PDA

View Full Version : Federer now vs Federer of 2-3 years ago?


firstblud
03-26-2009, 12:30 AM
What's the fundamental difference between federer now and then (when he was dominating)?

do you guys think it's more mental or physical (or both)?

when i was watching his last match against murray, he seemed very uncomfortable at maintaining long rallies. I remember Fed as someone who excelled at those and took over the points.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 12:51 AM
I dont know about others but I do believe Fed is half a step slower.Roger has always had an excellent transition game and a game that thrives on timing.When you're slow that timing gets affected.Plus,I also believe players have tried very hard to match Roger's standards and some of them have been very successful.So to me its a case of both Roger's level going down and some other players raising their level.Roger's errors,double faults have significantly increased throughout the course of a tounament and his backhand is more a liability now than it was a couple of years back to players like Nadal and Murray.

TheNatural
03-26-2009, 02:29 AM
The difference is the competition is better.The improved Nadal of the last year of 2 is Fed's biggest challenge ever. That level of Nadal wasnt around in 2004 or 2005 and in 2007 Nadal busted his knee tendon when he was about to win Wimbledon and carried that knee tendon injury into the US open playing on 1 leg.The 08 US open was a gift from Nadal due to sacrificing the US Open by Winning the Olympics. Fed hasn't improved much relative to the fast improving competition in the last few years.

Sony Ericsson Open: Is Roger Federer's reign over for good? (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/tennis/sfl-roger-federer-sony-2009,0,624576.story)


When Roger Federer couldn't get through his postmatch speech at the Australian Open without crying, it was as if he realized he would never wrest his crown from nemesis Rafael Nadal.

While Federer would never admit it, history shows that once a player falls from the top of the tennis mountain, he rarely climbs back to the pinnacle.

Hall of Famer Ivan Lendl is the only player in men's tennis since the Open era began in 1967 to have two separate reigns as a year-ending No. 1, from 1985-87 and then again in '89 after Mats Wilander passed him by in '88.

Can Federer, who ruled the roost from 2004-07, get back to No. 1, or would he rather save his energy for Grand Slams so he can catch and pass Pete Sampras' record of 14 majors?

"I beat Mats in the U.S. Open final, and then he won three majors the next year," Lendl said. "My situation was better than Roger's because once Mats reached number one he sort of achieved his goal and had trouble getting motivated. I got my body back in order and had one more good year after that.

"Roger may be facing the best player in tennis history. He's an incredible athlete, and we'll see if he can keep it up.

"Everyone has different goals. Mats' was to be No. 1 and mine was to win majors, and if you do that the No. 1 rank takes care of itself. I would've gladly given up those weeks at the top in '89 to win nine majors instead of eight, and I wouldn't have cared which one."

During Federer's 237 weeks on top his only real challenge came from a blossoming Nadal, but that was usually on the red clay of Roland Garros, where the Spaniard has won the past four French Opens, including the last three over Federer in the final.

At least Federer could always depend on his dominance on the grass of Wimbledon - until last July when Nadal ended his five-year run in an epic final.

Earlier this year, Nadal won major No. 6 after outlasting Federer in another five-set final on the hard courts at the Australian Open.

Federer is 6-13 against Nadal, including five straight losses on three surfaces. At the Sony Ericsson Open, which begins today, they have split two meetings, with Federer winning the 2005 final.

"He's the greatest challenger I've ever had," Federer told the Los Angeles Times. "I am really motivated because I don't know how much better he can play. I don't know how much better I can play, but I am right there.

"I'm going to hang onto No. 2 and hope to find a way to get back to No. 1."

That doesn't sound like a concession speech, but tennis coach Brad Gilbert believes Federer's window of dominance has closed, while the 22-year-old Nadal has just begun to roar.

"I'll never count the guy out. He's an amazing talent, but I don't think he could do the same things in 2009 that he did in 2004 and '05," said Gilbert, who directed both Andy Roddick and Andre Agassi to their only year-ending No. 1 perches in 2003 and 1999, respectively. "You can't be as dominant. It's too difficult with the top 15 way better now than it was in 2004.

"He'd much rather win two majors and finish No. 3 than win zero majors and be No. 1."

Federer's task of re-staking his top-dog status is made tougher with the depth of men's tennis that now includes several young challengers to the throne such as Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, who has beaten Federer four straight times since losing their U.S. Open final last September.

"It's not getting any easier because there's more guys putting their hands up now," said Aussie Lleyton Hewitt, who was No. 1 after the 2001 and '02 seasons before dropping to 17 in '03.

Hewitt said when he was on top for 75 straight weeks, he felt like he had a target on his back.

"It's an amazing achievement that takes a lot of hard work, dedication and sacrifice, and difficult to stay there because at every tournament, no matter how small or big, everybody wants to try to knock you off," Hewitt said. "Once Roger won his first Grand Slam he took the game to another level. I dropped back to [17] but did get back to [No. 3] but never No. 1. There was one guy stopping a lot of us."

Now, it's Nadal doing the stopping. Sampras, who enjoyed a record six-year reign on top from 1993-98 but never got closer than No. 3 after that, believes that Nadal is in Federer's head.

"If I was Roger, I'd try to come in a little bit more," Sampras told ESPN.com. "Particularly when guys stay so far back. If you don't win these points, at least put something in his head. It's rough to see Nadal taking charge of these rallies and hitting ball after ball to Roger's backhand.

"[Nadal] plays every point like it's his last point. ... And now he's got the fear factor."

Jimmy Arias, who was ranked sixth in 1983, thinks that Federer can still overtake Nadal but agrees that he must tweak his game plan.

"One of the reasons it's so hard to keep that No. 1 ranking is it takes such a toll," Arias said. "When finally it isn't yours any longer it's hard to get the fire back. ... But the fact that Roger is still No. 2 it's more feasible to get back because he just has to figure out how to beat just one guy."

Easier said than done.

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 03:11 AM
The difference is the competition is better.The improved Nadal of the last year of 2 is Fed's biggest challenge ever. That level of Nadal wasnt around in 2004 or 2005 and in 2007 Nadal busted his knee tendon when he was about to win Wimbledon and carried that knee tendon injury into the US open playing on 1 leg.The 08 US open was a gift from Nadal due to sacrificing the US Open by Winning the Olympics. Fed hasn't improved much relative to the fast improving competition in the last few years.

Sony Ericsson Open: Is Roger Federer's reign over for good? (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/tennis/sfl-roger-federer-sony-2009,0,624576.story)


When Roger Federer couldn't get through his postmatch speech at the Australian Open without crying, it was as if he realized he would never wrest his crown from nemesis Rafael Nadal.

While Federer would never admit it, history shows that once a player falls from the top of the tennis mountain, he rarely climbs back to the pinnacle.

Hall of Famer Ivan Lendl is the only player in men's tennis since the Open era began in 1967 to have two separate reigns as a year-ending No. 1, from 1985-87 and then again in '89 after Mats Wilander passed him by in '88.

Can Federer, who ruled the roost from 2004-07, get back to No. 1, or would he rather save his energy for Grand Slams so he can catch and pass Pete Sampras' record of 14 majors?

"I beat Mats in the U.S. Open final, and then he won three majors the next year," Lendl said. "My situation was better than Roger's because once Mats reached number one he sort of achieved his goal and had trouble getting motivated. I got my body back in order and had one more good year after that.

"Roger may be facing the best player in tennis history. He's an incredible athlete, and we'll see if he can keep it up.

"Everyone has different goals. Mats' was to be No. 1 and mine was to win majors, and if you do that the No. 1 rank takes care of itself. I would've gladly given up those weeks at the top in '89 to win nine majors instead of eight, and I wouldn't have cared which one."

During Federer's 237 weeks on top his only real challenge came from a blossoming Nadal, but that was usually on the red clay of Roland Garros, where the Spaniard has won the past four French Opens, including the last three over Federer in the final.

At least Federer could always depend on his dominance on the grass of Wimbledon - until last July when Nadal ended his five-year run in an epic final.

Earlier this year, Nadal won major No. 6 after outlasting Federer in another five-set final on the hard courts at the Australian Open.

Federer is 6-13 against Nadal, including five straight losses on three surfaces. At the Sony Ericsson Open, which begins today, they have split two meetings, with Federer winning the 2005 final.

"He's the greatest challenger I've ever had," Federer told the Los Angeles Times. "I am really motivated because I don't know how much better he can play. I don't know how much better I can play, but I am right there.

"I'm going to hang onto No. 2 and hope to find a way to get back to No. 1."

That doesn't sound like a concession speech, but tennis coach Brad Gilbert believes Federer's window of dominance has closed, while the 22-year-old Nadal has just begun to roar.

"I'll never count the guy out. He's an amazing talent, but I don't think he could do the same things in 2009 that he did in 2004 and '05," said Gilbert, who directed both Andy Roddick and Andre Agassi to their only year-ending No. 1 perches in 2003 and 1999, respectively. "You can't be as dominant. It's too difficult with the top 15 way better now than it was in 2004.

"He'd much rather win two majors and finish No. 3 than win zero majors and be No. 1."

Federer's task of re-staking his top-dog status is made tougher with the depth of men's tennis that now includes several young challengers to the throne such as Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, who has beaten Federer four straight times since losing their U.S. Open final last September.

"It's not getting any easier because there's more guys putting their hands up now," said Aussie Lleyton Hewitt, who was No. 1 after the 2001 and '02 seasons before dropping to 17 in '03.

Hewitt said when he was on top for 75 straight weeks, he felt like he had a target on his back.

"It's an amazing achievement that takes a lot of hard work, dedication and sacrifice, and difficult to stay there because at every tournament, no matter how small or big, everybody wants to try to knock you off," Hewitt said. "Once Roger won his first Grand Slam he took the game to another level. I dropped back to [17] but did get back to [No. 3] but never No. 1. There was one guy stopping a lot of us."

Now, it's Nadal doing the stopping. Sampras, who enjoyed a record six-year reign on top from 1993-98 but never got closer than No. 3 after that, believes that Nadal is in Federer's head.

"If I was Roger, I'd try to come in a little bit more," Sampras told ESPN.com. "Particularly when guys stay so far back. If you don't win these points, at least put something in his head. It's rough to see Nadal taking charge of these rallies and hitting ball after ball to Roger's backhand.

