PDA

View Full Version : uncle toni on federer


makhan10
06-10-2008, 07:33 AM
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=26d95161-78a6-49f3-8413-b7cdbcfa4df1&p=1

courtesy of

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_thread/thread/71bde06a28b8265c

pound cat
06-10-2008, 07:51 AM
Very interesting to hear uncle Toni's take on the match....on his face...nothing, not the usual Roger, lost before the first ball was struck.

No wonder Federer has never hired Wilander as a coach if this is what he would do with Roger:

"Wilander said Federer needs to bare his teeth, puff up his chest, beat Nadal at that mind game, even if he has to overdo it."

Nadal might find this very funny, but certainly not intimidating.


Thanks for the link.

Dash
06-10-2008, 08:48 AM
Thanks for the link.

It is funny that Wilander just apologized to Roger days ago, now he jumped out and said blah, blah which boiled down to " no balls".

I have been aware of Roger's body language for a while. I started seeing some negativity from last year Wimby.

Still remember that Pete said the second slam final he lost to Edberg taught him a great lesson " Nobody gonna remember the loser".


http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=26d95161-78a6-49f3-8413-b7cdbcfa4df1&p=1

courtesy of

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_thread/thread/71bde06a28b8265c

TheTruth
06-10-2008, 09:29 AM
Very interesting to hear uncle Toni's take on the match....on his face...nothing, not the usual Roger, lost before the first ball was struck.

No wonder Federer has never hired Wilander as a coach if this is what he would do with Roger:

"Wilander said Federer needs to bare his teeth, puff up his chest, beat Nadal at that mind game, even if he has to overdo it."

Nadal might find this very funny, but certainly not intimidating.


Thanks for the link.

Mats was right. Federer walked on that court a beaten man. Even in the first set at 2-1 he looked like the match was over. The only emotion Federer displayed was anger at a few missed balls, but there was no sign of determination befitting a 12 time grand slam winner. The writer of the article got it right too. Talent alone will not always win you matches, sometimes you will have to dig deep for the win!

TheTruth
06-10-2008, 09:31 AM
Side note:

To those who say everyone who points these things out is a Fed-hater, Fed-Basher, read the articles. We are not the only ones who are seeing it!

AAAA
06-10-2008, 09:43 AM
Nadal had the following advantages against Federer going into the 2008 FO final

1) Clay is Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst

2) 3 time Winner of the tournament vs no time winner of the tournament

3) Nadal is the superior mover on clay, faster, superior balance. Federer at times doesn't even move properly on the surface, he slips while Nadal even when stretched wide to hit a defensive shot is still on balance.

4) Nadal is at least as mentally strong as Federer on clay, probably stronger.

5) Nadal has superior tactics, shot selection and more effective shots than Federer on clay.

6) Nadal is physically stronger than Federer.

7) Nadal is arguably much fitter than Federer.

8 ) Nadal has an overwhelmingly superior 9-1 head-to-head against Federer on clay.

9) Nadal has an overall 11-6 head-to-head lead against Federer taking all surfaces into account.

I hoped Federer would win but with so many key areas and stats against him I'm not surprised Federer lost.

If Wilander conceded as much to an opponent as Federer did to Nadal in the 2008 FO final, all 9 points above, and managed to beat them then in one respect Wilander is better than Federer.

snapple
06-10-2008, 09:53 AM
It is funny that Wilander just apologized to Roger days ago, now he jumped out and said blah, blah which boiled down to " no balls".

Where did you read that Wilander apologized for his past comments? I'm surprised to hear this since he's stood behind them for years now.

johnny ballgame
06-10-2008, 10:00 AM
I hoped Federer would win but with so many key areas and stats against him I'm not surprised Federer lost.


Not surprising that Fed lost, but are you surprised that it was such a total and complete beat-down? I think that's the real takeaway from the match. Nadal's wins over Fed are getting more and more convincing, instead of the other way around.

