the match IMO

Wilander was right...in order for Fed to win he has to try some radically new and different idea.

daddy
06-10-2008, 06:03 PM
I predicted this very fact 4 years ago and I was banned and my thread closed down. The bottom line is that I was right four years ago and I am right again today....Federer just does not have the style to win the FO


You are in the majority now. People realise he has no chance and I back this up but lets just say that reasoning behind this statement is a whole lot different from my point of view. The way I see it - the reason is not his style or lack of game for the clay, it's a major case of ball shrinkage / nadalitis caused by a very bad matchup on clay vs ONE GUY and the facts back me up - not only that he lost 3 finals and 1 semi to this ONE GUY but he lost a ton of other clay court finals at big tournaments to this ONE GUY while sweeping the rest of the field annually.

daddy
06-10-2008, 06:05 PM
we have been hearing the forehand shank excuse and unforced erros excuse for four years. I think its time to admot that Fed simply has been outplayed now for four years.

Sorry not correct. We are hearing abuse of backhand side with heavy top spin coupled with nicknames top spin monkey and whatever else for years. This is the first time his forehand is to blame directly for a loss.

veroniquem
06-10-2008, 06:05 PM
Wilander was right...in order for Fed to win he has to try some radically new and different idea.
Like what? Jump over the racket before he hits the ball? Because other than that I think he has tried pretty much everything. I also think he has neither the confidence (quite a euphemism) not the athleticism necessary against Nadal on clay.

daddy
06-10-2008, 06:06 PM
What I meant is no strategy from Fed is gonna work against Nadal on clay (neither baseline nor volley). He could have had a better day, he still wouldn't have won the match IMO

Agreed. But its a bad matchup and became a huge complex of playing Nadal on clay rather than any of the other reasons ( like no suitable style for clay or he is all-courter and they do not win RG etc. )

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 06:07 PM
You are in the majority now. People realise he has no chance and I back this up but lets just say that reasoning behind this statement is a whole lot different from my point of view. The way I see it - the reason is not his style or lack of game for the clay, it's a major case of ball shrinkage / nadalitis caused by a very bad matchup on clay vs ONE GUY and the facts back me up - not only that he lost 3 finals and 1 semi to this ONE GUY but he lost a ton of other clay court finals at big tournaments to this ONE GUY while sweeping the rest of the field annually.

Hmmmmm....I dont agree. Very good point but not accurate.

Lets not forget....long before there was ever a Nadal , Federer lost at the FO.

In fact Federer has been losing at the FO for 10 years now!!! Compare that to Borg, Nadal , Chang, Wilander who win as teenagers! The reason is that these guys all had the right style for the FO while fed does not.

daddy
06-10-2008, 06:09 PM
Hmmmmm....I dont agree. Very good point but not accurate.

Lets not forget....long before there was ever a Nadal , Federer lost at the FO.

In fact Federer has been losing at the FO for 10 years now!!! Compare that to Borg, Nadal , Chang, Wilander who win as teenagers! The reason is that these guys all had the right style for the FO while fed does not.

Do not tell me he was a better clay courter in 2002 than he was in 2006 or 2007 ? He was losing everything else prior to the latter stage of 2003 so this statement is also wrong. The one he lost prior the 2005 meeting with Nadal is to 4, 4 and 4 from Guga Kuerten and we all know he is a handfull on clay, agree ?

Cmon, to whom has he lost on clay in last 5 years ? Give me 5 minutes and Ill give you all the players.

daddy
06-10-2008, 06:11 PM
Federer's losses on clay:

2004 :

Rome R32 Costa, Albert (ESP) 39 6-3 3-6 2-6
RG R32 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) 30 4-6 4-6 4-6

2005 :

MC Q Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 101 7-6(1) 2-6 6-7(8)
RG S Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 5 3-6 6-4 4-6 3-6

2006 :

MC F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 2-6 7-6(2) 3-6 6-7(5)
Rome F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 7-6(7) 6-7(5) 4-6 6-2 6-7(5)
RG F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 6-1 1-6 4-6 6-7(4)

2007 :

MC F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 4-6 4-6
Rome R16 Volandri, Filippo (ITA) 53 2-6 4-6
RG F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 3-6 6-4 3-6 4-6

2008 :

MC F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 5-7 5-7
Rome Q Stepanek, Radek (CZE) 27 6-7(4) 6-7(7)
Hamburg F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 5-7 7-6(3) 3-6
RG F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 1-6 3-6 0-6

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 06:13 PM
Like what? Jump over the racket before he hits the ball? Because other than that I think he has tried pretty much everything. I also think he has neither the confidence (quite a euphemism) not the athleticism necessary against Nadal on clay.

No something really radical. If i had the answer I would be paid a million bucks...but I have tried to come up with a radical idea but i was laughed at ...just like when I said 4 years ago that Fed would never win the FO.

My radical ideas are like my prediction looked at as insane. But I will try it again.....

I think everyone would agree that Feds main problem is his one handed backhand versus Nadals lefty high topspin.

Therefore the answer to me is to strengthen his backhand somehow.

So how do we do this...only two ways...technique or equipment.

Fed needs a two hander for only those high topspin shots...or he needs a bigger racquet or a more powerful racquet. he certainly cant do much worse than he did this past final...he listened to all you guys and came in and that was pathetic....maybe he should try my idea now.

guynamedsean
06-10-2008, 06:14 PM
I am a huge Federer fan, but I say NO, he will never win The French. I will still wake up at 7am and root for him if he makes it to the final again though.

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 06:14 PM
Do not tell me he was a better clay courter in 2002 than he was in 2006 or 2007 ? He was losing everything else prior to the latter stage of 2003 so this statement is also wrong. The one he lost prior the 2005 meeting with Nadal is to 4, 4 and 4 from Guga Kuerten and we all know he is a handfull on clay, agree ?

Cmon, to whom has he lost on clay in last 5 years ? Give me 5 minutes and Ill give you all the players.

He even lost to Rafter my friend. He just has the wrong style of play for clay....thats all I am saying.

daddy
06-10-2008, 06:19 PM
He even lost to Rafter my friend. He just has the wrong style of play for clay....thats all I am saying.

He lost 9 out of 12 total losses in 2005 - 2008 to Rafa Nadal. 3 to others, Gasquet, Volandri and Stepanek. He has the game, but not for Rafael Nadal. I compiled a list for you up there, its obvious he'd win at least 5-6 tournaments and a couple of slams had it not been for Nadal and his clay court magic.


Please do not refer to pre 2004 seasons, he could lose to any decent pro back then. His breakthru was late 2003.

dave333
06-10-2008, 06:31 PM
Maybe at some point nadal and fed will make a deal and trade wimbledon for french. but then fed dupes nadal and gets the calender grand slam!

krosero
06-10-2008, 09:00 PM
I was like columbus saying the world was round and everyone laughed at me.[/B]A myth about Columbus. A good primer on the issue:

http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213156745&sr=8-1

The balls in your court.
06-10-2008, 09:14 PM
Maybe at some point nadal and fed will make a deal and trade wimbledon for french. but then fed dupes nadal and gets the calender grand slam!

no need . Nadal is a lot closer to winning Wimbledon than Fed is to winning the French.

After all ..... Nadal is the second best grass court player on the planet!

herosol
06-10-2008, 09:21 PM
Yes. Only one way.

Federer needs to stop being an artist, and start competing.
If Nadal can hit 3000 rpms worth of spin, Federer needs to hit the drawing board and learn how to freaking hit it at 4000 rpms. If Nadal can hit 10/15 sick short-angle forehands, Federer better learn how to hit 14/15.

Federer needs to de-beautify himself. He has NOT changed since the beginning of his career. Fine a different serve motion, but he has not changed dramatically where a player has been playing someone different. Nadal has. He now has angles at his disposal, different aggressive shots, a much accurate and powerful serve, great touch and volleys, and increasing mental strength.

Fed needs to get down the nitty gritty, and fight. Because all i see is himself worried he's going to look ugly while winning against Nadal. Fed is not hungry enough, and i don't understand why when the world #1 is being defeated by the same guy for 4 years at the same tournament.

Stop the Arrogance Federer. Hit the drawing boards. Because while the game works off clay, and sometimes it doesn't, it WON'T EVER work at the French.

mraznman
06-10-2008, 09:23 PM
Please. Djokovic would have spanked Federer at the French Open the way both were playing. Federer is not the 2nd best clay courter at the moment, unless he re-raises his game drastically, and he only was in the final due to his joke draw of this years French. As todays final proved, he did not really even belong in that match.

at least federer dont ***** out of matches putting up some stupid excuse.

heathenrider
06-10-2008, 10:48 PM
feds said himself he's going to be around a long time. I say 50% yes

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 05:40 AM
at least federer dont ***** out of matches putting up some stupid excuse.

Well he doesnt quit, however he does always come up with an excuse for every one of his losses!!! Except this match!!! He was beaten so badly that even he couldnt come up with anything....but wait a few weeks!!!!

just prior to Federers AO loss he said that he was completely cured from Mono and felt 100%. Then lo and behold a few weeks after his loss he comes out and says that he lost necause he had Mono!!!

Federer is the king of excuses. He has an excuse for every single match.....

Prediction: within one month Federer will have an excuse for his loss at the FO.

,....you heard it here first. ;)

ninman
06-11-2008, 07:09 AM
Yes. Only one way.

Federer needs to stop being an artist, and start competing.
If Nadal can hit 3000 rpms worth of spin, Federer needs to hit the drawing board and learn how to freaking hit it at 4000 rpms. If Nadal can hit 10/15 sick short-angle forehands, Federer better learn how to hit 14/15.

Federer needs to de-beautify himself. He has NOT changed since the beginning of his career. Fine a different serve motion, but he has not changed dramatically where a player has been playing someone different. Nadal has. He now has angles at his disposal, different aggressive shots, a much accurate and powerful serve, great touch and volleys, and increasing mental strength.

Fed needs to get down the nitty gritty, and fight. Because all i see is himself worried he's going to look ugly while winning against Nadal. Fed is not hungry enough, and i don't understand why when the world #1 is being defeated by the same guy for 4 years at the same tournament.

Stop the Arrogance Federer. Hit the drawing boards. Because while the game works off clay, and sometimes it doesn't, it WON'T EVER work at the French.

Well said, every player has a weakness (even Nadal on clay), Federer needs to stop ******* about and find Nadal's freakin weakness and **** it, the same way Nadal rapes Federer's backhand. He's thinking too much about his own one weakness (the backhand), and not thinking enough about Nadal's weaknesses.

luckyboy1300
06-11-2008, 07:19 AM
Well he doesnt quit, however he does always come up with an excuse for every one of his losses!!! Except this match!!! He was beaten so badly that even he couldnt come up with anything....but wait a few weeks!!!!

just prior to Federers AO loss he said that he was completely cured from Mono and felt 100%. Then lo and behold a few weeks after his loss he comes out and says that he lost necause he had Mono!!!
Federer is the king of excuses. He has an excuse for every single match.....

Prediction: within one month Federer will have an excuse for his loss at the FO.

,....you heard it here first. ;)

where the hell did you get this? he revealed about the mono IN FEBRUARY already. he didn't even know about the mono during the ao.

TheTruth
06-11-2008, 10:43 AM
Maybe at some point nadal and fed will make a deal and trade wimbledon for french. but then fed dupes nadal and gets the calender grand slam!

I could see the classy one doing that!

TheTruth
06-11-2008, 10:49 AM
at least federer dont ***** out of matches putting up some stupid excuse.

No, he'll wait months after the match and reveal why he lost: as in, he had foot problems against Safin, and mono after Djoker, and like the poster said, in a few months we will find out why he lost such a lopsided final against Rafa! Fed is the King of Excuses!