"[Nadal] plays every point like it's his last point. ... And now he's got the fear factor."

Jimmy Arias, who was ranked sixth in 1983, thinks that Federer can still overtake Nadal but agrees that he must tweak his game plan.

"One of the reasons it's so hard to keep that No. 1 ranking is it takes such a toll," Arias said. "When finally it isn't yours any longer it's hard to get the fire back. ... But the fact that Roger is still No. 2 it's more feasible to get back because he just has to figure out how to beat just one guy."

Easier said than done.

I think he has to beat more than one guy. Murray, Simon, and Djoker will be back. Not to mention the up and comers.

TheNatural
03-26-2009, 03:29 AM
I know, as Gilbert says the top 15 is way better than in 2004/5 when Fed was dominating v Roddick and Hewitt. Hewitt says the same thing. Nadal is just the best example to use for the improved competition.

If the Top 15 was at the same level now as in 2004/5 Fed would still be winning as much now.

I think he has to beat more than one guy. Murray, Simon, and Djoker will be back. Not to mention the up and comers.

Tempest344
03-26-2009, 03:32 AM
Federer of 2-3 years ago has the edge probably..bit younger I think

punchdrunker
03-26-2009, 03:50 AM
haaha yeah I agree Federer was younger 2-3 years ago but most of his demise is because instead of winning Wimbledon and the Australian Open he has to lose them because Rafa has developed his grass and hardcourt game. So Rafa is the reason more than Federer being older, plus you can see how much Rafa broke Federer's spirit when you see Federer in the trophy ceremonies and that leads to a loss of confidence and sudden self-doubt which leads to Federer losing to guys who aren't even in the top 5.

GasquetGOAT
03-26-2009, 03:52 AM
Federer now is older then Federer of 2-3 years ago.

He's not as fast as the younger guys anymore.

henryshli
03-26-2009, 05:23 AM
People always assume the current players are better. What justification have they got? None. The competition looked weak when Federer dominated was because Federer made them look weak. Who knows what the likes of Hewitt, Safin and Roddick would have achieved if Fed wasn't around? Is Murray now better than Safin when he was at his peak??

I don't Fed has physically deteriorated at all, why would he be slower? Because he is 27? Most sprinters don't peak until they are late twenties or even early thirties. However he would find it harder to keep focus for an entire match.

I think he has definately lost a lot of the hunger and intensity. Whereas he would've played his socks off to win a Master Series event a few years back I don't think he would do the same anymore unless it is a Slam. He has only RG and Pete's record in his mind now IMO. He is not even playing in Monte Carlo.

P_Agony
03-26-2009, 05:31 AM
Federer was lucky to recieve the US Open as a gift from Nadal? Huh? you *******s are unbelievable.

KerryJ
03-26-2009, 05:35 AM
Watch some video on youtube with the title

"2005 USO Highlights Federer Agassi"

You'll see him at his best. He's just swinging full force at everything. It seems he's trying to set points up more out of fear for missing instead of just ending them

fantom
03-26-2009, 06:02 AM
Current Fed would get smoked by the younger Fed. Back then, he was a few steps faster and MUCH more consistent. Not to mention he was hitting winners at will. He was a totally different player back then.

AprilFool
03-26-2009, 06:17 AM
One could ask whether or not Roger would be winning Master events again if they went back to being best of five.
The fact remains that when playing in a best of five tourney, Roger wins 99.99999 per cent of the games.

dincuss
03-26-2009, 06:29 AM
"If I was Roger, I'd try to come in a little bit more," Sampras told ESPN.com.

That kinda made me laugh. I thinks its kinda funny how Sampras is "coaching" Federer based on his game. Well then again his game won so many titles....

But anyways this is a very good article

Bottle Rocket
03-26-2009, 06:35 AM
do you guys think it's more mental or physical (or both)?


I think it is purely mental.

I don't have time to go into a long post, but I want to mention something specific about his current play. If you watch some of his most recent matches, he misses an unbelievable amount of routine shots. I am not just talking about routine shots for Federer, but routine shots for someone of significantly less skill and talent. He is missing routine forehands from the middle of the court, often by more than a few feet. He is just as often in control of the points, but he just doesn't win them like he is "supposed" to anymore.

What amazes me most about all this is that he's given Nadal more of a match than most other guys are capable of currently (other than Nalbandian?) and continues to reach the semi or final of nearly every event he plays. For the standard he set for himself, he is playing like complete crap. His continued "success" is testament to just how good he was and how good I think he can still be. For anyone that doesn't think he is playing like crap, even against the lower ranked guys, just look at his match stats.

Finally, I don't think he has lost a step. I think this perception that he's lost speed is all about his confidence and his mental "issues". I've seen players at all levels look slower when they lose some confidence. The footwork goes, the speed goes, and you just tend to see them "quit" when it comes to running down more balls. I think it is all related. The players potential for movement, speed, etc..., doesn't decrease. They just can't play their best anymore. Just as Federer misses shots now that he used to routinely hit under pressure, I think his movement is a similar story, they both come and go together. It is all related and all caused by the same thing.

As far as the guys that want to believe he is focusing purely on the Slams now, that worries me. His showing in that 5th set at the Australian Open worries me. For any player in the final of the slam, especially one of the greatest of all time, I would call that a huge mental collapse. Pretty scary if that's all he's got for the slams.

VictorS.
03-26-2009, 06:41 AM
Federer created such a standard for himself that will very difficult for him to match at this stage. Has he lost a step? He certainly doesn't look much slower on the court however he does seem to make more errors than in the past. That could be quickness or it could just be timing & practice.

Sampras in the later part of his career had to answer to such criticism. However he'd always win Wimbledon & shut everybody up. I think this year's Wimbledon will be crucial. If he somehow wins it, I think he goes & wins 4 or more grand slams. If he loses, it'll only get tougher for him.

VictorS.
03-26-2009, 06:43 AM
I think it is purely mental.

I don't have time to go into a long post, but I want to mention something specific about his current play. If you watch some of his most recent matches, he misses an unbelievable amount of routine shots. I am not just talking about routine shots for Federer, but routine shots for someone of significantly less skill and talent. He is missing routine forehands from the middle of the court, often by a few feet. He is just as often in control of the points, but he just doesn't win them like he is "supposed" to anymore.

What amazes me most about all this is that he's given Nadal more of a match than most other guys are capable of currently (other than Nalbandian?) and continues to reach the semi or final of nearly every event he plays. For the standard he set for himself, he is playing like complete crap. His continued "success" is testament to just how good he was and how good I think he can still be. For anyone that doesn't think he is playing like crap, even against the guys outside of the top 5 or top 10, just look at his match stats.

Finally, I don't think he has lost a step. I think this perception that he's lost speed is all about his confidence and his mental "issues". I've seen players at all levels look slower when they lose some confidence. The footwork goes, the speed goes, and you just tend to see them just "quit" when it comes to running down more balls. I think it is all related. The players potential for movement, speed, etc..., doesn't decrease. They just can't play their best. Just as Federer misses shots now that he used to routinely hit under pressure, I think his movement is a similar story. It is all related and all caused by the same thing.

As far as the guys that want to believe he is focusing purely on the Slams now, that worries me. His showing in that 5th set at the Australian Open worries me. For any player in the final of the slam, especially one of the greatest of all time, I would call that a huge mental collapse. Pretty scary if that's all he's got for the slams.

Great post. I agree with you completely. I think people forget how good Federer looked at times at the Wimbledon final. He definitely needs a more aggressive mindset vs. Nadal.

fantom
03-26-2009, 06:57 AM
I think it is purely mental.

I don't have time to go into a long post, but I want to mention something specific about his current play. If you watch some of his most recent matches, he misses an unbelievable amount of routine shots. I am not just talking about routine shots for Federer, but routine shots for someone of significantly less skill and talent. He is missing routine forehands from the middle of the court, often by a few feet. He is just as often in control of the points, but he just doesn't win them like he is "supposed" to anymore.

What amazes me most about all this is that he's given Nadal more of a match than most other guys are capable of currently (other than Nalbandian?) and continues to reach the semi or final of nearly every event he plays. For the standard he set for himself, he is playing like complete crap. His continued "success" is testament to just how good he was and how good I think he can still be. For anyone that doesn't think he is playing like crap, even against the guys outside of the top 5 or top 10, just look at his match stats.

Finally, I don't think he has lost a step. I think this perception that he's lost speed is all about his confidence and his mental "issues". I've seen players at all levels look slower when they lose some confidence. The footwork goes, the speed goes, and you just tend to see them just "quit" when it comes to running down more balls. I think it is all related. The players potential for movement, speed, etc..., doesn't decrease. They just can't play their best. Just as Federer misses shots now that he used to routinely hit under pressure, I think his movement is a similar story. It is all related and all caused by the same thing.

As far as the guys that want to believe he is focusing purely on the Slams now, that worries me. His showing in that 5th set at the Australian Open worries me. For any player in the final of the slam, especially one of the greatest of all time, I would call that a huge mental collapse. Pretty scary if that's all he's got for the slams.

Excellent post! Last year's US Open final was the first time in a long time where he looked close to his old self.

Puma
03-26-2009, 07:03 AM
I think it is purely mental.

I don't have time to go into a long post, but I want to mention something specific about his current play. If you watch some of his most recent matches, he misses an unbelievable amount of routine shots. I am not just talking about routine shots for Federer, but routine shots for someone of significantly less skill and talent. He is missing routine forehands from the middle of the court, often by a few feet. He is just as often in control of the points, but he just doesn't win them like he is "supposed" to anymore.

What amazes me most about all this is that he's given Nadal more of a match than most other guys are capable of currently (other than Nalbandian?) and continues to reach the semi or final of nearly every event he plays. For the standard he set for himself, he is playing like complete crap. His continued "success" is testament to just how good he was and how good I think he can still be. For anyone that doesn't think he is playing like crap, even against the guys outside of the top 5 or top 10, just look at his match stats.

Finally, I don't think he has lost a step. I think this perception that he's lost speed is all about his confidence and his mental "issues". I've seen players at all levels look slower when they lose some confidence. The footwork goes, the speed goes, and you just tend to see them just "quit" when it comes to running down more balls. I think it is all related. The players potential for movement, speed, etc..., doesn't decrease. They just can't play their best. Just as Federer misses shots now that he used to routinely hit under pressure, I think his movement is a similar story. It is all related and all caused by the same thing.