Dash
06-10-2008, 10:07 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZIsmSYSRq1M
posted by Virtuous days ago.


Where did you read that Wilander apologized for his past comments? I'm surprised to hear this since he's stood behind them for years now.

snapple
06-10-2008, 10:09 AM
Dash - thanks for the link, now if only I could play youtube at my office!

Dash
06-10-2008, 10:13 AM
I never think Roger could pull it out against Rafa in FO. But by watching closely, his body language showed a lot in the matches against other players and in other tourneys as well.

Nadal had the following advantages against Federer going into the 2008 FO final

1) Clay is Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst

2) 3 time Winner of the tournament vs no time winner of the tournament

3) Nadal is the superior mover on clay, faster, superior balance. Federer at times doesn't even move properly on the surface, he slips while Nadal even when stretched wide to hit a defensive shot is still on balance.

4) Nadal is at least as mentally strong as Federer on clay, probably stronger.

5) Nadal has superior tactics, shot selection and more effective shots than Federer on clay.

6) Nadal is physically stronger than Federer.

7) Nadal is arguably much fitter than Federer.

8 ) Nadal has an overwhelmingly superior 9-1 head-to-head against Federer on clay.

9) Nadal has an overall 11-6 head-to-head lead against Federer taking all surfaces into account.

I hoped Federer would win but with so many key areas and stats against him I'm not surprised Federer lost.

If Wilander conceded as much to an opponent as Federer did to Nadal in the 2008 FO final, all 9 points above, and managed to beat them then in one respect Wilander is better than Federer.

rommil
06-10-2008, 10:15 AM
Mats was right. Federer walked on that court a beaten man. Even in the first set at 2-1 he looked like the match was over. The only emotion Federer displayed was anger at a few missed balls, but there was no sign of determination befitting a 12 time grand slam winner. The writer of the article got it right too. Talent alone will not always win you matches, sometimes you will have to dig deep for the win!
I think we have found Roger's next coach....

AAAA
06-10-2008, 10:17 AM
Not surprising that Fed lost, but are you surprised that it was such a total and complete beat-down? I think that's the real takeaway from the match. Nadal's wins over Fed are getting more and more convincing, instead of the other way around.

Federer won far fewer games than I thought he would win. However taking into consideration the tale-of-the-tape comparison between them on clay the writing was on the wall as many of the vocal Nadal fans said before the final re the 'Nadal will butcher Federer and Djokovic' thread and the 100 plus other comments elsewhere.

If Federer doesn't regain the form of previous years he will have a real struggle on his hands if Nadal and Djokovic continue to improve and make the the expected surges in their respective grass and hard court games.

Dash
06-10-2008, 10:28 AM
Oops, don't try it, the video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

I thought Wilander withdrew it:) It sucks, man!

Dash - thanks for the link, now if only I could play youtube at my office!

sureshs
06-10-2008, 10:49 AM
I think we will know the real truth only when Mirka writes Fed's authorized biography. We may learn that he is unable to sleep before a Nadal match and resorts to taking sleep medication, which dullens him the next day. Or something like that.

TheTruth
06-10-2008, 10:50 AM
I think we have found Roger's next coach....


Nope! I wouldn't work for the Fed for all the tea in China!

miniRafa386
06-10-2008, 11:05 AM
i think uncle tony says it perfectly.

fastdunn
06-10-2008, 11:06 AM
Nadal had the following advantages against Federer going into the 2008 FO final

1) Clay is Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst

.

For some reasons, I am not sure if clay is really Federer's worst surface.

ksbh
06-10-2008, 11:16 AM
This 'myth' has been going on for too long and needs to be terminated. In simple terms ... Clay is not Federer's worst surface!

Federer just brushes aside clay court specialists! In addition, he's been to the finals at Roland Garros 3 straight years! I don't see how someone whose worst surface is clay can pull of all these accomplishments. Clay is far from Federer's worst surface. He's in fact, extremely good on this surface. His problem is that there is one person, Nadal, who is far superior.