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 11:01 AM
where the hell did you get this? he revealed about the mono IN FEBRUARY already. he didn't even know about the mono during the ao.

wrong. its all over the internet. But unless I am getting some $$$ I am not doing the work. He had interviews before and after th Joker match...everyone knows it. Check it out for yourself.

Zaragoza
06-11-2008, 12:28 PM
The odds to win R.Garros 2009 on bet365 are:

Nadal 1.50
Djokovic 4.00
Federer 8.00

I have not seen other sites but it seems Djokovic will be considered Nadal´s biggest threat next year at R.Garros.

tennisally
06-11-2008, 12:43 PM
Something is wrong with him---it's going to come out later---he really just didn't LOOK AT ALL LIKE himself--- Yes Nadal is outstanding, but not 1 3 0 outstanding---Roger was out to lunch. Oh and bring back the long hair---and Mirka quit making the grimacing faces---u r there to support him!

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 12:45 PM
He'll WIN if he grows back the pony tail---

Ahhh yes...the [S]Factor. a.k.a The Samson Factor:

Instead of deliliah, Mirka snuck in and cut Feds pony tail and Fed lost his strength.....lol.

daddy
06-11-2008, 01:07 PM
Just prior to Federers AO loss he said that he was completely cured from Mono and felt 100%. Then lo and behold a few weeks after his loss he comes out and says that he lost necause he had Mono!

You should check out your facts again. He revealed he had mononucleosis about a couple of weeks after his loss in AO semifinal. As he thought before, he was sure he had a stomach infection during the AO since he did not feel all that well - but there was no word on this before he lost. Then after the loss he revealed he had that stomach infection and after further analisys outside of Australia he revealed he had mono. The first time he said he recovered 100% from it was Monte Carlo.

veroniquem
06-11-2008, 01:43 PM
You should check out your facts again. He revealed he had mononucleosis about a couple of weeks after his loss in AO semifinal. As he thought before, he was sure he had a stomach infection during the AO since he did not feel all that well - but there was no word on this before he lost. Then after the loss he revealed he had that stomach infection and after further analisys outside of Australia he revealed he had mono. The first time he said he recovered 100% from it was Monte Carlo.
Not true. He said he was totally recovered in Dubai.

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 01:54 PM
You should check out your facts again. He revealed he had mononucleosis about a couple of weeks after his loss in AO semifinal. As he thought before, he was sure he had a stomach infection during the AO since he did not feel all that well - but there was no word on this before he lost. Then after the loss he revealed he had that stomach infection and after further analisys outside of Australia he revealed he had mono. The first time he said he recovered 100% from it was Monte Carlo.

Not true....but nice try in getting me to do the work for you. Where are your sources. I will show you mine if you show me yours first...get to work buddy.

The truth is that prior to the AO Fed said he was 100 percent over mono and then only after his loss to the Joker did he come up with the excuse that he was no longer fine.

daddy
06-11-2008, 02:29 PM
The truth is that prior to the AO Fed said he was 100 percent over mono and then only after his loss to the Joker did he come up with the excuse that he was no longer fine.

There are at least 1000 people here who will confirm that he did not know he had mono during the AO. I dont know your sources but Im not lazy so Ill dig up some articles and edit this post.

Article from March the 7th where it is clearly said he thought he had food poisoning during the AO and latter found out :

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/07/sports/arena.php

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2008-03-07/393.php

Same but March 8th.

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=428946&sid=SPO

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sports/tennis/08tennis.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Sampras,%20Pete

Need no more. just type in Federer and Mononucleosis and 1000 articles will pop up. All dated in early March.

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 03:37 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In the famous words of Andre agassi: IMAGE IS EVERYTHING:

Roger was feeling great before the Joker Match. he rated his performance at first a 10 out of 10!!! Against Tipsarovic he rated his own performance and 8 out of 10 an when asked "what on earth would make it a 10 out of 10"

Federer said "winning in three". No mention of feeling tired or anything.He felt great!!! Just look at him in this interview. image is everything:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ppEU-iIFRM

TheTruth
06-11-2008, 04:22 PM
Federer's image is no longer Wimbledon-white

Recent events have taken away the world No1's halo of invincibility and all-round niceness
Steve BierleyMarch 13, 2008 3:28 PM

Nobody ever likes to say anything bad about Roger Federer. The 12-times slam winner is a deservedly popular and much respected champion, who has been lionised by everybody from Rod Laver downwards. And rightly so. Yet recent events have greyed the Wimbledon-white image somewhat.

Not that the criticism is currently anything more than a tiny trickle. Indeed Andy Murray, not renowned for his diplomacy, was this week at pains to put aside the world No1's generally mean-spirited and petulant criticism after he had lost to Scotland's finest in Dubai. The Swiss maestro had suggested that Murray, who has now won two of their three meetings, was really no better than when they first played in Bangkok two years ago, and that his game was based on his opponents missing shots, rather than Murray hitting winners of his own.

"If he's said it got taken out of context, then I'll take him at his word," said Murray in Indian Wells. "I know what it's like when you walk off the court from a match and the press comments come straight off the court." Well, the truth is that Federer's words were not taken out of context at all. He was asked what he thought about Murray's performance, and responded in a decidedly negative fashion.

It then emerged, post Dubai, that Federer has apparently been suffering from mononucleosis, or glandular fever, since before Christmas, hence the 'reason' for his less than perfect performance in Melbourne, where he lamely gave up his Australian Open title against Serbia's Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals, and then succumbed to Murray in the first round in Dubai.

You may remember that Federer was unable to play in his usual warm-up event at Kooyong just prior to the Australian Open because of a stomach upset. Of course it is possible that the glandular fever, a debilitating illness that recently knocked Croatia's Mario Ancic out of competitive play for the best part of half a year, was not immediately diagnosed - for if Federer knew he had it, then surely he would not have played in Australia in the first place and, given the lingering nature of the illness, would have pulled out of the lucrative but meaningless exhibition against Pete Sampras last week in New York, prior to the two back-to-back Masters events in California and Florida?

And why did Federer choose to reveal the nature of his illness only after he had lost to both Djokovic and Murray this year, and after he has apparently recovered? Murray and Djokovic might have grounds for feeling more than a little miffed that their victories, and the Serb's in particular, have been decidedly down-valued by Federer's revelation.

It is all extremely curious. No matter whether he wins another slam or not, Federer has won his place in history as one of the all-time greats, and he may yet go on to claim the epithet of the best ever should he eventually beat Sampras's all-time record of 14 slams - and also win the French Open. But, for the moment, the halos of invincibility and all-around niceness have gone decidedly askew.

TheTruth
06-11-2008, 04:28 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In the famous words of Andre agassi: IMAGE IS EVERYTHING:

Roger was feeling great before the Joker Match. he rated his performance at first a 10 out of 10!!! Against Tipsarovic he rated his own performance and 8 out of 10 an when asked "what on earth would make it a 10 out of 10"

Federer said "winning in three". No mention of feeling tired or anything.He felt great!!! Just look at him in this interview. image is everything:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ppEU-iIFRM

So true! Here's what he said before and during the Oz! Then, months later he says he was sick all along!

Pre-Tournament Interview


Q. Are you feeling a hundred percent now?
ROGER FEDERER: I've been playing sets the last couple days, you know, which was very important for me, to be able to play points. I'm happy with my form, to be honest. Very pleased. Physically I'm fine now, too. No more issues.
Yeah, I would consider myself a hundred percent.

Q. Compared to other times in your life when you've been sick, how bad was this one?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, not sick very often, you know. Just took me, you know, five days, a week, I don't know. It was just a tough thing to get over with. It wasn't just the flu for two, three days, then it sort of gets better. It took me longer than that.
I didn't panic necessarily because I knew I had enough time before the tournament started. But it was just a bit different. I didn't mind having more time off. Just resting all day, maybe getting a little session in at 6:00 in the evening.
It was also, you know, some sort of a different experience. But it's never nice, you know, to be ill. It's something I don't enjoy.


Q. Was it just food poisoning that you had? Do you feel completely better?
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I'm fine now, like nothing ever happened, which is a good thing.
Q. And it was food poisoning?
ROGER FEDERER: Apparently. That's what they told me, and I believed it. I've moved on now mentally. I'm past being sick. Looking forward to a healthy couple of weeks hopefully.



Q. You should be sick more often.
ROGER FEDERER: No, don't say that (laughter).



Saturday, january 19, 2008

Q. Given the recent illness, was there any stage where it particularly set in and you felt you were getting low on the tank?

ROGER FEDERER: I just felt slow from the start really. It wasn't one of those matches where I came out and just felt this is going to be a great night of tennis tonight. It just sort of felt -- took me a while to get into the match, really. It took me a couple sets almost to feel like, okay, slowly warming up.
It's an unusual feeling, you know, but you sometimes feel things are not happening for you, and it was one of those nights tonight. No, I mean, I'm happy that the sickness didn't bother me today in the match, and that's what I told you guys. I wasn't bluffing or anything. I thought I was ready for those matches, and I proved it tonight, which is nice.


Friday January 25, 2008

Q. Do you look back now and think about the preparation a couple weeks ago and the illness? Was that having a lingering effect at all on your game throughout this tournament?

ROGER FEDERER: Look, I don't know, seriously. I'll definitely reflect on what happened. You know, I mean, considering, you know, my illness, I'm sort of happy with the result here.
Of course, I've created a monster, so I know I need to always win every tournament. But semis is still, you know, pretty good. But, yeah, I'll analyze and see if I have to make changes for next year. But, honestly, I think I did play pretty good.
I didn't play my best throughout the championships, but it was pretty solid, so it was okay.


ROGER FEDERER: Well, obviously the approach has been unique this year, you know. It's the first time I've been ill before a Grand Slam. I would still rather have it before than during, that's for sure.
But maybe it did have. I answered the question already before. It might have had an effect on my movement, I don't know. But I definitely didn't feel as quick, you know, as some other times. I practiced really hard. I can't practice much harder in the off-season, you know, so I did everything the right way. And maybe I did pay the price for being a little bit ill.
You know, I like to give credit to my opponent, as well. I don't want to blame it too much on my own play. He came up with the shots at the right time, and that's all I can say really.




March 8, 2008 - 10:56 AM
Federer's illness explains bad form
Swiss tennis star Roger Federer says he has been trying to get back on track following a bout of mononucleosis - glandular fever - at the start of the season.
The world number one lost to eventual champion Novak Djokovic in the Australian Open semi-finals in January and crashed out in the first round of the Dubai Tennis Championships last week.
Federer had not played between the Australian Open and the Dubai game, which he lost to Andy Murray. It is the first time since 2004 that he has gone out in the first round of a tournament.
The tennis player's agent, Tony Godsick, said that Federer was diagnosed with mononucleosis – a virus whose symptoms include fever, sore throat, headaches and fatigue – last month.
"He doesn't want to make any excuses and take anything away from anybody. In hindsight had [his doctors] known he had mono, they wouldn't have let him play," Godick was quoted on the AP news agency as saying.
Federer told The New York Times in an interview posted on its website on Friday that the illness had affected his practising and that he had lost a lot of his fitness.
The Swiss is now over the virus and will play Pete Sampras in an exhibition match at Madison Square Garden, in New York, on Monday night. Federer has 12 Grand Slam titles, two away from Sampras' own career record.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sports/tennis/08tennis.html?ref=sports

Lucky57
06-11-2008, 06:28 PM
as long as nadal is playing, sadly federer will not be able to complete a career grand slam.

bangchu
06-11-2008, 08:26 PM
No, he'll wait months after the match and reveal why he lost: as in, he had foot problems against Safin, and mono after Djoker, and like the poster said, in a few months we will find out why he lost such a lopsided final against Rafa! Fed is the King of Excuses!