As far as the guys that want to believe he is focusing purely on the Slams now, that worries me. His showing in that 5th set at the Australian Open worries me. For any player in the final of the slam, especially one of the greatest of all time, I would call that a huge mental collapse. Pretty scary if that's all he's got for the slams.

I agree 100%.

Also, I think his intensity level goes up and down more often than it used to . He has had the opportunity lately to beat someone 2&1, but somehow he mananges a 2&6 with a scratchy tie break to squeek through. I blame this on intensity. Once the intensity goes down so does his "routine" shots. And I agree totally about the routine shot misses as well as routine backhand volley misses. He chops down on those backhand volleys.

I also think Fed has always been a flashy player. He likes the flashy shots, the crowd pleasers etc. He tends to take a lot of chances with them from time to time. And, he makes many as well. Once he gets under pressure thought his percentage of success with this goes way down too. This is another reason why I think he needs a coach. I think Fed beleives he can make those shots. But, Fed needs to know he doesn't have to make those shots to win. He needs to make the routine shots to win, at least against someone like Nadal who is stingy with points and aint scared. Fed just cannot afford giving up those points.

vtmike
03-26-2009, 07:04 AM
I think it is purely mental.

I don't have time to go into a long post, but I want to mention something specific about his current play. If you watch some of his most recent matches, he misses an unbelievable amount of routine shots. I am not just talking about routine shots for Federer, but routine shots for someone of significantly less skill and talent. He is missing routine forehands from the middle of the court, often by a few feet. He is just as often in control of the points, but he just doesn't win them like he is "supposed" to anymore.

What amazes me most about all this is that he's given Nadal more of a match than most other guys are capable of currently (other than Nalbandian?) and continues to reach the semi or final of nearly every event he plays. For the standard he set for himself, he is playing like complete crap. His continued "success" is testament to just how good he was and how good I think he can still be. For anyone that doesn't think he is playing like crap, even against the guys outside of the top 5 or top 10, just look at his match stats.

Finally, I don't think he has lost a step. I think this perception that he's lost speed is all about his confidence and his mental "issues". I've seen players at all levels look slower when they lose some confidence. The footwork goes, the speed goes, and you just tend to see them just "quit" when it comes to running down more balls. I think it is all related. The players potential for movement, speed, etc..., doesn't decrease. They just can't play their best. Just as Federer misses shots now that he used to routinely hit under pressure, I think his movement is a similar story. It is all related and all caused by the same thing.

As far as the guys that want to believe he is focusing purely on the Slams now, that worries me. His showing in that 5th set at the Australian Open worries me. For any player in the final of the slam, especially one of the greatest of all time, I would call that a huge mental collapse. Pretty scary if that's all he's got for the slams.

Very nice post!

cknobman
03-26-2009, 07:05 AM
For Roger its age, mental, and lack of wanting to adapt.

For those saying top 15 is so much more competitive than before......very shortsighted.
Lets see how long has Nadal been in top 15?
Roddicks been there since what 01 or 02?
Tsonga - injury prone and streaky
Davydenko - no diamond among the rough
Del Potro - only strong on hc and totally folds against top 10 opponents.
Djoker - good competition but not leagues above anyone from 04-05, really he cant even beat Roddick consistently
Murray - just now coming into his own but still has yet to prove he can win the big matches
Simon - hmmm reminds me of Hewitt so no go there
Nalbandian - streaky and hes been there for a while

Really saying that Nadals competition today is harder than Feds from 04-06 is just a blind stupid shortsighted comment that a fairweather fan type of person would make. It was only 3-4 for year ago for crying out loud!

Anyone who says Andy Murray today is tougher than Marat Safin 04-05 is smoking some good dope. Sure Safin didnt stay on top but it goes hand in hand with Lendls comments on Wilander and his motivations. Safin reached his goals and lost motivation after that.

Personally I dont see Fed getting back to no 1 but I see him hanging around the top 4 for a few more years maybe pulling in 2 or 3 more grand slams total.

plain jane
03-26-2009, 07:12 AM
I think he does seem slower in getting into the right position to hit his shots. Federer of 2-3 years ago was just unbelievable. He really did amaze me with what he could do with a racket. Today when i watch him play i dont get that same feeling. The only thing boring about watchin federer matches back then was that the outcome was VERY predictable (especially in the early rounds of tournaments). I think his level has dropped a bit and he is not mentally as strong as he was when he was No 1.

Tennis_Maestro
03-26-2009, 07:22 AM
- He is a tiny bit slower.

- His reading of the game has slightly diminished, for whatever purposes i don't know, but he is now a bit to rash with knowing when to attack.

- Admittedly 2/3 opponents are a stronger now a days. (Nadal's improved and there's the additions of Murray and Djokovic.

- His backhand has become as inconsistent as player's ranked outside the top 40.

- He has a few psycological scares after not beating Bjorg's 5 Wimbledon's in a row record.

carlos djackal
03-26-2009, 08:21 AM
What's the fundamental difference between federer now and then (when he was dominating)?

do you guys think it's more mental or physical (or both)?

when i was watching his last match against murray, he seemed very uncomfortable at maintaining long rallies. I remember Fed as someone who excelled at those and took over the points.





It is both actually, physically he looked a step slower and mentally he gets impatient during long rallies.....he will probably be owned by the fed 3 yrs ago..

Jimmyk459
03-26-2009, 08:35 AM
Confidence... the difference is confidence... simple as that.

I truly believe that when fed lost his fear factor against opponents (somewhere around the time of the australian open with tipsarevic) his downward spiral of confidence vs their belief that they can beat him really messed with his game plan.

Federer should just go for crazy winners during an early round and try to get some confidence back... screw coming in... it only works against people outside of the top ten... that is a DEAD tactic... it really does not work anymore... try to prove me wrong... i dare you

with love,

-Jimmy

Jchurch
03-26-2009, 08:40 AM
I do think that he has lost a little agility on the court. The other thing is that his serves don't seem to be as damaging anymore. Especially his second serve. I also don't think his volleys are quite as crisp and accurate as they use to be.

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 08:42 AM
What's the fundamental difference between federer now and then (when he was dominating)?

do you guys think it's more mental or physical (or both)?

when i was watching his last match against murray, he seemed very uncomfortable at maintaining long rallies. I remember Fed as someone who excelled at those and took over the points.

Nadal almost beat Federer at wimbledon 2 years ago.


Rafa was not ready at the time.....He now has come into his own.

thejoe
03-26-2009, 09:07 AM
^If you think Rafa "should" have won that match, then you need to watch it again. Federer dealt with an rampant 4th set Rafa with incredible serving under pressure, and great mental strength. Two things he hasn't had since.

VictorS.
03-26-2009, 09:18 AM
There's only one thing for Roger to do: that's hit the gym hard. And I'll tell you why...

First of all, I'm sure Federer works his butt off. I'm sure he puts in hours upon hours on the practice court. And I'm sure he even gets in his off-court training work as well. But I think Federer would be well-served to undertake a hardcore weight training program, a la Andre Agassi. Everyone on this board is speculating what is causing Federer's struggles: confidence, decreased athleticism, stamina, etc. Weight training cures all these ills. Anyone remember how confident Agassi was in his late 20s? The guy would look for any excuse to take his shirt off on a changeover. You could see it in his eyes when he was on the practice courts shirtless. He knew he was more fit than anybody out there. And Agassi admits that he played his best tennis when he was 29. You look at all the top players that played better in their late 20s (Lendl, Agassi, & even the rejuvenated Sampras)...there's one common theme: hard work off-court.

If I were Federer I'm looking for the best: Gil Reyes, Etcheberry....someone along those lines.

RoddickAce
03-26-2009, 09:20 AM
Fundamental differences: Harder, better placed serve; hits slightly harder on the forehand; less consistent on both wings; more tentative on the backhand; slower.

veroniquem
03-26-2009, 09:29 AM
He's older (a tad slower, less accurate= more UES), less confident (less clutch, particularly on the serve- maybe also due to back issues- and less consistent during a match) and refuses to evolve and tinker with his game when needed (backhand issue for instance).

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 09:40 AM
^If you think Rafa "should" have won that match, then you need to watch it again. Federer dealt with an rampant 4th set Rafa with incredible serving under pressure, and great mental strength. Two things he hasn't had since.


"Nadal was a bit unlucky not to win wimbledon the wimbledon final and he will win in 2008" BJORN BORG .

Watch it for yourself:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1481202/bjorn_borg_rafa_nadal_is_gonna_win_wimbledon_2008/

mandy01
03-26-2009, 10:15 AM
"Nadal was a bit unlucky not to win wimbledon the wimbledon final and he will win in 2008" BJORN BORG .

Watch it for yourself:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1481202/bjorn_borg_rafa_nadal_is_gonna_win_wimbledon_2008/
lool..did you know that Borg also stated last year after Roger won the USO that he would get back the no 1 ranking?That Rafa had played great the last few months but for him Roger was the best ?

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 10:20 AM
lool..did you know that Borg also stated last year after Roger won the USO that he would get back the no 1 ranking?That Rafa had played great the last few months but for him Roger was the best ?

ummmm....are you really trying to discredit Bjorn Borg?



.

ShcMad
03-26-2009, 10:33 AM
Did anyone notice that the current Federer doesn't take his forehand nearly as back or as high as the Federer of 2004-2005?

I'm sure players' techniques change a bit as time goes by, but I can't help but notice that Federer's forehand has been looking differently ever since ~2007.

5263
03-26-2009, 10:34 AM
ummmm....are you really trying to discredit Bjorn Borg?
.

Let's not get to excited about what Borg has to say. I don't have a bad thing to say about his tennis, but I can suggest to you from first hand experience, he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Like many greats, he is an incredible athlete, and tends to be quite obsessive, which can help with winning. Winning doesn't make you smart, but I guess it make you look smart. Remember his great idea to come back with the small racket head??