1) Clay is Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst

madmanfool
06-10-2008, 11:21 AM
This 'myth' has been going on for too long and needs to be terminated. In simple terms ... Clay is not Federer's worst surface!

Federer just brushes aside clay court specialists! In addition, he's been to the finals at Roland Garros 3 straight years! I don't see how someone whose worst surface is clay can pull of all these accomplishments. Clay is far from Federer's worst surface. He's in fact, extremely good on this surface. His problem is that there is one person, Nadal, who is far superior.

It is his worst surface. It's true it's not a bad surface for him and he is very good at it. But it is his worst surface. He's better on HC, indoor and grass.

ufgatorkid
06-10-2008, 11:22 AM
This 'myth' has been going on for too long and needs to be terminated. In simple terms ... Clay is not Federer's worst surface!

Federer just brushes aside clay court specialists! In addition, he's been to the finals at Roland Garros 3 straight years! I don't see how someone whose worst surface is clay can pull of all these accomplishments. Clay is far from Federer's worst surface. He's in fact, extremely good on this surface. His problem is that there is one person, Nadal, who is far superior.

Huh??? Then what is his worst surface? Grass? Hardcourt? Rebound Ace? Seriously. How is this even debatable? Just because he happens to be good on clay does NOT mean that it is not his worst surface. It is. I don't see how this is a "myth."

fastdunn
06-10-2008, 11:28 AM
It is his worst surface. It's true it's not a bad surface for him and he is very good at it. But it is his worst surface. He's better on HC, indoor and grass.

But indoor carpet is debatable. His career winning percentage on indoor carpet is the worst.

Grass: 86 %
Hard: 82.5%
Clay: 75.5% (win-loss: 123-40. 9 of these 40 loss were to Nadal. could have been upto 81% if not Nadal)
Carpet: 72.5%


But indoor carpet is at the end of the seasons and by that time, federer usually wins 2-3 slams and #1 gauranteed. So it's hard to know.

But for certain times, Federer looks vulnerable more on carpet for players like Nalbandian.

Ronaldo
06-10-2008, 11:33 AM
i think uncle tony says it perfectly.

Wonder if this world-weary Fed will bag it like Henin? Especially if he loses at Wimbledon?

AAAA
06-10-2008, 11:38 AM
This 'myth' has been going on for too long and needs to be terminated. In simple terms ... Clay is not Federer's worst surface!

Federer just brushes aside clay court specialists! In addition, he's been to the finals at Roland Garros 3 straight years! I don't see how someone whose worst surface is clay can pull of all these accomplishments. Clay is far from Federer's worst surface. He's in fact, extremely good on this surface. His problem is that there is one person, Nadal, who is far superior.

Federer has 12 non-clay slams so on 12 occasions he was superior to all 7 opponents he faced from round 1 to the final round appearance. However on clay he hasn't even once been superior to all 7 opponents he was drawn to play, superior to 6 but not 7 hence clay is his worst surface because there has always been someone to stop him winning even one FO open.

AAAA
06-10-2008, 11:40 AM
Huh??? Then what is his worst surface? Grass? Hardcourt? Rebound Ace? Seriously. How is this even debatable? Just because he happens to be good on clay does NOT mean that it is not his worst surface. It is. I don't see how this is a "myth."

fastdunn, this answer and my answer to ksbh explains why I disagree with you.

fastdunn
06-10-2008, 11:47 AM
if you are based on the number of slam titles, yes clay is the worst.
but its big reason is Nadal and someone can argue, federer is better on clay than on carpet based on winning %.

zagor
06-10-2008, 12:11 PM
For some reasons, I am not sure if clay is really Federer's worst surface.