What a joke, this chump picks out 2 matches and declares Federer always making excuses. If he's quite, all these chumps will jump to conclusion that his prime is over. If he opens his mouths, the chumps will says he's making excuses. Get your head out off your behind and you will see the real truths. Pathetic!

The balls in your court.
06-11-2008, 08:34 PM
What a joke, this chump picks out 2 matches and declares Federer always making excuses. If he's quite, all these chumps will jump to conclusion that his prime is over. If he opens his mouths, the chumps will says he's making excuses. Get your head out off your behind and you will see the real truths. Pathetic!

He is not a chump. fed has had an excuse for every single match he has ever lost except this last one.

he has blamed shadows,blisters,noise, not playing well....the list goes on an on.

I tell you what...name a match he lost (with the exception of this one) and I will quote his excuse for you. Go ahead I dare you!

Djokovicfan4life
06-11-2008, 08:51 PM
He is not a chump. fed has had an excuse for every single match he has ever lost except this last one.

he has blamed shadows,blisters,noise, not playing well....the list goes on an on.

I tell you what...name a match he lost (with the exception of this one) and I will quote his excuse for you. Go ahead I dare you!

2005 Monte Carlo quarter-final vs Gasquet.

TnTBigman
06-11-2008, 08:55 PM
Fed could win a French if Nadal is injured and withdraws during/before they ever meet in the draw.
I think Fed faired better than Djokovic on clay.

luckyboy1300
06-12-2008, 12:25 AM
There are at least 1000 people here who will confirm that he did not know he had mono during the AO. I dont know your sources but Im not lazy so Ill dig up some articles and edit this post.

Article from March the 7th where it is clearly said he thought he had food poisoning during the AO and latter found out :

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/07/sports/arena.php

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2008-03-07/393.php

Same but March 8th.

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=428946&sid=SPO

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sports/tennis/08tennis.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Sampras,%20Pete

Need no more. just type in Federer and Mononucleosis and 1000 articles will pop up. All dated in early March.

and i really don't know what the two (balls on your court and thetruth) are playing at. is it very hard to comprehend HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE MONO DURING AO!

luckyboy1300
06-12-2008, 12:28 AM
Not true....but nice try in getting me to do the work for you. Where are your sources. I will show you mine if you show me yours first...get to work buddy.

The truth is that prior to the AO Fed said he was 100 percent over mono and then only after his loss to the Joker did he come up with the excuse that he was no longer fine.

you are the one claiming this one so the burden of proof's upon you pal

SikSerb
06-12-2008, 12:31 AM
As long as Nadal is around I dont even see the chance of it happening.

Eviscerator
06-12-2008, 03:31 AM
Had Nadal not been in his way, he most likely would have at least one FO under his belt.

He is talented enough to do it, and a lot can happen from year to year. So I would say that yes he can win it, but it becomes less likely with every passing year.

ninman
06-12-2008, 05:15 AM
I think his attitude this year shows that he's effectively given up ever trying to defeat Nadal in a best of 5 match on clay again. So if he has to play Nadal no, if Nadal loses or is injured then yes he will.

The balls in your court.
06-12-2008, 06:32 AM
you are the one claiming this one so the burden of proof's upon you pal

It has already been proven ......go back and scroll.

You really are a very special and lucky boy aren't you?

AAgassiradical88
06-12-2008, 06:49 AM
Hey everyone, im "new" here, i read the boards all the time and havent actually posted anything since 04 ( yeah long time huh?)..I think Fed's best chance to win was the previous 2 years when he took Nadal to 4 sets in the finals, it seemed this year he has lost something and Nadal is just gaining more and more confidence on the dirt. Fed was challenged more by Monfils than i thought he would have, which immediately showed me he would lose to Nadal in the final, but i expected more of a match than 1,3,0.. Only way is if he doesnt draw Nadal somehow next year, otherwise his time may be coming to an end of winning RG

luckyboy1300
06-12-2008, 07:07 AM
It has already been proven ......go back and scroll.

You really are a very special and lucky boy aren't you?

oh sorry i can't quote from any of those interviews that says federer has or already knows about mono.

Well he doesnt quit, however he does always come up with an excuse for every one of his losses!!! Except this match!!! He was beaten so badly that even he couldnt come up with anything....but wait a few weeks!!!!

just prior to Federers AO loss he said that he was completely cured from Mono and felt 100%. Then lo and behold a few weeks after his loss he comes out and says that he lost necause he had Mono!!!
Federer is the king of excuses. He has an excuse for every single match.....

Prediction: within one month Federer will have an excuse for his loss at the FO.

,....you heard it here first. ;)

this is the original claim, right? all those interviews specify an "illness", because federer had a bad case of stomach flu early in january, forcing him to withdraw from the kooyong classic, in case you just forgot.

A.Davidson
06-12-2008, 07:10 AM
Two years ago, I would have said yes.

But now, as Fed faces challenges on the surfaces which were formerly a lock for him, all that extra energy and time spent on clay training is being used to cover his bases at the other majors.

I think he can, but he won't. Nadal is too much as long as he keeps his knees healthy.

The balls in your court.
06-12-2008, 07:37 AM
oh sorry i can't quote from any of those interviews that says federer has or already knows about mono.



this is the original claim, right? all those interviews specify an "illness", because federer had a bad case of stomach flu early in january, forcing him to withdraw from the kooyong classic, in case you just forgot.

I dont want to keep repeating...read the article....its the "TRUTH":
Federer's image is no longer Wimbledon-white

Recent events have taken away the world No1's halo of invincibility and all-round niceness
Steve BierleyMarch 13, 2008 3:28 PM

Nobody ever likes to say anything bad about Roger Federer. The 12-times slam winner is a deservedly popular and much respected champion, who has been lionised by everybody from Rod Laver downwards. And rightly so. Yet recent events have greyed the Wimbledon-white image somewhat.

Not that the criticism is currently anything more than a tiny trickle. Indeed Andy Murray, not renowned for his diplomacy, was this week at pains to put aside the world No1's generally mean-spirited and petulant criticism after he had lost to Scotland's finest in Dubai. The Swiss maestro had suggested that Murray, who has now won two of their three meetings, was really no better than when they first played in Bangkok two years ago, and that his game was based on his opponents missing shots, rather than Murray hitting winners of his own.

"If he's said it got taken out of context, then I'll take him at his word," said Murray in Indian Wells. "I know what it's like when you walk off the court from a match and the press comments come straight off the court." Well, the truth is that Federer's words were not taken out of context at all. He was asked what he thought about Murray's performance, and responded in a decidedly negative fashion.

It then emerged, post Dubai, that Federer has apparently been suffering from mononucleosis, or glandular fever, since before Christmas, hence the 'reason' for his less than perfect performance in Melbourne, where he lamely gave up his Australian Open title against Serbia's Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals, and then succumbed to Murray in the first round in Dubai.

You may remember that Federer was unable to play in his usual warm-up event at Kooyong just prior to the Australian Open because of a stomach upset. Of course it is possible that the glandular fever, a debilitating illness that recently knocked Croatia's Mario Ancic out of competitive play for the best part of half a year, was not immediately diagnosed - for if Federer knew he had it, then surely he would not have played in Australia in the first place and, given the lingering nature of the illness, would have pulled out of the lucrative but meaningless exhibition against Pete Sampras last week in New York, prior to the two back-to-back Masters events in California and Florida?

And why did Federer choose to reveal the nature of his illness only after he had lost to both Djokovic and Murray this year, and after he has apparently recovered? Murray and Djokovic might have grounds for feeling more than a little miffed that their victories, and the Serb's in particular, have been decidedly down-valued by Federer's revelation.

It is all extremely curious. No matter whether he wins another slam or not, Federer has won his place in history as one of the all-time greats, and he may yet go on to claim the epithet of the best ever should he eventually beat Sampras's all-time record of 14 slams - and also win the French Open. But, for the moment, the halos of invincibility and all-around niceness have gone decidedly askew.

The balls in your court.
06-12-2008, 07:39 AM
Nancyboy,

An Image is worth a thousand words. fed rated his own health and performance a 10 out of 10.....only after his loss to the joker did he come up with his usual excuse. take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ppEU-iIFRM

Djokovicfan4life
06-12-2008, 10:39 AM
2005 Monte Carlo quarter-final vs Gasquet.

Not surprising that you didn't respond to this. Most trolls can't back up their ridiculous claims, and you are certainly no exception.

Come on, bring it! I'm waiting for his excuse. :)

The balls in your court.
06-12-2008, 10:47 AM
Not surprising that you didn't respond to this. Most trolls can't back up their ridiculous claims, and you are certainly no exception.

Come on, bring it! I'm waiting for his excuse. :)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking to me?

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 10:54 AM
What a joke, this chump picks out 2 matches and declares Federer always making excuses. If he's quite, all these chumps will jump to conclusion that his prime is over. If he opens his mouths, the chumps will says he's making excuses. Get your head out off your behind and you will see the real truths. Pathetic!

This is from his presser, pre- and during the tournament. It shows how he came in saying he was fine, but the more he struggled the more the excuses started coming out. The articles are what the media is printing, just like the other question that the guy asked in the presser, when he asked Roger if he had been lying to then. At the time I thought it was an unfair question, but after reading the presser the reporter was on point. I don't think anyone is being unfair, you read his words yourself. I'm fine, I'm sick, I've got mono. I'm 10 out 10. No, wait, I'm barely breathing. Fed's been making excuses all along, you're just not listening!

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 10:57 AM
and i really don't know what the two (balls on your court and thetruth) are playing at. is it very hard to comprehend HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE MONO DURING AO!

Who has mono and says they feel 10/10 on the health scale? Either he was sick in Australia, or he wasn't. He said he wasn't. He said he was fine. Until, he lost to Djokovic, then he remembered that he was sick, but didn't require any time off and kept up his regular schedule. Now, you are angry that we don't buy into it.:::Shaking head:::

Chopin
06-12-2008, 11:00 AM
It's not out of the question. Nadal could get hurt or injured or simply lose to someone--and yes, Nadal will lose there eventually. Agassi won it when he was 28...

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 11:01 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking to me?


There are more than enough examples of Fed and his excuses on the internet. Even the media is getting wise to it. If his zealous, not all, fans want to believe the man is perfect, let them do so! If he didn't say anything about Gasquet it truly will be the first time ever!

tsmcauliffe
06-12-2008, 11:03 AM
The only way Fed will win the French is if Nadal gets hurts and can't play.

Chopin
06-12-2008, 11:04 AM
Who has mono and says they feel 10/10 on the health scale? Either he was sick in Australia, or he wasn't. He said he wasn't. He said he was fine. Until, he lost to Djokovic, then he remembered that he was sick, but didn't require any time off and kept up his regular schedule. Now, you are angry that we don't buy into it.:::Shaking head:::

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. Federer missed the warmup in Australia because he was sick and it was clear from looking at how gaunt and well, sickly, he looked that he wasn't well.

Professional athletes almost always say they feel fine so as not to give their opponents an advantage/avoid unwanted media attention.

The balls in your court.
06-12-2008, 11:28 AM
There are more than enough examples of Fed and his excuses on the internet. Even the media is getting wise to it. If his zealous, not all, fans want to believe the man is perfect, let them do so! If he didn't say anything about Gasquet it truly will be the first time ever!

Oh the gasquet match....no problem....I am sure i will find something give me a bit though .

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 11:41 AM
It's not out of the question. Nadal could get hurt or injured or simply lose to someone--and yes, Nadal will lose there eventually. Agassi won it when he was 28...

It's not out of the question. Nothing is!

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 11:45 AM
I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. Federer missed the warmup in Australia because he was sick and it was clear from looking at how gaunt and well, sickly, he looked that he wasn't well.