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 10:36 AM
Let's not get to excited about what Borg has to say. I don't have a bad thing to say about his tennis, but I can suggest to you from first hand experience, he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Like many greats, he is an incredible athlete, and tends to be quite obsessive, which can help with winning. Winning doesn't make you smart, but I guess it make you look smart. Remember his great idea to come back with the small racket head??

So you think that posters here know more than Bjorn Borg about whether Wimbledon 2007 was a close match?

didnt Wimbledon 2007 go five sets? Was Bjorn Borg wrong about that?

.

vtmike
03-26-2009, 10:42 AM
So you think that posters here know more than Bjorn Borg about whether Wimbledon 2007 was a close match?

didnt Wimbledon 2007 go five sets? Was Bjorn Borg wrong about that?

.

Just because he is a player doesn't mean he is always right...He has also predicted Fed to win the 2008 FO but we all know what happened there!

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 10:46 AM
Just because he is a player doesn't mean he is always right...He has also predicted Fed to win the 2008 FO but we all know what happened there!

But all he said was that he thought that the 2007 wimbledon final was close and it could have gone either way. Isnt he qualified to analyze the strokes and the points ?

This was not about a prediction....besides I do not believe Borg ever predicted Fed to win the 2008 FO....and even if he did......that very different than merely saying he thought that the five set wimbledon 2007 final was close. Dont you agree?

fednad
03-26-2009, 10:51 AM
Nadal almost beat Federer at wimbledon 2 years ago.


Rafa was not ready at the time.....He now has come into his own.

King of trolls, this thread is about Fed (today) and Fed (3 years back).
Stop wetting your pants by dragging your hero and his heroics in discussion

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 11:02 AM
King of trolls, this thread is about Fed (today) and Fed (3 years back).
Stop wetting your pants by dragging your hero and his heroics in discussion

I believe the title of the thread is :

"Federer now vs Federer of 2-3 years ago? "

Please note the #2.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 11:04 AM
ummmm....are you really trying to discredit Bjorn Borg?



. not really..just because you slapped one quote of his to discredit Roger's wimbledon victory in 2007 I slapped some different words of his...simple.

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 11:06 AM
not really..just because you slapped one quote of his to discredit Roger's wimbledon victory in 2007 I slapped some different words of his...simple.

How did Borg try and discredit Federer? All Borg said was that the Wimbledon final was a close match. What is wrong with that?

mandy01
03-26-2009, 11:10 AM
How did Borg try and discredit Federer? All Borg said was that the Wimbledon final was a close match. What is wrong with that?
No you are trying to do that by finding a quote ....and again trying to tell us what hero your boy is..its about Federer 'game' overall in these two years not how many sets he went to in 1 match

grafselesfan
03-26-2009, 11:11 AM
I think Federer's best tennis was from 2004-2006. 2007 was a visible decline despite that he still dominated with 3 slams. Last year was a further decline. This year it is hard to say as he is playing better than he was early in 2008 thus far, but no as well as he had been later 2008. All in all though he has gotten progressively worse since 2006. This really looks bad on him to some extent as a truly great player such as him shouldnt have just a 3 or 4 year prime.

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 11:12 AM
Confidence... the difference is confidence... simple as that.

I truly believe that when fed lost his fear factor against opponents (somewhere around the time of the australian open with tipsarevic) his downward spiral of confidence vs their belief that they can beat him really messed with his game plan.

Federer should just go for crazy winners during an early round and try to get some confidence back... screw coming in... it only works against people outside of the top ten... that is a DEAD tactic... it really does not work anymore... try to prove me wrong... i dare you

with love,

-Jimmy

Good post. I think this is spot on. At the time Tipsarevic talked about being in the locker room when Fed played Canas or Volandri, I think it was, he said he expected the opponent to wilt after a certain point. But the guy didn't. He said the guy kept competing and it threw Fed off. After that he decided when he was going to face Federer he would do the same thing. He almost pulled it off too.

That match was pivotal.

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 11:12 AM
No you are trying to do that by finding a quote out of nowhere without the context.

do you think the 2007 wimbledon match between federer and Nadal was close match?

mandy01
03-26-2009, 11:14 AM
do you think the 2007 wimbledon match between federer and Nadal was close match?
yes, but not the final set...Roger had the clutch.He held nerve when he needed to.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 11:16 AM
Good post. I think this is spot on. At the time Tipsarevic talked about being in the locker room when Fed played Canas or Volandri, I think it was, he said he expected the opponent to wilt after a certain point. But the guy didn't. He said the guy kept competing and it threw Fed off. After that he decided when he was going to face Federer he would do the same thing. He almost pulled it off too.

That match was pivotal. Yes,I would agree to that.Tipsarevic did not win but he was as good or even better in that match.

thejoe
03-26-2009, 11:28 AM
yes, but not the final set...Roger had the clutch.He held nerve when he needed to.

Bingo. That is where this troll goes wrong. He probably didn't watch the match...

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 11:34 AM
Wasn't 2007 the year where Rafa played all those days in a row and got injured during the match? I hope I'm not getting my years wrong.

vtmike
03-26-2009, 11:34 AM
"Nadal was a bit unlucky not to win wimbledon the wimbledon final and he will win in 2008" BJORN BORG .

Watch it for yourself:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1481202/bjorn_borg_rafa_nadal_is_gonna_win_wimbledon_2008/


But all he said was that he thought that the 2007 wimbledon final was close and it could have gone either way. Isnt he qualified to analyze the strokes and the points ?

This was not about a prediction....besides I do not believe Borg ever predicted Fed to win the 2008 FO....and even if he did......that very different than merely saying he thought that the five set wimbledon 2007 final was close. Dont you agree?

I never said he isn't qualified to analyze points...all I said is that his predictions might not always be right...2007 wimbledon final was a close match but not as close as the 2008 wimbledon final which IMO was much more close!

2007 wimbledon was more like 2009 AO final...whereas the 2008 wimbly final couldve gone either way...a few shots here & there and Fed would still be wim champ

sheq
03-26-2009, 11:47 AM
Watch some video on youtube with the title

"2005 USO Highlights Federer Agassi"

You'll see him at his best. He's just swinging full force at everything. It seems he's trying to set points up more out of fear for missing instead of just ending them

agree this match shows how roger was playing during his reign..

if he were like that in these days ı bet he would be no1 anyway..

this roger or let me say this appereance of a tennis player ı say just the best this is the best game that we have ever seen..

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 11:49 AM
yes, .


2007 wimbledon final was a close match



Ok then we agree. the 2007 match was a close match.

Now correct me if Im wrong but isnt the Nadal Federer head to head 13-6 in Nadals favir dating all the way back to when Nadal first came on the scene?

veroniquem
03-26-2009, 11:50 AM
yes, but not the final set...Roger had the clutch.He held nerve when he needed to.
The 5th set had nothing to do with Federer being clutch, it had to do with Nadal being hurt and not being able to move properly.

abmk
03-26-2009, 11:54 AM
The 5th set had nothing to do with Federer being clutch, it had to do with Nadal being hurt and not being able to move properly.

Again, *******ism at its best .....:)

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 11:55 AM
The 5th set had nothing to do with Federer being clutch, it had to do with Nadal being hurt and not being able to move properly.

Borg felt that Nadal was a bit unlucky not to win the fifth set. Nadal had a few chances to break Federers serve in the fith set and had he done that Nadal may have won the match. At least that what Borg thinks:


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1481202/bjorn_borg_rafa_nadal_is_gonna_win_wimbledon_2008/

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 11:56 AM
The 5th set had nothing to do with Federer being clutch, it had to do with Nadal being hurt and not being able to move properly.

Absolutely. I don't see how people can think otherwise.

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 11:58 AM
Borg felt that Nadal was a bit unlucky not to win the fifth set. Nadal had a few chances to break Federers serve in the fith set and had he done that Nadal may have won the match. At least that what Borg thinks:

But, there were also circumstances to that injury too. The scheduling? With the way they jerked Rafa and Djoker around during that fortnight it was a wonder it got to a fifth set.

I think that's when I began to like Djoker, because I felt they disadvantaged him too.

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 12:03 PM
Again, *******ism at its best .....:)

hmmm......I looked in the dictionary...couldnt find *******ism...did find these though:


*******:
~noun
1. According to a *******, any poster that says good things about Rafael Nadal.

Mono:
~noun
1. Disease that allows Roger Federer to win sometimes, and to “not to lose” the rest of the time. When Roger wins, Roger wins. When Roger loses, mono didn’t allow him to win.
.

thejoe
03-26-2009, 12:05 PM
The 5th set had nothing to do with Federer being clutch, it had to do with Nadal being hurt and not being able to move properly.

That is bull. I just watched the match again last week. Nadal was moving fine. The only problem was his serve, and it was a minor problem at that. It had everything to do with Federer being clutch. How would Nadal's movement have stopped all those aces? If you had any hint of objectivity, you would not be spouting this nonsense.

abmk
03-26-2009, 12:09 PM
Absolutely. I don't see how people can think otherwise.

I do, they don't see through "nadalized" rose-coloured glasses :)

grafselesfan
03-26-2009, 12:17 PM
The 5th set had nothing to do with Federer being clutch, it had to do with Nadal being hurt and not being able to move properly.

I like Nadal more than Federer but I would have to disagree there. I remember the 5th set of that amazing match well. Federer just both outtoughed (for once) and outplayed Nadal in that decisive set. On break points Nadal squandered some with some errant shots. Federer on break points hit winners and played great points. He just played the bigger points better, produced the winners when he needed to, Nadal did not do these things in the 5th set, and Federer won.

vtmike
03-26-2009, 12:18 PM
The 5th set had nothing to do with Federer being clutch, it had to do with Nadal being hurt and not being able to move properly.

Yeah Fed was just playing pathetic as usual...If Nadal was not injured he would've won wimbledon, AO & USO that year easily without loosing a set!!

Nadal was injured for the past two years but now that he is winning, I will say all his injuried have disapeared...Nadal would have had three calender slams if he was not injured!

tacou
03-26-2009, 12:19 PM
I don't understand this thread. obviously a player in his prime would defeat himself post-prime...

fednad
03-26-2009, 12:20 PM
I believe the title of the thread is :

"Federer now vs Federer of 2-3 years ago? "

Please note the #2.