Well Federer didn't exactly shine on clay even before Nadal arrived on scene(in 2005).Fed was 0-10 on clay when he first arrived on tour and in the year he won Wimbledon for the first time he lost to Horna at the FO and to Scud at Hamburg while in 2004(the year he was unstopable on grass and hardcourt)he lost to way past his prime Kuerten(and in straights no less) and to Albert Costa in Rome.You say that Fed is more vulnerable to Nalbandian on carpet but I saw him beat Nalbandian on carpet and one win Nalbandian got over Fed on that surface was in closely contested five-setter and Fed wasn't actually in great form coming to TMC that year(he was basically still walking on crutches because of an ankle injury about a week or two before that tourny and probably shouldn't have even played it).So I'd say clay is his worst surface(it's obvious to me) but then again maybe Nadal is stopping us from seeing how great Roger is on clay it's just that he has to compete with possible GOAT on that surface.I'm sure Fed's carpet winning percentage would be a lot better if more major tournaments were played on that surface.

Dash
06-10-2008, 12:18 PM
I see your point. I feel the tide is changing. On clay, Roger moves second to Rafa, in terms of efficiency. Clay gives him more time and court to expose the opponents' weakness with his supreme control and arsenal. However, on hard courts, 2HBH players get more consistent on the baseline and start to take charge on Roger's 2nd serve. Sometimes, I feel Roger gets overpowered.

So far, this year Roger performed much better on clay than on hard court. Hope he proves me wrong in the rest of season.

if you are based on the number of slam titles, yes clay is the worst.
but its big reason is Nadal and someone can argue, federer is better on clay than on carpet based on winning %.

ksbh
06-10-2008, 12:18 PM
Fool, Gatorkid and AAAA ... I see your logic. By that logic, I agree that clay may be Federer's worst surface but he is really good at it.

Challenger
06-10-2008, 12:20 PM
Wonder if this world-weary Fed will bag it like Henin? Especially if he loses at Wimbledon?

He wants Pete's record more than anything. No way he quits just because of one "off" Wimby.

Ronaldo
06-10-2008, 12:40 PM
He wants Pete's record more than anything. No way he quits just because of one "off" Wimby.

More than anything? Looked less than interested in that FO Final 3rd set.

wangs78
06-10-2008, 12:48 PM
Fed needs a new girlfriend. One that will get his blood flowing again. Something is wrong inside Fed's head and if Mirka, who's supposedly his closest confidante, isn't helping then she's part of the problem.

cueboyzn
06-10-2008, 01:02 PM
Fed needs a new girlfriend. One that will get his blood flowing again. Something is wrong inside Fed's head and if Mirka, who's supposedly his closest confidante, isn't helping then she's part of the problem.

LOL. So now its Mirka's fault Roger cannot beat Nadal on clay?

You guys make me laugh :twisted:

wangs78
06-10-2008, 01:06 PM
LOL. So now its Mirka's fault Roger cannot beat Nadal on clay?

You guys make me laugh :twisted:

I'm glad you're laughing, that was my intention. I used to take comments on this board too seriously. But most of it is just for fun. =)

PROTENNIS63
06-10-2008, 01:13 PM
I really enjoy Fed but would agree that he needs to sit down and rethink eveything. It is time to get the hunger back.

Chopin
06-10-2008, 01:36 PM
Uncle Toni and others are right but Federer has won the last 4 meetings against Nadal off of clay dating back to Wimbledon 2006.

He's still #1 and would be the favorite if he met Nadal at Wimbledon.

He's only 26, almost 27 and has at least 2 more years when I would say he'll be in his "prime." I think Sampras won 3 or 4 of his slams when he was 27+ and Agassi won 5 slams when he was 27+ (including the French Open). A little perspective. Let's not jump the gun.

Ronaldo
06-10-2008, 01:36 PM
I really enjoy Fed but would agree that he needs to sit down and rethink eveything. It is time to get the hunger back.

Roger, you had that eye of the tiger, man; the edge! And now you gotta get it back, and the way to get it back is to go back to the beginning. You know what I mean? Come on, Fed's just an old, tired soul now.