Professional athletes almost always say they feel fine so as not to give their opponents an advantage/avoid unwanted media attention.

I am not judging his physical well being. Only Federer knows that. I am judging his words. And, his words say he was being untruthful. I'm sorry, to me, you are completely wrong, because you are dismissing his words in order to make his statements ring true. If he said it, and he was ill, then it's still an untruth.

joeri888
06-12-2008, 11:45 AM
He did his job this year. Make the final again and see who's on the other side. He's got the game to beat anyone but Nadal, and we'll have to see. I think his chances aren't to big anymore..

However, his 3 finals weigh very heavy in his GOAT quest IMO. I think 3 finals against Nadal, is very great and he's got three of those plates at home. He should be proud of that. Nothing is out of question, but his chances get slimmer

hoodjem
06-12-2008, 11:47 AM
The only way Fed will win the French is if Nadal gets hurts and can't play.


Way too true.

The balls in your court.
06-12-2008, 11:59 AM
Originally Posted by Djokovicfan4life
2005 Monte Carlo quarter-final vs Gasquet.

Yup Fed always has an excuse (except at this FO).....

Ask and ye shall receive. You see federer was not really beat that day....he just did not play well. It was a matter of consistency:


"It's a matter of consistency. That's what I was struggling with." Roger federer

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/16/federers_winning_streak/


Come on anyone else??? See if you can stump me....give me a match and I will give you a fed excuse....come on i dare you.

Chopin
06-12-2008, 12:37 PM
I am not judging his physical well being. Only Federer knows that. I am judging his words. And, his words say he was being untruthful. I'm sorry, to me, you are completely wrong, because you are dismissing his words in order to make his statements ring true. If he said it, and he was ill, then it's still an untruth.

Then I'm in agreement with you.

It's hardly sensational though as almost every professional athlete acts the same way and implies they're feeling "fine" or "pretty good" before the big match even if they're sick. For good or bad, it's standard sports culture. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

I probably took your post the wrong way. I'm just amused by some people's personal attacks on Federer's character when by all accounts he's truly nice guy both in terms of his commitment to promoting the game (by far the best ambassador for the game in recent years), his on court behavior, how he treats his peers, and his charity work off the court.

If he makes the occasional arrogant comment it's nothing compared with how Mac, Connors, young Agassi or even Sampras acted when they were on top. We're lucky to have such a great ambassador for the game at #1.

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 01:52 PM
Then I'm in agreement with you.

It's hardly sensational though as almost every professional athlete acts the same way and implies they're feeling "fine" or "pretty good" before the big match even if they're sick. For good or bad, it's standard sports culture. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

I probably took your post the wrong way. I'm just amused by some people's personal attacks on Federer's character when by all accounts he's truly nice guy both in terms of his commitment to promoting the game (by far the best ambassador for the game in recent years), his on court behavior, how he treats his peers, and his charity work off the court.

If he makes the occasional arrogant comment it's nothing compared with how Mac, Connors, young Agassi or even Sampras acted when they were on top. We're lucky to have such a great ambassador for the game at #1.

You didn't take my post the wrong way. I don't feel Federer is the sportsman he's purported to be. I read too many pressers and interviews to go along with the prevailing theory. I used to read all of Sampras's interviews and pressers too. I don't recall him being arrogant at all, although I've heard many people say it.

The balls in your court.
06-12-2008, 02:21 PM
Then I'm in agreement with you.

It's hardly sensational though as almost every professional athlete acts the same way and implies they're feeling "fine" or "pretty good" before the big match even if they're sick.


He said far more than that!!! He said he felt on a scale of 1-10......a ten!!! Then after he lost the match he came up with an excuse as usual.
take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ppEU-iIFRM

Go ahead I dare you. find me just one loss where he did not have an excuse (wioth the exception of this FO).

luckyboy1300
06-12-2008, 02:21 PM
Who has mono and says they feel 10/10 on the health scale? Either he was sick in Australia, or he wasn't. He said he wasn't. He said he was fine. Until, he lost to Djokovic, then he remembered that he was sick, but didn't require any time off and kept up his regular schedule. Now, you are angry that we don't buy into it.:::Shaking head:::

no one says you buy into that. just don't twist what was really provided. nothing in that interview conclusively states that he knows already about mono. then he reveals about it after a while. i'm not forcing you to believe it. just don't make those ridiculous claims that don't even have enough evidence to support. what you have is only an opinion on that interview, unless he actually said "i lost because mono bothered me during the match" in his post-match interview.

and the thing about feeling 100%. if he really doesn't feel 100%, why would he say that before the match (or even the tournament) and give his opponent a mental edge right from the start? sometimes i can't understand where all of you haters are getting at but go on, if that makes you happy.

daddy
06-12-2008, 04:03 PM
He said far more than that!!! He said he felt on a scale of 1-10......a ten!!! Then after he lost the match he came up with an excuse as usual.
take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ppEU-iIFRM

Go ahead I dare you. find me just one loss where he did not have an excuse (wioth the exception of this FO).

I like your fighting attitude but DISPROVE THIS !!!

Quote from my a day ago :

There are at least 1000 people here who will confirm that he did not know he had mono during the AO. I dont know your sources but Im not lazy so Ill dig up some articles and edit this post.

Article from March the 7th where it is clearly said he thought he had food poisoning during the AO and latter found out :

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/07/sports/arena.php

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2008-03-07/393.php

Same but March 8th.

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=428946&sid=SPO

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sp...ampras,%20Pete

Need no more. just type in Federer and Mononucleosis and 1000 articles will pop up. All dated in early March.

Prove this wrong or shut up. You dared to challange me to find proof and I did. I said how to find 1000 articles more on the same issue stating the same thing. You said you will provide your sources only if someone of up gives you his. These are my sources - Federer himself, Federer agent, Doctor and everyone watching and following tennis !

What is your source of the info that he KNEW ? I was as good proof as I provided, nothing short of legit articles and trusted agencies. I dont want any of the blog bullcrap that everyone can write at their wish.

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 04:25 PM
no one says you buy into that. just don't twist what was really provided. nothing in that interview conclusively states that he knows already about mono. then he reveals about it after a while. i'm not forcing you to believe it. just don't make those ridiculous claims that don't even have enough evidence to support. what you have is only an opinion on that interview, unless he actually said "i lost because mono bothered me during the match" in his post-match interview.

and the thing about feeling 100%. if he really doesn't feel 100%, why would he say that before the match (or even the tournament) and give his opponent a mental edge right from the start? sometimes i can't understand where all of you haters are getting at but go on, if that makes you happy.

Before the tournament Federer said he was cleared by his doctors and raring to go. That's a fact. Then he came into the tournament saying he was fine and the illness was over. That too is a fact. As the tournament progressed and the matches got harder, he alluded to having effects of an illness he already said was over. I am not twisting anything, Federer is. What I don't understand is why Fed Fans such as yourself accuse everyone of being a FedHater if he's not their favorite player. People on this board rag on every tennis player on the ATP and WTA. Fed is a part of that. No celebrity, athlete, talk show host, or anyone in the public eye is immune to criticism. That you all want to make him head and shoulders above the rest is your perogative. Unfortunately for you, it's not going to happen. As long as people have brains they will choose their own ideals. People like you need to learn to deal with it!

daddy
06-12-2008, 04:55 PM
Before the tournament Federer said he was cleared by his doctors and raring to go. That's a fact. Then he came into the tournament saying he was fine and the illness was over.!

The only dispute is about which illness he was talking about. I can clearly remember it was a stomach virus he was talking about and mono popped up long after when he went out of Australia and had done additional tests, ok ?

MasterBruceTennis
06-12-2008, 05:23 PM
Nadal might take both Wimby and US Open this year. But, if Federer focus everything just for FO, next year, he has good chance to win.

Reason: Fed's flowing footwork takes him to the FO finals. But, Nadal's footwork makes him stop there--on clay. Against Nadal on clay, Fed's footwork is the only weakness. I believe if Fed wants to win FO, he must work on his footwork—the warrior (Kung Fu) training, which I believe Rafa is well trained by his uncle Toni.

Chopin
06-12-2008, 05:55 PM
You didn't take my post the wrong way. I don't feel Federer is the sportsman he's purported to be. I read too many pressers and interviews to go along with the prevailing theory. I used to read all of Sampras's interviews and pressers too. I don't recall him being arrogant at all, although I've heard many people say it.

Well you're in the minority then. I've never heard him say anything openly disrespectful to an opponent ala Djokovic's family. Never seen him through a profanity ridden tirade like McEnroe or make goading and arrogant comments like Connors. Never heard him blast officials and linespersons like Agassi did.

In fact, both Nadal and Federer are quite good sports. Federer obviously has very positive things to say about Nadal, even saying that Nadal was unlucky not to win Wimbledon last year. So what if a guy who has dominated tennis at a level unheard of in the modern era implies (subtly) in english (in between doing press in 4 languages) that he's a pretty good player. Oh my!

If you're after a pro athlete for trying to hide an injury or illness (or being unsure about an illness--who amongst hasn't been unsure about an illness or injury at one point in their life?) from a frenzied press, I don't really think our exchanges will be very enlightening.

daddy
06-12-2008, 05:57 PM
Well you're in the minority then.

I thin Federer can be a sore loser as it happenes so rarely that he's simply not used to it. Remember the ' created a monster' sentence ? That sums it up.

Bassus
06-12-2008, 06:36 PM
As a Federer fan I hate to say it, but I think it is almost hopeless that he will ever win the French Open. For the last four years his only obstacle has been Nadal, from now on it will be Nadal and age, and the latter will make him increasingly vulnerable to a host of other players.

I think Federer is the most talented player I have ever seen. I think his peak performance is the greatest display of tennis I've ever seen. When he is on, I think his the best player I have ever seen. But not winning the French will heavily weigh against him in terms of GOAT status, more so than it does Sampras.

Sampras not winning the French was disappointing, but not surprising, as Sampras on clay (while good) was a Sampras several pegs below his best. Federer, on the other hand, SHOULD have won the French Open. That is the biggest difference in my opinion.

Federer should have been better prepared in 2002, 2003, and 2004 when there was no Nadal. Federer should have beaten Nadal at least once in the 2005-2007 encounters at Roland Garros. Federer had his chances in those matches, and he should have been able to take advantage at least once. Now, with Nadal improving year by year, and Federer's prime ending, there is simply not much hope.

Its too late now. Federer would need to catch Nadal on a significantly off day... and that is assuming he can get through the draw again.

Chopin
06-12-2008, 06:43 PM
I thin Federer can be a sore loser as it happenes so rarely that he's simply not used to it. Remember the ' created a monster' sentence ? That sums it up.

Yeah that might be true, but what player can't be a sore loser from time to time? He's never blatantly disrespectful and usually has very positive things to say about his opponents, especially if they really deserve it (Nadal).

I always find it funny though that when he does simply say, "I was outplayed", people freak out in the opposite direction. For example, when Fish beat him in straight sets this year he was very complimentary towards Mardy and said that he was surprised he wasn't beaten more often in that fashion. Of course, the hackers on this board freaked out and claimed that he was being too nice to Fish, wanting Federer to say what was "wrong" with himself. It's lose, lose in many ways but Federer handles it better than any #1 in recent memory.

The balls in your court.
06-12-2008, 08:35 PM
I like your fighting attitude but DISPROVE THIS !!!

Quote from my a day ago :

There are at least 1000 people here who will confirm that he did not know he had mono during the AO. I dont know your sources but Im not lazy so Ill dig up some articles and edit this post.

You dont get the point. It doesnt matter whether he thought he had food poisioning or Mono or whatever.