Alright make it 2. Still the thread is about Fed or making it 2 years make it a Nadal thread. What a moron. I am sure you have given Nadal Freak a run for his money.

veroniquem
03-26-2009, 12:23 PM
That is bull. I just watched the match again last week. Nadal was moving fine. The only problem was his serve, and it was a minor problem at that. It had everything to do with Federer being clutch. How would Nadal's movement have stopped all those aces? If you had any hint of objectivity, you would not be spouting this nonsense.
Since when is serving a minor problem on grass? :shock: He couldn't serve well because of his leg (same as Rotterdam). That's definitely a major handicap for holding serve!! That being said I agree that Federer deserved this match and was still a little better than Nadal on grass in 2007. What I disagree with is that this match was proof of Fed's mental toughness because in this match Nadal wasn't able to maintain a high level until the end.

CocaCola
03-26-2009, 12:24 PM
Same thing, only now better competition destroyed him mentally...

grafselesfan
03-26-2009, 12:25 PM
Nadal never serves well. The serve is about as relevant a part of his game as the volley was to Agassi's, and the power backhand to Graf or Navratilova's.

abmk
03-26-2009, 12:31 PM
Nadal never serves well. The serve is about as relevant a part of his game as the volley was to Agassi's, and the power backhand to Graf or Navratilova's.

Disagree ...Nadal's serve on grass is VERY effective.. It was one of the main differences b/w his wimbledon 2007 and wimbledon 2008 performance. His serve wasn't a weapon in the 2007 finals, but it was in the 2008 finals .. And IMHO, he played better off the ground in 2007, but the improvement in his serve more than made up for it in 2008

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 12:38 PM
I do, they don't see through "nadalized" rose-coloured glasses :)

So, to you, scheduling, injury doesn't factor into the equation?

Even at AO 9, Rafa had that 5+ hour match that should have tipped things in Fed's favor. Although his movement was good, it was still compromised as Brad Gilbert said after the first set, but this time there was no injury and the end result was different.

Note: This is why I see it this way, but there's no need for you to be so snippy.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 12:47 PM
The 5th set had nothing to do with Federer being clutch, it had to do with Nadal being hurt and not being able to move properly.
Next time do not complain when a Fed fan says Roger had mono last year and his season got messed up because he missed so many days of training..Fed bombed aces on break points..if thats not called holding your nerve I dont know what its called.

abmk
03-26-2009, 12:48 PM
So, to you, scheduling, injury doesn't factor into the equation?

Even at AO 9, Rafa had that 5+ hour match that should have tipped things in Fed's favor. Although his movement was good, it was still compromised as Brad Gilbert said after the first set, but this time there was no injury and the end result was different.

Note: This is why I see it this way, but there's no need for you to be so snippy.

Right, because the mental frame of federer was the same in 2007 Wim F and AO 2009 F , so the situations are identical :roll:

In Wimbledon 2007, Nadal didn't even complete 3 sets in the SF cos Djokovic retired.

Fact is nadal was pretty fit in the finals , moving about like a rabbit, he played great AND was fine after that injury time-out too . He just got beat by a clutch federer .

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 12:52 PM
Alright make it 2. Still the thread is about Fed or making it 2 years make it a Nadal thread. What a moron. I am sure you have given Nadal Freak a run for his money.

wow...you admit you are wrong and then have the nerve in the very next sentence to call me a moron?

In any event.....I am not making this about Nadal.

The problem for Roger is that for his entire career Nadal will always be brought up.

I am afraid that there never can be a discussion of one without the other.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 12:52 PM
Right, because the mental frame of federer was the same in 2007 Wim F and AO 2009 F , so the situations are identical :roll:

In Wimbledon 2007, Nadal didn't even complete 3 sets in the SF cos Djokovic retired.

Fact is nadal was pretty fit in the finals , moving about like a rabbit, he played great AND was fine after that injury time-out too . He just got beat by a clutch federer .
Its amazing how,when nadal wins he's a beast....almost supernatural and when he loses he's a delicate flower..loool .I cannot believe how these people refuse to give credit where it is due.Nadal cannot lose by being outplayed,he can only lose if he's tired and injured .

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 12:54 PM
Right, because the mental frame of federer was the same in 2007 Wim F and AO 2009 F , so the situations are identical :roll:

In Wimbledon 2007, Nadal didn't even complete 3 sets in the SF cos Djokovic retired.

Fact is nadal was pretty fit in the finals , moving about like a rabbit, he played great AND was fine after that injury time-out too . He just got beat by a clutch federer .

Sorry, abmk. No situations are identical. Fed's mental frame was different. The scheduling was different. Both had another year of tennis in their body.

But, you didn't answer my question. Did you think the injury and schedule wasn't a factor?

Anyway we disagree, because the last thing I think Federer is is clutch. Never saw it during his career against a top player.

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 12:56 PM
Its amazing how,when nadal wins he's a beast....almost supernatural and when he loses he's a delicate flower..loool .I cannot believe how these people refuse to give credit where it is due.Nadal cannot lose by being outplayed,he can only lose if he's tired and injured .

absolutely not true. Nadal was outplayed many times...

Tsonga killed Nadal last year

Murray gave Nadal a beating at the 2008 USO

Federer beat Nadal at the 2006 Wimbledon

Federer also beat Nadal at the 2007 Wimbledon

Federer beat Nadal on clay in Munich (not five sets though).

There are a ton more......

On the other hand Federer has never been truly "beaten".

I'm actually surprised no one blamed a bad back on his loss to Murray. You guys disappointed me. I guess when you lose 6-0 not even a bad back is going to be an excuse.?

grafselesfan
03-26-2009, 12:57 PM
I really like your avatar King of Aces. :)

mandy01
03-26-2009, 12:59 PM
yep people conspire against Nadal and try to align the stars for a Fed victory...Great.Over to something thats related to the topic and has, for a change, nothing to do with what a lovely archangel Nadal is...

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 12:59 PM
I really like your avatar King of Aces. :)

awww...flattery will get you everywhere. ;)

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 01:00 PM
yep people conspire against Nadal and try to align the stars for a Fed victory...Great.Over to something thats related to the topic and has, for a change, nothing to do with what a lovely archangel Nadal is...

well at TW thats true.

But how can you discuss Federer without bringing up Nadal?

You have to admit its difficult. No?

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:03 PM
absolutely not true. Nadal was outplayed many times...

Tsonga killed Nadal last year

Murray gave Nadal a beating at the 2008 USO

Federer beat Nadal at the 2006 Wimbledon

Federer also beat Nadal at the 2007 Wimbledon

Federer beat Nadal on clay in Munich (not five sets though).

There are a ton more......

On the other hand Federer has never been truly "beaten".

I'm actually surprised no one blamed a bad back on his loss to Murray. You guys disappointed me. I guess when you lose 6-0 not even a bad back is going to be an excuse.?
Oh thats you saying it dude..I'll tell you the exuses I've heard.
Tsonga was just a Hot , in-form player!
Nadal was tired at the USO!!
Wimbledon 06-Just the kid's first Wimbledon final.He was nervous! poor thing!
Wimbledon 07-you just heard the excuses
Hamburg-Tired again!

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:05 PM
absolutely not true. Nadal was outplayed many times...

Tsonga killed Nadal last year

Murray gave Nadal a beating at the 2008 USO

Federer beat Nadal at the 2006 Wimbledon

Federer also beat Nadal at the 2007 Wimbledon

Federer beat Nadal on clay in Munich (not five sets though).

There are a ton more......

On the other hand Federer has never been truly "beaten".

I'm actually surprised no one blamed a bad back on his loss to Murray. You guys disappointed me. I guess when you lose 6-0 not even a bad back is going to be an excuse.?

I agree. Nadal does lose. Federer loses. Every top player loses, but sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that cannot be ignored for the sake of fanboyism.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:07 PM
well at TW thats true.

But how can you discuss Federer without bringing up Nadal?

You have to admit its difficult. No?
No its not difficult.You can talk of Nada,l Murray as opponents,but yes,Federer can very much be discussed without giving Nadal the centre stage.For that,you have to be a reasonable fan.

GameSampras
03-26-2009, 01:08 PM
Fed now vs. 2-3 years ago? Better and more improved players at the top now. Fed is reaching slam final after slam final. So he isnt winning on the consistent basis he was before. Big deal. Hes winning the matches when it matters most against 99 percent of the field besides Nadal. Come on now.. Since AO 2008, Fed has lost to ONE PLAYER in the slams. Disregarding Djoker.


Fed was getting beaten by Nadal in 04-07 lets no forget. Fed in his prime, Nadal NOT. Now Nadal is in his prime, a player successful and improved on all surfaces, of course that spelled trouble for Fed. It was foreshadowing even 2-3 years ago. You knew if Nadal ever developed his game outside of clay, he was going to be the best.

People make sound like Fed is washed up these days. I think Fed is at the point in his careers where he is focusing in on whats more important, as opposed to "win every tournament, every match and destroy players." You rarely see Fed kick it into that extra gear unless its the slams. You dont see that sense of urgency very often. We saw it at the USO last year when he spanked Djoker and Murray and even saw is at the AO this year againt Berdych going 5 sets and spanking Roddick.


People also make it seem like Nadal just started beating Fed. Nadal has been beating Fed for years. All it took was for Nadal to improve and tweak his game to cover every surface, and you knew he was going to be the best. Its simple really. It was inevitable that Fed would be overthrown by Nadal AS LONG AS Nadal devloped outside of clay and grass which he did.

Fed may have slowed down a little bit. But certainly not to the extreme many believe. Reaching Slam final after slam final is not my idea of a major decline.

I dont care too much about what Fed does at these crap tourneys. I doubt they are too high on Fed's priority list either at this point. His main objective is the French and the slam record. Why would Fed at this point in his career, care so much about Indian Wells, Miami or Dubai? THis is a guy on the threshold of breaking the MAJOR RECORDS. Not rinky dink tourneys that are 2nd in importance.

Lots of players get to the point Fed is at. Hell, sampras himself said by his late 20s all he gave a crap about was the slams. Not week in week out tennis.

If you notice Pete in his early 20s was a much better week in week out player. 1993 or 1994 1995. Thus why his win loss record was prettier then it was later. As the late 90s rolled around his focus became more and more evident on only the slams and the YEC etc

abmk
03-26-2009, 01:10 PM
Sorry, abmk. No situations are identical. Fed's mental frame was different. The scheduling was different. Both had another year of tennis in their body.