Hatari!
06-10-2008, 01:45 PM
Clay is Roger's worst surface? Ha! Roger is the number two player in the world on clay. The only problem is that the gap between him and Nadal is just too big.

wangs78
06-10-2008, 02:29 PM
Yes, someone needs to send Fed a dvd of Rocky III, when he lost the eye of the tiger but got it back after Mick was killed.

Not sure how we can motivate Fed though. If someone were to kidnap Higueras, I don't think he'd care all that much. If it was Mirka, well, maybe. Then he'd have to hire an old nemisis to train him. Like I said in an old thread that I started, Sampras will then come in to help him regain the eye.

fastdunn
06-10-2008, 04:17 PM
.I'm sure Fed's carpet winning percentage would be a lot better if more major tournaments were played on that surface.

yeah, but I am not sure if the indoor season will ever become relervant again.

federer is neutral player. he has great offense game but also needs defense. he needs to neutralize his opponents' weapons/game plan first before he destroy his opponents. he is not the type of player who bang bang out of trouble. but on carpet or fast hard court, you have to do that sometimes because it's harder to neutralize your opponents.

federer is still the top guy and i think his prime is not over yet (he is exactly same position in the year as 2005!). but when federer really declines, my bet is that he will be more vulnerable on carpet/ hard courts. even after he loses his #1 status, he will hang around and win french open before the end of his career.

martin
06-10-2008, 05:04 PM
Federer is the most talented player ever but he's not a fighter and completely gives up when he doesn't believe he can win. Even when he wins close matches he only wins them because of his great talent. Wilander was so right and i wanted Federer to win the grandslam but his attitude on the court is dissapointing. Nadal is the better clay courter but Federer should never lose sets with 6-1 or 6-0.

Ronaldo
06-10-2008, 07:21 PM
Yes, someone needs to send Fed a dvd of Rocky III, when he lost the eye of the tiger but got it back after Mick was killed.

Not sure how we can motivate Fed though. If someone were to kidnap Higueras, I don't think he'd care all that much. If it was Mirka, well, maybe. Then he'd have to hire an old nemisis to train him. Like I said in an old thread that I started, Sampras will then come in to help him regain the eye.

It won't be Pete but Andre who comes back to train Roger, remind him that Rafa is just a man, help him be more man than Nadal, find the eye of the tiger, and complete the career slam.

oy vey
06-10-2008, 07:39 PM
Fed needs a new girlfriend. One that will get his blood flowing again. Something is wrong inside Fed's head and if Mirka, who's supposedly his closest confidante, isn't helping then she's part of the problem.

"Roger Federer was highly embarrassed at Roland Garros on Sunday afternoon. And he's only himself to blame for letting his tubby fiancée Mirka sit in the stands. Poor old Fed—he offered as much resistance to Rafael Nadal during the French Open as Mirka does when the dessert trolley appears.'"
Daily Mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/columnists/result/2008/06/10/roger-is-as-fed-up-as-his-missus-after-french-open-thrashing-89520-20601950/

tennis_hand
06-11-2008, 12:55 AM
just like most of us had felt, trouble came when he missed his 2 forehands and lost the first game.

crosscourt
06-11-2008, 02:02 AM
Federer is the most talented player ever but he's not a fighter and completely gives up when he doesn't believe he can win. Even when he wins close matches he only wins them because of his great talent. Wilander was so right and i wanted Federer to win the grandslam but his attitude on the court is dissapointing. Nadal is the better clay courter but Federer should never lose sets with 6-1 or 6-0.

I remember matches on clay between Borg and Vilas when Borg was number one and Vilas number two. Some people say that Vilas was one of the best ever on clay. But he had to work like a dog to win a point off Borg, let alone a game or a set.

superman1
06-11-2008, 02:26 AM
Uncle Toni is a very sharp guy.

It won't be Pete but Andre who comes back to train Roger, remind him that Rafa is just a man, help him be more man than Nadal, find the eye of the tiger, and complete the career slam.