The point is that prior to his loss at the AO Federer said he felt 100% !!!!! Only after his loss did he say he was not feeling good.

Disprove that !!!!

The ball is now very much in your court.

The balls in your court.
06-12-2008, 08:39 PM
In fact, both Nadal and Federer are quite good sports. .

Nadal most certainly is while Federer is a crybaby.

At last years FO Fed ran off the court like a wuss. When Belichick did that at the superbowl he was called a bad sportsman...but when Fed does the exact same thing he gets sportman of the year....its insane!

luckyboy1300
06-13-2008, 04:20 AM
The only dispute is about which illness he was talking about. I can clearly remember it was a stomach virus he was talking about and mono popped up long after when he went out of Australia and had done additional tests, ok ?

and that's what's actually been disputed. indeed it was a stomach virus. it was only 1 or 2 weeks after the ao that the mono has been diagnosed, and said (the doctors, who apparently misdiagnosed him) he has it all along since december of last year.

and now i challenge any fed haters out here. could you please, please, provide an interview of any pro who stated he's not feeling well before a match (or a tourney, preferably a slam), but still went on to play, and then later loses and blames that illness for the loss.

The balls in your court.
06-13-2008, 07:54 AM
and now i challenge any fed haters out here. could you please, please, provide an interview of any pro who stated he's not feeling well before a match (or a tourney, preferably a slam), but still went on to play, and then later loses and blames that illness for the loss.

Saying the facts does not make one a fed hater. I like federer I just hate the fact that he has an excuse after every loss.

I am done with school and I am not doing homework for you. The fact is that Federer said that he was feeling 100 percent up until his loss. Only after his loss to Djokovic did he reveal that he was not feeling well. That was bad form . How you can defend the indefensible
is beyond me.

Does he look very sick here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ppEU-iIFRM

Chopin
06-13-2008, 07:59 AM
Nadal most certainly is while Federer is a crybaby.

At last years FO Fed ran off the court like a wuss. When Belichick did that at the superbowl he was called a bad sportsman...but when Fed does the exact same thing he gets sportman of the year....its insane!

What are you talking about? He didn't run off for the awards ceremony! He was standing there the whole time. Go google it.

If you're talking about the interview he declined to give with Bud Collins, I can't say I blame him. Is that really what you're talking about??

Chopin
06-13-2008, 08:01 AM
Saying the facts does not make one a fed hater. I like federer I just hate the fact that he has an excuse after every loss.

I am done with school and I am not doing homework for you. The fact is that Federer said that he was feeling 100 percent up until his loss. Only after his loss to Djokovic did he reveal that he was not feeling well. That was bad form . How you can defend the indefensible
is beyond me.

Does he look very sick here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ppEU-iIFRM

Yeah let's post grainy youtube videos of him casually talking and diagnose him from them.

daddy
06-13-2008, 08:11 AM
I am done with school and I am not doing homework for you. The fact is that Federer said that he was feeling 100 percent up until his loss. Only after his loss to Djokovic did he reveal that he was not feeling well. That was bad form . How you can defend the indefensible
is beyond me.

So I win this one ? I was saying all along he knew he was not okay but he did not mention mono until late Feb early march while you were saying he said prior the AO semi that he has recovered from mono 100%. WRONG. I win. Now lets be serious, Fed did not complain during the AO that much and was in actually pretty good form if not excelent ( apart from Tipsy match, he destroyed his puppy Blake and a few other guys in convincing fashion .. ).

luckyboy1300
06-13-2008, 08:17 AM
Saying the facts does not make one a fed hater. I like federer I just hate the fact that he has an excuse after every loss.

I am done with school and I am not doing homework for you. The fact is that Federer said that he was feeling 100 percent up until his loss. Only after his loss to Djokovic did he reveal that he was not feeling well. That was bad form . How you can defend the indefensible
is beyond me.

Does he look very sick here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ppEU-iIFRM

they were not facts at all. you're just drawing opinions out of his interviews which bore no conclusive evidence of your claims whatsoever. in that post match interview he said nothing sort of being ill. he was asked. he said maybe he it did have an effect, he did not know. was that an excuse? yep, for fed-haters, of course.

i will continue to call those bashers who accuse fed of something he is not, backing them up with opinions which offer little or credibility the same as a statement from an 8 year old child, as haters. yeah, you're done with your homework. you get zero marks, though. you failed to convince anyone other than a hater.

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 11:38 AM
The only dispute is about which illness he was talking about. I can clearly remember it was a stomach virus he was talking about and mono popped up long after when he went out of Australia and had done additional tests, ok ?

My posts are speaking to the "excuse" factor. First he was well, then he was ill. First he was cleared, 10 out 10, etc. For every match Federer has lost, as long as I've been around it's been one excuse after another. This is the main reason why I don't believe the mono story. When you have a history of making excuses, how would I ever know when you're telling the truth? On top of that I don't believe you can have mono and play your regular schedule. I believe the mono was an excuse. As long as Federer is winning, there have never been any complaints about an illness. Never!

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 11:42 AM
Well you're in the minority then. I've never heard him say anything openly disrespectful to an opponent ala Djokovic's family. Never seen him through a profanity ridden tirade like McEnroe or make goading and arrogant comments like Connors. Never heard him blast officials and linespersons like Agassi did.

In fact, both Nadal and Federer are quite good sports. Federer obviously has very positive things to say about Nadal, even saying that Nadal was unlucky not to win Wimbledon last year. So what if a guy who has dominated tennis at a level unheard of in the modern era implies (subtly) in english (in between doing press in 4 languages) that he's a pretty good player. Oh my!

If you're after a pro athlete for trying to hide an injury or illness (or being unsure about an illness--who amongst hasn't been unsure about an illness or injury at one point in their life?) from a frenzied press, I don't really think our exchanges will be very enlightening.

1. He said was Nadal was one-dimensional.
2. He accused Uncle Toni of cheating, on court, in front of millions of spectators.
3. He said Murray hadn't improved.
4. He told Djokovic's parents to be quiet, again, in public, in front of millions of fans.
5. He called Djokovic a joke, and said he was happy to beat him.
6. He asked Wawrinka to beat Nalbandian after Nalbandian beat him twice.

This is not the stuff of Sportsman of the Year. I think they got it wrong!

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 11:49 AM
and that's what's actually been disputed. indeed it was a stomach virus. it was only 1 or 2 weeks after the ao that the mono has been diagnosed, and said (the doctors, who apparently misdiagnosed him) he has it all along since december of last year.

and now i challenge any fed haters out here. could you please, please, provide an interview of any pro who stated he's not feeling well before a match (or a tourney, preferably a slam), but still went on to play, and then later loses and blames that illness for the loss.


That's what you're missing. He stated he was feeling well, a 10 out of 10. Then when he lost he said it was an illness. That's a pretty big difference. And it came from Fed within the same week. At the pre-tournament presser he declared himself fit. When he lost he declared himself unfit. It's not an issue of hate. It's an issue of contradictory statements.

luckyboy1300
06-13-2008, 02:12 PM
That's what you're missing. He stated he was feeling well, a 10 out of 10. Then when he lost he said it was an illness. That's a pretty big difference. And it came from Fed within the same week. At the pre-tournament presser he declared himself fit. When he lost he declared himself unfit. It's not an issue of hate. It's an issue of contradictory statements.

i believe he said that 10/10 from his first 2 matches. why would you not declare yourself as 10/10 if you're winning 6-0, 6-3, 6-0 and 6-1, 6-2, 6-0? i'll say this one more time, you might not have gotten it. federer neither knew nor stated about an illness (typically mono) during the ao, pre and post match. in the post match he said nothing about being ill, just felt weird. then later in february his doctors diagnosed him with mono. now am i asking you to believe them? no. you can either believe them or not, that's your opinion. only that you have absolutely no right to claim things other than what was stated as "facts", unless you got a very good proof to the contrary. do you have fed's medical statements? no. were you present during his medial visits? no.

daddy
06-13-2008, 04:59 PM
My posts are speaking to the "excuse" factor. First he was well, then he was ill. First he was cleared, 10 out 10, etc. For every match Federer has lost, as long as I've been around it's been one excuse after another. This is the main reason why I don't believe the mono story. When you have a history of making excuses, how would I ever know when you're telling the truth? On top of that I don't believe you can have mono and play your regular schedule. I believe the mono was an excuse. As long as Federer is winning, there have never been any complaints about an illness. Never!

I wil give you a benefit of a doubt on this one - because I myself was very surprised to hear the mono excuse fro him - maybe he should have accepted the loss and came back with a vengence. He is as classy as he can be, its hard being repetative and yet he had to do it all the time. 'How are you gong to aproach the next match ( vs 76th ranked guy )?' or 'Do you have any tactics for him, have you watched videos of him playing ( before facing a 104th player in the world ) ?'

Silly. He's the nr1. He should not have to reply to these yet he has done it always and with humility. Then again, surprises for me were bashing of Djokovic and Murray ( not that there were not reasons, but where's the class here ? ) and biggest of all - not examplary behaviour after last RG loss - I mean he was basically dodging quaestions and very annoyed by them. Granted some asre stupid but again where's the class ?

IMPORTANT: I dont hate him for this nor criticize, i just point out that class is nt something you can just pull out on every darn interview after you did 1000 of those, consisting of mindless questions in three different languages. But he'd be glad to chat about the match for hours had he won it.

Let's all Face it - hes a good guy, ambasador and a breath of fresh air - new breed of champion making transition from being a spoiled brat to great guy in every sense. But again - he is human and can be hurt buy a loss and react to it. Fans take things to literaly sometimes, he has to have a day off, whether on or off the cour and the attention he got and domination he performed through the years allowes him so little mistakes. He has to be perfect all the time and its a great deal of pressure on him - sometimes he folds underneath of it.

Conclusion - he is a champ but not that superios on and off the court to the likes of Edberg, Lendl and many other past champs. I have as much respect for him as possible for his achievements and drive, hard work ethics and class. But do not put him up on the piedestal as the only one to have ever done it ! Kay ??

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 05:08 PM
Actually I think Roger does a great job. You can understand if he has the odd bad mood, but in all seriousness he conducts himself in a way that can be respected (Note how I didn't say "should" be respected).

Your inclusion of Edberg and Lendl are also kinda strange in that Lendl could at times be difficult, and Edberg alouf and secretive. Both being accused of giving vague and half hearted answers at press confrences..

I am not saying that was always the case. But I think Roger is fine, and really doesn't need your good self, or anyone else on a silly message board giving a self diognosis of how "he" should behave. The guy is human, but although probably very gutted inside after a loss, does the right thing and gives credit where it is due. That can't be said for a lot of players in many sports;)

zagor
06-13-2008, 05:24 PM
1. He said was Nadal was one-dimensional.
2. He accused Uncle Toni of cheating, on court, in front of millions of spectators.
3. He said Murray hadn't improved.
4. He told Djokovic's parents to be quiet, again, in public, in front of millions of fans.
5. He called Djokovic a joke, and said he was happy to beat him.
6. He asked Wawrinka to beat Nalbandian after Nalbandian beat him twice.

This is not the stuff of Sportsman of the Year. I think they got it wrong!

1.Actually Nadal was kinda one-dimensional back then but he has come a long way since and Fed acknowledged that and gave him many compliments especially last year(he even said people that say Nadal isn't a good player off clay don't know what they're talking about).

2.Actually on court couching is breaking of rules and IMO Toni did that,not that big of a deal since most pros do it but it's breaking the rules nonetheless.

3.He probably shouldn't have said that(although Murray's results this year don't exactly disapprove what Fed said),I think Fed said that at the heat of the moment and he was sore after a loss so I'll give you that one.