Good, then it means no conclusion can be derived about wim 2007 from AO 2009, right ? Why bring that into the picture then ?

But, you didn't answer my question. Did you think the injury and schedule wasn't a factor?

No, it wasn't in the finals , to me nadal appeared 100% in the finals. Plus he didn't even have to play 3 sets in the SFs, did he ?

Anyway we disagree, because the last thing I think Federer is is clutch. Never saw it during his career against a top player.

Ha ha ha, ok, now that is absolutely hilarious ... :) unless you think nadal is the only top player who exists as a rival to federer ( and even against nadal he's been clutch on quite a few occasions - miami 2005- saving a MP, wimbledon 2007 and yes, even wimbledon 2008, he saved loads of BPs with aces ). For the most recent excellent example of a clutch federer, go and watch the USO SF against djokovic , even his match against andreev

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:11 PM
Oh thats you saying it dude..I'll tell you the exuses I've heard.
Tsonga was just a Hot , in-form player!
Nadal was tired at the USO!!
Wimbledon 06-Just the kid's first Wimbledon final.He was nervous! poor thing!
Wimbledon 07-you just heard the excuses
Hamburg-Tired again!

Tsonga was hot, and hasn't been that hot in a grand slam since.

Nadal played and won many tournaments leading up to the USO, many of them back to back.

Most people get nervous in their first gs final. (See Djokovic, Murray, Safina, Dementieva...) This list would get too long.

Hamburg he played a lot too without little rest...

But, you see those as excuses. It's funny though, because we saw Fed's mono as an excuse for nine months although there was no evidence of a virus weakening of his system. He played a full schedule and some fans said, he was still able to win because he was that good. That's a double standard.

veroniquem
03-26-2009, 01:11 PM
Oh thats you saying it dude..I'll tell you the exuses I've heard.
Tsonga was just a Hot , in-form player!
Nadal was tired at the USO!!
Wimbledon 06-Just the kid's first Wimbledon final.He was nervous! poor thing!
Wimbledon 07-you just heard the excuses
Hamburg-Tired again!
USO 2008 and Hamburg 2007: tired, absolutely true.
Wimbledon 2007: hurt his leg, affected his play in the 5th set, absolutely right.
Wimby 2006 and AO 2008: he got outplayed period.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:11 PM
I have never made excuses for Federer except when he had Mono which was quite a handicap..I dont blame his TMC 05 loss on anything..he was two sets up if I'm not mistaken and still lost.I dont blame his FO losses on anything,I dont blame his Wimbledon loss on anything,I dont blame his AO losses ( except 08) on anything and I dont blame his losses against Murray on anything.You lost a match,you lost it.thats it..end of story.I look ahead,move on...its upto Federer and Nadal to discuss factors which play a role in their losses.They know best.I as a fan have nothing to do with it.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:12 PM
USO 2008 and Hamburg 2007: tired, absolutely true.
Wimbledon 2007: hurt his leg, affected his play in the 5th set, absolutely right.
Wimby 2006 and AO 2008: he got outplayed period. the last one coming from you is a breath of fresh air....lol

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 01:13 PM
Oh thats you saying it dude..I'll tell you the exuses I've heard.
Tsonga was just a Hot , in-form player!
Nadal was tired at the USO!!
Wimbledon 06-Just the kid's first Wimbledon final.He was nervous! poor thing!
Wimbledon 07-you just heard the excuses
Hamburg-Tired again!

well here is my analysis:

Tsonga.....who cares if Tsonga was hot or not. Rafa got the sheet kicked out of him.

Murray/USO
.....Incredible strategy of standing back for Rafas serve. Rafa was out played.

Wimbledon 06...well thats sort of true . It was he kids first wimbledon . No one could even believe he made it to the finals.

Wimbledon 07.....it was freaking close. It could have gone either way.

Hamburg....not tired at all. Nadal was beaten in a best of 2 out of three.


But we still have not heard how Federer has ever been beaten

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:14 PM
Good, then it means no conclusion can be derived about wim 2007 from AO 2009, right ? Why bring that into the picture then ?



No, it wasn't in the finals , to me nadal appeared 100% in the finals. Plus he didn't even have to play 3 sets in the SFs, did he ?



Ha ha ha, ok, now that is absolutely hilarious ... :) unless you think nadal is the only top player who exists as a rival to federer ( and even against nadal he's been clutch on quite a few occasions - miami 2005- saving a MP, wimbledon 2007 and yes, even wimbledon 2008, he saved loads of BPs with aces ). For the most recent excellent example of a clutch federer, go and watch the USO SF against djokovic

We disagree.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:15 PM
Fed now vs. 2-3 years ago? Better and more improved players at the top now. Fed is reaching slam final after slam final. So he isnt winning on the consistent basis he was before. Big deal. Hes winning the matches when it matters most against 99 percent of the field besides Nadal. Come on now.. Since AO 2008, Fed has lost to ONE PLAYER in the slams. Disregarding Djoker.


Fed was getting beaten by Nadal in 04-07 lets no forget. Fed in his prime, Nadal NOT. Now Nadal is in his prime, a player successful and improved on all surfaces, of course that spelled trouble for Fed. It was foreshadowing even 2-3 years ago. You knew if Nadal ever developed his game outside of clay, he was going to be the best.

People make sound like Fed is washed up these days. I think Fed is at the point in his careers where he is focusing in on whats more important, as opposed to "win every tournament, every match and destroy players." You rarely see Fed kick it into that extra gear unless its the slams. You dont see that sense of urgency very often. We saw it at the USO last year when he spanked Djoker and Murray and even saw is at the AO this year againt Berdych going 5 sets and spanking Roddick.


People also make it seem like Nadal just started beating Fed. Nadal has been beating Fed for years. All it took was for Nadal to improve and tweak his game to cover every surface, and you knew he was going to be the best. Its simple really. It was inevitable that Fed would be overthrown by Nadal AS LONG AS Nadal devloped outside of clay and grass which he did.

Fed may have slowed down a little bit. But certainly not to the extreme many believe. Reaching Slam final after slam final is not my idea of a major decline.

I dont care too much about what Fed does at these crap tourneys. I doubt they are too high on Fed's priority list either at this point. His main objective is the French and the slam record. Why would Fed at this point in his career, care so much about Indian Wells, Miami or Dubai? THis is a guy on the threshold of breaking the MAJOR RECORDS. Not rinky dink tourneys that are 2nd in importance.

Lots of players get to the point Fed is at. Hell, sampras himself said by his late 20s all he gave a crap about was the slams. Not week in week out tennis
I agree wholeheartedly.While I do believe Fed's level has dropped slightly,Nadal and Murray have always given him trouble.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:16 PM
well here is my analysis:

Tsonga.....who cares if Tsonga was hot or not. Rafa got the sheet kicked out of him.

Murray/USO
.....Incredible strategy of standing back for Rafas serve. Rafa was out played.

Wimbledon 06...well thats sort of true . It was he kids first wimbledon . No one could even believe he made it to the finals.

Wimbledon 07.....it was freaking close. It could have gone either way.

Hamburg....not tired at all. Nadal was beaten in a best of 2 out of three.


But we still have not heard how Federer has ever been beaten
He loses when the opponent plays better..plain and simple.

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:16 PM
Good, then it means no conclusion can be derived about wim 2007 from AO 2009, right ? Why bring that into the picture then ?



No, it wasn't in the finals , to me nadal appeared 100% in the finals. Plus he didn't even have to play 3 sets in the SFs, did he ?



Ha ha ha, ok, now that is absolutely hilarious ... :) unless you think nadal is the only top player who exists as a rival to federer ( and even against nadal he's been clutch on quite a few occasions - miami 2005- saving a MP, wimbledon 2007 and yes, even wimbledon 2008, he saved loads of BPs with aces ). For the most recent excellent example of a clutch federer, go and watch the USO SF against djokovic

Yes. In fact, one year Fed's only losses were to Nadal. Nadal is the only one who consistently played Fed without laying down.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:19 PM
Tsonga was hot, and hasn't been that hot in a grand slam since.

Nadal played and won many tournaments leading up to the USO, many of them back to back.

Most people get nervous in their first gs final. (See Djokovic, Murray, Safina, Dementieva...) This list would get too long.

Hamburg he played a lot too without little rest...

But, you see those as excuses. It's funny though, because we saw Fed's mono as an excuse for nine months although there was no evidence of a virus weakening of his system. He played a full schedule and some fans said, he was still able to win because he was that good. That's a double standard.
I'm not blaming his losses of nine months on mono..

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:19 PM
I agree wholeheartedly.While I do believe Fed's level has dropped slightly,Nadal and Murray have always given him trouble.

Now, that's a breath of fresh air too.

abmk
03-26-2009, 01:21 PM
Yes. In fact, one year Fed's only losses were to Nadal.

Wrong, murray beat him in 2006 too ....

Nadal is the only one who consistently played Fed without laying down.

I know its difficult for you to see beyond nadal, but I would encourage you to try, seriously

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:21 PM
Now, that's a breath of fresh air too.
I know ..:) expected...

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:22 PM
I'm not blaming his losses of nine months on mono..

I'm not saying you personally. But believe me that was the state of the board. Finally, more reasonable Fed Fans said to put a sock in it because it was getting ridiculous. Every loss was attributed to the mono and the lack of preparation due to the mono.

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:22 PM
I know ..:) expected...

Too funny!:)

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:24 PM
Too funny!:) I'm glad you found it funny..one can always do with a good laugh or a smile.Best medicine , no?

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 01:25 PM
I agree wholeheartedly.While I do believe Fed's level has dropped slightly,Nadal and Murray have always given him trouble.

That is the closest thing to an admission on these boards that we will ever get.

Thanks. You have proved that you are a Federer fan rather than a *******.

thejoe
03-26-2009, 01:27 PM
I don't see how you can ignore the mono. You all whinge about scheduling, and Nadal not having enough time to prepare for Slam matches. Imagine how much you would complain if Nadal's pre-season was interrupted, or in Fed's case, ruined. So, injury/illness is only a valid excuse when Nadal, the brave valiant warrior is suffering :roll:

That is the closest thing to an admission on these boards that we will ever get.