Andre could teach Federer a lot about tactics, but that's the last thing Federer needs. The more he thinks about tactics, the worse he plays. Federer is not a strategic player, he's a spontaneous player who goes with the flow. He doesn't control the point from the beginning, he bides his time and gets a feel for the point, then goes for the kill. When he starts thinking about tactics, he starts thinking too much. It's no coincidence that some of Federer's best stuff was produced when he didn't have a coach.

Best advice to Federer: just hit the damn ball.

daddy
06-11-2008, 03:53 AM
"Roger Federer was highly embarrassed at Roland Garros on Sunday afternoon. And he's only himself to blame for letting his tubby fiancée Mirka sit in the stands. Poor old Fed—he offered as much resistance to Rafael Nadal during the French Open as Mirka does when the dessert trolley appears.'"
Daily Mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/columnists/result/2008/06/10/roger-is-as-fed-up-as-his-missus-after-french-open-thrashing-89520-20601950/

Got to love british journalists.

zagor
06-11-2008, 03:53 AM
"Roger Federer was highly embarrassed at Roland Garros on Sunday afternoon. And he's only himself to blame for letting his tubby fiancée Mirka sit in the stands. Poor old Fed—he offered as much resistance to Rafael Nadal during the French Open as Mirka does when the dessert trolley appears.'"
Daily Mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/columnists/result/2008/06/10/roger-is-as-fed-up-as-his-missus-after-french-open-thrashing-89520-20601950/

Maybe the British should worry about their own tennis instead of slandering one of the best tennis players ever to step on court.From what I've seen Murray has yet to pass the 4th round at a slam and some of the other young British tennis hopes look in worse shape than Mirka.

daddy
06-11-2008, 03:55 AM
Maybe the British should worry about their own tennis instead of slandering one of the best tennis players ever to step on court.From what I've seen Murray has yet to pass the 4th round at a slam and some of the other young British tennis hopes look in worse shape than Mirka.

Cmon mate, see the funny side of the article. Btw you have a nice quote beneath and Ill edit and write it here ...

Article :

'Despite the resounding beating, reports of Fed's demise have been greatly exaggerated, particularly when the next tournament is at Wimbledon where he usually does two things. Win it and dress up in unfashionable white suits.

Ladbrokes report a lumpy £20,000 bet on Nadal, and that's a lot of money for a man who wins every Grand Slam there is as long as it's called the French Open.'

You got to admit they add a bit extra ! Hilarious.

zagor
06-11-2008, 04:01 AM
Cmon mate, see the funny side of the article. Btw you have a nice quote beneath and Ill edit and write it here ...

Article :

'Despite the resounding beating, reports of Fed's demise have been greatly exaggerated, particularly when the next tournament is at Wimbledon where he usually does two things. Win it and dress up in unfashionable white suits.

Ladbrokes report a lumpy £20,000 bet on Nadal, and that's a lot of money for a man who wins every Grand Slam there is as long as it's called the French Open.'

You got to admit they add a bit extra ! Hilarious.

Yeah,I should have red the whole article before I jumped.I'm just little annoyed by all the people ripping Fed for losing to one of the best claycourters ever.He lost convincigly,end of story,none of the other players in the FO draw did any better then him(maybe Bellucci and Novak but they both still lost in straights).

daddy
06-11-2008, 04:07 AM
Yeah,I should have red the whole article before I jumped.I'm just little annoyed by all the people ripping Fed for losing to one of the best claycourters ever.He lost convincigly,end of story,none of the other players in the FO draw did any better then him(maybe Bellucci and Novak but they both still lost in straights).

Agreed, Id be annoyed. But in my mind, you should wait for Wimbledon to end. It is a tough time for Federer die-hard fans but I am sure he can give it a go. 27 years of age is a turning point in many people's careers but let me just assure you, exclude Borg and you'll see that many of them actually won big tournaments after those years. Granted not that many titles but tennis is getting very interesting to say the least, gotta love that !