4.Not exactly classy but after all the crap they said about him I can't say I blame him(he also gave that point to Novak even though it was called out so I don't see why is that such a big problem).

5.He said Novak's TIMEOUTS were a joke,big difference(a good number of people agrees with him there).

6.This one is really grasping for straws,that was a humorous joke between two players who are good friends and from the same country.

daddy
06-13-2008, 05:29 PM
Actually I think Roger does a great job. You can understand if he has the odd bad mood, but in all seriousness he conducts himself in a way that can be respected (Note how I didn't say "should" be respected).

And as I said I do respect it.

Your inclusion of Edberg and Lendl are also kinda strange in that Lendl could at times be difficult, and Edberg alouf and secretive. Both being accused of giving vague and half hearted answers at press confrences..

I am not saying that was always the case. But I think Roger is fine, and really doesn't need your good self, or anyone else on a silly message board giving a self diognosis of how "he" should behave. The guy is human, but although probably very gutted inside after a loss, does the right thing and gives credit where it is due. That can't be said for a lot of players in many sports

I am entitled to opinion. I feel I said nothing harsh and gave respect where its due - to Roger. I feel this post of yours is , as many before , created to undermine me personally rather than to argue the points I stated.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 05:33 PM
4.Not exactly classy but after all the crap they said about him I can't say I blame him(he also gave that point to Novak even though it was called out so I don't see why is that such a big problem).


Actually. I have to agree and dissagree with this one.. I agree that in good sportsmanship he did give the point to Djoker, so happy that he that.

But as for telling Djokers family to "be quiet".

Then if the administrators of the game are not going to take action for on court coaching and interferance. And it is becoming a problem for a player (and I don't think Fed would yell at them if it was a one off event).

Then he has every right to tell them to be quiet. As he does with anyone in the crowd that heckles him!

zagor
06-13-2008, 05:34 PM
Actually I think Roger does a great job. You can understand if he has the odd bad mood, but in all seriousness he conducts himself in a way that can be respected (Note how I didn't say "should" be respected).

Your inclusion of Edberg and Lendl are also kinda strange in that Lendl could at times be difficult, and Edberg alouf and secretive. Both being accused of giving vague and half hearted answers at press confrences..

I am not saying that was always the case. But I think Roger is fine, and really doesn't need your good self, or anyone else on a silly message board giving a self diognosis of how "he" should behave. The guy is human, but although probably very gutted inside after a loss, does the right thing and gives credit where it is due. That can't be said for a lot of players in many sports;)

Roger's fine in my opinion as well,especially considering what he achieved in the game.But you have to understand if someone succesfull and a dominant as he is for such a long time some people want to see him go down for various reasons,that's just the way it is.Every time I read interviews from any players they were all saying how Roger is a great guy off court(from Safin,Roddick,Nadal,Sampras,Agassi,Hewitt to Bryan brothers) and that has always been my impression of him as well,that he is good guy who respects the rules and past tennis greats(notice how he cried when Laver handed him the AO trophy and the way he acts towards Sampras,somehow I doubt I would see the same stuff from Novak given the way he "respects" Federer).Is he perfect? Definitely not but he's a good and emotional guy that respects the game,atleast that's my opinion.

daddy
06-13-2008, 05:38 PM
Roger's fine in my opinion as well,especially considering what he achieved in the game.But you have to understand if someone succesfull and a dominant as he is for such a long time some people want to see him go down for various reasons,that's just the way it is.Every time I read interviews from any players they were all saying how Roger is a great guy off court(from Safin,Roddick,Nadal,Sampras,Agassi,Hewitt to Bryan brothers) and that has always been my impression of him as well,that he is good guy who respects the rules and past tennis greats(notice how he cried when Laver handed him the AO trophy and the way he acts towards Sampras,somehow I doubt I would see the same stuff from Novak given the way he "respects" Federer).Is he perfect? Definitely not but he's a good and emotional guy that respects the game,atleast that's my opinion.

His goodself part of the sentence about silly opinions were directed towards me personally and not to Roger. Although if you go up the thread and read my contribution I was very balanced and right on the spot. Read it, then let me know if you felt the same way, I think Chris has some issues with me although Im clueless to the reasons for that.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 05:41 PM
And as I said I do respect it.



I am entitled to opinion. I feel I said nothing harsh and gave respect where its due - to Roger. I feel this post of yours is , as many before , created to undermine me personally rather than to argue the points I stated.

Undermine you?.
Take a deep breath big fella!. Its just a message board. I was only responding to something you said. I never said you couldn't have an opinion. And I am sure if you do. I am allowed to not agree with it. Sheeeesh

zagor
06-13-2008, 05:44 PM
His goodself part of the sentence about silly opinions were directed towards me personally and not to Roger. Although if you go up the thread and read my contribution I was very balanced and right on the spot. Read it, then let me know if you felt the same way, I think Chris has some issues with me although Im clueless to the reasons for that.

You were pretty spot in that post.IMO Chris dislikes Djokovic so that's probably why he has issues with you since you're one of the biggest Novak fans here.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 05:46 PM
Roger's fine in my opinion as well,especially considering what he achieved in the game.But you have to understand if someone succesfull and a dominant as he is for such a long time some people want to see him go down for various reasons,that's just the way it is.Every time I read interviews from any players they were all saying how Roger is a great guy off court(from Safin,Roddick,Nadal,Sampras,Agassi,Hewitt to Bryan brothers) and that has always been my impression of him as well,that he is good guy who respects the rules and past tennis greats(notice how he cried when Laver handed him the AO trophy and the way he acts towards Sampras,somehow I doubt I would see the same stuff from Novak given the way he "respects" Federer).Is he perfect? Definitely not but he's a good and emotional guy that respects the game,atleast that's my opinion.

That was also my impression. I agree with his reaction when receiving the trophy from Laver.

And then in 2007, he wanted Ken Roswall to stand up for a round of applause when he acknowledged him in his winners speach..

As an Australian that grew up with the history of those old legends. I felt that it was nice and fitting that the current world champion, and (not an Australian) would want to use "his" moment of glory to acknowledge the past greats..

That put Roger in a whole new stratisphere for me in all honesty.. He simply just "gets it"!

daddy
06-13-2008, 05:47 PM
Undermine you?.
Take a deep breath big fella!. Its just a message board. I was only responding to something you said. I never said you couldn't have an opinion. And I am sure if you do. I am allowed to not agree with it. Sheeeesh

Too emotional my friend. Im not all about being respected here oranywhere else, does not bother me to say the least. But I dont like coments such as yours which refer to the silly message board opinions of posters. Id much rather hear you dispute what Ive said with some facts. And see your reaction : ( let me know how this is arguing and how it is not uundermining of the guy who wrote the post ??? )


'But I think Roger is fine, and really doesn't need your good self, or anyone else on a silly message board giving a self diognosis of how "he" should behave.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 05:50 PM
You were pretty spot in that post.IMO Chris dislikes Djokovic so that's probably why he has issues with you since you're one of the biggest Novak fans here.

I don't dislike daddy. And that shouldn't have anything to with not like Djoker either..

I am actually curious as to why daddy felt he needed to edit his original post claiming that I was trying to undermine him?

Like I say to anyone that have a disagreement with on any forum. We are two people on different sides of the world. We have never met, so how can I hate, or even dislike someone. It also doesn't mean that I have to agree with them either..

fastdunn
06-13-2008, 05:52 PM
Well, I already consider Federer sort of a FO champion. I mean 3 finals and 1 semi. I think that's almost like more than 1 slam.

I don't think he will beat a healthy Nadal ever at FO. But I think someday he will win it. if he hangs around long enough... even after he noticeably declined...

P.S.

Federer is a class act and a great sportman. I also like his straight talking style. Nadal is equally great sportman. He "smartly" talk humbly,.. almost to the level of talking down on himself a bit too much.... he avoids any potential controversie that words of top players might bring about...

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 05:53 PM
Too emotional my friend. Im not all about being respected here oranywhere else, does not bother me to say the least. But I dont like coments such as yours which refer to the silly message board opinions of posters. Id much rather hear you dispute what Ive said with some facts. And see your reaction : ( let me know how this is arguing and how it is not uundermining of the guy who wrote the post ??? )

Whats "not" silly about it??

We can all be Monday morning quarterbacks. But in all reality. I don't think it makes a lick of difference what we say. The players are where they are because of knowing what they are doing. We are just a couple of clowns on a message board ranting..

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 05:56 PM
Well, I already consider Federer sort of a FO champion. I mean 3 finals and 1 semi. I think that's almost like more than 1 slam.

I don't think he will beat a healthy Nadal ever at FO. But I think someday he will win it. if he hangs around long enough... even after he noticeably declined...

P.S.

Federer is a class act and a great sportman. I also like his straight talking style. Nadal is equally great sportman. He "smartly" talk humbly,.. almost to the level of talking down on himself a bit too much.... he avoids any potential controversie that words of top players might bring about...

Well I wouldn't say you have a slam title until you win it, but it is still a great achievement none the less.. Look, if he wants it bad enough, he will get it..

daddy
06-13-2008, 05:56 PM
I don't dislike daddy. And that shouldn't have anything to with not like Djoker either..

I am actually curious as to why daddy felt he needed to edit his original post claiming that I was trying to undermine him?

I did not edit my original post, unles to correct spelling mistakes which are way to common in my case. I never quoted myself anywhere.

I felt like - I was saying some pretty ordinary things like Roger has sore moments yet he is a great champ. These were sore grapes but these were class etc. I felt your responce - silly message board and he does not need to be told what to do - I simply felt that's not something said with good intention. No harm done but thats how i felt.

You can disagree with me but one way or the other , I said pretty much the same thing you said ( except for the Lendl part ) yet you felt the need to reply to tell me my opinion means nothing to Roger as if i already do not know that.

Ok ?

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 06:00 PM
I did not edit my original post, unles to correct spelling mistakes which are way to common in my case. I never quoted myself anywhere.

I felt like - I was saying some pretty ordinary things like Roger has sore moments yet he is a great champ. These were sore grapes but these were class etc. I felt your responce - silly message board and he does not need to be told what to do - I simply felt that's not something said with good intention. No harm done but thats how i felt.

You can disagree with me but one way or the other , I said pretty much the same thing you said ( except for the Lendl part ) yet you felt the need to reply to tell me my opinion means nothing to Roger as if i already do not know that.

Ok ?

Oh, you still on about all that..

Daddy, are you sure that its not you that has the problem with me? Like I mean the whole "Ok" thing at the end seems like a little bit of aggravation on your part.... Just asking..

daddy
06-13-2008, 06:01 PM
Whats "not" silly about it??

We can all be Monday morning quarterbacks. But in all reality. I don't think it makes a lick of difference what we say. The players are where they are because of knowing what they are doing. We are just a couple of clowns on a message board ranting..

It matters. Its not silly. In my mind we are people chatting about the game we love ad any good contribution is well apreciated. This is the way I spend some of my time on work - hearing thoughts and sharing mine. Its my life as is yours, nothing silly about this.

Making difference - well for one - we are hanging around and learning about tennis and people. I dont think we necesarilly can change anything in tennis, but as you speak to friends about your favourite dish, the same way you speak about tennis with other fans. Changing is not the goal here - hanging around and listening to others thoughts, saying what you think, thats what everything is about. In my mind its not silly as the whole life would be considered silly if we accepted it like that.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 06:02 PM
Ok..... :)

daddy
06-13-2008, 06:02 PM
Oh, you still on about all that..

Daddy, are you sure that its not you that has the problem with me? Like I mean the whole "Ok" thing at the end seems like a little bit of aggravation on your part.... Just asking..

Thats just a habit of mine - after having a conversation with people in vivo, I usually make a pause and then look at them and ask okay ? ( to sort of confirm we're on the same page ) . Cultural thing.