Thanks. You have proved that you are a Federer fan rather than a *******.

You are yet to prove that you are objective, aka not a *******.

Btw, nice new avatar GameSampras! :)

GameSampras
03-26-2009, 01:27 PM
Didnt Murray beat Fed even way back in 06 or 07 in Cincinatti??. I think the only players who Fed took losses to in 2006 was Nadal and Murray if I remember correctly. These guys ALWAYS had the tools to beat Fed. Its not just now.

abmk
03-26-2009, 01:27 PM
But we still have not heard how Federer has ever been beaten

Got beat by nadal in 4 FOs, wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009, marat safin in AO 2005 in the best match I've ever seen and guga playing at his best in FO 2004. His major losses since he hit his stride in 2004

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:27 PM
I'm not saying you personally. But believe me that was the state of the board. Finally, more reasonable Fed Fans said to put a sock in it because it was getting ridiculous. Every loss was attributed to the mono and the lack of preparation due to the mono.Sorry,in that case I havent read too many posts with regard to that.I didnt come across too many people saying that.If they did,bless their hearts. :lol:

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:28 PM
Wrong, murray beat him in 2006 too ....



I know its difficult for you to see beyond nadal, but I would encourage you to try, seriously

1. A small discrepancy. I was talking about the year Fed only lost 4 matches. I thought they were all to Nadal. No biggie.

2. I have no reason to see beyond Nadal. I enjoy him immensely as a tennis player. So, your suggestion is REJECTED!

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:29 PM
That is the closest thing to an admission on these boards that we will ever get.

Thanks. You have proved that you are a Federer fan rather than a *******.You always find someone that serves as bad matchup for you.To put it in better way-You'll always find trials no matter how good you are.Fed found them in Nadal and Murray.Especially Nadal.

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:32 PM
Sorry,in that case I havent read too many posts with regard to that.I didnt come across too many people saying that.If they did,bless their hearts. :lol:

Well Mandy, you have come during a period where the silliness has abated, but as a fan of Federer's you're alright with me. It's nice to see people actually debate things even if they're on opposite sides. Guess there's another reasonable Fed Fan on the boards. Welcome aboard!

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:36 PM
^ I dont believe there's an opposite side..I mean what opposites are we talking about?AT the end of the day we're all here to share our love for the sport,only our tastes are different.
Note - to anyone who reads this-do not say someone's taste is bad because they like a player you dont like. :lol:
edit: thank you for your warm welcome.

abmk
03-26-2009, 01:37 PM
I'm not saying you personally. But believe me that was the state of the board. Finally, more reasonable Fed Fans said to put a sock in it because it was getting ridiculous. Every loss was attributed to the mono and the lack of preparation due to the mono.

I've seen some of those and I'd agree. That was ridiculous.Talking of slams, it only affected him at the AO 2008....

Same as nadal_freak bringing up nadal was exhausted after every loss of nadal in 2008 ... Funnily he was doing the same when nadal was getting whipped by nalby in IW ( during the match ) :lol:

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 01:39 PM
Got beat by nadal in 4 FOs, wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009, marat safin in AO 2005 in the best match I've ever seen and guga playing at his best in FO 2004. His major losses since he hit his stride in 2004

Yup ....you are a true Federer fan as well and NOT a *******.

I salute you!

abmk
03-26-2009, 01:43 PM
1. A small discrepancy. I was talking about the year Fed only lost 4 matches. I thought they were all to Nadal. No biggie.

He lost 4 matches in 2005 - one to safin,one to nadal, one to gasquet and one to nalby

He lost 5 in 2006 - four to nadal and one to murray

Just telling the facts

2. I have no reason to see beyond Nadal. I enjoy him immensely as a tennis player. So, your suggestion is REJECTED!

Then why comment on other players ( in this case federer ) like you follow their matches regularly. Fed not a clutch player, ROFL :lol:

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:52 PM
I've seen some of those and I'd agree. That was ridiculous.Talking of slams, it only affected him at the AO 2008....

Same as nadal_freak bringing up nadal was exhausted after every loss of nadal in 2008 ... Funnily he was doing the same when nadal was getting whipped by nalby in IW ( during the match ) :lol:

You're a reasonable Fed Fan as well. We're getting more and more of them and the board is improving because of it. Like Mandy said, we're all here to discuss our love of tennis. Welcome to you as well!

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 01:55 PM
He lost 4 matches in 2005 - one to safin,one to nadal, one to gasquet and one to nalby

He lost 5 in 2006 - four to nadal and one to murray

Just telling the facts



Then why comment on other players ( in this case federer ) like you follow their matches regularly. Fed not a clutch player, ROFL :lol:

I did follow back then. Now, only when I think it's going to be a competitive match. Thanks for the facts.

Sorry about the big rejected. Someone did that on another forum and I've been dying to use it.

mandy01
03-26-2009, 01:57 PM
Sorry about the big rejected. Someone did that on another forum and I've been dying to use it.
LOOOOL priceless! :lol:

fastdunn
03-26-2009, 02:06 PM
While Federer would never admit it, history shows that once a player falls from the top of the tennis mountain, he rarely climbs back to the pinnacle.


But it's not 100% clear to me whether Federer actually fell seriously from the top. He is definitely not in his prime (and top 10 is stronger than those of a few years ago) but

1. he got into his 4th straight slam finals.
2. It is still only Nadal who can consistently beat Federer in slam finals. This was same even when he was in his prime.

He did slip down from the top but it's hardly a fall. He still has pretty good chance to be back in 2009 (Wimbledon and US Open...)

thalivest
03-26-2009, 02:07 PM
But it's not 100% clear to me whether Federer actually fell seriously from the top. He is definitely not in his prime (and top 10 is stronger than those of a few years ago) but

1. he got into his 4th straight slam finals.
2. It is still only Nadal who can consistently beat Federer in slam finals. This was same even when he was in his prime.

He did sliped down from the top but it's hardly a fall. He still has pretty good chance to be back in 2009.

The difference is now Nadal is strong enough on grass and even hard courts to be regularly making finals, which he wasnt when Federer was dominant.

fastdunn
03-26-2009, 02:27 PM
yeah but it's not that big of a fall. fed's game is still at similar level. it's not that big of a come-back if he comes back to #1. he has pretty decent chance to pull off a Lendle.

if a few young new guys start to beat federer in 3-4 sets in slams, that's a serious fall of former number 1.

but it's just still nadal at slams. it's important for federer to hang on to #2 so that he doesn't see nadal until finals of slams.

Tennis_Bum
03-26-2009, 03:09 PM
[QUOTE=TheNatural;3253170]The difference is the competition is better.The improved Nadal of the last year of 2 is Fed's biggest challenge ever. That level of Nadal wasnt around in 2004 or 2005 and in 2007 Nadal busted his knee tendon when he was about to win Wimbledon and carried that knee tendon injury into the US open playing on 1 leg.The 08 US open was a gift from Nadal due to sacrificing the US Open by Winning the Olympics. Fed hasn't improved much relative to the fast improving competition in the last few years.

BULLSH*T. So if Nadal doesn't win Wimbledon or the USOpen in 2009, what will be your excuses? Murray, not only beat Nadal at the US Open, but he beat him two times in two days. If Nadal played great the second day, he could come back to win. I remember he broke Murray in set #4, but lost that set and the match.

Nothing is a gift, you pompous *****. Nadal went to Beijing and won the singles and his fans called him the greatest player ever, or whatever they call him but when he lost a match, like the one in Holland, then he's tired from fatigue. Pure lunacy. If you are tired, then don't play the damn tournament. If you lost, could it be that the other guy had your number on that day?

Fed doesn't play good tennis now. I am not going to make excuses for him. He actually looks pathetic but I hope he can turn things around.

I think Fed is beginning to act weirder and weirder every time I see him. What the hell with the black shirt in the heat of Indian Wells? He's the only tennis player I know of so far that wears black during the day under blistering sun. And you wonder why the guy look a little bit sluggish. Duh! Stupid.

Back the that gift BULLSH*T. We'll see how Nadal play at Wimbledon and US Open. If he loses, I would not be surprised to hear lame excuses for him from his fans.

veroniquem
03-26-2009, 03:16 PM
[QUOTE=TheNatural;3253170]The difference is the competition is better.The improved Nadal of the last year of 2 is Fed's biggest challenge ever. That level of Nadal wasnt around in 2004 or 2005 and in 2007 Nadal busted his knee tendon when he was about to win Wimbledon and carried that knee tendon injury into the US open playing on 1 leg.The 08 US open was a gift from Nadal due to sacrificing the US Open by Winning the Olympics. Fed hasn't improved much relative to the fast improving competition in the last few years.

BULLSH*T. So if Nadal doesn't win Wimbledon or the USOpen in 2009, what will be your excuses? Murray, not only beat Nadal at the US Open, but he beat him two times in two days. If Nadal played great the second day, he could come back to win. I remember he broke Murray in set #4, but lost that set and the match.

Nothing is a gift, you pompous *****. Nadal went to Beijing and won the singles and his fans called him the greatest player ever, or whatever they call him but when he lost a match, like the one in Holland, then he's tired from fatigue. Pure lunacy. If you are tired, then don't play the damn tournament. If you lost, could it be that the other guy had your number on that day?

Fed doesn't play good tennis now. I am not going to make excuses for him. He actually looks pathetic but I hope he can turn things around.

I think Fed is beginning to act weirder and weirder every time I see him. What the hell with the black shirt in the heat of Indian Wells? He's the only tennis player I know of so far that wears black during the day under blistering sun. And you wonder why the guy look a little bit sluggish. Duh! Stupid.