And always give credit to the british people, I find them very very amusing both in commentary and articles such as this one ! :)

Ocean Drive
06-11-2008, 05:19 AM
Nadal had the following advantages against Federer going into the 2008 FO final

1) Clay is Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst

2) 3 time Winner of the tournament vs no time winner of the tournament

3) Nadal is the superior mover on clay, faster, superior balance. Federer at times doesn't even move properly on the surface, he slips while Nadal even when stretched wide to hit a defensive shot is still on balance.

4) Nadal is at least as mentally strong as Federer on clay, probably stronger.

5) Nadal has superior tactics, shot selection and more effective shots than Federer on clay.

6) Nadal is physically stronger than Federer.

7) Nadal is arguably much fitter than Federer.

8 ) Nadal has an overwhelmingly superior 9-1 head-to-head against Federer on clay.

9) Nadal has an overall 11-6 head-to-head lead against Federer taking all surfaces into account.

I hoped Federer would win but with so many key areas and stats against him I'm not surprised Federer lost.

If Wilander conceded as much to an opponent as Federer did to Nadal in the 2008 FO final, all 9 points above, and managed to beat them then in one respect Wilander is better than Federer.

Just by looking at somebody you can't tell their strength, you'd need to have them in the gym performing standardized tests or something, Nadal isn't even big. So your point their is complete bull.

Ronaldo
06-11-2008, 06:48 AM
Uncle Toni is a very sharp guy.



Andre could teach Federer a lot about tactics, but that's the last thing Federer needs. The more he thinks about tactics, the worse he plays. Federer is not a strategic player, he's a spontaneous player who goes with the flow. He doesn't control the point from the beginning, he bides his time and gets a feel for the point, then goes for the kill. When he starts thinking about tactics, he starts thinking too much. It's no coincidence that some of Federer's best stuff was produced when he didn't have a coach.

Best advice to Federer: just hit the damn ball.

Never thought about tactics just intense training till he pukes.

AAAA
06-11-2008, 07:29 AM
Just by looking at somebody you can't tell their strength, you'd need to have them in the gym performing standardized tests or something, Nadal isn't even big. So your point their is complete bull.

You are assuming my judgement is based solely on appearance. Looks were a minor consideration but more importantly is the way both players handle the ball when they can't are really rushed and can't use much body momentum or body rotation to generate pace. In those situations when they can't use much more than an arm swing Nadal was hitting with more pace and more depth far more often than Federer. I haven't read many of your posts so for now I'll take my judgement for the above reason over yours.

AAAA
06-11-2008, 07:54 AM
if you are based on the number of slam titles, yes clay is the worst.
but its big reason is Nadal and someone can argue, federer is better on clay than on carpet based on winning %.

Federer has 12 non-clay slams so on 12 occasions he was superior to all 7 opponents he faced from round 1 to the final round appearance. However on clay he hasn't even once been superior to all 7 opponents he was drawn to play, superior to 6 but not 7 hence clay is his worst surface because there has always been someone to stop him winning even one FO open.

So yeah I'm only taking into account the slam surfaces. As far as my interest goes only the slam surfaces of of any relevance to me at this time.

Since 2004 Federer has played only 14 matches on carpet.
http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=matchstats&playerid=FER001

Since you're bringing in surfaces totally irrelevant to Federer's pursuit of greatness we may as well talk about har-tru aswell. I don't recall Federer ever playing a har-tru tournament in preference to a euro clay one so on har-tru Federer probably has no ATP tour wins.

If the USO switched back to har-tru making ability on the surface relevant to the bigger scheme then I'd take an interest in it.

wangs78
06-11-2008, 08:05 AM
Never thought about tactics just intense training till he pukes.

Totally agree, I think Fed needs to train harder. He looks a bit heavy out there and he's aged quite a bit in the last couple of years. He also has to stop fidgeting with that damn hair of his.