Djokovicfan4life
06-13-2008, 06:13 PM
Yup Fed always has an excuse (except at this FO).....

Ask and ye shall receive. You see federer was not really beat that day....he just did not play well. It was a matter of consistency:


"It's a matter of consistency. That's what I was struggling with." Roger federer

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/16/federers_winning_streak/


Come on anyone else??? See if you can stump me....give me a match and I will give you a fed excuse....come on i dare you.

Federer is the #1 player in the world. He has shown us time and again how he can beat anyone when he's on (except Nadal on clay, and he even did that once in Hamburg). Therefore, it only makes sense that for someone to beat him, he must not play his best tennis.

Look at the AO semi final vs. Djokovic. Even I, being a Djokovic fan, can admit that Fed looked very shaky and was shanking way more balls than he usually does. Besides, do you honestly think that saying he was struggling with consistency is an excuse? Tennis is a game of consistency, after all.

Federer was asked about why he lost the match and he gave the correct answer, he was struggling with consistency. However, if you would actually use your tiny brain and post the whole interview, you would probably see that Fed gave full credit to Gasquet, like he always does to his opponents.

I'm sorry, your answer is incorrect, thanks for playing though.

Edit: Hahahahaha, you even included "except the 08 French Open" in your post. Nice credibility, D U M B A S S!

PCXL-Fan
06-13-2008, 06:14 PM
You guys are crazy. Seriously,





Federer will definitely win on the blackrock tour.

Djokovicfan4life
06-13-2008, 06:22 PM
You guys are crazy. Seriously,





Federer will definitely win on the blackrock tour.

Amen! All these trolls will be eating humble pie when Fed finishes the year at number 1. :)

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 06:28 PM
Federer is the #1 player in the world. He has shown us time and again how he can beat anyone when he's on (except Nadal on clay, and he even did that once in Hamburg). Therefore, it only makes sense that for someone to beat him, he must not play his best tennis.

Look at the AO semi final vs. Djokovic. Even I, being a Djokovic fan, can admit that Fed looked very shaky and was shanking way more balls than he usually does. Besides, do you honestly think that saying he was struggling with consistency is an excuse? Tennis is a game of consistency, after all.

Federer was asked about why he lost the match and he gave the correct answer, he was struggling with consistency. However, if you would actually use your tiny brain and post the whole interview, you would probably see that Fed gave full credit to Gasquet, like he always does to his opponents.

I'm sorry, your answer is incorrect, thanks for playing though.

Edit: Hahahahaha, you even included "except the 08 French Open" in your post. Nice credibility, D U M B A S S!

Mate. I am the first to admit that I do not like Novak..

But I will say that for a fan, then I must give credit where credit is due.. Your obvious appreciation for Roger has been noted, and you are a decent gent in my books..

Djokovicfan4life
06-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Mate. I am the first to admit that I do not like Novak..

But I will say that for a fan, then I must give credit where credit is due.. Your obvious appreciation for Roger has been noted, and you are a decent gent in my books..

Thanks, I really appreciate that! :)

Just curious though, is there any reason why you don't like Novak?

I've noticed he gets a lot of hate on these boards, I just can't figure out why.

He never seems very arrogant IMO. :confused:

daddy
06-13-2008, 07:06 PM
Just curious though, is there any reason why you don't like Novak?

Read this post of mine - I gave a lot of praise to Federer yet was under fire from Chris .. I just wonder why do you get praised for saying exactly the same while I get bashed ??

I wil give you a benefit of a doubt on this one - because I myself was very surprised to hear the mono excuse fro him - maybe he should have accepted the loss and came back with a vengence. He is as classy as he can be, its hard being repetative and yet he had to do it all the time. 'How are you gong to aproach the next match ( vs 76th ranked guy )?' or 'Do you have any tactics for him, have you watched videos of him playing ( before facing a 104th player in the world ) ?'

Silly. He's the nr1. He should not have to reply to these yet he has done it always and with humility. Then again, surprises for me were bashing of Djokovic and Murray ( not that there were not reasons, but where's the class here ? ) and biggest of all - not examplary behaviour after last RG loss - I mean he was basically dodging quaestions and very annoyed by them. Granted some asre stupid but again where's the class ?

IMPORTANT: I dont hate him for this nor criticize, i just point out that class is nt something you can just pull out on every darn interview after you did 1000 of those, consisting of mindless questions in three different languages. But he'd be glad to chat about the match for hours had he won it.

Let's all Face it - hes a good guy, ambasador and a breath of fresh air - new breed of champion making transition from being a spoiled brat to great guy in every sense. But again - he is human and can be hurt buy a loss and react to it. Fans take things to literaly sometimes, he has to have a day off, whether on or off the cour and the attention he got and domination he performed through the years allowes him so little mistakes. He has to be perfect all the time and its a great deal of pressure on him - sometimes he folds underneath of it.

Conclusion - he is a champ but not that superios on and off the court to the likes of Edberg, Lendl and many other past champs. I have as much respect for him as possible for his achievements and drive, hard work ethics and class. But do not put him up on the piedestal as the only one to have ever done it !

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 07:20 PM
i believe he said that 10/10 from his first 2 matches. why would you not declare yourself as 10/10 if you're winning 6-0, 6-3, 6-0 and 6-1, 6-2, 6-0? i'll say this one more time, you might not have gotten it. federer neither knew nor stated about an illness (typically mono) during the ao, pre and post match. in the post match he said nothing about being ill, just felt weird. then later in february his doctors diagnosed him with mono. now am i asking you to believe them? no. you can either believe them or not, that's your opinion. only that you have absolutely no right to claim things other than what was stated as "facts", unless you got a very good proof to the contrary. do you have fed's medical statements? no. were you present during his medial visits? no.

You are in some strong denial, Buddy. It's you who won't be convinced. The transcript dated during the same tournament speaks very loudly of what he said. You don't have Fed's medical statements either, do you? Yet, you speak as an authority on his condition. That's funny!

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 07:22 PM
Thanks, I really appreciate that! :)

Just curious though, is there any reason why you don't like Novak?

I've noticed he gets a lot of hate on these boards, I just can't figure out why.

He never seems very arrogant IMO. :confused:

Well, I agree he can come across as charming when he is in a one-on-one interview. And I can understand people wanting a fresh approach to tennis..

As far as hating him, I don't!.. I just dislike him for his rather poor sportsmanship and odd way of dealing with a match.. I never begrudge a player for being good. But when the going gets tough, I feel that I don't like his ease at which he gives up. And as a fan of his. If he doesn't always give his true 100% performance. Then as a fan, you can't respect a guy like that..

I also do believe what I read about his family, and for one was happy that Fed did tell them to be quiet in a match. Because while never begrudging a family for wanting their son do well. They seem to have taken it another level. And to have the father here in Australia make such a public deal with the French fans seems in my mind that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.. Novak would be better in telling them to concentrate on the younger brothers, and allow him to pursue his tennis career..

I also noticed that his coaches sat seperate to the family at the French, and it also appeared that they themselves were seated near an exit point?. I dont know how it works at the French, but why weren't they in a box like everyone else? Can anyone put more light on that for me?

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 07:24 PM
Read this post of mine - I gave a lot of praise to Federer yet was under fire from Chris .. I just wonder why do you get praised for saying exactly the same while I get bashed ??

No one bashed you daddy..

Lets leave the drama for the TV screens for now shall we? ;)

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 07:26 PM
I wil give you a benefit of a doubt on this one - because I myself was very surprised to hear the mono excuse fro him - maybe he should have accepted the loss and came back with a vengence. He is as classy as he can be, its hard being repetative and yet he had to do it all the time. 'How are you gong to aproach the next match ( vs 76th ranked guy )?' or 'Do you have any tactics for him, have you watched videos of him playing ( before facing a 104th player in the world ) ?'

Silly. He's the nr1. He should not have to reply to these yet he has done it always and with humility. Then again, surprises for me were bashing of Djokovic and Murray ( not that there were not reasons, but where's the class here ? ) and biggest of all - not examplary behaviour after last RG loss - I mean he was basically dodging quaestions and very annoyed by them. Granted some asre stupid but again where's the class ?

IMPORTANT: I dont hate him for this nor criticize, i just point out that class is nt something you can just pull out on every darn interview after you did 1000 of those, consisting of mindless questions in three different languages. But he'd be glad to chat about the match for hours had he won it.

Let's all Face it - hes a good guy, ambasador and a breath of fresh air - new breed of champion making transition from being a spoiled brat to great guy in every sense. But again - he is human and can be hurt buy a loss and react to it. Fans take things to literaly sometimes, he has to have a day off, whether on or off the cour and the attention he got and domination he performed through the years allowes him so little mistakes. He has to be perfect all the time and its a great deal of pressure on him - sometimes he folds underneath of it.

Conclusion - he is a champ but not that superios on and off the court to the likes of Edberg, Lendl and many other past champs. I have as much respect for him as possible for his achievements and drive, hard work ethics and class. But do not put him up on the piedestal as the only one to have ever done it ! Kay ??

You're right on so many points. I don't totally disagree with you, but I do find those who put him on a pedestal and dog out other players annoying. At the same time many of those accollades, imo, are not warranted. I dislike many of the things he does, and that he does it publicly. If you feel your opponent is getting an unfair advantage over you, for whatever reason, you should go to them FIRST, before airing dirty laundry in public. It demeans you, more than it demeans others!

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 07:33 PM
1.Actually Nadal was kinda one-dimensional back then but he has come a long way since and Fed acknowledged that and gave him many compliments especially last year(he even said people that say Nadal isn't a good player off clay don't know what they're talking about).

2.Actually on court couching is breaking of rules and IMO Toni did that,not that big of a deal since most pros do it but it's breaking the rules nonetheless.

3.He probably shouldn't have said that(although Murray's results this year don't exactly disapprove what Fed said),I think Fed said that at the heat of the moment and he was sore after a loss so I'll give you that one.

4.Not exactly classy but after all the crap they said about him I can't say I blame him(he also gave that point to Novak even though it was called out so I don't see why is that such a big problem).

5.He said Novak's TIMEOUTS were a joke,big difference(a good number of people agrees with him there).

6.This one is really grasping for straws,that was a humorous joke between two players who are good friends and from the same country.

I disagree, and I don't think anyone can explain away the things he's done or said. For one thing, Federer is five to six years older than Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. They were teenagers when he was a grown man. What he said could have negatively affected them, or their tennis. Federer was out of line. He is not above criticism.

It would also be true if Player A said:

1. Federer is very prissy. He doesn't act very masculine to me.

2. Federer stormed off after a loss, why can't I do that?

3. Look at all of these quotes, how did he get Sportsman of the Year award?

You could argue that there was some validity to these statements, but the bottom line is, it shouldn't be said. Just because it's "true" to a certain extent (depending on the person) doesn't mean it's appropriate.

Chopin
06-13-2008, 07:44 PM
1. He said was Nadal was one-dimensional.
2. He accused Uncle Toni of cheating, on court, in front of millions of spectators.
3. He said Murray hadn't improved.
4. He told Djokovic's parents to be quiet, again, in public, in front of millions of fans.
5. He called Djokovic a joke, and said he was happy to beat him.
6. He asked Wawrinka to beat Nalbandian after Nalbandian beat him twice.

This is not the stuff of Sportsman of the Year. I think they got it wrong!

1) He said that in Dubai 2006 and at the time, he was probably right. However, since then he's shown an enormous amount of respect for Nadal and his game both at the French Open and Wimbledon, talking about how Nadal is NOT only a clay court player and how much his game has improved.

2) He merely suggested that Uncle Toni was giving Nadal coaching during a match (a common occurrence in the pro game). They've since made amends. Not a big deal in my book.

3) Not Federer's finest comment but nothing too sinister. No one's perfect. Murray's results really haven't improved all that much--he's probably right.

4) Absurd example. He was right to do that. Novak's parents are widely considered to be out of control, trashing-talking to players during matches and making absurd proclamations about Novak's game, as well as about other players. Loads of people have complained, in the words of Wilander, "they take this to a level I’ve just never seen before." If telling pushy parents complaining about line-calls to "be quiet" while conceding that a ball is in and saving the umpire some work is being a bad sport, you must be living in an alternate universe.

5) He said Djokovivc was a joke as far as injury time-outs went, something that many other players suggested when Novak would take injury timeouts while appearing to be completely fine. Even Novak himself said that he had used the rule to his advantage. Right on Federer. Novak also offended more than a few players with his impersonations, I'm sure the majority of ATP players were happy that Roger stood up to him.

6) Are you serious? So what? Laughable stuff.

You my friend, are the one who got it wrong--the top players on tour as well as old-timers like Sampras seem to respect him and many say what a nice guy he is. I'd imagine they would know a little better than you. Is he perfect? Of course not. However, it seems like you're just biased against him for one reason for another.

Djokovicfan4life
06-13-2008, 07:45 PM
Well, I agree he can come across as charming when he is in a one-on-one interview. And I can understand people wanting a fresh approach to tennis..

As far as hating him, I don't!.. I just dislike him for his rather poor sportsmanship and odd way of dealing with a match.. I never begrudge a player for being good. But when the going gets tough, I feel that I don't like his ease at which he gives up. And as a fan of his. If he doesn't always give his true 100% performance. Then as a fan, you can't respect a guy like that..

I also do believe what I read about his family, and for one was happy that Fed did tell them to be quiet in a match. Because while never begrudging a family for wanting their son do well. They seem to have taken it another level. And to have the father here in Australia make such a public deal with the French fans seems in my mind that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.. Novak would be better in telling them to concentrate on the younger brothers, and allow him to pursue his tennis career..

I also noticed that his coaches sat seperate to the family at the French, and it also appeared that they themselves were seated near an exit point?. I dont know how it works at the French, but why weren't they in a box like everyone else? Can anyone put more light on that for me?

I agree that he gives up too easily sometimes. But he's still young and I hope he'll learn his lesson soon. Personally I don't care to read all the stories behind his family and Federer's reign being "over", etc. This is tennis, not Days of our Lives.

IMO parents will be parents and will always support their kid, and sometimes they can take it a step too far. I just cringe every time I see these issues blown WAY out of proportion on this board.

No clue about the seating at the French, that's just strange! :confused:

Ignorant Genius
06-13-2008, 07:52 PM
Will Federer Ever win the French Open?

Only when Nadal isn't in it.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2008, 07:55 PM
I agree that he gives up too easily sometimes. But he's still young and I hope he'll learn his lesson soon. Personally I don't care to read all the stories behind his family and Federer's reign being "over", etc. This is tennis, not Days of our Lives.

IMO parents will be parents and will always support their kid, and sometimes they can take it a step too far. I just cringe every time I see these issues blown WAY out of proportion on this board.

No clue about the seating at the French, that's just strange! :confused:

Well I hope he does grow up, because as you said. He is young, and is a great player no doubt..

I guess at 33, I am probably the last of the old time era of the 80's early 90's, of which after such time tennis totally changed for me..

So I guess I focus more on a players heart and behaviour, more than his talent.. And why I guess I am so hard on Novak..

Like I said. I will give credit where credit is due. But until he does grow up, and becomes the greatest of all time. For me, in this point in time, he is just the number 3 in the world..

Djokovicfan4life
06-13-2008, 08:04 PM
Well I hope he does grow up, because as you said. He is young, and is a great player no doubt..

I guess at 33, I am probably the last of the old time era of the 80's early 90's, of which after such time tennis totally changed for me..

So I guess I focus more on a players heart and behaviour, more than his talent.. And why I guess I am so hard on Novak..

Like I said. I will give credit where credit is due. But until he does grow up, and becomes the greatest of all time. For me, in this point in time, he is just the number 3 in the world..

I'm 18 and I only started watching tennis seriously a few years ago, but I dislike the constant baseline bashing style, which is one of the reasons why I like Novak. Not because he is a good all-courter yet, but because he has the potential to be one. His volleying was absolutely horrendous today, but he has his moments at net and he can only get better up there IMO.

I also like the fact that he takes an aggressive court position and hits on the rise, despite his extreme grip. He takes a lot of time away from his opponents this way, and it's much more fun to watch than the usual "How close can we stand to the back fence" contest that seems to be so popular these days IMO.

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 08:04 PM
1) He said that in Dubai 2006 and at the time, he was probably right. However, since then he's shown an enormous amount of respect for Nadal and his game both at the French Open and Wimbledon, talking about how Nadal is NOT only a clay court player and how much his game has improved.

2) He merely suggested that Uncle Toni was giving Nadal coaching during a match (a common occurrence in the pro game). They've since made amends. Not a big deal in my book.

3) Not Federer's finest comment but nothing too sinister. No one's perfect. Murray's results really haven't improved all that much--he's probably right.

4) Absurd example. He was right to do that. Novak's parents are widely considered to be out of control, trashing-talking to players during matches and making absurd proclamations about Novak's game, as well as about other players. Loads of people have complained, in the words of Wilander, "they take this to a level I’ve just never seen before." If telling pushy parents complaining about line-calls to "be quiet" while conceding that a ball is in and saving the umpire some work is being a bad sport, you must be living in an alternate universe.

5) He said Djokovivc was a joke as far as injury time-outs went, something that many other players suggested when Novak would take injury timeouts while appearing to be completely fine. Even Novak himself said that he had used the rule to his advantage. Right on Federer. Novak also offended more than a few players with his impersonations, I'm sure the majority of ATP players were happy that Roger stood up to him.

6) Are you serious? So what? Laughable stuff.

You my friend, are the one who got it wrong--the top players on tour as well as old-timers like Sampras seem to respect him and many say what a nice guy he is. I'd imagine they would know a little better than you. Is he perfect? Of course not. However, it seems like you're just biased against him for one reason for another.

Your thought process baffles me. If everyone else says it, so should I? Is that what you're saying?

What's troubling is that people like you can't stand for Federer, a grown man and a professional athlete to be criticized. That borders on an unhealthy obsession. Therefore, I'm going to take your criticism with a grain of salt.

But, just for fun, I'm going to go back and read what you've said about other players and I hope you have been as magnanimous as you expect me to be. Thankfully, we are on alternate universes. :::Making the sign of the cross and thanking God for that small favor!

Chopin
06-13-2008, 08:38 PM
Your thought process baffles me. If everyone else says it, so should I? Is that what you're saying?

What's troubling is that people like you can't stand for Federer, a grown man and a professional athlete to be criticized. That borders on an unhealthy obsession. Therefore, I'm going to take your criticism with a grain of salt.

But, just for fun, I'm going to go back and read what you've said about other players and I hope you have been as magnanimous as you expect me to be. Thankfully, we are on alternate universes. :::Making the sign of the cross and thanking God for that small favor!

What's so baffling about forming an opinion of Federer based on the fact that his peers, those who share the locker room with him, seem to respect and have positive things to say about him as both a person and a player? Coupled with what I've observed of Federer on the court, and the my knowledge of the charity work he's done forces me to conclude, to the best of the information available, that he's a pretty good ambassador for the game. I never said he was perfect or hasn't said anything rude in the course of his career. How is that baffling?

I'll tell you what is baffling to me is the trite, silly examples you came up with to criticize him (omg he did not just tell Novak's complaining parents to "be quiet" or encourage his friend and countrymen to beat a player)--that's what "troubles" me about these boards--the biased posters who come up with the most mundane nonsense about a particular player simply because they don't like them.

I've no issue with you personally, I just think that you come off as biased against Federer and not at all objective based on your examples. Let's make a deal, I'll come up with a genuine criticism of Federer's comments or behavior if you say something positive about his comments or behavior in relation to a match. Deal? Let's see if we can find some common ground, no?

TheTruth
06-13-2008, 11:54 PM
What's so baffling about forming an opinion of Federer based on the fact that his peers, those who share the locker room with him, seem to respect and have positive things to say about him as both a person and a player? Coupled with what I've observed of Federer on the court, and the my knowledge of the charity work he's done forces me to conclude, to the best of the information available, that he's a pretty good ambassador for the game. I never said he was perfect or hasn't said anything rude in the course of his career. How is that baffling?

I'll tell you what is baffling to me is the trite, silly examples you came up with to criticize him (omg he did not just tell Novak's complaining parents to "be quiet" or encourage his friend and countrymen to beat a player)--that's what "troubles" me about these boards--the biased posters who come up with the most mundane nonsense about a particular player simply because they don't like them.

I've no issue with you personally, I just think that you come off as biased against Federer and not at all objective based on your examples. Let's make a deal, I'll come up with a genuine criticism of Federer's comments or behavior if you say something positive about his comments or behavior in relation to a match. Deal? Let's see if we can find some common ground, no?


That won't be necessary. I'm not interested in you coming up with a genuine criticism of Fed. Why? You like him. That's your boy, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't like him, and as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with that either.

What you dismiss as trite is not trite to me. I am character driven, not results driven. I don't like Nadal because he won 4 consecutive French Opens, if he hadn't won one I would still like him. I like him because he's a fighter on court, a lamb off of court, and always say nice things about his opponents. I'm sorry, Fed doesn't do this imo, therefore he's not my cup of tea.

As far as common ground, we should have that too. Our love of the sport is our glue. Maybe I don't agree with you about Fed, but there's probably other players we do agree on. Either way, it's all good. I respect you as a poster without expecting you to please me. I hope I haven't offended you, but nothing would ever make me like Federer. I hope that's not a problem!

BTW-I've never said Fed wasn't a great player. I also said he took the recent loss with grace. I don't believe he has no chance to win the French, anything can happen. But as a personality, I don't like him.

luckyboy1300
06-13-2008, 11:55 PM
You are in some strong denial, Buddy. It's you who won't be convinced. The transcript dated during the same tournament speaks very loudly of what he said. You don't have Fed's medical statements either, do you? Yet, you speak as an authority on his condition. That's funny!

yet it wasn't me who was making the claim. remember the rule dude: the one who claims carries with him the burden of proof. fed said he knew nothing of the illness during the ao. the transcript was saying absolutely nothing about fed knowing he's ill of mono. i took it as it is, and added nothing more. you said he's just making excuses, and that tantamounts to calling him a big fat liar. do you believe he really had mono? it's up to you not to believe it. i seriously have no problems with that. now you're saying what you said were facts which clearly contradicted what fed said. now it's you who need a proof of that, not at all me.

TheTruth
06-14-2008, 12:02 AM
yet it wasn't me who was making the claim. remember the rule dude: the one who claims carries with him the burden of proof. fed said he knew nothing of the illness during the ao. the transcript was saying absolutely nothing about fed knowing he's ill of mono. i took it as it is, and added nothing more. you said he's just making excuses, and that tantamounts to calling him a big fat liar. do you believe he really had mono? it's up to you not to believe it. i seriously have no problems with that. now you're saying what you said were facts which clearly contradicted what fed said. now it's you who need a proof of that, not at all me.

Why do you persist in this behavior? Read the whole thread. I've already addressed this. Get some sleep already!

luckyboy1300
06-14-2008, 12:08 AM
Why do you persist in this behavior? Read the whole thread. I've already addressed this. Get some sleep already!

lolz actually it's daytime here. it's just that no biased opinion can turn away many reasonable minds. if you have a problem with that, then it's your problem. i'm done. and thanks for your time.