Back the that gift BULLSH*T. We'll see how Nadal play at Wimbledon and US Open. If he loses, I would not be surprised to hear lame excuses for him from his fans.
About Fed wearing black, it's funny, I made the exact same remark. Who would want to wear black in excruciatingly hot temperatures? That + the gloom and doom vibes it gives off of course.
About Rotterdam, it was not fatigue that was the problem for Nadal, it was an injury.

clayman2000
03-26-2009, 03:20 PM
Federer is clearly 1/2 a step slower

If you look at his play, he does not like players who move thier opponent arround the court, becuase he doesnt have that extra fraction of a second which lets him see the court

If you don't understand what i mean, find a video on youtube of the 2005 USO final and look at what Fed does. His movement allows him to track down a ball, and with his gifted vision, finds a place where the opponent is not, and executes, taking the ball on the rise

Tennis_Bum
03-26-2009, 03:31 PM
[QUOTE=Tennis_Bum;3255023]
About Fed wearing black, it's funny, I made the exact same remark. Who would want to wear black in excruciatingly hot temperatures? That + the gloom and doom vibes it gives off of course.
About Rotterdam, it was not fatigue that was the problem for Nadal, it was an injury.

Doesn't matter what it was in Rotterdam. It's always something but tennis when he lost a match. But when he wins, man he's a greatest ever, candidate for GOAT. Nadal's fans never cease to amaze me sometimes.

I am a Fed fan but I am beginning to think the guy is losing his edge and trying to get it back by wearing BLACK while playing tennis under the sun. I am not sure that is the best strategy, but again I am not his coach.

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 05:12 PM
Federer is clearly 1/2 a step slower





Federer is still making it to most finals.....but do you think its possible that Nadal has improved a little since he was a teenager?

GameSampras
03-26-2009, 05:55 PM
[QUOTE=veroniquem;3255048]

Doesn't matter what it was in Rotterdam. It's always something but tennis when he lost a match. But when he wins, man he's a greatest ever, candidate for GOAT. Nadal's fans never cease to amaze me sometimes.

I am a Fed fan but I am beginning to think the guy is losing his edge and trying to get it back by wearing BLACK while playing tennis under the sun. I am not sure that is the best strategy, but again I am not his coach.

Do u actually say Fed looks pathetic? If the results Fed has had just this past year is "pathetic." Me including thousands of pro tennis players would love that level of medocrity. I dont think Fed has had a pathetic year at all. Slam Final after Slam Final and he won the USO. THere is only one guy who beats him at the slams. No one else does.


The only difference is Nadal hit his prime. If Nadal werent around due to injury or some other extreme, Fed most likely wins 3 of the 4 slams last year bearing AO where he had mono and he prolly wins the AO this year.

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 06:02 PM
[QUOTE=Tennis_Bum;3255101]

The only difference is Nadal hit his prime. If Nadal werent around due to injury or some other extreme, Fed most likely wins 3 of the 4 slams last year bearing AO where he had mono and he prolly wins the AO this year.

I agree....with everything but the mono.

That was a lame excuse.

.

TheTruth
03-26-2009, 06:07 PM
These quotes are using the previous posters names on them.

kaiotic
03-26-2009, 06:49 PM
Watch some video on youtube with the title

"2005 USO Highlights Federer Agassi"

You'll see him at his best. He's just swinging full force at everything. It seems he's trying to set points up more out of fear for missing instead of just ending them that was one of the sickest full blown, flat-hitting, semi-western gripping match ever. fed was HUNGRY to win, and AGASSI (at the age of 33 or 34?) HELD HIS OWN, and to me, with much respect, Andre is one of the greatest baseliners of all time.

icedevil0289
03-26-2009, 06:50 PM
that was one of the sickest full blown, flat-hitting, semi-western gripping match ever. fed was HUNGRY to win, and AGASSI (at the age of 33 or 34?) HELD HIS OWN, and to me, with much respect, Andre is one of the greatest baseliners of all time.

I agree.
10 char

tomas9848
03-26-2009, 07:12 PM
I like his style more with his clothes than he wore 2-3 years ago.

vtmike
03-26-2009, 07:33 PM
Wish he could always play this well against Nadal...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qshu9MljLXM&feature=related

King of Aces
03-26-2009, 07:40 PM
Wish he could always play this well against Nadal...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qshu9MljLXM&feature=related

You want to see some great hands watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwJq5KAoBUk&NR=1

fednad
03-26-2009, 11:40 PM
wow...you admit you are wrong and then have the nerve in the very next sentence to call me a moron?

In any event.....I am not making this about Nadal.
The problem for Roger is that for his entire career Nadal will always be brought up.

I am afraid that there never can be a discussion of one without the other.

Look at the bold part. You brought Nadal into the discussion.
I did not admit that I am wrong. I was amazed at your ignorance on missing the moot point of my previous post.
And yes there never can be a discussion of one without the other till thread hijackers like you are around and no thread can remain on topic.

tennis_hand
03-27-2009, 12:40 AM
"If I was Roger, I'd try to come in a little bit more," Sampras told ESPN.com. "Particularly when guys stay so far back. If you don't win these points, at least put something in his head. It's rough to see Nadal taking charge of these rallies and hitting ball after ball to Roger's backhand.

"[Nadal] plays every point like it's his last point. ... And now he's got the fear factor."

Jimmy Arias, who was ranked sixth in 1983, thinks that Federer can still overtake Nadal but agrees that he must tweak his game plan.

"One of the reasons it's so hard to keep that No. 1 ranking is it takes such a toll," Arias said. "When finally it isn't yours any longer it's hard to get the fire back. ... But the fact that Roger is still No. 2 it's more feasible to get back because he just has to figure out how to beat just one guy."

Easier said than done.


I totally agree with that Sampras said.

verbatim100
03-27-2009, 02:12 AM
But all he said was that he thought that the 2007 wimbledon final was close and it could have gone either way. Isnt he qualified to analyze the strokes and the points ?

This was not about a prediction....besides I do not believe Borg ever predicted Fed to win the 2008 FO....and even if he did......that very different than merely saying he thought that the five set wimbledon 2007 final was close. Dont you agree?

Nadal busted his knee in the 4th set and gave Fed's confidence back in the 2007 Wimby. Newcombe also said that Nadal played better than Fed in that final and should have won. Nadal was defeated by his knee not by Fed then.

mandy01
03-27-2009, 02:29 AM
Nadal busted his knee in the 4th set and gave Fed's confidence back in the 2007 Wimby. Newcombe also said that Nadal played better than Fed in that final and should have won. Nadal was defeated by his knee not by Fed then. Utter BS. Nadal lost that match End of story...gosh..typical Nadal fans.

verbatim100
03-27-2009, 02:35 AM
Utter BS. Nadal lost that match End of story...gosh..typical Nadal fans.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I 'm no Nadal fan. I just hate whiny, conniving, arrogant, ugly Fed. Oh, and I cannot stand his cry baby antics. That's all. :)

mandy01
03-27-2009, 02:37 AM
Sorry to disappoint you, but I 'm no Nadal fan. I just hate whiny, conniving, arrogant, ugly Fed. Oh, and I cannot stand his cry baby antics. That's all. :)
LOL.ok...You're good at making up excuses for him though.

koalakoala
03-27-2009, 02:40 AM
[QUOTE=veroniquem;3255048]

Doesn't matter what it was in Rotterdam. It's always something but tennis when he lost a match. But when he wins, man he's a greatest ever, candidate for GOAT. Nadal's fans never cease to amaze me sometimes.

I am a Fed fan but I am beginning to think the guy is losing his edge and trying to get it back by wearing BLACK while playing tennis under the sun. I am not sure that is the best strategy, but again I am not his coach.

I also prefer him to wear brighter and lighter color. The dark color looks depressing.

But he is deliberately wearing black to get his edge back? Man, you are reading too much into it.:shock:

verbatim100
03-27-2009, 02:45 AM
LOL.ok...You're good at making up excuses for him though.

I'll not be dragged into having arguments with an immature Fed fan like you. You sound like one of those typical fanatic Fed fans who simply refuse to see things objectively. Sad, indeed. :cry:

mandy01
03-27-2009, 02:47 AM
I'll not be dragged into having arguments with an immature Fed fan like you. You sound like one of those typical fanatic Fed fans who simply refuse to see things objectively. Sad, indeed. :cry:
read my previous posts before you accuse me..I'm the last person to be a fanatic of any player.I just dont like it when fans make up excuses for players .Anyway,no point trying to tell you that.

vtmike
03-27-2009, 03:24 AM
BULLSH*T. So if Nadal doesn't win Wimbledon or the USOpen in 2009, what will be your excuses? Murray, not only beat Nadal at the US Open, but he beat him two times in two days. If Nadal played great the second day, he could come back to win. I remember he broke Murray in set #4, but lost that set and the match.

Nothing is a gift, you pompous *****. Nadal went to Beijing and won the singles and his fans called him the greatest player ever, or whatever they call him but when he lost a match, like the one in Holland, then he's tired from fatigue. Pure lunacy. If you are tired, then don't play the damn tournament. If you lost, could it be that the other guy had your number on that day?

Fed doesn't play good tennis now. I am not going to make excuses for him. He actually looks pathetic but I hope he can turn things around.

Back the that gift BULLSH*T. We'll see how Nadal play at Wimbledon and US Open. If he loses, I would not be surprised to hear lame excuses for him from his fans.

I agree...now that Fed has lost a few finals all his wins have suddenly been lucky or gifted to him!! The Natural is a Sampras fanboy and will say anything to discredit Federer's wins...

I've already seen some *******s saying he will be tired during the USO *IF* he wins FO and Wimbledon :roll:

aldeayeah
03-27-2009, 03:32 AM
What are the mandatory events between Wimbledon and USO? Both Montreal and Cincy?

mandy01
03-27-2009, 03:45 AM
I agree...now that Fed has lost a few finals all his wins have suddenly been lucky or gifted to him!! The Natural is a Sampras fanboy and will say anything to discredit Federer's wins...

I've already seen some *******s saying he will be tired during the USO *IF* he wins FO and Wimbledon :roll:
If he's tired we're in for hundreds of medical time outs..and Thousands of pitty parties :lol:

King of Aces
03-27-2009, 07:15 AM
a win is a win is a win.

There is no luck in tennis.....its a best of five freaking sets.....do you realize how many points we are talking about??

thejoe
03-27-2009, 07:52 AM
I'll not be dragged into having arguments with an immature Fed fan like you. You sound like one of those typical fanatic Fed fans who simply refuse to see things objectively. Sad, indeed. :cry:

You sound like one of those Nadal fans who seem to think they are oh so objective, and morally superior. Really, you'll bring up Nadal for no reason, and discredit his opponent's personality, more than their game. Typical "Oh, I'm above this" type of crap. :roll: